See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317341805

Modern Infrastructure and Historic Urban Landscape: Re-Evaluating Local

Conservation Practices in Light of Hanoi’s Metro Project

Chapter · February 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 371

2 authors, including:

Huê-Tâm Jamme
University of Southern California
10 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Institutional Response to Transit Oriented Development View project

Building better communities through TOD in California View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Huê-Tâm Jamme on 04 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 4.2
Modern infrastructure and
historic urban landscape
Re-evaluating local conservation
practices in light of Hanoi’s
metro project

Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme and Floriane Ortega

Introduction

Taylor and Francis

Against the backdrop of globalization, urbanization and steady development, Vietnam faces an
apparent tension between the country’s rapid modernization and a rather traditional approach to

Not for distribution

heritage preservation and conservation.1 This tension is especially obvious in Hanoi, the political
and cultural capital of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This chapter delves into the heritage
impacts of Hanoi’s light rail system, hereafter referred to as Hanoi’s metro project, an on-going
urban transformation aimed to modernize the capital of Vietnam. How has this modern infra-
structural project challenged Hanoi’s traditional heritage conservation practices?
In this chapter, we seek to illustrate the current equilibrium in the balancing act between
native and foreign, indigenous identity and modernity, in the Vietnamese public discourse on
heritage conservation. We consider public discussions triggered by Hanoi’s metro project in
relation to a historic urban landscape approach. As defined by Bandarin and Van Oers (2015),
such approach values each layer of the historic urban fabric as an expression of the city’s culture
and strength in the past, and a determinant engine for its growth and identity in the future.2
After introducing Hanoi’s historical and socio-political milieu, we explain how it relates to
the current heritage policy framework. Then, we introduce our study area in Hanoi’s urban
core. Our case study focuses on the heritage impacts of Hanoi’s metro project on two significant
landmarks, Hoan Kiem Lake and the Long Bien Bridge. In public discussions on these impacts,
we detect a significant shift towards promoting conservation practices that honor all historic
layers marked with both indigenous and foreign influences, seen as jointly constitutive of the
Vietnamese contemporary identity.

Hanoi’s historic urban landscape and heritage policy framework

Founded in ad 1010, Hanoi’s landscape grew from ancestral myths and traditions. Cultural layers
accumulated following multiple historical disruptions and external influences. Among the most

279
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

impactful external influences are the 1000-year-long struggle against Chinese influence, the
French colonial presence in Indochina (1887–1954), the Soviet influence after the Declaration
of Independence in 1945, and the global influence since the transition from a state-driven to a
market-driven economy in the early 1990s. The resulting cultural landscape mixes styles driven
by the Sino-Vietnamese tradition, but imprinted with French and Soviet features and, more
recently, influences of the global economy (Logan 1995, 1996, 2000; Papin, 2001; Pedelahore
2001, 2010; Sidel 1998; Van Horen 2005).
The city’s approach to heritage conservation is rather traditional in the sense that it centers
on architectural and physical characteristics of monuments and isolated buildings. Conservation
activities remain concerned with identifying, listing and protecting individual buildings and
artifacts in the Old Sector, i.e. the official preservation area which includes the ancient impe-
rial citadel of Thang Long, the 15th-century market town—often referred to as the Ancient
Quarter—and the French colonial quarter (Musil 2016) (see Figure 4.2.1). Drafted and imple-
mented by the communist state with very little public participation, historic conservation poli-
cies serve the “image-making, nation-building” process (Logan 2014). Historical and cultural
heritage still assumes a significant role in shaping the revolutionary narrative of the nation’s
collective memory (Tai 2001).
Hanoi has also embarked on the path of Asian “worlding cities,” modeling itself after suc-
cessful rising dragons like Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong (Ong 2011; Roy and Ong,
2011). To a certain extent, the monumental approach to heritage conservation supports the
“art of being global.” For example, Thang Long imperial citadel made the UNESCO’s World
Heritage List in 2010, an event that leaders celebrated as an achievement towards international

Taylor and Francis

recognition of the city (Logan 2014).3
Rather than fostering conservation, however, the city’s rapid development and its fast ris-
ing skyline threaten Hanoi’s heritage. Since the mid-1990s, development and redevelopment

Not for distribution

pressures have seriously disrupted both the original landscape and its associated social systems.
Despite significant efforts to implement area-based conservation policies in the Old Sector, only
the ancient monuments listed as national heritage sites are truly spared from these pressures. The
area still hosts most of the city’s original temples and pagodas, some of which date back to the
11th century, but there are only very few ancient monuments in Hanoi. In fact, most buildings
are less than 200 years old as they were constructed during the colonial period or later. In the
Old Sector, only the street pattern has remained almost unchanged since the 15th century. As a
result, the most distinctive elements that connect the area, and therefore the city, to its ancient
past, are its street pattern and townscape, its traditions, myths and social life, and the sense of
place that emanates from it (Gillespie and Logan 1995; Logan 1996, 2000). In short, the district’s
heritage significance lies in its atmosphere and social life, rather than in the strictly historical
value of the built environment.

Hanoi’s metro project

From an urban morphology perspective (Bianca 2015), Hanoi’s metro project appears in this
chapter as the infrastructure of the most recent layer of the urban fabric, that of the modern
and globalized city. Faced with pollution and traffic congestion, Hanoi has been investing
in light rail construction with financial and technical support from international develop-
ment agencies (Musil 2013). According to the city’s master plan, the network by 2050
should comprise eight metro lines and a total of 320 kilometers of light rail, mostly elevated,
with some sections underground. Four metro lines are currently under their first phase
of development.4

280
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

The system itself represents a conservation challenge, especially because of the disruptive
visual impact on the places where elevated sections develop. More generally, this 21st-century
mega-project of transportation infrastructure will alter not only the visual but also the social
experience of the multilayered heritage of the historic city. Therefore the questions are: What
are the impacts of Hanoi’s metro project on the efforts for balancing heritage conservation and
modern development? Who are the actors who have been shaping recent understanding of
Hanoi’s historic urban landscape, in the context of metro development?

Methods

Study area
Figure 4.2.1 shows our study area. We conducted two case studies, focusing respectively on
Hoan Kiem Lake and Long Bien Bridge, two significant landmarks of Hanoi’s urban core that
the metro project has directly affected. Hoan Kiem Lake falls within the boundaries of Hanoi’s
Old Sector. The Long Bien Bridge spans the Red River, which constitutes the northern border
of the Old Sector.
We focus on metro lines 1 and 2 and their impacts on Hoan Kiem Lake and Long Bien
Bridge. The government is currently developing both lines with technical and financial support
from Japanese official development aid.

Taylor and Francis

Not for distribution

Figure 4.2.1  Study area (photo credit: H.-T. Webb Jamme)

281
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

Research methods
We reviewed the existing planning documents for the project, with special attention given to
the vicinity of the two sites. We assessed the heritage policy framework relevant for these cases
and checked whether the metro project triggered heritage policy safeguards. More importantly,
we sought to discern the public opinion through a review of press articles and other material
available in the Vietnamese media—video clips of television news, one radio podcast and one
filmed conference, both in English and in Vietnamese.

Hoan Kiem Lake

Historical, cultural and symbolic value of the site

Hoan Kiem Lake is the physical and symbolic heart of Hanoi. The cultural significance of
the site comes from a legend that captures the 1000-year-long struggle of the nation against
Chinese domination. Indeed, like many Asian cities, the original landscape of Hanoi emerged
from socio-religious beliefs (Bharne 2013). The city’s origin myth says that King Ly Thai To
decided to move the capital to Hanoi in ad 1010 after he saw a dragon flying over the Red
River. As for the specific myth attached to Hoan Kiem Lake, there are many versions of it,
but, in short, in 1428 Emperor Le Loi defeated the Chinese invaders with a magical sword
that he finally returned to a golden turtle who appeared to him on the lake5 (Logan 2000; Van
Horen 2005). He renamed the lake Hoan Kiem. i.e. Lake of the Returned Sword.6 Nowadays,
Turtle Tower (Thap Rua), built in 1886 on a small island on the lake, reminds visitors of this

Taylor and Francis

national myth. The other physical components of the sacred landscape of Hoan Kiem Lake
include Jade Temple (Ngoc Son) on another island; the Huc wooden bridge that connects the

Not for distribution

lakeshore to Jade Temple; and the Brush Tower (Thap But) on the shore, by the entrance to
the bridge (see Figure 4.2.2). According to Logan (2000), this landscape “successfully fulfills the
traditional Vietnamese design ambition of marrying town and water.” This built heritage, Sino-
Vietnamese in style, was left intact by the French urban restructuring around the lake during the
colonial period (Mangin 2001). Today:

Hoan Kiem Lake is Ha Noi’s heart, the place to which people, young and old, flock to
celebrate the Tet (New Year) festivities or just to enjoy strolling with friends and family
on a balmy evening . . . The protection of the lake, its two islands . . . and their temples,
the banks and their trees and gardens, and the ring of notable buildings lining the encir-
cling boulevard, has become one of the most important heritage conservation objectives
in Hanoi.
(Logan 2000)

Hoan Kiem Lake cannot be dissociated from the adjacent Ancient Quarter (see Figure 4.2.1);
it is the gateway of this historical area also referred to as the Area of the Thirty-Six Commercial
Streets. In the 15th century, villagers progressively settled near the imperial citadel that they
used to serve. They created thirty-six streets specialized by guilds, which progressively became
a permanent market town. Today, although their function has changed, specialization has
remained and the streets still bear the names of the thirty-six types of goods that were originally
sold7 (Gillespie and Logan 1995; Sauvegrain 2001).
The Ancient Quarter is still the bustling activity center of Hanoi, the most densely popu-
lated district, and it encompasses a wide range of uses. Several major public and administrative

282
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

Figure 4.2.2  Hoan Kiem Lake’s sacred landscape (photo credit: H.-T. Webb Jamme)

buildings are located in the area, most of them facing Hoan Kiem Lake. The commercial func-

Taylor and Francis

tion of the area has remained strong since the early development of the market town (Turner
2009); it now hosts a wide range of traditional small businesses—craft shops, trade industries,

Not for distribution

specialized shops, etc. (Hanoi’s People’s Committee 2013)—juxtaposed with hundreds of mini-
hotels. With the economic reforms of the early 1990s and the growing flow of international—
and later Vietnamese—tourists, the Ancient Quarter rapidly became “the nucleus of Hanoi’s
tourism development” (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism 2012).8 Early moderniza-
tion and industrialization in the 1990s generated a wave of building and site redevelopment by
local property owners who have converted their one- or two-story traditional shop-houses into
taller tube-houses or mini-hotels for example (Logan 1995, 1996; Sauvegrain 2001). Such local
initiatives have resulted in “ugly juxtapositions” (Gillespie and Logan 1995) and represent the
most important threat to Hanoi’s heritage (see Figure 4.2.3).

Conservation framework
The Old Sector is the only area of Hanoi that falls under a regulatory framework for the
preservation of urban heritage. Hoan Kiem Lake appears in the delimited protected area
because of the widely accepted value of its scenic landscape. In the early 1990s, Hanoi failed
to obtain protection from UNESCO and the World Heritage Commission for the Ancient
Quarter. However, the city received substantial support from foreign experts and interna-
tional institutions9 to elaborate a heritage policy (Sauvegrain 2001).
In parallel to Western heritage practices, Hanoi’s heritage policy has evolved from a mere
listing of classified buildings and monuments in the 1980s to early 1990s10—original temples,
pagodas, communal houses, fortified walls and the imperial citadel—to an area-based policy
centered on the consistency and historic record of the Thirty-Six Commercial Streets and their
potential for tourism (Pedelahore 2001). Since the master plan issued in 1994, the area has

283
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

Taylor and Francis

Not for distribution

Figure 4.2.3 Example of juxtaposition between redeveloped and original buildings

(photo credit: H.-T. Webb Jamme)

extended to the French Quarter, and the end year of the colonial era (1954) has become the
reference year to define historic heritage. Building height restrictions were created as the key
architectural preservation strategy for the Ancient Quarter. The 2001 Law on Cultural Heritage
addressed intangible heritage, including “scenic landscapes” of aesthetic and historical value,11
Hoan Kiem Lake being the typical example. Finally, Hanoi’s 2030 master plan includes a spe-
cific regulation for architectural planning and management in the Old Sector. At the center of
this plan remain restrictions on building heights, floor-area ratios, building and population den-
sity, and form and materials for the façades (Hanoi’s People’s Committee 2013). The plan shows
a new concern for the bloc structure, street patterns and public space but without detailing the
mechanisms for achieving their preservation. It also includes provisions for limiting the impacts
of the metro project (see later).

284
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

Over time, the general spirit of the preservation framework has evolved towards allowing
improvements of the living conditions for the population of the Old Sector, through improved
housing and infrastructure, while defining the national identity through architectural preserva-
tion. Nonetheless, Sauvegrain (2001) showed a tension between the governmental conception
of heritage preservation and inhabitants’ priorities. She found that people’s attachment to the
place was both spiritual and practical and that their primary concerns were to preserve their
lifestyles while improving their businesses, rather than preserving architectural artifacts for their
historical value, as envisioned by the state. This touches upon the question of preserving urban
spaces that are fully inhabited and densely populated.

Expected impacts of the metro project

The central location of Hoan Kiem Lake has historically defined it as a transportation node
in the city. Hanoi’s metro line 2 is to cut across the Ancient Quarter and include one station
near the lake. It is planned as an underground station, referred to as C9 or Hoan Kiem sta-
tion, and it is considered the “southern gateway to the Ancient Quarter” (JICA 2011, 2015).
In 2010, the local authorities considered three possible locations: (i) in the gardens facing Jade
Temple, (ii) 60 meters away from the lake by the street parallel to the western shore of the lake,
and (iii) 185 meters away from the northwestern shore (JICA 2011). Officials ruled out the
first option almost immediately because it was too close to Jade Temple (Hoang Ha 2016) and
the third option because it presented technical issues for alignment. In February 2013, Hanoi’s
People’s Committee officially adopted the second option (Kien Thuc 2013; Xuan Hoa 2013),

Taylor and Francis

also because in this location the station would be equidistant with stations C8 and C10 and
would cause the least population displacement and resettlement (Hoang Ha 2016).
Nevertheless, this decision was not final as additional concerns arose about the impact of the

Not for distribution

metro station on the sacred landscape of Hoan Kiem Lake. This became especially noticeable
after the latest protection plan for the Old Sector was released in 2015, under Hanoi’s 2030
master plan. It required additional environmental impact assessments as well as an agreement by
the national authorities in charge of culture and tourism (Hanoi’s People’s Committee 2015). 
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism addressed the case of the C9 station in March
2016 with a letter to Hanoi’s People’s Committee giving their “agreement with the location of
the main station and other premises” (Hoang Ha 2016). However, they requested complemen-
tary studies for the positioning of the entrances of the underground station.
The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has provided financial and technical
support for line 2. JICA’s environmental safeguards regarding protected relics and heritage sites
are not as stringent as those set by other international aid agencies, especially multilateral donors
such as the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank. This comes from the fact that JICA is
a bilateral cooperation agency, with comparatively less economic leverage to influence govern-
ance of such issues. JICA’s preliminary feasibility studies mentioned “minimizing the negative
impacts on historical and natural heritage by setting an appropriate location for the station”
(JICA 2011, 2015) but did not elaborate any further. Therefore, concerns over the impacts of
the metro station on the sacred landscape of Hoan Kiem Lake did not arise from international
stakeholders’ involvement, but mostly among local authorities.

Heritage conservation debate prompted by the metro project

There has been a noticeable change in the nature of the arguments of Vietnamese authorities
regarding the proposed location and design for Hoan Kiem Lake station. First, they were mostly

285
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

concerned with traffic impacts. Before 2013, engineers and leaders of Hanoi’s planning and
transportation departments were leading the debate on C9 metro station’s location. They were
arguing about conditions for motorized and pedestrian traffic around the lake. On the other
hand, most architects and planners seemed to believe that the metro would not only solve traffic
issues but would also “create the right conditions for pedestrians”12 to “comfortably approach
the major cultural, historical, social and economic venues in the center of Hanoi.”13
Then local and national authorities began to pay more attention to the economic conse-
quences for tourism. When the station location was officially approved in 2013, the main argu-
ment of both the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and Hanoi’s People’s Committee was
that enhanced conditions for pedestrians would “attract more visitors”14 and therefore increase
the attractiveness of the sector for tourism (Huu Tuan 2013).
In 2016, when the central Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism raised the issue of the
design of the station’s entrances, the debate moved to less practical concerns about the intangible
heritage value of Hoan Kiem Lake as a sacred landscape. Different stakeholders expressed fears
of potential disruptions of the overall landscape (Hoang Ha 2016). Initially, leading architects
argued that, as long as the entrances remained “simple and modest,” the station’s design—
“mostly underground . . . with only the roof being visible above ground”15—would not cause
any major disruption of the landscape and would not encroach upon the lake view.16
Finally, following the latest protection plan for the Old Sector released in 2015, concerns
arose regarding the preservation of Hoan Kiem Lake as a historic urban landscape. As seen in
the plan or in press articles, these concerns confirmed governmental interests in preserving Hoan
Kiem’s townscape and culture value. They also revealed significant shifts towards promoting

Taylor and Francis

public participation and heritage conservation as management of urban growth, i.e. in this case
by reconciling modern infrastructure construction and heritage preservation (see Table 4.2.1).
To conclude on this case, Hanoi’s metro project and its expected impact on Hoan Kiem

Not for distribution

Lake have presented an opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to confirm or refine their
views on heritage conservation practices. Local preservation policies have long recognized Hoan
Kiem Lake’s historical and cultural value, so it is not surprising to see both national and local
government promote townscape and streetscape preservation and recognize the cultural value
of the site that grew from ancestral myths. The most significant departure from established
conservation practices comes from the promotion of public participation, and of conserva-
tion as management of modern urban transformations to avoid long-term cultural loss. This
new approach comes as a contrast with the traditional monumental and architectural approach
orchestrated by the government. Mostly the press and external experts, such as leading architects
and environmental specialists, have promoted it so far. It has not yet permeated official regula-
tion on heritage conservation, but it might just be a matter of time given the close relationship
between these stakeholders and the government.

Long Bien Bridge

Long Bien Bridge is another highly significant landmark of Hanoi. This case differs from Hoan
Kiem Lake in many regards. First, the bridge is a landmark from another layer of Hanoi’s
urban palimpsest, the one reflecting the 20th century marked with the French colonial era
and two wars of independence. Second, Hoan Kiem Lake is a protected site that is officially
part of the collective memory, whereas Long Bien Bridge is not listed as national heritage. Its
role in the revolutionary narrative of the country remains controversial. Third, we focus on
the impacts of the planned metro line on the monument; we do not discuss the impacts of the
metro stations.20

286
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

Table 4.2.1  Significant shifts in the official approach to heritage conservation

Preserving townscape and streetscape Level

•• “The organization of urban railway lines must not affect relics, heritage, streets, Local
street blocks and morphological characteristics of the Old Sector” (Hanoi’s People’s authorities
Committee 2015)

Preserving myth and culture

•• The design of the C9 station “touches upon deep spiritual beliefs of the people”17 Experts
•• The station will “perturb the sacred spirits of Hanoi, so the spiritual consequences Experts
of the metro are hazardously unpredictable”18

Shift towards broader public consultation

•• “Additional environmental impact assessments are required” (Hanoi’s People’s Local

Committee 2015) authorities
•• “The line passing through the Old Sector must be agreed to by the authorities in Local
charge of culture and tourism” (Hanoi’s People’s Committee 2015) authorities
•• The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism requested “a wide consultation National
with specialists in the fields of history, art, archeology, architecture and urban authorities
planning [in order to] find a broad consensus before implementing the next
steps” (Hoang Ha 2016)
•• Communities have a “right to choose” when a large-scale project affects national National
cultural heritage as significant as Hoan Kiem Lake (Hoang Ha 2016; My 2016; authorities
Trinh Nguyen 2016)

Taylor and Francis

Shift towards avoiding long-term cultural loss

Not for distribution

•• “Sometimes, the shortest way is not the most efficient; in the name of reducing Experts
financial costs, we may pay a much higher price in terms of . . . heritage losses”19
•• The “Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism may have complicated and delayed Public
the metro project, but, in the long term this is a reasonable choice” (My 2016) opinion

Shift towards heritage conservation as management of change and growth

•• “National heritage and protected monuments linked with the legend, history Public
and culture of the city, in a valuable space and aesthetic landscape . . . should opinion
be preserved to enhance public life” (Hoang Ha 2016)
•• “We do not want to simply protect our national heritage with a glass Public
cover . . . We still have to find ways to enhance the heritage value of Hoan Kiem opinion
Lake . . . but without exerting more pressure than what this sensitive area can
handle” (My 2016)

However, we find similar mechanisms that suggest a movement of the Vietnamese approach
to heritage towards a historic urban landscape approach. These mechanisms include in particular
the involvement of the public in the debates shaping the definition of the heritage value of the
site and the conception of the monument as having a pivotal function in the past and future
geography of the city. In both cases, the progressive change regarding the definition of heritage
resulted from debates triggered by the metro project.
We also see a significant difference. Various stakeholders have seized the opportunity of this
debate to finally shape and express their cognitive representation of the monument and there-
fore address the politically sensitive question of the role of the colonial period in the collective

287
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

memory. This is a major difference with the debate around Hoan Kiem Lake, whose heritage
value is generally agreed upon by authorities and inhabitants.

Historical, cultural and symbolic value of the site

By design, the Long Bien Bridge embodied the colonial domination over the territory of the
French Indochinese Union and over the capital Hanoi. It was first named after the French
Governor General Paul Doumer (Pont Doumer) who largely contributed to railway construction
and other large infrastructure projects in Indochina. The bridge was part of his plan to build
the infrastructure that would both symbolize and realize the economic potential of the French
colonial empire in Asia (Logan 2000).
Doling (2014) wrote about the history of the bridge. After three years of construction, it
opened to traffic in 1903. With its 19 spans and 20 columns, the 1.7 kilometer-long cantilever
bridge designed by the company Daydé et Pillé was “fêted as a technological masterpiece.” It was
the first bridge to cross the Red River and to connect Hanoi to Hai Phong—the main harbor
of Indochina—and it remained the only bridge across the Red River until Thang Long Bridge
opened to traffic in 1985.
The Viet Minh renamed the bridge Long Bien immediately after the end of the First
Indochina War, on October 10, 1954, when they took possession of the capital and declared
it liberated. The day before, “the French used the Ha Noi-Hai Phong line to evacuate their
civilians and troops. It was across the Doumer Bridge that the final contingent of French sol-
diers walked . . . after withdrawing from the Ha Noi Citadel” (Doling 2014). Furthermore, the

Taylor and Francis

bridge remains as a reminder of the Second Indochina War. It still bears the marks of dozens of
American bombings that destroyed seven spans and four columns altogether. Wartime recon-
structions occurred with support from the USSR but without much concern for architectural

Not for distribution

integrity. Still today, only half of the bridge has its original shape (Figures 4.2.4 and 4.2.5). Yet
Logan argues: “While the Long Bien Bridge was a remarkable French engineering and archi-
tectural achievement, it is the bridge’s misshapen, unrestored spans which make it such a special
symbol of the indomitable Ha Noi wartime spirit” (cited in Doling, 2014).
Today, six bridges link the two banks of the Red River. However, Long Bien Bridge con-
tinues to play an instrumental function in the geography of the city and its future development.
It remains the most direct connector between the Old Sector and the district of Gia Lam, a
hot spot of urban development.21 It provides the only access for bicycles and pedestrians to this
district and to the island under the bridge, a flood-prone stretch of land that hosts one of the
largest informal settlements of Hanoi. The piles of the bridge on the western bank of the river
accommodate the Long Bien wholesale market, an active commercial gateway to the city.
When night falls, couples on motorcycle dates flock to the bridge to enjoy the vantage point
overlooking the spectacle of their city.

Conservation framework
The Long Bien Bridge does not belong to the list of monuments classified as national heritage,
neither is it a prospective candidate, although Hanoi’s regulation for the preservation of the Old
Sector asserts the cultural and heritage value of all construction built before 195422 (Hanoi’s
People’s Committee 2013; Ngo Duc Thinh 2014).
The explanation lies in the ambiguous relationship of the government towards Hanoi’s colo-
nial heritage since independence. As part of a legitimation enterprise, the communist party has
been concerned with promoting a version of history in line with the revolutionary narrative of

288
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

Figure 4.2.4  Long Bien Bridge’s original spans (photo credit: H.-T. Webb Jamme)

Taylor and Francis

Not for distribution

Figure 4.2.5  Long Bien Bridge’s rebuilt section (photo credit: H.-T. Webb Jamme)

the nation’s development, a version of history in which landmarks of the colonial period do not
belong (Tai, 2001). After independence, the colonial architecture was simply disregarded for
not being part of the revolutionary movement. Only the traditional Sino-Vietnamese buildings
and sites were defined as official heritage, whereas colonial heritage was considered ideologically
dangerous (Logan, 1995, 2000; Pedelahore, 2001).
A shift in attitudes happened rather quickly in the mid-1990s as an illustration of the com-
modification of heritage. The tourism industry played a key role in repackaging the colonial

289
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

heritage of Hanoi (Kennedy and Williams 2001; Pedelahore 2001; Tai 2001). It highlighted
the economic benefits of marketing “a nation of colonial pleasures” to attract international
tourists (Kennedy and Williams 2001). This evolution led to a political re-appropriation of the
colonial heritage.
The government has been very selective when it comes to addressing this political sensitiv-
ity. This commodification, and therefore preservation, of some of Hanoi’s politically sensitive
colonial heritage thus did not translate into preservation efforts for the Long Bien Bridge. While
getting benefits from the transformation of large colonial residences into luxurious hotels and
government buildings, the government has not engaged in extensive renovation efforts on Long
Bien Bridge.

Expected impacts of the metro project

Hanoi’s metro project has offered an opportunity to revisit the heritage value of this historical
landmark. The plans for line 1, also prepared by JICA, necessitated the provision of a multi-
track railway bridge, so they initially proposed that the metro railway cross the Red River on
a new bridge 186 meters away from Long Bien Bridge (JICA 2011). This plan received the
Prime Minister’s approval (Nguyen Hong Thuc 2014; TuoiTre News. 2014). At the end of 2013,
Hanoi’s People’s Committee struggled with the more powerful People’s Council to obtain
land clearance to start implementing this plan because of the necessary population displacement
and associated costs. Therefore, the Hanoi’s People’s Committee requested the Ministry of
Transportation to consider building the new bridge in place of the Long Bien Bridge so there

Taylor and Francis

would be less need for resettlement on the two banks of the river (Nguyen Hong Thuc 2014).
Three options were formulated in February 2014, all involving the demolition and replacement
of Long Bien Bridge (Trinh Nguyen 2014).

Not for distribution

One anecdote reveals that the government was not at ease with presenting this demolition
plan to the public. According to the Vietnamese-French architect Nguyen Nga,23 most press
articles detailing the three options were misleadingly illustrated with pictures of the preserva-
tion project for the Long Bien Bridge on which she had been working for several years without
receiving much attention from the authorities.24 As a response to what she describes as inten-
tional misbranding, she prepared a press statement in which she explained her project and how
the spirit of the governmental plan was the antithesis of her preservation goal. In this statement,
she called people to question their attachment to the bridge with this warning: “You may wake
up tomorrow and not see the Long Bien Bridge over the Red River.”
The next morning, all the media relayed her message; she was interviewed at prime time
on the major national TV channel (Nguyen Nga. 2014); leading architects and historians of
Hanoi convened a symposium on “Long Bien Bridge Conservation at the Time of Urban
Development.”25 As a direct consequence of this media turmoil, two days later the Prime
Minister convoked his government and issued a Decision forbidding the demolition of Long
Bien Bridge. Hanoi’s People’s Committee made the request to its agencies to “collect opinions
from the public and the experts prior to deciding on another option that would “enable the old
Long Bien Bridge to be preserved” (VietNam News 2014).
This episode put the metro line 1 project on hold until another decision of the Prime
Minister, in September 2015, agreed on the plan previously proposed by Hanoi’s People’s
Committee to build an additional bridge dedicated to the metro line, 75 meters upstream from
the Long Bien Bridge (Thu Trang 2016b). It was followed by a revision of the 2030 master
plan of the city asserting that the Long Bien Bridge should be renovated and eventually become
pedestrian (Thu Trang 2016a).

290
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

Heritage conservation debates prompted by the metro project

Hanoi’s metro project prompted two parallel debates on heritage practices regarding the Long
Bien Bridge. The first debate was of similar nature to that reported earlier around Hoan Kiem
Lake. It generally called for a shift in heritage conservation practices towards wider public par-
ticipation and heritage conservation as management of future urban growth. This appeared in
the press with terms such as:

•• “Harmony between preservation and development” (VTC 2014)

•• “Preserving and promoting the values of the Long Bien Bridge” (Ibid.)
•• “Keeping the structure of the bridge intact [while] minimizing the renovations only to
improve its transportation capability” (Doling 2014; Trinh Nguyen 2014)
•• “Harmony and integration [of the new bridge] in the landscape [so] it does not impeach the
visibility of the Long Bien Bridge” (Thu Trang 2016b, Spring Long 2016).

The second debate, which did not occur in the case of Hoan Kiem Lake, unfolded the public’s
perceptions of the multilayered history of the site. Table 4.2.2 gives illustrations of the wide range
of opinions that followed the governmental decision to demolish the bridge. Most of the selected
arguments reported here emanated from leading architects and historians of Hanoi, through
interviews they gave in the media or through their interventions at the symposium on the future
of the Long Bien Bridge. The point here is not to discuss the historical veracity of these argu-
ments but to assess the extent to which the public showed its attachment to this landmark.
Finally, this vivid and multi-faceted attachment of the public to the bridge converged in

Taylor and Francis

unison towards a strong call for a respectful preservation policy for this monument. Nonetheless,
the very notion of preservation as usually implemented in Vietnam did not seem entirely satis-

Not for distribution

factory. Instead of a traditional listing as national heritage, which would freeze the bridge in time
and impede any intervention, they were asking for a policy centered not only on the historical
and cultural significance of the monument but also on its transportation function40 and on its
role for the overall development of the city. They argued, for example, that the restoration of
the Long Bien Bridge had the potential to make of the Red River what the Seine is in Paris,
or the Danube in Budapest—an integral part of the urban scenery.41 They highlighted the need
to prove the economic viability of any restoration enterprise, putting much emphasis on the
potential gains from tourism (Trinh Nguyen 2014). The overall premise of these arguments
was that “if such urban heritage is managed in an appropriate manner, it does not hinder urban
development; on the contrary, it fuels it from the ‘core soul’ of the city, by giving urban resi-
dents pride in their shared history” (introductory statement at the symposium on Long Bien
Bridge at Hanoi’s University of Architecture).42

Summary and conclusions

The two case studies we developed in this chapter illustrate a noticeable change in the Vietnamese
approach to historic urban landscape. This change is unfolding simultaneously with physical
transformations brought on by the development of the city of the future, e.g. the emergence of
a 21st-century metro system in the 1000-year-old urban fabric of Hanoi’s urban core.43
The most significant evolution we highlighted was a broadened definition of heritage com-
patible with a historic urban landscape approach. Focusing on the “sense of place and identity
of historic urban cores” (Heath et al. 2103), this broader definition recasts urban heritage as “a
resource for the entire city and for its sustainable development, [especially when] coupled with

291
Table 4.2.2  Public opinion on the heritage value of the Long Bien Bridge

A descendant of the mythical origins of the city

•• “The long and short beams create a dragon shape that suits the history of Hanoi, which was first
named Thang Long (Rising Dragon) . . . King Ly Thai To . . . moved the capital there in 1010 after
he claimed he had seen a dragon flying over the Red River” (Trinh Nguyen 2014)

A source of pride and reconciliation with the colonial era

•• “We had 4,000 years of national culture, but it’s only when the French came . . . that there finally
was a bridge across the Red River for the first time”26
•• “Hanoians are proud of the bridge and it was designed by Gustave Eiffel, who designed the Eiffel
Tower”27,28
•• “Twenty years ago I heard some opinions that the Long Bien Bridge was a product of the French
colonial domination, so it should be demolished . . . In fact the bridge is also a witness of a lively
cultural exchange between the West and the East”29
•• “Remember the golden days of the Vietnamese industry, when it was the most modern bridge in the
southern hemisphere until the Sydney Harbour bridge opened in 1932; it was one of the longest
bridges in Asia”30

An important milestone in the development of Hanoi

•• “The bridge played a key role in boosting trade and industry in the capital . . . A group of
construction workers on the bridge soon formed the famous Lo Ren street—blacksmiths street—in
the Ancient Quarter” (Trinh Nguyen 2014)
•• “Although it was built by the French, it contributed significantly to the socio-economic development of

Taylor and Francis

Vietnam”31
•• “The Long Bien Bridge caused a sharp increase in the population density of the city . . . the

Not for distribution

population increased to 1.2 million inhabitants right after its inauguration, compared to 700,000 or
800,000 before”32

An indisputable symbol of the nation’s resistance and resilience

•• “I remember back in 1954 . . . the transfer between the French army and the army of the Viet Minh
happened on the Long Bien Bridge”33
•• “It is a historical witness, as it saw the defeated French troops leaving Hanoi and it amazingly
withstood the U.S. bombardments”34
•• “The fact that it is still here after the many vicissitudes of History shows that the bridge is a significant
symbol of the resilience of Thang Long - Hanoi”35
•• “It is the only bridge that helped the North-Vietnam to move food and all sorts of goods during the
war . . . People gave their lives to protect this bridge . . . It’s a partly thanks to this bridge that they
won the war”36

A cognitive landmark for many generations of Hanoians

•• “I asked thousands of couples, of many generations. They all had dates on Long Bien Bridge. A long
time ago, when there was no air conditioning, it was the only cool place for a date”37
•• “There are many poems and songs about the bridge”38
•• “When I came back in 1989, after thirty years being away, the first thing I did was I went to see
Long Bien Bridge . . . The bridge has entered the subconscious of all Hanoians . . . In the minds of
many generations, it is a bit like the symbol of the city . . . It is a bit like the Eiffel tower in Paris.
They see the shadow of the bridge and it triggers a [very strong] attachment to the bridge. For a
long time, they could not see it, or say it, because the bridge was built by the French. But now they
can see the symbol”39
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

infrastructure” (Bandarin and Van Oers 2015). This progressive approach to heritage conserva-
tion had not been included in the local policy framework, and its implementation is even more
uncertain, but the critical debates over Hoan Kiem Lake and the Long Bien Bridge did cause
some ad hoc regulatory changes in Hanoi’s master plan.
Indeed, the prospect of a metro system in Hanoi has led, at least in the two cases detailed
here, to an unexpected examination of their cultural significance and uniqueness. In historic
cores faced with the risk of museification, such examination is particularly critical in the process
of revitalizing their functional role in the development of the cities (Heath et al. 2103). In the
case of Hanoi, the urban core has never ceased to be a vital functioning part of the city; the
question is whether it can remain so and still preserve its character. The fact that the original
fabric of the city—the last remaining traces of the ancient city on the urban palimpsest—is under
extreme development pressure makes discussions over the city’s image and identity and the
conditions of its physical and functional conservation even more critical.
In a country that has always had an ambiguous “relationship to exogenous influences [and]
to modernity—both notions being perceived as equivalents in Vietnam” (Pedelahore 2010),
we find it particularly interesting that the discussions on the historical and cultural significance
of the studied sites emanated from Hanoians. Despite the central role played by international
parties in the preparation of Hanoi’s metro project, they were not particularly influential in the
project-related debates on heritage. This strengthens the most recent paradigm of “new herit-
age studies” which “see heritage conservation not merely as a technical and managerial matter
but as cultural practice, a form of cultural politics” (Logan et al. 2016). The city is considered
“a living space, where the meaning of the built environment has to be understood in relation

Taylor and Francis

to the living society” (Bandarin and Van Oers 2015). It would be an exaggeration to claim that
the debates recounted in this chapter engaged public participation,44 but the participants in these
debates, all specialists, did address some issues at the core of Hanoi’s identity as a living society,

Not for distribution

which sometimes challenged the views of the ruling party. The crucial role the media played,
especially in the case of Long Bien Bridge, is another piece of evidence for the emergence of
a “social identity . . . of a strong public opinion . . . a strong Hanoian spirit that regularly raises
against the most destructive projects” (Pedelahore 2001). Tai (2001) argues that “Vietnam today
is characterized by neither full-blown totalitarianism nor total democracy” and there appears to
be room for mediation with the state when it comes to heritage issues.45
The main weakness of our method is we relied on the public discourse as reported by the
official media, which is still very much under the scrutiny of the state. Moreover, the opinions
that the media reported mostly emanated from lead architects and professors, i.e. a population
highly educated with an acute sensibility about heritage issues, and not the general public.
However, we believe that this discourse is of significant interest to inform the recent evolu-
tion of the discussions on Vietnamese heritage. The main arguments in these debates obviously
shifted the balance in the discourse on national heritage from an emphasis on the indigenous past
to a broader acceptance of the multi-layered present and future of the city.
Finally, this chapter raises hopes for even more significant and long-term effects of sustain-
able transportation infrastructure in terms of heritage conservation. Once implemented, the
metro system of Hanoi might be a unique opportunity to sharpen the original but fading traits
of the palimpsest of the city by renewing the possibility of a non-motorized lifestyle compatible
with the original sense of place of Hanoi. Essentially, the infrastructure may help stitch together
the different “urban quarters” (Heath et al. 2013) of the relentlessly growing city and act as a
counterforce to the “splintering urbanism” (Graham and Marvin 2001) currently observed in
Hanoi. Moreover, expected improvements in terms of mobility and accessibility may reconcile
the idea of moving in the city with the “notion of pleasure,” which can be obtained only when

293
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

“infrastructure plays a ‘liberator’ role” (Bandarin and van Oers 2015). If the metro system fulfills
the precondition of providing an incentive for Hanoians to sustain their ancestral and variegated
uses of public space, it would constitute a great step in the progress towards conserving the most
delicate aspect of heritage, which has less to do with the physical and the material than with
Vietnamese identity and society.

Notes
1 In this chapter, we use Heath et al.’s (2013) distinction between preservation and conservation.
Heritage preservation is defined as “concerned with limiting change” whereas conservation “is about
the inevitability of change and the management of that change.”
2 “[In line with the] 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, [it] offers a
new possibility to reconnect the city management processes, while also valuing the historic city as a
resource for the future . . . Each layer [of the urban fabric] represents a moment in the history of the city,
an expression of its culture, of its economic strength, of the ways it adapts to the physical environment,
of its innovation capacities and its technological achievements” (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012).
3 This happened at a crucial and highly political moment, just before the celebration of Hanoi’s 1000th
anniversary; it was a clear expression of the politicization of Hanoi’s heritage (Logan 2014).
4 Construction works have already started for line 2 and line 3, with expected completion dates remain-
ing uncertain. Line 3—the pilot metro line—was originally planned to start operating by December
2016, but current indications are that the completion date is more likely to be 2020 for this line and
2022 for line 2 (personal correspondence with Shizuo Iwata in July 2016).
5 According to some versions of the legend, the holy turtle gave him the sword and claimed it back after
Le Loi defeated the Chinese. Other versions say that the turtle reclaimed a sword that was previously
given to him by a local dragon-shape god.
6 Previously called Luc Thuy (Green Waters). Nowadays, Hoan Kiem Lake is also referred to as Ho Guom

Taylor and Francis

(Turtle Lake).
7 E.g. Hang Bac (Silver Street), Hang Gai (Silk Street), Lo Ren (Blacksmiths Street.

Not for distribution

8 According to the Vietnam National Tourism Administration, there are 121 cultural heritage and histori-
cal monuments, and over 1,080 ancient houses and 300 hotels in the Ancient Quarter.
9 1990: Asian Institute of Technology: mapping, classification, proposition of a preservation and conser-
vation plan for the Old Quarter (not implemented). 1990–1991: Reichen and Robert Co. funded a
feasibility study for Hoan Kiem Lake area (not implemented). Early 1990s: UNESCO project to iden-
tify, classify and document Hanoi’s Old Quarter, including both the 36 Streets and the French Quarter
(not implemented). 1992: Creation of the Friends of Hanoi’s Architectural Trust by Australian investors
to publicize the dangers to Hanoi’s architectural and urban fabric. 1993: Australian cooperation supports
the Ministry of Construction to prepare construction law. 1994–97: Australian cooperation supports the
Ancient City’s conservation strategy under “Hanoi Planning and Development Control Project” of the
Office of the Chief Architect of Hanoi (Gillespie and Logan 1995; Logan 1995, 2000; Sidel 1998).
10 1984 Ordinance on Protection and Usage of Historical, Cultural and Famous Places includes provisions on
preservation and use of historical monuments.The official list includes 63 buildings in the Ancient Quarter.
In 1993, the Center for Architectural Research was in charge of identifying and compiling an inventory of
remarkable buildings and sites.The 1993 Law on Land required that any area containing classified buildings
and sites be protected. Boundaries of the protected area were progressively defined around the Ancient
Quarter and later expanded to include parts of the French quarter (De Loddis 2010). In 1998, an office
management for the Old Quarter was created in charge of controlling the constructions and the respect of
the protection rules (Musil 2016).The Ancient Quarter was classified as a national historic site in 2004.
11 When, for example, they “represent the process of establishing and preserving the nation” or “connect
to a historical event representing the period of revolution or resistance.”
12 Duong Duc Tuan, Department of Planning and Architecture (cited in Kien Thuc 2013).
13 Dao Minh Tam, Deputy Director of the Department of Planning and Architecture, Technical

Infrastructure Planning Division (cited in Huu Tuan 2013).
14 Duong Duc Toan, Department of Planning and Architecture (cited in Huu Tuan 2013).
15 Nguyen Tan Van, Chairman of Vietnam Association of Architects (cited in Huu Tuan 2013).
16 Hoang Dao Kinh, PhD, Member of the National Council for Cultural Heritage, Vice-President of
Vietnam Association of Architects (cited in Huu Tuan 2013).

294
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

1 7 Pham Sy Lien, Deputy Chairman of the Vietnam Association of Architects (cited in Kien Thuc 2013).
18 Ha Dinh Duc, Center for Environmental Technology and Sustainable Development (cited in Kien
Thuc 2013).
19 Le Viet Ha, architect (cited in My 2016).
20 Two stations are being planned on both sides of the Red River. These have not appeared to be as
polemical as Hoan Kiem Station.
21 Hanoi’s urban development has historically tended to turn its back to the river.Therefore, Gia Lam dis-
trict long remained the poorest and most agricultural part of Hanoi. Its location close to the city center
explains the fast development currently observed in Gia Lam, which is mostly residential in nature.
22 The regulation remains unclear whether this rule applies to houses only, or to buildings and monu-
ments alike.
23 Nguyen Nga, interview conducted on June 5, 2016.
24 Nguyen Nga started to work in 2007–2008 on a project to restore and transform the Long Bien
Bridge within the larger scope of “living museum” project that includes: on the bridge, a museum
in the original spans that would be covered with glass, and a promenade reserved for pedestrians,
bicycles and electric vehicles that would be part of a larger itinerary in the old sector; inside the
bridge, in the columns, some commercial kiosks where traditional craft villages would be represented;
underneath the bridge, a large park on the island. It is only in June 2015 that she was finally invited
by the government to make an official presentation of her project.
25 Held on February 25, 2014. Symposium available online. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/

watch?v=ukDSt7DGkgk.
26 Hoang Dao Kinh, PhD, speech at Hanoi’s University of Architecture, 2014.
27 Dao Ngoc Nghiem, leading architect in Hanoi and Vice-Chairman of Hanoi Urban Planning and
Development Association (cited in Trinh Nguyen 2014).
28 “Many people credit the design of the bridge to Gustave Eiffel. The company of Daydé et Pillé won
the tender and started work in 1898 . . . The Doumer Plan (1898–1902) generat[ed] numerous projects
for the Compagnie des Etablissements Eiffel. But Gustave Eiffel had resigned from the company in

Taylor and Francis

1893 . . . Is this another Hanoi myth, one designed to bolster the pedigree of the French impact on the
city?” (Logan 2000).

Not for distribution

29 Ngo Duc Thinh, PhD, Director of the Institute of Vietnamese Culture (interview on BBC in 2014).
30 Tran Huy Anh, architect (cited in Trinh Nguyen 2014).
31 Ngo Duc Thinh, PhD, Director of the Institute of Vietnamese Culture (speech at Hanoi’s University of
Architecture 2014).
32 Nguyen Hong Thuc, PhD, Professor at Hanoi’s University of Architecture (speech at Hanoi’s University
of Architecture 2014).
33 Ngo Duc Thinh, PhD, Director of the Institute of Vietnamese Culture (speech at Hanoi’s University of
Architecture 2014).
34 Dao Ngoc Nghiem, leading architect in Hanoi and Vice-Chairman of Hanoi Urban Planning and
Development Association (cited in Trinh Nguyen 2014).
35 Ngo Duc Thinh, PhD, Director of the Institute of Vietnamese Culture (interview on BBC in 2014).
36 Nguyen Nga, interview conducted on June 5, 2016.
37 Ibid.
38 Trinh Nguyen 2014.
39 Nguyen Nga, interview conducted on June 5, 2016.
40 Hoang Dao Kinh and Le Thanh Vinh (cited in Trinh Nguyen 2014)
41 Nguyen Hong Thuc (cited in Ibid.).
42 Held on February 25, 2014. Symposium available online. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ukDSt7DGkgk.
43 Reciprocally, the debates on heritage had a very practical impact on the line 1 and line 2 projects, since
these were delayed until the heritage conflicts were resolved.
44 Siravo (2015) argues that successful plans are those that consider central historic urban areas as a com-
mon good and mobilize resources and people to improve them for all concerned . . . Initiatives that can
facilitate participation include informal meetings where local elders and leaders, long-time residents
and experienced administrators can help with gathering information and identifying specific objectives
and implementation modalities.
45 Not that everybody can reach the media like she did either. As an influential figure in Hanoi, of course
she had more political support than the average citizen.

295
Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme, Floriane Ortega

References
Bandarin, F. and Van Oers, R. (eds.) 2015. Interview: The Challenge of Urban Transformation. In
Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. Cheltenham,
UK: John Wiley & Sons.
BBC. 2014. Available from www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfCKvgzTXE.
Bharne, V. 2013. The Emerging Asian City: Concomitant Urbanities and Urbanisms. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Bianca, S. 2015. Morphology as the Study of City Form and Layering. In Bandarin, F. and Van Oers, R.
(eds.) Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage.
Cheltenham, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 85–111.
De Loddis, C. P. 2010. Urban Transition in Vietnam: Its Processes and Stakeholders. In Gobry, P. et al.
(eds.) The Vietnamese City in Transition. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Doling, T. 2014. The Long Bien Bridge: A “misshapen but essential component of Ha Noi’s Heritage”, Historic
Vietnam 11/03/2014, available from www.historicvietnam.com/long-bien-bridge/.
Gillespie, J. and Logan, W.S. 1995. Heritage Planning in Hanoi: Hanoi’s Urban Heritage. Australian
Planner, 32(2), pp. 96–108.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and
the Urban Condition. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Hanoi’s People’s Committee. 2013. Decision No. 6398/QD-UBND of the People’s Committee, dated of
October 24, 2013. Regulation on architectural planning and management in the Old Sector.
Hanoi’s People’s Committee. 2015. Decision No. 24/2015/QD-UBND of the People’s Committee,
dated of May 13, 2015. Regulation on architectural planning and management in the Old Sector.
Hanoi’s University of Architecture. 2014. Symposium on “Long Bien Bridge at the Time of Urban
Development,” held on February 25, 2014, available from www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukDSt7DGkgk.
Heath, T., Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S. 2013. Revitalising Historic Urban Quarters. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Hoang Ha. 2016. Làm gì để đừng ảnh hưởng đến di tích? [How to Not Affect Heritage?], Bao Du Lich,
03/23/2016, available from www.baodulich.net.vn/Lam-gi-de-dung-anh-huong-den-di-tich-10-

Taylor and Francis

7763.html.
Huu Tuan. 2013. Hoan Kiem Station Fires up Debate, VietnamBreakingNews.com, March 8, 2013, avail-
able from www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2013/03/hoan-kiem-station-fires-up-debate/.

Not for distribution

JICA. 2011. HAIMUD 1, The Project on Integrated UMRT and Urban Development for Hanoi in Vietnam,
available from http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12013611_01.pdf.
JICA. 2015. HAIMUD 2, Project for Studying the Implementation of Integrated UMRT and Urban Development
for Hanoi in Vietnam, available from http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12248811_01.pdf.
Kennedy, L. B. and Williams, M. R. 2001. The past without the pain: The Manufacture of Nostalgia in
Vietnam’s Tourism Industry. In Hue-Tam Ho Tai (ed.) The Country of Memory: Remaking the Past in
Late Socialist Vietnam, pp. 135–164.
Kien Thuc. 2013. Xây dựng ga metro C9 cạnh hồ Gươm có gây hậu họa? [What Damages Will Be
Caused by C9 Metro Station Construction by Ho Guom?], available from https://kienthuc.net.vn/
diem-nong/xay-dung-ga-metro-c9-canh-ho-guom-co-gay-hau-hoa-193984.html.
Logan, W. 2014. Making the Most of Heritage in Hanoi, Vietnam. Historic Environment, 26(3), pp. 62–72.
Logan, W.S. 1995. Heritage Planning in Post-Doi Moi Hanoi: The National and International
Contributions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(3), pp. 328–343.
Logan, W.S. 1996. Protecting Historic Hanoi in a Context of Heritage Contestation. International Journal
of Heritage Studies, 2(1–2), pp. 76–92.
Logan, W.S. 2000. Hanoi: Biography of a City. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Logan, W., Kockel, U. and Nic Craith, M. (eds.) 2015. The New Heritage Studies: Origins and Evolution,
Problems and Prospects. In A Companion to Heritage Studies. Vol. 28. Cheltenham, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, pp. 1–25.
Mangin, F. 2001. Une lecture historique des plans de Hanoi: 1873–1951, in P. Clément and N. Lancret
(eds.) Hanoï. Le cycle des métamorphoses. Formes architecturales et urbaines, Les Cahiers de l’Ipraus 3, Paris,
Éditions Recherches/Ipraus, pp. 137–152.
Musil, C. 2013. La coopération urbaine et l’aide publique au développement à Hanoi: un appui à la fab-
rication de la ville par la structuration du réseau de transport métropolitain. PhD Dissertation. Paris
Est, France.
Musil, C. 2016. Drafting and Implementing Urban Heritage Preservation Policies. The Newsletter No. 73
Spring 2016.

296
 Infrastructure and historic urban landscape

My. 2016. Ga metro cạnh Hồ Gươm: Chúng ta có quyền lựa chọn [Metro Station by Ho Guom: We Have
a Right to Choose], available from https://thethaovanhoa.vn/dien-dan-van-hoa/ga-metro-canh-ho-
guom-chung-ta-co-quyen-lua-chon-n20160316073048478.htm.
Ngo Duc Thinh. 2014. BBC podcast.
Nguyen Hong Thuc. 2014. PGS Nguyễn Hồng Thục: Thay đổi cầu Long Biên là cách làm thô bạo [Changing
Long Bien Bridge is the hard way], VNExpress, 02/23/2014, available from https://vnexpress.net/tin-
tuc/thoi-su/pgs-nguyen-hong-thuc-thay-doi-cau-long-bien-la-cach-lam-tho-bao-2954785.html.
Nguyen Nga. 2014. Cầu Long Biên: Cần ứng xử thế nào lúc này? VTV1, 02/27/2014, available from
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMd365E55cM.
Ong, A. 2011. Introduction: Worlding Cities, or the Art of Being Global . Cheltenham, UK: Wiley-Blackwell,
pp. 1–26.
Papin, P. 2001. Histoire de Hanoi. Paris: Fayard.
Pedelahore, C.P. 2001. Hanoï: figures et identités du patrimoine architectural. In P. Clément and
N. Lancret (eds.) Hanoï. Le cycle des métamorphoses. Formes architecturales et urbaines. Les Cahiers de l’Ipraus 3.
Paris: Éditions Recherches/Ipraus.
Pedelahore, C.P. 2010. Urban Transition in Vietnam: Its Processes and Stakeholders. In P. Gubry et al.
(eds.) The Vietnamese City in Transition. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, p. 7.
Roy, A. and Ong, A. eds. 2011. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global (Vol. 42).
Cheltenham, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Sauvegrain, A. 2001. Dialogues of Architectural Preservation in Modern Vietnam: The 36 Streets
Commercial Quarter of Hanoi. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 13(1), pp. 23–32.
Sidel, M. 1998. Old Hanoi. New York: Oxford University Press.
Siravo, F. 2015. Planning and Managing Historic Urban Landscape. In Bandarin, F. and Van Oers, R.
(eds.) Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage.
Cheltenham, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Spring Long. 2016. Làm cầu đường sắt vượt sông Hồng dạng dầm kết hợp vòm thép, TuoiTre online
06/16/2016, available from http://tuoitre.vn/tin/chinh-tri-xa-hoi/20160616/lam-cau-duong-sat-

Taylor and Francis

vuot-song-hong-dang-dam-ket-hop-vom-thep/1119409.html.
Tai, H.T.H. 2001. The Country of Memory: Remaking the Past in Late Socialist Vietnam (Vol. 3). Berkeley,

Not for distribution

CA: University of California Press.
Thu Trang. 2016a. Hà Nội sẽ cải tạo, nâng cấp cầu Long Biên thành cầu đi bộ, Dau Tu online 04/04/2016,
available from http://baodautu.vn/ha-noi-se-cai-tao-nang-cap-cau-long-bien-thanh-cau-di-bo-
d42263.html.
Thu Trang. 2016b. Hà Nội đã chốt phương án thiết kế cầu đường sắt vượt sông Hồng, Dau Tu online
06/15/2016, available from http://baodautu.vn/ha-noi-da-chot-phuong-an-thiet-ke-cau-duong-sat-
vuot-song-hong-d46878.html.
Trinh Nguyen. 2014. Historians, Architects Insist Hanoi Bridge Icon Left Alone, Thanh Nien News
02/25/2014, available from www.thanhniennews.com/society/historians-architects-insist-hanoi-
bridge-icon-be-left-alone-24174.html.
Trinh Nguyen. 2016. Cẩn trọng khi đặt nhà ga ngầm ở hồ Hoàn Kiếm [One Should Care About the
Location of Hoan Kiem Lake’s Underground Metro Station], Bao Moi 03/16/2016, available from
www.baomoi.com/can-trong-khi-dat-nha-ga-ngam-o-ho-hoan-kiem/c/18889595.epi.
TuoiTre News. 2014. PM Opposes Plans to Dismantle Iconic Hanoi Bridge, 10/03/2014, available from
http://tuoitrenews.vn/lifestyle/18211/pm-rejects-plans-to-dismantle-iconic-hanoi-bridge.
Turner S. 2009. Hanoi’s Ancient Quarter Traders: Resilient Livelihoods in a Rapidly Transforming City,
Urban Studies Journal, 46(5–6), pp. 1203–1221.
Van Horen, B. 2005. Hanoi. Cities, 22(2), pp. 161–173.
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, Ministry of Culture, Sports & Tourism. 2012. available at
http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/index.php/items/4775.
VietNam News. 2014. Historic Long Bien Bridge to Get Modern Companion, 08/20/2014, available
from http://vietnamnews.vn/society/259044/historic-long-bien-bridge-to-get-modern-companion.
html#yQXUyM5lY10kASTg.97.
VTC14. 2014 Ha Noi se xay cau vuot duong sat vuot song Hong, 10/28/2014, available from www.
youtube.com/watch?v=RDflQaOOoHE.
Xuan Hoa. 2013. Ga metro sẽ nằm cạnh hồ Gươm [Metro station Will Be Located Next to Hoan Kiem
Lake], VNExpress, 02/03/2013, available from http://vnexpress.net/tin-tuc/thoi-su/ga-metro-se-
nam-canh-ho-guom-2427953.html.

297

View publication stats