Hāli`imaile:

An Update on the Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition

and the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area

Prepared for Hawai`i’s Congressional Delegation by

Trisha Kehaulani Watson, JD, PhD (Honua Consulting)
Lorraine Lunow-Luke, MBA, MPP (Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition)
with Contributions from the Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition and the
Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area Suitability Feasibility Study Team

March 2010
Introduction

Hāli`imaile is an old name. Its literal translation is, according to Mary Kawena Pukui, “maile
vines strewn.” It is also an old name for the `Iolani Palace Grounds and was used during the
Kingdom. Here, today, we reference this name in relation to the successful efforts undertaken
over the last three years of the Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition (“Coalition”) to strength their
relationships with the community of residents and organizations in the ahupua’a of Honolulu and
surrounding areas.

The idea to explore National Heritage Area status came about through conversations that Mona
Abadir, HCCC Board President and former Hawai`i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts
(HSFCA) Chairperson, had with National Assembly of State Art Agencies and National Parks
Service in December 2001 while researching federal programs to support the indigenous and
diverse cultural stories of Hawai`i.

In 2002, with the support of HSCFA Commissioners and their new statewide strategic plan, Ms.
Abadir invited Robin Danner, President of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, to
join her in Washington DC where they held meetings with various agencies to seek ways to
strengthen cultural initiatives in Hawai`i.

In 2003, a diverse group of community members joined together to establish The Hawai`i
Capital Cultural District, creating a partnership of arts and cultural institutions in the downtown,
Nu`uanu, and Kalihi areas, arts and culture-related associations, state agencies, and businesses
with an interest in working together to nurture and celebrate the legacy of Honolulu’s historic
core and the people of Hawai’i’s stories.

The National Heritage Area concept was introduced in a 2004 coalition meeting, and a motion to
explore becoming a National Heritage Area was passed. Since then, the Hawai`i Capital Cultural
Coalition has conducted extensive community outreach to share the history and potential of this

2 | P a g e  
 
designation.

The organization was re-named the Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition in 2008. In 2009 S.359
was introduced by Senator Daniel Inouye co-sponsored by Senator Daniel Akaka in the Senate.
H.R. 1297 was introduced by Congressman Neil Abercrombie and co-sponsored by
Congresswoman Mazie Hirono in the House of Representatives. Currently, the Coalition
continues extensive outreach and awaits designation for the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage
Area in order to begin the up to 3-year planning process.

The group commissioned a study of the area. The “National Heritage Area Sustainability /
Feasibility Study” was completed in December 2008. The study's chief author was Dr. William
Chapman, Director of the Historic Preservation Program in the American Studies Department of
the University of Hawai`i, Mānoa. Dr. Chapman is an expert in historic preservation and has no
relationship with the coalition other than the authoring of this study.

Other recognized experts in particular aspects of the study assisted with research and drafting of
the study. Coalition partners provided information about their particular cultural sites and
programs, as well as project direction by board president and valuable input by its board
members. (The complete study team, in-kind and funding acknowledgements are available on
the hawaiicapitalculture.org website.)

Using the thematic structure recommended by the National Park Service, three overarching
themes were developed for the National Heritage Area. Themes provide a narrative framework to
link the significant aspects of an area’s heritage resources and stories, and help to place the
stories told by the National Heritage Area within the larger context of the national and global
story.

Theme 1 – Native Hawaiians’ Struggle for Cultural Preservation and Self-Determination.

This first theme tells the story of a Native Hawaiian culture that has persisted in the face
of tremendous upheavals: the original peopling of these remote islands; decimation by
disease; the overthrow of the monarchy, annexation, and statehood; and also the
emergence of a Hawaiian cultural “renaissance” in the late 20th century.

3 | P a g e  
 
 Theme 2 – Hawaii’s Exceptional Experience in Multiculturalism.
The second theme explores race relations in Hawai‘i, the impacts of immigration and
assimilation, and their effect on our past and present cultural institutions.
 
Theme 3 – Honolulu’s Role as a Link between the United States, Asia and the Pacific.
The third theme explores the consequences of American predominance in the Hawaiian
Islands; it is the story of the rise of commerce and modernization, and of the growing
strategic importance of Hawai‘i as the hub of expanding American influence in the
Pacific.

The Coalition has three important and distinct goals incorporated into their mission:

Preserve and promote the rich heritage of Hawai‘i’s past and present by moving
forward with deep respect for the past, honoring and perpetuating Native Hawaiian
culture, recognizing the contributions of other peoples and cultures, preserving the area’s
historical assets for future generations, creating interpretive resources, conducting
educational programs, and cultivating understanding of and appreciation for our heritage
by residents and visitors alike.

Develop a vibrant live, work, and play community by addressing physical

characteristics such as information centers, signage, transportation, walking pathways,
open space, lighting, parking, safety and promoting new recreational activities and a
lively after-hours scene.

Generate economic growth by nurturing and promoting the heritage area’s many
cultural assets, festivals and events; increasing interaction with the visitor industry;
promoting appropriate cultural tourism; and conducting joint marketing.

These goals benefit the entire community, and the Coalition continues to serve the community as
part of its work to achieve these goals. These efforts have only improved over time, as the
Coalition has brought more individuals and organizations into its activities. It has achieved its
recent success through strengthening Hawaiian cultural identity, educating the community about
the designation area, and building community. Each of these efforts is discussed in turn.

4 | P a g e  
 
Strengthening Hawaiian Cultural Identity

The Coalition has worked hard over the last three years to respond to the community’s call to
highlight the area’s Hawaiian cultural identity. Efforts to achieve this have included: support for
cultural research, expansion of the designation area to reflect the traditional ahupua’a boundaries,
support for Native Hawaiian projects, and development of partnerships with the Hawaiian
community and its members.

Support for Hawaiian Cultural Research

The Coalition has worked tirelessly to further develop the cultural research integrated into the
group and its projects. One of the great programmatic achievements of the Coalition is the
timeline, which traces the parallel histories of both Hawai`i and the United States. This timeline
demonstrates the tremendous potential for the Coalition to develop projects that honor the history
of the area, while providing a solid foundation for educational opportunities for schools and the
community.

The Coalition is also developing an area map that will contain critical cultural and historical
information about the designation area. The efforts to conduct and promote cultural research
will include research of archival materials and interviews of cherished kūpuna and cultural
practitioners from the area so that their words and wisdom can be preserved for future
generations to enjoy.

Preliminary research into the area has already begun. Much about the areas cultural resources,
history, geography and heritage was gathered into a single volume in the aforementioned
Suitability/Feasibility Study. This information is also being prepared for dissemination on the
Coalition website, so that others, both in Hawai`i and abroad, can have an opportunity to learn
about the history of the area. The data has in fact already been utilized by cultural consultants
assisting with the master plan for the Kaka`ako Makai waterfront neighborhood, which falls
within the proposed National Heritage Area.

5 | P a g e  
 
Expansion of the Designation Area to Reflect the Traditional Ahupua’a Boundaries

The proposed area is the ahupua’a of Honolulu/Kapālama which encompasses central Honolulu
including Nu`uanu Valley, and its adjacent coastal plain. Boundaries identified in the “Pre-
Mahele Moku and Ahupua`a,” map prepared by Hawaiian Studies Institute, Kamehameha
Schools, 1987 were used. (Jan Becket & Joseph Springer. 1999. Pana Oahu: Sacred Stones
Sacred Lands.)

6 | P a g e  
 
Generally, an ahupua‘a, extended from higher elevations down through lower areas to the ocean.
An ahupua‘a contained a full range of ecological zones, allowing its inhabitants to use and enjoy
the resources of what was considered to be a complete, self-contained eco-system. The concept
of the ahupua‘a provides continuity for the story of central Honolulu.

7 | P a g e  
 
The proposed designation area covers what was known in pre-contact times as the Kona district
of O`ahu. Handy, Handy and Pukui explain in Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore
and Environment:

On Oahu the `okana (now termed district) of Kona is the area extending from Moanalua
(Two-broad-expanses) down the southern (kona) coast as far as, but not including, the
great fishpond name Keahu-pua-o-Maunalua, modernly called simply Kuapa Pond
(kuapa meaing causeway) and its hinterland called Maunalua (Two-mountains). This
area (like `Ewa, Wai`anae, Ko`olaulao, and Ko`olaupoko) was the domain of one high
chief (ali`i nui or mo`i) who parceled out to chiefs of districts (ali`i `aipua`a) the carious
subsistence areas (valleys, lowlands, and shore) such as Moanalua, Nuuanu and Manoa.
It was not until the 18th centry that Oahu was unified under one chief, Kahahana, who
was born on Maui and was elected chief of all Oahu by the high chiefs of the various
major chiefdoms. The first high chief of Kona mentioned in legend, or perhaps one
should say mythology, was Kumuhonua (Earth Foundation), who battled with Wakea and
Haumea, the progenitors of the island, the taro, and the human race.

The boundaries include areas traditionally known as Kalihi, Kapālama, Nu`uanu, Honolulu,
Pauoa, and Makiki. This area has particular historic significance, as it was the site of some of
the most notable battles in the history of Hawai`i, battles which would shape the course of
Hawai`i’s history.

The Battle of Nu`uanu was when and where Kamehameha I gained control over O`ahu,
Moloka`i, and Lana`i from the high chief Kalanikupule. Samuel M. Kamakau writes:

Kamehameha’s fleet landed at Waikiki where it covered the beaches from Waialae to
Waikiki. Kalanikupule and his chiefs were stationed at strategic points in Nuuanu at
Kanoneakapueo, Kahapa`akai, Luakaha, Kawananakoa, Kaukahoku, Kapa`eli,
Kaumu`ohena, and Pu`iwa, where the fighting began. At La`imi in Nu`uanu
Kalanikupule’s side was routed, and there Ka`iana died. The chiefs and warriors of
Kalanikupule were slaughtered, but Koalaukani escaped and fled to Kauai, and

8 | P a g e  
 
 Kalanikupule hid in the underbrush for a little over a year and then was captured mauka
of Waipi`o in `Ewa and killed. His body was brought to Kamehameha and offered in
sacrifice to his god, Kuka`ilimoku.

Initially, the boundaries of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District, as designated by the state of
Hawai`i in 2003, were utilized for the Suitability/Feasibility study area.

However, a general consensus among the study team, coalition members, and others in the
community formed regarding the use of ahupua‘a as an organizing principle for the proposed
National Heritage Area. This change came from direct consultation with the community and a
Native Hawaiian review panel, who felt it more appropriate to designate an area consistent with
the traditional ahupua’a boundaries of the area. Please see the following section from one of the
community consultation meetings held 2006 (Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area,
Feasibility Study, Appendix 12).

9 | P a g e  
 
See also the following “Educational and Cultural Preservation” suggestions from that same
workshop:

10 | P a g e  
 
The area now reflects traditional ahupua’a boundaries. The ahupua’a of Honolulu has a
tremendously rich and important history, and to designate an area that in anyway excluded areas
within this ahupua’a would severely compromise the area’s potential to serve the community and
honor the history of the Native Hawaiian people.

Pukui, Elbert, and Mo`okini identified the following places within the designation area:

• Kalihi Kai
• Kalihi Waena
• Kalihi Uka
• Kamehameha Heights
• Kapālama
• Iwilei
• Pālama
• Lanakila
• `Ālewa

11 | P a g e  
 
 • Pu`unui
• Nu`uanu
• Dowsett Highlands
• `A`ala
• Pacific Heights
• Downtown
• Kaka`ako
• Thomas Square
• Punchbowl
• Pauoa
• Makiki
• Sheridan Tract
• Kewale
• Ala Moana
• Pāwa`a

The Coalition is working diligently on researching the cultural history of all of these areas and
working with local kūpuna and cultural practitioners to preserve their stories and practices.

Support for Native Hawaiian Projects

Perhaps one of the most exciting opportunities to evolve from the last three years of outreach is
the opportunity to support Native Hawaiian projects. As previously mentioned, the new
designation includes the area where the Battle of Nu`uanu took place. As good fortune would
have it, 2010 is the bicentennial of the unification of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the King
Kamemahema Celebration Commission is celebrating this anniversary in June 2010. The King
Kamehameha Celebration Commission, `Iolani Palace, and the Hawai`i Capital Cultural
Coalition are joining together to support a district-wide ho`olaulea (celebration). For the first
time in many years, the Commission has decided to reverse the route of their annual parade to
restore the route to its original path, which led downtown and to `Iolani Palace, as pictured below
in an archival photo from Bishop Museum from the 1920s.
12 | P a g e  
 
The King Kamehameha Celebration Commission is one of Hawaii’s oldest and most revered
Commissions. Created during the Territory, the Commission is entrusted with honoring the
memory and legacy of King Kamehameha.

§8-5 King Kamehameha celebration commission. (a) There shall be a commission to

be known as the King Kamehameha celebration commission placed within the
department of accounting and general services for administrative purposes. The
commission shall consist of thirteen members to be appointed by the governor in the
manner provided by section 26-34. The appointments shall be made from the following
organizations, with at least one member from each organization:
(1) Royal Order of Kamehameha I;
(2) ‘Ahahui Ka‘ahumanu;
(3) Hale O Nā Ali‘i O Hawai‘i ‘Ahahui Po‘o;
(4) Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors;
(5) Kamehameha Schools Alumni Association;
(6) Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs;
(7) Waimanalo Homesteaders Association;
(8) Kapahulu Music Club; and
(9) Papakolea Community Association.

13 | P a g e  
 
 In addition, the governor shall appoint one member from each of the following
islands: Kaua‘i, Maui, Moloka‘i, and Hawai‘i. Each of these members shall be a
resident of the respective island that the member represents.
(b) The terms of all appointments shall be four years. The governor shall appoint the
chairperson of the commission from among the members.
(c) The members of the King Kamehameha celebration commission shall serve
without compensation, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel and necessary
expenses while attending meetings and while in discharge of their duties. The
comptroller shall reimburse the members of the King Kamehameha celebration
commission for all necessary expenses incurred during the discharge of their duties.
(d) The commission may appoint and dismiss an arts program specialist and a part-
time clerk typist, without regard to chapter 76, who shall serve at the commission's
pleasure, and whose salaries shall be provided through fees, public contributions, and
private donations.
(e) The commission shall have charge of all arrangements for the celebration each
year generally observed throughout Hawai‘i Nei on June 11, to commemorate the
memory of the great Polynesian Hawaiian warrior and statesman King Kamehameha I,
who united the Hawaiian Islands into the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, and is recognized as such
under section 8-1. The commission may appoint committees and delegate powers and
duties to the committees as it shall determine.
(f) The comptroller shall account for all moneys appropriated by the legislature, may
raise funds to defray administrative costs, and may accept donations of money and
personal property on behalf of the commission; provided that all donations accepted from
private sources shall be expended in the manner prescribed by the contributor, and all
moneys received from all sources shall be deposited into the commission's trust account.
(g) The commission shall be the coordinating agency for all state sponsored as well as
other celebration events staged during the celebration period as designated by the
commission to assure activities planned are timely and appropriate to commemorate the
memory of King Kamehameha I. The commission is authorized to determine to whom
and for which occassions permission is to be granted for the use of the statue of King
Kamehameha I.

14 | P a g e  
 
 (h) The commission shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 necessary for the purpose
of this section. [L 1939, c 227, §1; RL 1945, §12935; am L 1949, c 87, §1; RL 1955, §14-
6; am L 1957, c 152, §1; am L 1959, c 117, §1; HRS §8-5; am L 1970, c 193, §1; am L
1972, c 50, §1; am L 1974, c 57, §1; am L 1981, c 220, §1; am L 1984, c 227, §2; gen ch
1985; am L 1988, c 220, §2; am L 1993, c 280, §2; am L 1997, c 189, §1; am L 1998, c
193, §1; am L 2000, c 253, §150]

As a State Commission, its options for obtaining external funding are often limited, so the
Coalition has been happy to partner with this organization to help support its goals and activities.
It is also important to note that the Commission is comprised of many member organizations
from within the designation area. Thereby, the partnership with the King Kamehameha
Celebration Commission reflects the success of the Coalition in its outreach efforts.

Another exciting potential partnership is with the `Ahahui Ka`ahumanu. In a meeting held
March 1, 2010, the `Ahuhui Ka`ahumanu voted to support the designation area. `Ahahui
Ka`ahumanu is the oldest of the Royal Benevolent Societies. Founded originally by Victoria
Kamamalu in honor of her Aunt, Queen Ka`ahumanu, pictured below, the `Ahahui will be
celebrating its 105th Anniversary this June. The Coalition is looking forward to collaborating
with group and its celebration.

15 | P a g e  
 
Development of Partnerships with the Hawaiian Community and its Members

Since the beginning of this effort in 2003, there are many Hawaiian institutions and individuals
who have regularly participated in coalition meetings, including:

Institutions
• Bishop Museum
• Friends of `Iolani Palace
• Queen Emma Summer Palace/Daughters of Hawai`i
• Washington Place
• Kawaiaha`o Church
• Kamehameha Schools
• Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement
• Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association

Individuals
• Robin Danner, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement
16 | P a g e  
 
 • Bill Ha`ole, Kawaiaha`o Church Trustee
• Maile Meyer, Owner, Na Mea Hawai`i/Native Books
• Ramsay Taum, UH School of Travel Industry Management
• Peter Apo, Peter Apo Consulting
• Lulani Arquette, Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association
• Haunani Hendrix, Kalawahine Streamside Association (Papakolea Homestead)
• Manu Boyd, Kumu Hula/Cultural Consultant
• Dirk Soma, Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce
• Nanette Napoleon, Historian

Hawaiian institutions and individuals who received regular updates on the NHA initiative since
2004 via emailed coalition minutes and invitations to the Community Forums, included, the
above, plus:
• Department of Hawaiian Homelands
• Office of Hawaiian Affairs
• Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce
• Ku`iwalu

Recent Hawaiian Partners

`Ahahui Ka`ahumanu
King Kamehameha Celebration Commission
Royal Order of King Kamehameha I
Pakele Foundation
Holomua Foundation

The Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association (NaHHA) was a member of the NHA Feasibility
Study team and provided consultation regarding Hawaiian culture and history of the area and the
Hawaiian cultural assets inventory. NaHHA engaged a panel of Hawaiian cultural practitioners
and historians to provide comment on the study. These reviewers were:
• Dr. Davianna MacGregor, UH Professor, Ethnic Studies
• Marilyn Reppun, Historian
17 | P a g e  
 
 • Peter Apo, Peter Apo Consulting

A second round of review was done by:

• Maile Meyer, Na Mea Hawai`i/Native Books
• Bill Ha`ole, Kawaiaha`o Church/Royal Order of King Kamehameha I
• Lulani Arquette, Executive Director, Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association
• Ramsay Taum, UH, TIM School

Educating the Community about the Designation Area

Perhaps the greatest challenge for the Coalition has been to respond to constant efforts by private
property owners to misinform the community about National Heritage Areas. The Coalition has
worked tirelessly to communicate facts about the designation process and area to residents and
other stakeholders. The Coalition has generated countless handouts, brochures, and other
materials in an effort to response to oppositional efforts. Despite these efforts, opponents
continue their efforts to misinform the community.

Opposition groups basically fall into two categories: private property owners and Native
Hawaiian constituents. Each of these groups is discussed in turn below.

Private Property Owners

Opposition to heritage area designation by private property owners is not new. All over the
country such groups have regularly popped up attempting to argue that heritage designation
negatively impacts private property rights. This is simply untrue.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study that showed that National Heritage
Areas have no impact on private property. The report was released to the public in 2004. The
report reads:

Despite concerns about private property rights, officials at the 24 heritage

18 | P a g e  
 
 areas, Park Service headquarters and regional staff working with these
areas, and representatives of six national property rights groups that we
contacted were unable to provide us with a single example of a heritage
area directly affecting—positively or negatively—private property values
or use. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04593t.pdf)

This designation would have no impact on private rights. In fact, it would bring much needed
resources into the area. This is an opportunity to obtain funding for cultural and educational
programs that can be developed to teach Hawai`i’s children about the area’s proud history.
Funding could also be used to create access for students and others on neighbor islands to
experience important cultural treasures for the first time. The fact that these funds come from
the Park Service should not be confused as a jurisdictional issue. This is simply an opportunity
to create jobs and strengthen culturally sound programs in the community that would otherwise
continue to go unfunded or underfunded. We have repeatedly encouraged stakeholders to look at
the many positive impacts this designation has had on the other 49 areas in the United States,
especially for the cultures of native peoples and ethnic minorities.

The Coalition has also secured two separate letters from the City and County of Honolulu both
providing assurances that the City has no intention of coupling designation with increased land
use regulation in the area. The concerns of private property owners continue to be simply
speculation and conjecture.

Native Hawaiian Community

Since the original area did not include many of the residential areas, including Papakōlea
(Hawaiian Homestead), there was a critical need to conduct education and outreach to those
stakeholders after the area was announced. As noted above, the decision to expand the area to
reflect the ahupua’a originated with members of the Native Hawaiian community, nonetheless,
misunderstandings about the designation found their way into parts of the Hawaiian community.

19 | P a g e  
 
Concerns by Native Hawaiians generally fall into two categories: some community members
were not provided information as to the history of the area and why the decision to expand the
area was made; some community members oppose the designation based on their support for
Hawaiian independence and opposition to the United States generally.

It is greatly unfortunate that information about the history of the designation and why the
decision to expand the area was made did not reach certain members of the Hawaiian
community. The Coalition has worked hard since this time to rectify the situation and truly
regrets any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused members of the Native Hawaiian
community. Unfortunately, there were individuals who used the gap in the outreach efforts to
spread misinformation about the impact of the designation on the Native Hawaiian community.
As a result, there are members of the Hawaiian community who have been misled to believe that
this designation would have a negative impact on Native Hawaiian rights. This is gravely
untrue. This designation would have no impact on Native Hawaiian rights, neither positively,
nor negatively. As with the private property owners, it will have no impact on the jurisdiction of
the federal government over property rights.

For those Hawaiians seeking complete restoration of independence and secession from the
United States, this designation does further strengthen the area’s relationship with the federal
government in that the funding obtained for the area would be federal funds. Funds would be
provided to the area from the National Parks Service through a local non-profit organization, the
Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition, who would administer the funds to other community
organizations. Non-profit organizations, including Native Hawaiian organizations, would be
eligible for these funds. All interested individuals and organizations will have the opportunity to
be involved in the creation of the grass roots plan. The planning process begins after designation
occurs and funds are appropriated. National Heritage Area community members have up to 3
years to complete their own customized plan and management process. Designation creates a
unique opportunity for Native Hawaiians to seek federal funds to support and develop programs
that celebrate their heritage and history.

20 | P a g e  
 
Educational Handouts Disseminated to Community

Since 2004, the Coalition has spent hundreds of hours conducting outreach to the community and
meeting with stakeholders. Its media outreach includes television programs, radio programs,
websites, handouts, inclusion in community newsletters, presentations at community meetings,
and more. We are confident saying that the Coalition has made a good faith effort to conduct
exhaustive outreach to the residents and community in the designation area.

As a result of these efforts, the support for the designation is greatly diverse. The Coalition has
support from across the designation area geographically, culturally, and occupationally. Further
discussion of the Coalition’s partners and supporters are provided later in this report.

The following is a selection of the handouts and educational materials that have been widely
distributed to the community in an effort to educate stakeholders about the designation area and
process.

21 | P a g e  
 
 NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
Frequently Asked Questions

What is a National Heritage Area?

National Heritage Area designation is granted by Congress because of the importance
of the unique cultures, local traditions, history, and heritage of a place, and makes the
area eligible for resources to celebrate and perpetuate that heritage.

Heritage areas are locally-coordinated partnerships where residents, businesses, local governments, and
state and federal agencies collaborate to carry out mutually agreed upon programs and projects that
create more livable and economically sustainable communities.

How are National Heritage Areas coordinated?

• The National Heritage Area plan is developed locally, and responsibility to implement the plan is local.
Planning must be done collaboratively on the basis of mutual interests and shared goals.
• A majority of National Heritage Areas are coordinated by non-profits. The Hawai`i Capital Cultural
Coalition, a nonprofit organization, is the proposed coordinating entity for the Hawai`i Capital National
Heritage Area, charged with conducting an open community planning process and coordinating the
implementation of the plan. Anyone who participates in the coalition, which has an open membership
policy, is part of the coordinating body.

What is the role of the National Park Service and other federal agencies?
• A National Heritage Area is not a unit of the National Park Service, nor is any land owned or
managed by the National Park Service.
• National Park Service involvement is always advisory in nature; it neither makes nor carries out
management decisions.
• National Heritage Areas receive funds and assistance through cooperative agreements with the
National Park Service. These cooperative agreements are based on the community created master
plan for the NHA.

What is the process for the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area?
• A Suitability/Feasibility Study was conducted by the Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition according to
NPS guidelines. The study’s purpose is to demonstrate that the proposed Hawai`i Capital National
Heritage Area meets the criteria for NHAs. It serves as the application for eligibility for this grant
program. It is not the plan. The study is available for download on the HCCC website.

22 | P a g e  
 
• Concurrent bills, S.359 and H.R.1297, to establish the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area were
submitted in both houses of Congress in early 2009. The bills are available to view on the HCCC
website.

What are the benefits of NHA designation?

• Financial and technical support for locally managed, collaborative initiatives that celebrate, preserve,
enhance and interpret a region’s cultural, historic and natural resources.
• Leveraging of resources through partnerships.
• National attention to and education about an area’s cultural importance.
• Heritage areas build linkages and expand the reach and capacity of people, organizations and
communities who want to participate and can benefit from this recognition and funding.

What is the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area about?

• NHAs provide a platform for each area to tell their own stories to a wider audience.
• The three organizing themes of the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area are: Native Hawaiian
history and heritage; Hawai`i’s unique multi-culturalism; and Hawai`i’s role as a link to Asia/Pacific.

What is the area? How was it chosen?

• The Kapalama/Honolulu ahupua`a that encompass Nu`uanu and Kapalama Valleys and surrounding
area and coastal plain is the proposed area for the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area.
• The recommendation to use ahupua`a as an organizing principle for the stories of the NHA developed
out of conversations with community members and in consultation with a review panel of Hawaiian
cultural practitioners.

• The boundaries do not convey any land use or other regulations. The area was developed to provide
continuity for the natural, cultural, historic and educational resources that help tell the stories of the
NHA. The boundaries also determine the area in which National Heritage Area program funding may
be spent.

What kinds of projects are planned for the National Heritage Area?
• Once designation is achieved a community planning process that is as inclusive as possible will be
conducted to develop a 10-year plan for the NHA. The specific activities have not yet been
determined. Anyone with an interest in the outcomes of the National Heritage Area may become
involved in the coalition and the planning process.
• Examples of the kinds of projects the community may wish to support through the NHA initiative
include: education programs, cultural training, interpretive materials and exhibits, support for cultural

23 | P a g e  
 
 sites and activities, conservation and preservation, physical improvements, signage and way-finding,
and economic development projects.

Does NHA designation impose any new regulations or restrictions on private property?
• No, NHAs do not impose any new local land use, zoning, land acquisition, building code, or similar
regulations on private property. Designation legislation does not provide the management entity or
any federal agency with the authority to regulate land.
• Protections for private property owners are spelled out in the bill to establish the Hawai`i Capital
National Heritage Area. These include, among others:
o The right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program or activity conducted
within the NHA.
o Establishment of the NHA does not alter any land use regulation, approved regulatory
plan, or other regulatory authority of any federal, tribal, state, or local agency.
o The local coordinating entity does not have any land use or other regulatory authority.

What if I don’t want to participate in the NHA?

• No one is required to participate in any plan, project, program or activity conducted by the NHA
coalition.
What are the requirements for federal funds?
• The match is one to one. Many sources can be used to make up the matching contributions.
• Funding from the National Park Service is received through a cooperative agreement between the
NPS and the coordinating entity, and is based on the community-developed master plan.
What has been the community outreach for this project?
• Since the NHA initiative was begun in 2004, the HCCC has held community and individual meetings,
and sent out electronic and written outreach via news media, organizational newsletters, mailings,
and the internet to solicit input from any interested individuals within the limits of its resources.
Information has been regularly distributed to a large database.
• A June 2007 article published in the Honolulu Advertiser, described the NHA initiative and a
prominent side-bar invited public comment. The initiative has periodically received additional media
attention.
• Community outreach is ongoing. It is still early in the process and broad-based community input is
being sought.
• A community planning process that is as inclusive as possible will be conducted once NHA
recognition is achieved to create the plan for the NHA, providing anyone interested in participating the
opportunity to have a voice in the outcomes of the NHA.

For more information see website: www.hawaiicapitalculture.org

24 | P a g e  
 
 Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition
HAWAI`I CAPITAL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
PROJECT SUMMARY

The Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition (HCCC) is a partnership of

central Honolulu arts and cultural organizations, businesses, public
agencies, service organizations, and residents who are working
together to nurture and celebrate the cultural legacy of the area.

The HCCC supports National Heritage Area (NHA) status for the extraordinary collection of
cultural and historic sites and living traditions found throughout the Honolulu/Kapalama
ahupua`a. Legislation to designate the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area was introduced
in the US Congress in early 2009.

National Heritage Area status is granted because of the importance of the unique cultures, local
traditions, history, and heritage of a place, and makes the area eligible for resources to
celebrate and perpetuate that heritage. Heritage areas are locally-managed partnerships where
residents, businesses, local governments, and state and federal agencies collaborate to carry
out mutually agreed upon projects that create more livable and economically sustainable
communities.

National Heritage Areas:

• build linkages and create collaborations that expand the reach and capacity of
people, organizations, and communities who want to participate, to conduct their
cultural activities;
• bring increased attention to an area’s cultural importance;
• provide funding and other resources to celebrate culture and heritage; and
• generate economic benefits.

National Heritage Areas are a vehicle for community groups to tell their stories to a wider
audience. The organizing themes of the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area are:
• Native Hawaiian’s struggle for cultural preservation and self-determination.
• Hawai`i’s exceptional experience in multi-culturalism.
• Honolulu’s role a link between the United States, Asia, and the Pacific.

25 | P a g e  
 
Examples of the kinds of projects the community may decide to support through the NHA
initiative include: education programs, cultural training, interpretive materials and exhibits,
support for cultural sites and activities, conservation and preservation, physical improvements,
signage and way-finding, and economic development projects.

Participation in the coalition and National Heritage Area project is open to all. The next step is a
community-developed plan for projects that celebrate and perpetuate our special heritage and
community participation and input is actively being sought.

To learn more please visit the HCCC website: www.hawaiicapitalculture.org.

26 | P a g e  
 
 Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition Response to Concerns Raised Regarding the Establishment of
the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area

1) Concern: “This would create an additional federal designation (an extension of the National Park
Service) over a broad area of greater urban Honolulu: the extent and scope of restrictions resulting from
this designation is unclear.”

Fact: A National Heritage Area (NHA) is not a unit of the National Park Service, nor is any
land owned or managed by the National Park Service. In addition, NHAs do not impose any
new local land use, zoning, land acquisition, building code or similar federal regulations.
The designating legislation does not provide the coordinating entity or any federal agency
with the authority to regulate land. Protections for private property are clearly spelled out
in the designation legislation (S.359, Section 8).

2) Concern: “The sites that the NHA designation proposes to further preserve already have state and
national preservation status and protection (i.e. Bishop Museum, ‘Iolani Palace, Queen Emma Summer
Palace, and Chinatown).”

Fact: NHAs leverage resources to support and strengthen a wide variety of heritage
activities through partnerships and collaborations. NHA designation would enhance and
support not only the above sites but many others in addition to cultural activities as
determined by a community-based planning process.

3) Concern: “The local managing entity allowed under this designation would be essentially
unaccountable (not elected by the people) and with no oversight as the NPS usually takes a hand-off
approach. Likewise, there seems to be no recourse for community stakeholders within the NHA
designation area to protest decisions of the local managing entity. To what body would a citizen appeal a
decision of the local managing entity?”

Fact: The Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition (HCCC) is the proposed “coordinating entity.”
The HCCC is a coalition. Thus, anyone who participates in the coalition, which has open
membership, is a part of the coordinating body. The HCCC board of directors, who serve
two-year terms, is accountable to the coalition participants. The board is governed by a
set of bylaws which address many issues of accountability, including removal. A majority
of National Heritage Areas are coordinated by non-profits.

27 | P a g e  
 
 Further, the designating legislation does not give the coordinating entity any regulatory
authority, and expressly states the right of public and private property owners to “refrain
from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the Heritage
Area.” (S.359, Section 8).

4) Concern: “As stated in their study, the local managing authority has the right to inventory each
property within the designated area --- the two ahupua‘a of Kalihi and Nu‘uanu (Honolulu Ahupua‘a and
Kapālama Ahupua‘a - mountain to sea) --- and evaluate that property`s historic significance and
recommend that it be managed or acquired by the City, State or some other entity. It is unclear whether
that property owner would be able to make changes or renovations easily if the property is deemed a fine
example of some particular style.

Fact: The HCCC claims no such right. As noted above, S.359, Section 8 expressly states
that no current rights of property owners is taken away by the designation legislation or
the coordinating entity and that a property owner has the right to refuse participation.
Whatever a property owner’s current rights with respect to changes or renovations remain
the same.

The context of the paragraphs referred to above in the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage
Area Suitability/Feasibility Study (on pages 67 & 76, respectively, of the published edition)
regarding inventory of historic properties is that additional information about the historic
resources of the area can help inform the heritage area plan that will be developed out of
the community planning process. It should be noted that the feasibility study is not the
plan; it is a statement of potential. The community will develop a mutually-agreed upon
plan for what it wishes to do with the designation once it is achieved.

5) Concern: “Reducing and possibly removing local and State authority, as the Secretary of Interior
approves the management plan and shall prepare a report with recommendations for the future role of the
National Park Service”.

Fact: The designating legislation, S.359, does not make any provisions infringing on state
authority. While, the Secretary of the Interior’s role is to review and approve the NHA
management plan, as a part of the procedure the Secretary is required by the bill to consult
with the Governor. In addition, the bill states that the purpose of the Secretary’s review is
to assure that: the local coordinating entity represents the diverse interests of the Heritage

28 | P a g e  
 
 Area; the preparation of the heritage area plan included adequate opportunity for public
and governmental involvement; there is adequate protection for natural, cultural and
historic resources; and the appropriate state and local officials are in support. (S.359,
Section 5(d)(2)). The NHA plan is the first effort that occurs after receiving NHA
designation. The HCCC encourages and welcomes full participation from stakeholders,
community, and anyone who chooses to participate.

Fact: The bill states that any involvement by the National Park Service is at the request of
the local coordinating entity. While the Secretary of the Interior may make
recommendations, it is the right of the local community to accept or reject them. (S.359,
Section 6(a)(1))

6) Concern: “While, under the act, Federal funds are not allowed to be used for condemnation purposes,
with a recommendation from the NHA managing entity, the City can apply for grants for the purposes of
condemnation.”

Fact: The plan for the heritage area must “consider the interests of diverse units of
government, businesses, organizations, and individuals in the development of the plan.”
(S.359, Sec. 4(a)(3)). Any recommendations of this plan are developed through an extensive
participatory community planning process and would be mutually agreed upon.

7) Concern: “The board members of the HCCC and the organizations that comprise it are made up of
primarily arts-affiliated non-profits and tourist-related businesses and state entities. What is missing are
the community stakeholders within the designated area: the residents, local businesses and local
community organizations. They have been left out of this process - many have known nothing about this
proposed legislation even though it has been in the works for the past 6 years. In some instances, key
non-profit associations have been part of the NHA planning process and yet failed to inform local
stakeholders in the communities which they serve.”

The process itself has not been inclusive: A key requirement of the proposed NHA designation is that the
local community supports the designation and the boundaries of the proposed heritage area. Besides the
arts groups which comprise the coalition, there has been little effective effort to inform the affected
community. Known community stakeholders were not informed of the process until after legislation was
introduced at the national level. Many community stakeholders who will be affected by this legislation
know little or nothing about it.

Fact: Since the National Heritage Area initiative was begun in 2004, information about the

29 | P a g e  
 
project has been regularly distributed to a large database, including many Hawaiian
institutions and individuals all of whom were invited to be involved in the planning
process.

Robin Danner of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, together with HCCC board
President, Mona Abadir, initiated the exploration of applying for NHA status to increase
support for cultural programming. Haunani Hendrix, on the Board of Kalawahine
Community Association, was a founding member of the HCCC committee that
recommended pursuing NHA status. ‘Iolani Palace, Queen Emma Summer Palace, Bishop
Museum, and Washington Place are among the area cultural sites that have been involved
in the NHA initiative since its inception.

The Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association provided cultural consultation for the
National Heritage Area feasibility study, including a Hawaiian cultural assets inventory,
area history, assistance with determination of the ahupua‘a boundaries, and two rounds of
review of the draft study by panels of Hawaiian historians and cultural consultants. The
study has been available online for public comment since December 2008.

HCCC has made on-going efforts to hold community and individual meetings and send out
electronic and written outreach via news media, mailings, community meetings and the
internet to solicit input from any interested individuals within the limits of its resources.
More than 30 public meetings, reaching over 500 individuals have been held, since the
project began.

A June 2007 article published in the Honolulu Advertiser, described the NHA initiative and
a prominent side-bar invited public comment. Other news articles have periodically been
published in mainstream media. Information has also been published in newsletters of:
Hawai`i Community Development Authority (Kaka‘ako, mailing list of 8,000), Historic
Hawai`i Foundation, and Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association (multiple articles).

The request for designation as an NHA represents a starting point, not an end point, to
community involvement in the development of the National Heritage Area. Community
outreach is ongoing and input from diverse stakeholders is being sought. A community
planning process that is as inclusive as possible will be conducted once NHA recognition
is achieved to create the plan for the NHA, providing anyone interested in participating the
opportunity to have a voice in the outcomes of the NHA.

30 | P a g e  
 
 NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS
FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

S.359, the pending legislation “To Establish the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area”
provides protections for private property owners, including the following:

SEC. 8. PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS

Nothing in this Act:

(1) abridges the rights of any owner of public or private property, including the right to
refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the
Heritage Area;

(2) requires any property owner to permit public access (including access by any
Federal, tribal, State, or local agency) to the property;

(3) modifies any provisions of Federal, tribal, State, or local law with regard to public
access to, or use of, private land;

(4) alters any land use regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority
of any Federal, tribal, State, or local agency;

(5) conveys any land use or other regulatory authority to the local coordinating entity;

(6) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of water or water rights;

(7) diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, including the
regulation of fishing and hunting within the Heritage Area; or

(8) creates any liability, or affects any liability under any other law, of any private
property owner with respect to any person injured on the private property.

31 | P a g e  
 
A 2004 study by the General Accounting Office, conducted at the request of Congress to
review the impact of the National Heritage Areas program, found that:

“Heritage areas do not appear to have affected property owner’s rights. In fact, the
designating legislation… (of many areas) provides assurances that such rights will be
protected. Heritage area officials, Park Service headquarters and regional staff, and
representatives of national property rights groups that we (GAO) contacted were unable
to provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly affecting -- positively or
negatively -- private property values or use.”

32 | P a g e  
 
Building Community

The Coalition is not a separate entity simply operating within the designation area; it is part of
the community. As such, the Coalition, its members, partners and beneficiaries continue to work
together to make the area a safer and more cultural dynamic place for all people to enjoy.

Partners
The Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition (HCCC) is a dynamic partnership of central Honolulu
arts and cultural organizations, businesses, public agencies, service organizations, and residents
who have been working together since 2003 to nurture and celebrate the cultural legacy of the
area. The NHA initiative has been an ongoing process since 2004. Over that time there have
been many organizations and individuals involved and supportive at various times. These
partners include:

Alexander & Baldwin Elizabeth Chalkley Design Consulting

Aloha Tower Marketplace Enoa Corporation
Alston Hunt Floyd Ing Lawyers Enterprise Honolulu
American Institute of Architects Friends of the Falls of Clyde
American Savings Bank Friends of Foster Gardens
Anne Smoke PR Hard Rock Café Honolulu
Arts District Merchants Hastings & Pleadwell
Association/Chinatown Hawai`i Museum Association
Arts with Aloha Hawai‘i Arts Alliance
Belt Collins Hawai`i Hawai‘i Children’s Discovery Center
Bishop Museum Hawai‘i Council for the Humanities
Brazilian Consulate Hawai‘i International Film Festival
Business Advisory Group Hawai‘i Opera Theatre
Carlsmith Ball LLP Hawai‘i Pacific University
Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace Hawai‘i State Archives
Chaminade University Hawai‘i State Art Museum
Chinatown Business & Community Hawai‘i State Library
Association Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture
Chinatown Merchants Association and the Arts
Communications Pacific Hawai‘i Theatre Center
Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Cox Radio, Inc. Hawaii Community Development Authority
Cultural+Planning Group Hawaiian Electric Company
DBEDT/Creative Industries Division Heritage Caucus/Hawaii State Legislature
Eight Inc. Historic Hawai‘i Foundation

33 | P a g e  
 
Senator Brickwood Gaulateria –
Downtown&Chinatown
Smythe & Associates
St Andrews Priory
St. Andrews Cathedral
Standard Parking
State Dept. of Human Services
State Dept. Accounting & General Services
State Historic Preservation Office
State Office of Planning
Sustainable Hawai`i
Victoria Ward Properties
HonBlue
Honolulu Academy of Arts
Honolulu Culture and Arts District
Honolulu Police Departments Law
Enforcement
Museum
Honolulu Symphony
Honolulu, Office of Mayor Mufi
Hannemann
Honolulu Theatre for Youth
Honolulu, Dept. of Planning and Permitting
Honolulu, Office of Economic
Development
Honolulu, Office on Culture and the Arts
Honu Group Inc.
Honu Group Communications LLC
Iolani Palace
Garden Island Arts Council
Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii
Judiciary History Center
Kamehameha Schools
Kawaiaha‘o Church
King Kamehameha Celebration
Commission
Ko Olina Resort Association
Ko Olina Station & Ko Olina Center
Ku'iwalu
Liliha Public Library
Lucien Wong/Museum of Hawaiian Music
& Dance Committee
Mānoa Foundation
Manu Boyd/Kumu Hula & Cultural
Consultant
Frank Haas/Marketing Management
Mason Architects
Mission Houses Museum
Muriel Flanders Trust
Nannette Napoleon/Hawaiian historian
Native Books/Na Mea Hawai‘i
Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce
Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association
Nomura Design
Norwegian Cruise Lines
O‘ahu Visitors Bureau
Office of Governor Linda Lingle
Office of Lieutenant Governor Duke Aiona
Pacific Asian Affairs Council
Pacific Island Institute
Peter Apo Company
Peter Rosegg & Associates
Philpotts & Associates
Princeville Center
Rep Corrine Ching --Liliha
Royal Order of King Kamehameha I
The Contemporary Museum
The Limtiaco Company
United Nations Association
The Arts at Marks Garage
University of Hawai`i -- College of Arts
and Humanities
University of Hawai`i – Historic
Preservation Program
University of Hawai`i - School of Travel
Industry Management
Waikīkī Improvement Association
Washington Place
34 | P a g e  
Community Partnerships

From the creation of the designation concept, the Coalition has worked steadily to reach out to
residents, organizations and businesses to educate the community about the designation area and
activities of the Coalition. Further, the Coalition has collaborated successfully with the
community to help develop and support the rich multiculturalism that makes Hawai`i such a
unique place.

One of the themes of the proposed Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area is “Hawai`i’s
Exceptional Experience in Multiculturalism.” Since the beginning of the Kingdom, Hawai`i has
welcomed people of many nations. In succeeding decades, Honolulu would become the
epicenter of an unprecedented commingling of cultures. Sailing vessels flying the flags of
England, France, Spain, Russia and the United States were all drawn to Honolulu’s deep-water
port and business opportunities. To provide the manpower necessary to run a successful
agricultural industry, plantation owners sponsored the importation of immigrant labor from
Japan, China, the Philippines, and the far-flung islands of the Pacific. Hawai`i’s multi-cultural
society is the product of the gradual integration of these diverse peoples—a process of conflict
and accommodation, of ostracism and assimilation, and eventually acceptance.

The history of the proposed Hawai`i’ Capital Cultural National Heritage Area is preserved in its
the cultural and ethnic diversity of its people and the heritage sites and living traditions that the
vibrant cultural life of the area. Some of these traditions are conveyed by historic buildings,
others are expressed through languages spoken in the downtown area (including Hawaiian, the
state’s second official language, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, Laotian and Cambodian.
Ethnic foods, vendors and restaurants also convey a strong sense of the feeling and flavor of
Hawai‘i as do many on-going commercial activities such as lei selling, fish markets and even
tattoo parlors (the downtown even features a museum of Pacific tattooing). Overall the proposed
NHA has a unique multi-cultural environment with a wealth of ethnic expressions, yet
throughout it all maintains and a strong sense of original Hawaiian place.

35 | P a g e  
 
The Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition embraces the multiple legacies of the area and
encourages the participation of organizations representing many ethnic heritages. The NHA
seeks to tell the stories of all the peoples of the area. HCCC outreach has included the Pacific
Gateway Center, Japanese Cultural Center, African American History Museum, Chinatown
Business & Community Association, and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce.

APEC 2011

The Coalition is also working with the Hawai`i Tourism Authority and other art organizations to
develop a partnership for the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) annual meeting
coming to Hawai`i in 2011 related to public art.

Summary of Outreach

Provided herein is a listing of the Coalition’s partners and community partnerships that illustrate
the breadth and depth of the community support for the designation; it is a summary of the
Coalition’s outreach regarding the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area initiative from 2004
to date.

Coalition Meetings

Minutes of coalition meetings, including updates of the NHA process, were circulated to an
email database of about 200 consisting of arts and cultural organizations, relevant state and city
agencies and legislators, and interested businesses. All were encouraged to participate in the
discussion. Between 2004 and 2008, 20 coalition meetings were held.

HCCC Hosted Community Forums

In 2006, the Coalition proceeded with a National Heritage Area Suitability/Feasibility Study.
During that time, the organization worked to disseminate information about the effort, including
sending out press releases and hosting a series of Community Forums to gather community
36 | P a g e  
 
input. Five forums were held in various communities and at different times of day to encourage
participation. Invitations to the forums, sent to a database of about 250, included a summary of
the National Heritage Area project. Invitations were also mailed to the state legislators and city
council members.

In October 2009, the Coalition again held a series of coalition meetings – open to the general
public – in different neighborhoods, at different times of the day to offer maximum opportunity
for participation. At each meeting a presentation on the NHA was made, and a professional
facilitator guided a discussion that sought input on the project.
• October 5, hosted by Hawai`i Theatre in Chinatown
• October 6, hosted by Bishop Museum in Kalihi
• October 8, hosted by the Honolulu Academy of Arts in Downtown
• October 13, hosted by Queen Emma Summer Palace in Nu`uanu

Hawai`i State Legislature & Honolulu City Council

In 2008, all members of the Hawai`i State Legislature’s Heritage Caucus received an emailed
summary of the project to provide background for a bill in support of the NHA that was part of
the Heritage Caucus’ 2008 legislative package. Representatives of the HCCC also testified about
the NHA at a number of legislative committee hearings in the 2008 and 2009 legislative sessions.

Individual briefings were held with legislators whose districts overlap the proposed Nationall
Heritage Area, as well as others. These legislators inclulde:
• Senate President Colleen Hanabusa
• House Speaker Calvin Say
• State Sen. Carol Fukunaga – Makiki/Punchbowl
• State Sen. Brickwood Galuteria – Downtown/Chinatown/Kakaako
• State Sen. Brian Taniguchi – Makiki/Manoa
• Rep Joey Manahan – Kalihi/Kapalama
• Rep Corinne Ching – Liliha
• Rep Karl Rhodes -- Kalihi

37 | P a g e  
 
 • Rep Sylvia Luke – Pauoa/Punchbowl
• Rep Della Au Bellati – Tantalus/Makiki
• Rep John Mizuno – Kalihi Valley
• Rep Scott Saiki – Kaimuki/Mo`ili`ili/Kaimuki
• Rep Cindy Evans -- Chair, Heritage Caucus
• Rep Mele Carroll – Hawaiian Affairs Committee
• Council Member Ann Kobayashi – Kakaako/Makiki

Neighborhood Board Meetings

• Liliha/Alewa – Apr, 2009
• Nu`uanu/Punchbowl – May, Jun, 2009
• Kalihi/Palama – Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Oct, 2009
• Ala Moana/Kaka`ako – May 2009
• Downtown – Feb, Mar 2010 (In addition, two members of the Downtown Neighborhood
Board have participated in the Coalition and provided regular updates to the board.)

Newspaper & Newsletter Articles

• A June 2007 article in the Honolulu Advertiser described the National Heritage Area
initiative; a prominent sidebar invited public comment on the project and the proposed
boundaries.
• A February 2009 article reported on Senator Inouye’s announcement of the NHA
legislation, and described the initiative.

The HCCC also established an e-newsletter in 2008, which is periodically emailed to a database
of about 300.

Information about the NHA effort has also been published in the following newsletters:
• Hawai`i Community Development Authority
• Historic Hawai`i Foundation
• Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association

38 | P a g e  
 
 • Waikiki Improvement Association
• Hawaii Theatre
• State Rep Corinne Ching’s constituent newsletter

Conferences/Community Events
• A presentation was made to an audience of over 100 individuals representing those in,
and impacted by, the travel industry at the 2008 Hawai`i Tourism Authority Conference.
• Exhibitor at the 2009 & 2010 Historic Preservation Day at the Capitol.
• Information booth at the Papakōlea Homesteads Community Fair
• Booth at the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement conference

Announcement Events

In December 2008, an event to mark the publication of the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage
Area Suitability/Feasibility Study was held. Over 200 written invitations were mailed out. In
addition, all members of the Hawai`i State Legislature and City Council received written and
emailed invitations. Both written and emailed invitations included a summary of the project.

An event held in February 2009 was headlined by Senator Daniel K. Inouye, who announced that
he had submitted legislation to designate the Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area. More than
100 community leaders attended the event. The announcement and resulting publicity raised the
profile of the project and reached a wide audience.

Radio and TV
• Hawai`i Public Radio Show hosted by Bob Scandia: February 18, 2009
• Hawaiian radio program hosted by Kimo Kahoano and Senator Brickwood
Gaulateria: February 19, 2009
• `Olelo local access cable TV program: A panel discussion hosted by Rep Cindy
Evans focused on the Hawaii Capital National Heritage Area and the HCCC’s partnership
with the King Kamehameha Celebration Commission. The program will air first at the

39 | P a g e  
 
 Capitol for lawmakers, then to the general public during the months of March and April,
2010.

NAIOP Presentation

In November 2009, the Coalition accepted an invitation to speak to the NAIOP, the Commercial
Real Estate Development Association. The presentation was well-received. Below is a list of
NAIOP members who attended the presentation.

First Name Last Name Company

Lucien Wong Actus Lend Lease
Julie Strivens Altus Page Kirkland
Peter Yeo American Savings Bank
Jim Mee Ashford & Wriston
Steve Baldridge Baldridge & Associates
Ben Kashiwabara Bank of Hawaii
Brett Lau Bank of Hawaii
Tony Mizuno Bank of Hawaii
Anne Mapes Belt Collins Hawaii
Carlton Chang Carlton Chang
Sarah Morihara Colliers Monroe Friedlander
Joe Ferraro Ferraro Choi
Leighton Yuen Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel
John Covington Grubb & Ellis/CBI, Inc.
Vanessa Kop Grubb & Ellis/CBI, Inc.
Jackson Nakasone Grubb & Ellis/CBI, Inc.
Rae Nakasone Grubb & Ellis/CBI, Inc.
Bonnie Oppermann Grubb & Ellis/CBI, Inc.
John Rankin Grubb & Ellis/CBI, Inc.
Lee Hopkinson Honblue
40 | P a g e  
 
Fred White Honblue
Tammy Walther John Child & Company
Ken Hayashida KAI Hawaii
Cathy Camp Kamehameha Schools
Tricia Dang Kamehameha Schools
Sandy Harano Kobayashi Group LLC
Kurt Mitchell Kober/Hanssen/Mitchell Architects
Shannon Alivado LURF
Rocco Sansone Marsh
Daniel Cody MW Group, Ltd.
Robert Cooper NORPAC Group, Inc.
Liana Dietz Old Republic Title & Escrow
Don Carp Pankow Builders
Leslie Miasnik Pankow Builders
Lisa Carter Representative Della Au Belatti
Eric Nelson RIM Architects
Patti Ramirez RIM Architects
Clarence Nishihara Senator
George Ehara Swinerton Builders
Jay Iranon Swinerton Builders
Jenn Taylor Taylor Made Investments
Russell Kaupu The MacNaughton Group
Justin MacKenzie The MacNaughton Group
Mike Kido The Pacific Resource Partnership
Jon Yamaguchi Yamaguchi & Yamaguchi, Inc.
Susan Graham

41 | P a g e  
 
HCCC Website

The HCCC maintains a website where information about the NHA project is available, including
the full NHA Feasibility Study available for download, copies of the legislation, contact
information for inquiries, news articles, FAQs, links to the National Park Service site, and much
more.

Honua Consulting

Honua Consulting, Trisha Kehaulani Watson and Elmer Kaai, has been engaged to assist with
outreach to Hawaiian community, area residents, and other key stakeholders in the proposed
National Heritage Area.

Meetings with Individuals and Organizations Representing Key Constituencies

• Office of Hawaiian Affairs –Haunani Apoliona, Chair

• Office of Hawaiian Affairs –Native Hawaiian Historic Preservation Council
• Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce
• Hawai`i National Bank (Chinatown)
• Chinese Chamber of Commerce
• Kamehameha Schools – Executive Committee
• Hawai`i Tourism Authority
• Hawai`i Community Development Authority
• Hawai`i Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP)
• Oahu Country Club -- general manager and officers
• Chinatown Business & Community Association
• Kalawahine Streamside Association
• Tantalus Community Association – Jim Shon, Chair
• Kaka`ako Master Planning project -- Participate in two visioning sessions
• Sam and Mary Cooke

42 | P a g e  
 
 • Honolulu Academy of Arts – stakeholders meeting
• Washington Place Foundation – updates at board meeting
• Kawaiaha`o Church – Board of Trustees

Outreach to Chinatown

The following Chinatown individuals and associations have regularly participated in HCCC
coalition meetings and planning for the NHA over the past four years:

• Downtown Neighborhood Board #13 (Downtown and Chinatown)

• Honolulu Culture and Arts District (representing downtown Chinatown)
• Arts at Marks Garage (forwarded information to Chinatown galleries)
• Mayor’s Small Business Advocate (Alenka Remec) which has had a special focus
on economic development in Chinatown
• Hawai`i Theatre Center (Board Member Representative)
• Mary Philpotts McGrath, Philpotts and Associates (Board Member Representative)
• Hawai`i Pacific University (Board Member Representative)
• Hastings & Pleadwell
• Eight, Inc.
• Nomura Design / Mike Nomura
• George Lee, Lions Club of Honolulu
• Eric Nelson, Rim Architects
• Dr. Tin Myaing Thein, Pacific Gateway Center
• Cindy McMillian, Honolulu Culture and Arts District
• Christina Kemmer, Honolulu, Culture and Arts District, Communications Pacific

In addition to the above, the following Chinatown individuals and associations regularly received
email updates and/or have received printed invitations to the Community Forums and the
feasibility study publication event:

43 | P a g e  
 
 • Lee Stack, Kaimalino Designs & building owner
• Ernie & Jodie Hunt, Chinatown Courtyard owner
• Don Murphy, Murphy’s Bar & Grill
• Tessa Wuchinch, Red Elephant
• Glen Chu, Indigo Eurasian Cuisine
• Kumu Kahua Theatre
• Lizard Loft
• Mason Architects
• Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace
• Eight Inc.
• Chinatown Merchant’s Association
• Chinese Chamber of Commerce
• Arts District Merchant’s Association

In 2009, the receipt of Informational Packets, including the Coalition’s HCNHA Study, were
acknowledged by the offices of:
• President Barack Obama
• Vice President Joseph Biden
• First Lady Michelle Obama
• Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
• Department of Interior, National Park Service
• National Endowment for the Arts, Chairman Dana Gioia
• National Assembly of State Arts

The following letters in Support of the National Heritage Area are attached:
Governor Linda Lingle
Mayor Mufi Hannemann
Hawai`i Tourism Authority
Hawai`i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts

44 | P a g e  
 
Hawai`i Community Development Authority
`Iolani Palace
Bishop Museum
Royal Order of Kamehameha I
Washington Place
Kamehameha Schools
Kawaiaha`o Church
Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association
Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition
Hawai`i Museums Association
Historic Hawai`i Foundation
King Kamehameha V – Judiciary History Center
Mission Houses Museum
The Contemporary Museum
Hawai`i Theatre Center
Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai`i
Honolulu Culture & Arts District
Hawai`i Hotel & Lodging Association
Liliha Public Library
St. Andrews Priory School
Kumu Hula Manu Boyd, President, Hawaiian Civic Club of Honolulu / Nu`uanu Resident
Peter Apo, Hawaiian Cultural Consultant
Mary Philpotts McGrath, Tantalus Resident
Belt Collins Hawai`i
Hastings & Pleadwell
Standard Parking
American Savings Bank
Carlsmith Ball
Honorary Consulate of Brazil
Catherine Nelson, Chinatown Resident
Daniel Dinell, Mānoa Resident

45 | P a g e  
 
Shelly Wong, Queens Medical Center
Frank Haas, Marketing Management
C. Haunani Maunu-Hendrix, Papakōlea / Kalāwahine Resident

46 | P a g e  
 
Conclusion

The Hawai`i Capital Cultural Coalition has grown tremendously as an organization over the last
three years. Through capitalizing on opportunities to conduct education and outreach activities
to the community, the organization has developed many key partnerships that have helped to
shape the organization and its vision.

As we reflect upon the last three years, we note that 2010 marks an exciting year of transition for
the Coalition and community. The Coalition and its supporters eagerly await the passage of its
designation legislation. As the community continues to struggle in these economic times,
passage of the designation legislation is needed now more than ever. The designation and
potential funding for arts and culture programs would create an amazing opportunity to help the
economic development of the area and improve the quality of life for the many residents and
visitors who would benefit from these programs.

It is the Coalition's goal that Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area designation will give our
people the opportunities they deserve to tell their own stories, in their voices, via their own
cultural programs and partnerships. These stories not only create understanding of each
individual's cultural identity and value, but are also necessary to preserve and enhance the unique
character of Hawai`i. The Coalition seeks to share these stories here at home and as an essential
part of our nation's larger story and the world's international cultural landscape.

We look forward to continuing our work with the community in achieving this vision.

47 | P a g e  
 
 CAPITAL
NATIONAL
HERITAGE
AREA

N ATIO N AL HERITAGE AREA suitabilit y / feasibilit y study

H AWAI‘ I CAP ITAL C ULTURAL C OALI TION
HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I • DECEMBER 2008
Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage Area

s uitab ilit y / feasi bi lit y study

H AWAI‘I CAPITAL CULTURAL COALITIO N

H O N O LU LU, HAWA I ‘I • D E CE MB E R 2008
WW W. h awa i i capi talculture .org
Aerial view of Honolulu from Punchbowl
(foreground), to Diamond Head, 1933
WIT H GRATI TU DE
We offer our respect and appreciation for Hawai‘i’s past
storytellers and their mana; for it is on their shoulders we
stand today to create a platform to tell their diverse
stories. Mahalo to the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition
partners for their encouragement, assistance, and in-kind
support for this project and the mission of the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition.
Study funded by: Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Additional funding provided by: American Resort
Development Association Resort Owners Coalition,
Atherton Family Foundation, Hawai‘i Community
Foundation, Hawai‘i State Department of Business
Economic Development and Tourism, Honu Group Inc.,
Unlimited Construction Services
Support also provided by: Alexander & Baldwin
Foundation, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing Lawyers, Cox
Radio, Eight Inc., Enterprise Honolulu, Hard Rock Café
Honolulu, HFA Marketing & Design, Hawai‘i State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts, Honblue, Joots,
Inc., Kamehameha Schools, Ko Olina Station and Ko
Olina Center, Ko Olina Resort Association, Muriel
Flanders Fund, National Endowment for the Arts,
Princeville Center, Smythe & Associates.
Study Author: William R. Chapman, D. Phil., University
of Hawai‘i
Contributing Authors: Lorraine Lunow-Luke, Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition; Dennis Hollier; Ramsay
Taum, University of Hawai‘i
Study Team: Project Director: Mona Abadir, Honu Goup
Inc./Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Board President;
Project Manager: Lorraine Lunow-Luke, Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition Coordinator; Lead Researcher: William
R. Chapman, D. Phil., University of Hawai‘i; Hawaiian
Cultural Assets Inventory: Lulani Arquette, Native
Hawaiian Hospitality Association; Peter Apo, Peter Apo
Company, and David Parker, Historian and Cultural
Consultant; Environmental Assessment: Karl Kim, Ph.D.,
University of Hawai‘i; Historical Information and Assets
Research: Geoffry Mowrer, Kavika McKenzie, Shaun
MacNamara, Graduate Students, University of Hawai‘i;
Management Assessment: Karen Masaki and David
Plettner, Cultural + Planning Group
Editors: Mona Abadir, Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition; Lorraine Lunow-Luke, Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition; Kaylene Polichetti, Hastings
& Pleadwell
Hawaiian Culture and History Advisory Group: Lulani
Arquette, Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association; Peter
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 3
Apo, Peter Apo Company; Davianna MacGregor, Ph.D.,
University of Hawai‘i; Maile Meyer, Native Books/Na
Mea Hawai‘i; Marilyn Reppun; Ramsay Taum, University
of Hawai‘i
Other Reviewers: Kiersten Faulkner, Historic Hawai‘i
Foundation; Ed Korybski, Honolulu Culture and Arts
District; Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Board
Members: Daniel Dinell, Frank Haas, Bill Ha‘ole, Steven
Lee, Kyle Paredes, Mary Philpotts McGrath, Sarah
Richards, David Scott, Susan Todani, Gae Bergquist
Trommald, Margi Ulveling
Hawaiian Language Specialist: Carol Silva, Hawai‘i
State Archives
Glossary of Hawaiian Words: Kepo‘omaikalani Park
Art Direction, Graphic Design & Layout: Honu Group
Communications, LLC; Elizabeth Chalkley Design
Consulting; Nomura Design
Mapping: Dennis Kim, Hawai‘i State Office of Planning
Photos: Bishop Museum Archives, Hawai‘i State Archives,
HCCC Coalition Partners
Administrative Assistance: Teresa Abenoja, Honu Group
Communications, LLC. Valuable guidance and resource
expertise provided by Helen Felsing, National Park
Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance
Program
Marketing Commitee: Frank Haas, University of Hawai‘i,
School of Travel Industry Management; Haunani
Hendrix, Pacific Destinations; Ryan Sweeny, Hawai‘i
Business; Gae Bergquist Trommald, Merrill Lynch; Tracie
Young, Department of Business Economic Development
& Tourism, Creative Industries Division; Bill Ha‘ole,
Enoa Tours and Trolley; Margie Ulveling, Hawai‘i Pacific
University; Charlie Aldinger, The Contemporary
Museum; Jackie Smythe, Smythe and Associates;
Veronica Yamagata, Cox Radio; Mona Abadir, Honu
Group Communications, LLC
National Heritage Area Bill S.359 Drafting and
Introduction: Office of Senator Daniel Inouye: Jennifer
Sabas, Chief of Staff; Kawe Mossman; Senator Daniel
Akaka
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition extends their aloha
to Hawai‘i’s congressional delegates for their support: 
Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka,
Representative Neil Abercrombie, & Representative
Mazie Hirono
CAPITAL
NATIONAL
HERITAGE
AREA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 6: Public Involvement Strategies 103
History of Public Involvement in
Executive Summary 5
HCCD Coalition
Governmental and Organizational Support
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
Community Forums
Study Purpose
Focus
Chapter 7: Management Alternatives 107
Description of Study Area
History of Management Plans for Area
Study Process
Special Planning Districts
Study Team
Other Recognized Special Areas and Initiatives
Steps to be Taken at Conclusion of Study
Management as a National Heritage Areae
Chapter 2: Application of Interim National
Chapter 8: Boundary Delineation
Heritage Area Criteria 19
Alternatives 119
Ten Interim Criteria
History of Study Area Boundaries
Application of the Criteria
Alternative Boundaries for the Proposed National
Conclusions
Heritage Area
Chapter 3: Study Area History and
Chapter 9: Proposed Management Entity 125
Contributions 29
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition as the
Honolulu’s Historical Significance
Management Entity
Significant Historic Buildings and Cultural
Organization History and Vision
Institutions
Organizational Structure
Significance of the Landscape and Climate
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Action Plan
Origins of the Name
History of National Heritage Area Initiative
Timeline of Significant Events in Honolulu
and Hawai‘i’s History
Chapter 10: Conceptual Financial Plan 132
The Recent Past
Resource Development Strategy
Five-Year Revenue Projection
Chapter 4: Themes 57
Identification of Themes
Chapter 11: Impact Assessment 137
Proposed National Heritage Area Themes
Geographical Setting
Relationship of Themes to National Park Service
Biotic Resources
Thematic Framework
Honolulu Overview
Relationship of Themes to Hawai‘i State Historic
History of Development of Honolulu
Preservation Plan
Existing Urban Character
Requirements of Impact Assessment
Chapter 5: Resource Inventories 65
Impact of Designation as a National
Identification of Resources
Heritage Area
Historic and Cultural Resources
Other Alternatives
Relationship of Historic and Cultural Resources to
Affected Environment
Identified Themes
Social and Economic Conditions
Outstanding Opportunities for Conservation
Impacts
and Interpretation
Other Alternatives: Outcomes and Impacts
Natural and Outdoor Resources
Recreational Resources
Works Cited 165
Culture, Traditions and Folklore
Heritage Education Resources
Appendices 167
Outstanding Opportunities for Conservation
of Natural, Recreational and Educational
Resources

4 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

EXEC UTIVE S U M M A RY
 Pali Lookout

wy
k eH
eli
Lik

NU`UANU
VALLEY
HONOLULU
AHUPUA`A

TANTALUS
Pali Hwy

`ÄLEWA MÄNOA
HEIGHTS
PACIFIC
HEIGHTS
KAPÄLAMA NU`UANU
AHUPUA`A
LILIHA PAUOA
PAPÄKOLEA
PÄLAMA
ve

MAKIKI
Pun aho
Nu`uanu Ave
aA
kil

Punchbowl
na

National
u St
La

H-1
Cemetary
Kalihi St

M
t
ea S

S t
tania
Ko k

Bere
Ka

CHINATOWN S
l

KAPÄLAMA
äk

ua
Pi`ik

IWILEI Capitol District A ve Ala Wai Bl

vd
oi St

DOWNTOWN

WAIKÏKÏ
Honolulu KAKA`AKO
Ala Wai
Harbor
Ala Moana Beach Harbor

Sand Island

Island

I
This map was produced by the Office of
of
Planning (OP) for planning purposes.
It should not be used for boundary inter-
Oahu
pretations or other spatial analysis beyond
the limitations of the data. Information 0 0.5 1
regarding compilation dates and accuracy of
the data presented can be obtained from OP.
Map Date: 02/04/09 Miles
Map No.: 20090204-01-DK
Sources:
Pana Oahu: Sacred Stones, Sacred Lands,
University of Hawaii Press. (Jan Becket & Hawai`i Capital National Heritage Area
Joseph Singer, 1999) Area of Detail

Source: Becket, Jan & Joseph Singer. 1999. Pana Oahu: Sacred Stones Sacred Lands. “Pre-Mahele Moku and Ahupua‘a,”
map prepared by Hawaiian Studies Institute, Kamehameha Schools, 1987.

6 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

E X E C UTIVE SUMMARY
The story of the proposed Hawai‘i Capital National
Heritage Area is a story unique in the American
experience. It is a story best told through an
extraordinary collection of ancient, cultural and historic
sites, vibrant neighborhoods and living traditions found
throughout the study area.
These sites collectively provide an outstanding
opportunity to tell the story of Honolulu, and indeed all
of Hawai‘i, from settlement by early Native Hawaiians,
to the uniting of the islands by King Kamehameha I,
and the evolution of the Hawaiian monarchy, followed
by European contact, then interaction with the United
States, and the expansion of U.S. power into the Pacific
and Asia in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is further the
story of the unique intermingling of numerous ethnic
groups and cultures that have come to make up the
population of the Hawaiian Islands today.
The cultural legacy of this place has been a source of
inspiration for civic, business and governance activities
for hundreds of years, evidenced today in an abundance
of civic groups, art institutions, business groups, and
government agencies that continue to operate within
and support the legacy of the area. Over the years, these
organizations have strived to preserve and promote this
heritage— a story that is bigger than any one of them.
In 2003, a broad partnership of these civic groups, arts
and cultural organizations, businesses, public agencies,
and community members came together to establish the
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition to collectively
preserve, nurture and celebrate this precious legacy. The
organization’s mission is to strengthen the rich heritage
and cultural assets in central Honolulu in order to
enhance the quality of life in the area and generate
economic development by fostering connections that
will: support and promote the area’s arts and cultural
institutions; educate about and preserve Hawai`i’s
heritage; enhance the visitor and resident experience of
the area; and encourage appropriate cultural and
heritage tourism. In keeping with this mission, the
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition and partners are
seeking to establish a federally designated National
Heritage Area.
National Heritage Areas
National Heritage Areas, as conceived by the U.S.
Department of the Interior National Park Service, allow
residents, government agencies, non-profit groups and
private partners to collaboratively plan and implement
H AWAI ‘ H
I C
AWAI
A PITAL
‘ I C APITAL
N ational
N ational
he ritage
programs and projects that recognize, preserve and
celebrate America's defining landscapes. Once National
Heritage Area designation is achieved, the National Park
Service and other federal agencies provide marketing,
technical assistance, and federal funding to support
preservation, educational, promotional, management
and other cultural and heritage activities.
The principal objective of this study has been to
research the feasibility and suitability of National
Heritage Area designation for central Honolulu and to
document the area’s cultural and heritage resources. This
has been a highly collaborative process, involving public
hearings, and the support of state and city agencies,
nonprofit and community organizations, educational
institutions, and business. This feasibility study
demonstrates that the proposed National Heritage Area
meets all ten of the National Park Service criteria for
evaluation of candidate areas, and that there is public
support for such a designation.
Proposed Boundaries
The boundaries proposed for the National Heritage Area
are the ancient boundaries of the ahupua‘a of Honolulu
and Kapālama, covering the beautiful valley of Nu‘uanu,
and adjacent areas and coastal plain, located in the
ancient and historic historic village of Kou, now the
City of Honolulu, on the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.
According to the mo‘olelo, the storytelling oral tradition
of Hawai‘i’s native people, Kānaka Maoli, this area has
been an important region for thousands of years. Its rich
cultural and natural history is written in the lands that
reach from the heights and mountain ridges of the
majestic Ko‘olau Mountains, to the welcoming seas of
the Pacific below.
An ahupua‘a is a division of land that customarily runs
from the mountains to the sea and are typically
described as wedge-shaped land divisions that are usually
delineated by mountain ridges, rivers, streams and other
natural features. More importantly, the ahupua‘a was a
production system that relied on a unique relationship
between its residents and its natural resources.
Sometimes referred to as “system of systems” the
ahupua‘a was as much a behavior management system as
it was one of resource management and relied on the
alignment of specific cultural values, behaviors and
protocols (or kapu). An ahupua‘a like the one
comprising Nu‘uanu Valley and adjacent areas, for
instance, would have provided its inhabitants with all
the basic resources necessary to live on an island
including building and construction materials, fresh
he ritage
are a s u
are
itabil
a s uit
itabil
y/ fe as
itIbil
y/ feit
asyIbil
s tuit
dyy s tu dy 7
 food and water. The residents of an ahupua‘a were Themes
usually related and part of an extended ‘ohana, family
Using the thematic structure recommended by the
working units. Each member had a unique kuleana,
National Park Service, three overarching themes were
responsibility or expertise, that was critical to the overall
developed for the National Heritage Area. Themes
success of the ahupua‘a. Some would gather fish, salt
provide a narrative framework to link the significant
and aquatic plants from the sea while others would farm
aspects of an area’s heritage resources and stories, and
the fertile wetlands and uplands where staples like taro
help to place the stories told by the National Heritage
and the sweet-potato were cultivated and harvested. The
Area within the larger context of the national story.
ahupua‘a’s high forests not only provided precious water
resources for irrigation and drinking, but also provided
THEME 1 — NATIVE HAWAIIANS’
wood for building structures and canoes, wild plants,
fibers and herbs for everything from work utensils and STRUGGLE FOR CULTURAL
tools, clothing and life saving medicines and remedies. PRESERVATION AND SELF
DETERMINATION.
Many residents of Hawai‘i today continue to value
ahupua‘a not only for its important natural and cultural This first theme tells the story of a Native Hawaiian
significance, but as a metaphor for sustainable living and culture that has persisted in the face of tremendous
as a model for modern land-use development and policy.
Because of the abundance of historic and cultural
history within Nu‘uanu Valley, its surrounding area, and
adjacent coastal plains, the concept of ahupua‘a proved
to be an appropriate organizing principle for the
proposed National Heritage Area. (The boundaries used
here were derived from a map prepared by the Hawaiian
Studies Institute, Kamehameha Schools, 1987 and
reproduced in Pana Oahu: Sacred Stones Sacred Lands.
“Pre-Mahele Moku and Ahupua‘a.” by Jan Becket &
Joseph Singer. 1999.)
Queen Hawaiians in western dress in front of traditional grass hut
Liliu‘okalani,
Sept 2, 1838 –
upheavals: the original peopling of these remote islands;
Nov. 11, 1917 decimation by disease; the overthrow of the monarchy,
annexation, and statehood; and also the emergence of a
Hawaiian cultural “renaissance” in the late 20th
Century.
THEME 2 — HAWAI‘I’S EXCEPTIONAL
EXPERIENCE IN MULTICULTURALISM
The second theme explores race relations in Hawai‘i, the
impacts of immigration and assimilation, and their
effect on our past and present cultural institutions.

Japanese women with children at immigration depot, ca. 1885

8 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

THEME 3 — HONOLULU’S ROLE AS A
LINK BET WEEN THE UNITED STATES,
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC.
The third theme explores the consequences of American
predominance in the Hawaiian Islands; it is the story of
the rise of commerce and modernization, and of the
growing strategic importance of Hawai‘i as the hub of
expanding American influence in the Pacific.
First settled by Native Hawaiians hundreds of years
before the Spanish, English and other European settlers
arrived in North America, the fishing village of Kou
would eventually become the bustling port city of
Honolulu and the capital of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i
and the future State of Hawai‘i. The site of the only
official state residence of royalty in the United States,
Honolulu has and continues to be a place in which
Native Hawaiian chiefs, a Constitutional Monarchy, a
Territorial Government and now a State legislature
convene to govern the affairs Hawai‘i and her people. As
the hub of America’s cultural, economic and military
expansion into the Pacific, Honolulu has become the
greatest demonstration of multiculturalism in the
country.
At the turn of the 19th Century, the great warrior chief
from Hawai‘i island, Kamehameha, landed thousands of
war canoes on O‘ahu’s south shore as he continued his
H AWAI ‘ H
I C
AWAI
A PITAL
‘ I C APITAL
N ational
N ational
he ritage
quest to unite the islands under one rule. Armed with
cannons and guns, Kamehameha’s modernized army
successfully drove O‘ahu’s retreating forces to the pali
(mountain cliffs), at the back of Nu‘uanu valley where
they either jumped or were pushed over its edge. The
defeat of O‘ahu’s army would signal the successful
consolidation of power within the Hawaiian Islands, and
mark the beginning of monumental changes in the
governance and future of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its
relationship with Western powers. In succeeding
decades, Honolulu would become the epicenter of an
unprecedented commingling of cultures. Sailing vessels
flying the flags of England, France, Spain, Russia and
the United States were all drawn to Honolulu’s deep-
water port and business opportunities. They brought
with them missionaries and adventurers, sandalwood
traders and whalers, technology and disease. Eventually
they would also exert tremendous pressure for change on
the island culture. The port’s growing international
popularity would lead to King Kamehameha relocating
his court and home to Honolulu to better monitor these
foreign influences. After his passing in 1819,
Kamehameha’s successors would also struggle to deal
with the rapidly changing cultural environment and
foreign influence. Eventually many of them would
succumb to western ways, first by employing foreigners
as advisors and later by adopting their values, customs
and practices. Perhaps the first and most significant
he ritage
are a s u
are
itabil
a s uit
itabil
y/ fe as
itIbil
y/ feit
asyIbil
s tuit
dyy s tu dy 9

change was a shift away from ancient spiritual (kapu)
system to that of Christianity. Hawaiian monarchs
would also go on to build homes and palaces informed
by European and North American architectural design,
and convert to western parliamentary governance and
land management practices, including the selling and
owning of land, a practice completely absent in the
Native Hawaiian world view. Hawaiian royalty traveled
the world, visiting fellow monarchs. They participated
in international trade and commerce and entered into
numerous treaties of agreement with other governments
and members of the international community. The rapid
change, however, would eventually overwhelm the
Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1893 Hawai‘i’s last reigning
monarch, Queen Liliu‘okalani, was deposed by western
land owners and business interests in a coup supported
by the presence of United States Marines.
The overthrow of the Queen effectively cleared the path
for what would become one, if not the most, influential
impact on the culture and destiny of Hawai‘i’s social-
economic future as well as its environment: the advent
of commercial agriculture. While western landowners
would experiment with cattle, cacao, vanilla and indigo,
it was their success in creating enormous sugar and
pineapple plantations that would transform and shape
the island culture of Hawai‘i the most. To provide the
manpower necessary to run a successful agricultural
industry, plantation owners sponsored the importation
Opposite above: Sugar cane plantation workers
Opposite below: Kalihi Valley with hale pili in foreground,
ca.1883-85
H AWAI
H AWAI
‘ I C‘AI PITAL
C A PITAL
N ational
N ational
he ritage
he ritage
Pali Cliffs
Overlook
of immigrant labor from Japan, China, the Philippines
and the far-flung islands of the Pacific. Hawai‘i’s
multicultural society is the product of the gradual
integration of these diverse peoples—a process of
conflict and accommodation, of ostracism and
assimilation, and eventually acceptance. The history of
the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a is preserved in
their architecture, social institutions and cultural and
ethnic diversity.
Today, visitors from around the world enjoy the beauty
of “the chilly heights” of Nu‘uanu. The valley is flanked
by steep mountain ridges and rugged walls furrowed and
carved by ancient waterfalls and thousands of years of
rain and wind. At the head of the valley, the famous Pali
Lookout offers panoramic views of windward O‘ahu.
The verdant valley floor was once home to expansive
fields of taro, sugarcane, and sweet potato which reached
far back into the valley. The upper reaches of the valley
have been reclaimed by the forest and designated
“conservation.” Most of the terraces and temples,
laboriously constructed by ancient Hawaiians, have been
enveloped by guava, banyan, and bamboo.
Once reserved for Hawai‘i’s highest ranking chiefs,
Nu‘uanu Valley’s beauty and cool climate served as the
perfect surroundings for Hawaiian royalty to erect their
residences. The ruins of Kaniakapupu, a retreat built by
King Kamehameha III in the 1840s, stand in a lonely
forest glade. Farther down the valley, Queen Emma’s
Summer Palace, another grand house from the 1840s,
has been preserved and is still open to the public.
areare
a su
a itabil
s u itabil
it y/it
fey/as
feIbil
as Ibil
it yit
s tu
y sdy
tu dy 11
The ma kai (or the coastal plains) region of the
proposed National Heritage Area, includes Honolulu’s
harbor and ports, central business district, and the
historic neighborhoods around them. Prominently
placed in the study area are the buildings that once
housed the Hawaiian Monarchy and the Hawaiian
Kindgom government including ‘Iolani Palace,
Washington Place, and Ali‘iolani Hale. The structures
and architecture represented by the Mission Houses
Museum, Kawaiaha‘o Church and St. Andrews
Cathedral are a reminder of the missionary influence on
Hawai‘i’s island culture. Other historic buildings in the
district represent the great commercial enterprises of
Honolulu’s pre- and post Territorial Period including the
Alexander and Baldwin, Dillingham Transportation and
Judd buildings.
The traditions, customs, beliefs of the Native Hawaiian
host culture as well as those that make up Hawai‘i’s
unique muti-cultural society are strongly evident
throughout the daily life of the study area. Languages
spoken in the area include Hawaiian, the state’s second
official language, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese,
Tagalog, Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, Samoan,
Marshallese and many other dialects. Ethnic foods,
vendors and restaurants also convey a strong sense of the
feeling and flavor of Hawai‘i as do many on-going
commercial activities such as lei selling, fish markets,
hula halau, art galleries, and even tattooing.
Celebrations and events also help keep alive Hawai‘i’s
many cultural traditions. These include the annual King
Kamehameha Day ceremony at the famous statue of
King Kamehameha I, a solemn commemoration of
Queen Lili‘uokalani’s overthrow and imprisonment held
on the steps of ‘Iolani Palace, as well as numerous ethnic
parades and street events such as the Chinese New Year
celebrations along River Street, the Bon Festival of
Japanese residents, Korean Boys and Girls Days and
many more.
These assets are all threads of Hawai‘i’s past that, when
woven together, beautifully tell the story of our unique
heritage.
Proposed Management Entity
The proposed management entity for the National
Heritage Area is the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition,
a non-profit association of public and private partners
that can facilitate the kind of strategic collaborations
and broad-based community involvement necessary for
an effective National Heritage Area.
Findings
This feasibility study has demonstrated that National
Heritage Area designation offers the best approach to
presenting an integrated and comprehensive story of the
outstanding heritage assets found within the Honolulu
and Kapālama ahupua‘a. Designation will improve
opportunities for the conservation and interpretation of
these resources. Economic and environmental
assessments concluded that a National Heritage Area
would have no detrimental side effects aside from
increased visitation, and would enhance economic
activity.
Designation of the Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage
Area will recognize and provide greater cohesiveness to
the outstanding historic, cultural, recreational,
educational and natural resources of the Honolulu and
Kapālama ahupua’a and provide a conceptual framework
for the preservation and interpretation of a distinctive
and important Hawaiian and American landscape.

12 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

C hapter 1 :
Int roduct i o n

Study Purpose,
Study Process, and Steps
to Be Undertaken at the
Conclusion of the Study
This project is an initiative of the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition (HCCC), a dynamic partnership of
arts and cultural organizations, businesses, public
agencies and community members who share a vision of
a vibrant central Honolulu characterized by Hawai‘i’s
unique and diverse heritage, cultures and arts.
THE HAWAI‘I CAPITAL CULTU R A L
COAL ITIO N’S MISSIO N IS TO: collaboratively plan and implement programs and
Preserve and promote the rich heritage of
Hawai‘i’s past and present by moving forward
with deep respect for the past, honoring and
perpetuating Native Hawaiian culture, recognizing
the contributions of other peoples and cultures,
preserving the area’s historical assets for future
generations, creating interpretive resources,
conducting educational programs and cultivating
understanding of and appreciation for our heritage
by residents and visitors alike.
Develop a vibrant live, work, play, and learn
community by addressing physical characteristics
such as transportation, parking, safety, open space,
walking pathways, lighting, signage and
information centers, and promoting new
recreational activities and a lively after-hours scene.
Generate economic growth by nurturing and
promoting the heritage area’s many cultural assets,
festivals and events; increasing interaction with the
visitor industry; promoting appropriate cultural
tourism; and conducting joint marketing.
14 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
S tudy Pur p ose
In keeping with this mission, the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition is seeking to establish a federally
designated National Heritage Area (NHA) in the heart
of Honolulu. National Heritage Areas, as conceived by
the National Park Service, allow residents, government
agencies, non-profit groups and private partners to
projects that recognize, preserve and celebrate America's
defining landscapes. Once National Heritage Area
designation is achieved, the National Park Service and
other federal agencies provide technical assistance,
marketing and promotions and federal funding to
support preservation, educational, promotional and
other activities. (Further description of the National
Heritage Areas program is provided in Appendix 1.)
A National Heritage Area is a place designated by
Congress where natural, cultural, historic and scenic
resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally
distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human
activity shaped by geography. These patterns make
National Heritage Areas representative of the national
experience through the physical features that remain
and the traditions that have evolved in them.
Continued use of National Heritage Areas by the
people whose traditions helped to shape the landscapes
enhances their significance.
The term nationally distinctive landscape…should be
understood to include places that are characterized by
unique cultures, nationally important events, and
historic demographic and economic trends and social
movements, among others. They are places that by
their resources and cultural values and the
contributions of people and events have had
substantial impact on the formation of the national
story. (National Park Service, National Heritage Area
Feasibility Study Guidelines, 2003.)
This report summarizes the results of a thorough study
of the suitability and feasibility of the creation of a
National Heritage Area in central Honolulu, O‘ahu,
Hawai‘i. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate
that the study area meets the National Park Service
interim criteria for National Heritage Area designation.
Study G UIDELI NES
A suitability/feasibility study is a key step in the
application process to become designated a National
Heritage Area. This study was conducted according to
guidelines created by the National Park Service
(provided in Appendix 20).
These guidelines establish the following steps for a
feasibility study: development as a central urban area for the kingdom,
Step 1 Defining the Study Area
Step 2 Public Involvement Strategy
Step 3 Determination of the Region’s
Contribution to the National Heritage
and Development of Potential Themes
Step 4 Natural and Cultural Resources
Inventories, Integrity Determinations,
and Affected Environment Data
Step 5 Management Alternatives and
Preliminary Assessment of Impacts
Step 6 Boundary Delineations
Step 7 Heritage Area Administration and
Financial Feasibility
Step 8 Evaluation of Public Support and
Commitments
the lower sections of the predominantly residential area C hapter 1
of Nu‘uanu and Kapālama Valleys, and the industrial
and residential areas of Kaka‘ako to the southeast of the
district core. The area represents a unique concentration
of Hawai‘i’s history, a story that is important to the
wider story of the United States and its relation to
Hawai‘i, Asia and the Pacific. This National Heritage
Area Feasibility Study attempts to take into account
these many overlapping stories of Honolulu’s
territory, and state of Hawai‘i.
During the course of this study it became evident that
the cultural, historic and natural resources that give
evidence of these stories extended beyond the
geographic boundaries of the original Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District.
As the study progressed, a general consensus among the
study team, coalition members, and others in the
community formed regarding the use of ahupua‘a as an
organizing principle for the proposed National Heritage
Area. An ahupua‘a is a traditional land division of
ancient Hawaiians, the ahupua‘a. Generally, an
ahupua‘a, extended from higher elevations down
Chinese
New Years
celebration,
Chinatown

Study Area
Initially, the boundaries of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District, as designated by the state of Hawai‘i in 2003,
were utilized for the study area. These boundaries were
the result of early meetings of the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition and were drawn to cover the striking
array of arts, cultural, and natural assets within the core
metropolitan area of historic Honolulu. The study area
boundaries and the decisions leading to these boundaries
are discussed at length later in this report.
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District covers 1,518.55
acres in central Honolulu, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. This area
includes the historic government or civic area at the
center of the district, the older commercial zone
adjacent to the government center, and Chinatown, an
area associated especially with Asian immigration to
Hawai‘i, located north and west of the downtown area.
The study area also includes historic mixed-use and
residential neighborhoods located to the north and west,

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 15

Historical
and
Cultural
Points of
Interest

through lower areas to the ocean. An ahupua‘a S TU DY P ROCES S

contained a full range of ecological zones, allowing its
inhabitants to use and enjoy the resources of what was
considered to be a complete, self-contained eco-system.
The concept of the ahupua‘a provides continuity for the
story of central Honolulu and the identified themes.
The study team, therefore, recommends using the
boundaries of the ahupua‘a of Honolulu and Kapālama
that encompass central Honolulu including Nu‘uanu
Valley, Kapālama, and adjacent coastal plain. Boundaries
identified in the “Pre-Mahele Moku and Ahupua‘a,”
map prepared by the Hawaiian Studies Institute,
Kamehameha Schools, 1987, as published in Pana
Oahu: Sacred Stones Sacred Lands, by Jan Becket &
Joseph Singer, 1999, were used for these purposes.
The study team utilized the theme structure identified
by the National Park Service to develop three
overarching themes for the heritage of the proposed
National Heritage Area: Theme 1) Native Hawaiians’
struggle for cultural preservation and self-determination;
Theme 2) Hawai‘i’s exceptional experience in
multiculturalism; and Theme 3) Honolulu’s role as a
link between the United States, Asia and the Pacific.
This study documents the cultural, natural, recreational,
and heritage education resources in the study area that
help tell these stories and assesses opportunities for
conservation, preservation and interpretation. The study
team also conducted a preliminary Environmental
Assessment and evaluated potential impacts on the study
area of establishing a National Heritage Area.

16 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy


Study team, left to right: Mona Abadir, Lulani Arquette, Bill Chapman, Lorraine Lunow-Luke, Karl Kim, and Peter Apo
The conclusions about the existing Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District and proposed National Heritage Area
are the result of numerous public meetings, input from
experts in Hawaiian culture and the history of Hawai‘i
and considerable archival and library research. Many
special interest groups were consulted as part of the
study process and their advice and concerns have been
incorporated into this proposal. Countless in-kind
resources and volunteer hours were contributed by
members of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition
and partners. Principal funding for this study was
provided by a grant from the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority.
Additional funding was donated by Honu Group Inc.;
Atherton Family Foundation; the Hawai‘i Department
of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism;
the Muriel Flanders Fund; Eight Inc.; Kamehameha
Schools; the Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the
Arts; the Alexander & Baldwin Foundation; Unlimited
Construction Services; Hard Rock Cafe Honolulu; Ko
Olina Station and Ko Olina Center; Ko Olina Resort
Association; and Princeville Center.
Study T eam
Work on this feasibility study began in February 2006;
however substantial groundwork beginning in 2003 had
been laid by the HCCC prior to the start of formal work
on the study. A study team of recognized experts in
particular aspects of the study was formed to assist with
research and drafting of the study. The team met regularly
from February to October 2006 to coordinate their
efforts. Study team members are:
Project Director: Mona Abadir, Board President, Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition/Honu Group Inc., Honu
Group Communications LLC
Project Manager/Public Involvement Process: Lorraine
Lunow-Luke, Coordinator, Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 17
C hapter 1
Study Author/Lead Researcher: Professor William R.
Chapman, D.Phil, Director, Historic Preservation
Program, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Environmental Assessment: Professor Karl Kim, Ph.D.,
Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Hawaiian History and Cultural Assets: Lulani Arquette,
Executive Director Native Hawaiian Hospitality
Association; Peter Apo, Peter Apo Company; David
Parker, historian and cultural consultant
Management Analysis and Conceptual Financial Plan:
Karen Masaki and David Plettner, Consultants, Cultural
+ Planning Group
Graduate Assistant/Historic Research: Geoffrey Mowrer,
graduate student in Preservation Studies, University of
Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Helen Felsing, of the National Park Service Rivers and
Trails Conservation Assistance Program and Ramsay
Taum, School of Travel Industry Management,
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa provided valuable
guidance and resource expertise. Ongoing years of
administrative assistance provided by Teresa Abenoja,
and tireless design work by Elizabeth Chalkley.
Additional information on the study team members’
qualifications and experience is provided in Appendix 3.
M ETH O DO LO GY
As a first step toward conceptualizing the area’s story,
Geoffrey Mowrer completed an overview of published
and unpublished materials. Mowrer collected map
images, copies of historic photographs and journal
articles on the history of Honolulu and Hawai‘i,
contributing to the broader story. Mowrer looked at
city directories of the 19th and early 20th centuries to
determine residences and employment. He also looked
Aala Park, Research took place between February and June 2006;
1898 writing began in July 2006. Professor William Chapman
is the principal author, with writing contributions from
other study team members.

S te p s to be Ta ken at the
Conclusion of the S tudy
Upon completion of the draft report, a thorough review
process was conducted. A panel of Hawaiian history
and cultural experts was convened by the Native
Hawaiian Hospitality Association. Reviewers were Peter
Apo, a cultural planning consultant and Native
at histories of Hawaiian music and performances and
Hawaiian Hospitality Association board member;
other areas where Hawaiian names were apt to recur.
Marilyn Reppun, former librarian for the Mission
Additional information on the native Hawaiian story
Houses Museum archives; and Davianna McGregor,
was provided by Peter Apo, a cultural planning
Ph.D., Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of
consultant, and former University of Hawai‘i student
Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Carol Silva, a Hawaiian language
Kevika McKenzie, who produced a report on native
educator, archivist, and cultural expert, edited for proper
Hawaiian sites and resources significant to the study
Hawaiian punctuation and spelling. After the findings
area. Ramsay Taum, with the University of Hawai‘i
of the panel were addressed, a second round of reviews
School of Travel Industry Management, Corrine Chun
was conducted. These Native Hawaiian reviewers were
Fujimoto, Executive Director for historic Washington
Lulani Arquette, Executive Director, Native Hawaiian
Place, and Bill Ha‘ole, a member of the HCCC Board
Hospitality Association; Bill Ha‘ole, Vice President,
of Directors, also provided insights into the Hawaiian
HCCC Board of Directors; Ramsay Taum, University of
story, and contributed to study team discussions
Hawai‘i School of Travel Industry Management; and
regarding study themes and boundaries.
Maile Meyer, Owner, Native Books/Na Mea Hawai‘i.
Environmental information was provided by the State
The document was also reviewed by members of the
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).
HCCC and key stakeholders, including Ed Korybski,
Helen Felsing of the National Park Service’s Rivers,
Executive Director, Honolulu Culture and Arts District;
Trails and Conservation Assistance Program also
Kiersten Faulkner, Executive Director, Historic Hawai‘i
provided information on open spaces, parks and other
Foundation, and by members of the Hawai‘i Capital
environmental features. The Department of Urban and
Cultural Coalition board of directors. Upon its
Regional Planning at the University of Hawai‘i, chaired
completion, the HCCC will widely distribute the report
by Professor Karl Kim, completed research on census
to the general public, members of the Hawai‘i State
and other socio-economic data for the area. Cheryl
Legislature, Office of the Governor, Office of the Mayor
Soon, former Director of the Honolulu City and
of Honolulu and City Council, and other government,
County Department of Planning and Permitting, and
business, and community representatives.
planning officer Patrick Seigurant provided valuable
information on zoning regulations and special districts The completed study will be submitted to the
within the study area. Washington, DC office of the National Park Service and
Hawai‘i’s Congressional delegates, Senator Daniel
Much of the information for the report derived from
Akaka, Senator Daniel Inouye, Congressman Neil
traditional library sources. These included the Hawai‘i
Abercrombie, and Congresswoman Mazie Hirono along
State Library and its Hawai‘i and Pacific collection as
with our request for legislation to be submitted to
well as general sources at the Hamilton Library at the
Congress designating the Honolulu and Kapālama
University of Hawai‘i. Special archival materials,
ahupua‘a as a National Heritage Area.
including city directories, maps and photographs, came
from the Hawai‘i State Archives and Bishop Museum.
University of Hawai‘i graduate student Sean McNamara
provided additional assistance on historic maps for the
study.

18 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

C hapter 2 :
Ap p l i c a t i o n o f In t e ri m
Cri teri a

Evaluate how the proposed

National Heritage Area
meets the National Park
Service’s ten interim
criteria for evaluation of
candidate areas. (NHA
Guidelines, p. 5)
Ten Interim Criteria
This study demonstrates that the proposed National
Heritage Area meets all ten of the National Park Service
interim criteria for evaluation of candidate areas.
The National Park Service interim criteria for the
evaluation of prospective National Heritage Areas are:
1. The area should have an assemblage of natural,
historic and/or cultural resources that represent
distinctive aspects of American heritage and are
worthy of recognition, conservation,
interpretation and continuing use. These
resources are such that they are best managed
through partnerships among public and private
entities and may comprise noncontiguous
resources and living communities.
2. The area should reflect traditions, customs,
beliefs and folklore that are a valuable part of
the national story.
3. The area should provide outstanding
opportunities to preserve natural, cultural,
historic and/or scenic features.
4. It should provide educational and recreational
opportunities.
5. The resources relating to specific themes
should retain a degree of integrity sufficient to
allow for interpretation of the themes.
6. Residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations,
and governmental entities should be involved
in the planning and should have had a part in
the conceptual financial plan and management
framework developed as part of the NHA
initiative.
7. The proposed management entity and
corresponding governmental agencies should
be willing to work in partnership.
8. The proposal is consistent with economic
activity in the area.
9. The conceptual boundary map is supported by
the public.
10. The proposed management entity is described
as part of the application process.
20 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
A p p lication of the I N T E R I M
Criteria
1. The area has an assemblage of natural, historic
and cultural resources that together represent
distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy
of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and
continuing use, and are best managed as such an
assemblage through partnerships among public
and private entities, and by combining diverse
and sometimes noncontiguous resources and
active communities.
The story of the proposed National Heritage Area is
unique in the American experience. It is a story best
told through an extraordinary collection of ancient,
cultural and historic sites, buildings and vibrant
neighborhoods found throughout the ahupua‘a of
Honolulu and Kapālama. These sites collectively
provide an outstanding opportunity to tell the story
of Honolulu, and indeed all of Hawai‘i, from
settlement by early Native Hawaiians, to the
uniting of the islands by King Kamehameha I, and
the evolution of the Hawaiian monarchy, followed
by European contact, then interaction with the
United States, and the expansion of U.S. power
into the Pacific and Asia in the 19th and 20th
centuries. The story continues with the unique
intermingling of numerous ethnic groups and
cultures that have come to make up the population
of the Hawaiian Islands today. Together these
resources tell a nationally distinctive and important
story reflected nowhere else in the United States.
The only independent kingdom to be annexed by
the United States, Hawai‘i, an island state located
about 2,500 miles from the continental U.S.
maintains Hawaiian traditions, place-names,
language and other practices that stem back to the
period of pre-Western contact. The story of Native
Hawaiians is in part similar to that of other native
peoples. Hawaiians were slowly divested of their
heritage and then brought within the economic and
political orbit of the U.S. In 1893 the last reigning
monarch was overthrown and the old Kingdom of
Hawai‘i became first a republic and then the
Territory of Hawai‘i. This status remained until
1959 when Hawai‘i became the 50th state in the
union. Many of the places associated with this
history still remain within central Honolulu. Earlier
sites are reflected in place-names and known
associations by Hawaiian people. The story of
usurpation and loss is very much a part of the
Hawaiian story and one conveyed strongly by the
proposed district.
Historic and cultural resources dating from Pre-
Contact period to the mid-to-late 20th century
range from the Mission Houses Museum on King
Street, dating to the early 1820s, through
significant buildings of the Monarchy Period, such
as Ali‘iolani Hale (1874), Kamehameha V Post
Office (1871) and ‘Iolani Palace (1882) to
outstanding examples of commercial and
institutional architecture of the late 19th and early
20th centuries. The Merchant Street area vividly tells
the story of Honolulu’s emergence as an important
commercial center in the early to mid-19th century;
Chinatown illustrates the impact of Asian and other
immigrants on urban Honolulu and Hawai‘i.
Native Hawaiian stories are conveyed through
important place-names and known and excavated
archaeological sites and through associations with
residential and commercial areas in the city during
later periods. The district also includes historic
churches and schools, many also listed on the
national register. At least 100 separate buildings
2. The area reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and
folklore that are a valuable part of the national
story.
C hapter 2
within the proposed area are listed individually on
the National Register of Historic Places. Another
approximately 500 buildings are listed as part of
historic districts or as parts of thematic listings.
These resources are subject to a variety of
management approaches, including city, state and
federal ownership, ownership and/or management
by nonprofit organizations and religious or other
organizations and properties in private ownership.
The resources are currently subject to variety of
planning restrictions and planning overlays, some
based on historic or scenic values, others devised for
other planning purposes. A public/private
partnership, as proposed for this National Heritage
Area, is the best means of coordinating these assets,
supporting their conservation, and facilitating
interpretation of these irreplaceable and important
national treasures.
The traditions, customs, and beliefs of the Native
Hawaiian host culture as well as those that make up
Hawai‘i’s unique muti-cultural society are strongly
evident throughout the daily life of the study area.

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 21

 Old and
modern
architecture
3. The area provides outstanding opportunities to
Languages spoken in the downtown Honolulu area
include Hawaiian, the state’s second official
language, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai,
Laotian, Cambodian, Samoan, and Marshallese and
many others. Ethnic foods, vendors and restaurants
also convey a strong sense of the feeling and flavor
of Hawai‘i as do many on-going commercial
activities such as lei selling, fish markets, hula
halau, art galleries, and even tattoo parlors (the
downtown features a museum of Pacific tattooing).
Celebrations and events also help keep alive
Honolulu’s many cultural traditions. These incude
the annual King Kamehameha Day ceremony at the
YWCA
22 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
famous statue of King Kamehameha I, a solemn
commemoration of Queen Lili‘uokalani’s overthrow
and imprisonment held on the steps of ‘Iolani
Palace, as well as numerous ethnic parades and
street events such as the Chinese New Year
celebrations along River Street, the Bon Festival of
Japanese residents, Korean Boys and Girls Days and
many more.
New traditions are developing in downtown
Honolulu that also celebrate Honolulu’s cultural
heritage. These include “First Fridays,” a celebration
of local artists, galleries and restaurants, concerts on
the lawn in front of the Hawai‘i State Art Museum,
and gallery viewings.
The Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a is a
uniquely multi-cultural environment with a wealth
of ethnic expressions and retains a strong sense of
original native Hawaiian cultural expressions. These
traditions are actively being preserved and passed to
the next generation.
conserve natural, cultural, historic and/or scenic
features.
The proposed National Heritage Area hosts an
outstanding collection of natural, cultural and
historic resources. These sites are overseen by a
variety of public and private entities, primarily
either state or non-profit organizations. They are
protected to some degree by state planning
regulations. However, most sites struggle to obtain
support to meet minimum conservation needs and
many are in need of significant support to ensure
they are adequately preserved into the future.
Establishment of a National Heritage Area can help
provide conceptual unity to the many historic,

cultural, scenic, recreational sites, and view planes
within the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a, bring
attention to their importance, and therefore offer
an opportunity to do comprehensive planning for
their conservation, and develop the kinds of public
private partnerships that will leverage resources to
obtain adequate support for and attention to their
preservation.
4. The area provides outstanding recreational and
educational opportunities.
The study area offers outstanding opportunities to
learn about Hawaiian history and culture, the
relationship of US to Asia/Pacific, and Hawai‘i’s
unique form of multi-culturalism.
Many of the cultural institutions in the area already
provide quality educational programming on
Hawai‘i’s history and cultures. These institutions
include: the Hawai‘i State Art Museum, located in
the historic United Armed Services YMCA, the
Honolulu Academy of Arts, built in 1929 and listed
Plant sale at Thomas Square
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 23
C hapter 2
in the national register, the spectacular ‘Iolani
Palace, built in 1882 and one of three palaces still
in the former Hawaiian kingdom, the State
Archives dating back to Hawai‘i’s Monarchy period,
Washington Place, the former home of Queen
Liliu‘okalani, Queen Emma’s Summer Palace,
Bishop Museum, the Judiciary History Center,
Mission Houses Museum, and the Hawai‘i
Children’s Museum.
Recreation is focused along the sparkling Pacific
Ocean with opportunities for boating, surfing,
swimming, paddling, whale watching, and other
water activities. The upper reaches of Nu‘unau
Valley are preservation lands, with opportunity for
hiking and sometimes hunting and fishing. The
area contains numerous parks and open spaces, and
gardens associated with individual buildings or
public spaces. These are presently enjoyed by
residents and especially by office workers downtown
during lunch and other breaks in the work day.
There is much potential to improve walking and
Kawaiaha‘o
Church
Chinatown
fruitstand
biking pathways and enhance shade and rest areas
to increase the enjoyment of the district’s natural
assets.
5. The resources important to the identified themes
retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting
interpretation.
The assets inventory identified an impressive
concentration of heritage resources almost all of
which are capable of supporting interpretation.
These sites collectively provide an outstanding
opportunity to tell the story of Honolulu, and
indeed all of Hawai‘i, from settlement by early
Native Hawaiians, to the uniting of the islands by
King Kamehameha I, and the evolution of the
Hawaiian monarchy, followed by European contact,
then interaction with the United States, and the
expansion of U.S. power into the Pacific and Asia
in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is further the
Japanese
festival
24 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
story of the unique intermingling of numerous
ethnic groups and cultures that have come to make
up the population of the Hawaiian Islands today.
Functionally, however, the stories and assets of the
Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a are not
experienced as a unified whole by either residents or
visitors. What is needed is further interpretation to
make the connections among the sites to tell the
overarching story of the area. National Heritage
Area designation would provide the overall context
to make the connections among these stories, and
assist individual sites to tell their own stories to a
larger audience, and link them to the national story.
Little remains of pre-contact shrines (heiau) or
residences, which have long since been replaced by
more modern buildings and streets. However, some
remains have been identified through archaeological
studies and other sites located near the study area,
especially in Nu‘uanu Valley and many sections and
sites in downtown Honolulu, could be identified to
better tell this story. The later Monarchy Period is
well represented in the present inventory of historic
sites. The Kamehameha V Post office (1871),
Ali‘iōlani Hale (1874) and ‘Iolani Palace (1882) as
well as the magnificent 1850s Washington Place,
the final home of Hawai‘i’s deposed Queen
Lili‘uokalani, all speak powerfully of the Hawaiian
story, as do the Kawaiaha‘o Church, Kanakapali‘o
Church and many other buildings dating prior to
1893. In addition, places where Hawaiians lived
and worked, including sections of Chinatown and
especially residential areas such as Kalihi and
Kaka‘ako, are strongly represented within the
proposed district. Sites associated with significant
events or with traditional stories and associations
are also prevalent within the proposed district.
The second theme, the shared story of Hawai‘i and
Honolulu as sites of a unique demonstration of
multiculturalism, is well represented throughout the
district by the historic Chinatown, as well as
commercial buildings lining Dillingham Avenue
outside the Chinatown District. Distinctive
buildings, such as Wo Fat’s Restaurant, tell the story
of Chinese efforts to “present” themselves to the
wider community. Chinatown in particular was
home to Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and more
recently Vietnamese and Laotian immigrants. It
continued as well to be a home to Native
Hawaiians, who maintained businesses, most
recognizably lei shops, along Maunakea and other
streets and especially contributed to the markets of
the area. Honolulu’s ethnic diversity is also found in
present-day cultural activities, including
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 25
celebrations of Chinese New Year, the annual C hapter 2
Japanese Bon Festival as well as in cultural
institutions such as Chinese society buildings.
Several exhibits and museums reinforce this story.
The American presence and the role of Honolulu as
an outward expression of America’s commercial,
political and military interests is also well
represented by the existing repertoire of buildings
and sites in the proposed district. This aspect of
Hawai‘i’s past and the islands’ relationship to the
mainland U.S. is demonstrated through resources
such as the Mission Houses Museum, historic
banks and other commercial buildings of the
Merchant Street Historic District and especially
through early 20th-century commercial buildings,
such as Alexander and Baldwin, Dillingham
Transportation and C. Brewer. “Americanization” is
also evident in the street layouts, civic and
institutions, such as the Hawai‘i State Library (a
product of the Andrew Carnegie Foundation) and
in prominent cultural and recreational venues such
as the historic Hawai‘i Theatre. Both the early
WWII
Military-
related
businesses on
Hotel St near
Richards St,
February-
March 1942
 Army-Navy YMCA and the Richards Street YWCA
convey a sense of the military presence in
Honolulu—both were popular places for
servicemen and women to stay—as do restaurants
and bars along Hotel Street. Consulates from
around the world, ethnic businesses, expressions of
traditional arts and folklife celebrations continue to
keep alive and educate visitors about Hawai‘i’s
diverse cultural heritage.
These assets are all threads of Hawai‘i’s past that,
when woven together, beautifully tell the story of
our unique heritage. Many of the sites already have
well-established interpretive programs to tell their
piece of the story.
6. Residents, business interests, nonprofit
organizations, and governments within the
proposed area are involved in the planning, have
developed a conceptual financial plan that
outlines the roles for all participants including
federal government, and have demonstrated
support for the designated area.
A wide range of businesses, cultural institutions,
governmental agencies and individuals have been
involved in the planning process from its inception.
Participants at different levels of the planning and
Left: City
Hall,
Honolulu
Hale
Right: Looking
towards Ala
Moana
Shopping
Center
26 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
View of downtown from the Capital grounds
organization of the Hawai‘i Capital National
Heritage Area have represented nearly 100 different
organizations and government agencies; more than
250 people have at some time volunteered to take
part in proceedings. The process has been well
covered in newspaper announcements,
informational packets and public forums. This
study has noted broad general support for
designation as a National Heritage Area, and for the
conceptual financial plan.
7. The proposed management entity and units of
government supporting the designation are
willing to commit to working in partnership to
develop the heritage area.
Since inception, important public-private
partnerships have been established that did not
previously exist. The governmental sector has been
a key player in the National Heritage Area proposal
process. Official governmental recognition of the
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District came in October
2, 2003 when the Governor Linda Lingle and then-
Mayor Jeremy Harris signed a joint resolution to
create and designate the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District. In May 2004 a resolution was passed by
the House of Representatives of the Hawai‘i
Legislature, further affirming the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District. Community forums and
discussions with members of the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition have identified broad support
for transitioning the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District into the Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage
Area.
All members of Hawai‘i’s congressional delegation
Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Representative
Abercrombie, and Representative Hirono have been
kept apprised of developments, and have lent
valuable advice and support throughout the process.
At the state level the Office of the Governor,
Department of Business and Economic
Development, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture
and the Arts commissioners and organizational
staff, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, Department of
Human Services, Hawai‘i Community
Development Authority, State Historic Office of
Preservation, Department of Accounting and
General Services, Hawai‘i State Tourism Liaison,
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 27
State Office of Planning, O‘ahu Visitors Bureau, C hapter 2
and members of the state legislature, have all
participated in Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District
coalition meetings at some point, and have been
consulted on matters relevant to their areas of
responsibility as appropriate. The Department of
Business, Economic Development and Tourism,
Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts,
and Hawai‘i Tourism Authority have also provided
financial support to the HCCC organization.
At the City & County level, governmental support
has come from the Office of the Mayor of
Honolulu, the Department of Planning and
Permitting, Department of Economic
Development, and the Arts and Culture Division.
Current Honolulu Mayor, Mufi Hannemann,
supports the HCCC with an appointed
representative to the HCCC board of directors.
8) The proposal is consistent with continued
economic activity in the area.
The environmental assessment concludes that
Outrigger
canoes along
Ala Wai canal
 Mililani
Street, between
Post Office
and Judiciary
Center

designation of a National Heritage Area will not 10. The management entity proposed to plan
have a negative economic impact on the area, and is and implement the project is described.
consistent with existing and planned economic
The proposed management entity for the National
activities. The proposed NHA will reinforce and
Heritage Area is the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
augment existing uses within the historic urban area
Coalition organization as described in Chapter 9.
of Honolulu.
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition is a broad
9. A conceptual boundary map is supported by the public-private partnership that can develop the kind
public. of strategic partnerships and community
involvement necessary for an effective National
The study area boundaries and use of the ahupua‘a
Heritage Area.
concept as an alternative were presented in state-
wide meetings, public forums and in the The proposed National Heritage Area provides an
publications and informational packets. These exciting opportunity to recognize and promote the
community discussions also recommended that unique historic, cultural, recreational, educational
other areas nearby to the study area should be tied and natural resources of central Honolulu, and
into its activities and programs. These especially indeed all Hawai‘i, and provide a conceptual
include recreational and cultural sites in the framework for the preservation and interpretation
Nu‘uanu Valley, which have been included in this of a distinctive and important Hawaiian and
report, as well sites in as the adjacent valley of American landscape.
Kapālama. Out of this discussion, a strong
consensus developed around use of the traditional
ahupua‘a concept for the National Heritage Area
boundaries. An advisory team of Hawaiian cultural
experts recommended that the ahupua‘a of
Honolulu and Kapālama would be appropriate
because they cover the original study area and the
additional assets that provide continuity to the
themes of the National Heritage Area.

28 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

C hapter 3 :
Study Are a Hi s t o r y
and C on t ri b u t i o n s

Assemble historical
information and
understand the
contributions of the study
area and its people and
events to the national story.
(NHA Guidelines, p. 9)
 PROPOS ED HERI TAGE AREA’ S
Historical Significance
The story of the proposed National Heritage Area is
representative of the story of Hawai‘i and Native
Hawaiians throughout the Hawaiian Islands – a story
that is unique in the American experience. It is the story
of early Hawaiian settlements, the uniting of the islands
by King Kamehameha I, and the evolution of the
Hawaiian monarchy, followed by European contact,
then interaction with the United States, and the
expansion of U.S. power into the Pacific and Asia in the
19th and 20th centuries. It is further the story of the
Lili‘uokalani at Washington Place. Photo by Severin, 1885-1890
unique intermingling of numerous ethnic groups and
cultures that have come to make up the population of
the Hawaiian Islands today. It is a story best told their architecture, social institutions and cultural and
through an extraordinary collection of ancient, cultural ethnic diversity.
and historic sites, buildings and vibrant neighborhoods
Native Hawaiian History
found throughout the ahupua‘a of Honolulu and
Kapālama. First settled by Native Hawaiians hundreds of years
before the Pilgrims arrived in North America, the
The focus area of this study lies within the beautiful
fishing village of Kou would eventually become the
ahupua‘a of Honolulu and adjacent ahupua‘a of
bustling port city of Honolulu and the future State of
Kapālama located in the ancient and historic district of
Hawai‘i. The site of the only official state residence of
Kona, now the city of Honolulu, on the island of
royalty in the United States, Honolulu has and
O‘ahu. According to the mo‘olelo, the storytelling oral
continues to be a place in which Native Hawaiian chiefs,
tradition of Hawai‘i’s native people, Kānaka Maoli,
a Constitutional Monarchy, a Territorial Government
central Honolulu has been an important region for
and now a State legislature convene to govern the affairs
thousands of years. Its rich cultural and natural history
of Hawai’i and her people. As the hub of America’s
is written in the lands that reach from the heights and
cultural, economic and military expansion into the
mountain ridges of the majestic Ko‘olau Mountains, to
Pacific, Hawai’i has become the greatest demonstration
the welcoming seas of the Pacific below. Each year,
of multiculturalism in the country.
millions of people are attracted to the famous scenic and
cultural sites of the ahupua‘a of Honolulu and Kapālama At the turn of the 19th Century, the great warrior chief
to experience and learn about this cultural and natural from Hawai‘i island, Kamehameha, landed thousands of
history. The history of these ahupua‘a is preserved in war canoes on O‘ahu’s south shore as he continued his
quest to unite the islands under one rule. Armed with
Robert Louis cannons and guns, Kamehameha’s modernized army
Stevenson and successfully drove O‘ahu’s retreating forces to the pali
King David (mountain cliffs), at the back of Nu’uanu valley where
Kalākaua they either jumped or were pushed over its edge. The
defeat of O‘ahu’s army would signal the successful
consolidation of power within the Hawaiian Islands,
and mark the beginning of monumental changes in the
governance and future of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its
relationship with Western powers.
In succeeding decades, Honolulu would become the
epicenter of an unprecedented commingling of cultures.
Sailing vessels flying the flags of England, France, Spain,
Russia and the United States were all drawn to
Honolulu’s deep-water port and business opportunities.
They brought with them missionaries and adventurers,

30 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

sandalwood traders and whalers, technology and disease.
Eventually they would also exert tremendous pressure
for change on the island culture. The port’s growing
international popularity would lead to King
Kamehameha relocating his court and home to
Honolulu to better monitor these foreign influences.
After his passing in 1918, Kamehameha’s successors
would also struggle to deal with the rapidly changing
cultural environment and foreign influence. Eventually
Diving boys on barge, Hawaiian Pineapple boxes in background,
1920-1930
many of them would succumb to western ways, first by
employing foreigners as advisors and later by adopting
their values, customs and practices. Perhaps the first and
most significant change was a shift away from the
ancient spiritual practices kapu system to that of
Christianity. They would also go on to build homes and
palaces informed by European and western architectural
design, and convert to western parliamentary governance
and land management practices including the selling
and owning of land, a practice completely absent in the
Native Hawaiian world view. They traveled the world,
Chinatown shopkeeper
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 31
visiting fellow monarchs. They participated in C hapter 3
international trade and commerce and entered into
numerous treaties of agreement with other governments
and members of the international community. This
rapid change however would eventually overwhelm the
Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1893 Hawai‘i’s last reigning
monarch, Queen Liliu‘okalani, was deposed by western
land owners and business interests in a coup supported
by the presence of United States Marines.
The Honolulu ahupua‘a is the final resting place for
countless native Hawaiians in both pre-contact and
historic times. The gravesites of native Hawaiian royalty,
are located both at Kawaiaha‘o Church and Mauna Ala,
the Royal Mausoleum in Nu‘uanu Valley.
Within Kapālama ahupua‘a are Bishop Museum and
Kamehameha Schools, legacies of Princess Bernice
Pauahi Bishop.
Other sites associated with beloved Hawaiian monarchs,
especially Queen Lili‘uokalani, Queen Kapi‘olani and
Queen Emma, are also distributed throughout the study
area and at nearby sites. These include The Queen’s
Hospital, Queen Emma’s Summer Palace, Washington
Place (the home of Queen Liliu‘okalani after being
deposed from power), as well as commemorative sites
such a the Muolaulani Site at the Lili‘uokalani
Children’s Center and the Queen Lili‘uokalani Gardens
near Waikahalulu Falls.
A spirit of aloha is also a heritage of the host Hawaiian
culture. Native Hawaiian pride and grace permeate
many aspects of human interaction in both Honolulu
and elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands. Native
Hawaiians have maintained and perpetuated their
cultural values and traditions, providing the foundation
for Hawai‘i’s unique sense of place.
Impact of Commercial Agriculture
The overthrow of the Queen effectively cleared the path
for what would become one, if not the most, influential
impact on the culture and destiny of Hawai‘i’s social-
economic future as well as its environment: the advent
of commercial agriculture. While western landowners
would experiment with cattle, cacao, vanilla, and indigo,
it was their success in creating enormous sugar and
pineapple plantations that would transform and shape
the island culture of Hawai‘i the most. To provide the
manpower necessary to run a successful agricultural
industry, plantation owners sponsored the importation
of immigrant labor from Japan, China, the Philippines,
and the far-flung islands of the Pacific. Hawai‘i’s multi-
Queen Liliu‘okalani King Kamehameha IV

Opposite above: Annexation Day at ‘Iolani Palace, August 12, 1898

Opposite below: Robert Louis Stevenson, Princess Liliu‘okalani, King
Kalākaua with others at party at Henry Poor’s residence, 1889
32 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
33 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
The Royal
Hawaiian
Hotel,
ca.1890

cultural society is the product of the gradual integration focused attention on Honolulu. Parts of the city,
of these diverse peoples—a process of conflict and including camp Catlin originally in the present port
accommodation, ostracism and assimilation. area, were given over to a military camp and other
related uses. Later the city became a focus of outlying
Central Honolulu became a hub of business-life and
larger installations, such as Pearl Harbor and Fort
entertainment for many of the new immigrants.
Shafter. Arriving by train and bus from bases around
Honolulu’s Chinatown was home to significant Japanese
O‘ahu, American soldiers and sailors frequented
and Filipino minorities. It was where many present-day
restaurants, movie theaters, bars, tattoo parlors and
upper and middleclass citizens of Hawai‘i can trace their
brothels of Honolulu. Members of the military were an
roots and the beginnings of family businesses.
important factor in the city’s social and commercial life
In the early 20th century downtown Honolulu was the by the 1920s and 1930s and an overwhelming presence
place where Hawai‘i’s residents met and interacted. during the war years of 1941-45.
Hawaiian craftsmen, musicians, and dockworkers,
Honolulu was the staging ground and administrative
Caucasian businessmen and their families, Japanese field
center for much that occurred during the Pacific war,
laborers, Chinese merchants, and Portuguese overseers
from grand strategic choices by Admiral Chester W.
and shopkeepers came to downtown to buy clothes and
Nimitz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt (who
food, visit the barber or dentist, eat at Wo Fat’s Chinese
visited during the war) to more local decisions on
restaurant or the Alexander Young Hotel’s roof-top
whether to intern the islands’ many Japanese residents or
garden (or a small saimin noodle shop in Chinatown) or
the maintenance of martial law and the issuance of
to see movies at the Hawaiian or Toyo Theaters. On
ration cards. Many soldiers and sailors who lost their
Sundays, they attended one of Honolulu’s many
lives in the Pacific War also found their final resting
churches. At other times they collected packages at the
place at the national military cemetery on Punchbowl,
Federal Post Office, conducted business at the Territorial
an extinct volcanic crater known to Native Hawaiians as
Courthouse and Police Station and listened and danced
a sacred site called Pūowaina.
to music at Honolulu’s famous hotels and clubs.
Honolulu Harbor became significant for U.S. military Honolulu Harbor was the initial focus of tourism in the
and the bridge to Asia and the Pacific. The United Hawaiian islands. From the 1860s on, when adventurous
States military, an increasingly significant element in journalists and travelers such as Mark Twain and Isabella
Hawai‘i after 1898 and the Spanish American War, also Bird, visited Hawai‘i, Honolulu was typically the first

34 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 C hapter 3

Mah Jong games
port of call. Aloha Tower, completed in 1926, became
the official symbol of Hawai‘i’s welcoming spirit and
the first site many tourists and returning residents
saw when approaching the harbor front. The 1874
Hawaiian Hotel, later named the Royal Hawaiian Hotel,
demonstrated the kingdom’s own commitment to
welcoming visitors to the islands.
Chinatown,
past and
present
physical and economic development standpoints. There
are many – increasingly historic – buildings from the
Post-statehood Era. Some of these are described below.
But here it is important to note that the city possesses
an important array of Modernistic, International Style,
“Brutalist” and what many now consider as more
sympathetic “Hawai‘i-style” buildings from the period

The Recent Past

There are many events in recent history that deserve to
be noted. The emphasis of this report has been on
historic cultural resources, outdoor spaces, educational
resources, cultural traditions and potential recreational
resources, but Hawai‘i is unique in many ways. For one,
the heritage of Native Hawaiians is not simply a thing
of the past but very much alive. Native Hawaiian values,
the growing interest in Hawaiian language, traditional
practices and worldview all have an impact on the
character of the proposed heritage area and Hawai‘i in
general. Many of the events associated with the
resurgence of interest in Native Hawaiian culture have
occurred in the historic core area of Honolulu; and these
have an important, though recent, historical dimension.
The same can be said about Hawai‘i’s many other ethnic
minorities: Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, and
now Thai, Laotian and Vietnamese, and the many
representatives of other Pacific islands among the
population (including Guam, Marshall Islands, Samoa
and Tonga). All have striking living cultures that still
resonate in the life of downtown Honolulu and
throughout the islands.
Central Honolulu, including the downtown business
district, the well manicured Civic Area, the increasingly
popular Chinatown Special District, the emerging
Kaka‘ako Waterfront, is a “work in progress” from

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 35

Hawai‘i State
Library
of the late 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and even into
the 1990s and the present.
Significant Historic SI TES
Central Honolulu hosts many of the Islands’ most
significant cultural institutions. The Honolulu Academy
of Arts, The Contemporary Museum, Hawai‘i Theatre
Centre, Hawai‘i State Archives, Hawai‘i State Art
Museum, and Hawai‘i State Library are all located in
the proposed Heritage Area. The same is true of many
other civic organizations and museums. The area
includes institutions as diverse as the Mission Houses
Museum, the Judiciary History Center, the Honolulu
Police Department’s Law Enforcement Museum, Foster
Botanical Garden and the Hawai‘i Children’s Discovery
Center. It includes significant museums which focus on
Hawai‘i’s as an independent kingdom, including ‘Iolani
Palace Museum and Washington Place, the former home
of Queen Lili‘uokalani and and past governors of
Hawaii. Many institutions significant to the area’s
history as a center of agro-industry in the late 19th and
Coronation
Pavilion
36 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
Hawai‘i State Art Museum
early 20th centuries are still represented by buildings and
sites within the proposed National Heritage Area,
including companies such as Alexander and Baldwin
and the Dillingham Transportation Corporation.
Although the original Hawaiian settlement of Kou and
associated religious sites, such as Pākākā Heiau, have
long been covered over, many Hawaiian places and
place-names still convey a sense of their earlier
importance. Adjacent to the study area are the remains
of several ancient heiau (temples), including the
associated temple site of Punchbowl (Pūowaina) that
forms a backdrop to the study area. The Nu‘uanu Valley
includes several heiau remains and cave sites as well as
the site of King Kamehameha I’s victory over the
Kingdom of O‘ahu at Nu‘uanu Pali in 1795.
Sites of the early to late 19th century include: the
Mission Houses Museum, Kawaiaha‘o Church, Our
Lady of Peace Cathedral and Thomas Square, the site of
the restoration of Hawaiian sovereignty after a brief
period of British occupation in 1843. Buildings
Alexander and Baldwin Building
 View towards Diamond Head
37 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
Royal Tomb &
Old Archives
representative of early trade include the Melcher’s
Building and the Bank of Bishop & Company.
Remaining buildings and sites associated with the
Monarchy Period include ‘Iolani Palace, the Coronation
Pavilion, ‘Iolani Barracks, the Pohukaina Tomb,
Ali‘iōlani Hale, Lunalilo Tomb, Washington Place, the
The Queen’s Medical Center, St. Andrews Cathedral,
and the Kamehameha V Post Office. Also associated
with the Monarchy Period is the Bishop Museum,
located at the northwest edge of the study area. Located
outside the study area in Nu‘uanu Valley are the Queen
Emma Summer Palace and the Royal Mausoleum.
Buildings of the Territorial Period (1898 – 1959)
include the Bishop Estate Building, the Judd Building,
the Stangenwald Building, the Yokohama Specie Bank,
the Dillingham Transportation Building, the Alexander
and Baldwin Building and the C. Brewer Building.
Other buildings suggestive of American influence in
Hawai‘i include the Irwin Block, the Kaka‘ako Pumping
Station, the Archives Building, the Hawai‘i State
Library, the Territorial Office Building, the Hawaiian
Electric Building, Aloha Tower, the former United
Armed Services YMCA (now No. 1 Capitol District)
which houses the Hawai‘i State Art Museum, the
Richards Street YWCA, the U.S. Post Office, Custom
House and Courthouse, the U.S. Immigration Station,
the Honolulu Hale, the Mission Memorial Building,
Hale ‘Auhau and the old Honolulu Police Station.
The “Immigrant Story” is represented by the Chinatown
38 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy
Honolulu Hale Stone Sculpture of Figures
Historic District, including many significant individual
structures. “Statehood Period” buildings and sites
include the Hawai‘i State Capitol Building, the First
United Methodist Church, the Pacific Club, the Board
of Water Supply Building and the Financial Plaza of the
Pacific.
S ignificance of the L andscape
and Climate
The proposed National Heritage Area includes a wealth
of outdoor resources, including public parks and
gardens, recreational areas, the coastline and streams,
and numerous trails and discovery areas located between
Punchbowl and Diamond Head, the Pali cliffs and the
Pacific Ocean. All of these contribute to the richness of
the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a and their
combined potential as a National Heritage Area.
Honolulu was an ideal home for Native Hawaiians and
for later immigrants to the area. The original location of
the present-day urban area was the sacred site of Kou, a
significant ritual area for the early Native Hawaiian
population, which had settled on the south coast of
O‘ahu by 1000 AD. Kou occupied the lowermost
portion of an ahupua‘a that stretched up into Nu‘uanu
Valley. Blessed with a deep and safe harbor, the ancient
site of Kou protected Hawaiian canoes and later
European and American ships from offshore squalls and
storms. The Nu‘uanu Steam provided a bountiful source
 C hapter 3

Nu‘uanu
Stream looking
towards
Punchbowl,
1860-1900

of fresh water. This supplied the Native Hawaiian Mookini [1989]; cf. Sterling and Summers 1993;
irrigation system of taro (kalo) lo‘i in pre-contact times Kamakau1992).
and later made Honolulu an important provisioning
One common idea is that “Honolulu” referred to an
port for foreign vessels. The climate also contributed to
area about two miles inland from what is generally
Honolulu’s appeal to outsiders in particular. British seal
considered the historic area of Honolulu today. This
hunters, American whalers and ships from other parts of
would place it around the area near Liliha and School
the world carrying trade goods all found Honolulu to be
Streets, near present-day Kalihi. Honolulu also is said to
a pleasant port of call and a welcome change from the
have been one of the high chiefs under the ali‘i nui
ardors of their homes and the northern Pacific.
Kakuhihewa and was awarded the small district for his
The topography of the city area also helped determine
loyalty (Becket and Singer 1999).
the residential and commercial patterns of the city as it
grew in the 19th and 20th centuries. Native Hawaiians All of these names may apply in some way, given the
favored the rich and well-watered valley of Nu‘uanu layered character of Hawaiian words and place names.
until the advent of Euro-American port development in Europeans writing in the early 19th century called the
the early 19th century. After that date Nu‘unau Valley harbor and settlement near it both “Honolulu” and
became the home of a diminishing number of Native “Honoruru,” reflecting the variation in Hawaiian
Hawaiian farmers and a tranquil retreat for Hawaiian pronunciation and ways in which the language was first
royalty (notably Queen Emma, whose father acquired a recorded. The artist Louis Choris labeled his 1822
country house in the area around 1850). Following the Dr.
precedent of Hawaiian royalty, European and American McGraw’s
residents began to build suburban houses along the old home on
pathway and road to the pali. Hotel Street,
ca. 1890
Origins of the Name
The name “Honolulu” itself has been subject to a wide
range of interpretations. The most common translation
is “fair haven” or “safe harbor;” although the derivation
of either phrase is not clear (Cf. Jones 1937; Judd 1936;
Bloom and Christensen 1969). Lorrin Andrews in his
Hawaiian dictionary of 1865 does not give a meaning to
the word. Amateur historian Bruce Cartwright wrote in
1938 “Honolulu is a modern name, not used in this
watercolor of the small village by the harbor as the “Port
locality until around 1800” (Cartwright 1938a:20).
d’Hanarourou” (Grant and Hymer 2000:54).
Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel L. Elbert and Esther T.
Mookini’s short list of place-names of Hawai‘i give the
meaning as a “protected bay” (Pukui, Elbert and

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 39

T IM ELIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai ‘i and Honolulu Events

ca. AD 700 1758 Birth of 1779 Captain

probable settlement Kamehameha I James Cook killed
in Hawai‘i by on Hawai‘i
Polynesians
ca. 1400 ca. 1600 1778 James 1783 Maui army
consolidation of probable beginnings Cook expedition invades O‘ahu
powers on O‘ahu of village of Kou reaches Kaua‘i
ca. 1000 ca. 1600 the ca. 1740 the ca. 1770 O‘ahu 1782 Battle of
settlement at site chief Kakuhihewa chief Kuali‘i ruler Peleioholani Moku‘ohai, Hawai‘i
of Honolulu unites O‘ahu reunites O‘ahu conquers Moloka‘i

ad 700- 1780s

50-11,000 BC 1565 St. 1733 1789 Articles

migration Augustine Georgia colony of Confederation
from Asia founded
2500 BC 1050 Cahokia 1607 1756 Seven
Agriculture Mound, Illinois Jamestown Years’ War begins
settlement
1492 Columbus 1776 Declaration
reaches Caribbean of Independence

Events in American History

40 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1795 Battle of
Nu‘uanu,
Kamehameha victory

1791 First Western 1794, Lady Washington, 1796 Kamehameha 1804 Russian ships visit
vessel built in Hawai‘i Jackall and Prince Le Boo abandons plan to Hawaiian Islands
conquer Kaua‘i
1793 John 1809
1791 Brigantine Kendrick’s Lady 1796 Don Kamehameha moves
Hope anchors off Washington enters Francisco Marin court to Honolulu
Waikīkī harbor begins residence
1791 Battle of 1793 Oliver 1796 William 1804 Kamehameha
Kepuwaha‘ula‘ula Holmes, first Broughton harbor moves court to Waikīkī
Western inhabitant survey
1793 Captain 1795 Isaac Davis 1803 First 1804 Ma‘ioku‘u
William Brown begins residence in horses on Hawai‘i epidemic, possibly
identifies harbor Honolulu plague or cholera

1790's - 1800's

1794 Whiskey Rebellion 1803 Louisiana Purchase

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 41

 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i and Honolulu Events

1812 Kamehameha 1819 Liholiho

returns to Kona
1816 Flag flies ascends to throne
at new fort

1812 Increase in ships 1816 King 1819 Death of

due to War of 1812 purchases Astor Kamehameha I
ship Forster
1816 Fort 1819 First sperm
completed by whale caught off
John Young Hawai‘i
1815 King purchases 1816 Lieutenant 1819 Regency of
ship Albatross Kotzebue visits Ka‘ahumanu and
Honolulu Kalanimoku
1810 Treaty with 1815 Russians begin 1816 Beginning 1817 Coffee 1818 Russian 1819 End of kapu
Kaumauli‘i uniting forts in Kaua‘i and of harbor fees plants introduced Captain Golovnin
Hawaiian Islands Honolulu visits Honolulu

1810's

Events in American History

42 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

1821 First 1821 Mosquitoes 1824 Death of
missionary frame introduced Liholiho and Queen
house erected Kamāmalu
1821 First 1821 Elisha 1825 Kauikeaouli
Kawaiaha‘o Loomis sets up ascends throne as
Church built first press Kamehameha III
1820 Protestant 1822 First 1825 Sugar 1827 First 1829 USS
missionaries arrive printed book introduced in laws of Vincennes, debt
Mānoa Valley kingdom passed collection

1820 First 1822 First 1823 Second 1825 King and 1826 USS 1827 French 1829 Boki and
whaling ships in Chinese merchant group of Protestant Queen’s remains Dolphin visits ship Comete chiefs sign
Honolulu harbor in Honolulu missionaries return to Honolulu Honolulu enters harbor agreement on debts
1822 Arrival of 1823 Liholiho, 1825 Richard 1826 USS 1827 First 1829 Indigo
reps. of London Kamāmalu go to Charlton appointed Peacock visits Roman seed introduced
Missionary Society Great Britain British consul Catholic priests

1820's

1823
Monroe
Doctrine

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 43

T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i and Honolulu Events

1839 Bill of Rights

adopted by Kingdom
of Hawai‘i

1839 Roman
Catholic Church
constructed
1832 Death of 1839 Hawaiian
Queen Ka‘ahumanu Bible printed

1832 First census 1833 Seamen’s 1836 Sandwich 1839 Chiefs Children’s
of Islands Bethel founded Island Gazette begins School begun by Cookes

1832 First whaling 1834 Lahaina 1837 Great 1839 Treaty with
ship outfitted in Luna begins first Awakening, revival France
kingdom newspaper of Christianity

1830's

1830 Indian
Removal Act

Events in American History

44 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

1840 First 1843 136 whaling
constitution adopted by ships in harbor
Kingdom of Hawai‘i
1843 Great Britain
claims protectorate
over Hawai‘i
1843 Admiral 1846 Land 1848 Royal
Thomas restores division known as Hawaiian Theater
sovereignty to Hawai‘i Mahele begins opens
1840 Cacao 1842 Kawaiaha‘o 1844 165 1846 Steamship 1848 Ka mahele
introduced stone church completed whaling ships Cormorant enters or land Division
in harbor harbor takes place
1840 The 1841 O‘ahu 1844 First 1847 1848 Restrictions
Polynesian begins College and Punahou export of Thespian, first on bawdy houses
publication School begun Hawaiian silk theater, opens

1840's

1848 Treaty of
1842 Taylor Doctrine Guadalupe
recognizes Hawai‘i’s
independence
1845 Annexation
of Texas

1845 Mexican
War begins

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 45

 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai ‘i and Honolulu Events

1850 Hawaiian 1855 Alexander 1859 Gas light

post office Liholiho ascends introduced
established to throne
1850 First fire 1856 Dredger 1859 Anglican
engine used begins operations Church begins
in harbor services
1850 Mormon 1852 Arrival 1854 Death of 1856 Hawaiian
missionaries begin of first Chinese Kamehameha III whaling fleet has
work laborers 13 vessels

1850 Act allows 1852 First 1853 Steamships 1854 Steam- 1855 Board 1858 Rice
aliens to acquire land ice imported provide interisland powered flour mill of Education production begins
service inaugurated
1850 Kuleana 1851 issues first 1853 Smallpox 1854 End of 1855 220 1858 Bishop
Act recognizing postage stamps epidemic American Board of whaling ships Bank Co. begins
Hawaiian land-use Protestant Missions in harbor

1850's

1850 Missouri
Compromise

Events in American History

46 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1866 Dowager
Queen Emma returns
from England
1868 First Japanese
contract workers

1860 Queen’s 1863 Lot Kamehameha 1864 New 1866 The Daily 1869 Lighthouse
Hospital begun ascends to throne Constitution Herald, first daily, built at harbor
begins
1862 Cotton 1863 Death of King 1866 Regular
introduced Liholiho, steamship service
Kamehameha IV from San Francisco

1860's

1862 Battle of 1865 Lee surrenders

Antietam

1860 Lincoln
becomes President

1864 Sherman
reaches Atlanta

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 47

 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai ‘i and Honolulu Events

1872
Hawaiian
Hotel opens
1872 Death of 1874 Death
Kamehameha V of Lunalilo

1874 David
Kalākaua elected
king

1870 Regular 1874 King 1875 Reciprocity 1876 Honolulu 1879 Cornerstone
service to Australia Kalākaua visits U.S. Act signed Library and Reading of ‘Iolani Palace lain
Room opens
1870 Royal 1873 William 1875 First 1876 Reciprocity 1879 First
Hawaiian Band Lunalilo export of rum Treaty goes into effect artesian well dug
begins becomes king

1870's

1876 Last
Sioux war

Events in American History

48 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1887 U.S.
Naval Station

1884 Pineapple 1887 Bishop

introduced School, later
Kamehameha School
1884 Silver 1887 Pu‘uloa 1889 O‘ahu
coinage comes (Pearl Harbor) Railway begins
into circulation ceded to U.S.
1883 Statue of 1887 Bayonet 1889 Interisland
Kamehameha Constitution cable laid
erected

1880 St. Louis 1881 King 1883 Kalākaua’s 1887 Kalākaua 1889 Robert Louis
College founded Kalākaua makes official coronation strategy to unite Stevenson visits
world trip Polynesia
1880 Bell 1881 Lunalilo 1883 YMCA 1885 Japanese 1886 Kalākaua 1888 1889
telephone Home started comes to Honolulu workers arrive (in large jubilee Electric lights Insurrection led by
system installed numbers, first in1868.) celebration introduced Robert Wilcox

1880's

H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 49

 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i and Honolulu Events

1899 Death of
Dowager Queen
Kapi‘olani

1895 Hawaiian 1895 Restoration 1899 Bubonic

Sugar Planters Movement defeated plague breaks out
Association started
1891 Queen 1895 Queen 1895 Asiatic 1899 Puerto
Lili‘uokalani imprisoned cholera breaks out Rican immigrants
accedes to throne

1891 Kalākaua 1895 Japanese 1895 Experiments 1898 Hawaiian

dies in San paper Nippu Jiji in rubber farming Islands annexed
Francisco started
1890 First 1893 1894 Passage 1895 Honolulu 1896 Honolulu 1898 Fort
automobile Overthrow of of Wilson Act High School Normal School McKinley started
monarchy founded begun

1890's

1896 McKinley 1898 Spanish

becomes President American war begins

1893 Columbian
Exposition

Events in American History

50 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1907 Outrigger
Canoe Club
founded

1900 1907 City and

Chinatown fire County of
Honolulu created
1909 Sacred
1900 Sanford 1903 Korean 1907 1908 Beginning Hearts Academy
Dole first Territorial immigrants Completion of of Pearl Harbor founded
Governor Fort Shafter

1900 Electric 1901 Hawai‘i 1907 Jack 1908 1909 Schofield

railway begun Pineapple London first Authorization of Barracks built
Company founded visits Hawai‘i U.S. Naval Station
1900 1901 Honolulu 1902 Pacific 1906 1907 College of 1909 Plantation
Organic Act Rapid Transit Co. cable completed Filipino Agriculture and worker strike
begun immigrants Mechanical Arts

1900'S

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 51

 TIM E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i an d Honolu lu Events

1910 Matson 1916 Hawai‘i 1917 Death of

Steamer begins Volcanoes National Queen Lili‘uokalani
regular service Park est.
1910 First air flight 1911 College of 1917 Construction of
from Moanalua Field Hawai‘i moves to Mānoa Fort Kamehameha

1910's

1917 U.S. 1918 Treaty of

enters WWI Versailles

Ev e n ts in Am eri can Hi story

52 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

1920 Sugar 1924 Sugar 1929 Passenger
workers strike workers strike service to Hilo

1920 University 1921 Hawaiian Homes 1927 First non-stop

of Hawai‘i begins Commission Act passed flight to San Francisco

1920'S

1920 Beginning 1929 Stock

of prohibition market crash

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 53

 TIM E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i an d Honolulu Events

1941 Pearl
Harbor attack

1937 Sugar Act 1947 Hawai‘i Statehood

Commission created

1935 Trans-Pacific 1937 Sugar 1942 442 nd

1947 Sugar Act
travel initiated workers strike Regiment formed

1930's - 1940's

1934 Jones- 1941 U.S. declares 1945 End of

Costigan Act war on Japan war with Japan

1932 Beginning
of New Deal

Ev e nts in Am eri can Hi story

54 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 1959 Statehood 1962 Daniel 1964 Under-seas 1966 Total
Inouye elected cable to Japan number of visitors
reaches 1 million
1952 1960 East- 1961 First 1963 John F. 1965 Hawai‘i-
Statehood bill West Center cable TV Kennedy visits based soldiers sent
proposed founded Hawai‘i to Vietnam

1950'S - 1960's

1963 Kennedy
assassinated

1960 Kennedy 1962 Cuban

becomes President Missile Crisis

1952 1961 Vietnam

Korean War War begins

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 55

 TIM E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i an d Honolu lu Events

CAPITAL
NATIONAL
HERITAGE
AREA

2009
Hawai‘i Capital
1987 John 2000  Native Hawaiian National Heritage Area
Waihee elected 1st Government Reorganization Bill Introduced
governor of Act (“Akaka Bill”) first
Hawaiian descent introduced in US Congress

1974 George 1993 US Congress 2007 Native Hawaiian

Ariyoshi becomes apologizes for Government Reorganization
1st Asian-American 1976 Voyage overthrow of Act of 2007 introduced in US
governor of the Hokulea Kingdom of Hawai‘i Congress

1970's - P r ese nt

2003 Iraq war 2008 Barack Obama,

begins Native son of Hawai‘i
2001 September 11, elected 44th President
Twin Towers attacked of the United States

Ev e n ts in Am eri can Hi story

Hawai ‘i Capital Cultural COALITION
1 0 0 1 B I s h o p St reet, S uit e 2 8 0 0
H o n o lulu, H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Ph o n e: ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 1 3 7 0
NATIONAL w eb : http : / / W W W. hawaiicapitalc u ltu r e.org
HERITAGE
AREA E m ail : H C C C in f o @ hawaiicapitalc u ltu r e.org
 C hapter 4 :
Themes
Pali Lookout

wy
k eH
eli
Lik
NU`UANU
VALLEY
HONOLULU
AHUPUA`A

Understanding the
contributions of the study
TANTALUS

Pali Hwy
area and its people to the
`ÄLEWA
HEIGHTS
PACIFIC
national heritage. HEIGHTS
KAPÄLAMA NU`UANU
AHUPUA`A
LILIHA PAUOA
PAPÄKOLEA
PÄLAMA

ve
MAKIKI

Pun aho
Nu`uanu Ave
aA
kil
na Punchbowl
National

u St
La

H-1
Cemetary
Kalihi St

t
ea S

t
n ia S
reta
Ko k

S Be

Ka
CHINATOWN

l
KAPÄLAMA

äk
Pi`ik
IWILEI Capitol District

oi St
DOWNTOWN

Honolulu KAKA`AKO
A
Harbor
Ala Moana Beach H

Sand Island

Island

I
This map was produced by the Office of
of
Planning (OP) for planning purposes.
It should not be used for boundary inter-
Oahu
pretations or other spatial analysis beyond
the limitations of the data. Information 0 0.
regarding compilation dates and accuracy of
the data presented can be obtained from OP.
Map Date: 02/04/09 Mil
Map No.: 20090204-01-DK
Sources:
Pana Oahu: Sacred Stones, Sacred Lands,
University of Hawaii Press. (Jan Becket & Hawai`i Capital N
Joseph Singer, 1999) Area of Detail
Themes are derived from analyses of the region’s
contributions to our national heritage. They represent the
broad stories that integrate the collection of individual
resources so that they may be viewed within the context of
the whole and serve as the organizing framework within
which interpretation of natural and cultural resources is
conducted. (NHA Guidelines, p. 10.)

Iden t ifi cati on of Themes

As National Park Service guidelines recognize, all of
a specific area’s stories cannot be told (NHA Feasibility
Study Guidelines, accessed 10/26/05). What is needed is
a strong narrative framework to provide clarity that will
link the significant aspects of the area’s history and
culture. At the same time this structure must be as
inclusive as possible, so as to not to neglect important
stories of both past and present residents.
The timeline history of Honolulu (in Chapter 3)
provides an overall narrative for the themes suggested
for the area’s interpretation. These stories touch upon
many of the significant events and processes involved in
Honolulu’s early, pre-contact existence, its early history
and later growth as a city. The narrative history also calls
attention to central institutions in Honolulu’s past,
especially the story of the Native Hawaiian people and
monarchy. It further highlights the importance of
Man returning from spearing expedition with he‘e (octopus), ca.
Honolulu Harbor for Hawai‘i’s growth, the development 1898-1914
of commercial life in Hawai‘i, and the rise of public
institutions to regulate change. This longer narrative also and statehood; and also the emergence of a
calls attention to the rich contributions of different Hawaiian cultural “renaissance” in the late 20th
ethnic groups, the significant role of both commerce Century.
and associations in aiding newcomers in their transition
This theme covers the early life of Native Hawaiians
to becoming Hawai‘i residents and citizens.
in the Honolulu ahupua‘a, Kapālama ahupua‘a, and
other places significant to Honolulu’s original
Prop ose d National He ritag e population. It also includes the story of the rise of
Area Themes the monarchy and the continuing significance of
The study team paid particular attention to the theme Honolulu to Native Hawaiians. It discusses political
structure identified by the National Park Service, and events important to the Native Hawaiian people,
proposed three overarching themes embedded in the including the colonization of Hawai‘i in the 19th
stories of the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a. These century, the eventual overthrow of the Hawaiian
themes also help to put the stories of these ahupua‘a monarchy and royal government in 1893, and
within the larger, national context. annexation of Hawai‘i by the U.S. in 1898. This
theme further discusses places significant for native
Hawaiians in the 20th century, native Hawaiian
Theme 1 — Native Hawaiians’ struggle for cultural
contributions to labor and the economy, and sacred
preservation and self determination.This first
sites and traditions of Native Hawaiians. It touches
theme tells the story of a Native Hawaiian culture upon the emergence of the Hawaiian “renaissance”
that has persisted in the face of tremendous in the late 20th century and the commitment of
upheavals: the original peopling of these remote Native Hawaiian people to having their own voices
islands; the overthrow of the monarchy, annexation, heard in the affairs of the Islands.

58 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Theme 2 — Hawai‘i’s exceptional experience in
multiculturalism.The second theme explores race
relations in Hawai‘i, the impacts of immigration
and assimilation, and their effect on our past and
present cultural institutions.
This theme examines Hawai‘i as a unique place
where people from the Americas, Europe, the
Pacific Islands, and Asia successfully intermingled.
It addresses the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a
(via Honolulu Harbor) as a point of entry for
immigrants from China, Japan, Okinawa and Korea
in the mid to late 19th century, followed more
recently by influxes of new residents from the
Philippines and other countries in Southeast Asia.
The theme further considers race relations in
Hawai‘i, the labor movement involving the
organization of both agricultural and dock workers
in the early 20th century. This was especially
dramatic in downtown Honolulu, at the heart of
the study area where many important early 20th
-century strikes and labor rallies involving
immigrant peoples occurred. Also significant were
the development of religious and social institutions
that answered to the needs of immigrant peoples.
Chinatown and the outlying proposed National
Heritage Area residential and mixed-use areas such
as Kauluwela, Liliha, Pālama and Kapālama all
provide vivid reminders of the lives and
contributions of immigrant populations to
Hawai‘i’s history. Additionally, the growth of ethnic
institutions and membership organizations,
including Chinese tongs, language schools,
nationally-inspired organizations such as the
Portuguese Society in Kaka‘ako, are also important
parts of this story. The theme further highlights
Japanese girl students at Honolulu
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 59
present-day festivals, cuisine and other cultural Chapter 4
attributes that give Hawai‘i and Honolulu their
distinctive character today.
Theme 3 — Honolulu as the link between the
United States, Asia and the Pacific. The third
theme explores the consequences of American
predominance in the Hawaiian Islands; it is the
story of the rise of commerce and modernization,
and of the growing strategic importance of Hawai‘i
as the hub of expanding American influence in the
Pacific.
This third theme surveys the history of the first
western contacts in Honolulu (and Hawai‘i), the
development of trade, and the increasing prevalence
of American traders and ships during the 19th
century. The story also includes important accounts
of industries and other economic activities, such as
the sandalwood trade, whaling and ships
chandleries. The story further describes the work of
the American Protestant missionaries and the
King Kalākaua,
Robert Louis
Stevenson and
others at
Kalākaua’s boat
house, 1889
influence of Christianity. Additional information is
provided on Hawai‘i’s importance as a hub of
commerce and trade in the Pacific Ocean, and the
Hawaiian Islands’ increasing strategic significance to
the United States as America’s ambitions and
economic interests began to extend into the Pacific
and Asia. This theme also addresses the industrial
history of Honolulu and Hawai‘i, including the
building of wharfs and docks, and the introduction
of the railway. The story of Hawai‘i’s 19th-century
development as a site of the sugar and pineapple
industries and the companies that were founded to
manage these agro-industries is also covered. The
theme further discusses the development of social,
cultural and educational institutions in Honolulu
Two girls in costume
6 0 at Korean Church,
HAWA 1939
I‘I CA PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
 Lion Dance, Chinatown

"Uncle Sam" and children of different races

61 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy representing the melting pot of Hawaii, ca. 1919
 during the early 20th century, the increasing
militarization of the territory for which Honolulu
was the leading city and capital, and the move
toward statehood in the mid 20th century.
Relation sh ip of The mes to
the National Park Se rvic e
The m ati c Framework
In developing these themes the study team considered
the special stories of Honolulu and Hawai‘i in relation
to the national context utilizing the “National Park
Service Framework for History and Prehistory,” prepared
by Barbara J. Little and published in revised form in
1996. This thematic framework identifies eight
overriding themes:
1. Peopling Places
2. Creating Social Institutions and Movements
3. Expressing Cultural Values
4. Shaping the Political Landscape
5. Developing the American Economy
6. Expanding Science and Technology
7. Transforming the Environment
8. Changing Role of the United States in the
World Community
The proposed National Heritage Area in Hawai‘i’s
capital of Honolulu has points of overlap with all of
these themes:
1. Peopling Places encompasses the original people
of Hawai‘i and subsequent migrations of people to
the Hawaiian Islands. Hawai‘i and Honolulu were
microcosms of the American story of Euro-
American conquest and usurpation of land. Hawai‘i
and its capital city also offer a unique lens for
understanding the patterns of immigration in the
United States, especially the story of Asian
immigrants, as well as peoples coming from other
Pacific islands, North and South America and Europe.
2. Creating Social Institutions and Movements
addresses the emergence of the Kingdom of
Hawai‘i, the development of the Monarchy in the
19th century, and subsequent forms of governance
under the Republic of Hawai‘i and later Territory
and State of Hawai‘i. This theme also includes the
62 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
introduction of the Christian religion to Hawai‘i,
the beginnings of the Hawai‘i labor movement, the
establishment of educational and other social
institutions, and the provision of means of social
welfare in the 20th century.
3. Expressing Cultural Values is central to the story
of Honolulu and Hawai‘i. The proposed heritage
area tells the story of Native Hawaiians who have
survived in the face of cultural and social change.
Also, Hawai‘i has been a unique home of
multiculturalism in the United States. The story of
central Honolulu illustrates this ability of peoples of
diverse backgrounds to live in changing
circumstances.
Cultural values are also expressed in the proposed
Heritage Area’s assemblage of arts organizations,
museums and performing arts venues that together
give the area its special flavor.
4. Shaping the Political Landscape is a key to
understanding the story of Hawai‘i and Honolulu
and the relation of Hawai‘i, through its capital city,
to the political terrain of the United States. Hawai‘i
has been unique among states in having once been
an independent kingdom and in still possessing
institutions and symbols of the monarchy that
continue to resonate with the people of Hawai‘i.
Hawai‘i held a distinctive political relationship with
the rest of the United States, serving as the
country’s historic window on the Pacific and Asia.
Hawai‘i stands out as well for the advancement of
ethnic minorities, the development of its distinctive
labor movement and the post World-War II
emergence of the Democratic Party as an agent of
social and economic change.
5. Developing the American Economy is a theme
that covers the rise of Hawai‘i’s unique form of
plantation agriculture. During this time period, a
series of treaties and agreements led to the
annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United
States. Sugar, pineapple, rice and coffee all had a
role in Hawai‘i’s economic development. Honolulu
served as the business center for this agricultural
economy and later for the tourism industry, both of
which had a huge impact on the islands’ economic
life.
6. Expanding Science and Technology has
probably the least obvious overlap with the
Honolulu story. But changes in technology are
certainly represented in Honolulu’s past and its Relationship of Them es Chapter 4
present collection of cultural and natural resources. to Hawa i ‘ i S tate H is to r i c
Most significant for Honolulu has been the city’s P r ese rvation P lan
association with large-scale agro-businesses, all of
which featured striking degrees of experimentation The themes and accompanying resources described in
and innovation directed by companies this study are consistent with those set out in the
headquartered in downtown Honolulu. Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Plan (HSHPP).
Completed in 1979, with subsequent revisions, the
7. Transforming the Environment is strongly Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Plan builds upon
relevant to Hawai‘i’s changing environmental earlier functional plans prepared by the State Historic
conditions and the utlization of natural resources. Preservation Office in its role as part of the national
Native Hawaiians had a profound respect for nature program (DLNR 1979, 1980). The HSHPP sets out
and developed a sophisticated system of stewardship historical themes based on the principal figures, historic
for the land and sea. Hawai‘i’s landscape events and historical processes in Hawai‘i’s history. The
subsequently experienced waves of different uses, stories presented in the HSHPP are more strictly
from the harvesting of sandalwood by both sequential and chronological in structure, including such
Hawaiians and westerners through the clearing of topics as archaeology, early contact, missionaries, sugar,
land for agricultural use to modern concerns for the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and so on. The proposed
environmental protection. Honolulu illustrates the themes for the proposed National Heritage Area collapse
growth of urban Hawai‘i and has demonstrated some of these stories within the broader categories set
efforts to preserve Hawai‘i’s rich environmental out in this chapter that relate more directly to the
qualities. This is illustrated particularly through the National Park Service’s national thematic framework.
maintenance of open spaces, parks and an extensive
botanical garden within the proposed National
Heritage Area boundaries.
8. Changing Role of the United States in the
World Community is a theme that intersects with
Hawai‘i’s unique status as an independent kingdom
that was ultimately annexed by the United States
through usurpation. As the United States’s strategic
foothold in the Pacific and its bridge to spheres of
influence in the Philippines and China, Hawai‘i
was profoundly affected by World War II. It was
the first American territory to be attacked during
the war and the closest part of America to be
threatened by a Japanese invasion. Hawai‘i
subsequently served as a staging area for later
military interventions in Asia, especially the
Vietnam War, and also as a point of contact for
diplomatic initiatives in the region. Hawai‘i is
unique in its international status, serving as a
meeting place between the United States and the
Pacific, and Asia. Hawai‘i has also provided a
unique model of racial harmony exemplifying
fairness, ethnic tolerance and social responsibility
that has had a profound impact on the present
multi-ethnic and multi-cultural makeup of the
United States.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 63

Classroom scene,
ca.1914

Ioane Ukeke
and Hula
Troupe, ca.1880

64 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

C h ap ter 5 :
Resource In ven t o ri es

Evaluation of cultural,
natural, recreational,
and heritage education
in study area.
Evaluate cultural, natural, recreational and heritage Ramsay Taum and Maile Meyer, all well-known
education resources in the study area, assess whether there Hawaiian cultural specialists and activists.
are resources important to the identified themes and if they
The inventory of natural resources, including open
retain integrity for interpretative purposes, and determine if
areas, parks, harbor resources, streams and near-shore
there are outstanding opportunities for conservation,
water features is drawn from a 2006 report titled “The
recreation and education. (NHA Guidelines, p. 11)
HCCD Outdoors” by Helen Felsing of the National
Iden t ifi cati on of Resou rces Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program. Her study included a review of numerous
As with any cultural resource study, this earlier planning studies completed by the Hawai‘i
investigation of Honolulu’s and Hawai‘i’s shared past— Department of Land and Natural Resources and the
and the cultural and natural resources resulting from City and County of Honolulu, by a review of existing
this past—has involved considerable reference to both National Register of Historic Places nominations and by
the known history and the resources themselves. Both additional fieldwork.
Honolulu and Hawai‘i are well documented in books,
articles and planning studies. The city’s significant
H is to r i c a n d C u lt u r al
resources are also well described in architectural studies
Res o u rces
and guidebooks aimed both at tourists and local people.
Natural resources are similarly covered in separate The study area contains a wide array of historic and
studies by the State of Hawai‘i, City and County of cultural sites that contribute to the story conveyed by
Honolulu, and the National Park Service. the proposed National Heritage Area. Many of these
have been recognized through National and Hawai‘i
The survey of cultural resources required for this report
State Register of Historic Places listings. Sites range
has combined both field and library work. Most of the
from the Merchant Street Historic District and
principal monuments, including buildings significant to
Chinatown Historic District to individual properties of
the political history of Honolulu and Hawai‘i (notably
note, such as ‘Iolani Palace and other buildings
‘Iolani Palace) as well as the few remaining houses (such
associated with Hawai‘i’s Monarchy and Territorial
as Washington Place) and many historic company
Periods. Parks and open-spaces, such as the Foster
headquarters and other commercial buildings, are well
Botanical Garden and Thomas Square have also been
documented in existing printed sources. The Hawai‘i
recognized by the National and State Register listings.
State Archives also contains an extensive list of historic
buildings and sites, compiled originally by noted historic The survey undertaken for this proposal consisted of a
preservationist Nancy Bannick. In addition the study compilation of known resources, both cultural or
was able to draw on several years of University of historic and natural. Because of the strong interpretative
Hawai‘i field schools in the study area. These included and recreational emphases of the NHA initiative, many
surveys of Chinatown and the Nu‘uanu Street area of the properties and sites considered are long-noted
completed in 1998 and 2005, respectively. features of the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a. These
examples have been augmented by descriptions of
Study team members reviewed existing published works,
walking tours, National Register of Historic Places
nominations and planning studies to compile a working
inventory of contributing historic and cultural sites.
Information on on-going cultural events and present day
practices was provided by Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition members, board of directors, and coordinator.
Native Hawaiian organizations and individuals
knowledgeable about Hawaiian culture were consulted
throughout this study. Research on Native Hawaiian
history and cultural inventory was lead by Peter Apo,
David Parker and the Native Hawaiian Hospitality
Association. Additional input on the study area’s history
and cultural inventory was provided by Lulani Arquette,
Marilyn Reppun, Davianna McGregor, Bill Ha‘ole,

66 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Land Use Map for Hawaii Capital Cultural District
designated National Register and locally-regulated
districts within the study area (or near the core urban
area) and especially of existing parks and recreational
areas, some of them historic, others more recent in
origin.
An ideal cultural resource inventory would be
undertaken in rigorously methodical way and would be
organized to reflect the stated themes for the area.
Because of the limited scope of this document it has not
been possible to categorize the existing sites and
properties in this way; this kind of methodical approach
will have to wait for a later point in the development of
the proposed heritage area. The guidelines for the initial
report furthermore emphasize the educational and
recreational potential of sites within the proposed area.
These include parks and especially museums, theaters
and other cultural venues, all of which add to the
richness of the area.
For purposes of organization, clarification and future
documentation and listing (as well as protective
measures) a future inventory of historic and cultural
resources will be required. Much of the information
necessary for such a survey and inventory is in place;
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 67
Chapter 5
and many historic and cultural resources have been
identified in state lists or though University of Hawai‘i
and Hawai‘i Pacific University survey projects. There is
also much information collected and available on
“cultural meanings” and “associations” in the study area
and surroundings. These apply especially to Native
Hawaiian understandings and interpretations of places
and sites, as well as often subtle nuances of values and
beliefs attached both to specific places and to weather
patterns, microclimates, qualities of light and other
aspects of traditional culture and Native Hawaiian
beliefs in the Hawaiian Islands.
In addition to the further compilation of existing data,
additional field surveys of the many residential and
mixed-use areas within the proposed NHA will also be
required. This will include individual evaluations of
houses and small businesses in Pālama, Liliha, Kaka‘ako
and especially Kalihi, all of which have many remaining
examples of modest frame houses, buildings housing
manufacturing and repair shops and simple concrete
block and frame shops and mixed-use buildings.
Additional survey work focusing on other features of the
area, such as streams, culverts, water channels, walls,
pathways, streets and other natural and man-made
features will also be required. Finally, a survey involving
Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups to better
identify places of exceptional cultural meaning and
association will also be necessary as the NHA matures.
All of this work will further enhance the value of the
urban area and create new opportunities for education,
conservation and resource enhancement.
The proposed, more complete inventory will require
linking properties and sites, as well as intangible
resources, directly to the themes outlined in this study.
It would follow the guidance issued by the National
Register program for the documentation and listing of
historic and cultural resources according to “theme” or
“context”- based approach to survey and registration
(U.S. National Park Service, n.d. National Register
Bulletin 16A). Such an approach will allow for the
identification of “associated properties and property
types” and will also provide a basis for identifying
“baselines” for the assessment of integrity (the retention
of historic or cultural value) of specific categories of
resource. An outline of potential organizational
categories for this more complete inventory is provided
in Appendix 4.
Sign ifi cant Resou rces
For purposes of this proposal, well-recognized sites and
buildings can be organized into broad thematic groups
in order to provide a better idea of the range of
resources already identified. These groups overlap with
the themes suggested in Chapter 3 of this study, but
provide more specific detail on individual sites. The
thematic groupings are based on long-standing divisions
of Hawai‘i’s social, political and economic history.
Pre-Contact Period: pre-1778
Extant sites associated with the Pre-Contact Period lie
mostly outside the study area. The original Hawaiian
settlement of Kou and associated religious sites such as
Pākākā Heiau, have long been covered over by landfill,
streets, buildings and other developments. However,
many Hawaiian places still convey a sense of earlier
significance through the continued use of original place
names for neighborhoods and streets. These important
place names also appear in Hawaiian stories, chants and
songs, where they continue to resonate with meaning.
Specific sites include the archaeological remains of
fishponds, no longer visible but still part of the
historical and archaeological record, to the north of the
68 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Nu‘uanu Stream inlet. These date to probably ca. 1500
AD, or to about 500 years following the settlement of
the village of Kou, with no doubt earlier examples as
well. The waterfront includes stones from the early 19th
century fort at Honolulu, which itself incorporated
materials from the Pākākā Heiau at the harbor’s edge.
Other archaeological sites have been unearthed in the
course of cultural resource surveys. Artifacts and reports
from these studies may best be interpreted in the
context of a museum focused on Native Hawaiians and
their life and contributions. Places with traditional
associations can best be brought to life through walking
tours and other media.
Nu‘uanu Avenue, ca. 1869
Adjacent to the study area are both historic and
prehistoric sites associated with Native Hawaiians and
their later history. These include the remains of several
ancient heiau (temples), including the associated temple
site of Punchbowl (Pūowaina) that forms a backdrop to
the study area. The Nu‘uanu Valley includes several
heiau remains and cave sites as well as the site of King
Kamehameha I’s victory over the Kingdom of O‘ahu at
Nu‘uanu Pali in 1795. Sections of the Nu‘uanu Valley
also reveal terracing and house sites of Hawaiian farmers
of the prehistoric and historic times. All of these could
become part of a broader interpretive plan for the
National Heritage Area.
Period of Early Western Contact: ca.1800-ca.1850
Honolulu became an important place of Western
influence beginning in the late 1790s. By the early
1800s the economic center of gravity had shifted to the
port town from earlier Hawaiian capitals on the island
of Hawai‘i and Maui. In 1820 American influence
began to take precedence over that of other Western
powers. This was most evident with the arrival of
Protestant missionaries from New England.
 Chapter 5

Mission Houses Museum
By mid-century, missionaries had been supplanted by
merchants and traders, who began to make their own
impression on the city of Honolulu. The port of
Honolulu was also an important stopping and
provisioning point for European and American ships.
These included vessels involved in the fur trade and
whaling industry and those associated in the early part
of the 19th century with the export of sandalwood from
the Hawaiian Islands. A number of buildings and sites
associated with this important period of Westernization
and growth remain to tell this story.
Key sites of the early to late 19th century include: the
Mission Houses Museum, comprised of several buildings
from the mission period, including the original 1821
frame residence; Kawaiaha‘o Church, significant as well
to the story of the Hawaiian monarchy; the Mission
Cemetery, begun in 1830; Our Lady of Peace Cathedral,
the first Roman Catholic church in Honolulu, built in
1843; and Thomas Square, the site of the return of the
Hawaiian Islands to Hawaiian sovereignty after a brief
period of British occupation in 1843. The emergence of
the merchant class is well represented by Melcher’s
Building, built in 1853 and one of the oldest buildings
in downtown Honolulu, and the Bank of Bishop &
Company Building, also located on Merchant Street in
the downtown area.
‘Iolani Palace
are known and may still be interpreted through
publications, walking tours and other means.
Most of the primary sites of the Monarchy Period date
from the mid-to-late 19th century. Principal among these
are the ‘Iolani Palace, built in 1882, replacing an earlier
palace on the site; the Coronation Pavilion, constructed
by King David Kalākaua in 1883 and repaired and
remodeled in the 20th century; the ‘Iolani Barracks,
predating the ‘Iolani Palace by 12 years and moved to
the present site on the palace grounds after 1965; the
Pohukaina Tomb, an early 19th century royal grave site
on the grounds of ‘Iolani Palace; the Ali‘iōlani Hale,
originally built in 1874 to serve as a palace and later
converted to use as a governmental building and
courthouse; Kawaiaha‘o Church, designed by missionary
Hiram Bingham in the 1830s and completed in 1843
and serving as the principal church for Hawaiian
monarchs in the early 19th century; Lunalilo Tomb, on
the grounds of the Kawaiaha‘o Church and the resting
place of King William Lunalilo, first elected king of the
monarchy; Washington Place, built in1846 and the last
residence of Queen Lili‘uokalani and subsequently home
to Hawai‘i’s governors; the The Queen’s Medical Center,
founded in 1860 by Kamehameha IV and named after
Washington
Place

The Monarchy Period: 1809-1893

The Hawaiian kingdom was unified in 1795 by King
Kamehameha I. The early port town of Kou became the
capital of the kingdom in 1809, when Kamehameha I
moved his court from Waikīkī to Honolulu. The
remains of the earliest part of the Monarchy Period are
archaeological in character, having been overlaid by later
development. However, locations of many of these sites

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 69

 his wife, Queen Emma; St. Andrews Cathedral, built
beginning in 1867 and representing the shift of
Hawaiian monarchs away from the teachings of
Congregational missionaries earlier in the century; and
the Kamehameha V Post Office, built in 1871, one of
the first concrete buildings in the Pacific.
Also associated with the Monarchy Period is the Bishop
Museum, located at the northwest edge of the study area
within the Kapālama ahupua‘a. Built beginning in 1889,
the museum was originally the center of the
Kamehameha Schools and stands as a memorial to
Princess Pauahi Bishop, the last heir to the Kamehameha
line. Alexander and Baldwin Building

Further up Nu‘uanu Valley are several other significant

properties associated with the Monarchy Period. These
include the Queen Emma Summer Palace, built in
1848, and the Royal Mausoleum, built in 1867 to house
the remains of Hawai‘i’s kings and queens.
Honolulu
Hale
Territorial Period: 1898-1959
During the period following the overthrow of the
monarchy in 1893 and subsequent annexation of
Hawai‘i by the United States, Honolulu became an
important center for commerce and transportation, and
a major way-station for America’s growing military
influence in the Pacific and Asia. Bishop Street in
particular became a showcase of well designed and
imposing commercial buildings, many representing the
principal traders and merchant houses of the early to
mid-20th century.
Many distinctive buildings remain, all replete with
Hawai‘i’s unique history. Bishop Estate Building, built
in 1896, was designed by Clinton Briggs Ripley and one
of his partners at the time, Charles William Dickey, a
prolific architect working in California and Hawai‘i.
Dickey came to be considered one of Hawai‘i’s leading
designers and one of the first preservation architects in
the islands. At least 12 of his buildings are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. The Judd Building,
designed by Minnesota architect Oliver W. Traphagen,
boasted the city’s first passenger elevator when it opened
in 1898. For years the Judd served as headquarters for
both Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and the Bank of
Hawai‘i. The 1901 Stangenwald Building, at six-stories
Hawai‘i’s first skyscraper, was part of a construction
boom following the devastating Chinatown fire of 1900.
Another Dickey design, it dominated the Honolulu
skyline for more than 60 years. Yokohama Specie Bank
was built in 1909 at the behest of the Imperial Japanese
government, the first Japanese bank to successfully stay
in business in Hawai‘i. Architect Harry Livingston Kerr,
was also responsible for numerous downtown buildings.
The 1929 Dillingham Transportation Building, a
striking example of Art Deco design, anchored the
waterfront end of the business district close to the
docks. The Alexander and Baldwin Building, built in
the same year and designed by two significant regional
architects, C.W. Dickey and mainland transplant Hart
Wood, was a modern melange of Asian and European
Dillingham Transportation Building at Queen St (left) and
Bishop St., 1930

70 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

architecture. The building continues to achieve its goal Chapter 5
of artistic timelessness to this day. The 1930 C. Brewer
Building by Hardie Phillip of the New York firm of
Mayer, Murray and Phillip, has the comfortable feel of
island living, with lights the shape of sugar cubes to
reflect the company’s core business at the time—sugar.
U.S. architects who came to territorial Hawai‘i in the
early days were determined to explore styles inspired by
the culture and climate of the islands. The American
presence is well illustrated by a number of significant
additions to the city. The Irwin Block, built by sugar
tycoon William G. Irwin in 1897, was later and another
early Ripley and Dickey collaboration, named the
Nippu Jiji Building, when it became home to the
popular Japanese language newspaper, Nippu Jiji in
1923. The historic Kaka‘ako Pumping Station (1900,
known also as the Ala Moana Pump Station) was the
state’s first waste disposal facility. Its steam-powered
pumps carried wastewater 1,200 feet out to sea for 55 Hawaiian
years until a replacement was built nearby. The Hawai‘i Electric
Building
State Archives Building (1906) designed by Oliver
Traphagen was the first building in the United States Mediterranean architecture dominated the building
designed to hold public records. The fire-proof structure boom of downtown public buildings in the 1920s and
was conceived as a safe repository for Hawai‘i’s collective early1930s: the U.S. Post Office, Custom House and
memories—the monarchy and territorial records that Courthouse (1922); the Hawaiian Electric Building
preceded annexation by the U.S. The Mediterranean (1927) by New York architects York & Sawyer; the
style Hawai‘i State Library (1913) was funded in part by former United Armed Services YMCA, now No. 1
industrialist Andrew Carnegie and designed by his Capitol District, and the Richards Street YWCA (1927)
brother-in-law Henry D. Whitfield. The Territorial designed by noted California architect Julia Morgan.
Office Building (1926) is still the stately home of U.S. Morgan’s extensive portfolio included William Randolf
government workers. A beautiful architectural feature Hearst’s castle at San Simeon. Together with locally
crowning the two-story lobby of this building is the prominent landscaper Catherine Jones Richards, they
stained-glass dome depicting the Coat of Arms of the created the first structure of note in Hawai‘i designed
Territory of Hawai‘i. Additional significant buildings wholly by women. Of the many YWCA buildings that
include McKinley High School (1923), the Kaka‘ako Morgan designed, the Honolulu Y was one of her
Fire Station (1929) and the Neoclassical Revival-style favorites—and is one of the few still used for its original
News Building (1929). purpose.

Post Office and Federal Building, 1925 YWCA

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 71

Aloha Tower
The 10-story Aloha Tower (1926) by architect Arthur
Reynolds is one of the premier landmarks of Hawai‘i, a
beacon to visitors and immigrants alike for more than a
century. Other landmarks include: the U.S.
Immigration Station (1931), where east meets west;
Honolulu Hale, or City Hall (1929), another
Mediterranean style C.W Dickey/Hart Wood
collaboration; Mission Memorial Building (1915) built
in sturdy red brick Georgian style as a missionary
landmark, now the Honolulu Hale Annex; Hale ‘Auhau
(1939), now the State Attorney General’s office; and the
old Honolulu Police Station (1931), a lavish, rococo
building that boasted marble from France, doors of
Hawai‘i State Art Museum
72 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Hawai‘i Theater Center
Philippine mahogany and sandstone from Wai‘anae for
the fabrication of walls.
Arts and culture were well represented in the early 20th
century. The Hawai‘i Theatre (1922) was one of the
most modern theaters in America when it opened. It
could accommodate both live vaudeville and the new
medium of film. The stately Hawai‘i State Art Museum
was once the site of the original Royal Hawaiian Hotel
until it relocated to Waikīkī. The old wooden structure
was redesigned in 1928 by Lincoln Rogers as the Army
Navy YMCA and underwent several more reincarnations
before becoming the home of Hawai‘i’s first state-owned
museum in 2002. The Honolulu Academy of Arts
(1929) is the heart of the city’s ever-changing and
evolving crossroads of culture and art. Over time it has
grown to be the state's leading arts institution, dedicated
to the collection, preservation, interpretation, and
teaching of the visual and performing arts.
Wo Fat Restaurant, Chinatown
The “other side” of Honolulu, especially the story of Chapter 5
Hawai‘i’s many immigrants from the Pacific Islands and
Asia, is well represented by the Chinatown Historic
District, a 13-block concentration of historic buildings,
most dating to the period after 1900 when a fire cleared
much of the site. The neighborhood was designated a
Preserve America community in 2006. Significant
individual structures include the Wing Wo Tai & Co.
Building (1916); the Royal Saloon and T.R. Foster
Buildings (1890); O‘ahu Market (1900), where fresh
meats, vegetables and Asian delicacies are still sold
today; the Winston and Armstrong Building (1905); the
Jos.P Mendonca (1901) and McCandless Buildings
(1910); Izumo Taishakyo Mission (1923), built by
Foster Garden
Japanese immigrants—architect Hego Fuchino and
master carpenter Ichisaburo Takata; the Minatoya Café Sculpture and Art
Building (1919), and Wo Fat Restaurant (1938), The study area is also home to a large collection of
Honolulu’s oldest restaurant still in use, whose original outdoor sculpture and landscape features, including
structure dates back to 1882. numerous fountains and other water features. Some of
these are historic, others valued for their artistic
Recent Architecture and History: 1959- contributions, but many too recent to fall under the
The study area contains a large number of significant heading of “historic.” The outdoor sculpture and art
sites and buildings of note that fall under the headings program has been further encouraged by a State of
of “Recent Architecture” and “Recent History.” Many of Hawai‘i law requiring a percentage of the costs of all
these places post-date World War II; a few fall within public buildings be devoted to art in public places.
the period now commonly labeled the “Statehood Hawai‘i was the first state to enact such a law. These
Period.” Important contributing buildings in the pieces over the last 20 years have considerably
downtown area include the Hawai‘i State Capitol augmented earlier public sculpture and the art
Building, completed 1969 and designed by John Carl sponsored by private individuals and companies.
Warneke and Belt Lemmon & Lo; the First United
University of
Methodist Church, built in 1955 and the work of
Hawai‘i
architect Alfred Preis; the Pacific Club, by seminal Medical
Hawai‘i architect Vladimir Ossipoff, completed in 1961; Center Taro
the Board of Water Supply Building, by Wood, Weed Sculpture
and Associates, built in 1958; and the Financial Plaza
of the Pacific, by Leo S. Wou and Victor Gruen (father
of the shopping mall), constructed in 1968. Other
buildings that are likely to become increasingly
recognized include the Prince Kuhio Federal Building,
built in 1977 and designed by Belt Lemmon & Lo, with
Frank Haines and Joseph Farrell as the principal
designers; Grosvenor Center, designed by Joseph Farrell
and completed in 1981; and the 1994 First Hawaiian
Bank Center, the creation of New York architectural
firm Kohn Pederson Fox. Many other buildings of
around the same time period and of the 1970s and
1980s and even 1990s will eventually contribute even
more to the overall flavor of Honolulu as their qualities
become more appreciated and understood.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 73

74 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
 American Savings Bank Plaza Holualoa, First Hawaiian Center

Chinatown sculpture along Nu‘uanu Stream

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 75

 King
Kamehameha
statue,
Judiciary
History
Center

among the sites and tell the overarching story of the

The full collection is too numerous to discuss here, but
among the best known art works that are old enough to
be considered historic or near-historic are: the King
Kamehameha Statue, erected in 1883 and located in
front of the Ali‘iōlani Hale; Father Damien Statue (also
called Blessed Damien of Moloka‘i Statue), sculpted by
New York City sculptor Marisol Escobar and completed
in 1969 (a replica is among Hawai‘i’s contribution to
the state sculpture collection at the U.S. Capitol); Parent
I and Young Girl, by British sculptor Barbara Hepworth,
installed in 1971; Sky Gate, by prominent Japanese-
American artist and landscape architect Isamu Noguchi,
1977; Barking Sands by sculptor/ceramicist Peter
Voulkos, 1978; and Cascade, by Maui artist William
Scobie-Mitchell, 1977.
Outstanding Opp ortunit ies
for Co nse rvation a nd
In t erpretati on
The assets inventory identified an impressive
concentration of heritage resources almost all of which
are capable of supporting interpretation. These assets are
all threads that, when woven together strongly convey
the three themes of the proposed National Heritage
Area. Many of these sites already have well-established
interpretive programs to tell their piece of the story.
Functionally, however, they are not experienced as a
unified whole by either residents or visitors. What is
needed is further interpretation to make the connections
area. The proposed themes provide an overall context
for comprehensive interpretation of the area.
Many of assets within the study area have outstanding
preservation value and also offer opportunities for
enhancement projects. Highlighted here are some of the
outstanding historic properties and cultural sites located
within and adjacent to the study area (listed in
alphabetical order). It should be emphasized, however,
that these properties represent only some of the
potential preservation opportunities within the proposed
National Heritage Area. The HCCC envisions an
expansion of preservation awareness throughout the
National Heritage Area, potential designation of
residential and mixed-use areas either as State or
National Register properties and a concerted effort to
turn around neighborhoods in ways that enhance the
overall quality and character of urban Honolulu. A
complete inventory of properties listed on the national
and state historic registers and other historic sites
appears in Appendix 16. Specific preservation/
restoration plans and estimates of funds needed are
included for a sampling of these properties.

76 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Chapter 5

Judiciary
History Center

Alexander and Baldwin Building, 1929
The Alexander and Baldwin (A&B) Building is
considered one of Honolulu’s great architectural
masterpieces. Listed in both the state and national
registers, the A&B building incorporates a number of
design motifs reflective of the company’s history and
sources of wealth: sugar cane reeded columns, bas relief
cattle heads. It also includes Chinese ornamentation and
mosaics illustrating nautical scenes from Hawai‘i. Clad
in architectural terra cotta, the building was designed by
the team of C.W. Dickey and Hart Wood. A&B
followed the standard for other buildings on Bishop
Street, including the headquarters of the Castle &
Cooke, Bishop Bank (now First Hawaiian Bank) and
the Alexander Hotel. It also introduced new standards of
detailing and design to downtown Honolulu. It remains
a company headquarters and a cherished Honolulu
landmark.
Ali‘iōlani Hale (House of the Heavenly King), 1874
the rehabilitation and restoration of the structure. It
now houses Hawai‘i Supreme Court offices and the
Judiciary History Center.
Aloha Tower (Site of Pākākā Heiau), 1926
Aloha Tower, for many years Honolulu’s tallest building,
was built on the site of an ancient Hawaiian temple,
known as Pākākā. Jutting into the harbor, the ancient
site originally included basaltic stone walls and inner
sacred structures for the priests. The site later became
significant as part of King Kamehameha’s court in
Honolulu, where he moved in 1809. The 184-foot
Aloha Tower was completed in 1926 to designs prepared
by architect Arthur Reynolds. The word aloha was
inscribed in concrete on all four sides. The Aloha Tower
became a landmark for many generations of visitors to
Hawai‘i and was the first building they saw as they
Aloha
Tower

Originally planned as the royal palace, Ali‘iōlani Palace

is one of the defining elements of the Capitol District.
With its four-story clock tower, deeply rusticated walls
and decorative paired columns, the Ali‘iōlani Hale serves
as the backdrop for one of Hawai‘i’s most revered art
works, T.R. Gould’s 18-foot bronze statue of King
Kamehameha the Great. The sculpture is one of the
most visited attractions in Honolulu.
Utilizing a new structure system of reinforced concrete
blocks, the Neoclassical building historically housed
governmental offices of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and the
courts. Designed by Australian architect Thomas Rowe
in 1874, the building has been the site of many of
Hawai‘i’s famous political and social events. In 1931,
the famous Massey court proceedings took place within
its walls. Beginning in 1978 Architects-Hawai‘i Ltd.,
one of the State’s leading architectural firms, undertook

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 77

approached the harbor by boat from the mainland or
other points. The equivalent of 11 stories high, the
tower came to stand for the hospitality of the people of
the Hawaiian Islands. In the 1990s the tower was
rehabilitated as part of a retail and restaurant
marketplace along the old wharf and warehouse area.
Bishop Museum, 1889, 1891, 1900, 1961,
1991, 2005.
Bishop Museum is the premier natural and cultural
history museum for the Pacific, recognized throughout
the world for its cultural collections, research projects,
consulting services, and public educational programs. It
houses an extensive collection of Hawaiian artifacts and
royal family heirlooms, and millions of artifacts,
documents and photographs about Hawai‘i and other
Pacific islands.
The museum was the gift of Honolulu banker Charles
Reed Bishop to the people of Hawai‘i in honor of his
wife, the Princess Bernice Pauahi, the last descendant of
the Kamehameha line. Princess Pauahi was concerned
about helping her people. Money derived from her
estate would fund the school for Hawaiian children now
known as Kamehameha Schools. The museum,
organized as a separate institution, was closely aligned
with the school in its early years and shared the same
grounds for many years. A Romanesque-style school
building was completed in 1891. The initial building,
completed in 1899, was designed by architect William F.
Smith and contained collections relating to Hawaiian
life and also the natural history of Hawai‘i and other
Pacific islands. In 1900 a wing was added to the first
building. Known as Hawaiian Hall, this three-story
open structure was designed by local architects C.W.
Dickey and Clinton Ripley in a style to match the
original Romanesque Revival style building. Later
78 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
additions to the site included the Bishop Museum
Planetarium and Observatory, built in 1961, and the
more recent Castle Building, opened in 1990. A new
science and education center was added in 2005. In
1982, the Hawaiian Hall Complex, Bishop, Paki, and
Konia Halls were placed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Conservation opportunities: Hawaiian Hall is
currently undergoing a renovation and preservation
effort to allow modern conservation and accessibility
standards to be put into place. Of the $21 million cost,
$6.5 remains to be raised. While the museum has no
immediate plans to do so, it estimates that complete
interior and exterior restorations of Bishop, Paki and
Konia Halls would total about $20 million. Annual
costs to preserve and maintain these four structures are
about $300,000.
Chinatown Special District, 1850-1930s
The Chinatown Special District contains some of the
oldest and best known of Hawai‘i’s historic buildings.
These include the old 1850s Bishop Bank Building;
Kamehameha V Post Office, which was built in 1871
and employed the new technique of reinforced concrete
construction; the 1909 Yokohama Specie Bank; and the
Spanish Colonial Revival style Honolulu Police Station,
dating from the early 1930s.
Honolulu Police Station
Conservation opportunities: An effort by the
Honolulu Culture and Arts District, in partnership with
the City and County of Honolulu, the State of Hawai‘i,
and property owners, is under way to restore the facades
of seven historic buildings in the area. Many more of
the neighborhood’s historic buildings are in critical need
of preservation. Countless others have already been lost
through demolition or neglect. National Heritage Area Chapter 5
designation could provide the incentives for a thorough
needs-assessment of historic properties in Chinatown
and encourage owners to appropriately preserve and
restore their properties.

Dillingham Transportation Building, 1926
Another of Beaux-Arts trained architect Lincoln Rogers’
Mediterranean style buildings, the Dillingham
Transportation Building conforms to the ideal of an
Italian palazzo. The entrance is distinguished by a tiled
vestibule decorated with nautical scenes. Art Deco
doors and elevators instill a more modern quality to the
otherwise traditional building. The four-story company
headquarters is divided into five sections, with a central
pavilion and two balancing wings. The ground floor is
covered with limestone and is rusticated much like the
building’s prototypes in Italy. The roof is sheathed with
red tiles and extends prominently over the façade. In
1980 the national register-listed structure was
rehabilitated by the local firm Architects-Hawaii, Ltd.
Hawai‘i State Art Museum (formerly the Army-
Navy YMCA), 1928, 1988
Located on the site of the old Royal Hawaiian Hotel,
the Army-NavyYMCA was built in 1928 to provide
facilities for single servicemen in Honolulu. The
architect for the U-shaped complex was Lincoln Rogers,
who a year later would oversee the design and
construction of the Dillingham Transportation Building.
Rogers incorporated Neoclassical Revival and Baroque
characteristics into the complex, which also has some
hints of the popular Mediterranean and Spanish
Colonial Revival style. In1988 the property was
purchased for use as an office building and redeveloped
by local businessman Chris Hemmeter. The building
was purchased by the state in 2002. An extensive
Hawai‘i State
Art Museum
restoration and renovation of the second floor created
gallery space for the state’s publicly-owned collection of
works by Hawai‘i artists. Restoration of the first floor
was completed in 2006 and in 2007 a museum-affiliated
restaurant opened. Plans for a Visitor Information
Center and Gift Shop adjacent to the restaurant are in
development. The Hawai‘i State Art Museum (HiSAM)
is supported by the Hawai‘i State Foundation on
Culture and the Arts, a state agency, and the nonprofit
Friends of HiSAM.
Hawai‘i State Capitol Building 1969
Begun in 1965 and completed in 1969 the Hawai‘i
State Capitol Building was the creation of the San
Francisco architectural firm of John Carl Warnecke
Associates and local firm Belt, Lemmon and Lo. Costing
$25.5 million and including some 558,000 square feet
within its four floors and basement area, the new capitol
expressed Hawai‘i’s aspirations as a new state and also
incorporated a rich set of symbolic references in its
design. These included the volcano-like two legislative
houses at the ground floor, a surrounding colonnade of
abstract palm tress and a dramatic courtyard space
reaching upward to the open sky. The building is
surrounded and punctuated by four reflecting pools,

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 79

calling attention to Hawai‘i’s ocean setting. Local artist
Tadashi Sato created a 600,000-piece mosaic in the
courtyard, replete with ocean motifs. Statues of Father
Damien (beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1995) and
Queen Lili‘uokalani stand on the ma kai and ma uka
sides, respectively, of the capitol grounds. Public tours
of the building and grounds are conducted throughout
the week by the Office of the Governor.
Hawai‘i State Library 1913, 1927, 1991
One of the many municipal and state libraries financed
by the Carnegie Foundation, the Neoclassical and
Mediterranean Revival style structure was designed by
Andrew Carnegie’s brother-in-law Henry D. Whitfield
with the help of H.L. Kerr. The original construction
cost, provided directly by Carnegie, was $100,000. The
local community raised another $27,000 for books and
furnishings. The building was expanded in 1927 by
local architect C.W. Dickey; a further extension took
place in 1991, designed by Aotani and Associates Inc.
Hawai‘i Theatre 1922, renovated 1994
80 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Dubbed “The Pride of the Pacific,” Hawai‘i Theatre is
one of the state’s great preservation success stories. Saved
from the wrecking ball through the last minute
intervention of a group of dedicated preservationists, the
Hawai‘i Theatre now stands as the preeminent historic
theatre in the Pacific. Designed in Neoclassical Revival
style by pioneering Hawai‘i architects Walter L. Emory
and Marshal H. Webb, the Hawai‘i Theatre featured a
state-of-the-art cooling system, gilded pilasters, or
shallow rectangular columns projecting from the walls, a
proscenium arch framing the stage, and murals by noted
artist Lionel Walden showing the triumph of the fine
arts. An award-winning restoration and renovation of
the building, overseen by the renowned firm of Hardy
Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, was completed in 1996.
Listed on the national and state historic registers, the
Hawai‘i Theatre is a work in progress and has just
witnessed the installation of a new marquee. In 2005,
Hawai‘i Theatre was recognized as the “Outstanding
Historic Theatre in America” by the League of Historic
American Theatres. The theatre is once again one of
Hawai‘i’s most popular venues for national touring
shows, theater, music, concerts and films, attracting
hundreds of thousands of patrons back through its
doors. The theatre has been an important catalyst for
change in the downtown/Chinatown area and helped to
initiate the thriving Honolulu Culture and Arts District
programs including First Fridays.
Honolulu Academy of Arts 1927, 2002
The Honolulu Academy of Arts is Hawai‘i's premier art
museum, with a collection of over 50,000 works. An
encyclopedic museum where original works of art can be
experienced in state-of-the-art galleries, it has major
strengths in European and American painting, graphic
and decorative arts, and the arts of Asia. With education
as its mission, the Academy also administers the
Academy Art Center at Linekona, the largest private art
school in the islands.
One of Honolulu’s great buildings, the Honolulu
Academy of Arts architecturally blends the cultures of
Asia, the Middle East and Europe in a single sweeping
structure fronted by downtown’s most expansive
designed landscape, Thomas Square. Designed by the
well-known architect Bertram Goodhue in a version of
Spanish Colonial Revival style blended with references
to Chinese buildings and Spain’s Alhambra, the
Honolulu Academy of Arts embodies the ideals of
Hawai‘i as the crossroads of culture in the Pacific.
Constructed of coral blocks, sandstone shipped from
Molaka‘i and paving stones remaining from Hawai‘i’s
days as a center of the sandalwood trade, the academy
encompasses the collection of Honolulu resident and
benefactor Anna Rice Cooke. The state and national
register-listed property has recently been expanded by an
impressive new wing, designed by John Hare and
housing the institution’s permanent Hawai‘i collection
as well as traveling exhibits. Internationally known
ceramicist Jun Kaneko created the immense ceramic
pillars that grace the entry.
Honolulu Hale, 1929
Another of Hawai‘i’s impressive Spanish Colonial
Revival style buildings, Honolulu Hale is the composite
creation of three well-known Hawai‘i architects, C.W.
Dickey, Hart Wood and Robert G. Miller together with
a larger firm of Rothwell, Gangeter and Lester. The city
hall complex combines elements of Spanish Colonial
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 81
and Islamic styles reflective of the preferred architectural Chapter 5
design in Hawai‘i during the 1920s and 1930s. The
structure includes an octagonal tower and an open
courtyard space (with retractable roof ). It remains a
place of considerable civic pride and the location for
many public events.
‘Iolani
Barracks
‘Iolani Palace, Coronation Pavilion, Barracks and
Archives 1870, 1882, 1883, 1905
The only official state residence of royalty in the United
States, ‘Iolani Palace stands at the heart of the proposed
Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage Area. Designed by a
team of three architects, Thomas L. Baker, C.S. Wall
and Isaac Moore, the palace was the fulfillment of King
Kalākaua’s aim to give dignity and prominence to the
Hawaiian crown and nation. During the monarchy
period, the Palace was the center of social and political
activity in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. Located on the site
of an ancient heiau, the 140 by 100 foot, three-story
building incorporated many modern innovations. These
included combined electrical and gas fixtures and a
telephone. More a ceremonial site than a residence, the
king divided his time between the new palace and an
older bungalow, located on the ‘ewa (west) side of the
palace grounds. In 1883 the king ordered the
construction of a wood ceremonial coronation pavilion,
located on the ‘ewa-ma kai (south-west) side of the
place. This structure was used for his official coronation
in that year. It was rebuilt in 1919. The Palace has been
elegantly and meticulously restored with original royal
furnishings. Now managed by the nonprofit Friends of
‘Iolani Place, the palace continues to serve as a home for
the Royal Hawaiian Band and other official events.
Popular docent-led tours educate visitors about the
history of the Hawaiian monarchy, history and heritage.
A perimeter wall surrounds the palace grounds with
ornate gateways on each side. The historic ‘Iolani
Barracks, now situated on the ‘ewa side of the grounds,
was moved there from its original location on Beretania
Street in 1965. Rebuilt by architects Geoffrey W. Fairfax
and Glenn Mason, the 1870 coral block building
occupies the site of the historic bungalow residence of
the king. The barracks was designed by architect
Theodore C. Heuck. Another significant structure on
the grounds is the Territorial Archives Building, added
to the site in 1905.
Kawaiaha‘o Church, Adobe School House and
Lunalilo Mausoleum, 1842, 1835, 1876
Just ‘ewa of the Mission Houses complex is the site of
one of Hawai‘i’s most esteemed and venerable
institutions, the Kawaiaha‘o Church. Designed in 1836
by then mission leader Hiram Bingham, Kawaiaha‘o
Church became the “official” royal church of Hawai‘i.
Queen Ka‘ahumanu, King Kamehameha’s widow
became a regular supporter of the church as did many
other members of Hawaiian royalty and aristocracy (the
ali‘i). The church, similar to those shown in Asher
Benjamin’s several builders’ manuals from the same
period, was made from some 14,000 coral blocks all cut
from the coral beds lying off the shore and carried by
Native Hawaiian members of the congregation to the
building site. The total cost was estimated at $20,000.
The church was the principal site for Protestant worship
by Native Hawaiians and remains a profoundly
Hawaiian place in its associations. Extensive repairs were
made in 1925 and again in 1977. A popular wedding
place for visitors to the islands, Kawaiaha‘o Church has
an active ministry and features services and choral events
in the Hawaiian language.
Adjacent to the church is a cemetery for the Protestant
82 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
missionaries and their families and a second grave site
for Native Hawaiian members of the congregation. The
site also includes a well, gateways and a surrounding
coral block wall. Also near the church is the 1835 adobe
school house, designed by Amos Starr Cooke for use as
a school house by himself and his wife. In 1876 the
popular King Lunaliho was buried in the Gothic style
Royal Mausoleum, designed by Robert Lishman, then
Hawai‘i’s superintendent of public works, on the
grounds of the Kawaiaha‘o Church.
Mission Houses and Mission Houses Museum,
1821 - 1865
The Mission Houses Museum collects, preserves,
interprets and exhibits documents, artifacts and other
records of Hawai‘i’s “missionary” period of 1820 – 1863
and beyond. The Museum interprets its historic site and
collections and makes these collections available for
research, educational purposes and enjoyment.
Altogether, the museum’s collection holds over 3,000
Hawaiian, Western and Pacific artifacts and more than
12,000 books, manuscripts, original letters, diaries,
journals, illustrations and Hawaiian church records.
The present site of the Mission Houses Museum was the
original headquarters of the Sandwich Islands Mission.
The first wave of Protestant missionaries and their
families arrived in Hawai‘i in 1820. The first mission
frame house arrived in pre-cut sections via Cape Horn
in 1821. This resembled a typical New England
dwelling and was erected by the missionaries, with the
help of Native Hawaiians. The house consisted of an
attached kitchen and a full basement, features later
discarded from local building practice. A prominent
gable was added to the ma uka side in the 1820s and a
balcony and porch appended to the ‘ewa end before

1841. In 1831 a larger, coral block building, known as
the Chamberlain House (named after its first residents),
was added adjacent to the original dwelling. This
building housed the missions’ agent and a warehouse for
supplies arriving periodically from Boston. Other
buildings, including an additional residence, a print
house and other utilitarian structures were added also in
the early 19th century. In the 1920s the historic
structures were restored and converted into a museum.
The site was listed as a National Historic Landmark in
1965.
Conservation/Interpretation opportunities: There are
several opportunities for preservation and conservation
activities: (1) The ongoing, annual maintenance and
preservation needs of the historic structures themselves,
approximately $300,000 per year. (2) The conservation
of the museum and library holdings, which number
approximately 6,000 and 15,000 objects, respectively.
(3) Projected and much-needed capital improvements to
the physical plant that includes upgrading the storage,
exhibition, educational and visitor amenities of the
institution. The museum has begun to make plans for a
new, 35,000 square foot structure that will cost
approximately $20 million.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 83
Chapter 5
Queen
Emma's
summer
palace
Queen Emma Summer Palace, 1848
Located in the cool heights of Nu‘uanu Valley, Queen
Emma Summer Palace, also known as Hanaiakamalama
(meaning “foster child of the moon”), was used by
Queen Emma and her family as a retreat from the rigors
of court life in hot and dusty Honolulu of the mid-
1800s. It is one of only three royal residences in the
United States. (The other two are 'Iolani Palace in
downtown Honolulu, and Hulihe‘e Palace in Kailua-
Kona on the Island of Hawai‘i.) The home was built in
1848 by John Lewis, a part-Hawaiian businessman. The
structure, lovingly preserved as a museum by the
Daughters of Hawai‘i, is one of the few remaining
examples of Greek Revival architecture in the islands, a
blend of the then-popular East Coast style and the
Hawaiian. The home is open daily for docent-led tours
that interpret the lives of Queen Emma and the
monarchy of that period.
Richards Street YWCA, 1927
Designed by renowned architect Julia Morgan, the
Richards Street YWCA, known as Laniākea, adheres to
Honolulu’s early 20th-century taste for Mediterranean
style buildings. It is listed on both the State and
 YWCA United States Immigration Station, 1934
The U.S. Immigration Station is located near the harbor
front on Ala Moana Boulevard. Composed of a central
pavilion and two side wings, the building stretches its
arms toward the street and embraces a turf garden
defined by mock orange hedges. With is green-colored,
bell-cast roof, the C.W. Dickey-designed complex has
come to represent the “Hawaiian style” in architecture.
It has since served as the design inspiration for many
newer buildings in the city and in the newer developed
areas of O‘ahu and has come to define the present
regional style of Hawai‘i.
National Registers. Built around two courtyards, one
containing a swimming pool, the YWCA reflects the United States Post Office and Customs House, 1922
Beaux-Arts training of its architect and the aspirations of
Honolulu’s urban elite during the 1920s. Morgan was
the first woman to train at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in
Paris. The building has been subject to several
significant renovations, most overseen by local architect
and historic preservation expert Spencer Leineweber. It
is actively used as the YWCA of O‘ahu’s flagship
headquarters, serving a membership of over 3,800 with
health and wellness, personal and professional
development, educational and other programs.

Conservation/Interpretation opportunities:
Designed by mainland architects York and Sawyer, the
In 2007, the YWCA of O‘ahu launched a multi-year
United States Post Office and Customs House also
$12.0 million capital campaign to restore and revitalize
served as the federal district court for much of the 20th
Laniākea. To date, $5.5 million has been raised. The
century. In 1977 the functions of the complex were
building’s open-air design has lead to erosion and
transferred to a new federal building, located on
deterioration due to exposure to the tropical elements.
Punchbowl Street. Built in 1922, the National Register-
In addition to conservation work on the historic
listed property adheres to the Spanish Colonial Revival
structure, construction of a permanent archival room is
style. This style, characterized by arched windows, broad
planned to protect the YWCA’s collection of
overhanging eaves, a red tile roof and a courtyard garden
photographs, slides, videos, books and documents, and
came to typify official architecture in Hawai‘i in the
make the materials available to a wider audience for
Territorial Period. Today the building still houses the
educational activities and research.
downtown post office and other state offices.

Washington Place, 1847

Immigration
Station Washington Place holds an esteemed place in the hearts
of the people of Hawai‘i. The Greek Revival-style
mansion was constructed between the years of 1844-
1847 by an American merchant, Captain John Dominis,
who procured the services of the master carpenter and
builder Isaac Hart. Washington Place is one of Hawai‘i’s
finest remaining private residences from the early period
of Honolulu’s development. After the captain’s untimely
death enroute to China in 1846, Mrs. Dominis rented
out rooms in the large home to support herself and her
family. The residence became known as “Washington

84 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Chapter 5

Washington
Place
Place” when a boarder-resident of the home, Conservation/Interpretation opportunities:
Anthony Ten Eyck, who was the U.S. Commissioner in
This gracious home is currently undergoing an intensive
Hawai‘i during the mid-19th century, named the house
study by the National Park Service’s Historic American
in honor of the birthday of George Washington in
Buildings Survey division. This study will provide
1848. Ten Eyck established the U.S. Legation at the
measured drawings, photographic documentation and a
Dominis home in 1847 when he moved in. Mrs.
narrative history to be recorded in the Library of
Dominis’s son, John Owen Dominis, married the
Congress. The State of Hawai‘i and the nonprofit
Hawaiian High Chief, Lydia Lili‘u Loloku Walania
Washington Place Foundation, who are stewards of the
Wewehi Kamaka‘eha, who later ascended the throne as
property, anticipate developing a Cultural Landscape
Hawai‘i’s beloved Queen Lili‘uokalani. After being
Report to add to the body of documentation already
deposed in 1893, and then imprisoned in 1895 in
completed: a Historic Structures Report and an
‘Iolani Palace, the Queen continued to reside at
Architectural Conservation Plan. Approximately $5.0
Washington Place until her death in 1917. The house
million dollars will be needed over the next two or more
was subsequently purchased from her estate to serve as
years to meet current restoration and preservation needs
the executive mansion for the Territorial Governors of
and to plan for the appropriate interpretation of the
Hawai‘i and then after statehood in 1959, for the
historic home which encompasses the most critical
Governors of the State of Hawai‘i. Designated a
periods of change in Hawai‘i’s history, up until and
National Historic Landmark in 2007, the elegant home
including the present. Washington Place is open five
now also serves as a historic house museum that
days a week for tours in addition to having open houses
interprets the development of the house and its residents
throughout the year. Interpretive programming will be
over time, and in particular, the life of Queen
further developed as restoration progresses, including
Lili‘uokalani. The Governor of Hawai‘i resides in a new
development of galleries on the second floor.
residence built adjacent to the historic property.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 85

Hawaiian man
with surfboard
and Diamond
Head in
background;
Waikīkī,
ca. 1890
Natural and Ou tdoor
Res ources
Although Honolulu’s landscape today is densely
developed, the forces of nature that sustain it remain
dominant and visible throughout the study area.
Honolulu’s natural harbor is the city’s centerpiece. Surf
sites and sandy beaches are popular playgrounds. Parks
and public open spaces display Hawai‘i’s remarkable
flora and serve as shady urban oases. Freshwater streams
flow from the highlands of the Nu‘uanu Valley, then
through the city to the sea. Urban streets offer surprising
vistas—ma uka to cool green mountains, and ma kai to
the endless expanse of the Pacific Ocean. This section
describes the natural resources of Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District and proposed National Heritage Area,
and the opportunities they provide for recreation and
heritage education.
View looking
towards
Nu‘uanu
86 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
View Planes and Climate
Views are important to the experience of Honolulu.
This is as true today as in historic and pre-contact times.
Diamond Head (Leahi) and Punchbowl (Pūowaina)
remain distinctive landmarks on O‘ahu. These were
important ritual and sacred sites for Native Hawaiians
and continue to hold a special place in the minds and
hearts of people in Hawai‘i . The significance of these
natural and cultural landmarks is emphasized through
the City and County of Honolulu’s own protective
legislation (Regulations and plans for special districts
emphasize the importance of key view plains within the
city). Native Hawaiians also still honor these landmarks
as well as numerous other natural and associated sacred
sites within the city and especially in the Nu‘uanu Valley
above.
Weather also is a significant conveyor of traditional
cultural ideas in Hawai‘i. Native Hawaiians attached
(and still attach) great significance to winds, rain,
sunlight and other aspects of climate. Both dry and wet
areas are associated with specific mythological events
and stories, as well as the chants and songs of Native
Hawaiians. Kaka‘ako was a dry, hot area associated with
salt pans and the seashore. The Nu‘uanu Valley was a
moist environment connected to lizard-like mo‘o, Kaupe
the legendary dog of Hawaiian tales, and many origin

Honolulu Harbor, S.S. Lurline at Pier 11, June 1940
myths. These stories, many involving storms, rainfall,
dryness and other “personalities” of weather all figure
still in Native Hawaiian reverence for the land and the
ecological systems of Hawai‘i .
Harbor Resources dozens of piers, cargo yards and storage sheds, flanked
Honolulu’s distinctive role in our nation’s history arises
from its natural harbor, strategically situated between
the American and Asian continents. Honolulu
Harbor—located at the center of where the Honolulu
ahupua‘a meets the ocean—is Hawai‘i’s largest and most
important port. Its development over the last century
transformed a tiny Hawaiian village known as Kou into
today’s city of Honolulu.
The original harbor was created by geographic forces.
Where freshwater streams flowed from Nu‘uanu Valley
into the sea, they inhibited coral growth and cut
channels through the surrounding reef, creating a calm
basin with natural inlets. For the Hawaiians living
nearby in the tiny village of Kou, these conditions were
not of great maritime significance, because their canoes
could readily land and launch in many spots along the
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 87
shoreline. (The fresh water, however, had other Chapter 5
significance, for example, for agriculture and
aquaculture.) But for ships engaged in the Pacific fur
trade, this protected basin served as an appealing haven.
Westerners first used the harbor in 1794, and in short
order a brisk business developed to provide supplies to
the ships. The harbor evolved quickly into a crucial
port-of-call.
The first efforts to alter the physical nature of the
harbor occurred in 1840, with filling of surrounding
tidelands and deepening of the channel. Subsequent
changes in the harbor and the city were driven by trends
in the worldwide economy. As demands on Honolulu
Harbor grew, the state dredged and developed the
adjacent Kewalo Basin on the east side and Kapālama
Basin on the west.
Today Honolulu Harbor and Kapālama Basin sport
by tankers, barges, and cruise ships. Kewalo Basin
provides docks for the commercial boating industry. The
surrounding city of Honolulu is Hawai‘i’s center of
population, government, commerce and tourism—and
the harbor is its heart. 
Harbor assets are accessible and visible at key points in
the heritage area, including Kaka‘ako Waterfront Park,
Kewalo Basin, and Aloha Tower. State and local
development plans call for further improvement of
pedestrian access, recreational and commercial boating
and fishing, and cruise passenger facilities at the harbor,
as well as enhanced public use of the adjacent shoreline.
These existing and planned waterfront venues offer
ample opportunities for interpretation and enjoyment of
harbor resources.
Passenger ship
at Honolulu
Harbor
Aerial view of
Ala Moana
Beach
Beaches and Near-shore Waters
Ala Moana Beach lies within the proposed National
Heritage Area. The beach of coarse white sand slopes
gently to a dredged swimming area protected from
heavy wave action by an artificial reef. Though this
environment is highly altered from the natural
conditions that prevailed prior to development of
Honolulu and Waikīkī, its history of change helps tell
Honolulu’s story. The Ala Moana beachfront is treasured
fiercely by residents and visitors as an invaluable natural
and cultural resource within the urban area.
An April 2006 editorial about Ala Moana Beach in the
Honolulu Star-Bulletin newspaper proclaimed that “this
reef-excavated, hydraulic-engineered, landscaped
creation is a living symbol of our nation's strength and
Hawai‘i's commitment to cultural diversity…[and] is an
example of how limited resources, applied creatively, can
build lasting cultural and environmental landmarks.” A
shoreline pedestrian promenade and the park above the
beach (see Parks, below) offer shaded and easily
accessible opportunities for recreation and orientation.
Just west of Ala Moana Beach, Kewalo Basin Park serves
Boogie
boarder
88 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Shoreline fishing at Kaka'ako Basin Park
as a doorway to the area’s ocean resources: an access to a
surf break favored by residents, a popular site for
shoreline fishing and focus of commercial fishing. The
park also provides an overview of the docks at adjacent
Kewalo Basin, the center of activity for O‘ahu’s
recreational boating industry.
On the far side of Kewalo Basin lies the rocky shoreline
of the Kaka‘ako Waterfront, another venue for shoreline
fishermen, surfers and bodysurfers. There is a lively
public discussion currently taking place regarding the
most appropriate revitalization and development strategy
for this area. Abutting Honolulu Harbor, it is an ideal
vantage point to watch vessels of all sizes chugging in
and out of the harbor facilities. It provides a spectacular
view in all directions and is ripe with opportunities for
interpretation and cultural events. The state’s Hawai‘i
Community Development Authority, a partner
organization in the HCCC, and a broad-based advisory
working group will determine the future of this
waterfront and adjacent open space, which includes the
pedestrian promenade and landscaped areas of Kaka‘ako
Waterfront Park plus additional acreage. Regular updates
on these plans are posted at the Hawai‘i Community
Development Authority website: www.hcdaweb.org.
Another significant new development has been the Aloha
Tower Development Corporation’s proposal to redevelop
Piers 5 and 6 near Aloha Tower. Of particular interest is
the proposed residential use that potentially would bring
a greater variety of activity to the harbor area.
Streams
Two major streams pass through the study area on their
way from the mountains to the sea; their freshwater
flows helped shape the natural basin that became
Honolulu Harbor.

Nu'uanu Stream
Nu‘uanu Stream runs along River Street at the western
edge of the Chinatown area. Although this ma kai
portion of the stream has been channelized, it is graced
by pedestrian malls on both sides and abuts A‘ala Park.
Nearby hills are visible along the ma uka-ma kai
(mountain to ocean) corridor. However, the stream
waters and pedestrian areas have been long neglected.
The City and County of Honolulu development plan
calls for re-greening and pedestrian improvements along
key stream corridors, and identifies Nu‘uanu Stream
from Kuakini Street to Honolulu Harbor as a high
priority location. A revitalized Nu‘uanu Stream could be
a meaningful interpretive element in the National
Heritage Area.
Kapālama Stream is further west, in the Iwilei/Kapālama
portion of the study area at Kōkea Street. Although the
stream is channelized and lacks enhancements today, the
city’s development plan also prioritizes this area as a
potential “major park and open space” feature, and a key
juncture in the future pedestrian network.
Scenic Views
Existing views of the mountains, the sea, and the
connections between them are vital natural resources for
the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a. These include
ma uka-ma kai view corridors, lateral shoreline views,
and sweeping panoramic views that establish the district
in the larger context of island and ocean. The City and
County of Honolulu’s development plan identifies
specific views that should be targeted for preservation.
Key ma uka-ma kai view corridors within the ahupua‘a
run from Kewalo Basin Park up Ward Avenue; from
Kaka‘ako Waterfront Park up Cooke Street; from Pier 1
at Honolulu Harbor up toward the Capitol; and from
Ala Moana Park up King Street. These corridors provide
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 89
Chapter 5
View of
Diamond
Head from
Kaka'ako
Waterfront
views of Punchbowl Crater against the dramatic
backdrop of Nu‘uanu Valley and the Ko‘olau
Mountains. Kaka‘ako Waterfront affords a panoramic
view that includes both the mountains and the lateral
shoreline view of Honolulu Harbor to the west and
Diamond Head to the east. Origin points for these
views are all public locations that provide opportunities
for public information to orient the viewer and explain
their significance.
Parks and Open Spaces
Within the proposed National Heritage Area, parks and
public grounds reflect the stages of the area’s growth
around the waterfront, and help tell the story of Hawai‘i
as a cultural crossroad. These open space resources exist
under both public and private jurisdiction:
City/County of Honolulu owns designated
parks ranging from mini-parks and
neighborhood parks to pedestrian malls, a
district park, and a portion of the regional park
at Ala Moana Beach.
State of Hawai‘i has jurisdiction over ‘Iolani
Palace State Monument, Kaka‘ako Waterfront
Park, Honolulu Harbor and Kewalo Basin.
Churches, museums, campuses and civic
buildings in the district feature landscaped
open spaces available to the public; though not
designated as parks, they add significant
informal recreation opportunities and are often
sites for special events.
Private developments feature plazas and
gathering places for passive recreation by the
general public.
 Special District
Parks Acres Location Ownership
or Authority
Ala Moana Regional Park 119.18 Ala Moana n/a City/County of Honolulu

Kaka‘ako Waterfront Park 35.00 Kaka‘ako Kaka‘ako State

Kalākaua District Park 7.77 Kapālama n/a City/County of Honolulu

A‘ala Park 6.69 Chinatown/Iwilei Chinatown City/County of Honolulu

Thomas Square/ Honolulu
Thomas Square 6.42 Ward
Academy of Arts
Kewalo Basin Park 3.00 Kaka‘ako Kaka‘ako State

Irwin Park 2.16 Downtown Downtown Private

Mother Waldron Hawai‘i Community City/County of Honolulu
1.76 Kaka‘ako
Neighborhood Park Development Authority
Smith-Beretania Park 1.34 Chinatown Chinatown City/County of Honolulu

Fort Street Mall 0.87 Downtown n/a City/County of Honolulu

Kamali‘i Mini Park 0.68 Downtown n/a City/County of Honolulu

Queen Emma Square 0.56 Capitol Capitol City/County of Honolulu

Chinatown Gateway Park 0.40 Chinatown Chinatown City/County of Honolulu

Union Street Mall 0.36 Downtown n/a

Robert W. Wilcox Mini Park 0.32 Downtown n/a City/County of Honolulu

Hawai‘i Community
Kawaiaha‘o Mini Park 0.20 Kaka‘ako City/County of Honolulu
Development Authority
Fort Street Mall Mini Park 0.16 Downtown n/a City/County of Honolulu

Kekaulike Street Mall – Downtown n/a City/County of Honolulu

Triangle Park – Capitol Capitol City/County of Honolulu

Walker Park – Downtown Downtown Unknown

Kaka‘ako Makai Gateway Park – Kaka‘ako Hawai‘i Community State

Tamarind Park – Downtown Private

Kaka‘ako Waterfront Hawai‘i Community State
–65.00 Kaka‘ako
Redevelopment area Development Authority

Parks and publicly accessible open spaces in the study

area are shown in the accompanying tables. They are
described further in the Recreation section below.

Re c reati onal Resources

The types of public outdoor recreational spaces
available, and the types of users they attract, vary
considerably by locale within the study area. The
district’s best-known recreation resources are its ocean
waters, beaches and beach parks; all the recreation
settings in the coastal corridor from Ala Moana Beach
Park to Aloha Tower are heavily used by residents and
visitors.

90 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Special District Chapter 5
Parks Acres Location Ownership
or Authority
Honolulu Hale Annex 10.14 City/County of Honolulu

Honolulu Hale 6.95 City/County of Honolulu

4.71,1.45, City/County of Honolulu
Honolulu Municipal Building
1.92
Kalanimoku Hale 5.48 State
Ali‘iōlani Hale, Kekūanao‘ā State
5.69
Hale, Kapuāiwa Hale
St. Andrew’s Cathedral 7.58 Private

Washington Place 3.20 State

Hawai‘I State Capitol 4.99 State

‘Iolani Palace State Monument 11.00 Capitol Capitol State

Hawai‘i State Library 2.30 Private

Hawai‘i State Art Museum 2.00 State

Mililani Mall, Grover
Cleveland Park
U.S. Post Office, Customs
2.6 Federal
and Court House
Kawaiaha‘o Church 7.23 Private

Mission Houses Museum 1.11 Private

Kawaiaha‘o Plaza 2.41 Private

Blaisdell Center 22.32 City/County of Honolulu

Honolulu Community College Private?

Honolulu Academy of Arts

Bishop Museum

Foster Botanical Garden

YWCA Laniākea Bulding

Capitol Private
central courtyard

Less known—but critical for the future of the city and

proposed National Heritage Area—are the other public
parks, plazas, malls, campuses and open spaces. These
are part of the fabric of daily life for the district’s Kewalo Basin Park
residents, and they are sites for special events that attract
both residents and visitors.
Key recreation locales and resources within the study
area are reviewed below.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 91

Public Parks and Hospitals in Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District Area
Coastal Corridor and Harbor
Ala Moana Beach Park and Kewalo Basin Park are two
beloved coastal parks on the one-mile waterfront
between Honolulu Harbor and Waikīkī. Ala Moana—
the “Path to the Sea” —is a 76-acre city-owned park
with shady picnic sites, grills, restrooms, pavilions,
concessions, and showers. Its sandy beach and offshore
reef set the stage for body boarding, surfing and
swimming. Residents and flock to this beach, especially
on weekends and holidays. For pedestrians and
bicyclists, the shared-use path that runs the length of the
park serves as an ad hoc gateway to the proposed
National Heritage Area.
92 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Kaka'ako Waterfront
Kewalo Basin Park is adjacent to Ala Moana beach at
the Ward Avenue end. Located out on a triangular
peninsula, it is less known than Ala Moana, but it offers
green space, public art, a pedestrian promenade, and
observation areas with panoramic views. For residents in
the know it is a popular place to swim, picnic and
paddle out to great surfing breaks.
Kewalo Basin and Honolulu Harbor serve as points of
embarkation for commercial recreation vessels (Kewalo)
and cruise ships (Honolulu).

Kakaako Waterfront Park
Kaka‘ako Waterfront Park, Kaka‘ako Makai Gateway
Park and Kaka‘ako Waterfront Redevelopment Area –
Located seaward of Cooke and Coral Streets off of Ala
Moana Boulevard, the 30-acre Kaka‘ako Waterfront park
features spectacular views, contoured open spaces, a
pedestrian promenade, amphitheater, noted sculptures,
comfort stations and picnic areas. The shoreline lacks a
beach but offers ocean access for body surfing and a
rock embankment for shore fishing. The adjacent
gateway park and redevelopment area, though not well-
developed for recreation, add to the park’s ambience.
They are part of the area currently being planned by
Hawai‘i Community Development Authority for
expanded recreational use.
Capitol District
The grounds of the Capitol Building, ‘Iolani Palace,
and Hawai‘i State Library form an 18-acre green
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 93
Chapter 5
Capitol
Building
grounds
“superblock” with extensive lawns and trees, bounded by
Beretania, Richards, King and Punchbowl Streets. The
three sites are separately fenced and are linked by paths;
both the Capitol Building and Hawai‘i State Library
feature public art. The ‘Iolani Palace lawn, with lots of
shade and interesting historic features, is the most
appealing of the three grounds, and is popular for
informal lawn picnics and band concerts.
The grounds of Honolulu Hale, Honolulu Hale Annex,
Honolulu Municipal Building, and Kalanimoku Hale
comprise a 30-acre open space that houses government
offices for the City and County of Honolulu, and for
the state’s Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Enhanced by landscaping, pedestrian paths, public art, a
daily lunch wagon and a few seating areas, these civic
grounds host frequent special events and are the daily
hangout for government workers. The grounds fill the
block bounded by Beretania, Punchbowl, King and
Alapa‘i Streets.
‘Iolani Palace
Grounds
 Banyan tree,
‘Iolani Palace
The grounds of Ali‘iōlani Hale, Kekūanao‘ā Hale, and
Kapuāiwa Hale comprise the 5+-acre block bounded by
King, Punchbowl, Queen and Mililani Streets. The open
space is shaded by banyans and other large trees.
Sidewalks and paved paths through the block get foot
traffic from local workers as well as tourists. The King
Street frontage of this block, directly across from ‘Iolani
Palace, includes the dramatic statue of King
Kamehameha the Great, a premiere city landmark.
The grounds of Kawaiaha‘o Church, Mission Houses
Museum complex and Kawaiaha‘o Plaza offer a small
complex of interconnected outdoor spaces with shade,
pathways, and some outdoor seating. The spaces are not
readily visible to passersby and are used primarily for
passive recreation by visitors to the church and the
museum and by workers in the immediate vicinity.
Mililani Mall
94 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Mililani Mall and grounds of Ke‘elikōlani Hale (Grover
Cleveland Park) provide a resting point for residents and
visitors strolling the district, and a popular lunchtime
haven for workers in the surrounding government and
commercial office buildings.
Thomas Square/Honolulu Academy of Arts District
Thomas Square (Park), the grounds of Neal S. Blaisdell
Center, and the grounds of Honolulu Academy of Arts
form a block-wide line of open spaces that run down
Ward Avenue, from just above King Street to Kapi‘olani
Boulevard. With shaded open space, a large fountain
and spectacular banyan trees, Thomas Square is a
popular informal recreation area that frequently holds
special events such as plant sales, dog shows, craft fairs,
etc. The grounds of the academy host a monthly Art--
after-Dark event that attracts both residents and visitors,
and appeals especially to young adults.
Downtown and Chinatown Districts
In the densely developed Downtown and Chinatown
Districts, open space is more limited. A few modest
active recreation facilities serve local residents, while the
many plazas and pedestrian malls function as compact
passive recreation areas for area workers, residents and
visitors.
Though small, these plazas and pedestrian malls are
significant outdoor resources that offer respite through
shaded seating, landscaping, fountains, and public art.
They provide an outdoor environment where visitors
and residents of diverse cultures stroll, exercise, relax and
socialize. Sites include Walker Park, Fort Street Mall,
Dillingham Plaza, Tamarind Park, Robert W. Wilcox
Mini Park, Union Street Mall, Fort Street Mall Mini-
Park, Chinatown Gateway Plaza, and Chinatown
Gateway Park.
Other Areas Chapter 5

In Iwilei/Kapālama, Kaka‘ako ma uka, and the eastern

portion of the study area, the recreation resources are
mostly stand-alone parks (e.g. Mother Waldron Park,
Kalākaua District Park), or public grounds such as
Honolulu Community College, with little connectivity
to other open spaces. They are used primarily by local
residents for active and passive recreation.
Chinese New
A‘ala Park at the Chinatown edge of Iwilei is a shady Year
green open space abutting a streamside path. Its design celebration
makes it well-suited for walking and passive recreation.
and now Thai, Laotian and Vietnamese, and the many
Its location makes it a natural pedestrian gateway
representatives of other Pacific islands among the
between Iwilei and Chinatown. Currently these uses are
population (including Guam, Marshall Islands, Samoa
constrained, however, as the park is occupied
and Tonga), all have striking living cultures that resonate
predominantly by the homeless.
in the everyday life of the Honolulu and Kapālama
The grounds of Bishop Museum are an important ahupua‘a. Ethnic foods, vendors and restaurants also
resource in the Kapālama ahupua‘a. They include a convey a strong sense of the feeling and flavor of
sloping lawn, courtyard, outdoor seating and landscaped Hawai‘i as do many on-going commercial activities such
shady areas where museum visitors can relax. The as lei selling, fish markets and even tattoo parlors (the
museum’s outdoor space is often a site for special events area hosts a museum of Pacific tattooing). Celebrations
for the general public, attracting hundreds of individuals and events, such as those listed below, also help keep
and families for its popular daytime and evening alive Hawai‘i’s many cultural traditions.
activities ranging from pure entertainment to star-
New traditions are also developing in downtown
gazing.
Honolulu that celebrate the area’s cultural heritage. A
vibrant example is “First Friday,” a monthly event in
LIVING CULTURE AND TR ADITION S Chinatown and surrounding area featuring local artists,
The proposed National Heritage Area hosts a multitude gallery open houses, food and music, all infused with
of vibrant cultural expressions that keep alive the the distinctive cultures of the Hawai‘i.
heritage of Native Hawaiians and the many other ethnic
The following list is a representative selection of a few of
groups that make up Hawai‘i’s unique multi-culturalism.
the many, many ways in which Hawai‘i’s many cultural
While these traditions are found throughout Hawai‘i, an
traditions are being kept alive and celebrated in the
especially rich concentration and range of ethnic
study area.
traditions are perpetuated within the proposed National
Heritage Area. Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese,

Band practice,
Kawaiaha‘o
Church

Bhutanese Dance atThomas Square in front of

Honolulu Academy of Arts
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 95
 Hawaiian
Christmas at Washington Place
This annual open house welcomes the public into the
gracious former home of Hawai‘i’s beloved Queen
Lili‘oukalani, beautifully decorated for the holidays in
Victorian style, as it might have been when the Queen
herself was in residence.
Kamehameha Day
This state holiday commemorates King Kamehameha I.
Events held in the study area include:
King Kamehameha Hula Festival held at Blaisdell
Arena.
Draping of lei on one of the most famous
attractions in Honolulu, the statue of King
Kamehameha I that stands in front of Ali‘iōlani
Hale. The image is lavishly decorated with 13-foot
floral leis that are created at the site by volunteers
accompanied by music and performances.
The King Kamehameha Celebration floral parade,
featuring colorful flower be-decked floats and
traditional pau riders (on horseback) begins in
downtown Honolulu, traveling along Punchbowl
Street and Ala Moana Boulevard, ending in
Waikīkī.
Lei Day
Lei Day, held annually on May 1 at Honolulu Hale (city
hall), celebrates the tradition of making and giving lei.
Festivities include a parade, the lei day queen and her
court, and lei-making demonstrations.
Hula
Hula halau throughout the islands keep alive this
traditional dance form – passing on not only the dance
itself, but the important cultural knowledge that is
integral to hula. Hula festivals and competitions held
within the study area include the Queen Lili‘oukalani
Keiki Hula Festival and the King Kamehameha Hula
Festival.
Keiki hula
96 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Day at Queen Emma Summer Palace
A day filled with Hawaiian music, song, handcrafted
artwork including lei and other masterpieces. The
Palace, summer retreat of Queen Emma, wife of King
Kamehameha IV, is preserved by the Daughters of
Hawai‘i in a charming Hawaiian-Victorian setting.
‘Iolani Palace
A solemn ceremony held on the steps of ‘Iolani Palace
marks the anniversary of Queen Lili‘oukalani’s
overthrow and imprisonment. Guided tours of the
beautifully restored National Historic Landmark provide
visitors with insight into the Hawaiian monarchy and its
overthrow.
Royal Hawaiian Band
Founded in 1836 by King Kamehameha III, the mission
of the Royal Hawaiian Band is to promote and foster
music, both current and historic, to preserve the
Hawaiian musical culture, inspire young musicians and
ultimately enrich the lives of the people and visitors of
Hawai‘i. The band holds weekly Friday afternoon
concerts on the ‘Iolani Palace grounds that are free and
open to the public.
Kawaiahao Church
Hawaiian traditions continue at historic Kawaiahao
Church, attended by many of Hawai‘i’s royalty since its
establishment by King Kamehameha III, including the
singing of hymns in Hawaiian and reading of scripture
in both Hawaiian and English. Selected Hawaiian
Royalty (Ali‘i) who are particularly important in the
church’s history are commemorated with special Sunday
services held in their honor. A number of other
churches founded by the early missionaries continue to
reflect their Hawaiian roots.
Bishop Museum
Bishop Museum is recognized throughout the world for
its cultural collections, research projects, consulting
services and public educational programs. In addition to
its outstanding public exhibits on Hawaiian and Pacific
Island science, culture and heritage, the museum
regularly conducts educational programming and events
for both young and old.
Ha‘i mo‘olelo, or storytelling, is the Hawaiian
tradition of passing down information from
generation to generation. Today, this beautiful
tradition continues through Bishop Museum’s
Cultural & Educational Outreach program, Ola Nā
 Mo‘olelo. These dramatic storytelling Chapter 5
presentations, complete with artifacts from the
Museum’s collections relevant to the mo‘olelo, bring
historical people and events from Hawaiian history
to life.
Family Sundays provide access to daily programs
in the Planetarium, Science on a Sphere, and the
Richard T. Mamiya Science Adventure Center at
special reduced rates for Hawai‘i residents. Lantern
The annual two-day Native Hawaiian Arts floating
Market and Festival, held on the Great Lawn ceremony
features the stellar work of dozens of native artists. different social, cultural and religious backgrounds
annually participate in this colorful and moving
MAMo: Maoli Arts Month
ceremony.
Maoli Arts Month is a broad community-based effort to
celebrate the depth, breadth, and diversity of the Native
Temples & Bon Dances
Hawaiian arts community, to create economic The study area is home to a number of Buddhist
opportunities for Native Hawaiian artists and cultural Temples that are centers for Japanese heritage. The
practitioners by increasing their presence in museums popular Bon Dances are a time for generations to come
and galleries, and to educate locals and visitors about together to remember their ancestors and celebrate their
Native Hawaiian art. This month-long celebration, common heritage.
features a variety of events held in and around
Chinatown, the Bishop Museum, and Waikiki including Native American
a Native Hawaiian book and music festival, a gallery
Pow Wow
walk with special exhibits of the work of Hawaiian
artists, and the Native Hawaiian Arts Market. The annual Intertribal Powwow held in Thomas Square
features a variety of activities highlighting the Native
Chinese
American heritage, including food booths, arts and
Chinatown & Chinese New Year crafts, entertainment, dance contest, drumming, singing
and displays.
A host of activities celebrating the Chinese New Year
attract thousands of visitors to Chinatown each year to
General
enjoy Lion Dances, food booths, ethnic dance troupes,
and martial arts demonstrations. Chinatown is home to First Fridays
numerous ethnic restaurants, shops, martial arts studios,
The first Friday of each month Chinatown and
a cultural center, and several small museums of Chinese
downtown galleries, museums and studios are open to
history and culture. Lao, Thai, Cambodian, Hawaiian
the public for this popular event that provides an
and other businesses add to the ethnic bazaar flavor of
opportunity to experience the artistic and cultural
the area.
resources of Honolulu. Festivities include live music,
street entertainment, open cafes and bistros, antique
Japanese stores, and gallery walks.
Lantern Floating Hawaii Ceremony
Maritime
The Lantern Floating Hawaii Ceremony, sponsored by
Shinnyo-en, a Buddhist order, is held along the shores of Hawai‘i Fishing and Seafood Festival highlights modern
Magic Island at Ala Moana Beach Park every year on and ancient fishing practices, current management
Memorial Day. During this Buddhist rite candle-lit measures, and fresh Hawaiian seafood products.
lanterns are individually set afloat on the ocean to pay
respects to ancestors and to comfort the spirits of the
deceased. Several thousand people from many

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 97

H eritage Edu cati on Reso u rces
Within the study area, major parks and public grounds
reflect the stages of the city’s growth around the
waterfront, and help tell Honolulu’s story as a nexus of
Polynesian, Asian and American cultures.
Many of the outdoor recreation and civic areas in the
area are associated with notable historic sites.
Commonly visited sites—‘Iolani Palace, Kawaiaha‘o
Church, St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Mission Houses
Museum—provide their own interpretive information
and/or guided tours. They promote their resources
actively through tourism venues, websites, educational
outreach, and special events.
By default, visitors to these sites enjoy their surrounding
outdoor settings to some extent. In most cases, however,
little interpretive information is available about the
landscape, and few pedestrian amenities are offered to
enhance the visitor’s enjoyment of it. These outdoor
spaces associated with historic assets are heritage
education resources that can be better developed for the
benefit of both residents and visitors.
Guided and self-guided walking tours are also available
in the district. Their itineraries include the major sites
described above, plus an array of lesser-known historic
features and buildings where there is little or no
interpretation provided.
The chart on the following pages shows the sites most
commonly promoted today. The overview of sites is
based on itineraries produced by these nine sponsors:
Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts
(HSFCA)—Detailed Public Art and Historic Places
brochures including maps were created by this state
arts agency for three self-guided tours: Capitol
District (C), Downtown (D), and Chinatown
(CH). The brochures are available at www.hawaii.
gov/sfca and at the agency offices at the Hawai‘i
State Art Museum.
Honolulu Star-Bulletin—In 2003, this Honolulu
newspaper produced a comprehensive itinerary for
a three-hour walking tour titled “Holoholo
Honolulu.” It covers fifty historic sites, and like the
SFCA tour, is divided into three sectors: Capitol
District (C), Downtown (D), and Chinatown
(CH). It can be found at www.starbulletin.com/
specials/holoholo.
‘Iolani Palace State Monument—In addition to its
on-site guided, self-guided and audio tours, the
98 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
popular ‘Iolani Palace also produces a walking tour
itinerary for surrounding sites; it is available at
www.iolanipalace.org/visit/map.html
American Institute of Architects Honolulu
Chapter (AIA Honolulu)—AIA offers guided
architectural walking tours of “Historic Honolulu”
(HH). Tours are scheduled by reservation. See the
list of sites at www.ainahonolulu.org
The City and County of Honolulu—The Mayor’s
Office website includes a 16-site itinerary for
Historic Honolulu (HH) at www.honolulu.hi.us/
moca/historichonolulu.htm. All the sites are within
the designated Capitol District.
Frommer’s—This well-known producer of travel
guides suggests itineraries for three walking tours in
the area: Historic Chinatown (HC), Honolulu
Waterfront (HC), and Historic Honolulu (HH),
www.frommers.com/destinations/oahu.
Fodor’s—Another famous travel guide resource,
Fodor’s combines sites in the Capitol District and
Chinatown for a self-guided walking tour titled
“Downtown Honolulu.” It is located at www.
fodors.com/miniguides/mgresultscfm?destination=h
onolulu_oahu@75
Alohafriendshawaii.com—Hawai‘i residents Mike
and Kim Crinella, trained tour guides, offer a
selection of “Historic Downtown Honolulu”
(HDH) walking tour sites on their comprehensive
website geared to the independent traveler
interested in Hawai‘i’s heritage. See www.
alohafriendshawaii.com/historichonolulu.html.
Waikīkī Trolley’s Red Line—Visitors lodging in
Waikīkī can access many of the sites and attractions
at the core of study area without a rental car by
jumping on the Waikīkī Trolley. The Red Line
travels through the heart of the city to Bishop
Museum and back, with stops at 24 commercial
and historic sites along the way. Only the historic
sites are shown on the walking tour chart below.
www.Waikīkītrolley.com
Many of the arts and cultural institutions in the study
area offer educational programs for art or cultural
heritage. These include Bishop Museum, The
Contemporary Museum, Hawai‘i Opera Theatre,
Hawai‘i State Art Museum, Hawai‘i Theatre Center,
Honolulu Academy of Arts, Honolulu Symphony,
Judiciary History Center, Mission Houses Museum, the
YWCA of O‘ahu, and Washington Place.
This chart shows the sites most commonly promoted today.
CITY AND ALOHA WAIKĪKĪ Chapter 5
STAR- ‘IOLANI AIA HONO # tours
HSFCA COUNTY OF FROMMER'S FODOR’s FRIENDS TROLLEY
BULLETIN PALACE LULU noting site
HONOLULU HAWAII.COM RED LINE

‘Iolani Palace and C C C HH HH HH DH HDH HCL 9

Grounds

Kawaiaha‘o C C C HH HH HH DH HDH 8
Church

Honolulu Hale C C C HH HH HH DH 7
(City Hall )

Hawai‘i State C C HH HH HH HDH HCL 7

Capitol

St. Andrew’s C C C HH HH HH HDH 7

Cathedral

Washington Place C C C HH HH HH HDH 7

Hawai‘i State C C C HH H HH DH 7
Library

Statue of C HH HH HH DH HDH HCL 7

Kamehameha I

Mission House(s) C C C HH HH HH DH 7
Museum

Ali‘iōlani Hale C C C HH HH HDH 6

Aloha Tower D D HW HDH HCL 5

Hawai‘i Theatre D D HH HC DH 5

‘Iolani Barracks C C C HDH 4

Cathedral of Our D D C HH 4
Lady of Peace

Hawai‘i Maritime D HW DH HDH 4

Center

Kamehameha V D D HH HDH 4
Post Office
Building
O‘ahu Market CH CH HC HCL 4
(1904)

Coronation C C HDH 3
Pavilion

Aloha Tower D HW DH 3
Marketplace

No. 1 Capitol C C HH HH DH 3
District Building

YWCA Building C C HH 3

Dillingham D D HH 3
Transportation
Building
Alexander & D D HH 3
Baldwin Building

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 99

This chart shows the sites most commonly promoted today.
CITY AND ALOHA WAIKĪKĪ
STAR- ‘IOLANI AIA HONO # tours
HSFCA COUNTY OF FROMMER'S FODOR’s FRIENDS TROLLEY
BULLETIN PALACE LULU noting site
HONOLULU HAWAII.COM RED LINE

Yokohama Specie D D HH 3
Bank Building

Honolulu Academy HH DH HCL 3

of Arts

Father Damien C HH 2
Statue

Statue of Queen C HDH 2

King Lunalilo C C 2

Kalanimoku (Hale) C HH 2

Armed Forces C HDH 2

Eternal

Hawai‘i News C C 2
Building Memorial

Kekūanao‘_ Hale C C 2

US Post C C 2
Office,Custom
House, Court
House (Old Federal
Building)

Hawaiian Electric C C 2

Archives of Hawai‘i C C 2,
(1906)

Financial Plaza of D HC 2
the Pacific

Stangenwald D D 2
Building

Judd Building D D 2

C. Brewer Building D D 2

Bishop Estate D D 2
Building

Bank of Bishop & D D 2

Co. Building

Melchers Building D D 2

McCandless D D 2
Building

Honolulu Police D D 2
Station

Falls of Clyde D HW 2

100 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

This chart shows the sites most commonly promoted today.
CITY AND ALOHA WAIKĪKĪ Chapter 5
STAR- ‘IOLANI AIA HONO # tours
HSFCA COUNTY OF FROMMER'S FODOR’s FRIENDS TROLLEY
BULLETIN PALACE LULU noting site
HONOLULU HAWAII.COM RED LINE

Hōkūle‘a D HW 2

Star-Bulletin D 2
Building

Sun Yat-Sen Statue CH HC 2

Chinatown CH HC 2
Cultural Plaza

Nippu Jiji Building CH CH 2

(1896), Irwin Block

Armstrong Building CH CH 2
(1905)

Wo Fat Building CH CH 2
(1900)

Izumo Taishakyo CH CH 2
Mission (1906)
of Hawai‘i

Kuan Yin Temple CH HC 2

(1880)

Foster Botanical CH HCL 2

Garden (1853)

Maunakea Street CH HC 2
Lei Stands

Bishop Museum DH HCL 2

Outstandi ng Opp ortun i ties
for Conservatio n of Natur a l ,
R ecreat io nal and Edu catio n a l
Re sources
The boundaries of the original Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District used for the study area were designated to
recognize and enhance the significant historic sites and
cultural venues that enrich urban Honolulu. These assets
are all threads of Hawai‘i’s past that, when woven
together, beautifully tell the story of our unique
heritage.
Functionally, however, the area is not experienced as a
unified whole by either residents or visitors. Physical
and social obstacles—a roaring freeway or a
neighborhood that feels unsafe—create divisions that
shape the walking behavior of residents and workers in
the downtown area. They also determine the routes of
the guided and self-guided walking tours that are
currently promoted in the area.
Even where there are no major obstacles, as we move
about on foot our appreciation of the resources around
us is affected dramatically by amenities—or lack of
them—in the walking environment. The availability of
information, interpretation, sidewalks, crosswalks,
restrooms, water fountains and quiet places where we
can sit, play and interact all help determine whether
walking is an attractive option.
This section examines the major needs and
opportunities for improvement of the walking
environment in the study area, and the roles the HCCC
might play to insure that needed improvements are
carried out.
Implement a way-finding system that provides
clear orienting information. Begin with a focus on
the area from Ward through Chinatown. Highlight
pedestrian routes that take advantage of existing
pathways through superblocks, away from traffic.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 101

 Improve crossings and street conditions on Ala
Moana/Nimitz to reconnect the core of the city to
the waterfront.
Design a continuous, appealing pedestrian route
through the waterfront area from Ala Moana
Beach Park to Aloha Tower, as far removed from
Ala Moana/Nimitz traffic as possible.
Transform Kaka`ako Ma uka into an inviting
pedestrian environment. Currently this area’s
unappealing pedestrian environment serves as a wall
between Capitol/Downtown and Ala Moana/Ward.
Properly developed, it could be a vibrant meeting
place.
Install amenities for pedestrians in the core area
from Ward through Chinatown, including marked
public restrooms, water fountains and more
strategically placed seating areas in open spaces to
encourage public use.
“Brand” the area more cohesively and
consistently to help eliminate confusion among the
various “district” designations (Chinatown District,
Capitol District, Chinatown Culture and Arts
District, Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District, etc.) and
aid in orientation.
Provide interpretation in parks and open spaces
that reinforces the themes of the nearby cultural
assets, highlights the area’s fauna, and/or tells the
story of the park itself.
Identify coherent interpretive themes
appropriate to the boundaries of the Heritage
Area. Entities within the study area are effectively
telling their own stories, but interpretation of the
connections among these stories and the broader
story of the area as a whole is needed. For
interpretive venues accessible to pedestrians, the
best potential lies in the core area of the designated
Heritage Area, where walking conditions are
acceptable and cultural assets are relatively close
together. The story of the capital, however, extends
well beyond that core.
Improve basic pedestrian infrastructure and
public safety in the portion of the district from
River Street to Kalihi. While city plans include
provisions for a pedestrian network, in reality
conditions are poor for pedestrians in many
streetside and open space locations.

Korean war memorial

102 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Cha pte r 6 :
Publi c In vol ve m e n t
Str a t eg i es

Promote public understanding

of National Heritage Area
designation, maximize
participation in the study
process, and assess public
support for designation.
(NHA Guidelines, p. 8)

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 103

H istory of Public I nvolv em ent
in HAWAI ‘ I CAPI TAL CULTURAL
Coalit io n
From its inception the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition has been committed to broad-based
participation and community involvement. One of the
first acts of the ad hoc committee was to create a
database of organizations, businesses and individuals that
might partner with the HCCC plan. The organization
reached out immediately to other organizations and
made separate overtures to community-based
organizations such as the Historic Hawai‘i Foundation (a
statewide historic preservation organization) and The
Outdoor Circle (an organization concerned with
protecting Hawai‘i’s environmental beauty) to get their
input. Communication efforts included: monthly
coalition meetings, email distribution of notices and
meeting minutes, messages in the Hawai‘i State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ Artreach newsletter,
press releases, and meetings and presentations at
businesses, associations and foundations.
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition members and
study team have been keenly aware of the need to listen
to public commentary from the first beginnings of the
organization. Coalition members and partners have
stressed the importance of “inclusiveness” and the need
to be open to new ideas from the public. Many of those
attending meetings represented specific constituencies
and were intent to insure that many voices were heard.
In August 2003 the Anne Smoke Public Relations firm
and Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Marketing
Committee compiled a distribution list of over 100
organizations, state and city agencies, businesses and
individuals with special interests in Hawai‘i’s arts and
culture and the downtown Honolulu area. Included on
the list were possible partners as well as individuals and
organizations with special knowledge or perspectives
regarding Honolulu. Both tourism sites and organizations
involved with special cultural activities were also
included.
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Mission/Vision
statement specifically referenced the organization’s public
charge. Article 2 of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition’s objectives stressed that the organization would
depend on an “assemblage of partnerships among public
and private entities;” Article 6 spoke of “collaboration
and partnership;” and Article 7 of the need to combine
the business, governmental and non-profit sectors in the
initiative, especially the Hawaiian groups.
104 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Meetings of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition,
held monthly, were widely attended during the
formative period. (Appendix 7 lists attendees of
meetings from July 2003 to August 2007.) HCCC also
took pains to vary the meeting venues and times to offer
a variety of opportunities to attend.
In April 2004 the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition
began active outreach to the public. The organization
focused on capacity-building and operations, planning
its strategy through the ongoing work of its committees.
An informational packet, including a description of the
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District, a map of the
proposed district and the organization’s mission
statement was distributed. The HCCC “story” was also
put into a power-point presentation for public meetings.
Further public outreach activities since the conference
have included creation of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition website in May 2005.
On May 14-15, 2004 the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition made its first appearance before a wider public
at the annual conference of the Historic Hawai‘i
Foundation and the state’s Historic Preservation
Division, held at the Hawai‘i Convention Center. With
further contributions from the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, National Main Street Center,
Travel Industry Management School (TIM) at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu Jazz Festival
and other groups, the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District
initiative was a featured attraction. Mona Abadir,
Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture of the Arts
Chairperson, provided an overview of the organization’s
formation and mission illustrating its holistic vision with
fellow panelists. Nearly all the 200-plus people in
attendance received brochures and informational
packets. Panelists were Peter Apo of the Native
Hawaiian Hospitality Association; Alice Guild, Friends
of ‘Iolani Palace; Frank Haas; Hawai‘i Tourism
Authority, and Judy Drosd from the Department of
Business, Economic Development and Tourism, each of
whom gave a perspective. Lorraine Lunow-Luke was
introduced as the new coordinator.
Gov e r nm e n ta l a n d
O rga ni z ationa l S u p p o rt
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition has received
strong governmental and organizational support from
the outset. Original partners for the organization, after
its first meeting in June 2003, were the Hawai‘i State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts and the State
Department of Business and Economic Development

and Tourism (DBEDT). HSFCA Board of
Commissioners Chairperson Mona Abadir, and HSFCA
Commissioners, Mary Philpotts McGrath, Manu Boyd,
Chuck Freedman, George Ellis and Gae Bergquist
Trommald were active in the HCCC start-up endeavor.
DBEDT, HSFCA, the Muriel Flander Fund, and Honu
Group Inc. contributed the organization’s start-up
funding.
Other governmental and organizational support came
from the City and County of Honolulu, especially the
Department of Planning and Permitting, represented by
Director Eric Crispin, the O‘ahu Visitors Bureau, led by
Les Enderton, and the Waikīkī Improvement
Association, headed by Rick Egged. The Hawai‘i
Community Foundation helped provide a vehicle for
initial funding and donations and was also represented
at meetings by Heidi Kuos. Other community leaders
and organizations playing a part in meetings and serving
on committees included Susan Killeen of the Hawai‘i
Consortium for the Arts and Marilyn Cristofori of the
Hawai‘i Alliance for Arts Education, both important
nonprofit organizations involved in the promotion of
the arts. (These organizations have since merged into
the Hawai‘i Arts Alliance.) Many other organizations
became involved as the initiative gained momentum in
2004 and 2005.
Official governmental support for the initiatives of the
Hawai‘iCapital Cultural Coalition came early on, in
October 2, 2003 with Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle
and former Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris signing a
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 105
Chapter 6
The HCCD
Proclamation,
with Governor
Lingle, Mayor
Harris and
Coalition
members
joint resolution to create and designate the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural District. In May 2004 a joint
resolution passed by both houses of the Hawai‘i State
Legislature affirmed designation of the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District. Current Honolulu Mayor Mufi
Hannemann supports the coalition by sending a
representative of his administration to sit regularly on
the HCCC Board of Directors. Representatives from
the following state agencies have also served on HCCC’s
board: Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the
Arts Board of Commissioners, the Department of
Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Hawai‘i
Tourism Authority and the University of Hawai‘i.
As described elsewhere, the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition has received funding for organizational
operations and this feasibility study from the Hawai‘i
Tourism Authority, Honu Group Inc., the Department
of Business, Economic Development and Tourism,
Muriel Flanders Fund, Kamehameha Schools, Alexander
& Baldwin Foundation, Eight Inc., Atherton Family
Foundation, Ko Olina Station and Ko Olina Center, Ko
Olina Resort Association, Hard Rock Cafe Honolulu,
Unlimited Construction Services, National Endowment
for the Arts and the Hawai‘i State Foundation on
Culture and the Arts. Demonstrating their support,
more than 23 individual coalition members and
organizations donated approximately $3,000 in seed
capital to found the organization. In-kind support was
also donated by the above organizations as well as Joots,
Nomura Design, Honu Group Inc., Honu Group
Communications, Anne Smoke Public Relations,
Enterprise Honolulu, the University of Hawai‘i, and the
Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association, in addition to
the countless volunteer hours and support provided by
other coalition partners.

Commu nit y Fo ru ms
In September 2006 the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition held a series of five community forums aimed
particularly at the general public. These were sponsored
both to inform the public of the progress of the
organization and to solicit recommendations for this
feasibility study and the coalition’s application to
designate the Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage Area.
The workshops, called the “Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District Forums,” were held at the Hawai‘i State Art
Musuem, the ARTS at Marks Garage, the Hawai‘i
Children’s Discovery Center, the Aloha Tower
Marketplace and at the Pacific Beach Hotel (with
sponsorship of the Waikīkī Improvement Association).
Traditional Hawaiian dance performance during opening day at
The workshops were designed to reach a wide range of
the State Capitol Building
the community, were held both weekdays and weekends
to accommodate to people’s varied schedules. Notes
were taken at each workshop and the results have been Culture and the Arts, sponsored a workshop by National
incorporated into this document. A summary of the Park Service representative Brenda Barrett on the
input from the public forums is attached as Appendix National Heritage Area application process and the role
12. of the community followed by an informal lunch
discussion with Ms. Barrett and the HCCC coordinator
Overall those attending felt that the HCCC’s proposal as part of the International Cultural Summit. This widely
to develop a National Heritage Area answered an attended conference of cultural and arts experts held
important community need. They agreed that May 11-13, 2006 was organized by HSFCA
establishment of a National Heritage Area would lead to Chairperson Mona Abadir and sponsored by the
comprehensively addressing preservation, conservation, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and
and interpretation that would not otherwise happen, some thirty partners.
and provide greater recognition for Honolulu’s many
unique stories, particularly the story of origins of Native
Hawaiians. In general the public forums helped to
clarify the ongoing steps in the designation process and
involve the general public in the planning process.
Among the strongest concerns were that the proposed
National Heritage Area might in some way interfere
with ongoing economic development efforts. There was
also concern about the meaning of federal designation
and the degree to which it might impose new
restrictions and federal regulations on the area.
Additional questions included the length of the process,
the target audience (whether tourists or Hawai‘i
residents) and the potential outcomes or alternatives if International Cultural Summit Opening Ceremony
the area were not to be designated.
In addition to the community forums, the HCCC, in
partnership with the Hawai‘i State Foundation on

106 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 C hapter 7 :
Managem e n t
Alt ernat ives

Compare managing area as

a National Heritage Area
versus other management
alternatives including the
“no action” alternative.
(NHA Guidelines, p. 12)

107 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Aerial view of
the State
Capitol
Building and
grounds, with
the ‘Iolani
Palace in the
foreground
H istory of Management P l a ns
for Area
Central Honolulu, especially the area surrounding
‘Iolani Palace and the later Hawai‘i State Capitol
Building (completed in 1969), has long been recognized
as a site of special historical, cultural and aesthetic value.
In 1959, with the beginning of statehood, the new state
legislature saw the need to create a civic center that
Hawai‘i could be proud of. In the first General Plan of
O‘ahu, prepared just after statehood under the
supervision of Planning Director Frederick K.F. Lee, the
authors stated that the “main civic center of the City
and County of Honolulu is the area around ‘Iolani
Palace, City Hall and the Federal Building (now known
as the old Federal Post Office, located on King Street)”
(City and County of Honolulu [1960]:11). The plan
encouraged the city and state to consider the purchase
of 70 acres to add to that already set aside for the
planned new State Capitol and its grounds. This would
bring the total area under governmental ownership to
145 acres.
In 1964 newly elected Governor John A. Burns and
Mayor Neal S. Blaisdell, with support of both the
Legislature and the Honolulu City Council, formed a
Policy Committee to oversee the development of a
108 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
master plan for the downtown governmental center of
the city. The same year the Legislature’s Civic Center
Policy Committee set out guidelines as the first stage
toward a Hawai‘i Civic Center Master Plan.
The Policy Committee awarded the project to the
planning and landscape firm of John Carl Warnecke and
Associates of San Francisco. Warnecke, together with the
architectural firm of Belt, Lemmon and Lo, had been
responsible for the design of the State Capitol Building,
for which plans were presented first in 1961; it was clear
that he saw the Civic Center as a natural outgrowth of
his design for the Capitol (Belt, Lemmon and Lo and
John Carl Warnecke and Associates 1961). Warnecke’s
plan went through several renditions before being
finalized. The last revised version was presented in 1968.
The Warnecke and Associates Master Plan embraced the
old ‘Iolani Palace grounds and surrounding
governmental buildings located on the south (ma kai)
side of the palace. It also called for extension of the
government center to the southeast (Diamond Head
direction) and ma kai to include properties later
occupied by the District Court and the later Federal
Building, both added in the 1970s. ‘Iolani Palace (built
in 1882) had been the seat of Hawai‘i’s government and
legislative body since the overthrow of Queen
 Chapter 7

The Warnecke
plan, 1961-
1968

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 109

Lili‘uokalani in 1893, but was to be set aside following
the construction of the Hawai‘i State Capitol. The
proposal also called for an open corridor northward
toward Vineyard Street and south to Ala Moana
Boulevard and also the construction of a state office
building on Punchbowl Street, on the site the Leiopapa
Hale now occupies. The plan projected a new municipal
office building for the area east of ‘Iolani Palace, close to
where it would eventually be built.
The Warnecke plan envisioned park-like spaces between
the buildings and streets lined with broad canopy trees.
The authors also called for a “Preservation Plan,”
recognizing 42 buildings in the area of “preservation
value.” These included older structures, such as the
Mission Houses just south of ‘Iolani Palace and
Kawaiaha‘o Church. Also noted for either “architectural
value” or “investment value” were the Honolulu
Academy of Arts, the Richards Street YWCA, and the
old Ali‘iōlanilani Hale, originally the court house and
administrative center for the kingdom after it was built
in 1874.
In the mid 1960s the state and city took positive steps
toward the realization of the Warnecke plan. Several
older buildings within the area, including the large
vaulted-roofed Armory that had been on the site of the
State Capitol and the remnant of the older Central
Union Church on Beretania Street, facing the Queen’s
former residence at Washington Place, were demolished
by the start of the project. The old ‘Iolani Barracks,
originally located on the site of the new Capitol Fort Street Mall in Downtown Honolulu Business District
buiding, remained for several years a pile of coral block.
But the monarchy-period military structure was would be completed, but then at a somewhat different
eventually rebuilt on its present site inside the ‘Iolani site than originally envisioned. The other proposed
Palace grounds gate on Richards Street. Two principal tower sites became the sprawling Federal Building, on
streets, Hotel and Queen Streets, were closed off and Ala Moana Boulevard, and Ali‘i Place, a post-modern
converted to pedestrian use. Formal walkways were style, stepped-back office block that was designed to
created around the principal buildings of the Capitol meet the guidelines of the later Capitol Special District.
site; other smaller streets ma kai of the Palace were Despite these departures from the original proposal, the
either closed or redesigned with new tree cover. The city and state governments carried out many of the
older and proposed City and County buildings were original features of the plan, an extended project that
unified within a newly created city park on the southeast resulted in the open and park-like area of the Hawai‘i
(Waikīkī/Diamond Head) side of the new district (John State Capitol and ‘Iolani Palace today. The tree-lined
Carl Warnecke and Associates and Civic Center Policy and pedestrian friendly boulevard of Punchbowl Street,
Committee 1965). linking the Capital and other government buildings to
Some of the proposals included in the Warnecke plan the waterfront, also were a direct product of the
were never actualized. Tall, monolithic office towers Warnecke plan.
were called for ma kai (Ala Moana Boulevard side) of Other organizations and governmental agencies
the area; another was planned for Hotel Street, near the separately created plans for the renewal and redesign of
Richards Street intersection. Only the City and County other parts of urban Honolulu during this time. A 1962
Building (now the Frank Fasi Municipal Building) Downtown Improvement Association scheme for

110 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

downtown, which would have resulted in the Chapter 7
realignment and closing of many streets and the creation
of a complex maze of pedestrian walkways and plazas,
was only partially realized in the creation of several
office complexes near Bishop Street and the “pedestrian
mall-ing” of Fort Street (Downtown Improvement
Association 1962). Many different transportation
schemes and street realignments were also never carried
out. By 1970 civic leaders and the business community
had accepted the complexity of the older urban layout,
and much of the old Chinatown area to the north of the
Central Business District had been set aside for
preservation.
Eventually, downtown Honolulu, including the new
Civic Center, the Central Business District and
Chinatown would be stitched together in a complex
series of planning overlays. With the advent of national
historic preservation initiatives, including passage of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, many of
Honolulu’s older buildings also were nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places. These included
several of the prominent historic buildings in the Civic
Center area, among them ‘Iolani Palace, which received
National Historic Landmark status for its extraordinary
contribution to America’s and Hawai‘i’s histories, the Statue at the
State Library, the Mission Houses complex and entrance to
Chinatown,
Kawaiaha‘o Church. In 1971 both Chinatown and the
Downtown
Merchant Street areas were listed as historic districts on
Honolulu
the National Register.
1972 the loose amalgamation of National Register
The City and County of Honolulu, with state advice
properties and the old Civic Center area was designated
and in some instances oversight, followed with
as a “Historic, Cultural and Scenic District.” Chinatown
recognition of special significance through local
and the Merchant Street areas were similarly designated
ordinances. Historic, Cultural and Scenic Districts were
in 1973. In 1974 the area around and including
local planning areas subject to Honolulu City and
Thomas Square, to the east of downtown, was also
County regulation. Under the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes
recognized as a special district; both Thomas Square and
published in 1986 they were subsumed under a new
the Honolulu Academy of Arts were separately listed on
title as Special Districts (State of Hawai‘i 1986). In
the National Register of Historic Places. Two years later
the city and county created the Punchbowl View Shed
District, an overlay district that emphasized the need to
preserve views to and from the prominent headland of
Punchbowl behind the city center. A few years later a
final special district, the Kaka‘akao Special Design
District, was added to the collection of Honolulu
overlay areas. This special area encompassed the former
industrial and residential precinct on the Waikīkī/
Diamond Head side of the city center and is under the
planning control of the state.
Developments since that time have included continuing
efforts by community members to revitalize Chinatown,

Merchant Street, Downtown Honolulu Business District

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 111

First Fridays,
Downtown
Arts &
Theater
District
enhancement projects focused on the Capitol Special
District and many private projects, including both new
buildings and restorations and rehabilitations of historic
structures. Most notable are the 35 million dollar
renovation of the historic Hawai‘i Theatre on Bethel
Street, and 21 million dollar purchase and renovation of
the historic former Armed Services YMCA building,
which now houses government agencies and the Hawai‘i
State Art Museum. Local organizations and individuals
have helped promote a nascent arts community in
Chinatown and along Nu‘uanu Avenue; Hawai‘i Pacific
University, headquartered in Chinatown, has emerged as
the state’s preeminent private college and has committed
to the re-use of many older structures downtown.
There have been many new investments in affordable
housing, especially along the Nimitz Highway corridor,
improvements in street lighting and signs and also in the
provision of street trees and both small and large parks.
In addition there has been new interest in design and
building in the area, examples include the architectural
award-winning First Hawaiian Center, home to The
Contemporary Museum Annex, and renovations to the
Aloha Tower harbor area and the University of Hawai‘i’s
Medical Center in Kaka‘ako, with others undergoing
capital campaigns for improvements such as Washington
Place, ‘Iolani Palace, YWCA, Hawai‘i State Art
Museum, Honolulu Hale, and the Mission Houses
Museum. The Art in Public Places program designated
by the state Legislature in 1967 has installed numerous
public art pieces throughout greater downtown, in
addition to the private sector’s many contributions of
public art in plazas and buildings. “First Friday” events,
focused on galleries and downtown institutions, and
other culturally oriented activities have contributed
further to this revitalization.
A recent addition to the state and the city and county’s
initiatives for Honolulu has been the adoption of the
112 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
new Primary Urban Center Development Plan
(PUCDP) for the city. This plan, approved in 2004,
calls for a unified look at the area stretching from
Kāhala and Waikīkī on the east to Pearl City to the
northwest of the City Center. The PUCDP emphasizes
the preservation of historic buildings and spaces and the
enhancement of neighborhoods and public areas. This
plan encompasses proposals and guidelines that lead
toward a common vision of what the city hopes to
achieve by the year 2025.
S pecia l P l a nni ng Dis tr icts
The area proposed as a National Heritage Area
encompasses and/or falls within several existing planning
areas. Honolulu is subject to an overriding Land Use
Ordinance (LUO), which was developed in conjunction
with the Master Plan for the City and County of
Honolulu (and now in accordance with the new Primary
Urban Development Plan as well). The Land Use
Ordinance last revised in 1986, addresses issues such as
building heights and bulks (e.g. floor-area ratios) and
set-backs, population densities and types of uses allowed,
based on designated zoning areas.
Several specially regulated areas also have an impact on
central Honolulu. The Capitol District, Chinatown and
Merchant Street, Punchbowl, Thomas Square and the
Honolulu Academy of Arts and Kaka‘ako Districts were
all consolidated within the Honolulu Revised
Ordinances in 1986 as “Special Districts,” with
Kaka‘ako retaining its title as a “Special Design
District.” The Special Districts are administered in
somewhat different ways, based on the overall character
of each area or an envisioned plan for change, as in the
Kaka‘ako Special Design District. Each area, together
with sections of the city not included in special districts,
is also subject to separate provisions in the LUO
(Described in the O‘ahu Revised Ordinances). The
Development Projects In Kaka‘ako District
Hawaii Community Development Authority
Chapter 7
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN KAKA'AKO
Completed Projects
1. One Waterfront Plaza & Towers
2. Pacific Park Plaza

ET
3. Royal Capitol Plaza

RE
ST
4. Kamakee Vista (Affordable Rentals)

P
HO
BIS
5. Pohulani (Affordable Elderly Rental)

ET
RE
6. Na Lei Hulu Kupuna

ST

ET
RE
EA
(Affordable Elderly Rental)

ST
AK
KING STREET

AL
18

S
7. The Imperial Plaza

RD
12
HA
8. Nauru Tower

RIC

T
HECO

EE
9. Kauhale Kaka’ako (Affordable Rentals)

TR
Site

IS
ALOHI WAY

24 10. Honuakaha (Affordable Elderly Rentals/

E ST.
14

AN
IL
Affordable Condos)

IL

UE
COOK
ET

EE
M
QU

AVEN
RE
23

R
NIMITZ HIGHWAY

EE

ST
N
11. Children’s Discovery Center

ST
ST ELM STREET

TH
RE

U
12. One Archer Lane
3

OW
ET

RD
SO
10

HB

WA
13. Hawaiki Tower

NC
2
Neal

PU
Federal
Building
HA
LE 28 39 2
Blaisdell
Center
14. Servco/Lexus Showroom
15. BMW on Kapiolani
21
McKinley

.
ST
KA

7
UW RYCROFT STREET
16. Altres Building

.
KA
High

ST
ILY
ILA PIO
School

R
ST

EM
LA
17. Nordstrom Rack

EIE
RE NI

15
ET BO

DR
UL
EV
18. Tesoro Gas Express
5
AR
HOOLAI STREET

7
D

PO
KA
WA
19. 1133 Waimanu (Affordable Condos)
16 20. CompUSA
HU IA
HONOLULU KA
IN
HA
O
21. Theo Davies
A ST
HARBOR

PENSACOLA STREET
ST RE
RE ET KAMAILE STREET
ET QU
EE
N
ST
22. Ward Entertainment Center
23. Word of Life Sanctuary
6

PIIKOI STREET
36
RE
ET

1 IL
AN
IW
AI
W
A IM
34 24. Sub-Zero Showroom
25. UH John A. Burns School of Medicine
38
T

ST AN
EE

RE U
STR

ET ST
RE
26. Hokua
42
Mother
1
ET
UTH

Waldron 27. Kapiolani Express

31
SO

37
Park
27 28. Honolulu Fire Dept. Headquarters/Museum
ET

ET
9
RE

RE
29. Ward Centre Auahi Street Shops
ST

ST
E

42

S
30. Ward Gateway Retail Shops
AW

IN
HOPAKA STREET

MM
ET

ET
KE

RE

RE

CU
20

ST
ST

Current and Future Projects

ET
ET

UI
L

KONA STREET
RA

AH

RE
RE

31. Honolulu Design Center

CO

ST
ST

4
ET

NI

UE
32. Queen Street Extension Park
E

MA
OK

RE

EN
ST
19 32

KA
CO

AV
33. Ko'olani (Nauru Phase 3)
A

D
UL

34. Moana Pacific

AR
KO

33

W
35. Ward Village Shops
30 17 32 40 13 36. 909 Kapiolani

.
ST
37. Public Storage
22

E
AU AH

KE
35
I STR
38. Wedding Ring Shop

MA
EET

KA
Ward
39. Keola La'i
Fort ALA MOAN
Warehouse
26 40. Nauru Phase 4
8
A BOULEVARD
Armstrong
43
ILA
LO
STR
EE
Makai
Gateway
41. Kaka'ako Waterfront RFP
42. Moana Vista
41
T
Park Ward
25
(ID-5) Centre 29 In Negotiations
43. Cancer Research Center of Hawaii
Makai
Gateway 41 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Park 41 KEWALO
Ala Moana Beach Park
41
REET

(ID-5) BASIN
Improvement District 1 (1988)
KOULA STREET
E ST
OH

Improvement District 2 (1990)

11
STREET

Kaka'ako
Improvement District 3 (1993)
Waterfront
Park 41 41 41
AHUI

Improvement District 4 (1999)

OLOM
EHAN
I STR
EET

Improvement District 5 (Gateway Park) (1998)

Kewalo Basin
Park Improvement District 6 (2000)
41 Improvement District 7 (2002)
Improvement District 8 (2003)
Improvement District 9 (2003)
Improvement District 10 (2004)
Improvement District 11 (pending construction)
Improvement District 12 (under construction)

Map Prepared: Feb. 2006

LUO also has a particularly important impact in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, Punchbowl
Chinatown and Merchant Street Special District due to located at the volcanic peak’s summit. Similarly, the
height controls in the district core, which serve to Honolulu Academy of Arts and Thomas Square District
discourage the demolition of historic buildings there was devised to protect the open character of the existing
(Chapter 21, Article 9 of the Honolulu Revised spaces and, as set out in the objectives prepared by the
Ordinances describes the Special Districts). Department of Land Utilization in 1995, to prohibit
intrusions, such as high rise structures, at the edge of the
All of the districts have been subject to later studies,
area.
statements of objectives and design guidelines
introduced over the years. Chinatown was the subject of The Kaka‘akao Special Design District is concerned
a Preservation Plan in 1974 and a Revitalization Plan in more with economic development than the other
1981. In 1991 the City and County sponsored a new districts. Recognizing that this former mixed residential
set of design guidelines for the Chinatown district. and industrial area is undergoing dramatic change, the
These addressed high-rise construction around the city has been attempting to guide new development,
periphery of the core historic area as well as much of which is slated to be high-rise residential, and
recommendations for signage and façade changes. In create a new recreational and institutional area near the
2004 the LUO was amended to allow for residential use waterfront. The Hawai‘i Community Development
of second and third stories in the core precinct of the Authority (HCDA) is responsible for planning for and
district in order to encourage more diversity of use and carrying out development in Kaka‘ako. The area is home
vitality in the old Chinatown area. to the new University of Hawai‘i John A. Burns School
of Medicine.
The Punchbowl View Shed District was created
originally with somewhat different intentions from that
of Chinatown. Here, as with a parallel Diamond Head Oth er R ecogni zed S pecia l
View Shed District governing Kapi‘olani Park and the A r e a s a n d I nit iat iv e s
views to and from Diamond Head State Monument, the Downtown Honolulu is host to several other special
aim was to protect views to Punchbowl Crater and also areas and designated districts or initiatives. These can
to preserve views from the extinct volcano’s slopes to the sometimes confuse the non-initiated to the process of
sea. The district also recognized the importance of the community involvement in Honolulu, but which serve

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 113

 to further the aims of economic development and visual
enhancement in the downtown area.
Among these initiatives is the Honolulu Culture and
Arts District (HCAD). This organization is a main street
program that focuses its efforts on the revitalization of
the core area of Nu‘uanu Street, between Beretania and
King Streets, and seeks to promote a climate for arts
development in Chinatown. The Honolulu Culture and
Arts District works closely with other organizations to
promote positive change within the area. The HCAD
has been especially active with the downtown and
Chinatown merchants in developing guidelines and
improvements along the “pedestrian-ized” street. The
HCAD has also worked closely with the Hawai‘i Arts
Alliance (HAA), the Nu‘uanu Merchants Association, First Fridays
the Chinese Merchants Association, the Chinese District, now hosts its Live from the Lawn concert series
Chamber of Commerce, and the Hawai‘i Heritage and the Aloha Tower Marketplace on the waterfront is a
Center, all located in the Chinatown or Nu‘unau lively First Friday destination as well.
Avenue areas of downtown, to promote community
awareness and civic improvements. Several other organizations have taken initiatives in
downtown Honolulu and the adjacent Chinatown area
This group along with businesses and other as well. The Hawai‘i Heritage Center (HHC), has
organizations in the Chinatown area, with leadership sponsored workshops, meetings and discovery tours in
from Hawai‘i Arts Alliance/ARTS at Marks Garage, the Chinatown area especially. The HHC also maintains
launched First Fridays, a monthly community event a small museum at its headquarters on Smith Street.
developed to help bring residents and visitors to the
downtown area, create traffic for the growing number of The government sector also has had a role in
galleries and design-related businesses, and dispel the revitalization efforts in several districts within the study
public’s apprehensions that the neighborhood is area. This sector includes the Neighborhood Boards,
“rundown” and “unsafe”. Since its inception, the event which solicit community input and forwards
has achieved widespread recognition and has steadily recommendations to the Honolulu City Council. In
expanded the number of participating businesses and Kalihi, a predominantly working-class residential and
organizations and their hours of operation. Increased mixed-use area ewa (northwest) of downtown, a
street activity has led to much merriment, street Community Implementation Group, organized under
entertainers, and a younger, livelier evening crowd the auspices of the city government has applied for and
exploring Chinatown’s eclectic shops and night spots. recently received designation of the area as a
The Hawai‘i State Art Museum, in the adjacent Capitol Neighborhood Revitalization Strategic Area (NRSA),
through a program sponsored by the U.S. Department
Left: Live
from the
Lawn
Far Left:
Music
performance
at the
Hawai‘i
State Art
Museum

114 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Nu‘uanu
(in the Honolulu ahupua‘a) and Liliha (in the Kapālama
ahupua‘a) neighborhoods were recently recognized by
the Hawai‘i state legislature as the Nu‘uanu-Liliha
Historic Corridor.
In June 2006 an historic 20-square block sector of
Chinatown was designated a Preserve America
Community Neighborhood. Preserve America, is a
White House initiative that encourages and supports
community efforts to preserve and enjoy our priceless
cultural and natural heritage. This initiative originally
focused on small historic towns but has now been
extended to include special neighborhoods in larger
cities. The application for this recognition was put
together by an alliance of the Honolulu Culture and
Arts District, the Downtown Neighborhood Board, the
Historic Hawai‘i Foundation together with the City &
County of Honolulu. The revitalization of Chinatown
was the topic of Honolulu Mayor, Mufi Hannemann’s
Chinatown Summit, held on June 22, 2006 at the
Hawai‘i Theatre Center.
Historic Hawai‘i Foundation published a book in May
2007 that celebrates historic corridors on each of
Hawai‘i’s major islands. The Historic Hawai‘i
Foundation chose to highlight the Nu‘uanu corridor
from Honolulu Harbor to the Pali in the O‘ahu chapter. 
The description of the Nu‘uanu historic corridor
includes an exploration of the heritage of the area, from
Native Hawaiian sacred sites to contemporary
architecture.  The book weaves together many themes
from Nu‘uanu’s past and includes descriptions of
architectural, archeological, transportation and natural
resources and how they have contributed to the
environmental, cultural and economic value of the area.
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition strives to
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 115
support the initiatives of its members, such as those Chapter 7
described above, and to work collaboratively where
appropriate. Many of the organizations listed in this
section participate in the coalition and serve on its board
of directors.
Specific provisions of the above management plans and
their relevance to HCCC initiatives are outlined in
Appendix 11.
M a nagem ent A lter nati ves :
No Ac tion / C u r r e n t U s e
A lter nati ve
The guidelines for National Heritage Areas require that
alternative outcomes be considered. Two alternatives are
addressed in detail in this report: the “No Action/
Current Use Alternative” and the “National Heritage
Area Alternative.” The potential impacts on resources are
discussed at length in Chapter 10. In this section it is
important that the two alternatives are clearly defined.
No Action/Current Use Alternative
The study area is heavily urbanized with a wide range of
both historic and non-historic resources. Several areas
are subject to close governmental regulation and review.
These include the Capitol District, the Punchbowl View
Shed District and the Chinatown Special District. Two
of these areas consider impacts on historic properties
and their surroundings; the Punchbowl View Shed
Special District relates specifically to the area to the
north (ma uka) of the state capitol area and takes into
account impacts on the visibility of the natural feature
of Punchbowl (Pūowaina). In addition to regulatory
controls the city and state also enforce zoning
regulations, including rules for setbacks, planting strips
and use and density controls. There are also parking
requirements for different types of new uses in the city
area, based on zoning area and function or use. In
addition, state laws govern impacts on archaeological
resources and particularly on Hawaiian and other
gravesites should they be impacted by development
activities. Finally, the city and state have responsibility
for maintenance of public streets and public parks and
open areas, as well as governance over street trees,
sidewalks, signage and other aspects of the streetscape
and landscapes.
The No Action/Use Alternative would not alter present
regulatory and other state and city controls over the
area. Management of historic and non-historic special
areas would doubtless continue in much the same way
as today. We could anticipate continued maintenance of
most historic buildings within regulated special districts
and continued construction of mostly high-rise
structures in the central business district and along the
Nu‘uanu corridor of the Pali Highway into the Nu‘uanu
Valley.
Visitor use of the proposed heritage area would also
continue unabated. We can anticipate additional
commercial interest in the Chinatown area as a result of
both the efforts of the Honolulu Culture and Arts
District and continuing investment by private club and
bar owners as well as galleries in the area. No studies
have indicated a diminution in the amount of retail use
in Chinatown or a loss in the popularity of fish and
produce markets or lei sales, all of which appear from
market studies to have a solid future in the area. The
Capitol District, encompassing the Civic Center, also
promises to continue to exist in much its present form:
no new buildings are anticipated in this area; and
existing levels of visitor and other public and
commercial uses would be expected to continue at much
their present levels.
The central business district can also anticipate little
change of use or intensity of use. There is some trend
toward high-rise residential use in undeveloped areas of
the downtown, especially near the edges of the core
business area. Also, some historic buildings are under
continuing threat of demolition due to the high value of
the area; the cherished Alexander and Baldwin Building,
for example, has been cited many times as a potential
site of a high-rise office tower, a fate that destroyed
another historic building across the street several years
ago (the First Hawaiian Bank Building, demolished in
1994 for a new banking tower). Further development of
the waterfront area, including the existing Hawai‘i
116 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Electrical Company’s power plant on Ala Moana
Boulevard, is also a possibility in the future as is more
both residential and commercial construction in the
Kaka‘ako area at the eastern edge of the proposed
heritage area.
M a nagem ent a s a N ationa l
H er i tage A r ea
Designation as a National Heritage Area, managed by a
public/private partnership, provides a promising
opportunity to recognize and promote the unique
historic, educational, recreational, cultural and natural
resources of Hawai‘i and provides a conceptual umbrella
for the preservation and interpretation of a nationally
distinctive landscape.
The historic core of Honolulu has considerable potential
to become a National Heritage Area. At first glance the
city is somewhat broken up — both visually and in
terms of land-use and density. The city has been the
product of successive economic developments and
events. The older Hawaiian village of Kou was usurped
by western commercial and residential development.
This newer area, in turn, was subject to the vicissitudes
of continual economic and social change, as the Central
Business District became more fully defined and the
Civic Area acquired its own identity. The area now
known as Chinatown grew up alongside the central
business district, at first clearly complementing the
commercial buildings at the city core, but later falling
into stagnation. The Urban Renewal program in the
1960s nearly took Chinatown away; designation as a
National Register Historic District and subsequently as a
Special District, subject to design standards and
regulations, have had the effect of redefining the area
and calling attention to its historic qualities.
Despite designation of a Capitol District (which also
contains individual listings in the National Register) and
a separate Merchant Street Historic District (combined
with Chinatown as a Special District by the City and
County of Honolulu), central Honolulu lacks a strong
sense of internal unity. Newer structures, especially in
the high-rise central business district, break the visual
flow of the Territorial Period city; historic buildings are
separated by newer structures; parking areas interrupt
the edges of both the downtown and the historic
Chinatown area. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the
city was divided by the island’s principal expressway, the
H-1, which still cuts as swath along the upper edge of
the downtown area.

View towards downtown from Post Office
The study finds that National Heritage Area designation
would not appreciably alter development trends and/or
pressures in the downtown area. It is difficult to predict,
but it is clear that some highly valuable sites, both with
and without historic buildings or other assets, will
continue to be subject to development pressures.
However, Honolulu’s designation as a heritage area may
change both public and leadership attitudes toward
historic properties and may encourage elected officials to
consider strengthening existing regulatory laws and
possibly enact a landmark ordinance for outstanding
historic properties; but this cannot be guaranteed.
Overall, it is anticipated that designation would help to
“reframe” or “recast” the historic urban area as an
important heritage as well as commercial area and
change peoples’ attitudes toward the existing city.
A significant anticipated change in the area could be a
shift in public and visitor attitudes toward the historic
urban center and its many natural and manmade assets.
Designation would provide a “conceptual umbrella” over
the designated area, allowing users and visitors to
“envision” the city and surrounding areas in cultural and
historic terms. This change in attitude would be coupled
with an increase in both local use and outside visitation,
especially by Hawai‘i’s many both mainland and
international visitors. We would anticipate positive
benefits from such increased use. These would include
more visitors for important cultural institutions,
including ‘Iolani Palace, Washington Place, the
Honolulu Academy of Arts, the Hawai‘i State Art
Museum (HiSAM) and The Hawai‘i Theatre Center as
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 117
well as for the many smaller institutions and cultural Chapter 7
centers in the city. This increase in both local and visitor
activity would result in greater benefits to local vendors
and merchants, as well as restaurants, grocery shops and
markets.
Designation as a heritage area would also enhance the
potential for interpretation within the urban core of
Honolulu. The envisioned heritage area would feature
visitor information centers and both guided and self-led
tours of the downtown and any associated areas. A wide
variety of interpretive programs would do much to
enhance the heritage value of the proposed area. These
could include tours and supporting material on the
Native Hawaiian presence in downtown, the meanings
of traditional place names, sites of historic importance
in the history of Hawai‘i. In addition, architectural and
historical tours, building on the important examples of
the Hawai‘i Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects and the Kapiolani Community College’s
earlier walking tour programs, could take on a new life
as part of the programming for the area. We would also
anticipate greater visitation by school groups and
families, both on O‘ahu and from neighbor islands, and
also expect an increase in tourist visitors to the area.
Negative impacts of these activities could include
increased traffic and parking requirements. However, the
heritage area proposal would anticipate increased
reliance on public transportation and buses and vans for
tours. Also, a percentage of the anticipated new use
would occur during periods of present “under-use,”
particularly evenings and weekends.
An important positive benefit of heritage designation
would be an enhancement of potential for resource
protection. This includes the potential for further
protective legislation and regulations of historic
buildings, sites and other special areas through public
The Blaisdell
Performing
Arts Center
 Japanese
noodle house

and governmental controls and also the potential for
further documentation and recognition of as-yet
unrecorded historic resources. Honolulu still has many
pockets of older residences and commercial buildings
that have never been surveyed or added to the state
inventory. Heritage designation could increase the
possibility of further research and also encourage the
recognition of potential historic districts within the
heritage area. Designation of individual properties
would also increase the potential of special funding or
grants for preservation and re-use.
Hawai‘i
Ballet
Finally, another aspect of resource protection would be
the encouragement of both governmental and private
investment in historic properties. Following upon
existing property tax incentives for both residential and
commercial properties, heritage designation would
hopefully lead to other forms of financing or investment
in historic buildings and possibly the introduction of
grants programs.

118 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

C hapte r 8:
Boundar y Del i n ea t i o n
Alt ernat ives

Prospective heritage area

boundaries should include resources
with integrity that have important
relationships to the potential
themes developed in Chapter 3.
All resources related to the themes
in the study area need not be
included within a proposed
boundary. A strategic or
representative assemblage that
enables residents and visitors to
fully understand how the region
has contributed to the national
story and that offers opportunities
for additional resource protection is
a desirable result. (NHA
Guidelines, p. 12)
H istory of Study Area
Boun d aries
As this study has demonstrated, the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District, Nu‘uanu Valley, and Kapālama host a
wealth of cultural, arts, historic, natural, recreational
and educational assets well beyond the initial list. It is
the intent of the coalition to incorporate into its plans
and give further emphasis to these additional resources
as the district continues to evolve into a Heritage Area.
Initially, the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District
boundaries were utilized for the study area. When the
HCCC was established in 2003, these boundaries were
determined by a community committee and agreed to
by the wider coalition. They were officially affirmed by
a joint proclamation by the Governor of the State of
Hawai‘i and the Mayor of the City and County of
Honolulu, and further confirmed by resolution of the
Hawai‘i State Legislature.
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District concept from the
first has been firmly rooted in “a sense and spirit of
place,” as well as the idea of links among significant
cultural organizations and heritage sites, and
connections within and among city defined sub-
districts. It has also been cognizant of the regional,
national and global reach of these connections.
Initial discussions focused on the idea of a “walkable”
pedestrian accessible area. Coalition members drew up
a preliminary list of thirty-seven organizations and sites
located within a fairly confined area in the heart of
Honolulu. This list included many key historic, cultural,
educational, and arts organizations and venues within
the downtown and coastline areas or nearby.
The identified organizations and potential partners can
be grouped into seven broad categories:
1. Museums or other exhibits
2. Performing arts centers
3. Community-based cultural centers
4. Churches
5. Governmental centers
6. Educational and/or educational support centers
7. Commercial sites
120 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Hawai‘i State Art Museum gate
An HCCC Geography Committee held lively discussions
and after much debate suggested preliminary boundaries
for the proposed district. These were stated as running
ma uka (inland) from the waterfront to Bishop Museum
on the ‘ewa (northwest) side, ma kai (shoreward) to
Kaka‘ako on the western edge to include River Street and
Chinatown; on the east to extend to the Blaisdell Center
and Honolulu Academy of Arts.
The proposed boundaries extended along the edge of
the harbor, following Ala Moana Boulevard and Nimitz
Highway westward to Kalihi Avenue; then north to
School Street, enveloping the Bishop Museum property,
then eastward along Beretania Street to Pi‘ikoi Street on
the Diamond Head side; southward to the harbor,
taking in the broad Kaka‘akao area. Overall, the original
district boundaries provided an organizing framework
for the principal cultural institutions and also several
significant historic neighborhoods.
These boundaries did not conform to National Park
Service guidance for the boundaries of districts to be
listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register Bulletin 35). In large part this reflected
the fact that the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition did
not view the proposed district as a possible National
Register listing nor an area that would be subject to
regulatory controls. The limits of the district were not
determined by the concentration of historic properties,
as they might be for a national register district, but
rather to envelope most of the key cultural sites and
possible contributors to the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District plan.

Honolulu and
Kapālama Ahupua‘a
boundaries
Alternat i ve Boundar i es for
th e Propo sed Natio nal
H e ritag e Area
For purposes of investigation, the study team utilized
the designated Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District
boundaries as the study area, with some consideration of
Nu‘uanu Valley and adjacent Kapālama. In particular
the Draft Environment Assessment section of this report
gathered statistics only for the census areas contained
within the study area (i.e., HCCD) boundaries. The
data can be expanded in the future as the new National
Heritage Area builds its programs and activities and
develops it partnerships.
Boundary alternatives for the proposed National
Heritage Area include utilizing ancient Native Hawaiian
land management boundaries called ahupua‘a, inclusion
of associated areas adjacent to the proposed National
Heritage Area, expansion to other parts of Honolulu
and Hawai‘i, or continuing the status quo with no
National Heritage Area designation.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 121
The Honolulu Ahupua‘a Chapter 8
One concept much considered by the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition and study team, is that of the
traditional land division of ancient Hawaiians called an
ahupua‘a. The proposed National Heritage Area is
located within the combined ancient boundaries of the
Honolulu ahupua‘a and the Kapālama ahupua‘a.
An ahupua‘a is a division of land that customarily runs
from the mountains to the sea and are typically
described as wedge-shaped land divisions that are usually
delineated by mountain ridges, rivers, streams and other
natural features. More importantly, the ahupua‘a was a
production system that relied on a unique relationship
between its residents and its natural resources.
Sometimes referred to as “system of systems” the
ahupua‘a was as much a behavior management system as
it was one of resource management and relied on the
alignment of specific cultural values, behaviors and
protocols (or kapu). An ahupua‘a like the one
comprising Nu‘uanu Valley and adjacent areas, for
instance, would have provided its inhabitants with all
the basic resources necessary to live on an island
including building and construction materials, fresh
food and water. The residents of an ahupua‘a were
usually related and part of an extended ‘ohana, family
working units. Each member had a unique kuleana,
responsibility or expertise, that was critical to the overall
success of the ahupua‘a. Some would gather fish, salt
and aquatic plants from the sea while others would farm
the fertile wetlands and uplands where staples like taro
and the sweet-potato were cultivated and harvested.
The ahupua‘a’s high forests not only provided precious
water resources for irrigation and drinking, but also
provided wood for building structures and canoes, wild
plants, fibers and herbs for everything from work
utensils and tools, clothing and life saving medicines
and remedies. Native Hawaiians today continue to value
ahupua‘a not only for its important natural and cultural
significance, but as a metaphor for sustainable living and
as a model for modern land-use development and policy.
The concept of an ahupua‘a has gained increasing
recognition among planners and others in Hawai‘i and
is frequently now considered when designating or
proposing changes to land designations in the Hawaiian
Islands. For this reason the study team also considered
the study area in the context of the two ahupua‘a of
which it was once a part.
A panel of Hawaiian cultural experts and historians was
convened to recommend appropriate boundaries arising
Satellite view
of O‘ahu,
proposed
National
Heritage Area
boundaries
from the ancient ahupua‘a. The panel used the “Pre-
Mahele Moku and Ahupua‘a” map prepared by the
Hawaiian Studies Institute, Kamehameha Schools,
1987, published in Pana Oahu: Sacred Stones Sacred
Lands, by Jan Becket & Joseph Singer, 1999. The panel
recommended use of the Honolulu ahupua‘a, together
with the adjacent smaller Kapalama ahupua‘a, because
they provide continuity for the proposed National
Heritage Area’s themes and its abundant natural,
cultural, and historic assets; and they effectively cover all
of the study area at their ma kai end.
Expansion Alternative
One alternative to using the proposed NHA boundaries
would be to extend the National Heritage Area to other
parts of O‘ahu or even farther to the neighbor islands.
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition participants and
stakeholders considered this far too ambitious a step to
begin. Furthermore, it was felt that such an area would
lack the localized identity that an ahupua‘a provides for
122 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
the National Heritage Area boundaries and provide less
sense of cohesion than the proposed NHA boundaries.
Should interest emerge among other towns and localities
in Hawai‘i, the area concept might be extended to these
places at a future time. Alternatively, such areas might
apply for independent designation as National Heritage
Areas. The HCCC would certainly support these
efforts.
No National Heritage Area Alternative
The final alternative of “no designation” would maintain
the status quo. Conservation and interpretation of
resources important to Hawai‘i and the nation will likely
continue to develop unevenly, with a lack of overall
coordination, insufficient attention and resources
devoted to preservation, continued loss of heritage assets
to pressures of development, and continued insufficient
recognition by a national audience of the incredible
assets found within the district and the story they tell.
Conclusion: Recommended Boundaries for the Chapter 8

Proposed National Heritage Area

During the course of this study, considerable
momentum and public support has been generated for
the use of the ahupua‘a concept as the organizing
principle for the proposed National Heritage Area.
Therefore the study team strongly recommends using
the combined ancient boundaries for the Honolulu
ahupua‘a and Kapālama ahupua‘a as the National
Heritage Area boundaries.
Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a include many
residential neighborhoods and would require additional
public education and involvement in the process outside
that conducted in the original study area if this becomes
the designated National Heritage Area.
The proposed boundaries are the result of an
examination of known sites of historic and cultural
significance, the existence and non-existence of cultural
and institutions, the perceived manageability of the area,
and public concensus. However, the intrinsic value of
the area is much greater than stated in physical
boundaries, and will support the HCCC’s mission.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 123

 Modern hula, Waikīkī View towards Diamond Head

124 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

C hapter 9 :
Proposed
Managem en t En t i t y

Describe the proposed

management entity for
the potential NHA.
(NHA Guidelines, p. 13)
 The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition engaged
the services of the Cultural+Planning Group (C+PG), a
Los Angeles- and Honolulu-based consulting firm
specializing in arts organizations to analyze the potential
of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition organization
as the National Heritage Area management entity and
develop a five-year conceptual financial plan for the
purposes of this study.
The firm’s methodology included a review of
documentation and materials related to the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition and its NHA feasibility
study, interviews with the HCCC coordinator and
board president to define issues and refine the research
process, attendance at two public input sessions, and
interviews with potential program partners and funders.
(See Appendix 13 for a roster of interviewees).
H awai‘i Capital Cultu ral
Coal it ion as th e P rop ose d
Man agement Entit y
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition, as a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization, is an appropriate management
entity for the proposed NHA. Experts identify a wide
array of management entities among the heritage areas
currently designated by Congress. These entities include
501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, municipal/regional
authorities, the National Park Service, corporate
subsidiaries, and trade associations [501(c)(6)s]. By far,
the largest percentage of management entities is 501(c)
(3) nonprofits.
While representatives of government are, and will
continue to be involved, the need for this management
entity to be broadly representative of local interests and
as inclusive as possible requires that it operate
independently. Operating as a separate nonprofit, tax-
exempt corporation, the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition can effectively approach individuals,
businesses, foundations and corporate funding sources
for both operating and programmatic funds, as well as
serve as a bridge among government, private and
nonprofit entities. An independent nonprofit can
operate in a more entrepreneurial fashion with fewer
regulatory and political obstacles than a government-
based entity. The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition’s
organizational structure allows for planning and
operations that has input from, and is responsive to,
the needs of a broad spectrum of local stakeholders.
126 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
The choice of management entity is best made on the
basis of community planning that leads to the
identification of an appropriate agency. Since 2003,
HCCC has engaged in a community process that led to
its incorporation in 2005 as a private nonprofit
organization. HCCC has projected itself publicly during
this time as a managing entity and has garnered
community support in the form of the partners within
the district, its board of directors, resources, and
designation by the State of Hawai‘i and City & County
of Honolulu as a cultural district. Conversely,
throughout the interview process, there was no
expression of a desire to oppose HCCC as the
management entity for the NHA or for another agency
to assume that role. (However, during the course of one
interview, a question was raised whether or not
management should rest with a 501(c)(3), or if it might
best be incorporated into a government agency such as
Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, the City & County of
Honolulu’s Office of Economic Development, or the
Mayor’s Office of Culture & Arts. This was raised in
the context of the need for further research that would
provide a basis for making a partnership commitment.)
National Heritage Area management entities succeed
based on several factors. The first and most significant is
engagement of constituents in the planning and
development of the district. The Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition has engaged in some community
planning and intends to pursue more thorough and
inclusive planning. A second factor is developing
support from diverse sectors. HCCC has begun this
process and has developed diverse initial support within
the district and among political and community leaders.
A third factor is developing sufficient support and
organizational capacity to fulfill the mission of the
National Heritage Area. Even small National Heritage
Area management entities have between two and four
staff members, and large entities have multi-million
dollar budgets. The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition
is currently embarking on a strategic planning process
that will create a project action plan and address
organizational capacity-building and resource
development to a level that will allow it to function as
the district manager.
Interviewees expressed general approval of the mission of
the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition and the overall
purpose of preserving and promoting Hawai‘i’s culture.
They acknowledge and support the concepts of
economic development (including tourism) rooted in
the culture and heritage of place, historic preservation,
cultural education, and community development. They
also acknowledge the potential benefits of designation as
a National Heritage Area.
All interviewees expressed a general interest and
willingness to support the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition and its application to become a National
Heritage Area, with certain limitations. The primary
hesitation is that the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition's strategic planning is not yet sufficiently
developed. In the absence of specific plans for programs
and partnerships, and a basis for understanding how
these programs might benefit their organization’s key
constituencies, it is premature for interviewees’ agencies
to make commitments. Also, most interviewees
expressed a desire for additional communication
concerning HCCC initiatives and, in some cases, to
participate in further planning.
As noted above, the HCCC Board of Directors and
coalition is embarking on a comprehensive strategic
planning process that should address these concerns.
Committees of community volunteers are developing
concrete plans to address key issue areas identified by
coalition partners and community stakeholders.
Appendices 9 and 10 have more details on the HCCC
action plan and initiatives.
While interviewees, for the most part, agreed that
HCCC is an appropriate manager for the district, a few
cautionary comments were noted. Any management
entity must be politically sensitive to and representative
of cultural groups in the district, most importantly
Native Hawaiian groups. It must have reasonable
organizational stability or too much energy will be
expended on survival. The management entity must
include staff with a strong market and product
development background to have credibility with the
tourism industry. It also requires leadership with a
cultural tourism perspective to move ahead successfully.
Finally, it must increase its organizational capacity if it is
to be the implementation agency that would bring
together different groups.
Organ iz atio n History
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District initiative was
launched in 2003 by a coalition of more than twenty-
five civic buildings, museums, historic sites, galleries,
entertainment venues, and businesses with the support
of State and City and County offices who recognized
the great potential of the district and what could be
achieved by working together. The number of partners
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 127
Chapter 9
today has grown to more than 75 organizations. (See list
of participating organizations on page 63.)
The group was initially brought together through the
efforts of the Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and
the Arts’ chairperson, Mona Abadir, and the HSFCA
Board of Commissioners, in particular Mary Philpotts
McGrath, George Ellis, Gae Bergquist Trommald,
Chuck Freedman and Manu Boyd. In keeping with the
HSFCA’s community-developed statewide strategic plan,
the initiation of the HCCC was supported by HSFCA
Executive Director, Ron Yamakawa, Estelle Enoki and
other staff. The Department of Business, Economic
Development and Tourism, Judy Drosd, Steven Lee,
Tracy Young, and David Nada, Friends of ‘Iolani Palace,
Honolulu Academy of Arts, Historic Hawai‘i
Foundation, O‘ahu Visitors Bureau, Waikīkī
Improvement Association, City and County of
Honolulu Department of Planning, and University of
Hawai‘i quickly joined as partners, sending
representatives to early planning meetings.
In a few months’ time this impressive group was able to
achieve consensus and create a preliminary game plan
for the formation of the HCCC. In October of that
year, Governor Linda Lingle and then-Mayor Jeremy
Harris signed joint proclamations to officially designate
the district. The Hawai‘i State Legislature adopted a
resolution affirming the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District designation in May 2004.
Initial seed capital and in-kind resources to build the
coalition and set up the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition was provided by Honu Group, Inc, the
Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, the
Department of Business Economic Development and
Tourism, and the Muriel Flanders Trust, a private
foundation.
Mona Abadir, Mary Philpotts McGrath, Gae Bergquist
Trommald, Judy Drosd, Chief of the Arts, Film and
Entertainment Division of the Department of Business,
Economic Development and Tourism, and Alice Guild of
the Friends of ‘Iolani Palace, became the Executive
Committee for the newly-established entity. Teresa
Abenoja, Vice President at Honu Group
Communications LLC, volunteered her time as
coordinator/administrative assistant. Enterprise
Honolulu served as the coalition’s fiscal sponsor as it
worked to become incorporated and establish a nonprofit
organization.
The partner’s vision for the Hawai‘i Capital National
Heritage Area is:
An inviting, vibrant and cohesive destination for
residents and visitors alike that celebrates Hawai‘i’s
distinctive historical and cultural personality.
Our historic treasures will be restored and pre-
served for generations to come. Heritage education
programs, festivals and events will celebrate and
perpetuate Native Hawaiian and the many other
cultures that make up our island legacy.
Comprehensive interpretation will educate residents
and visitors alike about the important history of
the area.
Natural and scenic assets will be conserved, the
shoreline protected, and open spaces enhanced for
the enjoyment of the outdoors.
Information centers, cohesive signage, maps, and
other informational materials will guide visitors to
the area’s many cultural, natural, scenic, educational
and recreational sites and activities throughout the
area.
Improved infrastructure, pedestrian pathways,
adequate parking, safety measures, and alternative
modes of transportation within the heritage area
and to and from adjacent districts will help visitors
easily access the area’s many wonderful destinations.
Organ iz atio nal Structu r e
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition was formally
incorporated as an independent nonprofit organization
on April 19, 2005 and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status was
granted by the IRS on August 1, 2006. The organization
was originally incorporated as The Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District. Its name was changed to The Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition (HCCC) in 2008. The HCCC
is one of only a few organizations in Hawai‘i that bring
together such a wide number of government, business,
128 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
nonprofit, and community representatives for the purpose of
promoting our culture and heritage.
The organization currently has one paid staff person, the
Coordinator. The HCCC staff person’s role is to: conduct
stakeholder outreach to build the coalition, write grant
proposals for fundraising, provide staff support for work of
the committees and board of directors, develop content for
website and other outreach and communications pieces,
help develop and coordinate projects, work together with
the board to identify and bring together partners to
facilitate strategic alliances, and conduct planning with
team for the cultural area’s development.
The organization’s success to date is due to the
contributions of a large number of partners from the
district who support the vision and are committed to
achieving its goals. Very active committees, made up of
community volunteers, conduct the work of the coalition
together with the board members and HCCC coordinator.
Additional staff is hired as required for special projects. For
example, in June 2007, Susan Killeen, Special Projects
Manager, and Jackie Smythe, Communications Specialist,
were hired as project staff for The Big Read in Hawai‘i,
held from September to December 2007, an initiative of
the National Endowment for the Arts, for which the
HCCC was the administrative umbrella. Appendix 10
more fully describes the Big Read project.
The coalition meetings, open to anyone interested, ensure
that a broad range of local interests are represented in the
administration of the current Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District and proposed National Heritage Area. Coalition
and committee meetings also serve to create strategic
partnerships and promote cooperation among various
organizations, agencies and businesses. The coalition
meetings have been attended by a broad representation of
nonprofit arts and culture organizations, relevant
government agencies, businesses, tourism organizations,
and community individuals. (See Appendix 7 for a list of
attendees.)
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Partners
The list below presents many of the organizations that
have been actively involved in the coalition since its
inception. Coalition participation continues to grow as the
organization seeks to expand its partnerships and develop
the strategic alliances that will further its goals. A list of
additional recommended partnerships was developed
during the community forums and these organizations and
individuals will be contacted in the coming months.
 Chapter 9
Arts/Cultural/Historic Organizations Department of Business, Economic
The ARTS at Marks Garage Development and Tourism
Bishop Museum Department of Education
The Contemporary Museum Department of Human Services
Foster Gardens Downtown Neighborhood Association
Hawai‘i Children’s Discovery Center Eight Inc.
Hawai‘i International Film Festival Enoa Corporation
Hawai‘i Maritime Center Enterprise Honolulu
Hawai‘i Opera Theatre General Growth Properties
Hawai‘i State Archives Hard Rock Cafe Honolulu
Hawai‘i State Art Museum Hawai‘i Arts Alliance
Hawai‘i State Library Hawai‘i Community Services Council
Hawai‘i Theatre Center Hawai‘i Council for the Humanities
Honolulu Academy of Arts Hawai‘i Pacific University
Honolulu Culture and Arts District Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and The Arts
Honolulu Hale Hawai‘i State Library System
Honolulu Police Department’s Law Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Enforcement Museum Historic Hawai‘i Foundation
Honolulu Symphony Honolulu, Dept. of Planning and Permitting
‘Iolani Palace Honolulu, Office on Culture and the Arts
Judiciary History Center Honolulu, Office of Economic Development
Kawaiaha‘o Church Honu Group Inc.
Mission Houses Museum Honu Group Communications LLC.
Our Lady of Peace Church Joots, Inc.
Queen Emma Summer Palace Kaars & Pinlac Design
St. Andrews Cathedral Kamehameha Schools
State Capitol Building Ko Olina Center and Ko Olina Station
Washington Place Ko Olina Resort Association
YWCA of O‘ahu Mānoa Foundation
Muriel Flanders Fund
Business/Government/Associations Native Books/Na Mea Hawai‘i
Aloha Tower Marketplace Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association
Alston Hunt Floyd Ing Lawyers Nomura Design
American Institute of Architects O‘ahu Visitors Bureau
American Savings Bank Office of the Governor
Anne Smoke PR Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Arts with Aloha Peter Apo Company
Alexander & Baldwin Foundation Peter Rosegg & Associates
Bendet, Fidell, Sakai & Lee Princeville Center
Communications Pacific Smythe & Associates
Cox Radio, Inc. State Historic Preservation Office
Cultural+Planning Group State Office of Planning
Daughters of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Department of Accounting & General Services Unlimited Construction Services
Waikīkī Improvement Association

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 129

Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Steven Lee, Business Development
Board of Directors Manager, Strategic Marketing and
Support Division, Department of
The 17-member Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Board
Business, Economic Development and
of Directors is broadly representative of the coalition
Tourism, State of Hawai‘i
partners. It is currently seeking to expand its membership
to add the voices of other key constituent groups. Mary Philpotts McGrath, Board
Member, Washington Place/Owner,
Mona Abadir, (Board President)
Philpotts & Associates, Inc.
Principal, Honu Group Inc., & Honu
Group Communications LLC/Former
Chairperson Hawai‘i State Foundation on
Culture and the Arts
Kyle Paredes, President/Founder -
Bill Ha‘ole, (Vice President) Sportech USA, LLC. (A “Health/Fitness
E Noa Tours/Waikīkī Trolley Consulting” company), Principal/Founder
– Chillaxin.com (A “Lifestyle” company)

Sarah Richards, President,

David Scott, (Treasurer) Former Executive Hawai‘i Theatre Center
Director, Daughters of Hawai‘i

Susan Todani, Director of Development

Margi Ulveling, (Secretary) Associate Vice and Planning, Kamehameha Schools
President, Institutional Advancement,
Hawai‘i Pacific University

Gae Bergquist Trommald,

Vice President, Merrill Lynch
Lulani Arquette, Executive Director,
Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association

Lorraine Lunow Luke,

HCCC Coordinator
Ann Chung, Director, Office of
Economic Development, City and
County of Honolulu

Teresa Abenoja, Vice President Honu

Daniel Dinell, Managing Director, Group Communications LLC, HCCC
Sales & Marketing-Planning, Hawai‘i Administrative Associate
Asia Region, Hilton Grand Vacations
Company
New Board Members:
Anne Mapes, Chairman & CEO, Belt Collins Hawai‘i;
Frank Haas, Associate Dean, School of
Niki Doyle, General Manager, Hard Rock Café
Travel Industry Management, University
Honolulu; Kippen de Alba Chu, Executive Director,
of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
‘Iolani Palace; Rob Saarnio

130 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

H awai‘i Capital Cultu ral
Coal it ion Ac tio n Pl an
A preliminary action plan has been developed in
consultation with the community at coalition meetings
and the recent community forums. Additional
descriptions of the HCCC action plan and initiatives can
be found in Appendices 8 and 9.
Consensus has arisen around the following project areas:
Education for youth and general public, including a
program to bring public school children and at risk
youth and families to museums and arts venues.
Preserve and protect historic and cultural treasures.
Joint promotion of heritage sites and arts, including:
brochures, website, master events calendar,
partnership with other listings, and collaborative
events.
Area signage, banners and wayfinding directories.
Walking tours and interpretive exhibits that make
connections among museums and historic sites and
educate residents and visitors about the area’s culture
and history.
Improved relationship with Waikīkī hotels, visitor
services, cruise lines and other travel industry
businesses to reach visitors.
Visitor information centers.
Other special initiatives that promote arts, culture
and Hawai‘i’s heritage with partners from around the
state as opportunities arise.
Address parking, transportation, and pedestrian
systems.
H istory of HCCC Natio nal
H e ritag e Area I nitiative
The idea of central Honolulu becoming a National
Heritage Area predated the formation of the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition. In December 2001, Mona
Abadir, while a commissioner for the Hawai‘i State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts, arranged a fact-
finding visit to Washington, DC where she met with
Brenda Barrett, National Coordinator for the National
Heritage Areas, and staff members of the National
Endowment for the Arts (Eileen Mason), the National
Assembly of Art Agencies (Jonathan Katz, Tom Birch, and
Kimber Crane), and the Institute of Museum and Library
Services. Abadir also met with Hawai‘i’s congressional
delegates: Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Representative
Mink, and Representative Abercrombie. In early 2002, as
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 131
Chairperson for the HSFCA Commissioners, Abadir Chapter 9
reported on her findings to the commissioners.
Recognizing that such an initiative fit well with the
HSFCA’s Strategic Plan priorities and its Native Hawaiian
policy, the commissioners voted to adopt a policy
supporting the NHA designation. These commissioners
were: Chuck Freedman, O‘ahu; Stanley Gima, Maui; Millie
Kim, Hawai‘i; Alfred Laureta, Kaua‘i; Manu Boyd, O‘ahu;
Mary Philpotts, O‘ahu, in addition to Abadir, who
represented O‘ahu.
Chairperson Abadir then presented this vision, with the
commissioners’ support, at the first meeting of a group that
would become the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition in
June 2003. From the beginning, members of the coalition
stressed the importance of recognizing and designating a
special area that could be seen to have significance in a
local, state, national and even global context (Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition Minutes July 15, 2003).
At the organization’s fourth meeting in August 2003 Mona
Abadir explained the National Heritage Area program and
its potential for Hawai‘i. In October of 2004, when
Lorraine Lunow-Luke was hired to be the HCCC
Coordinator, she was asked to help orchestrate the project.
Lunow-Luke conducted additional research on Heritage
Area development, meeting to discuss the initiative with
coalition members and community leaders and attending
the Alliance of National Heritage Areas conference in
Nashville, Tennessee, June 2005.
Board members Mona Abadir and Frank Haas met to
discuss the HCCC vision with Hawai‘i Tourism
Authority’s former CEO Rex Johnson, Muriel Anderson,
Vice President of Tourism Product Development, and
Robbie Kane, Tourism Product Development Manager. In
May 2005, the HCCC responded to a Hawai‘i Tourism
Authority request for proposals for its Heritage Corridor
Development program. The HTA was pleased to receive a
large number of proposals from throughout the state of
Hawai‘i and chose to distribute the original $100,000
grant monies among a number of organizations. However,
demonstrating its support for the HCCC and the concept
of a National Heritage Area in Hawai‘i, the HTA board of
directors voted to allocate an additional $100,000
specifically for the HCCC National Heritage Area
Suitability/Feasibility Study in its FY 2006 budget.
Notification of an award for support was forwarded to the
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition in August and
announced at its monthly meeting in September. At the
coalition’s November meeting it was agreed that “The
major project for the coming year will be the National
Heritage Area Feasibility Study” (Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition Minutes November 10, 2005).
C h a p t e r 10:
C o n c e p t u a l Financial
Plan

Assess the capabilities of the

management entity to meet federal
matching requirements and to
leverage federal funding with
other potential financial resources.
Resources may not be able to be
specifically identified. What may
be gauged is the past or potential
capacity and creativity of the
management entity to attract
additional support. (NHA
Guidelines, p. 13)

132 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Initial funding for the start-up of HCCC totaling
$30,000, was contributed in 2004 by the Hawai‘i State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts, the Department of
Business Economic Development and Tourism, and the
Muriel McFarlane Flanders Trust, a private foundation.
In 2005, coalition partners donated approximately
$4,000 in a show of support for the fledgling
organization. The Hawai‘i Tourism Authority made a
grant of $100,000 to the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition, which funded this suitability/feasibility study,
including staff time and public outreach, for the final
quarter of 2005 through 2006. Additional funding for
2007 was provided by DBEDT, Honu Group Inc.,
Kamehameha Schools, Eight Inc., and the Alexander &
Baldwin Foundation.
In 2008, funding was received from Alexander &
Baldwin Foundation, Atherton Foundation, Hawai‘i
Tourism Authority, Hard Rock Cafe Honolulu, Ko Olina
Station and Ko Olina Center, Ko Olina Resort
Association, Princeville Center, and Unlimited
Construction Inc. A substantial amount of in-kind
support, with an estimated value of more than $150,000,
from many partners has been instrumental in the
organization’s success. This support has included:
Human resources–countless hours of expertise,
planning and leg-work provided by volunteers on
various committees.
Bookkeeping services and fiscal sponsorship–
Enterprise Honolulu.
Office space, coordination, and administrative
support–Honu Group Inc., Teresa Abenoja
Transportation and tour guides for Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District events–Enoa Tour and Trolley.
Meeting space–Hawai‘i State Art Museum, ARTS at
Mark’s Garage, ‘Iolani Palace, Hawai‘i Theatre
Center, Hawai‘i Children’s Discovery Center,
Communications Pacific, Honu Group Inc., Pacific
Beach Hotel, Queen Emma Summer Palace, the
YWCA of O‘ahu, and Aloha Tower Marketplace.
Marketing and communications–Anne Smoke PR,
Joots, Inc., Nanette Napoleon, Smythe and
Associates, and Honu Group Communications LLC.
Art direction, layout and graphic design–Honu
Group Communications LLC; Elizabeth Chalkley
Design Consulting; Nomura Design
Mapping–State Office of Planning
Legislative planning—Alston Hunt Floyd Ing
Lawyers
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 133
R e so u rc e Dev e lop m e n t Chapter 10
S tr ategy
There are a number of financial resources, program
partnerships, supportive advocacy, and in-kind resources
that could become available to support the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition and its initiatives, given
appropriate planning and relationship-building.
1) Corporate Sponsorships
One likely source of support for the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition and its projects will be from
businesses that recognize the economic development
potential of the National Heritage Area management
plan and invest in the National Heritage Area for the
long-term benefits. Historically, local businesses have
also been eager to support education about Hawaiian
history and culture and will be important partners for
such projects as brochures, walking tours, and
educational programs. Sponsors and in-kind donations
will also be sought for the marketing and events
components of the management plan.
2) Donations/Foundations
There is a relatively small pool of foundations and
donor organizations in Hawai‘i. These entities have a
history of liberal giving to social service issues, and have
generously supported many of the arts and culture
organizations that are members of the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition. The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition has therefore made a commitment to its
partners to seek new sources of support, such as national
donor organizations and federal funding. On the local
level, the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition will seek to
develop support from donor sources that may not have
been accessed by arts and culture organizations in the
past. It should be noted that as an association, HCCC’s
funds directly benefit member organizations’ missions
and help fund their projects as partners in initiatives
that have mutual benefit.
3) Membership
Early in the organization’s formation the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition held extensive discussions about
whether the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition should
charge a membership fee to partners. Those in favor of
membership pointed out that a membership fee could
promote greater investment and participation on the
part of coalition members than an open membership.
However, it was decided that it was more important for
the organization to be as inclusive as possible and not to
put up barriers to participation than to raise funds
through membership. However, in the future it is
possible that some form of membership may be instituted,
especially as the organization develops value-added
products available only to members that can make
membership more attractive.
4) Revenue-based Income
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition anticipates
eventually covering at least part of basic operations from
revenue-based sources. Anticipated sources may include:
• Directory with paid advertising
• Logo merchandise at the visitor information centers
• Tours, both guided and self-tours
• Educational DVDs
• Book(s) on the history and culture of the district
• Other technology-based historic and cultural
information
5) Special Events & Initiatives
A variety of ideas are being considered for signature
special events that would not only raise money but bring
people to the National Heritage Area and highlight the
area’s rich cultural assets.
Project
General Administrative
Staffing and operations
Visitor Information
Visitor information centers
Map and brochure and other collateral
Banners, Directories and other signage
134 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
6) Governmental Support
The HCCC has received significant financial support
since its inception from relevant state agencies, in
particular Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, Hawai‘i State
Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism, and Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and
the Arts. We anticipate that this support will continue,
on a project-by-project basis, into the future. In
addition, members of Hawai‘i’s congressional delegation,
the Hawai‘i State Legislature, and Honolulu city &
county administration have expressed support for
funding for the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition and
its initiatives. They acknowledge the potential for
economic development and the opportunity to leverage
resources through collaborations that is represented by
such a partnership.
The table below outlines anticipated projects for the
next five years, key partners for each project, and
potential sources of support.
Potential Source Prospective Project Partners
Corporate sponsors HCCC Committees and Board of
Administrative fees from grants Directors
Special event
Federal grant Hawai‘i State Art Museum
Title sponsor Honolulu Culture and Arts District
Hawai‘i Tourism Authority Aloha Tower marketplace
Dept. of Transportation Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Corporate sponsors Hawai‘i Pacific University
National Endowment for the Humanities State Office of Planning for GIS
Transportation Enhancement Funds mapping
National Endowment for the arts Signage companies
Dept. of Accounting and General
Services
Corporate sponsors Environmental graphic
Hawai‘i Tourism Authority design company
Transportation Enhancement Funds City & County of Honolulu
National Endowment for the Humanities Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Rivers & Trails Conservation
Assistance Program, NPS
The table below outlines anticipated projects for the next five years,
key partners for each project, and potential sources of support.
Project Potential Source Prospective Project Partners Chapter 10

Walking Tours

Audio walking tour Federal grant Roundtable of museum and

Corporate sponsors Hawaiian cultural experts / Bishop
Hawai‘i Tourism Authority Museum, ‘Iolani Palace,
Technology company Washington Place, Mission Houses
Museum, Hawai‘i State Art
Museum, Native Hawaiian
Hospitality Association

Print version of walking tours Corporate sponsor/ Partner culture and arts
Federal grant organizations
Printing company

Plaques at sites Private donors Partner sites

Transportation Enhancement Funds
Dept of Accounting and General Services

Web site, downloadable information, and Corporate sponsor Visitor info center locations
other technology In-kind technology donation Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Fee for service DBEDT

Education/Interpretation

Access to the arts/culture for low-income
youth and families
National Endowment for the Arts grant Partner museums and cultural
State Department of Human Services agencies to provide education
National foundation programs
Private foundations
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Hawai‘i Community Foundation

Programs for schools Local foundation State Department of Education

National Endowment for the Arts Partner museums & agencies
University of Hawaii / Community
Colleges

Marketing

Joint marketing of events and venues Corporate sponsors Marketing firm / Hawai‘i Tourism
Community Foundation Authority / Waikīkī hotels / partner
State agency grants arts and culture organizations /
Communication companies media outlets / Consulates
Dept of Business Economic
Development & Tourism

Signature Event

HCNHA signature festival Sale of tickets to event; possible silent Volunteer committee to plan and
auction; corporate sponsors; Hawaii conduct / District arts and culture
Tourism Authority; Dept of Business organizations to participate
Economic Development & Tourism

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 135

The table below outlines anticipated projects for the next five years,
key partners for each project, and potential sources of support.
Project Potential Source Prospective Project Partners
Revenue sources

Logo merchandise Product manufacturing company Visitor centers

Printed directory Businesses and tourism outlets to

distribute/ Hawai‘i Tourism
Authority

Preservation/Conservation

Preservation of historic buildings and Federal funds Historic properties within proposed
conservation of cultural sites State legislature National Heritage Area
State agencies Legislative Heritage Caucus
Capital campaigns – private donors Historic Hawai‘i Foundation
Dept of Land and Natural
Resources

Fiv e -Year Revenue Projec tion

The below table outlines estimated funding for the first
five years of a National Heritage Area and how it will be
distributed. Total projected revenues: $2.5 million.
(Revenues in each column may be adjusted upward or
downward based on actual federal appropriations.)

Reve n ues Over Fi rst Five Y ea r s o f a N atio na l H er i tage A r ea

Anticipated Federal Anticipated State and Grantee matching Other private grants,
Appropriations from City & County requirement for Hawai‘i donations, in-kind and
NHA program Contributions Capital Cultural other income
Coalition grants to other
organizations

$750,000 $750,000 $500,000 $500,000

136 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Cha pte r 11:
Imp a c t A s s es s men t

Assess the positive and negative

impacts for the area of both the
“no action” and National
Heritage Area designation
alternatives on the area.
(NHA Guidelines, p. 12)
 Honolulu is the capital and largest community of the
U.S. State of Hawai‘i. The census-designated place
(CDP) is located along the southeast coast of the island
of O‘ahu. The term also refers to the District of
Honolulu. As of July 1, 2004, the United States Census
Bureau estimate for Honolulu puts the population at
377,260. In Hawai‘i, local governments operate only at
the county level, and the City & County of Honolulu
encompasses all of the Island of O‘ahu (approximately
600 square miles). The population of the City and
County of Honolulu (essentially, the Island of O‘ahu) is
approximately 900,000.
Ge ographic al Set ting
Honolulu, incorporating the proposed National
Heritage Area, is located on the south coast of the island
of O‘ahu at the northern edge of a small—by modern
standards—protected harbor. The present city is situated
on a broad coastal plain, which stretches from Diamond
Head to the southeast to the western Wai‘anae Coast.
The coastal plain was formed by emerged coral reefs
formed during the Sangaman Interglacial (Stearns
1978:8) and by later volcanic and alluvial sediments.
The Waimanālo Period coral bedrock forming the city’s
substructure was created 120,000 to 125,00 years ago
when the sea level reached a stand at least 60 feet (17
meters) higher than today (Sterns 1978:34-35).
Subsequent volcanic extrusions from ash and tuft cones,
dating to around 5,000 years ago, augmented the
surface covering with basaltic lava and cinder ash.
Among the most significant of these cones are remaining
Punchbowl (Pūowaina) and the Makuku Crater in the
Nu‘uanu Valley above Honolulu (Wentworth 1941:13).
The volcanic stratum resulting from these eruptions was
subsequently both diminished and replenished by soils
Right: View of
Honolulu
from
Punchbowl
(foreground),
to Diamond
Head, 1933
Far right:
Nu‘uanu
Stream
produced from steam erosion, coming from the Ko‘olau
range to the north.
The Ko‘olau Range serves as a dramatic backdrop to the
city. Created about 2.9 million years ago, this broad
mountain formation is the remnant of one of two great
volcanoes that geologically created the island of O‘ahu;
the other volcano resulted in the Wai‘anae Range to the
west (Stearns 1934: 204). The Ko‘olau Range is nearly
40 miles long and 12 miles wide at its broadest point.
The existing ridge line is the southern section of the
original volcanic dome, the northeast part having eroded
over the millennia by prevalent streams, steady winds
and ocean currents on the windward side of the island.
The Ko‘olau Range rises to a height of about 3000 feet
(900 meters) and is still the source of numerous streams
and watercourses. These have over the centuries altered
the surface of the mountain ridges, creating numerous
valleys, dramatic peaks and knife edge ridges
(Wentworth 1941:7).
O‘ahu’s prevailing winds are from the northeast. When
these winds come in contact with warmer southerly
kona winds—common between the months of October
and April—this weather condition results in heavy
precipitation. The windward, northeast coast receives up
to 73 inches (1830 mm) of rain annually; along the
peaks the annual figure is as high as 300 inches (7620
mm), reducing to as little as 6 inches (150 mm) on the
drier southwestern side of the island (Cordy 1993:2;
Goodwin, Beardsley, Wicker and Jones 1996:9).
Honolulu Harbor is situated at the outlet of Nu‘uanu
Stream, one of the larger watercourses running from the
ridgeline above. The Nu‘uanu and Pauoa Valleys
constitute a single drainage basin. This is because the
Pauoa Steam joins the eastern Nu‘uanu Stream in the
coastal plain before emptying into the sea west of the

138 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Chapter 11

Left: Mangoes
Far Left:
View from
Pali Cliffs
overlook
originally settled area later known as Honolulu shrubs and trees. Present-day trees and plants include
(Wentworth 1941:7). Japanese bamboo (Schizostacyum glaucifolium, Takenoko),
Norfolk pine (Araucaria columnaria), mango (Mangifera
Nu‘uanu Valley, site rich in both natural and historical
indica, manako), Chinese banyan (Ficus retusa),
features and important to an understanding of the area’s
ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia, toa), royal palm
early settlement, is about 5 miles long from its
(Roystones regia), fan palm (Livingstona chinensis),
beginning at the Pali Gap (elevation approximately 1100
bamboo palm (Rhapis excelsa), variegated pothos
feet; 335 meters) to its point of convergence with the
(Epipremnum aureum) camphor tree (Cinnamomum
coastal plain. It forms a flat, convex-bottomed trough,
camphora), Javaplum (Syzgium cumini), African tulip
ranging in width from 1 to 1.5 miles (1.6 to 2.4
(Spathodea campanulata), Christmas berry (Schinus
kilometers). Near the valley’s head, the relatively flat
terebinthifolius), coffee (Coffea arabica), laua’e fern
floor is flanked by peaks and sharp-edged crevices,
(Microsorium scolependria), allspice (Pimenta dioica), cat’s
which rise to about 1200 to 2000 feet (365 to 610
claw climber (Doxantha unguis-cati) and numerous
meters) on either side. The depth of the valley declines
grasses and other vines (Flood and Dixon 1993:5).
nearly uniformly to about 100 feet (30.5 meters) where
it meets the plain (Wentworth 1941:8).
Hawaiian
Happyface
Biotic Re s ou rces spider
The topography of the area backing on to modern-day
Honolulu is ancient in character, the vegetation is more
recent in origin. In the pre-contact period the shore and
coastal area of Honolulu was probably dominated by
naupaka (Scaevola taccada) and beach morning glory
vine (Ipomoea pescaprae). Other significant species
included the Pritchardia palm, which thrived in the
lowlands inland from the coast, especially on the
leeward side of the island. Secondary species, both in the
lowlands and extending into the ridges and valleys
above, included ‘ilihai or sandalwood (Santalum), ‘ōlapa
(Cheirodendron) and koa (Acacia koa) (Athens and Ward
1993:11).
Much of the original vegetation cover has changed in
the two centuries since western contact. Built-up and
extended by dredging, fill and alteration, the harbor
edge and suburban area of Nu‘uanu are now home to a
wide variety of mostly introduced ground coverings,

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 139

Rare native plant: 1Kanaloa
40 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
 ˉ
Kahu ‘ Aina, Caring for Land, Earth and All Its Beauty.
Children’s art, native
1 4 1 plant life.
HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
 As with flora, fauna have also been subject to change. H is tory o f D ev e lo p me n t o f
Pre-contact species included varieties of nesting birds, H o no lu lu
several species of terrestrial mollusks and insects,
The proposed National Heritage Area is a densely built-
themselves exploited significantly by early Hawaiian
up urban environment that demonstrates several distinct
inhabitants (Goodwin et al. 1996:9). Hawai‘i’s only
layers in its overall development and change.
native mammal, the small bat Lasiurus cinereus semotus,
was also undoubtedly common to the area (Kirch 1985: Originally a Native Hawaiian fishing and agricultural
28-29). settlement located at the base of the Nu‘uanu Stream,
the character of the site changed considerable following
Animal life in the area today includes feral pigs (Sus
the arrival of Europeans and North Americans in the
scrofa) in the steep valley areas, rats, mice, mongoose
late 18th and early 19th centuries. Gradually the harbor
and all varieties of domesticated animals. Common
edge was defined through stone and coral walls; the
birds are northern cardinals (Cardinalis), spotted doves
harbor itself was subsequently dredged and filled to
(Streptoelia chinensis) Red-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus),
create the present configuration. Simultaneously, the
White-rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus) and
sacred site of Pākākā Heiau and the king’s official
pigeons (Flood and Dixon 1993:5). With the exception
residence after 1809 were transformed first into a
of pigs, dogs and chickens (and probably rats), which
fortification and then into a commercial development at
were brought first by Polynesians traveling to the
the harbor’s edge (the present site of the 1926 Aloha
islands, these species were all introduced following
Tower and the 1990s commercial area of the Aloha
western contact with the Hawaiian Islands.
Tower Marketplace).
The fringing reefs that helped to define and form
The city itself radiated from the original site at the
Honolulu’s harbor are a habitat for many invertebrates
harbor’s edge. Early houses for European and American
and plants. Most significant for early human habitation
residents extended along the northwestern shore of the
were cowries (Cypraea spp.) and edible sea urchins
settlement occupying sites once inhabited by Hawaiian
(Colobocentrotus and Echinometra), which thrived in
ali‘i, or aristocracy. Areas inland from the shore,
coastal zones both at the shore and along the often only
including agricultural sections once devoted to the
partially exposed reef area. The sea is home to octopii,
cultivation of kalo (taro) were converted to other
crustaceans and many fish varieties, both along the shore
agricultural uses and then residential use as Honolulu
and in deeper ocean waters (Kirch 1985:30, 32). All of
expanded in the mid-to-late 19th century. Other areas
these were important to early Hawaiian inhabitants and
inland from the harbor became sites of European style
remained an important part of the Hawaiian diet well
residences both for important merchants and for
into historic times (and to some degree up until the
Hawaiian rulers.
present).

Moana
Hotel and
Diamond
Head, ca.
1920

142 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 harbor. This section of the city, known after the 1850s Chapter 11
as Chinatown, would become home to successive
generations of immigrants to Honolulu. These included
Japanese, many of whom settled on the north side of
Nu‘uanu Stream, Koreans, Portuguese, Filipinos and
more recently Vietnamese and Laotians. Destroyed by
fire in 1900, much of the traditional Chinese area was
rebuilt in the 1900s and 1910s along lines more typical
of other cities in the western part of the U.S. The
population, nonetheless, remained heterogeneous and

Japanese
sumo wrestler
(identified as
Fort Street from Merchant Street, left corner of McInerny store,
"Masurao", real
ca. 1874
name Saichiro
Beginning in 1820, the site southeast of the older Yamaushi from
settlement began to be developed, first with the mission Kumamoto,
station of New England missionaries and later as a home Japan
for some of Hawai‘i’s early 19th-century ali‘i. An area
once known for its dry and desolate character, the
mission district of Kawaiaha‘o gradually emerged as a
well-watered suburban sanctuary.
The core of the settlement was gradually transformed
from mixed-use to business-use. Merchant Street and
other streets parallel to the harbor became the sites of
ships chandlers, warehouses and banks. Sections of the
downtown became known for hotels, grog shops and
boarding houses, serving the many sailors who came
ashore during the early commercial years of Honolulu.
While the houses of the affluent gradually spread toward
the hilly backdrop of the city and well into the lush and
cool Nu‘uanu Valley, residences of the city’s poorer
inhabitants clustered along the stream banks and also in
the less desirable flat lands south of the harbor area. helped to give Honolulu its distinctive character in the
Gradually, a concentrated area of walk-ups and shops early 20th century.
pressed into the area between Nu‘uanu Stream and the Other areas became more specialized in use during the
same time period. Iwelei became the commercial
shipping area, a site of port facilities, warehouses and
often disreputable commercial activities oriented toward
the visiting maritime population. The area south of the
center became known for industrial and residential use,
replacing the saltpans that had once characterized this
stretch of land.
The downtown area was realigned to become the early
20th-century Bishop and Alakea Streets, home of many
of Hawai‘i’s agricultural, shipping and transportation
businesses. Alexander and Baldwin, Dillingham
Transportation, C. Brewer, Bishop Bank (later the
Damon Bank and most recently First Hawaiian Bank)
Poverty-striken area in Honolulu

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 143

Territory
Building
all established impressive headquarters along what were
to become the principal commercial thoroughfares of
the city.
During this time the capital of the Kingdom Hawai‘i
was subsumed into the Pacific hub of American
interests. The sacred and royal sites of ‘Iolani and Pākākā
became official governmental entities under the post-
1898 Territorial Government. The 1882 ‘Iolani Palace
became the capitol, and the former governmental
administrative building of Ali‘iōlani Hale was
transformed into a courthouse. A territorial office
building was added in the 1920s as were a federal post
office and other governmental and institutional
buildings, most clustered around the old palace area
near the city core.
Residences in the city spread farther away from the
downtown. Large houses along King and Beretania
Streets were replaced by institutional and commercial
buildings; new schools, such as the Royal School (now
known as Central Intermediate School) and McKinley
High School punctuated the larger commercial streets,
while private houses retreated to the slopes of Nu‘uanu
Nu‘uanu
Avenue,
ca. 1890
144 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Valley and Mānoa. Middle and working-class residences
tended to cluster along the streetcar lines, extending out
from the city center, mostly to the south and southeast.
Kaimukī, Mō‘ili‘ili, Makiki and Kapahulu began by the
1910s to sport numerous small frame and single-wall
wood houses available for rent or sale. In the meantime,
Kalihi, Liliha and Kaka‘ako became the area for working
class and artisan class residents of the city.
Downtown Honolulu served as the port and principal
commercial area for O‘ahu’s residents (as well as for
residents of the other more rural islands) during the
early 20th century. Railroads brought agricultural
workers to the city, dropping them at the terminus near
the older Japanese area of A‘ala, at the north edge of the
older city. Soldiers and sailors also relied on Honolulu as
a recreational area, spending their leave in the movie
houses, brothels, clubs and restaurants of the city,
including the increasingly notorious Chinatown area.
Other residents of O‘ahu came to the city for
entertainment and also for shopping, church services
and governmental services. As with many mainland
cities, Honolulu gradually became more fragmented,
with residents increasingly preferring the more
salubrious climate of the suburbs to the heat and noise
of the city center. By the post World War II period, the
city had become a less desirable place to live and
socialize.
Another trend of the early to mid-20th century was the
shift of tourism away from the city center to the area
known as Waikīkī. Traditionally a place where Hawaiian
ali‘i and royalty lived and hosted guests, Waikīkī later
developed as a site for luxury tourism following the
construction of the Moana Hotel in 1901. With the
draining of swamp land and expansion of the beach,
Waikīkī became home to many resorts and private

Woman wearing leis, ca. 1955
houses and bungalows. With the influx of investment
dollars after statehood in 1959, Waikīkī gained fame as
a premier vacation destination replacing Honolulu as
the favored place of entertainment for local residents as
well as visitors.
As a result of these developments the older city core fell
on hard times. Bishop Street remained an important site
for the larger agricultural businesses and trading houses
of Hawai‘i and the old palace area remained a
governmental center. However the city core lost much of
its economic base as residents moved to Waikīkī and the
hillside suburbs and upper valleys. This trend was
accelerated by the increased use of automobiles, the
expansion of streets and construction of a new divided
highway, which began in 1959, financed as part of the
federal interstate highway system.
In the 1960s, the Chinatown area and older Japanese
residential and commercial area of A‘ala became the
victims of well-intentioned urban renewal efforts in the
1960s. Virtually all of the built-up sections of the older
Japanese commercial, entertainment and residential area
of A‘ala were destroyed to make way for public housing
projects, new streets and an urban park.
The eastern edge of Chinatown was similarly razed to
provide open tracks for the development of commercial
enterprises and high-rise housing. Within the
Chinatown area, recognized as a National Register
Historic District in 1972, many of the buildings,
including early all the wood structures, were taken down
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 145
and replaced over the years by newer buildings that Chapter 11
imitated the stylistic character of earlier structures.
Other developments included the building and then
expansion of the coastal Nimitz Highway, a change that
further separated the core business area from the historic
harbor, demolition of many houses in the increasingly
commercial areas of Kaka‘ako and Iwelei and expansion
of port facilities on Sand Island across from the older
city. Gradually Honolulu witnessed a deterioration of its
older housing stock and loss of business activity in the
downtown as new shopping malls, such as Kāhala Mall
and Ala Moana, were begun in the late 1950s and
expanded in subsequent years and new suburbs, such as
Hawai‘i Kai and Mililani, became popular.
Beginning in the 1960s the older royal and then
governmental area near ‘Iolani Palace underwent a
dramatic transformation. Later recognized as the
Hawai‘i Capitol Special District the core urban area was
redeveloped as a park-like space extending from
Punchbowl Crater on the east to the harbor and Nimitz
Highway on the west. Punchbowl Street became
distinguished by its parallel rows of shading monkey
pod trees, a treatment extended to Kapi‘olani Boulevard
in the direction of Waikīkī as well. The new capitol,
completed in 1969, served as the center of a
governmental and civic area incorporating city and state
office buildings, the state library and archives as well as
institutions such as the Judiciary History Museum and
present State Art Museum (HiSAM). ‘Iolani Palace was
also restored to serve as an important visual and
symbolic centerpiece of the new development.
Aerial view of
Ala Moana
area
The downtown area underwent a similar transformation,
but with notably less success. Century Plaza and other
urban design schemes attempted to inject new life into
the older commercial core by breaking with the older
pattern of grid-like streets and introducing open park-
like spaces surrounded by high-rise commercial
 Fountain
at Alakea
and Hotel
Streets
buildings. Many of impressive Renaissance style
buildings along Bishop Street were torn down and
replaced by examples of modern buildings in several
styles: International style, Brutalist and more recent
Post-Modern style. Hotel Street was pedestrian-ized and
an intricate system of one-way streets was introduced to
try to mitigate the impact of traffic on the downtown.
Although the downtown still serves as the governmental
and commercial center of O‘ahu—and even the state as
a whole—the downtown core has lost much of its
historic commercial activity and especially its residential
character. The downtown core is now crowded during
working hours but nearly empty in the evening and on
weekends. Chinatown, after many years of city and state
and community initiatives, is beginning to show some
signs of new life and use, a trend encouraged by the
Honolulu Culture and Arts District and other
organizations. Publicly assisted and subsidized housing
at the periphery of the core Chinatown area and market-
rate high-rise construction, also at the edge of the old
core, have also contributed to a revival of parts of the
downtown. Still, more can be done to revitalize the
urban core.
"Enchanting
Garden"
sculpture,
First
Hawaiian
Center
146 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
E x i s ti ng U r b a n Ch a r ac ter
As the brief developmental history suggests, present-day
Honolulu is a complex amalgam of different uses,
buildings and building types and street patterns, each
representative of different stages in the city’s history. The
study area encompasses many of these older areas and
highlights the span of Honolulu’s history, and also to
incorporate areas of striking diversity within the historic
core of the city.
The Hawai‘i State Office of Planning divides the core
metropolitan area into six land-use areas: residential;
commercial & services; industrial; transportation,
communications and utilities; mixed urban/built-up
land; other urban/built-up land. These are fairly wide-
ranging designations and each area, as is typical of older
urban areas, incorporates a variety of uses.
Increasingly, however, the urban core has shown a trend
toward uniformity of use in each designated area in
accordance with zoning intentions. The older residential,
commercial and industrial area of Iwilei, designated on
the state land-use plan as industrial, is now almost given
over to industrial uses, with some commercial retail uses
interposed among manufacturing and warehousing.
Similarly, the historic residential, commercial and
institutional core of the capitol area and central business
district is now designated as a commercial and services
zone, but also incorporates a wide variety of uses. In a
pattern similar to that of the industrial area of Iwilei, the
core business and commercial district is evolving into—
in this case—three distinct areas: a park-like
governmental and institutional area at the south and of
the core, the densely built-up and high-rise CBD and
the historic and increasingly arts-oriented as well as
high-rise residential area of Chinatown.
The northern edge of the preferred alternative study area
 HAWAII COMMUNIT Y DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT Y

Fact Sheet
is an amalgam of low-density residential and north and along Pi‘ikoi Street, remain mixed Chapter 11
institutional uses, combined with some older institutional, residential and commercial in use with
commercial uses along the Vineyard Avenue corridor. Asprovide
little city-lead attempt to of: September
alternative uses.27, 2005
The southeast end of the Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District also incorporates some residential use, mostly in R equ i r em ents o f Im pac t
the form of older wood houses, along with schools and A s s es s m ent
institutions.
THE KAKA‘AKO WATERFRONT PROJECT
An important requirement of the feasibility study for a
Finally, the wide stretch of Kaka‘ako, once a single- National Heritage Area is an assessment of impacts on
family and multi-family residential area and light the environment. These impacts must be determined for
industrial and warehouse area is evolving as a new each proposed management alternative. Specifically, two
ect: On January
mixed-use residential 12, 2005,
and upscale the
retail area underHawaii
the Community Development
primary alternatives must be considered: the no Authority
action/
(HCDA) issued a Request-For-Proposals (RFP) for redevelopment
city’s Kaka‘ako Special Design District initiatives. To use and the NHA designation alternative (treated in this of
facilitate this transformation the city has partnered with
approximately 36 acres of State-owned report
private developers to realign and develop new streets and
landasin the an area called
“proposal/preferred The Kaka‘ako
alternative.”) In the
case of the proposed National Heritage Area, a single
Waterfront,
also has overseen the which
developmentis ofcentrally-located
new shopping between
alternative Waikiki
with possible and stands
minor variations Downtown
out as a
Honolulu. In addition,
centers and high-rise the proposed project
residential developments. result ofalso includes
preliminary management
research and public inputs. and
future potential
Existing trends and City redevelopment
and County of Honolulu of aboutVariations
29 acres of submerged
on the proposed lands
alternative consist and
of changes
facilities known as Kewalo Basin.
planning policy is directed toward the creation of a to the proposed boundary of the study area that include
either a larger or smaller area, the inclusion of the whole
park-like governmental and institutional core, a nearly
business-exclusive central downtown area, a revived arts of the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a, or the
HCDA’s goalinistheto
and culture district old create
Chinatown a “gathering
area, an place”
inclusion ofat the Kaka‘ako
“associated areas” as a formWaterfront
of second tier –
an active and attractive, people-oriented place that helps fulfill Hawaii’s
upscale mixed residential and retail commercial area of for the proposed NHA.

needs for public recreation, entertainment

Kaka‘ako and an industrial area encompassing the old
andassessment
The impact amenities,process isand
a directserves
response toas
the a
harbor-oriented Iwilei district. The edges of the study
vibrant centerpiece
area, near School for a
Street and Bishop dynamic
Museum on the urban community.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Kaka‘ako plan
rendering,
looking mauka
towards the
mountains from
the ocean

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 147


This landmark piece of legislation recognized the need
for federal agencies to provide for a balance between
proposed uses (undertakings) and cultural, historic and
natural resources. NEPA requires all federal agencies to
prepare in-depth studies of impacts and alternatives, use
this information to determine whether an action should
take place and diligently involve the public in all stages
of the process. Additionally the National Park Service
Organic Act of 1916 directs the director of the National
Park Service to “conserve the scenery and the natural
and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner
and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations” (16 USC 1).
The broad intentions of both the Organic Act and
NEPA are outlined in detail in the National Park Service
guidance Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-Making
(NPS 2001). This manual provides definitions of
undertakings, explains steps in the process and specifies
documents that need to be presented as part of the
assessment process. The handbook specifies the Council
of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a part of the
Executive Office of the President, as the authority for
review of any proposal.
148 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
At the state level the agency is responsible to the state
agency charged with oversight for actions affecting the
natural and social environmental; for Hawai‘i this
agency is the Office of Environmental Quality Control
(OEQC) in Hawai‘i Department of Health, which also
provides a guidebook for the environmental review
process. In addition the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) at the state level and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, an independent
agency under the President at the national level have
responsibility for assessing the impacts of proposals on
historic and cultural sites. These responsibilities and the
review process are set out in Sections 106 and 110 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(NHPA).
Under the Directors Order 12 the requirements for a
National Park Service-initiated or reviewed proposal
takes the form of a Preliminary and later Final
Environmental Assessment (EA). This assessment is
triggered normally by what are called “major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment” or a MFASAQHE (“major federal
actions).
The response to a “major federal actions” finding
(extending as well to many minor undertakings)
requires that the agency report on:
1. The environmental impact of the proposed
action;
2. Any adverse environmental effects that cannot
be avoided should the proposal be
implemented;
3. Alternatives to the proposed action;
4. The relationship between local short-term uses
of man’s environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity;
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources that would be involved if the
proposed action should be implemented
(described in King 2004).
In brief, an Environmental Assessment must provide
sufficient evidence to determine whether a more
comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is required or, alternatively, whether the proposal merits
what is called a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). In many instances, as in the proposed NHA
for metropolitan Honolulu, the results will be mixed

Miss Aloha Hula Malia Peterson, International Cultural
Summit 2006
and apply at different levels. With the proposed NHA
the results may well be highly beneficial in regards to
historic and cultural resources, may be neutral in its
impact on biotic resources and may have minor both
negative and beneficial impacts on natural and outdoor
resources.
As cultural resource specialist Tom King explains, the
key issue in determining with a full EIS is required is
embedded in the definition of a “major federal actions”
finding. The phrase “significantly affects” is the actual
trigger for a more intensive level of analysis and
documentation. To understand whether a project or
proposal indeed “significantly affects” the human
environment it is necessary to carefully consider the
context and intensity of the action. (King 2004:61).
“Context” refers to the specific area under consideration.
Depending on the number of alternatives this may vary
in size and application. The HCCC has designated a
specific area and provide detailed boundaries for a
proposed NHA. The context would change if this area
were to be enlarged or reduced. Therefore more than
one alternative is presented here, with the strongest
emphasis being placed on the “preferred alternative”
being the area currently demarcated as the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural District and extending to the Honolulu
and Kapālama ahupua‘a.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 149
“Intensity” refers to the severity of impact on a natural, Chapter 11
cultural and human environment by a specific action.
To determine the overall impact the following factors
must be taken into account:
1. The both negative and beneficial impacts of
the proposed action;
2. The degree to which the proposal affects public
health or safety;
3. The unique characteristics of the study area,
including the presence of historic or cultural
features as well as biotic or other
environmental resources;
4. The degree to which a proposal might be seen
as controversial;
5. The degree to which effects may be unknown
or uncertain;
6. The degree to which an action might set a
precedent;
7. Whether the action might trigger other
impacts, possible cumulate in nature;
8. The degree to which an action might adversely
affect buildings, sites, districts, transportation
systems, structures or objects listed in the
National Register of Historic Places or eligible
for listing or might disturb potential sites with
informational value (as in the case of hidden
archaeological resources).
Additionally at the state level the Office of
Environmental Quality Control will be concerned with
impacts on environmental quality, including water and
air quality, as well as sometimes less tangible projected
impacts on the economy, employment, transportation,
housing, education and resident and affected
populations generally.
Im pact of De si g n ation a s a
N atio na l H er i tage A r ea
If the proposed NHA is implemented using the
combined Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a as its
boundaries, it would straddle all of these different areas
and serve as a conceptual overlay pulling together
existing land-use districts. Emphasizing the shared
history of these apparently disparate areas, the National
Heritage Area would provide a sense of continuity and
shared legacy among physically, socially and
economically different sections of the city. It is also
hoped that the National Heritage Area designation
would provide firmer incentives for the conservation of
the existing natural assets throughout the area and for
the preservation of distinctive historic and cultural
features, including buildings, designed gardens and
parks and other historic elements within the older
parts of Honolulu.
The existing character of Honolulu’s buildings does not
immediately portray a distinct urban heritage. Building
uses and heights are widely varied. Some areas are
densely built up with historic and older buildings, other
historic houses and commercial buildings are isolated
among nearly empty stretches of parking areas and light
industrial buildings and warehouses. The Kaka‘ako area
in particular is a district of surprising contrasts: old
wood commercial buildings jostle up against new luxury
high-rises; individual wood houses, some dating to the
early 20th- century, remain hidden behind automobile
repair shops. Throughout the city, new and not-so-new
high-rise commercial and residential towers break the
skyline. New streets and pedestrian plazas also interrupt
the historic street and transportation patterns. Open
areas replace what were once built up residential and
commercial neighborhoods.
Even so, important aspects of Honolulu’s legacy remain
and eloquently tell the story of Honolulu’s, and indeed
Hawai‘i’s, heritage.
Overall designation of the Honolulu and Kapālama
ahupua‘a as a National Heritage Area will have no
significant immediate impact on the natural and
human environment of the proposed area. The only
anticipated direct impact would be an increase in
visitation to the area, with resulting related impacts on
transportation, including use of public transportation
and additional utilization of parking facilities.
Additional possible outcomes would be an increase in
150 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
employment opportunities for existing residents and
the population of O‘ahu more generally; increased
revenues for retail businesses and food service
establishments, and possible greater stresses on
residential housing costs in the immediate area. Many
of these impacts are difficult to project and depend
entirely on the intensity of use and increased visitation
as a result of NHA designation.
The effects would in all cases have both negative and
beneficial impacts. Increased employment opportunities,
for example, would benefit Hawai‘i and Honolulu
residents but would negatively impact businesses
dependent on lower wage-scale employees. Similarly,
increased use of existing parking facilities would benefit
owners, including the City and County of Honolulu,
which owns many downtown parking structures; but
greater use of existing parking facilities would necessarily
put some strain on existing users and availability of
spaces. Important to note Honolulu is developing a
transit system over the next decade.
These kinds of dual impacts would be true for many
aspects of increased visitation to the area, from ridership
on city buses through wear and tear on city and state
parks, sidewalks and other public facilities. Increased
ridership would be of direct benefit to the county’s
income, but may inconvenience existing riders. Parks
and open spaces may experience increasing usage, but
this may have the subsequent benefit of more funding
available for upkeep and a greater degree of public safety
as a result of use.
The impacts of the proposed alternative on historic
and cultural resources would be almost entirely
beneficial:
Greater public visibility should result in a greater
sense of pride and value for already designated national
register and other historic properties. Existence of a

Arts Festival, Hawai‘i State Art Museum
National Heritage Area should result in greater vigilance
on the part of the public and federal, state and private
entities to avoid actions that adversely impact these
historic assets and the character of the area. Additionally,
further documentation of existing resources, including
unrecorded historic residential areas in Liliha and Kalihi
as well as individual buildings in Kaka‘ako and the
Pi‘ikoi Street area may result in additional designations
and further protections. Alternatively, greater interest in
and increased values may serve as an unanticipated
threat to smaller fragile resources; although this potential
outcome is unlikely and difficult to predict one way or
the other.
Another positive outcome of National Heritage
Area designation would be increased support for and use
of educational programs conducted by the cultural
institutions. A larger number of visitors to these
destinations and increased attendance at performances
and other events will help increase revenues and provide
support for other programming, conservation, research,
education and other activities.
The overall vision of the HCCC is to provide
greater physical and “conceptual” coherence to central
Honolulu and to establish clear links between the
National Heritage Area and other sites of historic or
cultural interest and outdoor recreational and
educational value outside the designated district, for
example, greater O‘ahu, the resort destination of
Waikīkī, and related sites on the neighbor islands. The
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 151
proposal is primarily an interpretive one, where sites and Chapter 11
institutions of artistic, historic and other interest would
be bound together by a common “branding” and
interpretation plan. The proposal envisions a centrally
located visitor orientation center and the development
of educational materials, including guides, walking tours
and published information on sites and places of interest
within the proposed National Heritage Area. The
proposal further envisions an increase in special events
in the heritage area, partnering on special initiatives, and
increasing cooperation among arts and educational
organizations in particular in the collective marketing of
heritage sites and events.
The NHA would focus both on visitors to Hawai‘i
and on local and neighbor islands residents with the
hope that the NHA would better focus interest in the
heritage area as a center of culture in the Hawaiian
islands and have the secondary benefit of increased
public safety, greater visitation among the various
cultural venues in the city center and a greater
awareness among Hawai‘i’s citizens of the value of their
capital.
It is anticipated that recognition as a National
Heritage Area would help in the future to preserve
other, as yet undocumented sites of historic and cultural
interest within the NHA, increase the amount of public
art in the area, drive additional National Register and
Hawai‘i State Register nominations, and encourage
more effective historic preservation legislation to protect
existing sites. It is additionally hoped that designation
will result in greater attention to design within the area
and will reinforce the city’s existing special districts and
other design-oriented incentives.
Finally, the aim of the HCCC is to create definite
linkages among cultural institutions throughout the
proposed National Heritage Area and outside the
district. Historic and cultural sites in the Nu‘uanu Valley
especially would benefit through interpretive plans,
driving and walking tours and other forms of linkage,
particularly if the recommended NHA boundaries of the
Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a are implemented.
Im pacts of Oth er A lter nati v e s
Alternatives to designation as a National Heritage Area
fall into two distinct categories: those involving a change
of scale and/or of the proposal and those bearing upon
the area to be considered. These will each be considered
briefly here.
Management Alternatives
Management alternatives can be evaluated based on
intensity or application. A “low intensity” alternative
would be a non-federally recognized district such as that
presently represented by the HCCC. Such an
organization could continue to promote culture and arts
in the area now designated as the Hawai‘i Capital

© Twain Newhart
Cultural District. An even less intense alternative would
be a general retreat from existing initiatives and
abandonment of the HCCC altogether.
The preferred alternative, to create a private-public
desired outcome is a federal and local partnership with
partnership and close association of the neighborhoods,
responsibilities shared across different areas of
businesses, cultural and governmental institutions and
interpretation and development.
organizations within the Honolulu and Kapālama
ahupua‘a, managed by a nonprofit organization would
appear to be the most beneficial choice and the A ffected E nvi ronm ent
direction best supported by public opinion. Natural Resources
Additional choices, to further extend the scope of the Honolulu’s environment today is densely developed.
proposal and the related idea of increasing the intensity Still, the natural origins of the overall landscape of the
of the aims of the proposed National Heritage Area were city remain a feature of the environment throughout the
deemed less acceptable by the study team and members proposed NHA. Honolulu’s natural harbor is still
of HCCC. Initially, for logistical and management important to the city. Nearby surf sites and sandy
reasons, the proposed National Heritage Area is seen by beaches are recreational areas. Parks and public open
its sponsors as encompassing the core of Honolulu. spaces contain examples of Hawai‘i’s bio-diversity and
Eventually, the NHA may be expanded through serve as urban retreats. Freshwater streams still flow from
naturally occurring partnerships with other stakeholders, the Nu‘uanu Valley, then through the city to the sea.
outreach, networking, and communication technology.
Supporters of the proposed National Heritage Area Chapter 5 describes the affected environment as well
believe it has meaning and value beyond its immediate significant recreational and outdoor resources. These
geographic area as the symbolic—as well as the include harbors, beaches and near-shore waters, streams,
genuine—political, economic, and communications scenic views, and an array of parks and open spaces.
center of the Hawaiian Islands. The proposed area
includes the key resources and sites associated with
important milestones in Hawai‘i’s history and culture
and sites of significance to both the national and later
territorial and state history of Hawai‘i. The proposed
management entity takes into account the commitments
of existing organizations, institutions and businesses, but
does not preclude participation by other organizations
outside the area. Many organizations, institutions and
businesses have headquarters in the area, but have
regional, national and international connections and
infrastructures, and communication to reach a broad
audience.
The HCCC plans to retain control over its own
organization and its special area. National Park Service
© Twain Newhart

participation is invited and desired, but the existing

coalition wants too to retain a strong involvement in the
final district and in decisions about its future. The

152 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

In addition the affected natural resources include
examples of native and exotic flora and fauna as well as
natural features not incorporated with existing parks or
other open space.
The No Action/No Use Alternative would have no
predictable impact on natural resources. This alternative
may have long-term negative affects upon historic
properties due to lesser recognition and reduced
potential for protection and enhancement of existing
resources as well as less likelihood of regulatory
protection over time.
Historic and Cultural Resources
As explained in detail in Chapter 5, the proposed
National Heritage Area contains a wide array of historic
and cultural sites. Many of these have been recognized
through National Register listing and also by listing on
the Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places. Sites listed
range from the Merchant Street Historic District and
Chinatown Historic District through individual
properties of note, such as buildings associated with
Hawai‘i’s Monarchy Period and also the Territorial
Period. Parks and open spaces, such as the Foster
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 153
Botanic Garden and Thomas Square, at the outer edge Chapter 11
of the proposed district, also have been recognized
through national and state listings. These include
representative examples from several identified periods
in Hawai‘i’s history and prehistory.
In addition to listed historic sites, buildings and other
features, the proposed NHA includes many examples of
undocumented vernacular and industrial buildings as
well as many sites of traditional association and meaning
for Native Hawaiians. Significant among the former are
older plantation-style residences within the Kalihi and
Laliha areas as well as industrial and residential sites
within the Kaka‘ako Special Design District and Iwilei
area–all of which require further documentation as part
of the process of future development of the NHA.
Other cultural resources include the many foreign
consulates located within the proposed National
Heritage Area; of the 37 consulates in Hawai‘i, 23 are
located in downtown Honolulu and Nu‘uanu Valley.
Sites of Native Hawaiian significance have been noted in
existing guides and in published accounts of the city.
Further research into Native Hawaiian places of
significance is probable outcome of NHA designation.
© Twain Newhart
Additional documentation of historic sites associated
with Hawaiian residence or use, including a closer look
at the recent history of Hawaiian residents and economic
activities, is also an anticipated part of the ongoing
process of designation and development of the NHA.
Social and Economic
Cond iti ons
The University of Hawai‘i’s Department of Urban and
Regional Planning (DURP) has completed a detailed
examination of the study area. Note that the original
study area utilized the boundaries of the current Hawai`i
Capital Cultural District. Thus, the data provided by
DURP is for this area only. Additional statistics should
be compiled in the future for the remainder of the
Honolulu and Kapalama ahupua`a. However, it should
be noted, that the Hawai`i Capital Cultural District
contains the majority of the residential population and
cultural destinations of the proposed National Heritage
Area. Factors considered were land use, existing zoning
areas, population density, flood zones, ownership
(federal, state, city and county, and other) and public
parks. These areas are demarcated on accompanying
maps contained in the appendices to this report.
Census information on population, economic and other
data demonstrate several distinct characteristics and trends
within the specific census areas covering the study area:
The overall residential population is small. O‘ahu has
just under 900,000 people; greater metropolitan
Honolulu, extending to Kāhala on the east and to
Pearl City on the west, has a population of about
377,000. Of this number only 17,754 live in the core
downtown area and in Kalihi and Pālama
neighborhoods at the northwest of the proposed
NHA. The majority of the population, or about 65
percent, is Asian; about 20 percent classifies itself as
Caucasian. The remainder is of mixed heritage; about
6 percent of Hawaiian background.
The majority of the core area’s inhabitants fall
between the ages of 10 and 59. There are few children
under 5 years old (888) and few adults more than 80
years (701). This ratio is roughly similar to that of the
island of O‘ahu’s population as a whole. There are a
total of 7,626 households in the area and 3,696
families. The number of housing units is at 9,058, of
which 7,626 are occupied and 1,432 vacant. Of the
7,626 occupied units 5,538 are occupied by renters
and only 2,088 by owners. This ratio compares
disproportionately to the rest of the island where
owners and renters are more equally represented.
154 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Employment figures and occupations reflect the
business-like character of much of the district. A total
of 48,575 persons are employed in the general field of
finance, or nearly 2/5’s of the total for O‘ahu. The next
largest employment categories are restaurant workers
(92,590), wholesale traders (3,426) and people in retail
businesses (3,272). Other strongly represented fields
include health professionals (1,776), construction
workers (2,030) and people involved in information
technology (2,282)—the latter nearly half the island’s
total.
Land-use breaks down into the following categories:
residential (76.40 acres), commercial and service
(832.11 acres), industrial (421.57 acres), transportation,
communication and utilities (83.83 acres), mixed-urban
or built-up land (135.22 acres) and other urban or
built-up land (67.67 acres). Of the total land area of
1,616.79 acres contained within the study area, 28.34
are devoted to parks and open public lands.
Much of the land area is owned by public companies.
The Hawaiian Community Development Corporation
owns 225.314 acres. The state of Hawai‘i owns
191.336 acres. The City and County of Honolulu has
130.964 acres. Several of the state’s large land-holding
trusts own much of the downtown property. Bishop
Estate Trust, now known as Kamehameha Schools has a
holding of 143.469 acres; Victoria Ward Estate has
61.181 acres; Bishop Museum, separate from the trust,
has a further 15.360 acres, mostly the museum grounds
off School Street. Other important landowners are the
University of Hawai‘i (22.192), Hawaiian Electric
Company (20.234 acres), Kawaiaha‘o Church (7.405
acres and the Weinberg Foundation (11.234 acres).
Of the total acreage estimated of 1,518.55, 5.84 in the
100-year flood zone, elevation determined; 175.67 acres
are in the 100-year flood zone, elevation undetermined;
and 1,337.05 are beyond the 500-foot flood plain.
The study area produces 2,089,107.90 tons of carbon
dioxide gas annually (1997 figures), against
12,056,403.53 for the island of O‘ahu. The core district
consumes 3,926,503,102 gallons of water (about 1/20
of the island) and 587.05 GWh of electricity (about
1/10 of the whole of O‘ahu). The urban core produces
204,993,709 pounds of solid waste (10 percent of the
whole) and 2,960,888,182 gallons of waste water (5
percent of O‘ahu) each year as well.
These figures are displayed in further detail on the
following tables.
DEPARTMENT OF U RBAN AND
RE G IONAL PLANNI NG, U NI VERSIT Y
OF HAWAI‘ I AT MĀNOA
STUDY TABLES
Table 1
Prepared by Karl Kim, Ph.D. Population Data for O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District, 2000
TA BLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2
Housing Information for O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Capital
Map 1 Cultural District, 2000
Land Use Map for Hawaii Capital Cultural District
Table 3
Map 2 Employment Data and Economic Output by Industry
Zoning Map for Hawaii Capital Cultural District in O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District

Map 3 Table 4
Flood Zone Map for Hawaii Capital Cultural District Land Use Information of Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
District, 2000
Map 4
Population Density in Hawaii Capital Cultural District Table 5
Public Parks Located in Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Map 5 District, 2000
Public Park and Hospitals in Hawaii Capital Cultural
District Table 6
Top 20 Largest Land Owners in Hawai‘i Capital
Map 6 Cultural District
Public Land Owners in Hawaii Capital Cultural District
Table 7
Map 7 Type and Land Area of Flood Zone in Hawai‘i Capital
Grid-Based Map of Hawaii Capital Cultural District Cultural District

Table 8
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Generated by Different Sources
in O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District, 1997

Table 9
Water and Electricity Consumption by Different
Sources in O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District,
1997

Table 10
Solid Waste and Waste Water Generated by different
Sources in Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District, 1997

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 155

Map 1
L an d Use Map for Hawaii C a pi ta l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i ct

156 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Map 2
Zon in g Map f or Hawaii Capita l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i ct

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 157

Map 3
Flood Zone Map for Hawa ii C a pi ta l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i ct

158 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Map 4
Popul atio n Densit y in Hawa ii C a pi ta l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i ct

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 159

Map 5
Pub lic Park and Hospital s i n H awa ii C a pi ta l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i c t

160 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Map 6
Pub lic L a nd Ow ners in Hawa ii C a pi ta l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i ct

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 161

Map 7
G rid-Ba sed Map of Hawaii C a pi ta l Cu ltu r a l Dis tr i ct

162 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Im pac ts of Desig nating
th e Nu ‘uanu Ahup ua‘a as a
Nation al Heritage Area
Impact on Natural Resources
The proposed action will have no appreciable impact on
natural resources in the study area. There are no
identified endangered biotic resources. Open spaces and
urban parks may be slightly impacted by projected
increased within the potential NHA but this will be
contained by existing public walkways.
In state and city parks there may be some additional
impact due to increased use and traffic on both wooded
and turf areas. These impacts can be mitigated through
education, new access trails and other visitor facilities.
No significant additional discharges of solid or water
waste are anticipated as a result of increased use.
Production of carbon dioxide gas may be affected by
increased transportation use in the area, although this will
probably be negligible; most outside visitors will probably
rely on public transportation or on tour buses; local
visitors will not add appreciably to pollution in the area.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 163
Historic and Cultural Resources Chapter 11
The proposal will result in no evident negative impacts
on historic or cultural resources. Archaeological and
petroglyph sites in the associated park areas of Nu‘uanu
are protected from visitor impacts; these protections
may need to be further strengthened and augmented
by educational programs for residents and visitors.
National and state registered sites, buildings and
structures will not be impacted significantly by the
proposal. There may be additional visitor impacts for
some buildings, but these can be limited by individual
management strategies and rules governing access and
visitor numbers. The heritage value of national and state
registered sites will be enhanced through greater
recognition of the qualities and significance of historic
buildings, sites and structures. NHA recognition may
lead to additional documentation of lesser-known
properties and additional registrations of historic
buildings and sites.
The only possible threat could be that increased
economic success in the downtown district may lead to
enhanced property values to the point where new
buildings replace historic ones. However, it is likely that
the recognition of the value of historic assets brought
about by National Heritage Area status would engender
© Twain Newhart
collaborative efforts to protect significant sites as the Ot h e r A lt e r n ativ e s : Ou tco m e s
NHA matures in future years. In addition, landowners a nd Im pacts
may develop live-work spaces in neighborhoods such as
Impacts projected for other alternatives would probably
Chinatown and Kaka‘ako, producing a more rapid
follow directly those anticipated for the preferred
revitalization of the area.
alternative of designating the Honolulu and Kapālama
Social and Economic ahupua‘a as a National Heritage Area. No change of use
would result in few impacts on natural, historic or
Honolulu, Hawai‘i is a business, governmental,
cultural assets and no appreciable affect on economic
communication and tourism center. One of the aims in
and social conditions. Impacts on parks and other
nominating the area as a NHA is to increase the
resources in the “second tier” or “associated” areas are
number of visitors to the area including O‘ahu and
considered under the preferred alternative as well. Both
neighbor island residents as well as tourists. Existing
smaller and larger proposed areas would have no
facilities are adequate to handle increased tourism;
strikingly different impact on resources or the human
present bus use is below capacity and restaurants and
environment.
other service-oriented businesses would benefit as well
from increased demand. The same is true of under- Designation of the Honolulu and Kapālama ahupua‘a
utilized retail and other commercial space. Increased as the Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage Area is not
tourism and visitation by Hawai‘i residents will also only feasible and suitable, but preferred, and will
have a beneficial impact on employment opportunities recognize the outstanding historic, cultural,
in the area. Efforts are under way to create a more recreational, educational and natural resources of
“walkable” and bike-friendly area. central Honolulu and provide a conceptual framework
for the preservation and interpretation of a distinctive
Some of the residential sections, such as Kalihi and
and important Hawaiian and American landscape
Pālama may experience some degree of economic change
and growth as a result of the proposed NHA. This
change, in turn, may introduce new pressures for
upscale development similar to what occurring in
Kaka‘ako and the downtown area. Presently none of the
predominantly residential areas are zoned for high-rise
development; it is hoped that recognition of the special
historic and cultural values of existing houses and
smaller businesses will lead to retention and promotion
of an urban core that is strongly characterized by its
culture and heritage.

164 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Work s Ci ted Cordy, Ross. 2000. Exalted Sits the Chief: The Ancient
History of Hawai‘i Island. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
Athens, J. Stephen and Jerome V. Ward. 1993.
Daws, Gavan. Honolulu: The First Century, The Story of
Environmental Change and Prehistoric Polynesian
the Town to 1876. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 2006.
Settlement in Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives 32, 2: 205-23.
Day, A. Grove. Hawai‘i and Its People. Honolulu:
Ames, Kenneth L. 1996. On Bishop Street. Honolulu:
Mutual Publishing, 1993.
First Hawaiian Bank.
Department of Land and Natural Resources. 1979. State
Andrews, Lorrin. 2004. A Dictionary of the Hawaiian
Historic Preservation Plan and Technical Reference
Language. 1st ed., 2nd printing. Originally published
Document. Honolulu: DLNR, State of Hawai‘i.
1865. Honolulu: Island Heritage.
Department of Land and Natural Resources. 1980. State
Bannick, Nancy, Scott Cheever and David Cheever.
Historic Preservation Plan and Technical Reference
2005. A Close Call: Saving Honolulu’s Chinatown.
Document. Honolulu: DLNR, State of Hawai‘i.
Honolulu: Little Percent Press.
Downtown Improvement Association. 1962. An Interim
Bartels, Jim. Moses manu and Nu‘uanu tales.
Planning Report. Honolulu: The Downtown
http://www/pacificworlds.com/nuuanu/arrival/comeash.
Improvement Association.
cfm, accessed 3/8/06.
Felsing, Helen. 2006. The HCCD Outdoors. Honolulu:
Becket, Jan and Joseph Singer. 1999. Pana O’ahu: Sacred
Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program,
Stones, Sacred Lands. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
National Park Service.
Press.
Flood, Krista and Boyd Dixon. 1993. An Archaeological
Beechert, Edward D. Honolulu: Crossroads of the Pacific.
Inventory Survey of State Site 50-80-14-2464, Nu‘uanu
Columbia; University of South Carolina Press, 1991.
Ahupua‘a, Kona District, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum, Anthropology Department.
Belt, Lemmon, and Lo and John Carl Warnecke. 1961.
Preliminary Plans of the Capitol Buildings for the State of
Fornanader, Abraham. Ancient History of the Hawaiian
Hawai‘i . Honolulu: Belt, Lemmon and Lo and John
People to the Times of Kamehameha. With an
Carl Warnecke.
Introduction by Glen Grant. Honolulu: Mutual
Publishing, 1996.
Boom, Robert and Chris Christensen. 1969. Important
Hawaiian Place Names. Hilo: Bob Boom Books.
Gessler, Clifford. Tropical Landfall: The Port of Honolulu.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran and
Cartwright, Bruce. 1938a. Place Names in Old
Company, 1943
Honolulu. Paradise of the Pacific 50, 1(January):18-20.
Goodwin, Conrad, Felicia Beardsley, Stephen Wickler
Cartwright, Bruce. 1938b. Old Honolulu. Paradise of
and Bruce Jones. 1996. Honoruru to Honolulu: From
the Pacific 50, 12 (December): 33-34.
Village to City. Vol. I: History and Archaeology of a City
Block. Archaeological Data Recovery Report, Marin
City and County of Honolulu. 1960. General Plan
Tower Property, Site No. 50-80-14-4494. Honolulu:
O‘ahu. Honolulu: Planning Department.
International Archaeological Research Institute for
Architects Hawai‘i.
Cordy, Ross. 1993. The Rise and Fall of the O‘ahu
kingdom: A Brief Overview. Unpublished MSS.
Gowans, Alan. With Daina Penkiunas. Fruitful Fields:
Honolulu: International Archaeological Research
American Missionary Churches in Hawaii. Honolulu:
Institute.
State Department of Land and Natural Resources, 1993.

H AWA I ‘ H
I C
AWA
A PIITA
‘I C
L APITAL
N ational
N ational
he ritage
he ritage
are a s u
are
itabilit
a s u itabilit
y / fe as Ibilit
y / fe asyIbilit
s tu dy
y s tu dy 165
Grant, Glen and Bennett Hymer. 2000. Hawai‘i
Looking Back. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition. 2003- Minutes.
John Carl Warnicke and Associates and the Civic Center
Policy Committee. 1965. A Special Report on the
Honolulu Civic Center Master Plan. Honolulu: Civic
Center Policy Committee.
Johnson, Donald D. and Phyllis Turnbull. The City and
County of Honolulu: A Governmental Chronicle.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991.
Jones, Davis. 1937. Dictionary of Hawaiian Place Names.
Honolulu: U.S. Army Printing Plant.
Judd, Charles Sheldon. 1936. Hawaiian Place Names.
TSS. Honolulu: Hawai‘i and Pacific Collection,
Hamilton Library.
Kamakau, Samuel M. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawai‘i.
Honolulu: The Kamehameha Schools Press, Rev. ed.
Kanahele, George S. Hawaiian Music and Musicians: An
Illustrated History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1979.
King, Thomas F. 2004. Cultural Resource Laws and
Practice: An Introductory Guide. 2nd ed. New York:
Altamira Press.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton. 1985. Feathers and Fishhooks: An
Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton and Marshall Sahlins. 1992. The
Archaeology of History. Vol. II of Anahulu: The
Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuykendall, Ralph S. and A. Grove Day. Hawaii: A
History, From Polynesian Kingdom to American State.
Revised edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, 1976.
Little, Barbara J. 1996. The New National Park Service
Thematic Framework for History and Prehistory.
http://www.saa.org/publicatios/saabulletin/15-2/SAA12.
html#expressing, accessed 10/24/05.
Malo, David. Hawaiian Antiquities: Mo‘olele Hawai‘i.
166 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Translated by Nathaniel B. Emerson. Bernice P. Bishop
Museum Special Publication No. 2. Honolulu: The
Bishop Museum, 1997.
Mohr, James C. Plague and Fire: Battling Black Death
and the 1900 Burning of Chinatown. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Okihiro, Michael M. 2003. A’ala: The Story of a Japanese
Community in Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Japanese Cultural
Center.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert and Esther T.
Mookini. [1989]. Place-Names of Hawai‘i . Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i.
Sandler, Rob and Julie Mehta. Architecture in Hawai‘i: A
Chronological Survey. Honolulu: Mutual
Publishing1993.
Scott, Edawrd B. The Saga of the Sandwich Islands. Lake
Tahoe, Nevada: Sierra-Tahoe Publishing, 1968.
Seiden, Allan. The Hawaiian Monarchy. Honolulu:
Mutual Publishing, 2005.
State of Hawai‘i. 1986. Hawai‘i Revised Ordinances.
Honolulu: State of Hawai‘i.
Stearns, Harold.T. 1978. Quaternary Shorelines in the
Hawaiian Islands. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
Bulletin 237. Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Museum.
Sterling, Elspeth P. and Catherine C. Summers. 1993.
Sites of O‘ahu. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Stone, Scott C. S. Honolulu: Heart of Hawaii. Tulsa,
Oklahoma: Continental Heritage Press, 1983.
U.S. National Park Service. n.d. How to Complete the
National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form.
National Register Bulletin Number 16B. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Wentworth, Chester K. 1941. Geology and Ground-
Water Resources of the Nu‘uanu-Pauoa District. Honolulu:
Board of Water Supply.
APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Appendix 15
National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District Arts and Cultural
Destinations
Appendix 2
NHA Fact Sheet Appendix 16
Key Historic Sites in or Near the Study Area
Appendix 3
Biographies of Study Team Members Appendix 17
Press Releases
Appendix 4
Outline for Proposed Cultural Resources Inventory Appendix 18
News Articles on the NHA Study Process
Appendix 5
Founding Stories for Nu‘uanu Valley Appendix 19
Exceptional Trees
Appendix 6
Glossary of Hawaiian Terms

Appendix 7
HCCC Meeting Participants, July 2003
to August 2007

Appendix 8
HCCC Milestones 2004-2008

Appendix 9
HCCC Planned Initiatives 2009-2011

Appendix 10
The Big Read in Hawai`i

Appendix 11
Existing Plans that Affect the Future of
HCCD Outdoors

Appendix 12
Community Forums
Invitation
Participants
Meeting Notes
Community Suggestions for Short Term Action Plan

Appendix 13
Cultural + Planning Group

Appendix 14
Proclamations

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 167

 Appendix 1
National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

FEASIBILITY STUDY GUIDELINES

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

AUGUST 2003

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service (NPS) has been increasingly called upon by
Congress to conduct feasibility studies on discreet areas throughout the Nation
that may be candidates for National Heritage Area (NHA) designation. The NPS
has not previously had guidance documents or management policies for
undertaking NHA feasibility studies available for reference by NPS personnel or
others performing such studies. These guidelines provide a suggested
methodology, including basic steps or areas of inquiry, that make up a
comprehensive NHA feasibility study; how to apply NHA criteria; an outline of a
typical NHA feasibility study report; and, appendices containing helpful hints on
sources of information, public involvement techniques, and other factors.

National Heritage Area designations have been initiated in four different ways
outlined below, although recently, most are the products of congressionally
authorized feasibility studies, special resource studies, or direct congressional
designation without prior studies being undertaken.

1. The 1998 Omnibus Parks Management Act (Public

Law 105-391) establishes certain requirements for
studies of areas for potential addition to the National
Park System. Similar requirements are established
by law for studies of Wild and Scenic Rivers and
additions to the National Trail System. Studies of
new units of the National Park System, Wild and
Scenic River System and National Trail system can
only be initiated if authorized by Congress. Based
on NPS study team professional judgements, the
potential for national heritage area designation has
been evaluated as a preferred management
alternative in a number of these congressionally
authorized studies. Chapter 1 of Management
Policies and special directive 92-11 guide studies of potential new NPS
units.
2. Congress has specifically authorized feasibility studies of potential new

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 1 of 16

168 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

heritage areas independently from any consideration of creating a new unit

of the National Park System, National Trails System, or Wild and Scenic
River System.
3. Congress has directed funding from the NPS budget to studies of potential
heritage areas without any specific authorization.
4. Local sponsors have undertaken a number of NHA feasibility studies,
either as part of a state sponsored heritage initiative or because a local
management entity desires to seek NHA designation by Congress. NPS
may be asked to evaluate the locally sponsored feasibility study to
determine if the candidate area qualifies for national designation.

These guidelines are designed to help understand the process and content of
NHA feasibility studies regardless of whether the study is congressionally
authorized or undertaken by local sponsors. A first step in any study process
undertaken by NPS personnel, of course, should be to review the legislative
history on how it was authorized or directed.

The guidelines are offered with the understanding that each study may involve
unique resource and public involvement issues and each region may present
different study opportunities and constraints. As a suggested study process,
flexibility in the use of the guidelines is assumed throughout the following
discussion. Study team members may also find that altering the sequence of the
study steps better serves their purposes.

II. NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA DEFINITION, DESIGNATION STEPS AND

FEASIBILITY STUDY CRITERIA

On October 26, 1999, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on National

Parks and Public Lands, House Resources Committee, the NPS articulated its
definition of a NHA, the steps to be completed prior to designation, and 10
criteria to permit the NPS, Congress and the public to evaluate candidate areas.
While the legislation that was the subject of the original testimony did not
become law, NPS has reiterated the value of these criteria in subsequent
testimony on bills proposing NHA designations. The NPS definition provides
that:

A National Heritage Area is a place designated by

Congress where natural, cultural, historic and scenic
resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally
distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human
activity shaped by geography. These patterns make
National Heritage Areas representative of the national
experience through the physical features that remain
and the traditions that have evolved in them. Continued
use of National Heritage Areas by people whose
traditions helped to shape the landscapes enhances
their Significance.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 2 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 169

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

The term nationally distinctive landscape has not been further defined, but
should be understood to include places that are characterized by unique
cultures, nationally important events, and historic demographic and economic
trends and social movements, among others. They are places that by their
resource and cultural values and the contributions of people and events have
had substantial impact on the formation of our national story. The term is not
synonymous with the normal NPS definition of national significance except
that a nationally distinctive landscape may contain nationally significant
resources, e.g., units of the National Park System, National Historic
Landmarks (NHLs) and National Natural Landmarks NNLs. To become a NHA
and to warrant NPS involvement, there should be a determination on the part
of the study team that clearly identifiable and important characteristics of
national heritage value exist in the study area.

It is recommended that the study team consider using a round table of

experts, knowledgeable in the resources and stories of the study area
and comparable landscapes, to assist in determining how the potential
NHA ranks among these related resources and stories. The round table
findings can assist greatly in, and provide documentation for the
determination of national distinctiveness. Appendix 1 provides examples of
what may constitute nationally distinctive landscapes.

The testimony continued:

The focus is on the protection and conservation of critical resources;

the natural, cultural, scenic, and historic resources that have shaped
us as a nation and as communities.

In national parks,
it is primarily the
responsibility of
the National Park
Service to ensure
that the resources
that the Congress
has recognized
as being
important to our
nation's heritage
are protected,
interpreted and
preserved. In heritage areas it is the responsibility of the people
living within a heritage area to ensure that the heritage area's
resources are protected, interpreted and preserved and it is the
National Park Service's responsibility to assist them in that endeavor.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 3 of 16

170 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

Our experience working with heritage areas around the country has
led us to the recognition that the people who live on the land are
uniquely qualified to protect it. Heritage area designations provide
significant opportunities to encourage citizens, local businesses and
organizations, and local governments to work together to foster a
greater sense of community, to reward community pride, and to care
for their land and culture. As Aldo Leopold once said, 'When we see
land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with
love and respect.' Heritage areas provide the opportunity to pass on
the knowledge and culture of the past to the future. As Loren Eiseley
said, 'Without the past, the pursued future has no meaning.' By
creating this bond with the next generation, heritage areas will be
insuring their continued support into the future.

The conservation of resources through local initiative has shaped our

thoughts on heritage areas and how best to identify, designate and
then support them. Probably the most important work that goes on in
a heritage area is the organizing that goes on at the beginning of the
process. The recognition of important local resources, the
determination of a community's unique story, the formulation of a
plan involving all parts of a community in how best to protect those
resources and to carry on a community's heritage through each
generation are the difficult tasks. These are arduous and time-
consuming activities, but our experience tells us that through them
there are created strong local commitments to the conservation of a
community's heritage and its unique resources that help to define
communities and result in vital, thriving communities.

The testimony stresses that the NPS views a NHA, first and foremost, as a
vehicle for locally initiated protection and interpretation of natural, cultural,
scenic and historic resources. While the NPS assists in this effort (primarily
through financial and technical assistance), local partnerships are responsible
for planning and carrying out the strategies and specific tasks to achieve
successful resource protection and interpretation. The testimony also indicates
that much of the important work is the organizing that goes on at the beginning
of the process.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 4 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 171

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

In many cases, the feasibility study is a part of the organizing influence that
begins the process. As such, these studies are quite different from others
normally conducted by the NPS. They require an understanding on the part of
the study team that they are interacting in a wider community environment.
Pivotal decisions relating to NHA designation rest on the support, commitment
and capacity of those in the community that will be responsible for undertaking
and implementing a heritage area management plan. Providing the opportunity
for the articulation of local visions and suggestions of how heritage area
programming may best be implemented provides opportunities for the
community to better understand the role of a heritage area. This is a critical
element in assisting the study team to measure the potential for local support,
capacity, commitment, and ultimately, NHA feasibility

Four steps are necessary before the Department of the Interior makes findings
and recommendations to Congress regarding designation of a region as a NHA:

1. completion of a suitability/feasibility study;

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;

3. demonstration of widespread public support among

heritage area residents for the proposed designation; and

4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players

which may include governments, industry, and private,
non-profit organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.

Three of the four steps carry strong implications that a NHA Feasibility Study
entails a level of public engagement by the study team well beyond the
minimum NEPA requirements usually associated with a SRS or a NPS unit
General Management Plan. Because there will often be considerable public
interest surrounding the potential for NHA designation, public desire to
participate in the study process, or even the necessity by the study team to
actively seek out potentially important players, public involvement strategies
and techniques require careful pre-study planning.

The NPS listed ten interim criteria for evaluation of candidate areas by the NPS,
Congress and the public:

1. An area has an assemblage of natural,

historic, or cultural resources that
together represent distinctive aspects of
American heritage worthy of recognition,
conservation, interpretation, and
continuing use, and are best managed as
such an assemblage through
partnerships among public and private
entities, and by combining diverse and
sometimes noncontiguous resources

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 5 of 16

172 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

and active communities;

2. Reflects traditions, customs, beliefs,
and folklife that are a valuable part of the
national story;
3. Provides outstanding opportunities to
conserve natural, cultural, historic, and /
or scenic features;
4. Provides outstanding recreational and
educational opportunities;
5. The resources important to the
identified theme or themes of the area retain a degree of
integrity capable of supporting interpretation;
6. Residents, business interests, non-profit organizations,
and governments within the proposed area are involved in
the planning, have developed a conceptual financial plan
that outlines the roles for all participants including the
federal government, and have demonstrated support for
designation of the area;
7. The proposed management entity and units of government
supporting the designation are willing to commit to
working in partnership to develop the heritage area;

8. The proposal is
consistent with continued
economic activity in the
area;
9. A conceptual boundary
map is supported by the
public; and
10. The management entity
proposed to plan and
implement the project is
described.

III. SUGGESTED STEPS IN A

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
FEASIBILITY STUDY

The steps described below should be sufficient to undertake a comprehensive

NHA feasibility study by NPS personnel. They are also encouraged for use in
feasibility studies undertaken by local organizations seeking National Heritage
Area designation. The study team should feel free to reorder the steps to best fit
the circumstances of the study.

NPS conducted NHA feasibility studies are subject to the compliance

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. Generally, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is sufficient to meet NEPA
compliance. NHA Feasibility Studies undertaken by local interests,
independent of congressional authorization or NPS involvement, normally
http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 6 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 173

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

have not included an EA even if NHA designation will be sought as a result

of the study. Because at this stage in the evolution of a heritage area
specific programs and projects may not be known, a note should be
included in any study that upon designation, NEPA and Section 106
compliance work will be required not only for a heritage area management
plan for the region, but also for all future projects requiring federal funding.

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required for an NPS

conducted study if significant, quantifiable positive or negative impacts are
identified. Required consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers
(SHPOs), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and American Indian tribes and tribal
organizations must be undertaken.

A. Step 1 - Defining the Study Area

The area within which the study

is to be undertaken is most often
specified by the congressional
authorization. In some cases,
however, the authorization may
refer only to a general region.
Studies sponsored by local
interests may also require careful
thought of a study area.

Where the study area is not

specified or apparent at the
beginning of the study, a process
for determining an appropriate region needs to be developed by the study team.
The objective of the process should be to identify natural, cultural and/or political
limits that best encompass important resources related to the history of the
region and potential themes that may be identified. Public involvement in
delineating the study area can be of important assistance and serve to promote
future public acceptance and support for potential heritage area boundary
alternatives proposed in the study.

B. Step 2 - Public Involvement Strategy

As stated previously, the criteria used for a NHA feasibility study imply
significant levels of public engagement. If a local organization has already been
formed to promote national heritage area designation and enjoys the support of
local governments, business interests, organizations and the general public, the
public involvement strategy may be designed to capitalize on its existence and
public acceptance. Such organizations can be helpful in identifying contacts,
supplying existing data and often, are willing to arrange and sponsor public
meetings and workshops during the course of the study.

An effective public involvement strategy is based on the assumption that a

successful NHA study can only be achieved with the active participation of
affected interests in the region. Indeed, the interim criteria require findings of
public support and commitment to heritage area designation. The objectives of a
public involvement strategy should normally include:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 7 of 16

174 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

1. promotion of public understanding of the study and its

components;
2. maximization of participation and contributions of interested
and affected governments, organizations and individuals in the
study process; and

3. assessment of public support for designation, and local

capacity and commitments to successfully undertake heritage
area resource protection and programming.

Elements of the strategy may include a process for identifying stakeholders,

extensive individual and organizational outreach, workshops and meetings,
written materials (meeting handouts, brochures, newsletters, and press
releases), a web site, and the use of surrogate methods (e.g. asking other
organizations, web sites and publications to inform the public of the study,
request information on historical research, resources that exist within the study
area and potential themes that may be considered, etc.). Workshops and
charrettes are particularly useful in permitting the public to assist in the
identification of regional resources, potential heritage area themes and in
creating their own vision of the region's future. Appendix 2 provides sources of
information on public involvement strategies and techniques that can be
adapted for NHA study purposes.

Public workshops associated with the conduct of a NHA feasibility study often
provide an opportunity for the NPS to facilitate a regional or community vision of
a NHA. Visioning workshops are a vehicle to bring interested publics together to
discuss and describe desirable futures and the roles that each may play in their
achievement. Visioning workshops are useful, too, in promoting an
understanding of how resource protection, interpretation and economic
development may be compatibly undertaken. The process better permits the
public to determine if a NHA designation would be useful in achieving
community goals and to understand what actually occurs in a NHA.

C. Step 3 - Determination of the Region's Contribution to the

National Heritage and Development of Potential Themes

NHAs, by definition, are places representative of the national experience. They

are regions that have contributed in substantial ways to our national heritage.
Most often, the authorizing legislation for the study will include findings about
http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 8 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 175

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

these contributions.

The study team should assemble historical

information about the region and understand the
contributions of the study area and its people and
events to the national story. These have varied
considerably among existing heritage areas. Some
represent specific historic events leading to the
formation and development of our nation, or early
industrial or technological achievements that
fashioned today's society. Some are based on specific
cultural groups in a given region. Others celebrate
important landscapes that were the focus of literature,
art and social experimentation. Famous persons are
often honored, as well as the contributions of
immigrants, early settlers, woman, labor, African
Americans, Native Americans and others whose
experiences and contributions are important for understanding the nation's
heritage.

By first determining the region's contributions to our national heritage, the study
team may better focus its work on identifying the natural and cultural resources
associated with those contributions and the themes that may best enable the
public to understand, appreciate and celebrate their importance. One potential
element in determining if a region contributes to the national heritage is the
presence of a related National Park System unit (National Park, National Trail or
Wild and Scenic River), and National Historic Landmarks and National Natural
Landmarks within the study area.

Most often, knowledgeable experts and the public are able to contribute
significant information to the study team about source materials and persons
familiar with the history of the region, events of importance, historical figures and
the contributions of various communities. Tapping into and synthesizing this
knowledge is a key to capturing the true picture of the region's contributions and
the community's view of its shared heritage. A round table of experts can assist
the study team in evaluating the role and importance of the region as it relates to
comparable landscapes in other parts of the country and potential stories that
may constitute viable themes. The team may also wish to consult the 8 themes
contained in the 1996 NPS Thematic Framework as a starting point in theme
development.

The study team should also ascertain

information about traditions, customs,
beliefs, and folk life that characterize the
region (criterion 6). The traditions, customs
and beliefs may or may not exist in today's
society. Many that don't are celebrated by
local festivals, exhibits and through other
commemorative events. Identifying the
ways in which these important aspects of
heritage are still evident, shared, or
celebrated through commemoration are

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 9 of 16

176 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

necessary elements in understanding the

region's history and contributions. The analysis should assist the team in
discovering whom in the community shares a common culture that is important
to the region's story and if it continues to the present day.

Themes are the organizing framework within which interpretation of related

natural and cultural resources is conducted. They are the bridges to increased
public understanding of the importance of the region and its theme-related
resources. NHA themes are derived from analyses of the region's contributions
to our national heritage. They represent the broad stories that integrate the
collection of individual resources so that they may be viewed within the context
of the whole.

A good NHA theme structure enables residents and visitors

to understand the region's overall contributions to our
national heritage and the elements that enabled them to
occur. The elements may include, among many other factors,
natural and cultural resources, important events or decisions
and the roles of specific places, people, social movements,
beliefs, folkways and traditions.

The study team should understand that themes developed

during the NHA feasibility study may not be fully carried into a
future heritage area management plan completed by a local
management entity. The purpose of theme development for
the study is to determine that a viable theme structure exists
in the study area. Careful consideration of themes and a
public process for developing them during the study will assist local interests in
later theme related planning if NHA designation results. Researching the broad
array of stories and resources connected with them is also critical to the later
development of potential NHA boundaries.

D. Step 4 - Natural and Cultural Resources Inventories, Integrity

Determinations, and Affected Environment Data

The determination of a nationally

distinctive landscape is partially
dependent on the evaluation of
resources existing within the
study area. Conducting a
carefully planned natural and
cultural resources inventory not
only provides a basis for
measurement, it leads to a better
understanding of how NHA
designation may contribute to
additional public education and
protection of a region's resource
base. The key is to focus the inventory process on producing the results
necessary for the study's purposes. There are generally five purposes for the
inventory:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 10 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 177

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

1. to assist in assessing whether the region is a nationally

distinctive landscape;
2. to assess whether there are resources important to the
identified themes and if they retain integrity for interpretive
purposes (criterion 5);
3. to determine if there are outstanding opportunities for
conservation, recreation and education (criteria 3&4)
4. to ensure there is sufficient information about natural and
cultural resources to describe the "Affected Environment" for
the purposes of the Environmental Assessment.

Since the study being conducted is one investigating the feasibility of NHA
designation, an exhaustive resource inventory may not be necessary for the
second objective. Criterion 5 calls for the determination that resources important
to the identified theme or themes of the area retain a degree of integrity capable
of supporting interpretation. The study team should focus on identifying a
strategic assemblage of natural and cultural resources that relates to the
identified themes. It is these resources for which integrity assessments should
be made. While many additional theme-related resources may be identified, the
feasibility study needs to find only that there is a sufficient assemblage with
integrity to provide a viable interpretive experience. The NPS and State Historic
Preservation Offices, as well as state and local agencies and organizations,
have inventories of cultural and natural resources that may assist greatly in the
investigation.

In addition to natural and cultural

resources, information necessary to
assess outstanding opportunities for
conservation, recreation and education
(criteria 3&4) should include an analysis
of existing public and publicly accessible
private open space, recreation and
heritage education resources, and
whether there are potential opportunities
to increase the level and quality of such
resources through heritage area
designation.

Additional information will need to be

collected by the study team to enable the
completion of an "Affected Environment"
section for the Environmental
Assessment. The study team should
consult Director's Order 12 for guidance
on undertaking the assessment. These
should include at minimum, additional
information on:

1. population and socio-economic conditions;

2. land use and transportation;
3. tourism, business and industry; and
4. air and water quality.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 11 of 16

178 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

The affected environment section will also contain the necessary information
enabling a determination that heritage area designation will be consistent with
continued economic activity (criterion 8).

E. Step 5 - Management Alternatives And Preliminary

Assessment of Impacts

Within a SRS, NHA designation may be a management alternative to the

designation of a unit of the National Park System and be evaluated for its
feasibility using these guidelines. If the study is authorized by Congress as a
NHA feasibility study, or is undertaken by a local sponsor without congressional
authorization, this step should include management alternatives to NHA
designation.

At least two management alternatives should be analyzed. The first is the “no
action/use of existing authorities alternative.” This alternative must be examined
to meet NEPA requirements and assumes that there will not be any additional
federal action in the study area other than through the use of existing authorities
such as RTCA, L&WCF, NHL assistance, and other existing programs or
services. It is the continuation of the status quo with references to any known
changes that may occur including any state or local initiatives that may affect the
region. A preliminary analysis of the positive and negative impacts of this
alternative should be included in the impact section of the EA.

The second management alternative is NHA designation. The preliminary

analysis of this alternative should include a description of the likely increases in
funding and potentials for resource protection, interpretive programming and
other positive or negative results of designation. The experiences of other NHAs
may be used to comparatively illustrate potential results and impacts.

Depending on its feasibility, a third management alternative might describe the

potential for local or state operation of a heritage area, independent of a federal
NHA designation. In this alternative, there should be a description of likely
funding sources and potential for resource protection, interpretive programming
and other potential outcomes under state or local administration. An analysis of
impacts should be included.

Additional alternatives may be explored as relevant to the study and region.

These could include other types of heritage partnerships, trails, or other NPS
assisted or unassisted endeavors. All management alternatives presented, of
course, must be feasible to implement and their impacts described.

F. Step 6 - Boundary Delineations

Prospective heritage area boundaries should

include resources with integrity (determined in
Component 4) that have important relationships to
the potential themes developed in Component 3.
All resources related to the themes in the study
area need not be included within a proposed
boundary. A strategic or representative assemblage
http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 12 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 179

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

that enables residents and visitors to fully

understand how the region has contributed to the
national story and that offers opportunities for
additional resource protection is a desirable result.
Boundary alternatives may be developed that
provide (1) the core resources necessary for a
successful heritage area or (2) the core plus
additional resources that may significantly add to
public understanding and foster additional
opportunities for resource protection. Criterion 9 provides that a conceptual
boundary is supported by the public. As with other aspects of the study, public
involvement in the delineation and evaluation of alternative boundaries can be
an important element in this determination.

It is important that the study team views the process of delineating boundary
alternatives as being responsive to the research undertaken to develop potential
themes in Step 3 and the resource based inquiry undertaken in Step 4.
Boundary alternatives should be justified on the quantity and quality of
resources that are integral to the interpretation of themes, community vision of
the region's desired future, and opportunities for increased resource protection.

G. Step 7 - Heritage Area Administration and Financial Feasibility

Criterion 10 provides that the management entity for the potential NHA be
described. Management entities for NHAs have included nonprofit
organizations, federal commissions and state agencies or public corporations. In
any structure analyzed, the study team should ensure that the entity is
representative of the varied interests in the potential heritage area including
natural and cultural resources organizations, governments, businesses and
industries, recreational organizations and others that may be affected by
heritage area plans and programs. Where a local heritage area organization has
not been previously formed, the study team will need to include a strategy to
ascertain whether any existing organizations are interested in becoming the
local management entity and the level of public support they may receive. The
study team may need to facilitate discussions to ascertain the feasibility of the
creation of a new organization for this purpose if a ready candidate is not in
place.

A conceptual financial plan outlining the roles for all participants (criterion 6)
should also be devised. The financial plan should demonstrate, at a minimum,
the ability of the management entity to meet federal matching requirements that
may become available upon NHA designation. The team should also assess
capabilities of the management entity to leverage federal funding with other
potential financial resources. It is recognized that the latter resources may not be
able to be specifically identified during the study. What may be gauged is the
past or potential capacity and creativity of the management entity to attract
additional financial support. A five-year conceptual financial plan is suggested.
The plan should, if possible, include estimates of funds to be made available by
the management entity, state or local contributions, and potential funding by
private interests (foundations, corporations and other organizations). The study
team should be cognizant of any state sponsored assistance programs for
heritage areas, regional projects and/or heritage tourism grants that may be

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 13 of 16

180 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

investigated as potential funding sources.

NHA management entities often use a portion of their federal funding to make
matching grants to local organizations. The portion of federal funds anticipated
to be used for grants should be estimated, as well as any corresponding
matching funds to be provided by grantees. A sample of a conceptual financial
plan revenue chart is presented in Appendix 3.

Estimating expenditures for a potential NHA is not a necessary inclusion in a

feasibility study. At this stage in the evolution of a heritage area, how funds will
be specifically expended may not be known. Such figures are more
appropriately contained in a heritage area management plan. If the potential
management entity has developed preliminary expense projections they should,
of course, be portrayed in the study.

H. Step 8 - Evaluation of Public Support and Commitments

Since NHAs are locally controlled, planned, and implemented, the study team's
evaluation of public support for designation (criterion 6) and commitments to
partnerships within the study area (criterion 7) are critical to the feasibility
analysis. Findings of public support or opposition can be derived from comments
at public meetings, letters from individuals and organizations, resolutions from
governing bodies, and actual evidence of formal commitments by local
governments and others to participate in heritage area planning and
programming.

Partnership commitments demonstrate, in

large part, the capacity of the local
participants to undertake and implement a
future NHA. They may be agreements for
working relationships, financial
contributions, or pledges of other types of
assistance. As in the case of the
conceptual financial plan, specific
commitments may be difficult to ascertain
during the study. Indications of
commitments to assist and work in
partnership with the management entity by
state and local governments and other
organizations may be substituted for actual
dollar or other specific contributions. The
study team should, however, attempt to
ascertain tangible commitments that
partners are willing to contribute to the
successful implementation of the heritage
area. A sample way to portray commitments
to the partnership is presented in Appendix
4.

IV. SAMPLE REPORT OUTLINE

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 14 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 181

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

The following outline is intended as an example to demonstrate how the various

study steps may be integrated into a NHA feasibility study report and to analyze
if a heritage area vision, mission and goals are attainable. Study teams will need
to design their own report formats based on the level of information available
and the manner which best portrays the viability of a potential NHA.

A. Executive Summary - The summary should include a concise description

of the study, including a discussion on why the area has been judged to be
nationally distinctive, and a conclusion as to whether the interim criteria for
NHA designation have or have not been met. It should specify any
supplemental steps to be taken that will permit any criterion to be met.

B. Chapter 1: Introduction - The introduction should include the following:

Purpose of the Study including reference to the

authorizing legislation;
The Study Process including the methodologies used to
develop the study scope;
Description of the Study Area;
Public Involvement Strategies;
Coordination With Concurrent Studies and Efforts
including other NPS and state or local initiatives within
the study area; and
Steps to Be Undertaken at the Conclusion of the
Study including public review requirements, transmittal of
the study to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior and
the need for designating legislation.

C. Chapter 2: Study Area History and Contributions - The chapter should

describe the events, people, places or other factors (including the results of
any expert round table discussions) that result in the conclusion that the
region is a nationally distinctive landscape that contributes substantially to
our national heritage. The chapter utilizes information developed in Step 3.

D. Chapter 3: Themes - The chapter should describe the process for

developing potential themes and discuss the selected themes and any
associated sub-themes. The chapter utilizes information developed in Step
3.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 15 of 16

182 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

National Heritage Areas Program, National Park Service 10/26/05 4:36 PM

E. Chapter 4: Affected Environment - The chapter should include

information from the natural and cultural resources inventories and other
data included in Step 4.

F. Chapter 5: Management Alternatives - This chapter sets forth NHA

designation and other potential management alternatives including
alternative boundary delineations. The chapter utilizes information
developed in Steps 5 and 6.

G. Chapter 6: Application of Interim National Heritage Area Criteria - This

chapter discusses each criterion and evaluates the potential for heritage
area designation. The chapter draws upon the information set forth in
previous chapters, particularly chapters 2, 3 and 4 with additional
information developed in Study Steps 7 and 8 regarding the proposed
management entity and evidence of public support and local commitments.

H. Chapter 7: Vision Statement - If a visioning process has been included in

the study as a vehicle for public engagement, a suggested heritage area
vision should be presented.

I. Chapter 8: Impact Assessment - This chapter describes the anticipated

impacts related to the various management alternatives and any boundary
alternatives that may be contained in the study. It should address potential
impacts of identified alternatives, including "no action" on the elements
described in Chapter 4 - Affected Environment.

J. Appendices - Appendices should include necessary consultation

documents, and sources of positive and negative public comments. It may
also include charts representing data gathered during the study, e.g., a
matrix of NHL and National Register Sites with integrity ratings, lists of
municipalities represented in boundary alternatives, literature or other
references consulted, and other useful information to further inform the
public.

Home | Site Map | Contact | Links to the Past | DOI | FirstGov | Privacy | Disclaimer | FOIA

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FSGUIDE/feasibility_guide.html Page 16 of 16

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 183

Appendix 2
N AT IONA L HERI TAG E AREA S
FACT S HEET
What is a National Heritage Area?
A region that has been recognized by Congress for its
unique qualities and resources, where a combination of
natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources have
shaped a nationally distinctive landscape.
NHAs are partnerships that involve planning around a
theme, industry, and/or geographical feature that
influenced the area’s culture and history. This planning
strategy encourages residents, government agencies, non-
profit groups and private partners to agree on and
prioritize programs and projects that recognize, preserve,
and celebrate America’s defining landscapes.
What does National Heritage Area designation mean?
It is recognition by Congress and the National Park
Service that a region is an outstanding part of the
national story and meets the following criteria:
1. An area has an assemblage of natural, historic,
or cultural resources that together represent
distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy
of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and
continuing use, and are best managed as such
an assemblage through partnerships among
public and private entities, and by combining
diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources
and active communities;
2. Reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife
that are a valuable part of the national story;
3. Provides outstanding opportunities to conserve
natural, cultural, historic, and /or scenic
features;
4. Provides outstanding recreational and
educational opportunities;
5. The resources important to the identified theme
or themes of the area retain a degree of integrity
capable of supporting interpretation;
6. Residents, business interests, non-profit
organizations, and governments within the
proposed area are involved in the planning, have
developed a conceptual financial plan that
outlines the roles for all participants including
the federal government, and have demonstrated
support for designation of the area;
7. The proposed management entity and units of
184 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
government supporting the designation are
willing to commit to working in partnership to
develop the heritage area;
8. The proposal is consistent with continued
economic activity in the area;
9. A conceptual boundary map is supported by the
public; and
10. The management entity proposed to plan and
implement the project is described.
What are the benefits of NHA designation?
Financial and technical assistance from the
National Park Service, including connection to
other federal agencies, and “seed” money that
covers basic expenses and leverages other money
from state, local and private sources. In general,
NHAs are eligible for up to $10 million in NPS
funding over 10-15 years. The funding must be
applied for on a project by project basis, and
must be matched at the local level with dollars
or in-kind support.
National recognition as part of the National
Park Service marketing network and branding
strategy.
Does NHA designation impose any new regulations
or restrictions?
No, NHAs do not impose any new local land
use, zoning, land acquisition, building code, or
similar federal regulations. Designation
legislation does not provide the management
entity or any federal agency with the authority
to regulate land.
The management plan is developed locally, and
authority to implement the plan is local.
Planning must be done collaboratively on the
basis of mutual interests and shared goals.
Is NHA designation compatible with new
development and economic growth?
One of the ten criteria for NHA designation is
that the proposal for NHA status must be
“consistent with continued economic activity in
the area.”
In addition, the development of a long-term
management plan for area is required. This
 management plan must demonstrate a
commitment to working in partnership to
develop the area by relevant units of
government, the community and other partners
and describes the ways the partners will work
together toward the fulfillment of a common
vision.
In many places, NHAs have been a vehicle for
economic development.

What is the role of the National Park Service in

NHAs?
The National Park Service assists local partnerships,
primarily through financial and technical assistance.
Responsibility lies with the people living within a
heritage area for planning a carrying out strategies and
specific tasks. NPS involvement is always advisory in
nature; it neither makes nor carries out management
decisions.

For more information see the following websites:

National Park Service: www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas
Alliance of National Heritage Areas: www.
nationalheritageareas.com

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 185

Appendix 3
STUDY TEAM MEM BERS
Mona Abadir is Board President for the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural Coalition. For six years she served as
commissioner and chairperson of Hawai‘i State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts. HSFCA opened the
Hawai‘i State Art Museum, initiated the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District, held the second arts & culture
Governor’s Conference, created Celebrate the Arts with
National Endowment for the Arts’ chairman Dana Gioia,
established the International Cultural Summit, acquired a
seat for HSFCA on the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority board,
and increased grant giving, access to programs, and arts
education through the 2002-2006 strategic plan. In 2006
Mona became Board President of the newly formed non-
profit Hawai‘i Capital Cultural District. Now named
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition, their mission is
to designate the Hawai‘i Capital National Heritage Area.
Mona’s public service has included board memberships for
National Assembly of State Art Agencies, The
Contemporary Museum, Hawai‘i State Art Museum,
Hawai‘i Theatre Center, Hawai‘i Pubic Television, and
the Waikiki Improvement Association. Mona is one of the
founders/principals of Honu Group Inc., a Hawai‘i based
real estate company and CEO of Honu Group
Communications LLC. In her early career, Mona was part
of the management teams responsible for helping globally
recognized companies build value and keep their
competitive edge. Mona holds a B.A. from University of
California at Berkeley and is graduate student at the
University of Hawai‘i.   University in England (D. Phil. in Anthropology, 1982),
Peter Apo is a director of the Native Hawaiian Hospitality
Association, a private nonprofit organization advocating
for Hawaiian values-based management of Hawai‘i based
organizations. His professional career includes 27 years of
public service beginning in 1975 as the first chair of the
Waianae Neighborhood Board. He then served as an
Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee, a legislator of 12 years
in the State House of Representatives, Director of Culture
and the Arts under Mayor Jeremy Harris, Special Assistant
on Hawaiian Affairs for Governor Ben Cayetano, and
Director of Waikīkī Development for Oah‘u County. He
continues his commitment to community service by
serving on numerous boards and commissions that
include Friends of ‘Iolani Palace, Historic Hawai‘i
Foundation, Hawai‘i Alliance for Arts Education, Pacific
Islanders In Communications, and the Native Hawaiian
Hospitality Association.
186 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
T. Lulani Arquette is the Executive Director of the
Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association (NaHHA). She
has more than 20 years of leadership experience in the
private and public sectors and is the founder of the
Hawai‘i Leadership Center. She sees the work of
NaHHA as an opportunity to ensure Hawai`i retains its
“sense of place” and unique indigenous cultural identity.
In addition, NaHHA encourages and supports greater
Native Hawaiian participation in the tourism industry.
She is a strong proponent of culture, literature and arts
and has worked on various film and personal writing
projects. Most recently she was President/CEO of ALU
LIKE, Inc. the state’s largest private, nonprofit multi-
service organization committed to improving the lives of
Native Hawaiians through education, social and
economic development initiatives. She sits on numerous
boards and councils and is the current chair of the
National Economic Development and Law Center.
William R. Chapman, D. Phil. is the Director of the
Graduate Program in Historic Preservation and
Professor in the Department of American Studies at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Dr. Chapman is widely
recognized as a leading authority in recording historic
architecture and in policies and procedures for historic
preservation at both the local and national levels. Urban
planning and conservation are among his specializations.
He was previously with School of Environmental Design
and the University of Georgia. Educated at Columbia
(M.S. in Historic Preservation, 1978) and at Oxford
he specializes in architectural recording, the
development of historic districts, and materials
conservation. A former Fulbright scholar and American
Candidate at the International Center for Conservation
in Rome and most recently Fulbright Senior Specialist
in Cambodia, he has a special interest in international
preservation, particularly in the Pacific and Asia.
Karl Kim, Ph.D. is Professor of Urban and Regional
Planning at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. He
received his undergraduate education at Brown
University and a doctorate in Urban Studies and
Planning from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. In addition to holding appointments in the
School of Architecture and in the Center for Korea
Studies, he has also served as Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs at the University of Hawai‘i. Mr. Kim
has published more than 50 articles and papers in
journals such as Accident Analysis and Prevention,
Transportation Research Record, Computers,
Environment, and Urban System, Journal of Safety
Research, Royal Journal of Statistics, World Economy,
Enviromental Impact Assessment Review, and others.
Currently he serves as Editor for two journals - Korean
Studies and Accident Analysis and Prevention. He has
been a Fulbright Scholar to Korea and has served as the
Scholar-in-residence for the Western Governors
Association. His current research interests include
transportation and sustainable development.
Lorraine Lunow-Luke, Coordinator of the Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural Coalition, is an experienced nonprofit
manager, community organizer, and planning facilitator.
Ms. Lunow-Luke’s responsibilities for the HCCC
include coordinating the activities of the coalition;
building partnerships and maintaining relationships
with businesses, government agencies and coalition
members; establishing the volunteer working
committees and coordinating their efforts; overseeing
the HCCC strategic planning process; and coordinating
the organization. As a consultant in nonprofit
management, Ms. Lunow-Luke has worked with
numerous nonprofits to design outcomes management,
conduct strategic planning workshops, and train staff.
She is a professional facilitator and has designed and
conducted many community decision-making
workshops. Before launching her consulting practice,
Ms. Lunow-Luke was Acting Director of the Office of
International Affairs at the University of Hawai‘i where
she provided strategic direction and support to the
university’s international programs and relationships
across the seven-campus system. Prior to that, she was a
manager for a variety of nonprofit social service and
community development programs. She holds both a
Master of Business Administration and a Master of
Public Policy from the University of Chicago.
Geoffrey Mowrer is currently the Collections Manager
for the Bond Estate Historic District in Kapa‘au,
Hawai‘i. His passion for historic American houses and
restoring antique furniture and picture frames led him
to complete both a Master’s Degree in American Studies
and a Master’s Certificate in Historic Preservation at the
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. His dream is to
someday restore a historic Plantation-style house.
David Plettner brings broad and practical experience as
an arts manager, an artist, and a lawyer to his consulting
practice. A consultant for the past 20 years, he has
focused on community cultural planning, cultural
facilities planning, services to grantmakers, and
organizational capacity building. His practice has
encompassed consultancies in capacity building with
arts organizations of nearly all disciplines, sizes and
cultural contexts. David was a Senior Management
Consultant at ARTS Inc. in Los Angeles, with Mark
Anderson, for six years. He is the Chair of Americans
for the Arts’ Cultural Planning Interest Area and the
past Co-Chair of the Dance Resource Center of Greater
Los Angeles. As a performing artist, David was a dancer
in the Bella Lewitzky Dance Company and Loretta
Livingston & Dancers, touring throughout the United
States, Europe and Asia. He holds a J.D. from the
University of North Carolina School of Law and a B.A.
in Music from Wesleyan University, and he was a
Special Student in Dance at the North Carolina School
of the Arts.

Karen Masaki, brings in-depth knowledge of the

Hawai‘i culture and arts community and the arts
funding world to her role as consultant with The
Cultural+Planning Group. Karen was Program Officer
for Culture and Arts at the Hawai‘i Community
Foundation for 11 years. Karen holds a Master of Fine
Arts degree in dance from the University of Hawai‘i and
an undergraduate degree from Oberlin College. From
2000 to 2003, she was a member of the Board of
Directors of Grantmakers in the Arts, a national affiliate
organization of the Council on Foundations. She has
served on two grants panels for the National
Endowment for the Arts.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 187

Appendix 4

Outli ne of Potenti al Historic Resources

Org an iz ati onal Cate gor ie s Sites associated with the Kingdom of Hawai‘i
for Proposed Cultu ral ‘Iolani Palace and associated buildings
Reso u rce Inventory Administrative buildings
Ali‘iolani Hale
Theme 1 — Native Hawaiians’ struggle for cultural Kamehameha V Post Office
preservation and self-determination. Sites of significant political events
Bayonet Constitution
Archaeological Resources Queen Lili‘uokalani’s overthrow
Known visible sites/monumental sites (including Houses and businesses of Hawaiian noted historic
heiau) figures
Recorded archaeological sites based on excavations Churches
Unidentified sites in the urban and surrounding Cemeteries
area Places of business
Underwater sites in and near the harbor Parks and open spaces
Petroglyphs (Nu‘uanu Valley) Thomas Square, site of the recognition of
Sites associated with events in early Hawaiian Hawaiian sovereignty
history Neighborhoods with historically high
Nu‘uanu battlefield site concentrations Native Hawaiians
Later political events Sites associated with the Native Hawaiian
Evidence of Native Hawaiian agricultural practice sovereignty movement
Field systems
Irrigation systems
Theme 2 — Hawai‘i’s exceptional experience in
Natural and altered waterways
multiculturalism.
Habitation sites
Burial sites, known and unknown/historic and Pre- Archaeological Resources
contact Recorded archaeological sites based on excavations
Historic archaeological sites associated with the Unidentified sites in the urban area
Native Hawaiian experience Sites associated with early immigration
Urban house sites More recent archaeological sites
Sites of known economic or ritual uses
Palaces and elite residences Historic immigrant residential and commercial districts
Chinatown (listed and regulated)
Traditional Cultural Resources Kalihi (not surveyed)
Place-names Palama (not surveyed)
Sites associated with Native Hawaiian economic Liliha (not surveyed)
activities (e.g.lei sales) Kapãlama (not surveyed)
Sites important in myths, chants or songs (mele) Kaka‘ako (not surveyed)
Environmental conditions and micro-climates Architecture
Sites traditionally associated with spiritual qualities Commercial
(ghosts/spirits, etc.) Places of employment
Vegetation and open areas associated with Shops
traditional practices Religious
Medicinal plants Churches, temples, other places of worship
Flowers Cemeteries (design and structures)
Other plants Residential
Maritime-related sites (Polynesian Voyaging Plantation-type houses
Society) In town clustered housing (“camps”)
Markets Individual houses
Fishing and gathering Tenements
Foods and food preparation Walk-up apartments
Language use (Hawaiian language) Institutional

188 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Immigration Station Architecture
Palama Settlement House Governmental/institutional
Civic/membership organizations Administrative buildings
Chinese societies Post offices
Civic clubs Legislative buildings
Other associations Fire stations
Educational Immigration station
Public schools Commercial
Administrative buildings Early commercial buildings
Language schools Late 19th-century commercial buildings
Entertainment 20 -century commercial buildings
th

Theaters/movie houses Office buildings/high-rises

Fields/parks/stadiums Shops/department stores
Restaurants/bars Religious
Dancehalls/brothels Churches, other places of worship
Gambling parlors Cemeteries (design and structures)
Transportation-related buildings Mission station
Train station Houses/residences
Utility buildings Early western-style residences
Industrial 20th-century houses
Places of work Apartment blocks
Civic/membership organizations
Sites of significant events
Masonic/other temples
Labor rallies and strikes
Clubs
A‘ala Park
Educational
Sites of political gatherings
Schools
Traditional Cultural Resources Administrative buildings
Place-names Archives and museums
Public ceremonies and celebrations Entertainment
Bon Festival Theaters
Lion dance, etc. Movie houses
Foods and food preparation Restaurants/bars
Language use (traditional languages) Transportation-related buildings
Train station
Theme 3 — Honolulu as the link between the Utility buildings
United States, Asia, and the Pacific. Industrial
Archaeological Resources Transportation-related resources
Recorded archaeological sites based on excavations Evidence of trolley system
Unidentified sites in the urban area Remains of rail network
Elite residences (e.g. the Marin site) Roads/streets/highways
Early businesses
Maritime-related resources
Underwater sites in and near the harbor
Harbor edge
Sites associated with early contact
Buildings (e.g. Aloha Tower)
More recent archaeological sites
Ships (Falls of Clyde)
Historic residential and commercial districts Docks, wharfs
Merchant Street District Warehouses
Historic governmental districts
Hawai‘i Capitol Historic District
Present Capitol/Civic Center

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 189

Engineering-related resources
Lighting
Sewage system
Power stations
Pumping stations
Entertainment-related resources
Theaters
Movie houses and earlier sites
Restaurants/bars/dance halls
Red light districts
Sites associated with military and naval presence
Former installations/forts
Residences (e.g. WMCA)
Landscapes
Designed landscapes
Parks and streetscapes
Traditional Cultural Practices
Maritime trades
Foods and food preparation

190 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Appendix 5

Th e Nu ‘uanu VALLEY
Foun din g Stories

According to Hawaiian stories and legends, the area of

Honolulu, especially the highlands of Nu‘uanu, is rich
in associations and meaning. These associations suggest
that the area was an important one in Hawaiian history
and protocol.

Nu‘uanu, with which Honolulu is linked, means “cool

retreat.” It was characterized by high winds coming over
the pali and was associated as a source of water and
therefore “life” to native peoples. Nu‘uanu was a home
of both Kāne and Kanaloa, two of the four principal
gods of Hawaiian people. These gods held sway over
fresh water, agriculture and land.

Kū, the god of war, also occurs in stories of the valley,

suggesting to some cultural experts that the area was
long settled (Bartels 2003). (Kū went by many
appellations and forms, depending on context; these
variations on the important god are too complex to go
into detail here). The notion of the long-time settlement
of the area around Honolulu is reinforced by the
association of Nu‘uanu with menehune and ‘e‘epa, both
linked with early creation stories. Described as short and
grotesque, menehune and ‘e‘epa can be translated as
“imps,” other times as “gnomes.”
Hawaiian story-teller Moses Manu provided a lengthy
account of the legendary figure Keaomelemele,
connected to Nu‘uanu, printed in 1884 in the Hawaiian
language newspaper Ka Nupepa Kuokoa. The story
describes the origins of Nu‘uanu and also of a special
class of mo‘o, or lizard gods, who came to represent the
valley (Pukui Bishop Musem 2003).
Keaomelemele is the heroine of the story, which tells of
five children of the gods, all born in Kuahelani, a
mythical island or islands far from Hawai‘i.
Kahanaiakeakua is the child of Hinawelalani and the
war god Kū. The two gods Kāne and Kanaloa discover
Kahanaiakeakua and have their sister Keanuenue take
the child to be raised at Waolani, a sacred site high in
the mountains. Waolani predates the legendary origin of
Nu‘uanu and is connected directly to the Kooloa
mountain range, and the area known as Konahuanui.
Kāne and Kanaloa do not want Kahanaiakeakua
influenced by others and arrange for the child to be
raised by po‘e pupuka, the “ugly ones,” also known as
e‘epa. Waolani heiau is restored and refurbished by the
e‘epa, and Keanuenue raises the child there. When
coming of age, Kahanaiakeakua is married to Paliuli.
But he is not faithful, and Paliuli runs off to Kaua‘i.
Keaomelemele is then brought to Waolani, where she
learns to dance the hula. Paliuli returns to Waolani and
is taught the hula by Keomelemele, making
Keomelemele the kumu, or teacher.
The hula that results lasts for seven days, and the
landscape was transformed dramatically during the
performance. The side of Konahuanui crashes open and
a cliff is created. Waolani is separated from the
mountain and the Nu‘uanu Valley is formed. Other
gods arrive, and the figure Mooinanea comes to O‘ahu
from the land of the clouds. With her follows a
procession of mo‘o, or lizard-like creatures, so long that
it extends from Nu‘uanu to Waialua to the northwest.
The mo‘o take up residence in the valley and come to be
associated with watery and secret places. Hawaiians also
equate the mo‘o with common lizard, although it is not
clear that this was their original form. Mo‘o are also
simply slithery imperceptible creatures that may be
encountered in dark and green places.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 191

In the Hawaiian origin story Kahanaiakeakua later
serves as a priest at Kaheiki, another important heiau in
the Nu‘uanu Valley dedicated to reading heavenly signs
and healing arts. Paliuli remarries and moves to
Hailawa. Keaomelemele bestows her powers on one of
the other young children and returns to Kuaihelani to
live.
This story explains the origins of Nu‘uanu and the plain
below. It also gives each section a personality and
particularity. The pond near Waolani was made kapu
(taboo) in the story; it is said to still be avoided by
ducks. The story explains the division of the valley and
the sites of waterfalls. There are direct references to
healing and helpful plants, one used to help Keanueue, a
sister who raises Kahanaiakeaku, to produce milk,
referencing a plant used by Hawaiian to help young
mothers when first breastfeeding their newborns (“The
Ancients,” www.pacificworlds.com/nuunau/stories/
story1.cfm, 3/8/2006.).
Kaheiki heiau appears as well in stories of the legendary
dog figure Kaupe. Characterized as a man-eating
demigod, or kupua, Kaupe once stole a chief ’s son from
Hawai‘i to bring him to Kaheiki in O‘ahu for sacrifice.
The head priest at the time was Kahilona. He taught the
chief a ritual chant, putting the dog to sleep; and he and
his son managed to elude Kaupe. The dog awoke and
followed the trail to the coast, then to Hawai‘i. In the
meantime, Kahilona hid the chief and the boy at the
Kaheiki heiau. The chief and his son then returned to
Hawai‘i, killing Kaupe in battle.
192 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Unfortunately the ghost of Kaupe returned to Nu‘uanu,
where his shadow can sometimes be seen (Westervelt
1991:205-08). Nu‘uanu continues to be associated with
dogs, and there are numerous stories of dogs both in
ancient times and in recent times connected with the
valley. Dogs also feature prominently in petroglyphs in
the area, including the best known site near Kapena
Falls (“The Ancients,” www.pacificworlds.com/nuunau/
stories/story1.cfm, 3/8/2006.).
Most of the Honolulu area’s place names, as with those
of Nu‘uanu, reflected popular stories and myths. The
reef entrance to the southeast, east of Sand Island, was
called Māmala. She was a legendary war-like chiefess,
also a kupua, who could appear as either a beautiful
woman or as a mo‘o (lizard). She took the shark-man
Ouha as a lover but then fell in love with Honoka‘upu,
known for his expertise at surfing off the coast. Ouha
tried to kill Honoka‘upu but was driven off and refused
afterwards to take a human form again. He remained at
sea and became the shark god living along the reefs from
ke kai o Māmala, the Sea of Māmala off the harbor
entrance (Cartwright 1938a:18).
 Appendix 6

G LOSSARY OF HAWAI I AN WORDS Menehune (Meh-neh-who-neh)

Legendary race of small people who worked at night,
(Kepo‘omaikalani Park)
building fish ponds, roads, temples.

Ahupua‘a (Ah-who-pooh-ah-ah)
Mō‘i (Moh-ee)
Land division usually extending from the uplands to the
King, sovereign, monarch, majesty, ruler.
sea.

Mo‘o (Moh-oh)
Ali‘i (Ah-lee-ee)
Lizard, reptile of any kind, dragon, serpent, water spirit.
Chief, chiefess, officer, ruler, monarch, king, queen.
Moku aina/Moku ‘āina (Moh-kooh Ah-ee-nah)
Ali‘i Kāne (Ah-lee-ee Kah-neh)
State, as of the United States, district, island.
Male chief, King.
Ohana/‘Ohana (Oh-ha-nah)
Aloha (Ah-low-ha) Family, relative, related, kin group.
Love, affection, compassion, greeting, salutation, hello,
goodbye. Pali (Pah-lee)
Cliff, steep hill.
‘Ewa (Eh-vah)
Place name of west of Honolulu leeward area.
(Reference: Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel H. Elbert,
Hale (Ha-lay) Hawaiian Dictionary, 1986.)
House, building, institution, lodge.

Haole (Ha-oh-lay)
White person, American, Englishman, Caucasian.

Kahakai (Kah-ha-kah-e)
Beach, seashore, seaside.

Kalo (Kah-low)
Taro.

Kānaka Maoli (Kah-nah-kah Mah-oh-lee)

Full-blooded Hawaiian person.

Kapu (Kah-pooh)
Taboo, prohibition, sacredness, forbidden.

Lei (Lay-e)
Garland of flowers.

Loi/Lo‘i (Low-ee)
Irrigated terrace for taro or rice.

Ma kai/Makai (Mah-kah-e)
Seaward, ocean.

Ma uka/Mauka (Mah-ooh-kah)
Inland, mountain.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 193

Appendix 7

Hawai‘i Capital Cultural William Chapman, University of Hawai‘i - Historic

Di st rict Meeting Partici pa nts Preservation Program
2003 to 2007 David Cheever, Historic Hawai‘i Foundation
Participants in HCCC meetings since inception and Shaun Chillingworth, Bishop Museum
their affiliation at time of attendance.
Melanie Chinen, State Historic Preservation Division
Mona Abadir, Honu Group Inc., Honu Group
Representative Corinne Ching, Hawai‘i State Legislature
Communications LLC
Selena Ching, Hawai‘i Youth Symphony
Teresa Abenoja, Honu Group Inc.
Fay Ann Chun, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture
Henry Akina, Hawai‘i Opera Theatre
and the Arts
Charlie Aldinger, Bishop Museum
Corinne Chun Fujimoto, Washington Place
Muriel Anderson, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
Ann Chung, Office of Economic Development - City
Peter Apo, Peter Apo Company and County of Honolulu
Lulani Arquette, Native Hawaiian Hospitality Katie Churchey, Office of State Representative Corrine
Association Ching
Mark Anthony Auerbach, Community Jack Cleary, Community
Stephanie Aveiro, Office of the Governor Kimberley Coffee-Isaak, ARTS at Marks Garage
Amanda Avilla, Enoa Corporation / Asian Pacific Polly Cosson, Mason Architects
Advisors
Ken Cotton, Enoa Corporation / Asian Pacific Advisors
Renee Awana, ENPRO
Eric Crispin, Office of Planning, City & County of
Tandy Awaya, Pacific Asian Affairs Council Honolulu
Frank Beaver, University of Hawaii - College of Arts and Marilyn Cristofori, Hawai‘i Arts Alliance
Humanities
Eddie Croom, Honolulu Police Department's Law
John Berger, Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace Enforcement Museum
Gae  Bergquist Trommald, Communications Pacific Robin Danner, Council for Native Hawaiian
Stephen Bloom, Honolulu Symphony Advancement

Chuck Boller, Hawai‘i International Film Festival Joy Davidson, Mason Architects

Vicki Borges, Hawai‘i Theatre Center David de la Torre, Mission Houses Museum

Tim Bostock, Tim Bostock Productions Daniel Dinell, Hawai‘i Community Development
Authority
Manu Boyd, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Jeff Dinsmore, Victoria Ward Properties
Joanne Bretschneider , Office of the Governor
Grace Dixon, Foster Gardens
Steve Bretschneider, Department of Business, Economic
Development, and Tourism Judy Drosd, Department of Business, Economic
Development & Tourism
Patti Bruce, YWCA of O‘ahu
DeborahDunn, Iolani Palace
Keola Cabacungan, Iolani Palace
Rick Egged, Waikīkī Improvement Association
George Casen, Mason Architects
George Ellis, Honolulu Academy of Arts
Diana Chalfant, Schindler Elevator Corporation
Les Enderton, O‘ahu Visitors Bureau
Ben Chan, Chinese Chamber of Commerce
Senator Will Espero, Hawai‘i State Legislature
Melissa Chang, Aloha Tower Marketplace

194 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Hawai‘i Ca pital Cultural Paula Helfrich, Economic Development Alliance of
Di st ric t Meeting Participan ts Hawai‘i, Inc.
20 03 to 2007 Haunani Hendrix, Hawai‘i Prince Hotel
Elaine Evans, Hawai‘i Theatre Center James Ho, Hawaiian Chinese Multicultural Museum
Sara Evilsizor, Community Gary Hogan, Pleasant Hawaiian Holidays
Brian Ezuka, Law Offices of B. Ezuka Colleen Hoomana, ABM Family of Services
Joe Farrell, Architects Hawaii Ltd. Judith Hughes, University of Hawai‘i – College of Arts
Kiersten Faulkner, Historic Hawai‘i Foundation and Humanities

Helen Felsing, National Park Service Ernie Hunt, Chinatown Courtyard

Jay Fidell, Bendet, Fidell, Sakai & Lee Jodie Hunt, Chinatown Courtyard

Richard Figliuzzi, United Nations Association Joanne Iha, YWCA of Oahu

Rochelle Fonoti, Mission Houses Museum Louise Ing, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing Lawyers

Sherry Formoto, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture Walter Jamieson, University of Hawai‘i – School of
and the Arts Travel Industry Management

Carolyn Frame, JOOTS, Inc. Carol Jenkins, PM Realty Group

Chuck Freedman, Hawaiian Electric Comany Nick Kaars, Nick Kaars Associates, Inc.

Keoni Fujitani, Hawai‘i Community Foundation Kimberlee Kahakina, Mission Houses Museum

Kay Fullerton, Bishop Museum Robbie Ann Kane, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority

Mike Gonsalves, Waikīkī Improvement Association Katie Kastner, State Historic Preservation Office

Radeen Graffam, Judiciary History Center Cheryl Kauhane Lupenui, YWCA of O‘ahu

Alice Guild, Iolani Palace Christina Kemmer, Communications Pacific

Frank Haas, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority Kevin Killeen, Community

Frank Haines, Architects Hawai‘i Ltd. Susan Killeen, Hawai‘i Consortium for the Arts

Debbie Hallof, Business Advisory Group, Inc. Louise King Lanzilotti, Honolulu Theater for Youth

Lois Hamaguchi, Office of the Governor Lenny Klompus, Office of the Governor

Nicole Hankins, Standard Parking Larraine Koike, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority

Kim Hanson, Enterprise Honolulu Ed Korybski, Honolulu Culture and Arts District

Bill Haole, Enoa Corporation / Asian Pacific Advisors Denise Kosaka, Hawai‘i State Art Museum

Stephanie Hardy, Mission Houses Museum Karen Kosasa, University of Hawai‘i - American Studies
Dept.
Lee-Loy Hartwell, St. Andrews Cathedral
Heidi Kubo,
Denise Hayashi, Hawai‘i Maritime Center
Georgianna Lagoria, The Contemporary Museum
Corinne Hayashi, HTH Corporation
Lani Lapilio, Ku‘iwalu
Amy Hayashi, Norwegian Cruise Lines
Steven Lee, Department of Business, Economic
Kenneth Hays, Washington Place
Development & Tourism
Ronald Hee, Bishop Museum
Delta Lightner, University of Hawai‘i - Historic
Michele Heidel, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture Preservation Program
and the Arts

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 195

Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Studies Dept.
Di st rict Meeting Partici pa nts Nanette Napoleon, Community
2003 to 2007
Seiji Naya, East West Center
Thomas Lim, State Historic Preservation Division
Mike Nomura, Nomura Design
Ruth Limtiaco, The Limtiaco Company
Kaiwi Nui, Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center
Stephen Little, Honolulu Academy of Arts
Lisa Oshiro, Historic Hawai‘i Foundation
Wendy Lo, Aloha Tower Marketplace
John Pak, Kawaiahao Church
Andrew Lockwood, Pacific Island Institute
Toni Palermo, Judiciary History Center
Debbie Lowry, Chaminade University
Thai Pan, ABM Family of Services
William Lum, Hawaiian Chinese Multicultural Museum
Wayne Panoke, ‘Ilioulaokalani Coalition
Lorraine Lunow-Luke, Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition Kyle Paredes, The Center Club

Alison Machida, American Savings Bank Mary Philpotts, Philpotts and Associates

Barbara Makua, Historic Hawai‘i Foundation Micheal Pilipang, City and County of Honolulu, Office
on Culture and the Arts
Jim Manke, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa – Office of
the Chancellor David Plettner, The Cultural + Planning Group

Elizabeth Marguleas, Community Kaylene Polichetti, Pleadwell Hastings

Karen Masaki, The Cultural + Planning Group Kevin Qualls, 101 Things to Do Magazine

Glen Mason, Mason Architects Thomas Quinlan, Waimea Preservation Association

Michelle Matson, Community Peter Radulovic, Office of Culture and Arts, City &
County of Honolulu
Matt Mattice, Judiciary History Center
Alenka Remec, Office of the Mayor, City & County of
Lynne Matusow, Downtown Neighborhood Board Honolulu
Abigail Maynard, Mission Houses Museum Richard Rice, Capitol Tours, Governor`s Office
Lori McCarney, McCarney, Sacks, Santili Sarah Richards, Hawai‘i Theatre Center
Mark McGuffie, Hawai‘i Island Economic Development Roberta Rinker-Ludloff, Hilton Hawai‘i
Board, Inc.
Peter Rosegg, Peter Rosegg Public Relations
Andrew Meader, Hawai‘i Arts Season
Russ Saito, Department of Accounting and General
James Merseberg, Kawaiaha‘o Church Services
Maile Meyer, Native Books of Hawai‘i Alan Sanborn, Community
Bob Midkiff, Hawai‘i Theatre Center Jason Sasaki, JS&J Software
Chris Minnes, Honolulu Symphony JoAnn Schindler, Hawai‘i State Library
Denise Miyahana, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture Jill Schorr, Historic Hawaii Foundation
and the Arts
Jeanne Schultz, Office of the Mayor, City & County of
Lani Miyahara, Mission Houses Museum Honolulu
Hideo Murakami, Queen's Conference Center David Scott, Daughters of Hawai‘i
David Nada, Department of Business, Economic Mike Shanahan, Bishop Museum
Development & Tourism
Rachel Simmons, The Shidler Group
Tara Nakamura, University of Hawai‘i - American

196 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Hawai‘i Ca pital Cultural BJ Whitman, Communications Pacific
Di st ric t Meeting Participan ts Marsha Wienert, Hawai‘i State Tourism Liaison
2003 to 2007
Nancy Wilcox, Department of Education
Georja Skinner, Department of Business, Economic
Development, and Tourism Marie Winner, Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace

Chris Smith, CJS Group Architects Bernhard Wonneberger, Wiss, Janney, Elstnek Assoc.

Angela Smith, Honolulu Symphony Ronald Wright, Honolulu Pride

Anne Smoke, Arts with Aloha /Anne Smoke PR Frank Yagodich, Kapiolani Community College

Thomas Smyth, Department of Business, Economic Loretta Yajima, Hawai‘i Children's Discovery Center
Development & Tourism Ronnie Yamagata, Cox Radio
Jackie Smythe, Smythe & Associates Ronald Yamakawa, Hawai‘i State Foundation on
Kathy Sokugawa, Dept. of Planning & Permitting Culture and the Arts

Yong Chae Song, Aloha Tower Marketplace Bradford Yamamoto, Honolulu Symphony

Anna Marie Singer, American Savings Bank Sandi Yara, Community

Lee Stack, Kaimalino Designs Florence Yee, Hawai‘i State Public Library

Jim Steiner, Steiner Family, Ltd. Lisa Yoshihara, Hawai‘i State Art Museum

Erica Steverson, Mission Houses Museum Tracie Young, Department of Business, Economic
Development & Tourism
Ryan Sweeney, Hawai‘i Business
Erik Takeshita, ARTS at Marks Garage
Susan Tamura, Hawai‘i Community Development
Authority
Ramsay Taum, University of Hawai‘i, TIM School
Wayne Thom, Department of Business, Economic
Development, and Tourism
Kathi Thomason, Department of Accounting and
General Services
Tedde Thompson, Communications Pacific
Susan Todani, Kamehameha Schools
Jim Tollefson, Chamber of Commerce of Hawai‘i
Anne Torphy, Hawai‘i Opera Theatre
Cherry Torres, Office of Senator Norman Sakamoto
Inger Tully, Contemporary Museum
Margi Ulveling, Hawai‘i Pacific University
Kevin Vaccarello, JOOTS Inc.
Linda Verdugo, St. Andrew's Cathedral
Suzanne Watanabe, Hawai‘i Opera Theater
Mike Weidenbach, Hawai‘i Museum of History

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 197

Appendix 8

National Heritage Area Designation

$100,000 grant from HTA
Study group formed
Project concept & process developed
NHA study completed
o Cultural & Historical Assets Inventory
o Natural/Recreational/Educational Assets
Inventory
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural o Concise history of area
Coalition Mi lestones Timeline developed
2 004 to 2008 Community forums conducted

Organizational Development Support from congressional delegation

Governor Linda Lingle and Mayor jeremy Harris Media attention

signed joint proclamations declaring Hawai‘i
Capital Cultural District
Hawai‘i State Legislature affirmed district by
resolution
HCCC organization formally Incorporated
Granted IRS 501(c)(3) tax exemption
Quality board of directors installed
Paid staff person on board
Community-based Issue committees and work
groups active
Grown from coalition of 25 arts and culture and
organizations to partnership of more than 75
agencies, businesses, and nonprofits
More than 150 different individuals have
attended coalition meetings over time
Marketing
Branding/Identity Plan developed
Logo designed
Bill for designation drafted for submission to
Congress in early 2009
Way Finding/Pedestrian Enhancement
“HCCD Outdoors” assessment conducted by
National Park Service
Recommendations for directories and signage
Recommendations for pedestrian improvements
Way Finding Work Group formed and began work
to create plan
Tours & Interpretative Information
Enoa Tours and Trolley features HCCD
Mission Houses Museum features HCCD walking
tour
Inventory of existing district tours
Interpretation Work Group formed and using NHA
study information to draft Walking Tour plan
Special Projects

Professionally designed website “The Big Read Hawai‘i” program conducted

statewide encouraged the whole community to read
GIS map created a single book and discuss its themes
Stakeholder database created “Arts for Life” program planned to bring at-risk
Stakeholder Orientation Plan created youth and non-traditional patrons to visit HCCD
arts and cultural venues designed and funding
Presentations given to many different groups applied for
International Cultural Summit participation Community launch of HCCD study planned
Postcards, decals, stickers and other identity Congressional delegate launch planned for February
materials printed and distributed 2009
Newspaper and magazine articles International Cultural Summit participation

198 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy


Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition 2009-2011 Pl anned
In itiatives
Issue/Objective
1) National Heritage Area
Objective: Obtain
National Heritage Area
designation for the HCCD
to benefit all Hawai‘i.
2) Education
Objective: Increase access
to cultural institutions by
at-risk youth and low-
income families.
3) Way Finding
Objective: Assist visitors,
residents and employees to
find their way to HCCD’s
many arts and cultural
institutions.
4) Walking Tours/
Interpretation
Objective: Foster
understanding of and
appreciation for the
history and heritage of
area. Connect the
individual histories of the
HCCD’s historic sites into
a larger more
comprehensive story.
Appendix 9
Resp onsib l e Co m m i t tee/ P otenti a l
Project Des cr i p ti on Pa rtner s
Board of Directors/Legislative Committee
• Continue to work with Hawai‘i’s
Congressional delegates to promote passage of
HCCD Board of Directors,
legislation to designate the Hawai‘i Capital
partner institutions,
National Heritage Area.
Congressional delegates,
• Hold event to celebrate study publication and
Hawai‘i Tourism Authority
submission of legislation.
• Gather and submit testimony from partners.
Education & Interpretation Work Group
• Implement the “Arts for All” program, a
collaborative project among multiple HCCD
Partner cultural institutions,
partner cultural organizations to improve
Department of Human
access to arts and cultural venues by at-risk
Services, Department of
youth and low-income families, and to assist
Education, National
these organizations to provide programs that
Endowment for the Arts
will provide life-skills training utilizing arts
and culture as a basis for lessons.
Way Finding Work Group
• Print and widely distribute maps of cultural
assets in area (including online)
• Work with UH School of Travel Industry UH-TIM School,
Management and a planning firm to design a neighborhood boards, Aloha
directory system. Tower Marketplace, City &
• Utilize information and recommendations County, and Department of
from the “HCCD Outdoors” report by the Accounting and General
Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Services
Program.
• Implement pilot project to install directories.
Education and Interpretation Work Group
• Using the history developed in the National
Heritage Area feasibility study, design an DBEDT Creative Industries
audio tour that will connect the stories of Division, Hawai‘i Tourism
multiple venues within the HCCD. Materials Authority, Hawai‘i State
will be offered in print and online, and Foundation on Culture and
provided for use by schools. the Arts, Honolulu Culture
• Collaborate with relevant state and city and Arts District, roundtable
agencies on visitor information technology. of exhibits experts from
• Connect with Honolulu Culture and Arts partner cultural institutions
District Chinatown Museums project.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 199
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition 2009-2011 Pl anned
In itiatives
Issue /
Ob j e ctive
5) Branding/Identity
Objective: Increase
visibility and recognition
for the heritage area as a
cohesive and premier
cultural destination.
6) Marketing/
Communications
Objective: Increase
awareness of the heritage
area’s arts and cultural
assets, and increase the
number of visitors, both
resident and tourist.
200 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Resp ons ib l e Co m m i t tee/ P otenti a l
Project D es cr i p ti on Pa rtner s
Marketing Committee
• Design and distribute identity collateral
throughout the area.
Department of Accounting
• Print and distribute decals, stickers and other
and General Services,
identity materials to local businesses.
Outdoor Circle, businesses,
• Install banners/signage to brand National
neighborhood boards
Heritage Area, and highlight distinctive
individual neighborhoods.
Marketing Committee
• Implement a web-based joint events calendar.
• Distribute brochure, maps, and other
informational materials.
• Provide regular information to concierges,
tour operators, and other visitor information
outlets.
• Improve the utility of the HCCD website as a Hawai‘i Tourism Authority,
“one-stop shop” for visitor information about Friends of Hawai‘i State Art
NHA sites, history, and activities. Museum, DBEDT Creative
• Partner with HTA and others to promote the Industries Division
heritage area’s assets and activities.
• Explore options for a single pass for entry to
multiple HCCD institutions.
• Implement visitor information centers in
collaboration with Friends of HiSAM, HTA
and DBEDT.

Th e Big R ead Hawai ‘ i
Research shows active
readers are more engaged in
their schools, communities,
and families. They are more
likely to be involved in
cultural, volunteer, and other
civic activities than non-
readers and are more willing
to participate in a vibrant
democracy. This is why the
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural
Coalition partnered with the
Governor’s Office, Hawai‘i
Council for the Humanities,
Mānoa Foundation, Hawai‘i
State Library System,
Department of Education,
and Smythe and Associates
to plan and conduct The Big Read Hawai‘i (TBR) in
the fall of 2007.
The Big Read, an initiative of the National Endowment
for the Arts in partnership with the Institute of Museum
and Library Services and Arts Midwest, is an exciting
program designed to restore reading to the center of
American culture. The goal of the program is to engage
all sectors of our community through a variety of
activities that promote reading, encourage community-
wide discussion of universal themes, and inspire a life-
long love of literature. The Big Read especially targets
reluctant or lapsed readers and youth.
The Big Read Hawai‘i inspired thousands of people
across the state from different cultural, geographic and
socio-economic groups to read The Joy Luck Club by
Amy Tan, and participate in a variety of activities to
promote reading and discussion of the book and its
themes. The Big Read Hawai‘i also highlighted the
positive impact of reading great American literature
through the TBR website; news releases, press-kits and
campaign activities.
Research:
The Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition’s involvement
was triggered by a landmark survey conducted by the
National Endowment for the Arts, Reading at Risk: A
Survey of Literary Reading in America, which found
that literary reading strongly correlates to other forms of
active civic participation, and yet less than half of the
adult American population reads fine literature.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 201
Appendix 10
In addition, the Census Bureau conducted a survey
titled ‘Public Participation in the Arts’ (with some data
extrapolated from the Reading at Risk survey). The
Census Bureau survey sampled 17,000 individuals age
18 and above. The data clearly showed that the
importance of literature is declining across American
populations. Active, engaged readers were shown as
leading richer, more intellectual lives over non-readers,
and that well-read citizens are essential to a vibrant
democracy.
Budget:
A budget of $90,000 was established to develop and
implement the statewide campaign, including travel
between six islands. The money was raised through
grants, in-kind and private donations. Funding was
generously provided by National Endowment for the
Arts, Kellogg Foundation, Hawai‘i State Department of
Human Services, Hawai‘i Council for the Humanities,
Friends of the Hawai‘i State Public Library, Princeville
Center, and Smythe and Associates. In-kind support was
contributed by Honolulu Advertiser, BORDERS Books,
Honu Group Inc., and Electric Pencil, and by the
planning partners: Hawai‘i Council for the Humanities,
Mānoa Foundation, Hawai‘i State Public Library, and
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition. The entire project
was completed within the established budget.
The Big Read
Team: Jo Ann
Schindler,
Jackie Smythe,
Susan Killeen,
Frank
Stewart,
Mona Abadir,
Robert G.
Buss, Lorraine
Lunow-Luke
Execution: A screening of The Joy Luck Club movie at the
The Big Read Hawai‘i extended to six islands: O‘ahu, Hawai‘i International Film Festival coupled with
Hawai‘i, Kaua‘i, Maui, Moloka‘i and Lana‘i. The a panel discussion, Books to Film: Crossing
initiative targeted venues where lapsed readers could be Boundaries, Creating Worlds, featuring the film’s
encouraged to begin reading again, including public executive producer, Janet Yang, and other local
schools and public library programs, military bases and luminaries.
community centers in addition to outreach through the A PBS Panel Discussion and 30 minute
Motheread/Fatheread, a literacy program for prisoners television segment entitled Reading at Risk
and their families. The following activities and events discussing the effects on communities that fail
were conducted. to encourage and support reading.
Partnered with Governor Linda Lingle to host a
27 cultural events at libraries throughout the
news conference kicking off a month-long
state.
calendar of activities surrounding The Big Read
Hawai‘i.
Conducted 21 facilitated book discussions, with
special attention to underserved communities
such as the islands of Moloka‘i and Lana‘i
Distributed nearly 11,000 reader’s guides and
480 audio guides of The Joy Luck Club.
Community service reading projects with Youth
Service Hawai‘i.
Motheread/Fatheread prison programs, designed
to encourage family empowerment through
reading.
Conducted a Department of Education teacher
training workshop for more that 50 teachers
entitled Using Literature and Biography to
Teach History & Reading.
Participation in the annual Children & Youth
Day Festival, sponsoring a booth with activities
supporting the importance of reading for
parents and children.
Reading discussion programs at 3 military bases.
Designed and launched The Big Read Hawai‘i
web-site which generated more than 5,000
unique visitors during the campaign.
Performed 8 abbreviated readers-theatre style
performances of The Joy Luck Club.
Conducted classroom readings and class projects
with more than 300 students within the Hawai‘i
State Department of Education.
A series of highly visible activities in 8 well-
trafficked BORDERS Books stores throughout
the month of October, including celebrity
readings of The Joy Luck Club, TBR banners,
posters and window displays.

202 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy


E xis t ing Pl ans that Affec t t h e
Futur e of the Hawai ‘i Capita l
Cu ltur al Di str i ct Outdoor s
One of the challenging tasks facing HCCD is to stay
attuned to the planning processes and existing plans that
affect the district, and then actively advocate for
implementation of plan elements that are in accord with
HCCD’s goals. Major plans that support HCCD’s
vision—or that place constraints on it—are described in
this section, along with excerpted plan provisions relevant
to HCCD. Plan excerpts can be used by the coalition to
encourage government action, justify funding requests,
and win further support for pedestrian improvements,
open space enhancements, and quality interpretation.
O‘ah u Ge neral Pl an
The O‘ahu General Plan is the City and County of
Honolulu’s overall planning guide for the island.
According to City/County officials “The General Plan is
intended to be a dynamic document, expressing the
aspirations of the residents of O‘ahu. It sets forth the
long-range objectives and policies for the general welfare
and, together with the City Charter, provides a direction
and framework to guide the programs and activities of
the City and County of Honolulu.” (See http://
honoluludpp.org/planning/O‘ahuGenPlan.asp)
Natur al Envi ronment
Chapter 3 of the General Plan, Natural Environment,
emphasizes the importance of people’s connection to and
appreciation of the outdoors. Objectives are to “protect
and preserve the natural environment (Obj. A) and to
“preserve and enhance the natural monuments and scenic
views of O‘ahu for the benefit of both residents and
visitors” (Obj. B). Relevant policies include:
Increase public awareness and appreciation of
O‘ahu’s land, air, and water resources (Obj. A,
Policy 10)
Protect O‘ahu’s scenic views, especially those seen
from highly developed and heavily traveled areas
(Obj. B, Policy 2)
Provide opportunities for recreational and
educational use and physical contact with O‘ahu’s
natural environmental (Obj. B, Policy 4)
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 203
Appendix 11
Tr a ns p ortat io n a nd U t il it ie s
Chapter 5 of the General Plan, Transportation and
Utilities, states within Objective A the intent to “offer a
variety of attractive and convenient modes of travel.”
Policies for this objective include elements of a positive
walking environment consistent with HCCD’s goals:
Establish pedestrian walkways for getting around
Downtown and Waikīkī, and for trips to schools,
parks, and shopping centers (Policy 1d)
Promote programs to reduce dependence on the use
of automobiles (Policy 9)
Discourage the inefficient use of the private
automobile, especially in congested corridors and
during peak-hours (Policy 10)
Make public, and encourage private, improvements
to major walkway systems (Policy 11)
Ph y s ica l D evelo p m ent a nd
U rba n D es ign
Chapter 7 of the General Plan, Physical Development
and Urban Design, focuses on the types of development
desirable for O`ahu. Policies relevant to HCCD outdoors
include:
Provide for the continued viability of the Hawai‘i
Capital District as a center of government activities
and as an attractive park-like setting in the heart of
the City (Obj. B, Policy 7)
Foster the development of Honolulu’s waterfront as
the State's major port and maritime center, as a
people-oriented mixed-use area, and as a major
recreation area (Obj. B, Pol. 8)
Promote public and private programs to beautify
the urban and rural environments (Obj. E, Policy 7)
Preserve and maintain beneficial open space in
urbanized areas (Objective E, Policy 8)
Cu ltur e a nd R ecr eat io n
Chapter 10 of the General Plan, Culture and Recreation,
highlights the need to protect Hawai‘i’s diverse cultures
and historic resources. Virtually all of the policies in this
chapter conform closely to HCCD’s own mission. Policies
especially pertinent to an accessible and interpreted
outdoor environment include:
Encourage opportunities for better interaction
among people with different ethnic, social, and
 cultural backgrounds (Obj. A, Policy 3)
Encourage greater public awareness,
understanding, and appreciation of cultural
heritage and contributions to Hawai‘i made by the
City's various ethnic groups (Obj. A, Policy 2)
Develop and maintain urban parks, squares, and
beautification areas in high density urban places
(Objective D, Policy 3)
(Objective D, Policy 12)
Pr ima ry U rban Center (P U C )
Deve lop ment Pl an
The City and County of Honolulu’s Primary Urban
Center Development Plan (PUCDP) is one of eight
area-specific plans that conform to the General Plan and
address development goals for different sections of the
island. The PUCDP covers the most densely populated
portion of O`ahu, including the entire area of the
HCCD. The current version of this plan was adopted
by Ordinance 04-14 effective June 21, 2004. According
to the City Charter it must be updated every five years.
(Find the plan at http://honoluludpp.org/planning/
DevSustPrimaryUrbanCenter.asp)
PUC Vis i on, Poli ci es and
Gu id e l i nes
The PUCDP lays out a vision for Honolulu for the year
2025 and articulates policies and guidelines to
implement the vision. The key elements of the vision,
shown in Chapter 2 of the plan, are as follows:
1. Honolulu’s natural, cultural and scenic resources
are protected and enhanced.
2. Livable neighborhoods have business districts,
parks and plazas, and walkable streets.
3. The PUC offers in-town housing choices for
people of all ages and incomes.
4. Honolulu is the Pacific’s leading city and travel
destination.
5. A balanced transportation system provides
excellent mobility for residents and visitors.
The plan articulates specific Policies and Guidelines for
implementing the Vision. Provisions from the plan’s
Vision, Policies and Guidelines that align with goals of
the HCCD are shown below, with related items grouped
together under headings relevant to HCCD. Numbers
indicate the chapters and sections in the PUCDP where
they can be found.
204 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Views
2.1. Preserve panoramic views of ridges, craters
and coastlines from key vantage points
2.1. Preserve view corridors within the city
through careful planning and design
3.1.2 Maintain important view corridors within
and across urban Honolulu
3.1.2 Keep Downtown as the most prominent
feature of the urban skyline.
3.1.3.3 Apart from Downtown and other central
Honolulu locations, promote mid-rise or
low-rise scale for new buildings
3.1.3.3 Establish building height limits and setbacks
based on viewplane analyses to preserve views
from ala Moana Beach Park toward the
Ko‘olau range, from Kewalo Basin toward the
Ko‘olau Range and Punchbowl, and from
Kaka‘ako Waterfront Park toward Punchbowl
and the Ko‘olau Range.
3.1.3.3 Preserve mauka-makai views along major
collector streets through a combination of
zoning controls and streetscape
improvements.
3.2.2.4 Downtown should have the tallest buildings
on Oah`u. In other areas, maximum building
heights should be established on the basis of
viewplane studies to preserve views of natural
landmarks.
Resource Protection
2.1. Preserve and protect mountain lands and
shorelines that frame the city.
2.1. Preserve and protect the natural, cultural and
scenic areas and resources within the urban
area.
2.1. Actively manage and improve beaches,
coastal waters, historic sites, and mountain
lands.
2.1. Preserve and enhance culturally or
historically important sites, landforms and
structures.
Open Space Connections
2.1. Assure and enhance physical access to
mountains, shoreline, streams, and other
resources
2.1. Establish an open space network of mauka
lands, shorelines, and urban parks and open
spaces
2.1. Link parks and open spaces via stream
greenbelts, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly
streets.
3.1.3.6 Promote linear connections in the
recreational open space network by using
existing public lands and rights-of-way, where
possible.
Connection between City and Waterfront
Ex Sum Strengthen the physical and visual
connections between the urban center and
the water: This recognizes the waterfront as a
principal element in the PUC’s setting and as
an organizing reference point for the city,
and supports development of an economic
and social asset for the surrounding
community.
3.4.1.1 As demonstrated in leading cities throughout
the world, recapturing visual and physical
access to the urban waterfront can stimulate
economic renewal and be a source of civic
pride. Waterfront redevelopment can bring
vitality and business to commercial centers.
3.4.1.1 Increased entertainment and recreational
opportunities along the waterfront will
benefit from the patronage of Downtown
workers and residents. Revitalization of the
waterfront will in turn lend impetus to
redevelopment in Iwilei.
Ex Sum Redevelop the Downtown/Iwilei waterfront.
Increase visual and physical access to the
waterfront by re-routing traffic away from
Nimitz Highway and introducing
commercial activities and areas capable of
hosting recreational activities.
2.1. On the Honolulu waterfront, provide
promenades, bikeways and entertainment
opportunities
2.4 Transform Nimitz Highway into a boulevard
with landscaped median and broad sidewalks
2.4 Transform Honolulu’s waterfront into a
“people place”
3.1.2: Provide continuous lateral access along the
Honolulu waterfront… where urban activity
is most intense.
3.1.3.4 Construct [a walkway] along the …
Honolulu-Kaka`ako waterfront.
3.4.1.4 Convert the Diamond Head portions of the
harbor, between Piers 1 and 15, for expanded
recreational and commercial uses and
maritime passenger travel (after further
development and modernization of maritime
support facilities at the harbor).
3.4.1.1 The major impediment to revitalizing the
Honolulu waterfront is Nimitz Highway.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 205
Carrying a large volume of traffic on six
through lanes, Nimitz effectively acts as a
physical and visual barrier cutting off the
waterfront from mauka pedestrian travel.
Ex Sum The multilane Nimitz Highway isolates the
Downtown area from the Honolulu
waterfront. Diverting through-traffic on
Nimitz highway to a new Sand Island bypass
route would enable the reconnection of
Downtown Honolulu to the waterfront and
more efficient travel between the Airport and
Waikīkī.
3.4.2.1 Reroute through traffic on Nimitz Highway
to a new parkway across Sand Island and a
tunnel beneath the harbor entrance
3.4.2.1 Replace the makai portion of Nimitz
Highway with a new shoreline pedestrian
promenade and mixed-use commercial/
recreational/residential complexes.
3.4.2.1 Adopt appropriate measure to enhance the
attractiveness of the Nimitz corridor and
public and private responsibilities to
implement and maintain such improvements.
3.4.2.1 Convert the ‘Ewa-bound ma uka section of
the highway to to a two-way local access
street.
3.4.2.1 Convert the Waikīkī-bound makai section to
to a major shoreline promenade and
waterfront activity area, providing space for
restaurants, shops, indoor and outdoor
entertainment, and recreation areas. This area
would also hold potential for development of
low-to mid-rise housing.
Visitor Attractions
Ex Sum Support attractions that are of interest to
both residents and visitors in the Ala Moana-
Kaka`ako-Downtown corridor.
2.4 Attract high-spending vacationers to O`ahu’s
unique historic and cultural attractions.
2.1. Improve and interpret historic and cultural
districts for visitors.
2.4 In the Ala Moana/Kaka`ako/Downtown
corridor, provide visitor services and
interpretation.
3.4 Provide for moderate expansion of visitor
facilities.
3.4.2.2 Develop commercial and cultural attractions
and improvements to serve residents and
visitor interests. Opportunities include State-
sponsored waterfront commercial and
cultural attractions around the Kewalo Basin
 area; retail/entertainment facilities around
Ala Moana Center, Victoria Ward Centers
and Kamehameha Scoools properties; and
improvements to serve visitors in the Capitol
district, aloha Tower, and Chinatown
3.4.2.2 Assure convenient public or private transit
service between visitor accommodations and
the visitor attractions along the corridor.
Ex Sum Provide opportunities for the development of
visitor units in the Ala Moana/Kaka‘ako/
Downtown corridor.
Ex Sum Provide opportunities for development of
village inns in existing commercial centers
and allow bed and breakfast establishments
in residential neighborhoods
Ex Sum Provide new hotels near the Convention
Center and the Downtown waterfront
Ex Sum Allow smaller inns and lodges within other
“town center” areas in the PUC
Ex Sum Recognize the demand for bed-and-breakfast
establishments.
3.4.2.2 Locate hotels in the Downtown area zoned
BMX-4 or the Aloha tower complex.
Streams
3.1.3.5 Establish riparian zones for all streams to
prevent the encroachment of structures
3.1.3.5 Develop streamside pathways to improve
access to recreation sites and natural areas
and provide safe, convenient pedestrian
routes between neighborhoods.
3.1.3.5 Stream segments [in the HCCD] to be
considered for priority action include Kalihi
Stream makai of H-1 Freeway, Kapālama
Stream makai of Kuakini Street, and
Nu‘uanu Stream from Kuakini Street to
Honolulu Harbor.
Neighborhood Streetscapes
2.4 Make the urban center a pedestrian-friendly
place, where tree-lined sidewalks attract
people to walk for health and pleasure.
3.2.2.1 Create inviting and attractive streetside
environments that support and enhance
convenient and safe pedestrian use.
3.2.2.1 Create street environments that invite
pedestrian use, such as widening sidewalks,
planting trees to provide shade and buffer
pedestrians from vehicular traffic, and
narrowing intersections to provide shorter
and safer pedestrian crossings.
3.2.2.3 Along principal streets, buildings should be
206 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
designed to reflect human scale, to create
pleasant walking conditions, and to provide
attractive front entrances.
3.2.2.3 Courtyards or other recessed open spaces
may be placed along the streets in order to
provide strategic open space relief and
opportunities for social activity or respite.
2.2. Make neighborhoods more “livable” with
parks, plazas, and walkable streets
3.2.2.1 Cultivate existing and new “neighborhood
centers” …where people gather for shopping,
entertainment, and/or recreation. The center
of a neighborhood could be a public plaza or
a recreation complex, or commercial town
center, with a grocery store and other shops
and services. It could have a public park or a
plaza linked to shops. Cultivating
neighborhood centers entails investment in
parks and pedestrian street improvements.
3.2.1 Reintegrate commercial and residential uses
within neighborhoods
Ex Sum Cancel road-widening designations for streets
in the Downtown/Chinatown area which, if
implemented, would severely impact the
buildings which front them.
3.3.1.2 In Kaka‘ako, design and group buildings of
moderate heights which relate comfortably to
the size and needs of people, with pleasant
usable open space.
Parks and Open Spaces
3.2.1 Create parks and urban open spaces that
attract people for informal recreation and
socializing.
3.2.2.1 The PUC should have a range of parks.
While all provide open space and relief from
buildings and traffic, some should provide
for organized sports and fitness activities, and
others should function more as
neighborhood gathering places.
3.1.3.7 Promote the development of plazas to fulfill
park and open space requirements; provide
floor area bonuses to encourage plazas in
dense areas such as Downtown.
3.4.2.3 Zoning requirements and bonus provisions
for open space associated with larger office
buidings should specify design guidelines for
usable plazas, parks and arcades. Key
elements of usable open space are enclosure,
shade, seating, and location at street level.
3.1.3.6 Build partnerships between City, State and
private, nonprofit organizations for joint use
 of facilities and complementary recreation
programs…
3.1.3.6 Optimize private sector contributions to
open space through park dedication as
properties are redeveloped…
3.1.3.6 Reassess and reassign, as appropriate, the use
of existing park land
3.1.3.7 Maintain significant trees and landscaped
open space within institutional campuses,
cemeteries and other open-spaces that are
visible from public right-of-ways.
3.1.3.7 Enhance entries and street frontages of
cemeteries and institutional campuses with
trees and landscaping.
Pedestrian Safety
Ex Sum Address pedestrian safety concerns.
3.2.1 Make streets safe and pedestrian-friendly.
3.5.3 Work with residents and school organizations
to improve pedestrian safety through
planning and education efforts, including the
development of traffic management plans,
construction of traffic calming devices, and
the improvement of neighborhood sidewalks
and crosswalks.
Pedestrian Network
Ex Sum Create pedestrian districts, routes and a
regional pedestrian network
3.5.1.4 Establish a regional pedestrian network of
trails and districts in the PUC.
3.5.2 Create special pedestrian districts and
corridors and a regional network of
pedestrian facilities.
3.5.3 Establish pedestrian districts where walking is
intended to be a primary mode of travel,
such as within Downtown.
3.5.1.4 Designate pedestrian districts and routes
through design features and traffic control
measures to establish priority for pedestrians
over other transportation modes.
3.5.3 Develop specific facility standards for
pedestrian districts.
3.5.1.4 Add design features such as raised and
midblock crosswalks, corner bulb-outs,
landscaped medians and traffic islands for
pedestrian refuge, broad promenades, public
squares, pocket parks, shade trees, and street
furniture.
3.5.1.4 Implement traffic control measures such as
adjustment to traffic signal phasing,
enforcement of “pedestrian rights” laws
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 207
3.5.3 Encourage midblock pathways or arcades.
3.5.3 Implement sidewalk improvements, such as
widening, paving, and landscaping.
3.5.1.4 Promote the use of streets for events such as
parades, fairs, and other entertainment.
3.5.1.4 Establish shared-use paths along Kapālama and
Nu`uanu Streams.
3.5.1.4 Adopt the Honolulu Bicycle Master Plan’s “Lei
of Parks” concept, a series of shared-use paths
linking the City’s major regional parks
3.5.1.4 Add new promenades and other pedestrian
improvements to city streets (e.g., Punchbowl
Street, Nimitz Highway in the Downtown area,
Ward Avenue and Young Street
3.5.2 Enact development initiatives and regulatory
controls to promote the growth of sustainable
alternative urban travel modes such as transit,
walking, and bicycling
3.5.2 Enact policies and practices that reward use of
transit and other alternative modes.
3.5.3 Review the City’s street widening plans and
eliminate widenings that are not necessary, that
degrade neighborhood character, or that are
unlikely to be achieved.
Co ncep tua l M a p s in t h e P U CDP
Map A-1, Significant Panoramic Views, depicts major
mauka-makai and shoreline view corridors to be preserved.
Map A-2, Open Space, shows existing and proposed lateral
public easements along the waterfront; major stream
greenbelts; larger open spaces such as golf courses, regional
and district parks, botanical gardens and zoological parks;
and cemeteries, campuses or campus clusters of over
twenty contiguous acres.
Map A-3, Land Use, shows primary pedestrian routes. It
conceptualizes a ladder-like pedestrian network, with two
long legs through the HCCD parallel to the coast:
The makai leg runs from Ala Moana Beach Park
through Kaka`ako waterfront, then around Honolulu
Harbor and through Iwilei along Ala Moana
Boulevard to Kokea Street.
The second route runs along Young Street and then
through the Iwilei industrial area to Kokea Street.
“Rungs” of this ladder within the HCCD run makai-
mauka at Ward Avenue, Fort Street Mall, River
Street, and Kokea Street.
Pl an s for Kaka‘ako Di str ict
Kaka'ako district lies fully within the HCCD. Mauka of
Ala Moana Boulevard, it is bounded by Pi‘ikoi, King,
and Punchbowl Streets. Makai of the boulevard it
encompasses the waterfront of Honolulu Harbor from
Kewalo Basin to Pier 4.
Kaka‘ako is under the jurisdiction of Hawai‘i
Community Development Authority (HCDA), a public
corporation established by state legislative mandate in
1976. HCDA is charged with redevelopment of the
district through partnerships of government and private
enterprise. It serves as the district’s developer, owner,
planner, regulator and manager. HCDA’s goal is to
establish Kaka‘ako as the most desirable urban place in
Hawai‘i in which people can work, live, visit, learn and
play.”   Special Districts have been designated in three distinct
Concepts for the district call for parks, open spaces, and
other recreation venues; and facilities for housing,
shopping, entertainment, education, culture, and social
activities. According to HCDA’s website (http://www.
hcdaweb.org), it aims to create “an outstanding physical
neighborhood which will be known for its
environmental excellence, and its active, pedestrian-
oriented public realm.” Planning for Kaka‘ako is meant
to include a strong public participation component, and
is conducted separately for the mauka and waterfront
portions of the district.
A 2005 plan for the waterfront area received
considerable opposition from the public. Resistance
centered primarily around two residential high-rises:
though the plan also included extensive public open
space and amenities, local families feared that they
would be priced out of the residential units, and that
newer, wealthier residents and visitors would dominate
the parking, ocean access, and social climate. This led to
action by the state legislature that effectively sent the
project back to the drawing board with a requirement
for expanded public involvement. The legislation also
enlarges the membership of the Authority, changes the
boundaries, prohibits HCDA from selling land in the
district, and bars residential use of state or private land
in the waterfront portion of Kaka`ako.
developments. The authority recently (June 2006)
released an assessment of its existing plan for the area, as
a prelude to revising it. The assessment calls for further
redevelopment based on “smart growth” principles, with
a strong focus on views, streetscapes, pedestrian-friendly
design, and ample open space, for an “urban village”
feel. HCDA is vigorously soliciting public involvement
in the plan revision process.
Hawai‘i Community Development Authority is a
partner in the HCCD coalition. It is incumbent upon
the entire coalition membership to support plan
elements for Kaka‘ako that reinforce the goals of
HCCD.
S pe c i a l D i stri ct D e s i g n
Gu idel ines
areas that are part of the HCCD:
Chinatown Special District
Hawai‘i Capitol Special District
Thomas Square/Honolulu Academy of Arts
Special District
Design Guidelines for each district include criteria for
streetscapes and open spaces, as well as public and
private buildings. HCCD will need to reconcile the
particular objectives and design guidelines of these
special districts with the need for a cohesive approach to
signage and pedestrian amenities within the HCCD.
Some of the relevant special district guidelines are
summarized below.
C h inatow n S pecia l D is tric t
Chinatown Special District emphasizes building and
streetscape designs that encourage continued pedestrian

The mauka portion of Kaka‘ako has been partially

developed under HCDA. It includes several high-rises,
with more on the way. The area is not pedestrian-
friendly, and as currently planned it includes far less
park space that will be needed for the anticipated

208 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy


activity in the area. Specific guidelines include:
Signs should conform to the shape, material and
lettering types used from around the turn of the
century to the 1940’s.
Street furniture, such as benches and rubbish
receptacles, should enhance the historic character
of Chinatown. Use of wrought iron street furniture
is especially appropriate.
Public improvements such as sidewalk repaving,
lighting and bus shelters should be modeled after
the period designs used at the Hotel Street transit
mall.
Hawai‘i Capi tol Speci al Di str ict
This district contains the historic buildings and landmarks
which house the core of State and City/County
governments. The District seeks to protect and enhance
these resources in a park-like setting with expansive
mauka-makai views. Guidelines include:
Signs should relate to the District’s historic
character, using serif style lettering and dark earth-
tone colors. Reflective materials and self-
illuminating signs should be avoided.
Street furniture, such as lights, signs, benches and
rubbish receptacles, should enhance the character of
the District by complementing the architecture of
historic buildings.
Walkways and paving materials should be patterned
and textured.
Lighting should be subdued and shielded.
Incandescent and low-mounted fixtures are
encouraged. High-intensity (e.g. sodium or
fluorescent) lamps are discouraged.
Planting of specimen-size canopy-form trees is
encouraged.
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 209
Recessed entrances, arcades and porches are
characteristic of the district’s historically significant
buildings. They are encouraged as a way to
provide the public with a visual “welcome” and
protection from weather.
Courtyards are encouraged as a design element
that reinforces the district’s park-like setting and
offers public space within a building.
Th om a s S qua r e/ H o no lu lu
Ac a d e m y o f Arts S pe c i a l
D is trict
Objectives for the Thomas Square/Honolulu Academy
of Arts Special District focus on protecting its serenity
and scenic quality. This District is considered the
“gateway” to Hawai`i Capitol Special District and its
guidelines are quite similar:
Lighting should be subdued, shielded,
incandescent and low-mounted. High-intensity
lamps are not permitted.
Signs may not be directly illuminated, have
moving parts, be luminous or reflective.
N eigh b or h o o d P l a ns
HCCD encompasses four neighborhoods represented by
Neighborhood Boards which advocate for needs and
comment on projects in their areas. Boards work closely
with the City and County of Honolulu; their members,
meeting calendars, agendas and minutes are on the
website of the Neighborhood Commission Office at
http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/nco.boards.htm. Minutes
include records of noted problems and proposed
solutions on an array of items including parks, open
space, and pedestrian issues. As partners, Neighborhood
Boards can help HCCD create and improve its
pedestrian, interpretive, and open-space initiatives.
The direction of local government is now to prepare
neighborhood-specific plans, with extensive community
involvement. Neighborhood boards are closely involved
when the City and County of Honolulu develops plans
that affect their neighborhood. A planning process is
already underway for the Ala Moana / Kaka‘ako
neighborhood. As this approach is applied to other
neighborhoods in the HCCD, coalition representatives
will need to track planning progress, become familiar
with neighborhood needs, and advocate for measures
supportive of HCCD’s vision. The four neighborhoods
of HCCD are described below.
Ma ki k i / Lowe r Pu nch bow l /
Tan talus Nei ghborhood Boa r d
( #10)
Only the lowest portion of this neighborhood is
included in the Hawai`i Capital Cultural District.
HCCD initiatives might impact this neighborhood in
the locale of the Honolulu Academy of Arts, between
Beretania and King Streets from Pi`ikoi to Ward.

Al a Moana / Kaka`a ko
Ne ig h borhood (#11)

K a l i h i -Pa l a m a N e i g hbor h o o d
Boa r d (#15)

The Ala Moana/Kaka‘ako neighborhood extends from

the shoreline to the King St. level. It includes the dense
and active area from the Ala Wai Canal by Waikīkī, past
the busy beach park and shopping center at Ala Moana,
to South Street in Kaka‘ako.

Roughly half of this area (from South Street to Pi‘ikoi)
is part of the HCCD. That same area is also under the
jurisdication of the Hawai‘i Community Planning
Authority, and is part of the Ala Moana Sheridan Plan
Area, where community planning under City auspices is
currently underway. Partnership with this neighborhood
board will be crucial for HCCD.
D owntown N eighborhoo d
Board (#13)
This neighborhood lies at the heart of the HCCD,
encompassing the Capitol, Downtown and Chinatown
Special Districts. The neighborhood board here is one of
many civic groups in this neighborhood who advocate
for improvements. Their support will be valuable for
HCCD and their perspective should inform HCCD’s
earliest initiatives.
HCCD runs like a belt across part of this neighborhood
between the shoreline and King Street, with a leg up
Kalihi Street to Bishop Museum. It is an area not
typically toured or interpreted and needs significant
pedestrian and open-space enhancements. The PUCDP
calls for a developed pedestrian network that extends
from downtown to Kokea Street at the center of this
neighborhood. The Board will be a key player in
prioritizing pedestrian needs.
Oth er P l a n s
O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan, updated
every five years by the O‘ahu Metropolitan
Planning Organization. Current version, adopted
in 2001, is Transportation for O‘ahu Plan 2025
Hawai`i Sustainable Tourism Plan
Honolulu Bicycle Master Plan

210 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Appendix 12

NHA ST UDY PUB LIC INVOLVEMENT:

COMM UNI T Y FO RU MS

In vitatio n

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 211

Communi t y Forum Part i c ipa nts

Last Name First Name Organization

Forum 1: Sep. 7, Hi SAM
Abadir Mona HCCD/Honu Group
Awaya Tandy Pacific and Asian Affairs Council
Delatorre David HSFCA/APP
Espero Will Senate
Faulkner Kiersten Historic Hawai‘i Foundation
Fujitani Keoni Hawai‘i Community Foundation
Hanson Kim Enterprise Honolulu
Kosaka Denise Hawai‘i State Art Museum
Lee Steven DBEDT/Creative Industries
Masaki Karen The Cultural + Planning Group
Scott David Daughters of Hawai'i
Thomason Kathi DAGS
Torres Cherry Office of Senator Norman Sakamoto
Whitman BJ Communications Pacific
Yamakawa Ron HSFCA
Yee Florence Hawai‘i State Library
Forum 2: Sep t 7, ARTS at M a rks
Bruce Patti YWCA
Evilsizor Sarah Community Member
Minnes Chris Honolulu Symphony
Pretofori Marilyn Art Alliance
Smyth Tom Downtown Neighborhood Board/DBEDT
Takeshita Erik Arts at Marks Garage
Tiller Karen Hawai‘i Opera Theatre
Forum 3: Sep 9, Chi ldren’s D is covery C ent er
Dinell Daniel Hawai‘i Community Development Auth
Killeen Kevin Community Member
Matson Michelle Community Member
Yajima Loretta Children's Discovery Center
Dinell Daniel Hawai‘i Community Development Auth
Killeen Kevin Community Member
Matson Michelle Community Member
Yajima Loretta Children's Discovery Center
Forum 4: Sep 13, Aloha Tow er M a rket p l ace
Kastner Katie SHPO
Korybski Ed Hon. Cult & Arts District
Ulveling Margi Hawai‘i Pacific University
Watanabe Suzanne Hawai‘i Opera Theatre
Young Tracie DBEDT
Forum 5: Sep 14, WAI KĪ KĪ I m p rovem ent A s s oc (h el d at Pacific
Be ac h Hotel.)
Abenoja Teresa Honu Group
Gonsalves Mike WIA
Masaki Karen The Cultural + Planning Group
Panoke Wayne Comm. Planning Erg.
Sasaki Jason JS & J Software

212 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Cu ltur al Su mmi t Workshop
Part ic ipants
Workshop presented by Brenda Barrett, National
Coordinator for National Heritage Areas
Last Name First Name Organization

May 1 1, 2006
Hoste d by Hawai `i State Fou ndat io n o n Cu ltur e a nd t h e Arts
Abadir Mona HCCD/Honu Group
Awaya Tandy Pacific and Asian Affairs Council
Delatorre David HSFCA/APP
Espero Will Senate
Faulkner Kiersten Historic Hawai‘i Foundation
Fujitani Keoni Hawai‘i Community Foundation
Hanson Kim Enterprise Honolulu
Kosaka Denise Hawai‘i State Art Museum
Lee Steven DBEDT/Creative Industries
Masaki Karen The Cultural + Planning Group
Scott David Daughters of Hawai'i
Thomason Kathi DAGS
Torres Cherry Office of Senator Norman Sakamoto
Whitman BJ Communications Pacific
Yamakawa Ron HSFCA
Yee Florence Hawai‘i State Library

Commun it y Forum Inp ut to A: Partners may look at that if needed. HCCD's

Hawai‘i Capi tal Cultural
Coalition
Unde rstanding the Nationa l
He ritag e Ar ea Desi gnati on
Overall the participants expressed tremendous support
for the pursuit of designation as a National Heritage
area. Of the twenty-nine evaluations returned by
participants in the forum, 24 strongly agreed, three
agreed somewhat and two did not reply. Questions
from forum participants primarily addressed regulations
impacting community-based decision-making,
acquisition and utilization of resources, the target
audience for the heritage area, and alternatives if
National Heritage Area designation is not given to the
district.
Regulatory Implications
Q: How is this interacting with Chinatown
activities?
A: Each neighborhood should meet their own
goals. Our dream is to bring all neighborhoods
together and network.
Q: What about physical changes to the area, such
as roads, etc?
role is to help neighborhoods accomplish what
THEY want.
Q: How does National Heritage Area designation
affect economic development (physical) in the area?
A: It’s up to the partners. The regulations don't
restrict economic or physical development.
HCCD’s job is to advise and support.
Acquisition and Utilization of Resources
Designation and/or going through the process
toward "organized", gives this entity more ability to
receive soft money.
Q: How much funding is available?
A: Up to $10 million.
A: One of the values of designation, and
potentially $10 million, is the table gets bigger and
people who don’t usually get to talk, will and do
talk to discover common ground. It’s the scarcity
model versus the abundance model. We can work
together.
Q: Who gets to decide what to spend the money
on?
A: The decision making authority occurs at the

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 213

 local or community-based level.
Q: Have all National Heritage Areas received
federal funding?
A: Yes, in some form.
Q: If we do not receive designation as a National
Heritage Area, is there another way to get federal
recognition?
A: There are other sources of revenue, but not
another type of designation.
Q: What is the timeline for the National Heritage
Area designation process?
A: The application, when completed has to go
through the legislative process, so around 18
months - 2 years.
Q: Has there been any brainstorming of “long”
term or “big” project ideas?
A: Not yet, but we welcome any and all
suggestions.
Q: What kind of matching is required?
A: We’re not sure and this point; certainly in-kind
matches; maybe 1:1 match. We will check that out
further.
Q: In terms of funding, will there be confusion,
given the many entities that are vying for the same
pots of money or funding, and is this the best way
to go after funding or is a collaboration a better
way to go at it?
A: The collaborative model is preferable.
Target Audience
Q: Could you clarify the target audience?
A: We want to attract residents and visitors to tell
the stories of the sites, areas, etc; to share the rarity
of previously being a country, with an indigenous
people, and the richness of many cultures to share
and present to those who come to the district.
A: Culture and heritage preservation are key
towards the ends of sharing and education. We are
attracting two audiences – sixty percent local people
and forty percent tourists or visitors.
Q: How many people will utilize programs, tours,
etc?
A: We’re really not at that point in the planning
process yet.
214 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
Alternatives to National Heritage Area Designation
Q: What happens if we don't get National
Heritage Area designation? Is there a parallel action
or opportunity?
A: HCCD is still working its "action plan"
regardless of the designation status. These really
aren’t two different activities. Seeking designation
is part of HCCD’s plan. Whether or not we receive
the designation, HCCD will continue to work on
its plan for the district.
Having excellent information from the feasibility
study creates value for HCCD beyond what is
needed for its application for National Heritage
Area designation.
Q: If we do not receive designation as a National
Heritage Area, is there another way to get Federal
recognition?
A: There are other sources of revenue, but not
another type of designation.
H awa i‘i C a pita l Cu ltur a l
Coa l it io n’s Ro l e in
R el at ions h ip to N at iona l
H er itage Area D es ignat io n
The mission and role of HCCD, as an entity, did not
arise as a central concern among the participants. This,
in part, may be the result of the on-going work of the
coalition of HCCD partners, as well as the presentation
provided at the beginning of the forum. Twenty-eight
of the 29 evaluations indicated the participants
understood HCCD’s mission and action plan. The
primary point of clarification during the discussion was
HCCD’s role in relation to the National Heritage Area.
Q: How will HCCD run parallel with the
National Heritage Area? It seems like HCCD will
need its own funding.
A: HCCD’s nonprofit status and the National
Heritage Area designation are two different things.
All National Heritage Areas are locally managed
and operated. The intent is that HCCD, which
already exists as a nonprofit organization, will
become the management entity for this National
Heritage Area. Funding that comes from the
National Park Service to HCCD can be used for
operating expenses, but it needs to be matched
locally.
 Q: How will that management role play out?
development of methods to connect the district to vital
A: Coordinating information will be a primary
areas beyond the district’s geographic boundaries, on
activity.
O`ahu and statewide.
Q: How will all this be coordinated?
A: Aggregating information, putting together
brochures, etc.
Q: Is there currently another group that does these
kinds of activities now? Is there redundancy in
providing this kind of information?
A: There really is not one place where all of this
information is organized and effectively
communicated to public. It requires a coordinated
effort.
A: A lot of these ideas already exist in the plan, but
it is about connecting the partners and
opportunities together. We need to connect and
coordinate them.
Q: The idea of content may help to “bring it out”.
Does HCCD see itself helping partners do that
well, effectively, etc? Would there be a standardized
format, checks for accuracy, etc?
A: We haven’t addressed that so far, but some
guidelines would be useful.
Q: How does National Heritage Area designation
affect economic development (physical) in the area?
A: It’s up to the partners. The regulations don't
restrict economic or physical development.
HCCD’s job is to advise and support.
Q: What about physical changes to the area, such
as roads, etc?
A: Partners may look at that if needed. HCCD's
role is to help neighborhoods accomplish what
THEY want.
Ge ographi c Boundari es of
the H awai‘i Capi tal Cultur a l
Distr ic t
The geographic boundaries of the Hawai‘i Capital
Cultural District and the National Heritage Area are of
significant concern for the forum participants. While
many participants expressed comfort with the concept
of “porous” or “virtual” boundaries, others found any
reference to geographic boundaries very limiting. Many
of these participants would advocate for the entire state
being designated as a National Heritage Area. At
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 215
minimum, the participants strongly supported the
Q: Is the Academy of Arts or Washington Place in
the district?
A: Yes, they are. The map needs to be re-drawn
to accurately put the boundary lines on the
other side of the physical spaces.
Q: Are the boundaries legally designated in a
resolution?
A: The legislative resolution that affirmed the
establishment of the district was based on the
map designating a particular area. However,
this was not a binding resolution. In practice,
the geographic boundaries are more virtual.
That’s why the word “capital” is spelled with
an “a” rather than an “o”.
Q: What about the Art Academy?
A: It’s in the district.
Q: In terms of accessing resources, what if
someone is not in the boundaries of the
district?
A: You don't have to be in the area to access
funding. We can partner with those outside
the district and funnel funding to those
partners and/or projects.
Q: Is this the only National Heritage Area in
Hawai‘i?
A: A state can have more than one area
designated; there aren’t any yet in Hawai‘i.
Some National Heritage Area designations are
the whole state. More recently, however, the
National Park Service has moved away from
“whole state” designations.
Q: Why did we not include the windward,
leeward and other districts in the area?
Q: Is there room for expansion of the district?
A: Yes. As the coalition progresses, there is an
opportunity for change.
Q: Is there a concern that because HCCD, the
district, has been legislated that change would
be difficult?
A: It’s not legislated, but it was used as an initial
designation.
 Q: Why have we limited ourselves to cultural
sites? Why aren’t we looking at other
geographical places?
A: The feasibility study is not limited and the
report will reveal a broader definition.
If this designation and project will benefit the west
side of O`ahu, please do!
Hon ori ng Hawai ‘ i ’ s U ni qu enes s
All the community forums touched on the uniqueness
of Hawai‘i – an independent country, a monarchy,
indigenous people, native Hawaiians, multiple cultures,
etc. During one of the five forums the participants
engaged in a lengthy discussion focused on native
Hawaiian representation and participation in HCCD
and in the application of the National Heritage Area
application. While the group did not arrive as specific
recommendations, they validated the HCCD’s concern
with accurately telling the story of Hawaiian history and
culture and educating the larger public. The comments
highlighted the need for additional communication
about the mission and continued involvement of Native
Hawaiian cultural experts. The completed National
Heritage Area Study offers the opportunity to do this.
There is so much that is unique about Hawai‘i. We
are the only state that was once a country. There
was and is an indigenous culture. This makes it
different for Hawai‘i to market itself, as an entity.
Appreciation of cultural identity.
Our heritage is more than just buildings.
It’s exciting to see the integration of the physical
sites and the performance arts. The heartbeat of
people raising the dusty, old structures.
What the visitors want to see and do is experience
the host culture.
The attraction to the islands is the host culture.
There must be an acknowledgement to the native
Hawaiian culture, as the host culture.
What about the initial plan of designating the
ahupua`a versus the area proposed now? Where is
the spiritual sphere of influence?
Native Hawaiian groups are not supportive of
groups like HCCD who do not designate or give
mention of the host culture. No place in the
HCCD mission, purpose, etc. mentions the host
culture.
216 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
The historical write-up will be incomplete if only
the history of the district area is told. It will be
inaccurate and hard to get the Hawaiian
community to back the plan.
Expand to possibly telling the story of the entire
island of O`ahu. Broader conversations with other
historians.
Acknowledge the Kuhio Torch Lighting Ceremony
it engages in visitor information, education and
cultural preservation.
Act iona b l e O p p o rtu nit ies
HCCD’s draft action plan was made available to the
community forum participants and they were invited to
add their “great” or “good” ideas. All the ideas
generated are captured in another report that also
includes the ideas they would prioritize for HCCD’s
action plan. The lengthier discussions related to some
of these ideas are recorded here.
Planning & Collaboration
There should be more virtual collaboration and
coalition building that creates benefit in the
macro-sense.
We will determine through the feasibility
study, if HCCD can or should apply for
funding to do better planning, (i.e., strategic
planning) to create more value and access to
utilize resources we have now.
Look at potential partners around projects to
show local matches.
Interpretive Themes
Q: What are the main interpretive themes and
methods?
A: For example, a back pocket handout is being
used by the feasibility study group right now.
At the end of the study, we will be able to
cluster and prioritize themes into draft plan.
There will be public review of the draft plan
and the opportunity to provide input and help
refined the plan (i.e., identifying original
source materials or indigenous voices, etc.).
I saw programs on PBS that interviewed people
from Hawai‘i of the “old days.” Things like
that should be included.
Marketing & Communications
Branding is a key issue. HCCD needs to
connect and collate information about cultural
sites and the area.
Branding is part of garnering National status.
Marketing and communications because most
of the activities and events take money. Also,
people need to be directed to the website
where information can be endlessly stored and
sorted to keep up-to-date on what’s happening.
The massiveness of information needs to be
manageable.
You need to drive people to the website. Also,
blogs and podcasts can lowers costs.

Q: Why would a signature event be done for the

district when there are signature events already
existing in the area?
A: It would be for the purpose of creating
awareness, not primarily for fundraising.

• You should look at signature events that are

already occurring and are successful, and pull
out the criteria for what is working.
• Use the existing events and save money, which
can be reallocated appropriately to meet other
needs.

Training
• Training needs to be across the board, in all
areas.
• Set standards and guidelines, and then provide
training to constituents.

Transportation To and From the District

Q: How do the current City & County
transportation plans connect to the HCCD?
A: Very preliminarily; we’re not really connected.
A: This is the opportune time because this is
when they are planning.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 217

2007 Commu nit y Su ggesti o n s f or
HCCD Short – Term Acti on P l a n

Marketing/Communications
Votes Suggestions
• Joint promotion of events:
9 o Website
o Newsletter drop – ins
o Ask major employers and residence managers to distribute to employees and residents
7 • Create one or two signature events that bring people to district
4 • Partnership w/DOE, Schools (+ curriculum)
• Access to children; bring them into the area and actively engage them to learn the business side
3
of art.
2 • More “open door campaign” of cultural sites, activities, etc. statewide
1 • Implement an ad campaign
1 • Take this “show” on the road, to the other islands and asking the communities “what they want”
• Obtain a media partner
• ‘Sunset on the Beach’ opportunity
• ‘Olelo’ television
• Spokesperson for the district
• Logo for HCCD to go on all signage (recognizable)
• Put out “a call to participate” (on the web?)
o On the web also has opportunity to submit ideas.
• Create more partnerships
• Develop Q&A format on National Heritage Areas
• Intersecting land, arts, culture, etc. to create a “triangle”. (i.e. Princeville Logo/Banner Contest)
Visible arts project w/signage – Public Art Opportunities to engage different sectors. (Business/
Non-profit/education, etc.)
• Expand free Wi Fi (walking tour access/other site visit access)
• “In Hotel” Media – Network Media
• Signature events for organizations not really downtown, but in the district.
• Sample routes/tours (because the district is so big/huge) by themes maybe.
• Look at existing signature events & partner to promote HCCD area
• Do a better job of inventory ‘ing’ what’s further needed to proceed.
• Develop promote & train guidelines/standards for “telling the story” effectively and accurately
• Consistently drive to the website and technology solutions for marketing i.e. blogs and podcasts.
• Develop “earned” media opportunities

218 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

2007 Commu ni t y Suggest ion s f or
HCCD Short – Term Acti on P l a n

Transportation/Pathways
Votes Suggestions
4 • Trolley service to and from Waikīkī and within district
4 • Create a plan to make area more walking friendly
4 • Plan for making area more bike friendly
• Dedicated circulator: Kewalo Basin to Pier 11; maybe to Pier 19 (ferry). (trolley, a key element,
1
must be flexible)
• Bike routes/promenades: Ala Moana to Kaka`ako to Piers 5&6 to Aloha Tower. Greenbelt/Rec.
1
Area (connection area)
• Promote additional public transportation routes and/or hub through downtown.
• Single pass for different forms of transportation (bus, trolley, etc.)
• Getting people out of cars
• Security for existing parking
• Surcharge/Charge Market-Rate for parking
• Park & Ride Options including a circulator that connects to Waikīkī
• Participate in C&C Mass Transit Planning (WIA involved & invited to conservation)

Education/Cultural Preservation
Votes Suggestions
• Create program and seek funding for schools and underserved individuals to access HCCD
6
cultural opportunities
5 • Design self-guided walking tours, with brochures, signage and historic markers
4 • Lesson plan/curriculum that details what is going on in the Capital Cultural District.
• Obtain funds through NHA for cultural sites needing preservation funds (e.g. `Iolani Place,
2
Washington Place).
2 • National Heritage Areas “porous” boundaries to follow ahupuaa that goes up Nu`uanu valley.
• Expand focus to natural resources and the boundaries of the areas. (i.e. focal points – a triangle to
1
include Pearl Harbor, the Pali and Hanauma Bay?)
• List existing tour providers in single flier
• List educational programs in single place
• YWCA – bring in more learning around cultural Kaneohe activities that are already in existence
• Bring in working with State Capitol Access Office/Public Access Room 4th Floor – State Capitol
• More access to state and other historical archives and its resources (including loans)
• Mountains very important to include in natural resources
• Diamond Head important/nationally important resources – expand to include this?
• “Capital” is Honolulu – can we expand…
• Story – tell the bad w/the good
• Some additional sites to add: e.g. Aloha Tower (itself )
• Cultural preservation, fishing industry at Kewalo Basin and education about marine conservation
and traditional fishing practices.
• Irwin Park, slated for preservation.
• Acknowledge the Kuhio Torch Lighting Ceremony

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 219

2007 Commu ni t y Suggest i o n s f or
HCCD Short – Term Acti on P l a n

Fundraising Component/Fund Development Plan

Votes Suggestions
• Develop resource development plan
o Matching $
16 o Website donations via Web-link
o Sponsorships
o Revenue generating opportunities
• Signature Event
• Tourism “tax” or “donations” to local community/cultural area; as “value – added” that they leave
behind, instead of only depletion of resources, adding to the nourishment to help residents.)
• Collaborate with key partners to generate resources that benefit all

Conceptual Framework for HCCD Effort

Votes Suggestions
• Obtain additional input from others in the Native Hawaiian community. Be more specific in
1
mission statement about role of Native Hawaiian culture and history.

Partnerships
• State Archives
• Consular Corps. (Consulate Generals)
• Environmental Group – Nature/Cultural Tours
• Hawai‘i Conservation Alliance
• Department of Education
• Access to Children/Kid’s Groups
• Paradise Cruises (R. White)
• Incentives for partners/potential partners to “play” – play well, while recognizing the ecology of organizational size
and influences; equitable participation. (e.g. points create access to pool of $ or other incentives)
• Kamakau (and other) Hawaiian Immersion School(s)
• State Capitol Access Office/Public Access Room
• Office of Hawaiian Affairs (Oz Stender, perhaps)
• Hawai‘i Bicycling League
• Park Conservancy (Future Concept)
• Ilioulaokalani Coalition
• Kamakakuokalani Hawaiian Studies Center (Institute)
• Other Native Hawaiian Community Organizations

220 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Appendix 13

Cu ltur al +Pl anni ng Group

Ros te r of In terviewees fo r
Man age m ent Enti t y Analy si s

Meredith Ching, Vice President of Government and

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.
Community Relations

John Cosgrove,* Executive Director Alliance of National Heritage Areas

Wayne Hashiro, Director, Department of Design and

Construction
David Tanoue, Deputy Director
Donna Woo, First Deputy Corporation Counsel City & County of Honolulu
Ann Chung, Director of Economic Development
Alenka Remec, Small Business Advocate
Michael Pang, Director, Mayor’s Office of Culture & Arts

Carl Takamura, Executive Director Hawai‘i Business Roundtable

Daniel Dinell, Executive Director Hawai‘i Community Development Authority

Senator Carol Fukunaga Hawai‘i State Senator

Manu Boyd, Communications Director Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Sara Daly, Assistant to Jennifer Sabas

Office of Senator Daniel Inouye
Aaron Leong, Legislative Assistant

University of Hawai‘i School of Travel Industry

Walter Jamieson*
Management

* Interviewed by telephone.

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 221

Appendix 14

222 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 223
 SCR63 SD1
THE SENATE
TWENTY-SECOND
LEGISLATURE, 2004
S.C.R.
STATE OF HAWAII NO.
SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION
Designating the Hawaii Capital Cultural District and
encouraging the maximum involvement and support of all
organizations, private and public, in a collaborative
process with the state foundation on culture and the
arts to plan for, sustain, and promote culture and the
arts in hawaii.
WHEREAS, arts and culture are treasured resources that affect
every aspect of life in Hawaii, including the economy, the
education of children, the quality of life, and community
development; and
WHEREAS, the diverse arts and culture of Hawaii enhance and
enrich the lives of every Hawaii resident and visitor; and
RESOLUTIONS
WHEREAS, the geographic area bounded by Kalihi and Piikoi
Streets, Beretania Street, and the Pacific Ocean contains a
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2004/bills/scr63_sd1_.htm
12/2/08 12:20 PM
63
S.D. 1
SCR63 SD1 12/2/08 12:20 PM
treasured assemblage of historic, civic, artistic, cultural, and
natural resources that epitomizes Hawaii's diverse ethnic
heritage and society and, therefore, is also worthy of special
recognition, conservation, and enhanced public awareness and
access; and
HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
WHEREAS, the first-ever partnership, unifying the public,
government, and private stake holders in the geographic area
bounded by Kalihi and Piikoi Streets, Beretania Street, and the
Pacific Ocean has been assembled to manage, preserve, protect,
and enhance these assets for Hawaii's citizens and the world;
now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-Second Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2004, the House of
Representatives concurring, that the aforementioned area is
hereby designated as the HAWAII CAPITAL CULTURAL DISTRICT; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature reaffirms its
commitment to the preservation and development of culture and
the arts throughout the State, and encourages the maximum
involvement and support of all organizations, private and
public, in a collaborative process under the leadership of the
State Foundation on Culture and the Arts to plan for, sustain,
and promote culture and the arts in Hawaii; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the Executive Director of the State
Foundation on Culture and the Arts, the Comptroller, the
Director of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, the
Chair of the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and the President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Hawaii Visitors and Convention
Bureau.
Report Title:
Page 1 of 2
Designating the Hawaii Capital Cultural District
224
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2004/bills/scr63_sd1_.htm Page 2 of 2
 Appendix 15

Hawai‘i CAPITAL NATIONAL HE R I TAGE A R EA SI TES

Art The ARTS at Marks G a r age

Gallery A collaborative gallery, performance and office space for businesses and non-profit organizations
aiming to transform downtown Honolulu with the power of the arts.
Location: 1159 Nu`uanu Avenue in Chinatown
Phone: 808 521-2903 Website: www.artsatmarks.com
Hours: Tuesday - Saturday 11am-6pm. Closed Sunday and Monday.
Admission: Free

History Bi shop Museum

Museum The premier natural and cultural history institution in the Pacific, recognized throughout the
world for its cultural collections, research projects, consulting services and public educational
programs.
Location: 1525 Bernice Street
Phone: 808 847-3511 Website: www.bishopmuseum.org
Hours: 9:00 to 5:00 daily (except December 25).
Admission: Adult $14.95 Senior/Child $11.95 Age 3 & under - Free

Children’s Chi ldren’ s Di scovery C ent er

Museum Provides a world-class, interactive, participatory learning environment designed to inspire the
young and "young-at-heart" to new heights of learning and discovery.
Location: 111Ohe Street in Kaka`ako
Phone: 808 524-5437 Website: www.discoverycenterhawaii.org
Hours: Tuesday - Friday 9 to 1. Saturday - Sunday 10 to 3. Closed Mondays.
Admission: General $8.00 Child $6.75 Senior $5.00 Child under 2 - Free

Art The Contemp orary Mus eu m

Museum Located on Honolulu’s scenic Makiki Heights, The Contemporary Museum combines
exhibitions of contemporary art with terraced gardens and spectacular views.
Location: 2411 Makiki Heights Drive
Phone: 526-1322 x30 Website: www.tcmhi.org
Hours: Tuesday - Saturday 11:30 to 2:30. Sunday Noon to 2:30.
Closed Mondays.
Admission: General $5.00 Senior/Student $3.00 Age 12 & under – Free

Art The Contemp orary Mus eu m at F ir s t H awa iia n C ent er

Museum
Features rotating exhibitions of the work of Hawai‘i artists.
Location: 999 Bishop Street, in downtown Honolulu
Phone: 526-1322 x30 Website: www,tcmhi.org
Hours: Monday - Thursday 8:30 to 4:00. Friday 8:30 to 6:00.
Closed weekends.
Admission: Free

Botanic Foster Botani cal G a r den

Garden Home to a collection of rare and beautiful plants from the tropical regions of the world.
Location: 180 North Vineyard Blvd.
Phone: 808 522-7066
Hours: 9:00 to 4:00 daily.
Admission: General $5.00 Child: $1.00 Age 5 & under – free

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 225

Hawai‘i CAPITAL NATIONAL HER I TAGE A R EA SI TES

History Hawai ‘ i Mari ti m e C ent er

Museum A sister institution of Bishop Museum, the Hawaii Maritime Center offers visitors a look back at
Hawaii's extensive maritime history from its discovery by Polynesian navigators 1500 years ago,
to contact with the western culture, to the effects of whaling.
Location: Pier 7, Honolulu Harbor, Aloha Tower
Phone: 808 523-6151 Website: www.bishopmuseum.org
Hours: 8:30 to 5:00 daily (closed December 25).
Admission: General $7.50 Senior/Military $6.00 Child $4.50
Age 5 & under – Free

Art Hawai ‘ i State Art Mus eu m

Museum Selection of works from the Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ Art in Public
Places Collection showcasing artists of Hawai‘i.
Location: No. 1 Capitol District Building, 250 S. Hotel Street, 2nd Floor
Phone: (808) 586-0900 Website: www.hawaii.gov/sfca
Hours: Tuesday – Saturday 10:00 to 4:00. Closed Monday and state holidays.
Admission: Free

Performing Hawai ‘ i Theatr e C ent er

Arts/ Dubbed “The Pride of the Pacific” when it opened in 1922, the Hawai‘i Theatre Center has
Historic been magnificently restored to its former grandeur. Winner of 2005 Outstanding Historic
Building Theatre award.
Location: 1130 Bethel Street in Chinatown
Phone: (808) 528-0506 Website: www.hawaiitheatre.com
Box Office Hours: Tuesday – Saturday 9:00 to 5:00.
Admission: Varies

Art Honolulu Acad em y o f Arts

Museum Home to one of the countries finest collection of Asian Art, as well as Western art treasures of
international repute, The Honolulu Academy of Art displays artworks that represent Hawai’i’s
diverse multicultural communities in a beautiful setting. Often voted one of Hawaii’s most
beautiful buildings the Academy boasts six different courtyards and the award-winning Pavilion
Café.
Location: 900 South Beretania Street
Phone: (808) 532-8701 Website: www.honoluluacademy.org
Hours: Tuesday – Saturday 10:00 to 4:30. Sunday 1:00 to 5:00.
Closed Monday.
Admission: Adults $7.00 Seniors/Students/Military $4.00 Age 12 & under-Free

Performing Honolulu Sy mph ony

Arts The Honolulu Symphony has begun its second century of bringing great music to the Hawaiian
Islands. Founded in 1900, the Honolulu Symphony claims the distinction of being the oldest
American orchestra west of the Rocky Mountains
Location: Neal S. Blaisdell Concert Hall, 777 Ward Avenue
Box Office Phone: (808) 792-2000 Website: www.honolulusymphony.com
Admission: Varies

226 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Hawai‘i CAPITAL NATIONAL HE R I TAGE A R EA SI TES
History `Iol ani Pal ace
Museum Built in 1882, ‘Iolani Palace was the official residence of King Kalakaua and Queen
Lili`uokalani, the last monarchs of Hawai‘i. The site of coronations, lavish social events and
political turmoil, the Palace has been elegantly and meticulously restored with original royal
furnishings.
Location: 364 South King Street
Phone: (808) 522-0822 Website: www.iolanipalace.org
Hours: Tuesday-Saturday 9:00 to 4:00.
Admission: Docent-led Grand Tour: Adults $20 Military $15 Youth (5-17) $5 Children 5 &
under not admitted. Reservations highly recommended. Call: (808) 0832. Self-guided Gallery
Tour: Adults $6 Age 17 and under $3.

History Judi ci ary Hi story C ent er

Museum Located in the historical Ali‘iolani Hale, built by King Kamehameha V in 1874, the Judiciary
History Center features exhibits and multimedia presentations on Hawai‘i’s legal history and
landmark court cases.
Location: 417 South King Street, Room 102
Phone: (808) 539-4999 Website: www.jhchawaii.org
Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00 to 4:00.
Admission: Free

Historic Kawai aha‘ o Church (Congr egat io na l )

Building The first permanent Western house of worship on the island, this church was built in 1842.
Kawaiaha‘o is where many of Hawaii’s monarchs were baptized, wed, crowned, and buried.
Twenty-one royal portraits hang in the upper gallery, and the pews at the rear are still reserved
for royal descendants. The public is invited to Hawaiian-language services, complete with song,
every Sunday.
Location: 957 Punchbowl Street
Phone: (808) 522-1333
Hours: Open daily. Sunday worship service 10:30 a.m.
Admission: Free

History Mi ssi on Houses Mus eu m

Museum Learn about the dramatic story of cultural change that took place in nineteenth-century Hawai’I
and the daily life and work of American missionaries and their influential role in Hawai’i’s
history.
Location: 553 South King Street, across from Kawaiaha’o Church
Phone: (808) 531-0481 Website: www.missionhouses.org
Hours: Tuesday – Saturday 9:00 to 4:00. Closed Sunday and Monday.
Admission: General $6
House Tour: General $10 Military $8 Students $6

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 227

Hawai‘i CAPITAL NATIONAL HER I TAGE A R EA SI TES
Historic Cathedral of Our L a dy o f Peace (Rom a n C at h o l ic)
Building
The cornerstone of the Cathedral was laid on August 6, 1840 and construction began with coral
blocks cut from the Kaka‘ako shores forming the walls. The building was finally completed in
1843. It is said to be the oldest Roman Catholic Cathedral in continuous use in the United
States and one of the oldest existing buildings in downtown Honolulu.
Location: 1184 Bishop Street
Phone: (808) 536-7036 Website: www.cathedralofourladyofpeace.com
Hours: Open daily.
Admission: Free

Historic Sai nt Andrews C at h edr a l (A ngl ica n)

Building The cornerstone of this historic church was laid by King Kamehameha V in 1967. The building
was finally completed in 1958. Of special note is the stunning stained glass window filling the
entry to the sanctuary.
Location: South Beretania and Alakea Streets
Phone: (808) 524-2822 Website: www.saintandrewscathedral.net
Hours: The church is open daily. Sunday worship services are at 7:00, 8:00 and 10:00 a.m.
Admission: Free

History Queen Emma Su m m er Pa l ace

Museum Built in 1847, the restored and furnished home of Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV
offers a glimpse into the lifestyle of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Location: 2913 Pali Highway
Phone: (808) 595-3167 Website: www.daughtersofhawaii.org
Hours: Daily 9:00 to 4:00.
Admission: Adults $6.00 Seniors $4.00 Age 17 & under $1.00

Historic Washi ngton Pl ace

Building Best known as the former home of Hawai‘i’s beloved Queen Lili`uokalani, Washington Place has
remained the center of Island social and political life throughout more than 150 years of
remarkable change. When building of the home was begun in 1842 Hawai‘i was still an
independent nation.
Location: 320 South Beretania Street.
Phone: (808) 586-0248 Web site: www.hawaii.gov/gov/washington_place
Admission: Donation
Tours: Offered weekdays except state and federal holidays. Reservations must be made 48 hours
prior to the day you wish to visit. Times are 11 a.m. Mondays and 10 a.m. Tuesdays through
Fridays. Call for information about afternoon tours.

228 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Appendix 16

Key His to ric Sit es in and Ne ar

th e Stu dy Ar ea
National Register Status NR National Register
SR Hawaii State Register
NHL National Historic Landmark
NRD National Register District
SHR Hawaii State Historic District
Themes 1 Hawaiian people and identity
2 Hawaii and the U.S.
3 Multiculturalism
Type A Archaeological
B Traditional
C Building
D District
E Landscape
F Object

SITE TYPE DATE REGISTER STATUS THEME
Kaniakapupu A ca. 1840 NR, SR 1
Nu'unanu Petroglyph Compex A,B ca. 1000 NR, SR 1
Puowaina A,B ca. 1000 NR 1
Hawaii Capital Historic District 20 sites A,B,C,D,E ca. 1000 NR 1,2,3
State Capital and Grounds C,D,E ca. 1880 NR 1,2,3
YMCA C,D,E 1928 NR 2
YMCA C 1927 NR 2
Hawaiian Electric Co. C 1927 NR 2
Territorial Office Building C,E 1929 NR 2
Hawaii State Library C,E 1913 NR 2
Honolulu Hale and Grounds C,E 1929 NR 1,2,3
Mission Memorial Building C,E 1915 NR 2
Kamehameha Statue F 18-- NR 1
Old Police Station C 1931 NR 1,2
Washington Place C,E 1846 NR 1,2
Ali'iolani Hale C,E 1874 NR 1,2,3
`Iolani Palace and Grounds A,B,C,D,E,F ca. 1000 and 1879 NR, NHL 1,2,3
`Iolani Barracks C,E 1870 NR 1,2
Coronation Pauilion C,E 1883 NR 1,2
Hawaii Archives Building C,E 1905 NR 1,2,3
US. Post Office C,E 1922 NR 2
Kamehameha V Post Office C 1871 NR,SR 1,2
Kapuaiwa Hale C 1874 NR 1,2
Kawaiahao Church and Grounds A,B,C,E,F 1839 NR, NHL 1,2,3
Lunalilo Tomb C,E 1876 NR, NHL 1
Adobe School C 1835 NR,SR 1,2
Mission Houses A,B,C,E,F 1821, 1831 NR, NHL 1,2
Hawaii Theatre C 1922 NR,SR 1,2,3
Linekona School C,E NR,SR 1,2,3
Central Fire Station C NR,SR 1,2,3
Kalihi Fire Station C NR,SR 1,2,3
Old Kakaako Fire Station C NR,SR 1,2,3
Palama Fire Station C NR,SR 1,2,3

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 229

K ey His tori c Si tes i n and N ea r t h e Stu dy Area
SITE TYPE DATE REGISTER STATUS THEME
Kaka'aho Pumping Station C,F 1900 NR,SR 1,2,3
Old Wharf (site of Pakaka hieau) A,B ca. 1000 1
Queen Emma's Summer Palace A,B,C,F 1847 NR,SR 1
Our Lady of Peace Cathedral C 1843 NR,SR 1,2,3
Royal Mausoleum C,E 1865 NR,SR 1
St. Andrews Cathedral C,E 1867 NR 1,2,3
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum C,E,F 1889, 1900 NR 1,2,3
Stangenwald Building C 1901 NR 2
Yokohama Specic Bank C 1909 NR 2
Aloha Tower C 1921 NR,SR 2
Central Union Church C,E 1924 NR 2
Honolulu Academy of Arts C,E,F 1927 NR 2,3
Hawaii News Building C 1929 NR 2,3
Dillingham Transportation Building C,E 1929 NR 2
C. Brewes and Company C,E 1930 NR,SR 2
Alexander and Baldwin Building C,E 1929 NR,SR 2
U.S. Immigration Station C,E 1934 NR 2,3
Makiki Pumping Station C,E 1934 2
Merchant Street Historic District C,D,E ca. 1860 NR 1,2,3
Chinatown Historic District C,D,E ca. 1880 NR 1,2,3
Honpa Hongwanji Temple C,E 1918 3
Izumo Taishakyo Mission C,E 1923 3
Jodo Mission of Hawaii C,E 1932 3
First Chinese Church C,E 1929 NR 2,3
Makiki Christian Church C,E 1933 NR,SR 2,3
Soto Zen Mission C,E 1952 3
Korean Christian Church C 1938 3
First United Methodist Church C,E 1955 2,3
Pacific Club C,E 1961 2,3
Board of Water Supply Building C,E 1958 2,3
OR & L Depot C 1925 NR,SR 23
Foster Botanic Gardens B,E 1920 NR,SR 1,2,3
Falls of Clyde STRUCTURE 1894 NR 1,2,3
Yee/Kobayashi Steve C ca. 1930 SR 3
St. Peter's Church C,E ca. 1920 SR 2,3
Roosevelt High School C,E 1920 SR 2,3
McKinley High School C,E 1920 NR,SR 2,3
Farrington High School C,E ca. 1930 SR 2,3
Central Intermediate School C,E 1925 NR,SR 2,3
Royal Brewery C 1900 NR 2,3
Thomas Square E 1843 NR 1,2
J. Cambell Building C ca. 1900 NR 2,3
McCorriston Building C ca. 1900 NR 2,3
Portland Building C NR 2,3
Tong Fat Co. C 1910 NR 2,3
Kaumakapili Church C,E 1895 SR 1,2,3
Queen's Hospital C,E 1860 1,2,3
Judd Building C 1900 NR 2

230 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Appendix 17

D E PA R T M E N T O F B U S I N E S S , delighted to provide the public with unique

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & opportunities to celebrate and enjoy downtown
TO U R I S M Honolulu, home to so much of our cultural
& heritage,” the Governor added.
H AWA I I S TAT E F O U N D AT I O N O N
C U LT U R E A N D T H E A R T S “Honolulu has long been recognized as the place
to go for sun and surf but we are much more
News Release than that,” said Mayor Harris. “We are one of the
most exciting cultural designations in the world.
LINDA LINGLE All our efforts to enhance our culture and arts
GOVERNOR infrastructure and showcase our ethnic special
_________________________________________________ events have brought us to this point.”

MONA ABADIR, CHAIRPERSON Once organized, the Hawai’i Capital Cultural
THEODORE E. LIU, DIRECTOR District will be enhanced as an inviting, vibrant
HSFCA and cohesive destination for residents and
DBEDT visitors alike. There will be information centers,
Phone: (808) 386-6578 additional signage, interpretive materials, maps,
Phone: (808) 586-2355 information, and various walking tours to guide
Fax: (808) 550-4403 people to the area’s many restaurants, galleries,
Fax: (808) 586-2377 shops and places to relax. In addition, outdoor
and indoor activities during the daytime and
nights will attract individuals and families. The
district will feature adequate parking, as well as
For Immediate Release: October 2, 2003 alternative modes of transportation to bring
DBEDT Press Release 03-46 people to and from the area, with links to
adjacent districts.
HAWAI’I CAPITAL CULTURAL DISTRICT
ANNOUNCED The timely development of Kaka’ako Waterfront,
the Downtown and Chinatown revitalization
HONOLULU – Governor Linda Lingle and Mayor efforts, and Waikiki restoration to days of old will
Jeremy Harris today, in recognition of October as all become part of the rich overlay and interface
National Arts and Humanities Month, signed a for the HCCD’s success.
joint proclamation to create and designate the
"Hawai’i Capital Cultural District" (HCCD). “Over the years, through the vision and efforts of
many, the groundwork has been laid to formally
The new HCCD is supported by State and City & create a magnificent historic, civic and cultural
County offices, and operated by a coalition district, rich with heritage unique to Hawai’i. We
representing more than 25 civic buildings, want our people and the world to know this face
museums, historic sites, galleries, entertainment of Hawai`i,” said Mona Abadir, HSFCA
venues, businesses, and restaurants who have Chairperson.
come together to designate the area between
Kalihi and Pi’ikoi Streets, Beretania Street and Earlier this year, representatives from cultural,
the Pacific Ocean, as a culturally significant and civic, artistic and government interests, met to
vibrant destination for the people of Hawai’i and focus their efforts to achieve consensus and
for the world. create a preliminary game plan for the district.
The resulting HCCD coalition is one of many
“With this proclamation, we recognize the efforts groups beginning to nurture and market their
of a diverse group of people, representing some cultural assets. This is the fundamental idea
of Hawai’i’s most inspirational artistic and cultural behind the concept of "cultural tourism"; a sector
organizations,” said Governor Lingle. “We are of tourism many believe will become a major

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 231

growth area for the State's tourism industry in the For more information, contact:
near future. By creating activities, events, and Dave Young, DBEDT Communications
destinations that attract residents and visitors Ken Hamilton, SFCA Public Information Officer
interested in experiencing and learning about Phone: (808) 587-2784
Hawai’i's rich ethnic and cultural resources, both Phone: (808) 586-0307
residents and visitors will benefit. Email: dyoung@dbedt.hawaii.gov
Email: sfca@sfca.state.hawaii.us
The work of the HCCD coalition will provide a See Initial List of Stakeholders Attached.
model that can be used throughout the State to
designate and market Hawai’i's rich cultural
assets for enjoyment, education, community
building, and welcoming our visitors.

For details on the HCCD and the organizations

involved, contact Mona Abadir, HSFCA
Chairperson at 386-6578 or Judy Drosd, Chief
Officer, Arts, Film & Entertainment, at 586-2364.

###

232 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

News Release
MONA ABADIR
President, Board of Directors
Hawai`i Capital Cultural District
Phone: (808) 550-4449
Fax: (808) 550-4403

For Immediate Release: September 2, 2006

Hawai’i Capital Cultural District Seeks

Public Input on Application for National
Heritage Area Designation
HONOLULU – The public is invited to comment on the
Hawai`i Capital Cultural District (HCCD) application to
become a congressionally designated National Heritage
Area. A series of public meetings to gather comments is part
of the HCCD National Heritage Area Suitability/Feasibility
Study, a key requirement of the application.

All meetings are open to the public. The schedule is:

• 1:00-3:30 pm, Thursday, September 7, Hosted by
Hawai`i State Art Museum, 250 South Hotel Street
• 5:00-7:00 pm, Thursday, September 7, Hosted by Arts at
Marks Garage, 1159 Nu`uanu Avenue
• 9:00-11:30 am, Saturday, September 9, Hosted by
Children’s Discovery Center, 111 Ohe Street
• 9:00-11:30 pm, Wednesday, September 13, Hosted by
Aloha Tower Marketplace, 2nd Floor Mauka Lanai
• 9:00-11:00 am, Thursday, September 14, Hosted by
Waikiki Improvement Association, Pacific Beach Hotel,
Venus Room

The National Heritage Area program, operated by the US

Department of the Interior National Park Service,
encourages residents, government agencies, non-profit
groups and private partners to collaboratively plan and
implement programs and projects that recognize, preserve
and celebrate America's defining landscapes. Once NHA
designation is achieved, the National Park Service provides
technical assistance, marketing and promotions, and federal
funding to support preservation, educational, promotional
and other activities.

“National Historic Area designation for the Hawai‘i Capital

Cultural District would be a terrific next step in advancing the
state as a major cultural and heritage destination,” said
Mona Abadir, president of the HCCD board, “We hope
stakeholders will take the opportunity to express their hopes

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 233

and dreams for this area. It is important to make clear to the Department of the Interior and US
Congress that the people of Hawai’i care deeply about preserving and enhancing their heritage
through this designation.”

“We also hope that when it gains NHA designation, the HCCD coalition will provide a model
that can be used throughout Hawai’i to designate appropriate areas on other islands and
promote the rich historic and cultural assets of Hawai’i for community building and the
education and enjoyment of residents and visitors alike,” Abadir said.

The Hawai`i Capital Cultural District initiative was launched in 2003 by a coalition of historic
sites, galleries, performing arts venues, and businesses with the financial support of the Muriel
Flanders Fund, Hawai‘i State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, the state Department of
Business, Economic Development and the City & County of Honolulu. The coalition came
together to further develop the area bounded by Kalihi, Pi’ikoi and Beretania streets and the
Pacific Ocean as a culturally significant and vibrant destination for the people of Hawai’i and for
the world.

“National recognition of the Hawai`i Capital Cultural District would support the efforts of many
dedicated groups and individuals in our community to protect and enhance an area of Hawai`i
that is home to so much of our cultural heritage,” said Governor Linda Lingle.

Mayor Mufi Hannemann stated, “I believe strongly in the arts and culture as a means of
enhancing the lives of the people of Honolulu as well as to generate economic development for
the city.”

The HCCD National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Project is a collaboration of the Hawai`i
Capital Cultural District coalition, the University of Hawai`i at Manoa, Native Hawaiian
Hospitality Association, Hawai`i Community Services Council, and The Cultural+Planning
Group. The study is funded through a grant from the Hawai`i Tourism Authority with generous
in-kind support from HCCD coalition participants. It is anticipated the study will be completed
by the end of this year.

The Hawai`i Capital Cultural District, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, operates as a

community coalition with the mission to: 1) preserve and nurture the rich heritage, cultures, and
arts of Hawai‘i; 2) generate economic and social vitality for Honolulu’s urban core through its
cultural assets; and 3) promote Hawai`i as a premier destination for cultural and heritage
tourism.

For more information on the HCCD or the NHA application -- or to participate in the coalition –
please visit: www.hawaiicapitalculture.org or contact Lorraine Lunow-Luke, HCCD coordinator
at coordinator@hawaiicapitalculture.org or (808) 927-1370.

###

234 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

Appendix 18

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 235

236 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy
 Appendix 19

EXCEPTIONAL TREES
In the Proposed Heritage Area
(Compiled by The Outdoor Circle)

An exceptional tree is a tree, stand or grove of trees with historic or cultural value worthy of
preservation because of its age, rarity, location, size, beauty or endemic status. Act 105,
enacted by the Hawai`i state legislature in 1975, requires that these trees be safeguarded from
injury or destruction.

DOWNTOWN
1. Banyan Court Mall - between 1 Ficus benghalensis,
Kaumakapili Church & St. Elizabeth 1 Indian Banyan Tree

2. Dept. of Agriculture - l428 S. King St. 1 Ceiba pentandra - Kapok Tree

Dept. of Agriculture 1 Enterolobium cyclocarpum - Earpod
Dept. of Agriculture 1 Guazuma tomentosa - Guacima Tree
Dept. of Agriculture 1 Mammea americana - Mammee Apple

3. Iolani Palace Grounds 1 Ficus benghalensis - Indian Banyan

4. Judiciary Bldg. - Ewa courtyard 1 Agathis robusta - Queensland Kauri

Judiciary Bldg. - beside bldg. 2 Ficus benghalensis - Indian Banyan
Judiciary Bldg. - Ewa courtyard 1 Tamarindus indica - Tamarind Tree

5. Kaiulani School 1 Ficus benghalensis - Banyan Tree

6. Queen's Medical Center 1 Adansonia digitata,

l301 Punchbowl St. Baobab Tree
Queen's Medical Center 1 Pseudobombax ellipticum,
Pink Bombax Tree
Queen's Medical Center 1 Sterculia urens - Nawa Tree

7. Washington Place 1 Canarium vulgare,

Governor's residence Pili Nut Tree

NUUANU
1. 26l6 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Bertholletia excelsa - Brazil Nut Tree
26l6 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Ficus sp. - Banyan Tree
26l6 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Ficus religiosa - Bo Tree
26l6 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Litchi chinensis - Lychee Tree
26l6 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Macadamia integrifolia,
Macadamia Nut Tree
26l6 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Mangifera indica - Mango Tree (Pirie)
2616 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Manilkara zapota - Chicle Tree
2616 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Phyllanthus emblica,
Indian Gooseberry Tree
2616 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Psidium cattleianum f.lucidium,
Waiawi Tree
2616 Pali Hwy. (Old Walker Estate) 1 Swietenia mahogani - Mahogany Tree

2. 420 Wyllie St.-Borthwick's prop. 1 Samanea saman - Monkeypod Tree

H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 237

 FOSTER BOTANICAL GARDEN
1. Adansonia digitata, Baobab Tree
2. Agathis robusta, Queensland Kauri
3. Araucaria cunninghamii, Hoop Pine
4. Canarium vulgare, Pili Nut
5. Cassia x nealiae, !Wilhelmina Tenny"/Rainbow Shower Tree
6. Catalpa longissima, Yoke Wood
7. Cavanillesia platanifolia, Quipo
8. Ceiba pentandra, Kapok Trees (2)
9. Couroupita guianensis, Cannonball Tree
10. Elaeodendron orientale, False Olive Tree
11. Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Earpod
12. Ficus religiosa, Bo Tree
13. Gigasiphon macrosiphon
14. Hydnocarpus anthelmintica, Chalmoogra
15. Hyphaene thebaica, Doum Palm
16. Lagerstroemia speciosa, Queen's Crepe Myrtle
17. Lonchocarpus domingensis, Guama
18. Manilkara zapota, Chicle
19. Mimusops elengi, Pogada
20. Parkia javanica, Java Parkia
21. Pritchardia lowreyana, Loulu
22. Pterygota alata, Tattele
23. Roystonea oleracea, Cabbage Palm
24. Sideroxylon obtusifolium, Ironwood
25. Spondias mombin, Hog Plum
26. Terminalia catappa, Tropical Almond

NOTE: The common names all include the designation "tree" or "palm". This was omitted in this list unless the
botanical literature listed it as part of the common name.

238 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y/ fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 Hawai‘i Capital Cultural COALITION
1 0 0 1 Bi shop Street, S u ite 2 8 00
Honolu lu , H awai ‘i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Phone: ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 1 3 7 0
NATIONAL
HERITAGE web : http : //W WW. hawaiicapitalculture.org
AREA E m ail : H CCCinfo @ hawaiicapitalculture.org

Niki Doyle
General Manager, Hard Rock Café Honolulu
Frank Haas
Interim Assistant Dean, School of Travel Industry Management,
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Steven Lee
Business Development Manager, Strategic Marketing & Support Division,
Department of Business, Economic, Development and Tourism
Anne Mapes
Hawai‘i Capital Cultural Coalition Board of Directors: Chairman & CEO, Belt Collins Hawai‘i

Mona Abadir, President Mary Philpotts McGrath

Principal, Honu Group, Inc., CEO, Honu Group Communications, LLC Principal, Philpotts & Associates, Inc.

Bill Ha‘ole, Vice President Kyle Paredes

E Noa Tours/Waikiki Trolley President, Sportech USA

David Scott, Treasurer Alenka Remec

Small Business Advocate, City and County of Honolulu
Margi Ulveling, Secretary
Associate Vice President, Institutional Advancement, Hawai‘i Pacific University Sarah Richards
President, Hawai‘i Theatre Center
Lulani Arquette
Executive Director, Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association Susan Todani
Director of Special Projects, Kamehameha Schools
Kippen de Alba Chu
Executive Director, ‘Iolani Palace Gae Bergquist Trommald
Vice President, Merrill Lynch
Daniel Dinell
Managing Director, Sales & Marketing, Hawai‘i Asia Region, HCCC Coordinator: Lorraine Lunow-Luke
Hilton Grand Vacations Administrative Assistance: Teresa Abenoja, Honu Group Inc.
T IM ELIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai ‘i and Honolulu Events

ca. AD 700 1758 Birth of 1779 Captain

probable settlement Kamehameha I James Cook killed
in Hawai‘i by on Hawai‘i
Polynesians
ca. 1400 ca. 1600 1778 James 1783 Maui army
consolidation of probable beginnings Cook expedition invades O‘ahu
powers on O‘ahu of village of Kou reaches Kaua‘i
ca. 1000 ca. 1600 the ca. 1740 the ca. 1770 O‘ahu 1782 Battle of
settlement at site chief Kakuhihewa chief Kuali‘i ruler Peleioholani Moku‘ohai, Hawai‘i
of Honolulu unites O‘ahu reunites O‘ahu conquers Moloka‘i

ad 700- 1780s

50-11,000 BC 1565 St. 1733 1789 Articles

migration Augustine Georgia colony of Confederation
from Asia founded
2500 BC 1050 Cahokia 1607 1756 Seven
Agriculture Mound, Illinois Jamestown Years’ War begins
settlement
1492 Columbus 1776 Declaration
reaches Caribbean of Independence

Events in American History

4 0 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1795 Battle of
Nu‘uanu,
Kamehameha victory

1791 First Western 1794, Lady Washington, 1796 Kamehameha 1804 Russian ships visit
vessel built in Hawai‘i Jackall and Prince Le Boo abandons plan to Hawaiian Islands
conquer Kaua‘i
1793 John 1809
1791 Brigantine Kendrick’s Lady 1796 Don Kamehameha moves
Hope anchors off Washington enters Francisco Marin court to Honolulu
Waikīkī harbor begins residence
1791 Battle of 1793 Oliver 1796 William 1804 Kamehameha
Kepuwaha‘ula‘ula Holmes, first Broughton harbor moves court to Waikīkī
Western inhabitant survey
1793 Captain 1795 Isaac Davis 1803 First 1804 Ma‘ioku‘u
William Brown begins residence in horses on Hawai‘i epidemic, possibly
identifies harbor Honolulu plague or cholera

1790's - 1800's

1794 Whiskey Rebellion 1803 Louisiana Purchase

Hawai ‘i Ca pi ta l Cultural COALITIO N

1 0 0 1 B I shop S treet, S uite 2 8 0 0
H onolulu , H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Phone : ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : h t t p : / / W W W. h awa i i c a pi ta lc ult ur e. org
HERITAGE
AREA Email : H C C C info@ hawaiicapitalculture . org
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 41
 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i and Honolulu Events

1812 Kamehameha 1819 Liholiho

returns to Kona
1816 Flag flies ascends to throne
at new fort

1812 Increase in ships 1816 King 1819 Death of

due to War of 1812 purchases Astor Kamehameha I
ship Forster
1816 Fort 1819 First sperm
completed by whale caught off
John Young Hawai‘i
1815 King purchases 1816 Lieutenant 1819 Regency of
ship Albatross Kotzebue visits Ka‘ahumanu and
Honolulu Kalanimoku
1810 Treaty with 1815 Russians begin 1816 Beginning 1817 Coffee 1818 Russian 1819 End of kapu
Kaumauli‘i uniting forts in Kaua‘i and of harbor fees plants introduced Captain Golovnin
Hawaiian Islands Honolulu visits Honolulu

1810's

Events in American History

4 2 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

1821 First 1821 Mosquitoes 1824 Death of
missionary frame introduced Liholiho and Queen
house erected Kamāmalu
1821 First 1821 Elisha 1825 Kauikeaouli
Kawaiaha‘o Loomis sets up ascends throne as
Church built first press Kamehameha III
1820 Protestant 1822 First 1825 Sugar 1827 First 1829 USS
missionaries arrive printed book introduced in laws of Vincennes, debt
Mānoa Valley kingdom passed collection

1820 First 1822 First 1823 Second 1825 King and 1826 USS 1827 French 1829 Boki and
whaling ships in Chinese merchant group of Protestant Queen’s remains Dolphin visits ship Comete chiefs sign
Honolulu harbor in Honolulu missionaries return to Honolulu Honolulu enters harbor agreement on debts
1822 Arrival of 1823 Liholiho, 1825 Richard 1826 USS 1827 First 1829 Indigo
reps. of London Kamāmalu go to Charlton appointed Peacock visits Roman seed introduced
Missionary Society Great Britain British consul Catholic priests

1820's

1823
Monroe
Doctrine

Hawai ‘i Ca pi ta l Cultural COALITIO N

1 0 0 1 B I shop S treet, S uite 2 8 0 0
H onolulu , H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Phone : ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : h t t p : / / W W W. h awa i i c a pi ta lc ult ur e. org
HERITAGE
AREA Email : H C C C info@ hawaiicapitalculture . org
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 43
T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i and Honolulu Events

1839 Bill of Rights

adopted by Kingdom
of Hawai‘i

1839 Roman
Catholic Church
constructed
1832 Death of 1839 Hawaiian
Queen Ka‘ahumanu Bible printed

1832 First census 1833 Seamen’s 1836 Sandwich 1839 Chiefs Children’s
of Islands Bethel founded Island Gazette begins School begun by Cookes

1832 First whaling 1834 Lahaina 1837 Great 1839 Treaty with
ship outfitted in Luna begins first Awakening, revival France
kingdom newspaper of Christianity

1830's

1830 Indian
Removal Act

Events in American History

4 4 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

1840 First 1843 136 whaling
constitution adopted by ships in harbor
Kingdom of Hawai‘i
1843 Great Britain
claims protectorate
over Hawai‘i
1843 Admiral 1846 Land 1848 Royal
Thomas restores division known as Hawaiian Theater
sovereignty to Hawai‘i Mahele begins opens
1840 Cacao 1842 Kawaiaha‘o 1844 165 1846 Steamship 1848 Ka mahele
introduced stone church completed whaling ships Cormorant enters or land Division
in harbor harbor takes place
1840 The 1841 O‘ahu 1844 First 1847 1848 Restrictions
Polynesian begins College and Punahou export of Thespian, first on bawdy houses
publication School begun Hawaiian silk theater, opens

1840's

1848 Treaty of
1842 Taylor Doctrine Guadalupe
recognizes Hawai‘i’s
independence
1845 Annexation
of Texas

1845 Mexican
War begins

Hawai ‘i Ca pi ta l Cultural COALITIO N

1 0 0 1 B I shop S treet, S uite 2 8 0 0
H onolulu , H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Phone : ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : h t t p : / / W W W. h awa i i c a pi ta lc ult ur e. org
HERITAGE
AREA Email : H C C C info@ hawaiicapitalculture . org
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 45
 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai ‘i and Honolulu Events

1850 Hawaiian 1855 Alexander 1859 Gas light

post office Liholiho ascends introduced
established to throne
1850 First fire 1856 Dredger 1859 Anglican
engine used begins operations Church begins
in harbor services
1850 Mormon 1852 Arrival 1854 Death of 1856 Hawaiian
missionaries begin of first Chinese Kamehameha III whaling fleet has
work laborers 13 vessels

1850 Act allows 1852 First 1853 Steamships 1854 Steam- 1855 Board 1858 Rice
aliens to acquire land ice imported provide interisland powered flour mill of Education production begins
service inaugurated
1850 Kuleana 1851 issues first 1853 Smallpox 1854 End of 1855 220 1858 Bishop
Act recognizing postage stamps epidemic American Board of whaling ships Bank Co. begins
Hawaiian land-use Protestant Missions in harbor

1850's

1850 Missouri
Compromise

Events in American History

4 6 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1866 Dowager
Queen Emma returns
from England
1868 First Japanese
contract workers

1860 Queen’s 1863 Lot Kamehameha 1864 New 1866 The Daily 1869 Lighthouse
Hospital begun ascends to throne Constitution Herald, first daily, built at harbor
begins
1862 Cotton 1863 Death of King 1866 Regular
introduced Liholiho, steamship service
Kamehameha IV from San Francisco

1860's

1862 Battle of 1865 Lee surrenders

Antietam

1860 Lincoln
becomes President

1864 Sherman
reaches Atlanta

Hawai ‘i Ca pi ta l Cultural COALITIO N

1 0 0 1 B I shop S treet, S uite 2 8 0 0
H onolulu , H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Phone : ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : h t t p : / / W W W. h awa i i c a pi ta lc ult ur e. org
HERITAGE
AREA Email : H C C C info@ hawaiicapitalculture . org
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 47
 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai ‘i and Honolulu Events

1872
Hawaiian
Hotel opens
1872 Death of 1874 Death
Kamehameha V of Lunalilo

1874 David
Kalākaua elected
king

1870 Regular 1874 King 1875 Reciprocity 1876 Honolulu 1879 Cornerstone
service to Australia Kalākaua visits U.S. Act signed Library and Reading of ‘Iolani Palace lain
Room opens
1870 Royal 1873 William 1875 First 1876 Reciprocity 1879 First
Hawaiian Band Lunalilo export of rum Treaty goes into effect artesian well dug
begins becomes king

1870's

1876 Last
Sioux war

Events in American History

4 8 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1887 U.S.
Naval Station

1884 Pineapple 1887 Bishop

introduced School, later
Kamehameha School
1884 Silver 1887 Pu‘uloa 1889 O‘ahu
coinage comes (Pearl Harbor) Railway begins
into circulation ceded to U.S.
1883 Statue of 1887 Bayonet 1889 Interisland
Kamehameha Constitution cable laid
erected

1880 St. Louis 1881 King 1883 Kalākaua’s 1887 Kalākaua 1889 Robert Louis
College founded Kalākaua makes official coronation strategy to unite Stevenson visits
world trip Polynesia
1880 Bell 1881 Lunalilo 1883 YMCA 1885 Japanese 1886 Kalākaua 1888 1889
telephone Home started comes to Honolulu workers arrive (in large jubilee Electric lights Insurrection led by
system installed numbers, first in1868.) celebration introduced Robert Wilcox

1880's

Hawai ‘i Ca pi ta l Cultural COALITIO N

1 0 0 1 B I shop S treet, S uite 2 8 0 0
H onolulu , H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Phone : ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : h t t p : / / W W W. h awa i i c a pi ta lc ult ur e. org
HERITAGE
AREA Email : H C C C info@ hawaiicapitalculture . org
H AWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N ational he ritage are a s u itabil it y/ fe as Ibil it y s tu dy 49
 T I M E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i and Honolulu Events

1899 Death of
Dowager Queen
Kapi‘olani

1895 Hawaiian 1895 Restoration 1899 Bubonic

Sugar Planters Movement defeated plague breaks out
Association started
1891 Queen 1895 Queen 1895 Asiatic 1899 Puerto
Lili‘uokalani imprisoned cholera breaks out Rican immigrants
accedes to throne

1891 Kalākaua 1895 Japanese 1895 Experiments 1898 Hawaiian

dies in San paper Nippu Jiji in rubber farming Islands annexed
Francisco started
1890 First 1893 1894 Passage 1895 Honolulu 1896 Honolulu 1898 Fort
automobile Overthrow of of Wilson Act High School Normal School McKinley started
monarchy founded begun

1890's

1896 McKinley 1898 Spanish

becomes President American war begins

1893 Columbian
Exposition

Events in American History

5 0 HAWAI ‘ I C A PITAL N at i on a l h e r i tag e are a s u itabil it y / fe as Ibil it y s tu dy

 1907 Outrigger
Canoe Club
founded

1900 1907 City and

Chinatown fire County of
Honolulu created
1909 Sacred
1900 Sanford 1903 Korean 1907 1908 Beginning Hearts Academy
Dole first Territorial immigrants Completion of of Pearl Harbor founded
Governor Fort Shafter

1900 Electric 1901 Hawai‘i 1907 Jack 1908 1909 Schofield

railway begun Pineapple London first Authorization of Barracks built
Company founded visits Hawai‘i U.S. Naval Station
1900 1901 Honolulu 1902 Pacific 1906 1907 College of 1909 Plantation
Organic Act Rapid Transit Co. cable completed Filipino Agriculture and worker strike
begun immigrants Mechanical Arts

1900'S

Hawai ‘i Capital Cultural COAL I TI ON

1 0 0 1 B I s h o p St reet, S uit e 2 8 0 0
H o n o lulu, H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Ph o n e: ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : http : / / W W W. hawaiicapitalc ult ure. o rg
HERITAGE
AREA E m ail : H C C C in f o @ hawaiicapitalc ult ure. org
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 51
 TIM ELIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i an d Honolu lu Events

1910 Matson 1916 Hawai‘i 1917 Death of

Steamer begins Volcanoes National Queen Lili‘uokalani
regular service Park est.
1910 First air flight 1911 College of 1917 Construction of
from Moanalua Field Hawai‘i moves to Mānoa Fort Kamehameha

1910's

1917 U.S. 1918 Treaty of

enters WWI Versailles

Ev e n ts in Am eri can Hi story

5 2 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

1920 Sugar 1924 Sugar 1929 Passenger
workers strike workers strike service to Hilo

1920 University 1921 Hawaiian Homes 1927 First non-stop

of Hawai‘i begins Commission Act passed flight to San Francisco

1920'S

1920 Beginning 1929 Stock

of prohibition market crash

Hawai ‘i Capital Cultural COAL I TI ON

1 0 0 1 B I s h o p St reet, S uit e 2 8 0 0
H o n o lulu, H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Ph o n e: ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : http : / / W W W. hawaiicapitalc ult ure. o rg
HERITAGE
AREA E m ail : H C C C in f o @ hawaiicapitalc ult ure. org
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 53
 TIM E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i an d Honolu lu Events

1941 Pearl
Harbor attack

1937 Sugar Act 1947 Hawai‘i Statehood

Commission created

1935 Trans-Pacific 1937 Sugar 1942 442 nd

1947 Sugar Act
travel initiated workers strike Regiment formed

1930's - 1940's

1934 Jones- 1941 U.S. declares 1945 End of

Costigan Act war on Japan war with Japan

1932 Beginning
of New Deal

Ev e nts in Am eri can Hi story

5 4 HAWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ati o nal h e r itag e are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy

 1959 Statehood 1962 Daniel 1964 Under-seas 1966 Total
Inouye elected cable to Japan number of visitors
reaches 1 million
1952 1960 East- 1961 First 1963 John F. 1965 Hawai‘i-
Statehood bill West Center cable TV Kennedy visits based soldiers sent
proposed founded Hawai‘i to Vietnam

1950'S - 1960's

1963 Kennedy
assassinated

1960 Kennedy 1962 Cuban

becomes President Missile Crisis

1952 1961 Vietnam

Korean War War begins

Hawai ‘i Capital Cultural COAL I TI ON

1 0 0 1 B I s h o p St reet, S uit e 2 8 0 0
H o n o lulu, H awai‘ i  9 6 8 1 3
CAPITAL Ph o n e: ( 8 0 8 ) 9 2 7 - 4 9 2 8
NATIONAL w eb : http : / / W W W. hawaiicapitalc ult ure. o rg
HERITAGE
AREA E m ail : H C C C in f o @ hawaiicapitalc ult ure. org
H AWA I ‘ I C A PI TA L N ational he ritage are a s u itabilit y / fe as Ibilit y s tu dy 55
 TIM E LIN E Significant Events in Hawai‘i and Honolulu’s History

H awai‘i an d Honolulu Events

CAPITAL
NATIONAL
HERITAGE
AREA

2009
Hawai'i Capital Cultural
1987 John 2000  Native Hawaiian Coalition National
Waihee elected 1st Government Reorganization Heritage Area Bill
govenor of Act (“Akaka Bill”) first Introduced
Hawaiian descent introduced in US Congress

1974 George 1993 US Congress 2007 Native Hawaiian

Ariyoshi becomes apologizes for Government Reorganization
1st Asian-American 1976 Voyage overthrow of Act of 2007 introduced in US
govenor of the Hokulea Kingdom of Hawai‘i Congress

1970's - P r ese nt

2003 Iraq war 2008 Barack Obama,

begins Native son of Hawai‘i
2001 September 11, elected 44th President
Twin Towers attacked of the United States

Ev e n ts in Am eri can Hi story

 United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony
Before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EST
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
A More Systematic Process
for Establishing National
Heritage Areas and Actions
to Improve Their
Accountability Are Needed
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director
Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-04-593T

Highlights of GAO-04-593T, testimony
before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate
The Congress has established, or
“designated,” 24 national heritage
areas to recognize the value of their
local traditions, history, and
resources to the nation's heritage.
These areas, including public and
private lands, receive funds and
assistance through cooperative
agreements with the National Park
Service, which has no formal
program for them. They also
receive funds from other agencies
and nonfederal sources, and are
managed by local entities. Growing
interest in new areas has raised
concerns about rising federal costs
and the risk of limits on private
land use.
GAO was asked to review the (1)
process for designating heritage
areas, (2) amount of federal
funding to these areas, (3) process
for overseeing areas’ activities and
use of federal funds, and (4)
effects, if any, they have on private
property rights.
GAO recommends that the Park
Service (1) develop consistent
standards and processes for
reviewing areas’ management
plans; (2) require regions to review
areas’ financial audit reports, and
(3) develop results-oriented goals
and measures for the agency’s
activities and require areas to
adopt a similar approach.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-593T.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at
(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.
March 30, 2004
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
A More Systematic Process for
Establishing National Heritage Areas and
Actions to Improve Their Accountability
Are Needed
No systematic process currently exists for identifying qualified sites and
designating them as national heritage areas. While the Congress generally
has designated heritage areas with the Park Service's advice, it designated 10
of the 24 areas without a thorough agency review; in 6 of these 10 cases, the
agency recommended deferring action. Even when the agency fully studied
sites, it found few that were unsuitable. The agency’s criteria are very
general. For example, one criterion states that a proposed area should
reflect “traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life that are a valuable part of
the national story." These criteria are open to interpretation and, using
them, the agency has eliminated few sites as prospective heritage areas.
According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, in fiscal years 1997
through 2002, the areas received about $310 million in total funding. Of this
total, about $154 million came from state and local governments and private
sources and another $156 million came from the federal government. Over
$50 million was dedicated heritage area funds provided through the Park
Service, with another $44 million coming from other Park Service programs
and about $61 million from 11 other federal sources. Generally, each area’s
designating legislation imposes matching requirements and sunset
provisions to limit the federal funds. However, since 1984, five areas that
reached their sunset dates had their funding extended.
The Park Service oversees heritage areas’ activities by monitoring their
implementation of the terms set forth in the cooperative agreements. These
terms, however, do not include several key management controls. That is,
the agency has not (1) always reviewed areas’ financial audit reports, (2)
developed consistent standards for reviewing areas’ management plans, and
(3) developed results-oriented goals and measures for the agency’s heritage
area activities, or required the areas to adopt a similar approach. Park
Service officials said that the agency has not taken these actions because,
without a program, it lacks adequate direction and funding.
Heritage areas do not appear to have affected property owners’ rights. In
fact, the designating legislation of 13 areas and the management plans of at
least 6 provide assurances that such rights will be protected. However,
property rights advocates fear the effects of provisions in some management
plans. These provisions encourage local governments to implement land use
policies that are consistent with the heritage areas’ plans, which may allow
the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in
ways that could restrict owners’ use of their property. Nevertheless,
heritage area officials, Park Service headquarters and regional staff, and
representatives of national property rights groups that we contacted were
unable to provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly
affecting—positively or negatively—private property values or use.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss a number of issues concerning the

designation, funding, and oversight of national heritage areas. As you
know, over the past two decades, the Congress has established, or
“designated,” 24 national heritage areas and provided them with millions
of dollars in financial assistance through the National Park Service. By
providing this designation, the Congress has determined that these areas’
local cultures, traditions, history, and resources are worthy of being
recognized and preserved because of their contributions to the nation’s
heritage. These areas can encompass large tracts of land and incorporate
public as well as private property. The number of bills introduced to study
or designate new areas has grown considerably in recent years. In the
108th Congress alone, as of early March 2004, over 30 bills had been
introduced to either study or establish new areas. This growing interest in
creating new heritage areas has raised concerns that their numbers may
expand rapidly and significantly increase the amount of federal funds
supporting them. In addition, private property rights advocates are
concerned that heritage area designations could increase the risk that
federal controls or other limits will be placed on private land use.

Once designated, heritage areas can receive funding through the National
Park Service’s budget, although the agency has no formal heritage area
program. The Park Service provides technical assistance to the areas, and
the Congress appropriates the agency limited funds for these activities.1
The Park Service allocates funding to the areas through cooperative
agreements. These funds are considered to be “seed” money to assist each
area in becoming sufficiently established to develop partnerships with
state and local governments, businesses, and other nonfederal
organizations as their principal funding sources. Heritage areas also
receive funds from other federal agencies through a variety of programs,
primarily the Department of Transportation for road and infrastructure
improvements.

In this context, my testimony today focuses on the results of our work on

national heritage areas conducted at the request of this Committee.

1
Although no heritage area program exists within the Park Service, the Congress has
provided the Park Service an annual appropriation for administering its heritage area
activities. The agency has allocated these amounts to fund a national coordinator position
in the Park Service’s headquarters, which directs and monitors the agency’s heritage area
activities.

Page 1 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 Specifically, it addresses the (1) process for identifying and designating
national heritage areas, (2) amount of federal funding provided to support
these areas, (3) process for overseeing and holding national heritage areas
accountable for their use of federal funds, and (4) extent to which, if at all,
these areas have affected private property rights.

To address these issues, we obtained information on the Park Service’s

heritage area activities from the Heritage Area national coordinator and
program managers in the four Park Service regions that include heritage
areas. We also obtained funding information from 22 of the 24 existing
areas for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and discussed this information
with the executive directors and staff of each area.2 In addition, we visited
8 of the 24 heritage areas to view their operations and accomplishments,
and discussed various issues with their executive directors. Finally, we
discussed concerns about private property rights with representatives of
several organizations advocating property rights. We conducted our work
between May 2003 and March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. A more complete description of our
methodology is included in app. I.

In summary, we found the following:

Summary
• No systematic process exists for identifying qualified candidate sites and
designating them as national heritage areas. While the Congress generally
has made designation decisions with the advice of the Park Service, it has,
in some instances, designated heritage areas before the agency has fully
evaluated them. In this regard, the Congress designated 10 of the 24
heritage areas without a thorough Park Service review of their
qualifications; in 6 of these 10 cases, the agency recommended deferring
action. Furthermore, even when the Park Service fully studied prospective
sites’ qualifications as heritage areas, it found that few of these were
unsuitable. The Park Service’s criteria are not specific. For example, one
criterion states that a proposed area should reflect “traditions, customs,
beliefs, and folk life that are a valuable part of the national story.” Using
these criteria, the agency has determined that relatively few of the sites it
has evaluated would not qualify as heritage areas.

2
As of mid-March 2004, two heritage areas had not provided us with funding data.

Page 2 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

• According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, in fiscal years 1997
through 2002, the areas received about $310 million in total funding. Of
this total, about $154 million came from state and local governments and
private sources and another $156 million came from the federal
government. About $51 million of the federal total was dedicated heritage
area funds provided through the Park Service. An additional $44 million
came from other Park Service programs and about $61 million from 11
other federal sources. Generally, each area’s designating legislation
specifies the total amount of federal funds that will be provided and
imposes certain conditions, such as matching requirements and sunset
provisions, to limit the amount of federal funds for each heritage area.
However, the sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting federal
funding: since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received
funding reauthorization from the Congress.

• In the absence of a formal program, the Park Service oversees heritage

areas’ activities by monitoring the implementation of the terms set forth in
the cooperative agreements. These terms, however, do not include several
key management controls. Although the Park Service has primary federal
responsibility for heritage areas, the agency does not always review data
that it obtains from the areas on their sources and expenditures of all
federal funds. As a result, the agency cannot determine how much federal
funds have been provided to the areas or whether these funds are being
spent appropriately. Furthermore, the Park Service has not yet developed
clear and consistent standards and processes for reviewing areas’
management plans, even though this review is one of the agency’s primary
heritage area responsibilities. As a result, staff in each Park Service region
use different approaches to review and approve areas’ plans. Finally, the
Park Service has not yet developed results-oriented performance goals and
measures—consistent with the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act—for the agency’s heritage area activities, or
required the areas to adopt a similar results-oriented management
approach. Such an approach would help ensure the efficiency and
effectiveness of the agency’s heritage area activities and enable both the
areas and the agency to determine what is being accomplished with
federal funds. According to Park Service officials, the agency has not
taken these actions because, without a formal program, it does not have
the direction or funding it needs to effectively carry out its national
heritage area activities.

• National heritage areas do not appear to have directly affected the rights
of property owners. To address property concerns, the designating
legislation of 13 of the 24 heritage areas and management plans of at least
6 provide explicit assurances that the areas will not affect property

Page 3 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 owners’ rights. However, some management plans encourage local
governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the
heritage areas’ plans and offer to aid their planning activities through
matching grants. Property rights advocates fear that such provisions may
allow heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in
ways that could restrict owners’ use of their property. Nevertheless,
heritage area officials, Park Service headquarters and regional staff, and
representatives of national property rights groups who we contacted were
unable to provide us with any examples of a heritage area directly
affecting—positively or negatively—private property use.

To improve the heritage area designation process and the Park Service’s
oversight of areas’ use of federal funds, we are recommending that the
agency (1) develop consistent standards and processes for reviewing
areas’ management plans; (2) require regions to review areas’ financial
audit reports, and (3) develop results-oriented goals and measures for the
agency’s activities and require areas to adopt a similar approach.

To date, the Congress has designated 24 national heritage areas, primarily

Background in the eastern half of the country (see fig. 1).

Page 4 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

Figure 1: Locations of 24 Existing National Heritage Areas, as of March 2004

Generally, national heritage areas focus on local efforts to preserve and

interpret the role that certain sites, events, and resources have played in
local history and their significance in the broader national context. For
example, the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area commemorates the
contribution of southwestern Pennsylvania to the development of the
nation’s steel industry by providing visitors with interpretive tours of
historic sites and other activities. Heritage areas share many similarities—
such as recreational resources and historic sites—with national parks and
other park system units but lack the stature and national significance to
qualify them as these units.

The process of becoming a national heritage area usually begins when

local residents, businesses, and governments ask the Park Service, within

Page 5 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 the Department of the Interior, or the Congress for help in preserving their
local heritage and resources. In response, although the Park Service has
no program governing these activities, the agency provides technical
assistance, such as conducting or reviewing studies to determine an area’s
eligibility for heritage area status. The Congress then may designate the
site as a national heritage area and set up a management entity for it. This
entity could be a state or local governmental agency, an independent
federal commission, or a private nonprofit corporation. Usually within 3
years of designation, the area is required to develop a management plan,
which is to detail, among other things, the area’s goals and its plans for
achieving those goals. The Park Service then reviews these plans, which
must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

After the Congress designates a heritage area, the Park Service enters into
a cooperative agreement with the area’s management entity to assist the
local community in organizing and planning the area. Each area can
receive funding through the Park Service’s budget—generally limited to
not more than $1 million a year for 10 or 15 years. The agency allocates the
funds to the area through the cooperative agreement.

No systematic process is in place to identify qualified candidate sites and

No Systematic designate them as national heritage areas. In this regard, the Park Service
Process Exists for conducts studies—or reviews studies prepared by local communities—to
evaluate the qualifications of sites proposed for national heritage
Identifying and designation. On the basis of these studies, the agency advises the Congress
Designating National as to whether a particular location warrants designation. The agency
usually provides its advice to the Congress by testifying in hearings on
Heritage Areas bills to authorize a particular heritage area. The Park Services’ studies of
prospective sites’ suitability help the agency ensure that the basic
components necessary to a successful heritage area—such as natural and
cultural resources and community support—are either already in place or
are planned. Park Service data show that the agency conducted or
reviewed some type of study addressing the qualifications of all 24
heritage areas. However, in some cases, these studies were limited in
scope so that questions concerning the merits of the location persisted
after the studies were completed. As a result, the Congress designated 10
of the 24 areas with only a limited evaluation of their suitability as heritage
areas. Of these 10 areas, the Park Service opposed or suggested that the
Congress defer action on 6, primarily because of continuing questions
about, among other issues, whether the areas had adequately identified
goals or management entities or demonstrated community support.
Furthermore, of the 14 areas that were designated after a full evaluation,

Page 6 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 the Congress designated 8 consistent with the Park Service’s
recommendations, 5 without the agency’s advice, and 1 after the agency
had recommended that action be deferred.

Furthermore, the criteria the Park Service uses to evaluate the suitability
of prospective heritage areas are not specific and, in using them, the
agency has determined that a large portion of the sites studied qualify as
heritage areas. According to the Heritage Area national coordinator,
before the early 1990s, the Park Service used an ad hoc approach to
determining sites’ eligibility as heritage areas, with little in the way of
objective criteria as a guide. Since then, however, the Park Service
developed general guidelines to use in evaluating and advising the
Congress on the suitability of sites as heritage areas. Based on these
guidelines, in 1999, the agency developed a more formal approach to
evaluating sites. This approach consisted of four actions that the agency
believed were critical before a site could be designated as well as 10
criteria to be considered when conducting studies to assess an area’s
suitability.

The four critical steps include the following:

• complete a suitability/feasibility study;

• involve the public in the suitability/feasibility study;

• demonstrate widespread public support for the proposed designation; and

• demonstrate commitment to the proposal from governments, industry,

and private, nonprofit organizations.

A suitability/feasibility study, should examine a proposed area using the

following criteria:

• The area has natural, historic, or cultural resources that represent

distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy of recognition,
conservation, interpretation, and continuing use, and are best managed
through partnerships among public and private entities, and by combining
diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and active communities;

• The area’s traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life are a valuable part of
the national story;

Page 7 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

• The area provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, cultural,
historic, and/or scenic features;

• The area provides outstanding recreational and educational opportunities;

• Resources that are important to the identified themes of the area retain a
degree of integrity capable of supporting interpretation;

• Residents, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments within

the area that are involved in the planning have developed a conceptual
financial plan that outlines the roles for all participants, including the
federal government, and have demonstrated support for designation of the
area;

• The proposed management entity and units of government supporting the

designation are willing to commit to working in partnership to develop the
area;

• The proposal is consistent with continued economic activity in the area;

• A conceptual boundary map is supported by the public; and

• The management entity proposed to plan and implement the project is

described.

These criteria are broad and subject to multiple interpretations, as noted

by an official in the agency’s Midwest region charged with applying these
criteria to prospective areas. Similarly, according to officials in the
agency’s Northeast region, they believe that the criteria were developed to
be inclusive and that they are inadequate for screening purposes. The
national coordinator believes, however, that the criteria are valuable but
that the regions need additional guidance to apply them more consistently.
The Park Service has developed draft guidance for applying these criteria
but has no plans to issue them as final guidance. Rather, the agency is
incorporating this guidance into a legislative proposal for a formal heritage
area program. According to the national coordinator, some regions have
used this guidance despite its draft status, but it has not been widely
adopted or used to date.

The Park Service’s application of these broad criteria has identified a large
number of potential heritage areas. Since 1989, the Park Service has
determined that many of the candidate sites it has evaluated would qualify
as national heritage areas.

Page 8 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 According to data from 22 of the 24 heritage areas, about half of their total
National Heritage funding of $310 million in fiscal years 1997 through 2002 came from the
Areas Annually federal government and the other half from state and local governments
and private sources. Table 1 shows the areas’ funding sources from fiscal
Receive Millions in years 1997 through 2002.
Federal Funding
Table 1: National Heritage Area Funding from All Sources, Fiscal Years 1997-2002

Source Amount Percentage

Total Park Service funds $95,393,506 30.8
a
Dedicated heritage area funds 50,922,562 16.5
b
Other Park Service support funds 44,470,944 14.3
Total other federal funds $60,545,816 19.5
Department of Transportation 55,852,269 18.0
Department of Education 2,000,000 0.6
Department of Agriculture 547,009 0.2
Housing and Urban Development 420,183 0.1
Environmental Protection Agency 400,000 0.1
Army Corps of Engineers 266,000 0.1
Department of Commerce 96,555 0.0
National Railroad Passenger Corporation 23,800 0.0
National Endowment for the Arts 5,000 0.0
Federal earmarks and awardsc 935,000 0.3
Total nonfederal funds $154,078,203 49.7
State governments 61,404,323 19.8
Local governments 46,612,624 15.0
Nonprofit organizations 7,255,416 2.3
Private foundations 14,515,996 4.7
Corporate sponsors 2,126,870 0.7
Other nonfederal funding sources 22,163,473 7.2
Total $310,017,525 100.0
Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from 22 of the 24 heritage areas.
a
These funds were provided through the Park Service’s Heritage Partnership Program and Statutory
and Contractual Aid budget line items. The Heritage Partnership Program promotes the conservation
of natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources. Statutory and Contractual Aid provides financial
assistance in the planning, development, or operation of natural, historical, cultural, or recreation
areas that are not managed by the Park Service.
b
These are funds from other Park Service budget line items—including the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, Operation of the National Park Service, and the Construction Fund—that are not
typically reported as part of heritage area funding, but include funding for specific projects undertaken
by heritage areas.

Page 9 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

c
Funds earmarked for Federal Government Pass-Through Awards ($610,000) and Hugh Moore
Historical Park & Museums, Inc. ($325,000).

As figure 2 shows, the federal government’s total funding to these heritage

areas increased from about $14 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $28
million in fiscal year 2002, peaking at over $34 million in fiscal year 2000.

Figure 2: National Heritage Areas’ Funding, By Major Source, Fiscal Years 1997 –
2002

The Congress sets the overall level of funding for heritage areas,
determining which areas will receive funding and specifying the amounts
provided. Newly designated heritage areas usually receive limited federal
funds while they develop their management plans and then receive
increasing financial support through Park Service appropriations after
their plans are established. The first heritage areas received pass-through
grants from the Park Service and funding through the agency’s Statutory
and Contractual Aid appropriations. However, in 1998, the Congress began

Page 10 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 appropriating funds to support heritage areas through the Heritage
Partnership Program.

In addition, the Congress has placed in each area’s designating legislation

certain conditions on the receipt of federal funds. While the legislation
designating the earliest heritage areas resulted in different funding
structures, generally those created since 1996 have been authorized
funding of up to $10 million over 15 years, not to exceed $1 million in any
single year. In conjunction with this limit, the designating legislation
attempts to identify a specific date when heritage areas no longer receive
federal financial or technical assistance. Although heritage areas are
ultimately expected to become self-sufficient without federal support, to
date the sunset provisions have not limited federal funding. Since the first
national heritage area was designated in 1984, five have reached the sunset
date specified in their designating legislation. However, in each case, the
sunset date was extended and the heritage area continued to receive
funding from the Congress.

Finally, the areas’ designating legislation typically requires the heritage

areas to match the amount of federal funds they receive with a specified
percentage of funds from nonfederal sources. Twenty-two of the 24
heritage areas are required to match the federal funds they receive. Of
these 22 areas, 21 have a 50-percent match requirement—they must show
that at least 50 percent of the funding for their projects has come from
nonfederal sources—and one has a 25-percent match requirement.

In the absence of a formal program, the Park Service oversees heritage

The Park Service areas’ activities by monitoring the implementation of the terms set forth in
Lacks an Effective the cooperative agreements. According to Park Service headquarters
officials, the agency’s cooperative agreements with heritage areas allow
Process for Ensuring the agency to effectively oversee their activities and hold them
that National Heritage accountable. These officials maintain that they can withhold funds from
heritage areas—and have, in some circumstances, done so—if the areas
Areas Are are not carrying out the requirements of the cooperative agreements.
Accountable for Their However, regional managers have differing views on their authority for
Use of Federal Funds withholding funds from areas and the conditions under which they should
do so.

Although Park Service has oversight opportunities through the

cooperative agreements, it has not taken advantage of these opportunities
to help to improve oversight and ensure these areas’ accountability. In this
regard, the agency generally oversees heritage areas’ funding through

Page 11 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

routine monitoring and oversight activities, and focuses specific attention
on the areas’ activities only when problems or potential concerns arise.
However, the Park Service regions that manage the cooperative
agreements with the heritage areas do not always review the areas’ annual
financial audit reports, although the agency is ultimately the federal
agency responsible for heritage area projects that are financed with
federal funds.3 For example, managers in two Park Service regions told us
that they regularly review heritage areas’ annual audit reports, but a
manager in another region said that he does not. As a result, the agency
cannot determine the total amount of federal funds provided or their use.
According to these managers, the inconsistencies among regions in
reviewing areas’ financial reports primarily result from a lack of clear
guidance and the collateral nature of the Park Service regions’ heritage
area activities—they receive no funding for oversight, and their oversight
efforts divert them from other mission-critical activities.

Furthermore, the Park Service has not yet developed clearly defined,
consistent, and systematic standards and processes for regional staff to
use in reviewing the adequacy of areas’ management plans, although these
reviews are one of the Park Service’s primary heritage area
responsibilities. Heritage areas’ management plans are blueprints that
discuss how the heritage area will be managed and operated and what
goals it expects to achieve, among other issues. The Secretary of the
Interior must approve the plans after Park Service review. According to
the national coordinator, heritage area managers in the agency’s Northeast
region have developed a checklist of what they consider to be the
necessary elements of a management plan to assist reviewers in evaluating
the plans. While this checklist has not been officially adopted, managers in
the Northeast and other regions consult it in reviewing plans, according to
the national coordinator. Heritage area managers in the Park Service
regions use different criteria for reviewing these plans, however. For
example, managers in the regions told us that, to judge the adequacy of the
plans, one region uses the specific requirements in the areas’ designating

3
Under regulations implementing the Single Audit Act, recipients spending $500,000 or
more of federal funds during a fiscal year are required to have an audit conducted for that
year. They are also required to (1) maintain internal controls; (2) comply with laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; (3) prepare appropriate financial statements;
(4) ensure that audits are properly performed and submitted when due; and (5) take
corrective actions on audit findings. This act is intended to, among other things, promote
sound financial management of federally funded projects administered by state and local
governments and nonprofit organizations. Prior to 2003, the dollar threshold for a single
audit was $300,000 or more in expenditures in a fiscal year.

Page 12 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

legislation, another uses the designating legislation in conjunction with the
Park Service’s general designation criteria, and a third adapts the process
used for reviewing national park management plans. While these
approaches may guide the regions in determining the content of the plans,
they provide little guidance in judging the adequacy of the plans for
ensuring successful heritage areas.

Finally, the Park Service has not yet developed results-oriented

performance goals and measures—consistent with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act—that would help to ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of its heritage area activities. The act requires
agencies to, among other actions, set strategic and annual goals and
measure their performance against these goals. Effectively measuring
performance requires developing measures that demonstrate results,
which, in turn, requires data. According to the national coordinator, the
principal obstacles to measuring performance are the difficulty of
identifying meaningful indicators of success and the lack of funding to
collect the needed data. With regard to indicators, the national coordinator
told us that the agency has tried to establish meaningful and measurable
goals both for their activities and the heritage areas. The agency has
identified a series of “output” measures of accomplishment, such as
numbers of heritage areas visitors, formal and informal partners,
educational programs managed, and grants awarded. However, the
national coordinator acknowledged that these measures are insufficient,
and the agency continues to pursue identifying alternative measures that
would be more meaningful and useful. However, without clearly defined
performance measures for its activities, the agency will continue to be
unable to effectively gauge what it is accomplishing and whether its
resources are being employed efficiently and cost-effectively.

The Park Service also has not required heritage areas to adopt a results-
oriented management approach—linked to the goals set out in their
management plans—which would enable both the areas and the agency to
determine what is being accomplished with the funds that have been
provided. In this regard, the heritage areas have not yet developed an
effective, outcome-oriented method for measuring their own performance
and are therefore unable to determine what benefits the heritage area—
and through it, the federal funds—have provided to the local community.
For example, for many heritage areas, increasing tourism is a goal, but
while they may be able to measure an increase in tourism, they cannot
demonstrate whether this increase is directly associated with the efforts of
the heritage area. To address these issues, the Alliance of National
Heritage Areas is currently working with Michigan State University to

Page 13 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 develop a way to measure various impacts associated with a national
heritage area. These impacts include, among others, the effects on tourism
and local economies through jobs created and increases in tax revenues.

According to Park Service officials, the agency has not taken actions to
improve oversight because, without a formal program, it does not have the
direction or funding it needs to effectively administer its national heritage
area activities.

National heritage areas do not appear to have affected private property

National Heritage rights, although private property rights advocates have raised a number of
Areas Do Not Appear concerns about the potential effects of heritage areas on property owners’
rights and land use. These advocates are concerned that heritage areas
to Have Affected may be allowed to acquire or otherwise impose federal controls on
Individual Property nonfederal lands. However, the designating legislation and the
management plans of some areas explicitly place limits on the areas’
Rights ability to affect private property rights and use. In this regard, eight areas’
designating legislation stated that the federal government cannot impose
zoning or land use controls on the heritage areas. Moreover, in some
cases, the legislation included explicit assurances that the areas would not
affect the rights of private property owners. For example, the legislation
creating 13 of the 24 heritage areas stated that the area’s managing entity
cannot interfere with any person’s rights with respect to private property
or have authority over local zoning ordinances or land use planning. While
management entities of heritage areas are allowed to receive or purchase
real property from a willing seller, under their designating legislation, most
areas are prohibited from using appropriated funds for this purpose.4 In
addition, the designating legislation for five heritage areas requires them to
convey the property to an appropriate public or private land managing
agency.

As a further protection of property rights, the management plans of some

heritage areas deny the managing entity authority to influence zoning or
land use. For example, at least six management plans state that the
managing entities have no authority over local zoning laws or land use
regulations. However, most of the management plans state that local
governments’ participation will be crucial to the success of the heritage

4
The Shenandoah River Valley Battlefields National Historic District is the only heritage
area that has received authority and appropriations to acquire land.

Page 14 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 area and encourage local governments to implement land use policies that
are consistent with the plan. Some plans offer to aid local government
planning activities through information sharing or technical or financial
assistance to achieve their cooperation. Property rights advocates are
concerned that such provisions give heritage areas an opportunity to
indirectly influence zoning and land use planning, which could restrict
owners’ use of their property. Some of the management plans state the
need to develop strong partnerships with private landowners or
recommend that management entities enter into cooperative agreements
with landowners for any actions that include private property.

Despite concerns about private property rights, officials at the 24 heritage

areas, Park Service headquarters and regional staff working with these
areas, and representatives of six national property rights groups that we
contacted were unable to provide us with a single example of a heritage
area directly affecting—positively or negatively—private property values
or use.

National heritage areas have become an established part of the nation’s

Conclusions efforts to preserve its history and culture in local areas. The growing
interest in establishing additional areas will put increasing pressure on the
Park Service’s resources, especially since the agency receives limited
funding for the technical and administrative assistance it provides to these
areas. Under these circumstances, it is important to ensure that only those
sites’ that are most qualified are designated as heritage areas. However, no
systematic process for designating these areas exists, and the Park Service
does not have well-defined criteria for assessing sites’ qualifications or
effective oversight of the areas’ use of federal funds and adherence to their
management plan. As a result, the Congress and the public cannot be
assured that future sites will have the necessary resources and local
support needed to be viable or that federal funds supporting them will be
well spent.

Given the Park Service’s resource constraints, it is important to ensure

that the agency carries out its heritage area responsibilities as efficiently
and effectively as possible. Park Service officials pointed to the absence of
a formal program as a significant obstacle to effective management of the
agency’s heritage area efforts and oversight of the areas’ activities. In this
regard, without a program, the agency has not developed consistent
standards and processes for reviewing areas’ management plans, the areas’
blueprints for becoming viable and self-sustaining. It also has not required
regional heritage area managers to regularly and consistently review the

Page 15 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 areas’ annual financial audit reports to ensure that the Park Service—the
agency with lead responsibility for these areas—has complete information
on their use of funds from all federal agencies as a basis for holding them
accountable. Finally, the Park Service has not defined results-oriented
performance goals and measures—both for its own heritage area efforts
and those of the individual areas. As a result, it is constrained in its ability
to determine both the agency’s and areas’ accomplishments, whether the
agency’s resources are being employed efficiently and effectively, and if
federal funds could be better utilized to accomplish its goals.

In the absence of congressional action to establish a formal heritage area

Recommendations for program within the National Park Service or to otherwise provide
Executive Action direction and funding for the agency’s heritage area activities, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park Service to
take actions within its existing authority to improve the effectiveness of its
heritage area activities and increase areas’ accountability. These actions
should include

• developing well-defined, consistent standards and processes for regional

staff to use in reviewing and approving heritage areas’ management plans;

• requiring regional heritage area managers to regularly and consistently

review heritage areas’ annual financial audit reports to ensure that the
agency has a full accounting of their use of funds from all federal sources,
and

• developing results-oriented performance goals and measures for the

agency’s heritage area activities, and requiring, in the cooperative
agreements, heritage areas to adopt such a results-oriented management
approach as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that
you or Members of the Committee may have.

For more information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill at

Contacts and (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
Acknowledgments included Elizabeth Curda, Preston S. Heard, Vincent P. Price, and Barbara
Timmerman.

Page 16 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To examine the establishment, funding, and oversight of national heritage

areas and their potential effect on private property rights, we (1) evaluated
the process for identifying and designating national heritage areas, (2)
determined the amount of federal funding provided to support these areas,
(3) evaluated the process for overseeing and holding national heritage
areas accountable for their use of federal funds, and (4) determined the
extent to which, if at all, these areas have affected private property rights.

To address the first issue, we discussed the process for identifying and
designating heritage areas with the Park Service’s Heritage Area national
coordinator and obtained information on how the 24 existing heritage
areas were evaluated and designated. To determine the amount of federal
funding provided to support these areas, we discussed funding issues and
the availability of funding data with the national coordinator, the Park
Service’s Comptroller, and officials from the agency’s Northeast, Midwest,
Southeast, and Intermountain Regional Offices. We also obtained funding
information from 22 of the 24 heritage areas for fiscal years 1997 through
2002, and discussed this information with the executive directors and staff
of each area. As of mid-March 2004, two heritage areas had not provided
us with funding data. To verify the accuracy of the data we obtained from
these sources, we compared the data provided to us with data included in
the heritage areas’ annual audit and other reports that we obtained from
the individual areas and the Park Service regions. We also discussed these
data with the executive directors and other officials of the individual
heritage areas and regional office officials.

To evaluate the processes for holding national heritage areas accountable

for their use of federal funds, we discussed these processes with the
national coordinator and regional officials, and obtained information and
documents supporting their statements.

To determine the extent to which, if at all, private property rights have

been affected by these areas, we discussed this issue with the national
coordinator, regional officials, the Executive Director of the Alliance of
National Heritage Areas—an organization that coordinates and supports
heritage areas’ efforts and is their collective interface with the Park
Service—the executive directors of the 23 heritage areas that were
established at the time of our work, and representatives of several private
property rights advocacy groups and individuals, including the American
Land Rights Association, the American Policy Center, the Center for
Private Conservation, the Heritage Foundation, the National Wilderness
Institute, and the Private Property Foundation of America. In each of these
discussions, we asked the individuals if they were aware of any cases in

Page 17 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas

 which a heritage area had positively or negatively affected an individual’s
property rights or restricted its use. None of these individuals were able to
provide such an example.

In addition, we visited the Augusta Canal, Ohio and Erie Canal, Rivers of
Steel, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields, South Carolina, Southwestern
Pennsylvania (Path of Progress), Tennessee Civil War, and Wheeling
National Heritage Areas to discuss these issues in person with the areas’
officials and staff, and to view the areas’ features and accomplishments
first hand.

We conducted our work between May 2003 and March 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

(360340)
Page 18 GAO-04-593T National Heritage Areas
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.
 The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
GAO’s Mission Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-
GAO Reports and text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
Testimony using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail
alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Cultural Conservation
National Heritage Areas encourage living traditions, such as music, dance, food, and arts, to continue and
flourish through education, special events, and resource centers.

Best Practices
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area provides a number of resources that
encourage living traditions to continue and flourish. Encouraging the
demonstrationand celebration of folkways across the generations is one way to
encourage the cultural traditions that were brought to the Pittsburgh area by
steelworkers and their families to persist. The Rivers of Steel Regional Folklife
Center issues a quarterly publication entitled Cultural Conversations, provides
technical assistance and consulting services, and grant workships. Its educational
program reaches out to teachers, schools, and youth groups,
providing curriculum planning, a a"Classroom on Wheels,"
Food Heritage Trails, and other special projects.

The Lackawanna Heritage Valley, a region rich in the anthracite coal which fueled the
industrial revolution and thesteelindustry in the 19th and early 20th century, has produced an
award-winning video entitled "Stories From the Mines," which documents the social and
economic history of the coal miners and their families who emigrated to the region from
around the world. They also coordinate the Young People's Heritage Festival, a series of
programs that highlight the social and cultural history of the Valley. Physical reminders of this
history are evident throughout the region, and are highlighted a a rolling locomotive
classroom called the Heritage Express, a radio program produced by students, Traveling
Trunks, an educational program for teachers called Museums as Classrooms, and an annual
Evnironmental Career Forum and Environmental Fair. The National Park Service and
Pennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources are major partners.

Volunteerism:
Volunteerism encourages residents to feel connected with their communitites in ways that foster stewardship and
appreciation of existing resources. In 2005, volunteers clocked 201,580 hours working in their heritage areas.
Economic Development
National Heritage Areas foster partnerships that stimulate economic development.

Best Practices
The Stonycreek-Quemahoning Initiative partnered with the Westsylvania Heritage
Corporation, a partner organizer of the Path of Progress National Heritage Tour Route, to
develop the Marketing, Development, and Community Outreach pieces needed to
implement this impressive heritage conservation initiative. Funding received to date in
support of Initiative projects total $711,500.00. Some of the components of this initiative
include development of a year-round whitewater park (one of only several nationwide), a
community park, railroad dual-use assessments for freight and recreation, conservation
releases from a recently acquired public dam that will allow for additional whitewater
opportunities and improved coldwater habitat, and a Rivertown community planning
component that will allow residents to consider suitable areas for river access, potential
reuse of structures for river amenities and services such as outfitters, lodging and eating
facilities that will result in healthy growth while conserving the fabric of their
communities.

The Crayola FACTORY at Two Rivers Landing is a hands-

on discovery center for children and the adults that provides creative personal
development experiences and supports the economic revitalization of Easton and
the Lehigh Valley. The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor partnered
with the City of Easton, Binney & Smith, Easton Economic Development Corp.,
Hugh Moore Historical Park & Museums and Lafayette College to create this
downtown center to celebrate a world-famous regional product, its history and
role in arts education. The Landing is home to the Crayola Factory, the National
Canal Museum, a visitor center and commercial space. In the first six years the
Landing hosted over 2 million visitors.

Economic Leveraging:
In 2005, NPS Heritage Partnerships funding leveraged $63 million in other Federal, state, local, and private funds,
a ratio of 1:5. Over time, NPS funding has leveraged a ratio of 1:8 in other funding.

Grants:
In 2005, national heritage areas awarded 382 grants, which leveraged $53,481,221 in additional funds.

Partnerships:
In 2005, national heritage areas maintained formalized relationships with 1,412 partners and informal relationships
with an additional 3,016.
 II

111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. 359
To establish the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area, and for other
purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 30, 2009
Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL
To establish the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area,
and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hawai’i Capital Na-

5 tional Heritage Area Establishment Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

7 In this Act:
8 (1) HERITAGE AREA.—The term ‘‘Heritage
9 Area’’ means the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

10 Area established by section 3(a).

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 2
1 (2) LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.—The term
2 ‘‘local coordinating entity’’ means the local coordi-
3 nating entity for the Heritage Area designated by
4 section 3(d).
5 (3) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘manage-
6 ment plan’’ means the management plan for the
7 Heritage Area required under section 5.
8 (4) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en-
9 titled ‘‘Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area Pro-
10 posed Boundary’’, numbered T17/90,000B, and
11 dated January 2009.
12 (5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
13 the Secretary of the Interior.
14 (6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State
15 of Hawai’i.
16 SEC. 3. HAWAI’I CAPITAL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

17 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the

18 State the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area.
19 (b) BOUNDARIES.—The Heritage Area shall consist
20 of portions of Honolulu and the Honolulu Ahupua’a, as
21 depicted on the map.
22 (c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file
23 and available for public inspection in the appropriate of-
24 fices of the National Park Service and the Hawai’i Capital
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 Cultural Coalition.

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 3
1 (d) LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.—The Hawai’i
2 Capital Cultural Coalition shall be the local coordinating
3 entity for the Heritage Area.
4 SEC. 4. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE LOCAL COORDI-

5 NATING ENTITY.

6 (a) DUTIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING ENTI-

7 TY.—To further the purposes of the Heritage Area, the
8 local coordinating entity shall—
9 (1) prepare and submit a management plan for
10 the Heritage Area to the Secretary in accordance
11 with section 5;
12 (2) assist units of local government, regional
13 planning organizations, and nonprofit organizations
14 in implementing the approved management plan
15 by—
16 (A) carrying out programs and projects
17 that recognize, protect, and enhance important
18 resource values in the Heritage Area;
19 (B) establishing and maintaining interpre-
20 tive exhibits and programs within the Heritage
21 Area;
22 (C) developing recreational and educational
23 opportunities in the Heritage Area;
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 4
1 (D) increasing public awareness of, and
2 appreciation for, natural, historic, scenic, and
3 cultural resources of the Heritage Area;
4 (E) protecting and restoring historic sites
5 and buildings in the Heritage Area that are
6 consistent with the themes of the Heritage
7 Area;
8 (F) ensuring that signs identifying points
9 of public access and sites of interest are posted
10 throughout the Heritage Area; and
11 (G) promoting a wide range of partner-
12 ships among governments, organizations, and
13 individuals to further the purposes of the Herit-
14 age Area;
15 (3) consider the interests of diverse units of
16 government, businesses, organizations, and individ-
17 uals in the Heritage Area in the preparation and im-
18 plementation of the management plan;
19 (4) conduct meetings open to the public at least
20 semiannually regarding the development and imple-
21 mentation of the management plan;
22 (5) for any fiscal year for which the local co-
23 ordinating entity receives Federal funds under this
24 Act—
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 5
1 (A) submit to the Secretary an annual re-
2 port that describes, for the fiscal year—
3 (i) the accomplishments, expenses, in-
4 come, amounts, and sources of matching
5 funds;
6 (ii) the amounts leveraged with Fed-
7 eral funds and sources of the leveraged
8 funds; and
9 (iii) grants made to any other entities;
10 (B) make available to the Secretary for
11 audit all information relating to the expenditure
12 of Federal funds and any matching funds for
13 the fiscal year; and
14 (C) require, in all agreements authorizing
15 the expenditure of Federal funds by other orga-
16 nizations, that the organizations receiving the
17 Federal funds make available to the Secretary
18 for audit all records and other information re-
19 lating to the expenditure of the funds; and
20 (6) encourage, by appropriate means, economic
21 development that is consistent with the purposes of
22 the Heritage Area.
23 (b) AUTHORITIES.—The local coordinating entity
24 may, subject to the prior approval of the Secretary, for
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 the purposes of preparing and implementing the manage-

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 6
1 ment plan for the Heritage Area, use Federal funds made
2 available under this Act to—
3 (1) make grants to the State or a political sub-
4 division of the State, nonprofit organizations, and
5 other persons;
6 (2) enter into cooperative agreements with, or
7 provide technical assistance to, the State or a polit-
8 ical subdivision of the State, nonprofit organizations,
9 Federal agencies, and other interested parties;
10 (3) hire and compensate staff;
11 (4) obtain money or services from any source,
12 including under any other Federal law or program;
13 (5) contract for goods or services; and
14 (6) support activities of partners and any other
15 activities that—
16 (A) further the purposes of the Heritage
17 Area; and
18 (B) are consistent with the approved man-
19 agement plan.
20 (c) PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
21 PROPERTY.—The local coordinating entity shall not use
22 Federal funds made available under this Act to acquire
23 real property or any interest in real property.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 7
1 SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the

3 date on which funds are made available to carry out this
4 Act, the local coordinating entity shall submit to the Sec-
5 retary for approval a management plan for the Heritage
6 Area.
7 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The management plan shall—
8 (1) describe comprehensive policies, goals, strat-
9 egies, and recommendations for—
10 (A) conveying the heritage of the region;
11 and
12 (B) encouraging long-term resource protec-
13 tion, enhancement, interpretation, funding,
14 management, and development of the Heritage
15 Area;
16 (2) take into consideration existing State, coun-
17 ty, and local plans in the development and imple-
18 mentation of the management plan;
19 (3) include a description of actions and commit-
20 ments that governments, private organizations, and
21 individuals have agreed to take to protect, enhance,
22 and interpret the natural, historic, scenic, and cul-
23 tural resources of the Heritage Area;
24 (4) specify existing and potential sources of
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 funding or economic development strategies to pro-

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 8
1 tect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and develop
2 the Heritage Area;
3 (5) include an inventory of the natural, historic,
4 cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational re-
5 sources of the Heritage Area related to the stories
6 and themes of the region that should be protected,
7 enhanced, managed, or developed;
8 (6) recommend policies and strategies for re-
9 source management, including the development of
10 intergovernmental and interagency agreements to
11 protect the natural, historic, cultural, educational,
12 scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage
13 Area;
14 (7) describe a program of implementation for
15 the management plan, including—
16 (A) performance goals;
17 (B) plans for resource protection, enhance-
18 ment, and interpretation; and
19 (C) specific commitments for implementa-
20 tion of the management plan that have been
21 made by the local coordinating entity or any
22 government, organization, business, or indi-
23 vidual;
24 (8) include an analysis of, and recommenda-
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 tions for, ways in which Federal, tribal, State, and

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 9
1 local programs may best be coordinated to carry out
2 the purposes of this Act, including recommendations
3 for the role of the National Park Service and other
4 Federal agencies associated with the Heritage Area;
5 (9) include an interpretive plan for the Heritage
6 Area; and
7 (10) include a business plan that—
8 (A) describes the role, operation, financing,
9 and functions of—
10 (i) the local coordinating entity; and
11 (ii) each of the major activities con-
12 tained in the management plan; and
13 (B) provides adequate assurances that the
14 local coordinating entity has the partnerships
15 and financial and other resources necessary to
16 implement the management plan for the Herit-
17 age Area.
18 (c) TERMINATION OF FUNDING.—If the management
19 plan is not submitted to the Secretary in accordance with
20 this Act, the local coordinating entity shall be ineligible
21 to receive additional funding under this Act until the date
22 on which the Secretary approves the management plan.
23 (d) APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN.—
24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 after the date of receipt of the management plan

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 10
1 under subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation
2 with the Governor of the State and any applicable
3 tribal government, shall approve or disapprove the
4 management plan.
5 (2) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.—In determining
6 whether to approve the management plan, the Sec-
7 retary shall consider whether—
8 (A) the local coordinating entity represents
9 the diverse interests of the Heritage Area, in-
10 cluding governments, natural and historical re-
11 source protection organizations, educational in-
12 stitutions, businesses, community residents, and
13 recreational organizations;
14 (B) the local coordinating entity has af-
15 forded adequate opportunity for public and gov-
16 ernmental involvement, including workshops
17 and public meetings, in the preparation of the
18 management plan;
19 (C) the resource protection and interpreta-
20 tion strategies contained in the management
21 plan, if implemented, would adequately protect
22 the natural, historic, and cultural resources of
23 the Heritage Area;
24 (D) the management plan would not ad-
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 versely affect any activities authorized on Fed-

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 11
1 eral or tribal land under applicable laws or land
2 use plans;
3 (E) the Secretary has received adequate
4 assurances from the appropriate State, tribal,
5 and local officials, the support of which is nec-
6 essary to ensure the effective implementation of
7 the State, tribal, and local aspects of the man-
8 agement plan; and
9 (F) the local coordinating entity has dem-
10 onstrated the financial capability, in partner-
11 ship with others, to carry out the plan.
12 (3) ACTION FOLLOWING DISAPPROVAL.—If the
13 Secretary disapproves the management plan under
14 paragraph (1), the Secretary—
15 (A) shall advise the local coordinating enti-
16 ty in writing of the reasons for the disapproval;
17 (B) may make recommendations to the
18 local coordinating entity for revisions to the
19 management plan; and
20 (C) not later than 180 days after the re-
21 ceipt of any proposed revision of the manage-
22 ment plan from the local coordinating entity,
23 shall approve or disapprove the proposed re-
24 vised management plan.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 12
1 (4) AMENDMENTS.—The Secretary shall ap-
2 prove or disapprove each amendment to the manage-
3 ment plan that the Secretary determines would
4 make a substantial change to the management plan
5 in accordance with this subsection.
6 (5) USE OF FUNDS.—The local coordinating en-
7 tity shall not use Federal funds authorized by this
8 Act to carry out any amendments to the manage-
9 ment plan until the Secretary has approved the
10 amendments.
11 SEC. 6. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

12 (a) TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—On the request of the local
14 coordinating entity, the Secretary may provide to the
15 local coordinating entity technical and financial as-
16 sistance on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis,
17 as determined by the Secretary, to develop and im-
18 plement the management plan.
19 (2) PRIORITY ACTIONS.—In providing assist-
20 ance under this subsection, the Secretary shall give
21 priority to actions that assist in—
22 (A) conserving the significant natural, his-
23 toric, cultural, and scenic resources of the Her-
24 itage Area; and
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 13
1 (B) providing educational, interpretive, and
2 recreational opportunities consistent with the
3 purposes of the Heritage Area.
4 (3) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Sec-
5 retary may enter into cooperative agreements with
6 the local coordinating entity and other public or pri-
7 vate entities for the purposes of carrying out this
8 subsection.
9 (b) EVALUATION.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years be-
11 fore the date on which authority for Federal funding
12 terminates for the Heritage Area under section 10,
13 the Secretary shall—
14 (A) conduct an evaluation of the accom-
15 plishments of the Heritage Area; and
16 (B) prepare a report with recommenda-
17 tions for the future role of the National Park
18 Service, if any, with respect to the Heritage
19 Area.
20 (2) EVALUATION COMPONENTS.—An evaluation
21 conducted under paragraph (1)(A) shall—
22 (A) assess the progress of the local coordi-
23 nating entity with respect to—
24 (i) accomplishing the purposes of this
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 Act for the Heritage Area; and

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 14
1 (ii) achieving the goals and objectives
2 of the approved management plan for the
3 Heritage Area;
4 (B) analyze the Federal, State, local, and
5 private investments in the Heritage Area to de-
6 termine the leverage and impact of the invest-
7 ments; and
8 (C) review the management structure,
9 partnership relationships, and funding of the
10 Heritage Area for purposes of identifying the
11 critical components for sustainability of the
12 Heritage Area.
13 (3) REPORT.—
14 (A) IN GENERAL.—Based on the evalua-
15 tion conducted under paragraph (1)(A), the
16 Secretary shall prepare a report with rec-
17 ommendations for the future role of the Na-
18 tional Park Service, if any, with respect to the
19 Heritage Area.
20 (B) REQUIRED ANALYSIS.—If the report
21 prepared under subparagraph (A) recommends
22 that Federal funding for the Heritage Area be
23 reauthorized, the report shall include an anal-
24 ysis of—
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 15
1 (i) ways in which Federal funding for
2 the Heritage Area may be reduced or
3 eliminated; and
4 (ii) the appropriate time period nec-
5 essary to achieve the recommended reduc-
6 tion or elimination.
7 (C) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—On com-
8 pletion of the report, the Secretary shall submit
9 the report to—
10 (i) the Committee on Energy and
11 Natural Resources of the Senate; and
12 (ii) the Committee on Natural Re-
13 sources of the House of Representatives.
14 SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act affects the au-

16 thority of a Federal agency to provide technical or finan-
17 cial assistance under any other law.
18 (b) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—To the
19 maximum extent practicable, the head of any Federal
20 agency planning to conduct activities that may have an
21 impact on the Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and
22 coordinate the activities with the Secretary and the local
23 coordinating entity.
24 (c) OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Nothing in this
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 Act—

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 16
1 (1) modifies, alters, or amends any laws (in-
2 cluding regulations) authorizing a Federal agency to
3 manage Federal land under the jurisdiction of the
4 Federal agency;
5 (2) limits the discretion of a Federal land man-
6 ager to implement an approved land use plan within
7 the boundaries of the Heritage Area; or
8 (3) modifies, alters, or amends any authorized
9 use of Federal land under the jurisdiction of a Fed-
10 eral agency.
11 SEC. 8. PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGULATORY

12 PROTECTIONS.

13 Nothing in this Act—

14 (1) abridges the rights of any owner of public
15 or private property, including the right to refrain
16 from participating in any plan, project, program, or
17 activity conducted within the Heritage Area;
18 (2) requires any property owner to permit pub-
19 lic access (including access by any Federal, tribal,
20 State, or local agency) to the property;
21 (3) modifies any provisions of Federal, tribal,
22 State, or local law with regard to public access to,
23 or use of, private land;
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 17
1 (4) alters any land use regulation, approved
2 land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any
3 Federal, tribal, State, or local agency;
4 (5) conveys any land use or other regulatory
5 authority to the local coordinating entity;
6 (6) authorizes or implies the reservation or ap-
7 propriation of water or water rights;
8 (7) diminishes the authority of the State to
9 manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of
10 fishing and hunting within the Heritage Area; or
11 (8) creates any liability, or affects any liability
12 under any other law, of any private property owner
13 with respect to any person injured on the private
14 property.
15 SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro-

17 priated to carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not
18 more than $1,000,000 may be made available for any fis-
19 cal year.
20 (b) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.—
21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the
22 cost of any activity provided assistance or a grant
23 under this Act shall not exceed 50 percent of the
24 total cost of the activity.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 18
1 (2) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-
2 Federal share—
3 (A) shall be from non-Federal sources; and
4 (B) may be in the form of in-kind con-
5 tributions of goods and services fairly valued.
6 SEC. 10. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

7 The authority of the Secretary to provide financial

8 assistance under this Act terminates on the date that is
9 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Æ
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•S 359 IS

VerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 31, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\S359.IS S359
 I

111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1297
To establish the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area, and for other
purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 2009
Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL
To establish the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area,
and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hawai’i Capital Na-

5 tional Heritage Area Establishment Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

7 In this Act:
8 (1) HERITAGE AREA.—The term ‘‘Heritage
9 Area’’ means the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

10 Area established by section 3(a).

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 2
1 (2) LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.—The term
2 ‘‘local coordinating entity’’ means the local coordi-
3 nating entity for the Heritage Area designated by
4 section 3(d).
5 (3) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘manage-
6 ment plan’’ means the management plan for the
7 Heritage Area required under section 5.
8 (4) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en-
9 titled ‘‘Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area Pro-
10 posed Boundary’’, numbered T17/90,000B, and
11 dated January 2009.
12 (5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
13 the Secretary of the Interior.
14 (6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State
15 of Hawai’i.
16 SEC. 3. HAWAI’I CAPITAL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

17 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the

18 State the Hawai’i Capital National Heritage Area.
19 (b) BOUNDARIES.—The Heritage Area shall consist
20 of portions of Honolulu and the Honolulu Ahupua’a, as
21 depicted on the map.
22 (c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file
23 and available for public inspection in the appropriate of-
24 fices of the National Park Service and the Hawai’i Capital
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 Cultural Coalition.

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 3
1 (d) LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.—The Hawai’i
2 Capital Cultural Coalition shall be the local coordinating
3 entity for the Heritage Area.
4 SEC. 4. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE LOCAL COORDI-

5 NATING ENTITY.

6 (a) DUTIES OF THE LOCAL COORDINATING ENTI-

7 TY.—To further the purposes of the Heritage Area, the
8 local coordinating entity shall—
9 (1) prepare and submit a management plan for
10 the Heritage Area to the Secretary in accordance
11 with section 5;
12 (2) assist units of local government, regional
13 planning organizations, and nonprofit organizations
14 in implementing the approved management plan
15 by—
16 (A) carrying out programs and projects
17 that recognize, protect, and enhance important
18 resource values in the Heritage Area;
19 (B) establishing and maintaining interpre-
20 tive exhibits and programs within the Heritage
21 Area;
22 (C) developing recreational and educational
23 opportunities in the Heritage Area;
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 4
1 (D) increasing public awareness of, and
2 appreciation for, natural, historic, scenic, and
3 cultural resources of the Heritage Area;
4 (E) protecting and restoring historic sites
5 and buildings in the Heritage Area that are
6 consistent with the themes of the Heritage
7 Area;
8 (F) ensuring that signs identifying points
9 of public access and sites of interest are posted
10 throughout the Heritage Area; and
11 (G) promoting a wide range of partner-
12 ships among governments, organizations, and
13 individuals to further the purposes of the Herit-
14 age Area;
15 (3) consider the interests of diverse units of
16 government, businesses, organizations, and individ-
17 uals in the Heritage Area in the preparation and im-
18 plementation of the management plan;
19 (4) conduct meetings open to the public at least
20 semiannually regarding the development and imple-
21 mentation of the management plan;
22 (5) for any fiscal year for which the local co-
23 ordinating entity receives Federal funds under this
24 Act—
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 5
1 (A) submit to the Secretary an annual re-
2 port that describes, for the fiscal year—
3 (i) the accomplishments, expenses, in-
4 come, amounts, and sources of matching
5 funds;
6 (ii) the amounts leveraged with Fed-
7 eral funds and sources of the leveraged
8 funds; and
9 (iii) grants made to any other entities;
10 (B) make available to the Secretary for
11 audit all information relating to the expenditure
12 of Federal funds and any matching funds for
13 the fiscal year; and
14 (C) require, in all agreements authorizing
15 the expenditure of Federal funds by other orga-
16 nizations, that the organizations receiving the
17 Federal funds make available to the Secretary
18 for audit all records and other information re-
19 lating to the expenditure of the funds; and
20 (6) encourage, by appropriate means, economic
21 development that is consistent with the purposes of
22 the Heritage Area.
23 (b) AUTHORITIES.—The local coordinating entity
24 may, subject to the prior approval of the Secretary, for
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 the purposes of preparing and implementing the manage-

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 6
1 ment plan for the Heritage Area, use Federal funds made
2 available under this Act to—
3 (1) make grants to the State or a political sub-
4 division of the State, nonprofit organizations, and
5 other persons;
6 (2) enter into cooperative agreements with, or
7 provide technical assistance to, the State or a polit-
8 ical subdivision of the State, nonprofit organizations,
9 Federal agencies, and other interested parties;
10 (3) hire and compensate staff;
11 (4) obtain money or services from any source,
12 including under any other Federal law or program;
13 (5) contract for goods or services; and
14 (6) support activities of partners and any other
15 activities that—
16 (A) further the purposes of the Heritage
17 Area; and
18 (B) are consistent with the approved man-
19 agement plan.
20 (c) PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
21 PROPERTY.—The local coordinating entity shall not use
22 Federal funds made available under this Act to acquire
23 real property or any interest in real property.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 7
1 SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the

3 date on which funds are made available to carry out this
4 Act, the local coordinating entity shall submit to the Sec-
5 retary for approval a management plan for the Heritage
6 Area.
7 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The management plan shall—
8 (1) describe comprehensive policies, goals, strat-
9 egies, and recommendations for—
10 (A) conveying the heritage of the region;
11 and
12 (B) encouraging long-term resource protec-
13 tion, enhancement, interpretation, funding,
14 management, and development of the Heritage
15 Area;
16 (2) take into consideration existing State, coun-
17 ty, and local plans in the development and imple-
18 mentation of the management plan;
19 (3) include a description of actions and commit-
20 ments that governments, private organizations, and
21 individuals have agreed to take to protect, enhance,
22 and interpret the natural, historic, scenic, and cul-
23 tural resources of the Heritage Area;
24 (4) specify existing and potential sources of
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 funding or economic development strategies to pro-

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 8
1 tect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and develop
2 the Heritage Area;
3 (5) include an inventory of the natural, historic,
4 cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational re-
5 sources of the Heritage Area related to the stories
6 and themes of the region that should be protected,
7 enhanced, managed, or developed;
8 (6) recommend policies and strategies for re-
9 source management, including the development of
10 intergovernmental and interagency agreements to
11 protect the natural, historic, cultural, educational,
12 scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage
13 Area;
14 (7) describe a program of implementation for
15 the management plan, including—
16 (A) performance goals;
17 (B) plans for resource protection, enhance-
18 ment, and interpretation; and
19 (C) specific commitments for implementa-
20 tion of the management plan that have been
21 made by the local coordinating entity or any
22 government, organization, business, or indi-
23 vidual;
24 (8) include an analysis of, and recommenda-
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 tions for, ways in which Federal, tribal, State, and

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 9
1 local programs may best be coordinated to carry out
2 the purposes of this Act, including recommendations
3 for the role of the National Park Service and other
4 Federal agencies associated with the Heritage Area;
5 (9) include an interpretive plan for the Heritage
6 Area; and
7 (10) include a business plan that—
8 (A) describes the role, operation, financing,
9 and functions of—
10 (i) the local coordinating entity; and
11 (ii) each of the major activities con-
12 tained in the management plan; and
13 (B) provides adequate assurances that the
14 local coordinating entity has the partnerships
15 and financial and other resources necessary to
16 implement the management plan for the Herit-
17 age Area.
18 (c) TERMINATION OF FUNDING.—If the management
19 plan is not submitted to the Secretary in accordance with
20 this Act, the local coordinating entity shall be ineligible
21 to receive additional funding under this Act until the date
22 on which the Secretary approves the management plan.
23 (d) APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN.—
24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 after the date of receipt of the management plan

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 10
1 under subsection (a), the Secretary, in consultation
2 with the Governor of the State and any applicable
3 tribal government, shall approve or disapprove the
4 management plan.
5 (2) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.—In determining
6 whether to approve the management plan, the Sec-
7 retary shall consider whether—
8 (A) the local coordinating entity represents
9 the diverse interests of the Heritage Area, in-
10 cluding governments, natural and historical re-
11 source protection organizations, educational in-
12 stitutions, businesses, community residents, and
13 recreational organizations;
14 (B) the local coordinating entity has af-
15 forded adequate opportunity for public and gov-
16 ernmental involvement, including workshops
17 and public meetings, in the preparation of the
18 management plan;
19 (C) the resource protection and interpreta-
20 tion strategies contained in the management
21 plan, if implemented, would adequately protect
22 the natural, historic, and cultural resources of
23 the Heritage Area;
24 (D) the management plan would not ad-
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 versely affect any activities authorized on Fed-

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 11
1 eral or tribal land under applicable laws or land
2 use plans;
3 (E) the Secretary has received adequate
4 assurances from the appropriate State, tribal,
5 and local officials, the support of which is nec-
6 essary to ensure the effective implementation of
7 the State, tribal, and local aspects of the man-
8 agement plan; and
9 (F) the local coordinating entity has dem-
10 onstrated the financial capability, in partner-
11 ship with others, to carry out the plan.
12 (3) ACTION FOLLOWING DISAPPROVAL.—If the
13 Secretary disapproves the management plan under
14 paragraph (1), the Secretary—
15 (A) shall advise the local coordinating enti-
16 ty in writing of the reasons for the disapproval;
17 (B) may make recommendations to the
18 local coordinating entity for revisions to the
19 management plan; and
20 (C) not later than 180 days after the re-
21 ceipt of any proposed revision of the manage-
22 ment plan from the local coordinating entity,
23 shall approve or disapprove the proposed re-
24 vised management plan.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 12
1 (4) AMENDMENTS.—The Secretary shall ap-
2 prove or disapprove each amendment to the manage-
3 ment plan that the Secretary determines would
4 make a substantial change to the management plan
5 in accordance with this subsection.
6 (5) USE OF FUNDS.—The local coordinating en-
7 tity shall not use Federal funds authorized by this
8 Act to carry out any amendments to the manage-
9 ment plan until the Secretary has approved the
10 amendments.
11 SEC. 6. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

12 (a) TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—On the request of the local
14 coordinating entity, the Secretary may provide to the
15 local coordinating entity technical and financial as-
16 sistance on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis,
17 as determined by the Secretary, to develop and im-
18 plement the management plan.
19 (2) PRIORITY ACTIONS.—In providing assist-
20 ance under this subsection, the Secretary shall give
21 priority to actions that assist in—
22 (A) conserving the significant natural, his-
23 toric, cultural, and scenic resources of the Her-
24 itage Area; and
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 13
1 (B) providing educational, interpretive, and
2 recreational opportunities consistent with the
3 purposes of the Heritage Area.
4 (3) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Sec-
5 retary may enter into cooperative agreements with
6 the local coordinating entity and other public or pri-
7 vate entities for the purposes of carrying out this
8 subsection.
9 (b) EVALUATION.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years be-
11 fore the date on which authority for Federal funding
12 terminates for the Heritage Area under section 10,
13 the Secretary shall—
14 (A) conduct an evaluation of the accom-
15 plishments of the Heritage Area; and
16 (B) prepare a report with recommenda-
17 tions for the future role of the National Park
18 Service, if any, with respect to the Heritage
19 Area.
20 (2) EVALUATION COMPONENTS.—An evaluation
21 conducted under paragraph (1)(A) shall—
22 (A) assess the progress of the local coordi-
23 nating entity with respect to—
24 (i) accomplishing the purposes of this
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 Act for the Heritage Area; and

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 14
1 (ii) achieving the goals and objectives
2 of the approved management plan for the
3 Heritage Area;
4 (B) analyze the Federal, State, local, and
5 private investments in the Heritage Area to de-
6 termine the leverage and impact of the invest-
7 ments; and
8 (C) review the management structure,
9 partnership relationships, and funding of the
10 Heritage Area for purposes of identifying the
11 critical components for sustainability of the
12 Heritage Area.
13 (3) REPORT.—
14 (A) IN GENERAL.—Based on the evalua-
15 tion conducted under paragraph (1)(A), the
16 Secretary shall prepare a report with rec-
17 ommendations for the future role of the Na-
18 tional Park Service, if any, with respect to the
19 Heritage Area.
20 (B) REQUIRED ANALYSIS.—If the report
21 prepared under subparagraph (A) recommends
22 that Federal funding for the Heritage Area be
23 reauthorized, the report shall include an anal-
24 ysis of—
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 15
1 (i) ways in which Federal funding for
2 the Heritage Area may be reduced or
3 eliminated; and
4 (ii) the appropriate time period nec-
5 essary to achieve the recommended reduc-
6 tion or elimination.
7 (C) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—On com-
8 pletion of the report, the Secretary shall submit
9 the report to—
10 (i) the Committee on Energy and
11 Natural Resources of the Senate; and
12 (ii) the Committee on Natural Re-
13 sources of the House of Representatives.
14 SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act affects the au-

16 thority of a Federal agency to provide technical or finan-
17 cial assistance under any other law.
18 (b) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—To the
19 maximum extent practicable, the head of any Federal
20 agency planning to conduct activities that may have an
21 impact on the Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and
22 coordinate the activities with the Secretary and the local
23 coordinating entity.
24 (c) OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Nothing in this
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

25 Act—

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 16
1 (1) modifies, alters, or amends any laws (in-
2 cluding regulations) authorizing a Federal agency to
3 manage Federal land under the jurisdiction of the
4 Federal agency;
5 (2) limits the discretion of a Federal land man-
6 ager to implement an approved land use plan within
7 the boundaries of the Heritage Area; or
8 (3) modifies, alters, or amends any authorized
9 use of Federal land under the jurisdiction of a Fed-
10 eral agency.
11 SEC. 8. PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGULATORY

12 PROTECTIONS.

13 Nothing in this Act—

14 (1) abridges the rights of any owner of public
15 or private property, including the right to refrain
16 from participating in any plan, project, program, or
17 activity conducted within the Heritage Area;
18 (2) requires any property owner to permit pub-
19 lic access (including access by any Federal, tribal,
20 State, or local agency) to the property;
21 (3) modifies any provisions of Federal, tribal,
22 State, or local law with regard to public access to,
23 or use of, private land;
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 17
1 (4) alters any land use regulation, approved
2 land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any
3 Federal, tribal, State, or local agency;
4 (5) conveys any land use or other regulatory
5 authority to the local coordinating entity;
6 (6) authorizes or implies the reservation or ap-
7 propriation of water or water rights;
8 (7) diminishes the authority of the State to
9 manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of
10 fishing and hunting within the Heritage Area; or
11 (8) creates any liability, or affects any liability
12 under any other law, of any private property owner
13 with respect to any person injured on the private
14 property.
15 SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro-

17 priated to carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not
18 more than $1,000,000 may be made available for any fis-
19 cal year.
20 (b) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.—
21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the
22 cost of any activity provided assistance or a grant
23 under this Act shall not exceed 50 percent of the
24 total cost of the activity.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297
 18
1 (2) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-
2 Federal share—
3 (A) shall be from non-Federal sources; and
4 (B) may be in the form of in-kind con-
5 tributions of goods and services fairly valued.
6 SEC. 10. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

7 The authority of the Secretary to provide financial

8 assistance under this Act terminates on the date that is
9 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Æ
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

•HR 1297 IH

VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:40 Mar 05, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H1297.IH H1297