Discussions on the Authenticity and the Identity of a Place: How to apply the compensatory method and resolve interpretations on cultural heritage in a case study

Abstract

Old Paukku in Lapua, Finland, is a former cartridge factory, which was transformed into a cultural centre in the 1990’s. In the beginning, the cultural heritage of the industrial buildings was not recognized, but later it was listed on a national level of heritage (RKY 2009)1. In 2020, the town started again to revise the plan of Old Paukku, to cancel the conservation regulations and then to demolish the only wooden building in the area, the Canteen. The planning documents show a suggestion that another city-owned wooden building from the schoolyard be pulled down and then to replace the Canteen. According to the negotiation notes from planning meetings, the provincial museum, representing the Finnish Heritage Agency, seemed to accept that the Canteen be demolished; in consequence of its poor condition. Removing the other building from its original place was not seen as crucial and the museum appears satisfied: “...at least one of those endangered buildings could be saved”.2 It is difficult to imagine who now would use and pay the renovation for the replacement (compensating) building, because the town’s cultural division have not found any use for the Canteen in two decades. The aim of this paper is to investigate place, authenticity and compensatory thinking (Grahn Danielson, Rönn & Swedberg 2015, Rönn 2018, 2020) in the planning context. Cultural heritage in the environment has both tangible and intangible elements, and so it should be understood together with place and identity, and not only by counting the amount of new components used in the renovation.