Annales d'Ethiopie

Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation

in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia / Renouvellement urbain et situations
délicates de la conservation du patrimoine à Addis-Abeba,
Éthiopie
Zelalem Teferra

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Teferra Zelalem. Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia /
Renouvellement urbain et situations délicates de la conservation du patrimoine à Addis-Abeba, Éthiopie. In: Annales
d'Ethiopie. Volume 31, année 2016. pp. 107-132;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2016.1626

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ethio_0066-2127_2016_num_31_1_1626

Fichier pdf généré le 15/03/2019

Abstract
This paper explores the challenges of rehabilitating and conserving early urban neighborhoods
and historic monuments of Addis Ababa in light of rapid urban redevelopment activities taking
place in the city since 2004. It examines the way the need for urban physical transformation to suit
the current standards of living and the mod -ernist zeal of urban planners to improve the urban
outlook through slum clearance puzzles the quest for maintaining urban heritages, reminiscent of
original social fabric, urban character, and vernacular architectural features. The paper concludes
with a discussion on the need for multi-dimensional approach to conserve urban cultural heritages,
mainly historic buildings and monuments. It also suggests the preservation and revitalization of
important early urban neighborhoods of Addis Ababa with the objective of maintaining typical
urban tissue, essential qualities of the historic areas and social life of the communities residing
therein, but by adapting their physical structures and activities to present-day requirements where
possible. The paper further recommends the use of innovative conservation techniques that
employ the advances in modern digital technology. Towards this end, textual and digital
documentation of early neighborhoods of Addis Ababa were proposed to preserve popular
memory on the one hand, and to allow the redevelopment process to keep-going uninterrupted
where physical preservation of old urban fabric is deemed dif cult or practically rendered
impossible.

Résumé
Renouvellement urbain et situations délicates de la conservation du patrimoine à Addis-Abeba,
Éthiopie.
Cet article explore les défis de la réhabilitation et de la conservation des anciens quartiers urbains
et des monuments historiques d’Addis-Abeba à la lumière des rapides activités de
réaménagement urbain qui se déroulent dans la ville depuis 2004. Les transformations physiques
urbaines doivent s’adapter aux nouveaux standards de la vie courante et au zèle moderniste des
planificateurs qui cherchent à améliorer l’environnement urbain par l’évacuation des quartiers
pauvres. L’article examine comment cette contrainte organise la conservation du patrimoine,
souvenir du tissu social originel, ainsi que le maintien de son caractère urbain et de ses
caractéristiques architecturales traditionnelles. L’article se conclut par une discussion sur la
nécessité d’une approche multidimensionnelle pour conserver les patrimoines culturels urbains,
principalement des bâtiments et des monuments historiques. Il suggère également la préservation
et la revitalisation d’importants anciens quartiers urbains d’Addis-Abeba avec comme objectif de
maintenir le tissu urbain typique, les qualités essentielles des quartiers historiques et de la vie
sociale des communautés qui y résident, tout en adaptant leurs structures physiques et leurs
activités aux besoins actuels lorsque cela est possible. L’article recommande en outre l’utilisation
de techniques de conserva -tion innovantes, les progrès de la technologique numérique moderne.
Pour ce faire, la documentation textuelle et numérique des anciens quartiers d’Addis-Abeba a été
proposée pour préserver la mémoire populaire, et pour permettre au processus de
redéveloppement de se poursuivre sans interruption alors que la préservation physique du vieux
tissu urbain est jugée difficile ou est rendue presque impossible.
Zelalem Teferra ∗

Urban Renewal and the Predicaments

of Heritage Conservation
in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Renouvellement urbain et situations délicates
de la conservation du patrimoine à Addis-Abeba, Éthiopie

Since its inception in 1886, Addis Ababa underwent dramatic change both in
terms of physical layout and socio-cultural composition. In terms of physical
layout, a village of small size has gradually transformed into a large urban
agglomeration. Road arteries connecting the various neighborhoods, sub-
cities, and the City with the hinterland have been constructed. Varieties
of building structures: residential houses, palaces, administrative buildings,
and recently attractive shopping malls were built, lending the City a modern
outlook. The City has expanded in all directions from its epicenter—the
Menelik Gibbi rapidly engulfing the surrounding rural areas; taking into its
ambits agrarian communities and transforming them into urban citizens with
attendant attributes of urbanity.
In its socio-cultural compositions too, Addis Ababa changed drastically over
the past hundred and thirty years. It has attracted people from all ways of life
with diverse social, economic and cultural backgrounds. People of distinct
ethnic, religious, and linguistic affinity from all corners of the country found
their way to the City to enjoy its administrative services, commerce, education,
entertainment, and so on.
It has also become a diplomatic hub of Africa hosting various international
and regional organizations. This flux and mix created a cultural mosaic
that manifested itself in terms of distinct neighborhoods, unique architectural
features, modes of life and interactions. Every decade and historical epoch

∗
Assistant professor of Sociology at Addis Ababa University, Institute of
Ethiopian Studies (IES). Contact: zelalemgeta2012@gmail.com

Annales d’Éthiopie, 2016-2017, 31, 107-132

108 Zelalem Teferra

contributed new and unique achievements and thus, through time, a unique
feature of Addis Ababa—its defining character has come into being.
Yet, the web of relations and cultural landscapes created over the last
hundred and thirty years now face serious existential challenge, largely
attributed to the vigorous urban redevelopment process carried out by the City
Government since 2004. Even though the various upgrading, demolition and
redevelopment activities conducted by the City Government are improving the
City’s outlook and the living standards of its citizens, they are also adversely
affecting the established cultural landscapes, social ties, and public memory.
Old neighborhoods epitomizing repository of social memory and anchors
of identity are rapidly transforming or disappearing for good. Despite
appreciable change in physical layout and improvements of urban amenities,
abrupt alteration of the City’s cultural ecology is making Addis devoid of
unique urban character and lack of indigenous dimension. This alarming
process obliges one to pose questions as to how urban heritages could be
preserved while at the same time creating a favorable condition for urban
transformation. This paper, therefore, inquires the way slum clearance and
urban physical transformations exacerbate the problem of cultural heritage
preservation in Addis Ababa. First, it dwells on the conceptual puzzle
surrounding the notion of “urban heritage” as it complicates the already
complex issue of cultural heritage conservation in the City; next contextual
analysis of Addis Ababa’s heritages is carried out pointing to the advantages
of their preservation. With regard to this, special emphasis has been given to
the synergy between urban development and heritage preservation. Finally, a
Tri-Modal heritage conservation strategy is proposed to enhance protection of
the City’s cultural heritage.
The bulk of data included in this work is generated from both primary and
secondary sources. Review of related literature and collection of field data;
particularly through observation, focus group discussion and key-informant
interviews, have been carried out over the past two years as part of an on-going
thematic research project entitled Contemporary Urban Issues in Ethiopia. 1
In the course of this research, government officials from Arada and Gulalle
sub-cities, Addis Ababa and the surrounding Oromiya Towns Integrated
Urban Plan Office, 2 Addis Ababa Tourism and Culture Bureau, Addis Ababa

1
Seizing this opportunity, I would like to extend my gratitude to the
Office of the Vice-president for Research and Technology Transfer of Addis
Ababa University for funding this project. This paper also benefited from
the comments of two anonymous reviewers. I appreciate their insightful
2
comments that enriched the content of this work. This plan ceased
to function in 2016, following popular protest against its implementation in
Oromiya allegedly for its excessive and unconstitutional eviction of Oromo
farmers from their landholdings, and suspected expansion of Addis Ababa
beyond its limits into Oromiya Region.
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 109

Roads Authority, the Municipal Administration, and elders from Dejach

Wube Safar, have been consulted both as key informants and focus group
discussion participants. Moreover, photographic and video documentation of
early neighborhoods of the City, particularly in and around Däjäch Wube Säfär,
Gädäm Säfär, and Piazza, have been carried out to capture the visual images of
existing urban landscape, monuments and historic buildings before significant
change is made to them as a result of the on-going urban redevelopment
program, which largely involved demolition of old and dilapidated urban
quarters.

Figure 1. Photos depicting

changing faces of Addis Ababa
Source: Combination of personal photo
with images from Ethiopian Opinion

Genesis of Urban Renewal in Addis Ababa

and Rationale for its Implementation
Addis Ababa’s origin is rooted in indigenous tradition and lacked proper
planning from the outset. As aptly indicated by Semeneh Mossu (2015),
the City’s early development was guided by the intents and visions of its
governors instead of formal planning. The earliest settlements were developed
haphazardly around the imperial palace (Gibbi) and the camps (säfär) of his
generals (ras) and other dignitaries (Uli Wessling Tolon, 2008). Even the
numerous master plans introduced from the 1930’s to guide the development
of the City were not strictly implemented due to lack of adequate details and
dissatisfaction with the ease of their implementation. Thus, for much of its
history, the City grew informally with informal housing units dominating
its inner part. Quoting Wubshet (2002), Elias Yitbarek (2009) attributes the
informality of Addis Ababa’s development to the pre-1974 land tenure and to
the mode of property development. Early land tenure in the City followed
the pattern whereby the Emperor granted urban land to his war generals, the
nobility and the clergy, in lieu of salary for their services and allegiance to the
crown. These dignitaries in turn leased the land to their followers and service
men without due registration at the Municipality and any patterned housing
development. Such a mode of property development, which began under
110 Zelalem Teferra

Emperor Menelik, continued throughout the reign of Empress Zäwditu and

early days of Emperor Haile-Selassie’s rule, contributing to the proliferation
of haphazardly built informal houses.
The military regime that overthrew the imperial government in 1974 did
not do better in terms of reversing the informal development of housing in
Addis Ababa. Following the revolution, it issued Proclamation No. 47/1975,
known as Government Ownership of Lands and ‘Extra’ Houses, whereby
private ownership of land and houses for the purpose of renting were outlawed
(Wubshet, 2002; Uli Wessling Tolon, 2008; Elias, 2009). This Nationalization
Act transferred ownership rights of extra houses to the Qäbäle Administration
and their usufruct right to poor tenants who were allowed to occupy these
houses at a very low rental cost. The nationalization of the so-called extra
houses built by individuals for rental purposes and their allocation to the
urban poor as a part of the Derg regime’s Marxist ideology put at a standstill
the construction of both residential and commercial houses on the one hand,
thereby creating a backlog in housing infrastructure development despite
rapidly bulging urban population and rising demand. On the other hand, the
slashing of rental costs by 50 % for nationalized houses, which were barely
collected on a regular basis, discouraged not only the construction of additional
houses, but also made regular maintenance of the informally built shanty
houses in the inner parts of Addis Ababa impossible to carry out, leading to
their rapid deterioration and steady dilapidation.
Despite the introduction of a free market economy after the demise of the
Marxist regime in 1991, both the state land ownership and the qäbäle housing
system, with all their characteristics, remained intact (Elias, 2009). The
reluctance of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Front (EPRDF) to change
the tenure system of the so-called qäbäle houses not only further exacerbated
deterioration of the inner city and the decay of its housing stock, but also made
it very difficult to adequately respond to the ever growing housing needs of
the urban population. According to information obtained from the municipal
authorities, by 2004, when Addis Ababa City Administration introduced
its urban renewal program, at least 300,000 housing units were required to
satisfy the housing need of the urban population additionally to what Housing
Cooperatives and Real Estate developers could build. It seems that the City
Government embarked on the inner city redevelopment, primarily to address
the stated housing backlog, and to upgrade Addis Ababa’s outlook so that it
measures up to the stature of being an African Capital. According to Semeneh
Mossu (2015: 20), the concern also stems from the need to improve the living
environment of residents and exploiting economic potentials of the city center.
Today, the problem of inner city deterioration in Addis Ababa is receiving a
growing attention from both urban planners and policy makers. Even though
improving the physical and economic fabrics of the inner city areas in the form
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 111

of slum upgrading has been one of the key development concerns of the City
Government for a long period of time, 3 since 2004 emphasis is made on slum
clearance in highly degraded areas, particularly where qäbäle owned housing
stocks predominate. The reason is obvious reason: the compensation cost of
such properties remains low compared to areas where privately owned houses
predominate.
In Addis Ababa’s context, the emphasis of urban renewal is on those parts
of the City which have fallen below current standards of public acceptability
(commonly termed as slums). These are usually to be found in residential
parts of the inner city and in central business districts such as Märkäto,
Täklähäymänot Säfär, Piazza area, Gädäm Säfär, Däjäch Wube Säfär, and
Sängätärä, to mention but a few. Some of these residential and business areas
have already fallen prey to the vigorous urban renewal process underway in
the city.
The causes of physical deterioration of urban centers which give rise to
urban renewal are numerous and often depend on a country’s level of economic
development. In industrially advanced societies, they are largely related to
transport improvement, suburbanization, the withdrawal of large firms and
higher income groups from city, and related emerging social problems due to
the decreasing attractiveness of such centers for investment. These are not the
causes of inner city deterioration in the Ethiopian urban context. Even though
the physical condition of city centers in Ethiopia is steadily deteriorating,
these sites are still in high demand because of their locational value, relative
importance as business hub, better access to transport facilities, low level of
suburbanization, and micro economic activities.
According to Semeneh Mossu (2015), the existing social problems in such
areas are not important enough to be taken as push factors for abandoning
central locations either. Instead, the causes of physical deterioration of
Ethiopian city centers that give rise to urban renewal are related to the way
the areas were built, i.e. without proper planning, and utilizing temporary
construction materials attributed to rural tradition—predominantly č. qa (mud
and wood) construction. Information obtained from the Ethiopian Central
Statistics Agency (CSA) also indicate that the majority of houses in the cities
are similar to those in rural areas as they do not have adequate and proper
amenities such as toilets, bathing facilities and modern kitchens.

3
Despite the beginning of a massive renewal program in 2004/2005, limited
upgrading activities in slum-dominated inner parts of Addis Ababa have
begun in the late 1970s. Albeit sporadic, initiatives to upgrade slum residence in
the City have been taken up both by the government and international NGOs.
In the 1990s, upgrading of road and sanitation infrastructures by NGOs have
been intensified thanks to favorable policy environment paved following the
demise of the military regime. For details, see the works of Elias Yitbarek
(2008, 2009), and Uli Wessling Tolon (2008).
112 Zelalem Teferra

The other causes of deterioration often cited both in the academic literature
and planning documents concerning Ethiopian cities in general and Addis
Ababa in particular, are the lack of proper urban management, tenure inse-
curity and low incomes. Even though the demand for central locations is still
very high, prevailing bureaucratic bottlenecks curtail private initiatives geared
towards improvement of these areas. Notwithstanding the level of income, in-
dividuals cannot make meaningful improvements to the housing units because
they are predominantly publicly owned. Due to these factors, major renewal
interventions in Ethiopia are left to government bodies (Semeneh, 2015).
When it comes to preservation activities in city centers, whereas there
are possibilities for maintaining central area buildings in urban renewal
programs of developed countries, upgrading and re-using them for better
functions, urban renewal is less tolerant towards existing structures and
infrastructure networks in the Ethiopian context, except for few historic
buildings registered as heritage properties by the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism or respective municipal bureaus. This intolerance stems from the
assumption that most inner city buildings and infrastructure networks are too
obsolete and physically deteriorated to serve as genuine living and working
places. Not only their functional role, but also aesthetic considerations,
diminish their values as heritage property worthy of preservation.
Apart from the notion of urban renewal, which has been discussed above,
there are three closely related concepts that need some reflections in this work
to enhance clarity of ideas. These are “redevelopment,” “revitalization,” and
“upgrading.” For the sake of clarity, let me reflect on each of them.
The term “redevelopment,” as conceptualized by Sutton (2008) is a purely
place oriented concept often utilized within a broader urban renewal strategy.
As such, it is used to denote an activity that employs physical change to the built
environment to increase the economic value of that place. Its primary goal is
to improve the quality of blighted urban environment with a view to prepare
the area for future investment. Pure economic motives lurk behind such
interventions; as such places may or may not have residents before they take
place. According to Sutton, many development interventions in vacant areas
fall under this category. In contrast, “revitalization” falls within the domain
of what Sutton (2008: 5) calls place-based people strategy, which focuses on
altering the nature or characteristics of a physical environment with a view to
improving the lives of residents within a designated area through investment
incentives, local hiring, empowerment zones, some beautification projects, and
similar policy tools.
The term “upgrading” refers to the improvement of slum residence to
enhance both the quality and the livability of designated areas. Like revital-
ization, it is a place-based people strategy meant to improve the living standards
of people residing in slum dominated areas.
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 113

When it comes to the application of the whole gamut of activities related

to altering the nature of built environment in the Ethiopian context, slum up-
grading, which involves improvement of residential areas without demolition,
has longer history than urban renewal, which involves massive demolition
of slum residence. As indicated above, despite the absence of well-defined
legal and policy instruments that guide its implementation, slum upgrading
has been in practice in Addis Ababa since the 1970s. With the help of the
World Bank and several international NGOs including Norwegian Save the
Children Fund (Redd Barna), CONCERN and OXFAM, many small-scale
upgrading projects were implemented in several neighborhoods of Addis
Ababa, the most notable being those conducted in Täklähäymänot and Mänän
areas by Redd Barna (Elias, 2009; Uli Wessling Tolon, 2008).
Yet, compared to slum upgrading, the introduction of massive urban
renewal program in Addis Ababa, an offshoot of the City Government’s public
housing initiative that involved low-cost condominium house construction,
real estate development, and infrastructure improvement, was a serious blow
to the preservation of heritage properties located in slum dominated inner
parts of the City. Urban planners being obsessed by a modernization project,
which primarily centered on people and space both as a means and an end,
were highly negligent of heritage conservation. The drive to change a built
environment in pursuit of enhancing the economic value of a place, and
the urge to improve people’s livelihoods seems to have overshadowed the
importance of heritage. Thus, in Addis Ababa, at least at a conceptual level, the
notion of “urban renewal”, not only became synonymous with slum clearance
but, in some instances, also came to symbolize heritage clearance. As will
be seen from the proceeding discussion, this bias largely emanated from lack
of clear understanding of what urban heritage is and its importance beyond
economic value.

Conceptual Problems Surrounding the Notion of “Urban Heritage”

As aptly noted by Florian Steinberg (1996), one of the major factors impeding
heritage conservation in cities of many developing countries is the lack of
explicit definition of what urban heritage is or what it could encompass as
a concept to allow for clear understanding and provide frame of reference.
This is because, whenever issues of urban heritage are raised, what comes to
the mind of most urban planners and managers are usually “monuments”, i.e.,
all sorts of religious buildings such as churches and temples, institutions of
power and administration such as palaces, castles, fortresses, historic city walls
and gates, and other forms of public buildings meant for education, science,
administration and other social purposes. Such an understanding shrouds the
meaning of urban heritage by excluding historic residential areas and historic
114 Zelalem Teferra

city centers which equally represent urban heritage, not to mention non-
tangible elements of urban heritages, such as customs and beliefs, which play
a significant role for the articulation of space use and the built environment.
Steinberg’s observation perfectly fits with Ethiopia’s capital city, Addis Ababa,
where the notion of urban heritage lacks clarity and is mainly associated with
big monuments, excluding other built environments such as old residential
areas often dubbed slums devoid of heritage quality, despite their significant
role as anchors of popular memory and social identity.
Internationally, as indicated by Steinberg (1996: 463), due to the existence
of international cultural organizations such as UNESCO, the International
Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM), the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS),
and a good number of local conservation groups, monuments have at least a
“lobby” and are in somewhat more favorable situation than historic residential
areas. These organizations and interest groups seem to yield some successes in
their effort to achieve greater interest for the preservation and conservation
of old monuments of historic value. In contrast, historic residential areas
and old city centers lack a lobby group that campaigns for them. This puts
strain on their preservation as integral part of urban heritage. Particularly in
developing countries, where early neighborhoods lack proper planning, and
the housing stock is built of non-durable materials and lacks the architectural
sophistication of modern building, the problem becomes more evident. Such
sites, despite their relevance to the bear of a culture as repository of their
experiences and foundation of their identity, are nonetheless targeted by
modernist planners and fall prey to their demolition activities as slums devoid
of aesthetic and economic value. Such an approach to old urban centers
emerges, in part, from lack of proper understanding of what urban heritage
is, or from modernist planners’ value judgments according to which old urban
quartets are often portrayed as symbols of backwardness and impediments for
modernization.
In Ethiopia, even though the genesis of heritage preservation has been
associated with the imperial period of our history, particularly with the es-
tablishment of relevant organizations mandated (directly or tangentially) with
the responsibility of identifying, preserving, and promoting heritage proper-
ties, such as the Ministry of Culture, the Ethiopian Tourism Organisation,
the imperial agency for heritage administration, and the National Museum,
heritage discourse per se entered into the public debate very recently. This
debate was largely ignited by the nascent massive development projects carried
out both in urban and rural areas, and the real or perceived challenges they pose
to heritage properties. The debate has intensified since 2004, following the
commencement of a vigorous urban renewal program in Addis Ababa, which
is enormously altering and reconfiguring the City’s landscape. Moreover, even
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 115

if it is not as heated as the debate pertaining to the impact of urban renewal on

cityscape and heritage properties, there is an emerging debate among scholars
with regard to the impact of large-scale infrastructure developments, partic-
ularly road and hydro-power dam constructions, on archaeological resources
and built environments in rural areas. 4 Along with these debates, there also
surfaced a puzzle as to what heritage is and what it is not, not to mention how
to preserve it.
Historically, conceptualization of heritage property in Ethiopia, besides the
property’s historic significance and aesthetic grandeur, was closely associated
with the age or antiquity of an object, building, or monument. Both
in the Imperial and the Derg periods, heritage legislations, paleontology,
archaeology and historical heritages received special attention and were more
valued as compared to all other heritages. Historic urban neighborhoods
as sites of public memory and identity formation were not recognized
at all. Even today, it is the antiquity of an object that resonates most
compared to social significance of heritage property. This attitude has been
widely reflected at the heritage and development nexus sensitization workshop
organized by the Association of Ethiopian Archaeologists and Paleontologists
in collaboration with the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural
Heritage (ARCCH) on January 3, 2014. At the workshop, the managers
of Addis Ababa and the Surrounding Oromia Towns Integrated Master
Plan Development Office, and Addis Ababa Roads Authority, expressed
their willingness to include historic monuments and neighborhoods in their
respective plans, but underlined the fact that they face difficulties to delineate
between what urban heritage is, and what it is not. 5 It was further learned
that the conceptual puzzle surrounding the notion of heritage has a far
reaching consequence in terms of heritage site designation in urban areas
and subsequent conservation. In most instances, it blurs the decision-making
intent and power of local authorities, leading to demolition of important
monuments and neighborhoods deemed repository of social history and public
memory as a latent effect.
Consequently, if one has to carry out preservation of urban cultural heritages
in Ethiopia, this conceptual puzzle has to be addressed first. This means that
there should be at least a minimum criterion to distinguish between what
urban heritage is and what it is not to propose any mode of intervention with

4
The fact that megalithic stones in some parts of Ethiopia are being used for
road construction and that there is a possibility that some archaeological sites
could submerge under reservoirs of hydro-power dams are becoming concerns
of professionals, bringing to the fore the importance of including ‘heritage
impact assessment’ in development planning. 5 Since designation of heritage
is a contested terrain unless resolved by law, they argued, it is difficult to make
decision about a wholesale or partial preservation of an old urban quarter.
116 Zelalem Teferra

regard to its preservation or demolition. Given this difficulty, in the section

that follows, attempts are made to provide some preliminary suggestions that
would at least partially address the debate, if not provide ultimate solution.
Notwithstanding this effort, however, it should be borne in mind that
providing answer to the question of what constitutes an urban heritage, or
cultural heritage in general, is an extremely difficult task unless designated by
law. This is apparently because the concept cultural heritage, which embodies
urban heritage as well, is something socially constructed and contextually
defined. Socially constructed because cultural heritage is not naturally given.
It is a product of human genius and creativity. It is contextually defined,
because the bearer of a culture, more often than not, assigns meaning to
what constitutes cultural heritage based on its history, lived experiences and
established values, all of which are shaped by community’s worldviews. In
other words, it is possible to say that the concept of “heritage” is culturally
relative. For instance, as indicated by Alain Sinou (1994), in many traditional
African societies the concept of “heritage” is not based, as it is in Europe, on
the appreciation of physical objects whose value, where appropriate market
value, depends on condition and aesthetics. It is rather based on spiritual
significance and shared memory of the community. This shows that what
is valued as heritage in one society does not necessarily qualify as such in
another society. Likewise, the value attached by a native and a non-native to
a certain neighborhood or a built heritage varies according to one’s perception
and representation. That is why nations issue heritage legislations to establish
legal definition of what heritage is in their respective contexts.
Thus, I argue that the definition of urban heritage is by and large a
normative act whereby an authoritative (competent) body concerned with the
safeguarding [protection], preservation, and promotion of heritage, makes
a law in which its meaning is assigned, and modes of safeguarding and
preservation are defined, demarcating a clear boundary between what heritage
is and what it is not. It is this legal definition and framework that serve as a
term of reference and a binding force to allow for heritage preservation.
The above idea is a governing principle for the designation of heritage;
however, one can find cross-cultural definitions describing the general at-
tributes of cultural heritage, which include built environments such as urban
neighborhoods and could be adapted to the Ethiopian milieu to solve the
conceptual enigma stated above. In the various documents published by
UNESCO, Cultural Heritage is broadly defined as “the legacy of physical
artifacts (cultural property) and intangible attributes of a group or society that
are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed
for the benefit of future generations.” In short, it is our legacy from the past,
what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. As such,
cultural heritage includes tangible objects (such as buildings, monuments,
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 117

landscapes, books, works of art, and artifacts); intangible ones (such as folk-
lore, traditions, language, and knowledge); and natural heritage (including
culturally significant landscapes, and biodiversity).
In the 1972 UNESCO convention concerning the protection of world
cultural and natural heritages, the definition of cultural heritage embodied
monuments. Groups of buildings and sites have received due recognition
as part and parcel of cultural heritage. Likewise, in its more encapsulating
definition of cultural heritage, the Council of Europe (2005) characterized
cultural heritage as: “a group of resources inherited from the past which people
identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection of their constant evolving values,
beliefs, knowledge and traditions... It is what constitutes a shared source of
remembrance, understanding, identity, cohesion and creativity. . . of a given
society [emphasis mine]” (Faro Convention, 2005).
In a nutshell, cultural heritage is now understood and being recognized as
a living part of our modern environment and way of life, not just a static and
frozen object of the past. It is understood as something that permeates daily
life, bringing a sense of meaning and identity to an increasingly dislocated
world. Heritage is, by its very definition, what people value. If we accept
this definition as an inclusive one, built environment and built expressions of
culture, such as historic urban neighborhoods, then deserve protection as part
of national heritage and assume a rightful place thereof. In other words, urban
historic neighborhoods should attain the status of a preservable asset that can
benefit present and future generations. The role of such an asset cannot be
limited to the domain of culture alone; it could rather be an economic asset
with good potential for economic exploitation, for instance through tourism,
and for culturally-based image building.
Besides the use value of heritages, which refers to the direct economic
valuation of the asset’s services, it is also worth mentioning here the ‘non-use
value’ of heritage property, which is often employed as a justification for urban
heritage conservation. As noted by Serageldin (1999) in Throsby (2012), this
relates to the asset’s existence value (people value the existence of the heritage
item even though they may not consume its services directly themselves), its
option value (that the asset’s services might be consumed at some future time by
themselves or others is an option that people wish to preserve), and its bequest
value (people may wish to bequeath the asset to future generations). According
to Serageldin, and J. Martin-Brown (1999), non-use values may also arise as
beneficial externalities to be enjoyed, for example, by people passing by or
traveling through a heritage site. None of these non-use values is observable in
market transactions because there is no market in which the rights to non-use
values can be exchanged.
By extension, Addis Ababa’s urban heritages (monuments, historic build-
ings, and old neighborhoods that embody them) constitute an important
118 Zelalem Teferra

Figure 2. Partial view of one of the old and decaying neighborhoods of Addis Ababa
“Gädäm Säfär.” View from Woreda 5 administration building in Arada sub-city
Source: Zelalem Teferra, 2014

element of Ethiopia’s cultural heritage that needs to be preserved both for

cultural and economic benefits/values.

Contextual Analysis: Addis Ababa’s Historic Monuments & Old

Neighborhoods
In many parts of the world, historic cities are today reduced to historic districts
within larger modern cities. Such cities are not only marvelous witnesses of
human past, they are also parts of living organisms of rapidly growing cities
of numerous dimensions (Steinberg, 1996). When it comes to Addis Ababa,
measured by its one hundred thirty years of age, it looks young and even infant
compared to ancient and medieval urban centers of Ethiopia like Aksum,
Harar, or Gondar. Yet, it exhibits many of the characteristics attributed to
historic (old) cities. Its early neighborhoods, historic buildings and monuments
are highly valued by its dwellers and reflect historic realities that transcend
the age limit of the city. For instance, the vernacular architecture exhibited in
house construction, settlement patterns, mode of space utilization, and ways of
life in the city’s early neighborhoods, reflect medieval life and beyond. Like any
other heritage, these relics and legacies of the past provide sense of meaning
and serve as identity markers in a rapidly expanding and transforming city.
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 119

Yet, the dynamics of rapid urbanization, shifting economic activities, and

rising costs of urban land, spatial values and specificity of the building stock
are putting immense pressure on old structures and early neighborhoods of
Addis Ababa. As a result, the rapidly decaying old neighborhoods such as
Arada, Dejach-Wube Säfär, and Gädam Säfär (see fig. 3), are under threat or
in the process of demolition not to mention neighborhoods like Basha-Wälde
Chilot (Arat-Kilo), Sängä Tärrä and Wällo Säfär, which have already been
demolished as part of the ongoing urban renewal activity in the city.
Not only physical decay and deterioration of infrastructure defines these old
neighborhoods; their social characteristics also underwent dramatic changes
over the past decades. As a result of intensifying rural-to-urban migration,
patterns of invasion-succession of immigrant populations have been superim-
posed on decaying infrastructure and ethnic neighborhoods.
The rich and well-to-do tend to escape the old historic cores of Addis Ababa
(even when they retain business there), and many migrated to new booming
districts such as Bole, Gärji, Mäkänissa-Läbu, and other emerging suburbs, to
mention but a few (fig. 3).

Figure 3. Läbu Säfär

Source: Zelalem Teferra, 2014

Development activities and new investments in Addis Ababa’s downtown

along the Churchill Road and the vicinities of the National Theatre are also
changing the outlook of the city, giving it the modern glamour and beauty
of a bustling city. Moreover, the new African Union (AU) building and
improvements in its vicinity are changing the city’s imagery.
In old quarters, for instance, around Täklähäymänot Säfär, new activities
such as warehousing business meant for construction materials, particularly
iron and steel products (reinforcement bars for buildings) are emerging,
largely driven by the rising demand for construction materials. Wood-work
activities, particularly household and office furniture production and sells in
Piazza area are also taking root instead of early forms of engagements. All
these put immense pressure on aging housing structures and the city scape (see
fig. 4).
Some early residential houses are now functioning as restaurants and cafes,
changing their original designation (a form of self-imposed adaptive-reuse); a
very good example being the former residence of a notable by a name, Däjach
Wube, currently changed to Addis Ababa Restaurant (see fig. 5).
120 Zelalem Teferra

Figure 4. Quarter for office and household furniture production and sell along
Mahatma Gandhi Avenue in Piazza.
Source: Zelalem Teferra, 2014

Equally interesting, in many old quarters of the city, early buildings have
been sub-divided (partitioned) for multiple uses and families, particularly
following the Derg period’s nationalization of extra urban houses (see fig. 6).
Densities have risen to inordinate levels, particularly in areas adjacent
to Märkäto (dubbed by many as the largest open air market in Africa),
resulting in the rapid decay of existing infrastructure, shortage of the necessary
amenities, and environmental pollution that threatens the well-being of
citizens. As a result of these processes, almost in all parts of Addis Ababa,

Figure 5. Former residence of

Däjach Wube (current Addis
Ababa Restaurant).
Source: Zelalem Teffera, 2014
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 121

Figure 6. Old residential buildings in Däjach Wube Säfär currently shared by multiple
occupants and yet steadily deteriorating beyond repair
Source: Zelalem Teferra, 2014

historic neighborhoods and their respective cultural heritages are affected one
way or another.
All the above factors are tearing apart the urban heritages embodied in the
old neighborhoods of Addis, most of which are now subject to demolition
and redevelopment. Yet, in spite of these difficulties, old quarters still
remain important anchors and sites of public memory and identity formation.
They represent repository of vernacular architecture and sites of cohesive and
vibrant community worth preservation. The remaining part of this paper
is dedicated to the discussion pertaining to mechanisms of preserving the
invaluable cultural assets of Addis Ababa.

Preservation of Addis Ababa’s Cultural Heritages:

A Multi-Dimensional Approach
Global experience concerning preservation of cultural heritages today suggests
that, due to changes in attitude toward heritages not only as repository of
human memory worth preservation, but also as new economic assets and area
of investment whose economic return is on the rise, heritage conservation
has become prime priority for many countries. Moreover, because of surging
heritage tourism, a shift in urban planning whereby land use regulations
came to embrace heritage protection instead of neglecting them, and due to
advances in digital technology that make the documentation and preservation
of heritage in the form of archives (where physical preservation is difficult or
impossible) very easy and convenient; uni-dimensional approach to heritage
preservation has become redundant. In Addis Ababa too, the interspersed na-
ture of monuments and historic buildings across the city, the unsustainability
of many early neighborhoods for wholesale preservation (despite the presence
122 Zelalem Teferra

of ensemble of architecturally and historically sound quarters in Piazza area

along Mahatma Gandhi Avenue), make it difficult to apply a uniform and
uni-modal approach to heritage conservation.
In an attempt to resolve this problem, a Tri-Modal approach to cultural
heritage conservation is proposed in this paper. The proposed models of
intervention are: zonal preservation—to be implemented through adaptive-
reuse; preservation of separate or individual historic buildings and monuments
together with their surrounding landscape; and virtual (digital) and textual
documentation, where in situ preservation is impossible.

Zonal Preservation and Adaptive Reuse

Adaptive reuse, which refers to the process of reusing an old site or building
for a purpose other than the one for which it was built, is an innovative way
to change the use of heritage places without impacting too heavily on their
heritage values. It is an important means of ensuring the retention and future
conservation of historic heritage places (Steinberg, 1996). According to J.M.
Richards (1952) cited in Steinberg (1996: 4), the use of this model, however,
does not entail simply the passive protection of individual buildings of historic
significance, nor does it mean the wholesome preservation of everything which
is old. Instead, it points to the creative use and re-use of older quarters of the
city taken as a whole.
Citing B.M. Feilden (1985), Steinberg further noted that, in adaptive re-
use, old buildings are repaired and modernized to facilitate their continued
use, especially as housing, when possible. This often includes: upgrading of
infrastructure services (water, sewerage, drainage, roads, etc.), but on a modest
scale, allowing the preservation of the existing urban pattern and fabric.
Where necessary, some change of use may be incorporated, but on a small scale.
Demolition should normally be reserved for structurally unsound buildings,
but may also sometimes be needed in order to provide space for essential social
services, infrastructure or open space. According to United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements (1991), the overriding objective is to minimize the
displacement of existing residents, because of either demolition or repair and
upgrading. The intention here is to provide enough modernization of the
physical fabric to allow the life of the community to go on, with scope for both
buildings and social systems to evolve and adapt to new conditions.
It is often suggested that the most successful built heritage adaptive re-
use projects are those that best respect and retain the building’s heritage
significance and add a contemporary layer that provides value for the future.
It is also observed that adaptive re-use of heritage buildings has a major role
to play in the sustainable development of communities, particularly in terms
of landscape enhancement, identity, and amenity provision for the community
(Throsby, 2012).
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 123

Adaptive reuse combines area conservation and preservation of individual

monuments with upgrading and some renewal. As such, it is a flexible
approach that reconciles the debate “between the renewal approach, which
presupposes the demolition of decaying urban quarters or old neighborhoods
(slums) and their replacement by new structures; and upgrading, which
presupposes improvement of the built environment while preserving the core
fabric” (Serageldin, 1982). It is often accompanied by area conservation (not
just single buildings), which focuses on the conservation of the urban character:
street patterns, the proportion of buildings (not necessarily their decorative
elements), the variable age of buildings on the streets, and activities in the
streets. Legislatively, this implies the control of new offensive construction,
and the restoration and reuse of key buildings as appropriate. It should also be
noted that adaptive reuse is preferred as much for its economic advantages as
for its tourist attraction. Economic cost/benefit analysis shows the advantage of
adaptive reuse over renewal (complete demolition in this sense), which incurs
huge financial expenditure both for relocation of residents and compensation
payments for private holdings, and ultimately huge investment for total area
redevelopment.
Notwithstanding its use and no-use values, however, the application of
adaptive reuse to a certain site adheres to certain logical principles and is based
on valid criteria: the societal value of a given site; the degree of physical damage
sustained by the site; the historical importance of the site in terms of both
the physicality of the street-scape and the area, as well as of the role of the
site in the community’s understanding of the past; and the natural ecological
conditions of the site, which points to whether the site is suitable climatically
or can support the proposed environmental work needed in the site.
According to Ismail Serageldin (1994), while adaptive-reuse could be seen
as a positive way forward for heritage conservation, one should not lose sight
as to the difficulties associated with it: very high maintenance costs, which
sometimes even exceed the cost of erecting a new building or structure of
the same size and quality; difficulties associated with the upkeep and use
of traditional building materials and methods, which are difficult to find
today; lack of professional restorers and conservators in developing countries,
where such skills are not part of university education; etc. Safety and
accessibility issues also militate against adaptive re-use because most early
buildings usually lack safety and accessibility standards; they may, for instance,
lack fire doors, hand rails, wheelchair access or other adaptations, and the
inclusion of all these amenities is sometimes difficult or incurs expensive
cost. Adapting heritage premises to meet contemporary living and working
standards is also another difficulty: provision of playing grounds, recreation
centers and parking lots and other additional amenities, for example. In
general, upgrading heritage buildings to meet the Building Codes of modern
124 Zelalem Teferra

municipal administration imposes a considerable cost burden that impacts

heritage buildings’ operational competitiveness.
Coming back to the use of adaptive reuse as a model for historic urban
neighborhood rehabilitation in developing countries, Steinberg (1996: 4, 5)
correctly noted the fact that, despite its acceptance and wide application in
many industrialized countries, the concept faces a very different situation
in developing countries. According to her, it is still new and unfamiliar in
most places. Intellectually and professionally, it remains limited to heritage
societies, a small number of foreign-trained local professionals, and eventually
a few external advisors. Politically, it has not yet generated significant support.
Legal and administrative machinery for historic area conservation, where it
exists, is largely prohibitory rather than constructive, and is seldom effectively
enforced. Older housing areas are still seen as ‘problems’ rather than as
important components of urban life.
When it comes to Ethiopia, the problem manifests itself at two levels:
conceptual and practical application. Conceptually, like in the case of many
developing countries mentioned above, adaptive reuse is new and remains
limited in its intellectual coverage. As a concept, it is considered merely
the domain of urban architects, heritage managers and archeologists. Few
members of heritage societies, like the Heritage Trust Association of Ethiopia,
understand it. Focus group discussions conducted in the course of this study
with community members in Däjach Wube Säfär (one of Addis Ababa’s oldest
neighborhoods) and local authorities revealed that old quarters are liabilities,
not assets for Addis Ababa’s development. According to the opinion of the
group discussants, old quarters need to be demolished and replaced by modern
looking structures due to their physical deterioration or decay beyond repair
and unattractive aesthetic value. Such attitudes make the quandary of urban
heritage preservation even much more complex.
In terms of practical application, the problem is by far bigger. Perhaps with
the exception of Piazza, particularly the part along Mahatma Gandhi Avenue
that contains ensemble of historic buildings, which provides an opportunity
for zonal preservation and adaptive reuse, there is a difficulty to find a well-
defined old urban core whose housing stock is built of physically sustainable or
durable materials to apply adoptive reuse in contemporary Addis Ababa. Most
old neighborhoods of Addis Ababa feature opposite characteristics. They are
packed with dilapidated housing stock decaying beyond repair and are barely
amenable for adaptive re-use. 6

6
One of my interviewees from Däjach Wube Säfär metaphorically character-
ized the housing stock in Old Addis Ababa as “dirito”, which literally means
a very old cloth with repeated layers of repair not worthy of preserving any
longer.
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 125

The other problem with Addis Ababa’s heritage is that most historic
buildings are scattered throughout the old quarters of the city as separate
units allowing very limited possibility for zoning or collective preservation.
Thus, the wholesome rehabilitation of an entire neighborhood becomes very
difficult. This apparently calls for alternative interventions, such as separate
preservation of historic buildings and monuments where possible, and virtual
recording of old neighborhoods and monuments whose physical preservation
is practically impossible.

Separate Preservation of Historic Buildings and Monuments

for Heritage Tourism
Experiences from many countries indicate the potential of historic heritage
conservation to increase tourism in a region. This is because a high proportion
of foreign tourists cite historic significance as an important factor in choosing a
destination. According to the World Tourism Organization, cultural tourism
accounts for 37 per cent of world travels, and this is growing at the rate of
15 per cent a year. It leads to the assumption that retaining inner city cultural
heritages, even in the form of isolated historic buildings, and monuments with
their surrounding landscapes kept intact, will enhance tourist attraction as
compared to new urban quarters devoid of historic relics.
When it comes to Addis Ababa, urban heritage tourism suffers from a
number of pitfalls. First of all, despite the absence of accurate statistics, existing
experience shows that Addis Ababa is benefitting from conference tourism
much more than historic site visiting or visiting of historic buildings and
monuments of its own. Moreover, a glance at heritage tourism in Ethiopia
shows that, since most historic relics of the country are located outside of the
capital city, in old historic belts like Aksum, Lalibela, Gondar, and Harar,
most tourists use Addis Ababa only as a transitory gateway to those historic
sites instead of their final destination. As a result, the city is not a direct
beneficiary of heritage tourism per se. This, however, does not mean that the
city is devoid of monuments worth visiting. It is rather to say that most of the
city’s attractions are either poorly preserved or inadequately promoted. Thus,
proper preservation of both collective and individual monuments coupled with
adequate promotion would enhance heritage tourism.

Digital Recording
As an emerging and new area of heritage preservation, virtual documentation
is gathering momentum. Scholars in the field of cultural heritage conservation,
particularly urban heritage experts, now point to both the short and long
term benefits of using digital technologies to record the details and history
of heritage properties, rather than merely listing them. This is because the
cost of virtual recording would be a lot less than the costs flowing from listing
126 Zelalem Teferra

(John Boyd sub. DR196, 4). Moreover, digital recording is less vulnerable to
damage or loss to which traditional documentation is susceptible. Advances
in information technology have now led to a growth in virtual (digital)
recording as another means of conserving our past for future generations,
and particularly for those marginal places, which do not quite meet the
threshold tests.
This method of heritage conservation is gaining popularity, particularly
in Australia, where Big Database is being produced to maintain broad
information on historic buildings and structures that could not be preserved in
situ due to their fragile nature.
Besides virtual capturing and preservation of social history and architectural
features of old urban heritages in old neighborhoods whose physical preser-
vation is deemed unsustainable, it was argued that new digital technology
offers a number of openings for historical heritage promotion, education
and conservation. Primarily, this technology offers unique opportunity to
record, for future generations, what is called by ways of heritage—that is the
plans, construction techniques, photographs and, particularly, oral histories of
the people that were involved in those projects. Secondly, the podcasting of
the recorded materials, that is the publication of audio files on the internet,
provides new opportunities for the storage and dissemination of heritage
information. Thirdly, if properly organized, digital recording offers very
good chances of mounting virtual exhibitions of what specialists of the field
designate as virtual heritage. Moreover, it provides the travelling public
prospects where, for instance, readily available GPS and audio technology
could be combined to ensure that the value of heritage and heritage sites was
not diminished because no-one knew their location or significance.
It was also noted that new emergent technologies—such as Augmented
Reality and Holographic 3D Projections—have the capacity to change the way
we look at heritage. Virtual Heritage Preservation can provide high-resolution
3D reconstructions and guided tours (VRML fly through) of heritage sites.
In areas where most heritage sites are not open to the public, this technology
provides additional advantages over a physical listing.
Adapted to Addis Ababa’s case, virtual technology offers an opportunity to
digitally capture old neighborhoods and preserve images of physical structures,
buildings, and monuments, history of neighborhoods and existing social fabric
whose physical preservation is impossible because of the nature of building
structures (fragility and easy decay), as well as physical attributes whose
sustainable maintenance is beyond possibility due to their non-adaptability
to current situations, and therefore underlie demolition as part of the urban
renewal activity.
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 127

Slum dominated neighborhoods of Addis Ababa whose housing stock is

rapidly decaying beyond repair and which lack viable amenities and infras-
tructures such as competitive road arteries—major avenues, feeder roads,
and alley ways—, viable sewerage system and appropriate waste disposal
mechanisms, for instance Däjäch Wube Säfär, Gädäm Säfär, Täklähäymänot
and Geja neighborhoods, could be taken as areas where virtual preservation
method could be applied instead of adaptive-reuse. The assumption is that
digital and textual documentation of these neighborhoods offer a good op-
portunity to preserve their history and imagery for posterity, while opening
up the door wide for physical redevelopment and possible reproduction of
vernacular architecture mimicking indigenous styles on new buildings to be
erected where possible.
In summary, it is possible to say that newly emerging virtual recording
technologies provide a number of marketing opportunities to increase the
value and/or reduce the costs of conservation. However, while it may, at times,
be a useful adjunct, virtual reality is not likely to be an acceptable substitute for
the physical conservation of virtually all historical heritage places. Selective
approach to the application of virtual recording should be the preferred way
forward in urban heritage preservation, and Addis Ababa is no exception.

Since the turn of the new Millennium, Addis Ababa city Administration
is engaged with twin projects: expansion and redevelopment of the inner-
city center. The expansion of the city into the surrounding rural areas was
meant to ease problems arising from spatial limitation on the one hand, and
foster industrialization on the other. It aims at acquiring sufficient space
to accommodate the ever-increasing urban population, and creating new
industrial zones to unleash the anticipated industrial takeoff. The inner-city
development was geared towards addressing the problem of urban decay:
improving the dilapidated urban core and providing basic urban amenities
such as potable water, better sewerage system, road networks, and other
infrastructure provisions. As a result, the last decade witnessed a surge in
redevelopment of degraded urban areas under the rubric urban renewal, locally
dubbed Ye Kätämä Mädes or Meliso Malmat. Even though the underlying cause
for the renewal program was urban decay and the huge housing problem,
whose backlog at the beginning of the program in 2004 has been estimated
above 300,000 housing units, the desire to improve urban aesthetics, giving
meaning to what the late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi once called meaningless
places by way of creating and superimposing new values and identities lurked
behind the project as an adjunct objective.
Notwithstanding these efforts and the outstanding results achieved in
transforming the city’s landscape, the last decade also witnessed a quandary of
heritage preservation, particularly in the urban core where a mix of historical
128 Zelalem Teferra

buildings and monuments coexisted with rapidly decaying neighborhoods,

thereby blurring both the meaning and the practice of heritage preservation.
Issues of what to preserve and what to demolish have been a bone of contention
between proponents of urban renewal and heritage protectionists. Yet, no
viable solution has been proposed to create synergy between urban renewal
and heritage conservation.
In this paper, therefore, attempts were made to identify the basis of the
existing problem and suggest modest solution, albeit preliminary. The sug-
gestions made pointed primarily to the need for conceptual clarity pertaining
to what urban heritage is and what measures are needed for its conservation.
It also pointed to the need for a synergy between urban renewal and urban
heritage conservation. From this perspective, heritage protection was seen
as an integral part of urban development planning, because preservation of
cultural heritage and urban development are mutually beneficial. Even though
the modalities of conservation may vary depending on the context (as indicated
in the Tri-modal approach proposed above), the approach proposed in this
paper encourages urban development not as a virtue in itself, but to highlight
and promote heritage protection as well.
This means that urban renewal that was designed to address the problem
of urban decay and improve the living conditions of residents in dilapidated
urban areas should not be seen as a “slash and burn” process. A comprehensive
and holistic approach should be adopted to rejuvenate older urban areas by
ways of redevelopment, rehabilitation, revitalization and heritage preservation
(the 4R business strategy). While focusing on the economic and physical
transformation of the city, urban renewal should also take into consideration
issues of preserving buildings, sites and structures of historical, cultural, or
architectural value.
I argue that preservation of Addis Ababa’s past is as important as its
present and future, for it gives residents a cultural soul and sense of identity.
There should also be a need for preserving local characteristics and the social
networks of the local community as much as practicable. It is generally
from this vantage point that conservation and rehabilitation of Addis Ababa’s
historical neighborhoods should be seen and valued. While forwarding
these ideas, I fully understand that conservation of historical urban heritages,
particularly those in old neighborhoods, whose housing stock is built of non-
durable and fragile materials, is indeed very difficult and demanding, but the
unique cultural contributions they make and the memory they arouse must
challenge urban planners and those with executive power to find workable
solutions to this multifarious problem.
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 129

Bibliography
Ashenafi G. 2001, Inner-City Renewal in Addis Ababa: The Impact of Resettlement on
the Socio-Economic and Housing Situation of Low-Income Residents, Ph.D. Thesis,
NTNU, Trondheim.
During R. (ed.), 2011, Cultural heritage and identity politics, Alterra, Landscape Centre.
Elias Yitbarek, 2008, Revisiting “Slums”, Revealing Responses: Urban upgrading in
tenant dominated inner-city settlements in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ph.D. Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Architecture and Fine
Art Department of Urban Design and Planning.
Elias Yitbarek, 2009, Between Renting and Owning: Saving and Credit Cooperative
based tenure transformation in the inner-city “slums” of Addis Ababa, in Svein
E. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies,
Trondheim, Norway.
Faro Convention, 2005, The Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage
for Society, Council of Europe, Faro, Portugal.
Feilden B.M., 1985, Architectural and Urban Conservation, Town Planning, 56 (2),
197-221.
ICCROM & WHITRAP, 2012, Heritage Impact Assessment, A Workshop paper, Lijiang,
China, Oct. 15-24, 2012.
ICOMOS, 2002, Principles and Guidelines for Managing Tourism at Places of Cultural
and Heritage Significance, ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee,
Paris, France.
Serageldin I., 1982, Adaptive Re-Use: Integrating Traditional Areas into Modern
Urban Fabric, Designing in Islamic Cultures, vol. 3., Cambridge, Mass.: The Aga
Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, 92-102.
Serageldin I., 1994, Revitalizing Historic Cities: Towards a Public-Private Partner-
ship, in Serageldin I. & Taboroff J. (eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on
Culture and Development, Washington D.C., Environmentally Sustainable Devel-
opment (ESD) Proceedings Series No.1, 337-363.
Serageldin I., 1999, Very Special Places: The Architecture and Economics of Intervening
in Historic Cities,Washington, DC, World Bank.
Serageldin I. & Martin-Brown J. (eds.), 1999, Culture in Sustainable Development:
Investing in Cultural and Natural Endowments, Washington, DC, World Bank.
Semeneh Mossu, 2015, Local development plan and urban sustainability issues in the
Kaza-inchis area of Addis Ababa, Master’s thesis in Environmental Planning and
Landscape Design, Addis Ababa University.
Sinou A., 1994, Architectural and Urban Heritage: The Example of the City of
Ouidah, Benin, in Serageldin I. & Taboroff J. (eds.), Proceedings of International
Conference on Culture and Development, Washington D.C., Environmentally Sus-
tainable Development (ESD) Proceedings Series No. 1, 289-312.
130 Zelalem Teferra

Steinberg F., 1996, Conservation and Rehabilitation of Urban Heritage, Developing

Countries, “HABITAT INTL.”, 20 (3), 463-475.
Sutton S. 2008, Urban Revitalization in the United States: Policies and Practices, United
States Urban Revitalization Research (USURRP), Final Report, Graduate School of
Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University.
Tangelder R. & Maaike A., 2011, Landscape’s silenced stories, in During R. (ed.),
Cultural heritage and identity politics, Altera, Landscape Centre Silk Road Research
Foundation, 39-49.
Throsby D., 2012, Investment in Urban Heritage: Economic Impacts of Cultural Heritage
Projects in FYR Macedonia and Georgia, Urban development series; knowledge
papers no. 16, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Tolon Uli Wessling, 2008, Comparison of Urban Upgrading Projects on Development
Cooperation in Ethiopia, URL: https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2099.
1/6374/11.pdf
Richards J.M., 1952, Old and New Elements at the Core, in Tyrwhitt J., Sert J.L. &
Rogers E.N. (eds), The Heart of the City. Towards the Humanisation of Urban Life,
Land Humphries, London, 60-63.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, 1991,The Urban Poor and the
Rehabilitation of Inner City Areas, and Relocation Policies: Changing Approaches
(UNCHS, Nairobi), UNCHS, Nairobi.
UNESCO, 2007, Balanced Urban Revitalization for Social Cohesion and Heritage Con-
servation, International Seminar; Tsinghua University, 21 to 23 January, Tsinghua,
China.
UNESCO, 2011, Culture - Memory - Identities’, in Memory of the World Conference,
Warsaw,18-21 May 2, Warsaw, Poland.
Vecco M., 2010, A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible,
Journal of Cultural Heritage 11, 321-324.
Weiss M. (nd), Origin and Legacy of Urban Renewal, in Mitchell J. P. (ed.), Federal
Housing Policy: Past and Present, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
Wubshet Berhanu, 2002, Policies and the Formation of Social and Spatial Pattern in
Ethiopia, Ph.D Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
 Urban Renewal and the Predicaments of Heritage Conservation 131

Abstract
This paper explores the challenges of rehabilitating and conserving
early urban neighborhoods and historic monuments of Addis Ababa
in light of rapid urban redevelopment activities taking place in the
city since 2004. It examines the way the need for urban physical
transformation to suit the current standards of living and the mod-
ernist zeal of urban planners to improve the urban outlook through
slum clearance puzzles the quest for maintaining urban heritages,
reminiscent of original social fabric, urban character, and vernacular
architectural features. The paper concludes with a discussion on
the need for multi-dimensional approach to conserve urban cultural
heritages, mainly historic buildings and monuments. It also suggests
the preservation and revitalization of important early urban neigh-
borhoods of Addis Ababa with the objective of maintaining typical
urban tissue, essential qualities of the historic areas and social life of the
communities residing therein, but by adapting their physical structures
and activities to present-day requirements where possible. The paper
further recommends the use of innovative conservation techniques that
employ the advances in modern digital technology. Towards this end,
textual and digital documentation of early neighborhoods of Addis
Ababa were proposed to preserve popular memory on the one hand,
and to allow the redevelopment process to keep-going uninterrupted
where physical preservation of old urban fabric is deemed difficult or
practically rendered impossible.
Key Words: Urban Heritage, Urban Renewal, Heritage Conservation,
Adaptive Reuse, Textual documentation, Digital documentation

Résumé
Renouvellement urbain et situations délicates de la conservation du
patrimoine à Addis-Abeba, Éthiopie. - Cet article explore les défis de
la réhabilitation et de la conservation des anciens quartiers urbains et
des monuments historiques d’Addis-Abeba à la lumière des rapides
activités de réaménagement urbain qui se déroulent dans la ville depuis
2004. Les transformations physiques urbaines doivent s’adapter aux
nouveaux standards de la vie courante et au zèle moderniste des
planificateurs qui cherchent à améliorer l’environnement urbain par
l’évacuation des quartiers pauvres. L’article examine comment cette
contrainte organise la conservation du patrimoine, souvenir du tissu
social originel, ainsi que le maintien de son caractère urbain et de
ses caractéristiques architecturales traditionnelles. L’article se conclut
par une discussion sur la nécessité d’une approche multidimension-
nelle pour conserver les patrimoines culturels urbains, principalement
des bâtiments et des monuments historiques. Il suggère également la
préservation et la revitalisation d’importants anciens quartiers urbains
d’Addis-Abeba avec comme objectif de maintenir le tissu urbain ty-
pique, les qualités essentielles des quartiers historiques et de la vie so-
ciale des communautés qui y résident, tout en adaptant leurs structures
132 Zelalem Teferra

physiques et leurs activités aux besoins actuels lorsque cela est possible.
L’article recommande en outre l’utilisation de techniques de conserva-
tion innovantes, les progrès de la technologique numérique moderne.
Pour ce faire, la documentation textuelle et numérique des anciens
quartiers d’Addis-Abeba a été proposée pour préserver la mémoire
populaire, et pour permettre au processus de redéveloppement de se
poursuivre sans interruption alors que la préservation physique du
vieux tissu urbain est jugée difficile ou est rendue presque impossible.

Mots-clefs : patrimoine urbain, renouveau urbain, conservation du

patrimoine, réutilisation adaptative, documentation textuelles, docu-
mentation numérique