A Critique of the 2014 Penang Heritage Inventory Study (Based on the Presentation Deck)

Section I: The "Building" Trap—Redefining Tangible Heritage

The primary failure revealed in the presentation deck is the reduction of "Tangible Heritage" to a mere catalogue of standing architecture. Although Slide 1 titles the study as a "Tangible Heritage Inventory," the data categories in Slide 29 prove that the authorities applied a narrow, real-estate-driven lens. Of the 2,506 items identified, the overwhelming majority are classified by habitable "Building Types," such as shophouses (762) and terrace houses (1,234). By framing heritage through the lens of "Building Styles"—specifically 19th and 20th-century aesthetics like Art Deco, Early Modern, and Neo-Classical—the presentation suggests a methodology that is fundamentally blind to any history that does not possess four walls and a roof.

This structural bias is most evident in the statistical erasure of both burial sites and commemorative monuments. Based on the presentation deck (Slide 29), only 2 cemeteries, 3 mausoleums, and 5 monuments were recorded for the entire study area, which encompasses 29,300 hectares (Slide 2). For an island with over 250 years of multicultural history, these figures are a statistical impossibility. They indicate that the study’s framework, as presented, failed to identify not only the scattered graves and clan-based burial grounds of pioneers but also the vast array of historical markers that are neither buildings nor graves.

By prioritizing "Building Styles" over historical objects, the authorities have effectively ignored vital tangible evidence of Penang’s earliest founders. Based on the presentation deck, the inventory appears to omit major historical landmarks such as the Chung Thye Phin Fountain, the Koh Seang Tat Fountain, the Ayer Itam War Memorial, and the Esplanade Obelisk. Furthermore, because the methodology focuses on habitable shells, it erases built heritage in the form of statuary and specific memorials, such as the Victoria Memorial at Victoria Green, the Captain Francis Light statue, and the 1902 bronze statue of Chung Keng Quee. The state's system is blind to any monument—regardless of its historical or artistic weight—that does not conform to the definition of a roofed building.

Furthermore, the "Heritage Identification Criteria" listed in Slide 10 mentions "Scientific or technical innovations," yet the discovery tables show almost no record of the sites associated with such achievements. For instance, while the Chinese were known to have introduced innovations in tin mining as early as 1786, the presentation identifies only 2 industrial items and 7 associations (Slide 29). Based on the information in the presentation deck, the system is designed to protect the "curb appeal" of residential and commercial facades while systematically overlooking the tangible sites of early industrial, social, and commemorative innovation.

Section II: The 1786 Barrier—Erasure of Early Pioneer Presence

A critical historical deficiency revealed in the presentation deck is the construction of a timeline that treats the 1786 arrival of the British as a "year zero" for Penang’s tangible heritage. This chronological filtering is most evident in Slide 32, where the "Morphology of Village Development" skips over a millennium of history—including the thousand-year Hindu-Buddhist context consistent with the Bujang Valley—and begins its narrative only in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. By ignoring these earlier archaeological strata, the presentation implies that the island’s tangible history is limited to what exists in colonial-era building plans and the "National Archives" (Slide 4).

This administrative bias effectively erases the presence of early pioneers who established themselves decades before colonial record-keeping began. For example, while epigraphic materials and historical records place Chinese pioneers in Tanjong Tokong as early as the 1730s and 1740s, the presentation deck (Slide 34) sets the village's origin at 1780. Furthermore, the "Discovery of Results" (Slide 29) lists zero 18th-century stone inscriptions or non-architectural markers that would confirm this earlier presence. Based on the presentation deck, the study's reliance on "State/National Museum" and "Archive" records (Slide 4) prioritizes official documentation over physical evidence, rendering the earliest founding fathers of the Chinese and Indian communities invisible.

By focusing on "Building Styles" (Slide 29) rather than archaeological or epigraphic evidence, the authorities have created a system that is blind to the 18th-century innovations and settlements that predated the British. The presentation fails to recognize that "built heritage" includes the very stones and markers that prove these pioneers were already active in areas like Tanjong Tokong and the tin mines of Larut well before the colonial gaze was fixed upon them. Consequently, the information in the deck presents a sanitized history that aligns heritage almost exclusively with the post-1786 administrative era.

Section III: Ethnocentric Mapping and the Religious Boundary Logic

A further systemic flaw identified in the presentation deck is the use of a narrow, ethnocentric lens to define the physical boundaries of Penang’s historical geography. For the study of "traditional villages," the deck explicitly states that the boundary area for settlements such as Tanjong Tokong (Slide 34), Bagan Jermal (Slide 35), and Kampung Dodol (Slide 36) was determined primarily by "members of the mosque's parish." Based on the information in the presentation deck, this methodology tethers "heritage" to a singular religious institution, effectively centering the narrative on one community while marginalizing others.

This religious-centric mapping logic creates an exclusionary framework that likely overlooks the multi-ethnic footprints of Penang's diverse founders. By using the mosque parish as the definitive boundary for a village, the authorities automatically risk excluding the early Chinese and Indian pioneer sites—such as clan-based dwellings, early trade associations, or pioneer graves—that existed within or adjacent to these same geographic areas during the 18th century. Because the deck focuses on "village characters" determined by specific religious demographics, it fails to present a framework capable of recognizing the integrated, multicultural reality of early Penang settlements.

Furthermore, the "Discovery of Results" (Slide 29) reflects this bias through its categorization. While it identifies 10 mosques, it records only 13 Hindu temples and 17 churches across the entire 29,300-hectare study area. Based on the presentation deck, this disproportionate focus—combined with the parish-led boundary setting—suggests that the study’s methodology was designed to validate a specific Malay-centric morphology (Slide 32) rather than to provide a neutral, inclusive audit of all pioneer settlements. Consequently, the tangible heritage of the Chinese and Indian founding fathers is treated as an architectural footnote rather than a foundational component of the village landscape.

Section IV: Visual Aesthetics vs. Historical Integrity

The "Heritage Building Guidelines" (Slides 40–42) further reveal that the authorities have prioritized a "facade-deep" conservation model over the preservation of historical or archaeological integrity. The guidelines focus almost exclusively on visual elements, such as "V" profile terra cotta tiles, specific colour schemes, and window shapes (Slide 40). Based on the presentation deck, the state’s primary concern is maintaining a uniform "image" and "streetscape" (Slide 45). While these aesthetic controls are useful for urban planning, they fail to address the deeper tangible heritage that lies beneath the surface.

This fixation on aesthetics means that if a site lacks a recognizable 19th-century facade, it is effectively ignored by the study’s framework. The guidelines (Slide 43) emphasize that any changes must be "reversible," yet there is zero mention of protocols for the discovery of archaeological remains, epigraphic markers, or pioneer graves during building works. By focusing on "curb appeal," the presentation proves that the authorities are treating heritage as a static visual object rather than a site of historical strata. This methodology fails to protect the "built heritage" of the 18th century—such as the foundations of early pioneer settlements or the artifacts of industrial innovation—because those items do not contribute to the modern architectural "character" the state seeks to project.

Conclusion

Based on the information in the presentation deck, the 2014 Heritage Inventory study appears to be a development control map masquerading as a historical audit. By filtering 29,300 hectares of land through a narrow checklist of shophouses and bungalows, the authorities have systematically erased the physical evidence of Penang’s earliest multicultural pioneers. The presentation records the "shell" of 19th and 20th-century architecture but remains structurally blind to the fountains, monuments, pioneer graves, and 18th-century markers that define the island’s founding era.

Ultimately, the deck presents a sanitized, ethnocentric narrative that aligns heritage with colonial administrative dates while ignoring the thousand-year-old regional context and the early 1730s–40s innovations of Chinese and Indian pioneers. For a truly "comprehensive" inventory (Slide 8) to exist, the state must move beyond the "Building Trap" and adopt a methodology that recognizes all forms of tangible heritage—regardless of whether they have a roof, a facade, or a parish affiliation.

TRANSCRIBED TEXT FROM THE DECK
which can be found, missing pages and all, at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B64y4s-_fMzkSjJVZkhTLTBVME0/view?fbclid=IwY2xjawRENt5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFKVkpFMzA5bU5Da08zY2hzc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHlT0Ly-7EO5FarGndLKRcb_5YhVKwnsvSKT66ZTt5Twia79SMGNuC2jtyjyo_aem_h_N2Lmt3H90Js199HWh5Nw&resourcekey=0-rFrFvtWMuHVdOYriPTvhKg

Page 1

8/10/2014

Slide 1

PENANG AREA TANGIBLE HERITAGE INVENTORY PRESENTATION SESSION

Slide 2

Background of the Study

The Penang Tangible Heritage Inventory is a project under the joint venture of the Penang State Government and George Town World Heritage Incorporated. an inventory.

This inventory is prepared to cover the entire area in the North East District and the South West District except for the core zone and buffer zone of the UNESCO World Heritage Site of George Town and Bukit Bendera with an area of 29,300 hectares.

Page 2

8/10/2014

Slide 3

Chronology of Heritage Buildings in Penang

A pilot project on the Heritage Building Inventory was carried out by the Penang Municipal Council in collaboration with consultants from Germany in the late 1980s. This pilot project was prepared at Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah and Lebuh Muntri, George Town.

The next Heritage Building Inventory was prepared in 1994 which covered the area around George Town. A total of 1,400 buildings were identified as Heritage Buildings and the majority consisted of kedal houses.

In 1997, a running expert, PDC AR & T, was appointed to conduct a study of the Heritage Building Inventory in the State of Penang which covered the island.

However, after 15 years of the inventory being prepared, there were still buildings/monuments/sites that had the potential to be categorized as heritage buildings. In October 2012, (after 15 years) a running expert, IZM Consult, was appointed to update information on all heritage buildings/monuments/sites found in the island, the State of Penang except for the core zone and buffer zone, for the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of George Town and Penang Hill.

This inventory was prepared within 6 months and as a result, there were 2,506 buildings/monuments/sites that were eligible to be listed as heritage in the study area.

Study Chronology

First Site Visit (Oct-Dec '12)

Involving the island areas in Sections 1-6, Sections 11-13, USM, Tanjung Tokong, Tanjung Bungah, Batu Feringghi, and Pulau Jerejak. The study was carried out by IZM, UPM, and USM.

Second Site Visit (Jan-Mar '13) The parties involved were IZM and USM.

Site Visit 3 (Apr-Aug (13) Conducted by IZM only.

Site Visit 4 (Sep-Dec

Site Visit 5 (Feb '14)

Involving traditional village areas such as Kg. Teluk Bahang, Kg. Tanjung Tokong, Kg. Bagan Jermal, Kg. Kelawai, Kg. Dodol, Kg. Batu Uban, Kg. Kongsi Balik Pulau, and Kg. Masjid Teluk Kumbar.

Site Visit 6 (Jun '14)

Discovery of 6 British forts; 5 forts located in Teluk Kumbar and 1 fort located on the border of Bayan Lepas Airport.

Slide 4

Stages of Study

1. Stage 1: List of Existing Heritage

A review with GTWHI, Penang Municipal Council and the Penang State Town and Country Planning Department aimed to obtain records/lists/regarding existing buildings/monuments/heritage sites. This list is the basis for the initial preparation of this inventory.

2. Stage 2: Field Study

The study was conducted based on the inventory form set by the GTWHI.

3. Stage 3: References / Supporting Materials

References to the history and background of the building / heritage site at the National Archives Department, State / National Museum, State / National Library and interviews with interested individuals. information about the heritage.

4. Stage 4: Data Entry

Conducting an analysis of the information obtained which includes historical, physical, social and cultural aspects of the building / site.

5. Stage 5: Inventory Report

An Inventory Report is prepared which includes reports, photos and stories about each building / monument / heritage site. Suggestions on heritage conservation methods are provided to facilitate future control and planning.

Page 3

8/10/2014

Slide 5

[map]

Grid involved for inventory study

Slide 6

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Sections involved in inventory studies

Map

GEORGE TOWN, TG BUNGAH AND BATU FERRINGHI

Number of Grids Involved:

1. George Town Section 1

2. George Town Section 2

3. George Town Section 3

4. George Town Section 4

5. George Town Section 5

6. George Town Section 6

7. George Town Section 9w

8. George Town Section 11e

9. George Town Section 12

10. George Town Section 13

11. George Town Section 14

12. George Town Section 15

13. George Town Section 16

14. Air Itam

15. Balik Pulau

16. Bayan Lepas

17. Batu Ferringhi

18. Tanjung Tokong

19. Tanjung Bungah

Map

AIR ITAM

Map

BAYAN LEPAS

Map

Balik Pulau

Page 4

8/10/2014

Slide 7

Example of Tangible Heritage Inventory Form

And

BACKGROUND

INVENTORY OF PENANG'S tangible heritage

ARCHITECTURE FEATURES

Reference No. 1242/380/072

Date: November 2017

surveyed by manull

D. PHOTOGRAPH

00080

E. DESCRIPTION Significant value

Remarks

Slide 8

Goals and Objectives

1. Prepare a Tangible Heritage Inventory which includes historical, physical, social and cultural studies for the purpose of preserving Penang's heritage values.

2. Determine the category of heritage buildings for the purpose of facilitating conservation proposals based on the eligibility of the identified heritage building/site/monument.

3. Prepare a distribution plan to facilitate control and planning over the heritage building/site/monument and the surrounding area.

4. Explain the importance of the heritage value of each building / site / heritage monument for the purpose of strengthening the inventory and facilitating future conservation actions.

"Producing a comprehensive and complete Inventory of Penang's Tangible Heritage in an effort to enhance the historical value and uphold the heritage of the State of Penang"

Source: Penang Tangible Heritage Inventory, 2012

Page 5

8/10/2014

Slide 9

Preparation Requirements

1. The state government needs a research and development plan on the heritage of the State of Penang

2. Record all tangible heritage buildings (buildings/monuments/heritage sites) found in the island area of Penang to provide better quality planning/conservation measures.

3. Conserve and maintain unique and interesting elements of character, history, culture, and architectural design.

4. Facilitate the state government to plan and carry out conservation work based on an inventory that has been identified and is capable of contributing to the development of the tourism economy.

5. To serve as the location and surrounding area of heritage buildings/sites/monuments as a tourist attraction and contribute to the development of state tourism.

6. Record existing heritage assets that have nostalgic, architectural, aesthetic, symbolic, historical, documentary, archaeological, economic, social, political, and spiritual value so that they can be used for future generations.

Slide 10

Heritage Identification Criteria

Based on Section 67, National Heritage Act 2005, the criteria used for eligibility to be listed as heritage are:

1. Historical significance or connection to Malaysian history;

2. Design or aesthetic features;

Scientific or technical innovations or achievements;

4. Social or cultural relations;

5. The potential to educate, explain or provide further scientific investigations relating to Malaysia's cultural heritage;

6. Interest in displaying extraordinary richness, diversity or integration of forms;

7. Uniqueness of natural heritage, tangible or intangible cultural heritage or water cultural heritage;

8. A description of the shape of a site or object; and

9. Any other matters relating to the determination of important cultural heritage.

Page 6

8/10/2014

Slide 11

Determination of Category 1 and Category 2

All buildings / monuments / heritage sites listed in this inventory are given a Category 1 or Category 2 recommendation to facilitate control actions and planning in the future.

[table]

Definition | Authenticity and Interpretation | Permitted Use | Permitted Work

Category 1

1. Monuments and buildings of exceptional interest

ii. Monuments and buildings declared as ancient and gazetted formerly under the Antiquities Act (1976) now under the National Heritage Act (2005).

iii. Monuments and buildings registered as National Heritage under the National Heritage Act (2005).

Must be conserved to retain their original use, form, decoration and traditional materials in order to preserve their authenticity, both physical and cultural.

The use should remain as originally intended, when possible. Any adaption to the use must have minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place and requires the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment.

Only restoration work is allowed be carried out in order to reinstate back its original character and maintaining its original fabric using similar construction method and materials.

Category 2

Buildings and items of special interest that warrant every effort being made to preserve them.

The authencity of their connection to the street-the facade and five-foot-way and/or compound, the original materials used, the style of openings and decoration should be maintain, restored and conserved, or if altered at some point in time, is returned back to the original.

The best use will very often be the use for which the building was originally designed and the continuation or reinstatement of that use should certainly be the first option when the future of that building is considered. But not all original uses will now be viable or necessarily be oppropriate. The nature of uses can change over time, so that in some cases the original use may now be less compatible with the building than an alternative.

The original building profile such as features of air well, forecourt, internal court, rear court, etc. shall be retained and restored to its original condition.replacing the existing materials should have similar profile, performance, design, colour and texture or equivalent. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.

Source: Draft Special Area Plan George Town (2011), Category 1 and Category 2

[My note: Gap. These favour buildings, and not tombs or other monuments, especially those that may be listed Category 2]

Slide 12

Discovery of [or introduction to] the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

1. Based on references with the GTWHI (1997 Inventory), the National / State Archives Department, the Penang Museum Board and reviews in the study area, there are [**]2,506[**] buildings / monuments / heritage sites identified in the island area, Penang. (refer to the Figure below)

Total Recent Field Studies: 6,042

2013 Inventory Total: 2,506

1997 Inventory Total: 2,269

Amount of Additional Inventory: 660

a. National Archives / Penang Museum: 47

b. Field Study: 547

Rejected Inventory Amount (1997): 320

a. Redevelopment: 281

b. The building was demolished: 39

Source: Penang Tangible Heritage Inventory, 2012

Page 7

Slide 13

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Area involved for Inventory

George Town Section 1

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Bagan Jermal: 2

2. Jalan Biggs: 3

3. Jalan Brother James: 1

4. Jalan Brown: 3

5. Jalan Gottlieb: 1

6. Jalan Park: 4

7. Jalan Tar: 2

8. Lebuhraya Maktab: 8

9. Lorong Kelawei: 2

10. Lorong Kuching: 4

11. Lorong Maktab: 1

12. Lorong Pulau Tikus: 7

13. Medan Maktab: 15

Subtotal: 53

Slide 14

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

George Town Section 2

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Abdullah Arifff: 22

2. Jalan Ayer Terjun: 5

3. Jalan Lim Mah Chye: 4

4. Jalan Scotland: 19

5. Jalan Jockey: 3

6. Jalan Kuda: 8

7. Solok Scotland: 19

8. Jalan Kebun Bunga: 1

9. Jalan Ayer Itam: 1

10. Jalan Air Terjun: 1

Subtotal: 83

Page 8

Slide 15

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 3

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Ayer Itam: 8

2. Jalan Barnett: 2

3. Jalan Barrack: 5

4. Jalan Tato Keramat: 4

5. Jalan Gopeng: 25

6. Jalan Penjara: 1

7. Jalan Residensi: 5

8. Jalan Scotland: 1

9. Jalan Sepoy Lines: 5

10. Jalan Utama: 6

11. Jalan Vermont: 3

12. Jalan York: 15

13. Lebuh Nambyar: 12

14. Lebuhraja Babington: 2

15. Lintant Pasar: 2

Subtotal: 96

Slide 16

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 4

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Dun: 1

2. Jalan Bell: 4

3. Jalan Cantonment 15

4. Jalan Concordia: 1

5. Jalan Maulmein: 6

6. Jalan Macalister: 2

7. Jalan Raja Gopal: 9

8. Jalan Yeoh Guan Seok: 2

9. Lebuhraya Codrington: 3

10. Lorong Bangkok: 39

11. Lorong Birch: 16

12. Lorong Burmah: 4

13. Jalan Perak: 2

14. Jalan Burmah: 1

15. Jalan Batu Gantong: 1

Subtotal: 106

Page 9

Slide 17

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 5

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Ayer Itam: 8

2. Jalan Han Chiang: 4

3. Taman Kennedy: 6

4. Jalan Masjid: 14

5. Taman Sir Hussein: 12

Subtotal: 44

Slide 18

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 6

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Hargreaves: 1

2. Jalan Lim Lean Teng: 47

3. Jalan Masjid Negeri: 9

4. Jalan Perak: 6

5. Jalan P. Ramlee: 1

Subtotal: 64

Page 10

[ there is nothing on George Town Section 7 or 8]

Slide 19

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 9

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Haji Hashim Imam: 1

2. Jalan Jelutong: 13

3. Jalan Pattani: 1

4. Jalan Sg. Pinang: 6

Subtotal: 22

Slide 20

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 10

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Dato Keramat: 10

2. Jalan Gurdwara: 2

3. Jalan Kajang: 9

4. Jalan Kg. Jawa Lama: 7

5. Jalan Kuantan: 8

6. Jalan Trang: 19

7. Jalan Kg. Jawa Baru: 6

8. Jalan Tye Kee Yoon: 12

Subtotal: 73

Page 11

Slide 21

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 11

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Gudwara: 21

2. Jalan Magazine: 69

3. Jalan Nanking: 25

4. Jalan C. Y. Choy: 193

5. Lebuh Cecil: 42

6. Lebuh Herriot: 23

7. Lebuh Katz: 26

8. Lebuh McNair: 30

9. Lebuh Macallum: 40

10. Lebuh Nordin: 80

11. Lebuh Presgrave: 91

12. Lebuh Tye Sin: 26

Subtotal: 666

Slide 22

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 12

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Dato Keramat: 3

2. Jalan Dunlop: 2

3. Jalan Merican: 10

4. Jalan Seang Tek: 28

5. Jalan Siam: 25

6. Lebuh Melaka: 3

7. Jalan Irving: 14

8. Jalan Kek Chuan: 16

9. Jalan Kim Bian Aik: 54

10. Jalan Krian: 30

11. Jalan Lim Eow Thoon: 12

12. Jalan Macalister: 6

13. Jalan Pahang: 8

14. Jalan Perak: 1

15. Jalan Perlis: 15

16. Lorong 100 Tahun: 6

17. Lorong Baru: 16

18. Jalan Anson: 1

19. Tingkat Nirvarna: 13

20. Jalan Nirvana: 7

Subtotal: 270

Page 12

Slide 23

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 13

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Pangkor: 1

2. Jalan Puah Hin Leong: 33

3. Jalan Service: 29

4. Jalan Arratoon: 12

5. Jalan Burmah: 16

6. Jalan Clove Hall: 2

7. Jalan Irrawadi: 64

8. Jalan Khaw Sim Bee: 27

9. Jalan Logan: 5

10. Jalan Loh Boon Siew: 21

11. Jalan Macalister: 3

12. Jalan Mandalay: 15

13. Jalan Padang Victoria: 5

14. Jalan Perak: 2

15. Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah: 13

Subtotal: 248

Slide 24

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 14

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan A. S. Mansoor: 11

2. Jalan Ariffin: 25

3. Jalan Sekerat: 10

4. Lorong Amoy: 8

5. Lorong Ceylon: 44

6. Jalan Argyll: 11

Subtotal: 109

Page 13

Slide 25

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 15

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Bawasah: 11

2. Jalan Burmah: 25

3. Jalan Dindings: 2

4. Jalan Kedah: 8

5. Jalan Hutton: 39

6. Jalan Kelantan: 3

7. Jalan Larut: 1

8. Jalan Nagore: 46

9. Lorong Popus: 18

Subtotal: 153

Slide 26

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

George Town Section 16

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Anson: 6

2. Jalan Ho Tiang Wan: 10

3. Jalan Macalister: 9

4. Jalan Rangoon: 9

5. Jalan Talipon: 5

6. Jalan Zainal Abidin: 2

7. Lorong Kinta: 24

8. Lorong Macalister: 17

9. Lorong Madras: 14

10. Lebuh Ong Chong Keng: 8

11. Lebuh Abu Sitti: 8

12. Lorong Bertam: 11

Subtotal: 123

Page 15

[No Page Number 14]

Slide 27

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Areas involved in the Penang Island Heritage Inventory

Tanjong Bungah

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Tanjong Bungah: 1

Subtotal: 1

Tanjong Tokong

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Tanjong Tokong: 4

2. Evergreen:

3. Jalan Fettes: 1

Subtotal: 5

Batu Ferringhi

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Batu Ferringhi: 2

Subtotal: 2

Jelutong

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Jalan Perak: 30

Subtotal: 30

Gelugor

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Universiti Sains Malaysia: 9

2. Jalan Batu Uban: 1

Subtotal: 10

Pulau Jerejak

[table]

Number | Street Name | Number of Buildings

1. Pulau Jerejak: 10

Subtotal: 10

Slide 28

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

2. Of the 2,506 buildings / monuments / heritage sites, the following is a breakdown based on the use of the buildings (refer to the diagram below).

[PIE CHART]

Semi D 6%

Bungalow 5%

Mansion 4%

Instituition 2%

Temple/Wat 2%

Government quarters 2%

Mosque 2%

Educational 1%

Church 1%

Market 1%

Association, Garrage & Sub-Station 1%

Monument Mouseleam Cemetery, industrial, Garden & Recreationai 1%

Source: Penang Tangible Heritage Inventory, 2012

Page 16

Slide 29

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

3. Breakdown of building design by type of building use

[table]

Shop House 305 84 167 121 67 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 15 762

Terrace House 97 117 310 471 163 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 67 1,234

Semi Detached 1 0 0 30 84 0 5 1 7 46 0 0 0 0 174

Mansion 0 0 0 19 2 36 1 0 31 0 1 0 0 91

Bungalow 0 1 0 23 14 6 4 10 2 11 0 0 0 4 75

Institution 0 0 0 6 1 13 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 23

Goverment Quarters 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Association 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7

Educational 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Market 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

Garden & Recreational 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6

Mosque 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 5 10

Chinese Temple 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 50 59

Hindu Temple 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 2 13

Church 0 0 0 5 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 17

Cemetery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Mouseleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3

Monument 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5

Industrial 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Sub-station 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Garage 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Museum 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Total 403 202 480 692 344 58 15 20 9 95 6 10 9 163 2,506

Slide 30

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

4. Formula of the highest number according to type of design and use.

Building Type | Building Style | Total || Building Type | Building Style | Total

Shop House Southern Chinese Eclectic 84 Mosque Others 5

Terrace House Art Deco 471 Chinese Temple Others 50

Semi Detached Early Modern 84 Hindu Temple Indian Architecture 9

Mansion Neo-Classical 36 Church Others 7

Bungalow Art Deco 23 Cemetery Others 2

Institution Neo-Classical 13 Mausoleum Sino Malay Pall, Islamic Architecture, others 1

Government Quarters Early Modern 6 Monument Others 4

Association Art Deco 3 Industrial Art Deco 2

Educational Art Deco 5 Sub-station Art Deco 1

Market Others 2 Garage Art Deco 1

Garden and Recreational Others 3 Museum Late straits eclectic, art deco, neo classical 1

Page 17

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Examples of 'shophouses' in the study area

Determining the type of building between 'shophouse' and 'terrace house'.

Shophouse

A 'Shophouse' is by definition a terraced house that combines the function of a shop and house.

The 'shophouse' is typically a long, double -storey building with a narrow frontage. The five-footway or front veranda of row of such houses join to create a continuous arcade.

Source: http//www.sunyatsenpenang.com

Terrace House

A terrace house is generically called a 'shophouse'. It were designed chiefly for residential use.

In the building plans such a house is identified as a 'dwelling house'.

Under the UNESCO dossier submission, it has been decided to call the better quality merchant house 'townhouse' to distinguish it from the vernacular 'shophouse'.

Source: http//www.sunyatsenpenang.com

SLIDE

Discovery of Heritage Inventory Results

Island area

4. Potential for traditional villages on Penang Island

1. Teluk Bahang Village

Source: http://jkkpbahngbay.blogspot.com/2010/12/sejarah-teluk-bahang.html

1734

1700an

2. Tanjung Tokong Village

Sumber: karim, W. J. (2008) Tanjong Tokong: A proposal for a sustainable Malay Heritage Village on Penang's North East Cost, Propsal submitted to the Ministry of Unity, culture, Arts and Heritage, Malaysia

1730-1795

1700an

1706

3. Bagan Jermal Village

1800an

4. Kelawai Village

Source: http://www.penang-traveltips.com/kelawai-road.htm

1800an

5. Dodol Village

Source: http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/masjid hashim yahaya

1800an

Morphology of Village Development in Penang

1600 - Existence of Achinese community at Muka Head

1705 - Existence of Tanjong Penaga, Dato Keramat, Teluk Jelutong, Sungai Kluang

1734 - Exploration of Batu Iban by Nacodah Intan and construction of Batu Uban surau

1749-1759 - Opening of the settlement at Bukit Batu Uban by Datok Janaton

1786 - Francis Light begins Penang deployment

Opening of paddy cultivation settlement in Sungai Kluang, Sungai Pinang and Tanjung Tokong

1790-1795 - Opening of the Jelutong Bay, Lanchang Bay, Gelugor River, Dua River and Nihong River

1797 - Opening of Bayan Lepas by Haji Brunes and Long Syed

1786-1857

- Giving Datok Keramat to Datok Setia from Kuala Muda

- Giving Gelugor to Captain Scott

- Giving Ayer Itam to Bacon

- Opening Permatang Damar Laut by Pah Kecil and Batu Bara (Indonesia) together with - Jamaludin dan Nacodah Che Salleh from Lingga

- Opening Teluk Kumbar by Nacodah Seedin from Deli and Panglima Long and Sebul

- Opening of Balik Pulau by Lebai Tampar from Deli

1818 - Batu Uban was handed over to David Brown.

PAGE

SLIDE

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Batu Uban Village

Source Mahani Musa (2010) in Muhammad Haji Salleh (Editor "Early History of Penang" Publisher USM Penang.

1700an

7. Kongsi Village, Balik Pulau

1800an

Source: http://jkkkpkongsi.blogspot.com/2010/12/sejarah-balik-pulau-danuniknya-kongsi.html.

8. Teluk Kumbar Mosque Village

Source: http://eprints.usm.my/4843/1/Sejarahawal History of Penang.pdf

1700an

Batu Uban Village

Telok Kumbar village

SLIDE

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Tanjong Tokong Village (Year 1780)

The determination of the boundary area for Kampung Tanjong Tokong is determined by the members of the mosque's parish and also based on the development pressure occurring in the area.

Teluk Bahang Village, Batu Ferringhi

The Kampung Teluk Bahang area originally covered the fishing village located facing the sea, but later only covered the area above it.

PAGE

SLIDE

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

➤ Bagan Jermal Village (1800)

The determination of the boundary area for Kampung Bagan Jermal is determined by the members of the mosque's parish and also based on the village profile that has been determined by the JPBD.

Kelawai Village (1800)

Originally, Kampung Kelawai covered a large area up to Gurney Drive, however, due to pressure from surrounding development, it has become smaller, covering an area that still retains the original character of the village.

SLIDE

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Dodol Village (1800)

The determination of the boundary area of Kampung Dodol is based on the area that has been endowed by the landlord and owner of the Hashim Yahaya Mosque.

➤

Batu Uban Village (1700)

The determination of the Kampung Batu Uban boundary area covers the village area that still has the original character of the village after receiving the pressure of current development.

PAGE

SLIDE

8/10/2014

Discovery of the Results of the Heritage Inventory of the Island Area

Prison Building

The role

The Leper Cump (Resort bland)

Prison Building

New

Gift Chick

Church Pulau

Island Water Well

Christian and Chinese cemeteries

Old Jetty of Jerejak Island

Elements

Heritage Building Guidelines

Guidance Statement

A) EXTERIOR PART OF THE BUILDING

Roof

Traditional roofing materials according to size, 'V' profile, tiles made of terra cotta/clay in the "marseille" pattern (Indian or French) or "interlocking" 'S' profile can be used for art deco and modern buildings. If the roof is rebuilt, the structure should be made of wood, following the original pattern.

Front Facade

The roof porch is maintained according to the original design, terra cotta/clay tiles, fascia boards

Masonry, mortar and plaster walls must be maintained as original.

Destruction, modification or additions that reduce the originality/aesthetics of the building's facade are not permitted.

The colour scheme for the facade should match and harmonize with the typical character of the heritage building and the streetscape. There are specific colour schemes according to historical periods that can be used as a reference.

Windows and Doors

Original windows and doors should be retained.

Windows and second doors using clear glass and wooden frames are permitted. Tinted glass and aluminum are not permitted.

Shophouses with wide openings at the front are encouraged to use traditional concept board doors or "folding metal grille".

The use of metal roller shutters is permitted provided they are installed behind a board door. Roller shutters made of transparent material are encouraged so that the interior of the store can be seen from the outside.

The verandah way space must be maintained and cleared.

If necessary, a traditional wooden fence not exceeding 1.2 meters

Patio/Veranda

height is allowed. New iron fences are not allowed.

PAGE

SLIDE

8/10/2014

Heritage Building Guidelines

Installation of roofs on heritage buildings of the 'V' type Terracotta Tile which should be maintained Source: Case Study on the Conservation of Historic Buildings (2004)

Example of using color schemes for heritage building facades

Source: ww.buildingconservation.blogspot.com

Example of window shapes that conflict with the original windows of the building

Examples of window shapes that should be maintained according to the building's original windows

Heritage Building Guidelines

Elements

Guidance Statement

B) EXTERIOR PART OF THE BUILDING

Floor

Original floor tiles such as terra cotta, terrazzo and mosaic should be retained.

The new finish should match the original floor tile pattern and type.

"Gloss" ceramic tiles are not permitted.

New cement floors should be replaced with the original material.

The edging of the steps or "heel stone" and stairs using granite should be maintained.

Ceiling

The beams and lower part of the first floor should be exposed to maintain the original features of the shophouse shape.

The original ceiling profile/design should be maintained. Original pattern elements should be retained and preserved.

Backyard

Air space in the backyard should be maintained

Elements

C) MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

Guidance Statement

Security Surveillance

Security surveillance equipment such as CCTV is permitted but subject to necessity, suitability, unobtrusive placement, and unobtrusive design and color.

Electrical Cables

Electrical cables must be attached with iron clips instead of "Portland" cement. The fixing of electrical cables on the surface of the external facade is not permitted.

PAGE

8/10/2014

Heritage Building Guidelines

Guidance Statement

Elements

F) OTHERS

Infill Construction

Building designs on sites surrounded by heritage buildings should take into account the character, height, building materials and colour schemes that need to be coordinated with the buildings in the area. This is to ensure that new developments are in keeping with the scale, height and setback of the heritage site.

The design of new buildings, including the facade, quality of building materials and retention of certain elements, must be adapted to or nearly identical to adjacent buildings to ensure that the new development is in harmony with the environment and does not stand out.

Change

Involves work to modify the function and use of an old building to a new one, while still maintaining the original form and characteristics of the building.

Changes to heritage sites are not permitted unless they do not compromise the cultural value of the heritage site; and cannot be seen from the road or main location.

Any permitted changes to building details such as original space usage and element characteristics must be recorded and documented for reference. 'As-built architectural drawings' and new construction drawings must be provided to record changes to the building.

Any changes to building details must be 'reversible', meaning they can be changed back to the original design.

Heritage Building Guidelines

Infill development that must follow the height and character of adjacent buildings

Examples of heritage building conservation

Source: MBMB Building Conservation Unit (2011)

Elements

Guidance Statement

F) OTHERS

Painting

The principle of heritage building conservation is to preserve the building in its original form, including the building's color. Therefore, for buildings that have deteriorated, the original color of the building can be identified by scraping off the paint layer.

Painting is encouraged for the purpose of beautifying and cleaning heritage sites.

Paint cleaning work is carried out carefully without removing the original color. The selection of paint type must be in accordance with heritage conservation practices so that the value of cultural heritage is not erased.

PAGE

8/10/2014

Control and Implementation Measures

Once the inventory is prepared and the findings are identified, recommendations for the conservation and preservation of Penang's heritage assets are proposed, including:

1. Gazette 2,506 Buildings / Monuments / Heritage Sites as state-level heritage for the purpose of development control and image strengthening.

The gazetting of Buildings / Monuments / Heritage Sites involves the entire island area, Penang and does not include the UNESCO areas of George Town and Penang Hill.

2. Proposals for the conservation of buildings that have weak authenticity / can still be preserved based on design.

Conservation involves 241 buildings with poor authenticity. Of these, 111 buildings are government-owned buildings (quarters and administrative buildings).

3. Upgrading/preserving dilapidated buildings that still have good architectural integrity.

There are 14 buildings identified, including:

2 shophouses on Jalan Burma;

10 terrace houses on Jalan Hutton, Jalan Nagore,

Burma Road, Kajang Road and Lorong Pupus;

1 semi-detached lot on Jalan Air Itam (Lot 940); and

1 market on Jalan Dato Ismail Hashim (Lot 7).

Control and Implementation Measures

4. Implementation of heritage guidelines, to control any development that may disrupt or threaten the heritage value of a building/site/monument.

The heritage guidelines involve Category II buildings and traditional heritage villages. For Category I buildings, the guidelines are subject to the Draft Special Area Plan of George Town.

5. Control of development of heritage buildings involving shophouses and terrace houses.

Heritage building development control encompasses heritage features and building character uniformity. as well as

PAGE

8/10/2014

Control and Implementation Measures

6. Specific studies on traditional Penang villages that have a history and heritage background to prevent disposal due to development pressure, including:

➤ Kongsi Village, Balik Pulau

➤ Old Kebon Village

➤ Pinang River Village

➤ Batu Uban Village

➤ Fun Village

➤ Teluk Bahang Village, Batu Ferringhi

➤ Village Mosque, Bayan Lepas

➤ Tanjong Temple Village

7. Create a heritage conservation financial grant for the purpose of assisting and promoting the conservation of potential heritage buildings.

Conservation financial grants can assist building owners in conservation work so that they can have preserved heritage values. In addition, encouragement from the government and the private sector is highly welcome in participating in the Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR program.

Control and Implementation Measures

8. Establish a list of potential Heritage Buildings in the State Heritage Department. based on strong background factors, year built, design conditions and public function. In the Penang Tangible Heritage Inventory study, 27 buildings were proposed, namely:

Year

No.

Building Name

Location

Zainal Abidin Street

1805

Built

1 The Jewish Cemetery

40, Jalan Sultan

1805

2 The Runnymede (Federal Residence)

Ahmad Shah

3 Main House Seri Mutiara

Main Street

1888

4 Suffolk House (including Suffolk Bridge Estate)

Ayer Itam Road

1809

5 Brown Memorial (including Padang Brown)

Jalan Dato Keramat

1821

6 Brown Memorials (including Padang Brown)

Jalan Dato Keramat

1821

7 Penang Prison

Jail Street

1847

8 Penang Free School

State Mosque Road

1928

9 P.Ramlee Birth House

Off Counter Hall

1926

Road

10 Judge's House

Residency Road

1930

2.7

PAGE

8/10/2014

Control and Implementation Measures

Building Name

Location

Year Built

No.

11 Government Guest Houses

Macalister Road

1900

12 Botanical Gardens

Flower Garden Road

1884

13 District Office Building & Land

Return to the island

1880

14 Methodist Boys' School Building

Ayer Itam Road

1881

15 Japanese Cemetery

Latitude P.Ramlee

1893

16 Maqbul Mosques

Jelutong Road

1850

17 Jamek Mosque, Village Batu Uban

Kg. Graystone

1784

18 Kampung Bukit Mosque

Miss Lepas

1921

19 Kek Lok Si

Ayer Itam

1920

20 Snake Temple

Miss Lepas

1850

21 Nattukottai Chettier Temple

Water Fall Road

1858

22 Old Pek Kong Temple

Tanjong Temple

1800-an

23 Wat Chaiya Mangkalaram (Siamese Temple)

Burma Lane

1845

24 Dhammikarama Burmese Buddhist Temple

Burmah Road

1803

25 Church of Our Lady of Sorrows

Macalister Road

1786

26 Church of The Holy Name of Jesus

Return to the island

1845

No.

Control and Implementation Measures

Building Name

Location

Year Built

27 Church of the Immaculate Conception

Mouse Island

1810

28 Burmah Road Gospel Hall

Burma Road

1855

29 Church of Our Lady of Sorrows

Macalister Road

1786

Burmah Road Gospel Hall

Church of Our Lady of Sorrows

Church of Immaculate Conception

http://brgh.penang-assemblies.org/http://www.asiaexplorers.com/

Source: http://resourcs4christians.blogspot.com/

PAGE

8/10/2014

Inventory Study Issues and Potential

There is potential for an increase in the number of buildings / sites / monuments eligible to be listed in this study (660 units).

2. There is potential for traditional villages to be listed as heritage, including:

Tanjong Tokong Village (Year 1780)

Sungai Pinang Village (Year 1760)

Batu Uban Village (1734)

Kampung Kongsi, Balik Pulau

Fun Village

Teluk Bahang Village, Batu Ferringhi

Masjid Village, Bayan Lepas

3. Preparation of development control guidelines for areas with many heritage buildings and requiring specific guidance (especially areas adjacent to the buffer zone of the George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site).

THANK YOU SO MUCH

PAGE

Search This Blog

Straits Heritage Inquest (by Jeffery Seow)