Last month, the Taipei City Government posted proposals online for the development of the Taipei Railway Workshop site, finally revealing what the government had been planning, away from prying eyes, for the disused site.
A lot of research has already been devoted to exploring what part the site plays in the city’s industrial heritage, and the general public would like to see this important — in terms of the history of railways — area used for a railway museum.
However, the government, true to form, and with the incessant interference of directives from on high, is proceeding in the direction of a Taiwanese version of the Musee d’Orsay in Paris: a cultural shopping mall and luxury residential area, making a total botch job of what is hallowed ground for Taipei’s railway heritage.
Taipei residents, unless they have a terrible memory for such things, must recall how the city government commissioned the Railroad Culture Festival at various sites related to Taiwanese railways, including the workshop site, which ran for most of September and October.
The only reason the city’s Department of Cultural Affairs wanted to put the festival on was to give time for the Department of Urban Development and the entire city government to complete their plans. This included an initiative in which students from universities, technical colleges, research institutes and schools were invited to propose ideas for the development of the site and the uses it could have.
However, this was all little more than a front for its under-the-counter parceling out of which parts it wanted to give over to art galleries and which to other uses. At the end of last month, the city government finally revealed its hand, right on schedule, as it had planned to do right from the start.
The site has a long history as the place trains were sent for maintenance. Given this history, the reasons for renovating the premises to accommodate an art museum are tenuous at best. They would only make sense if there was another railway workshop in Taiwan, with an equivalent history, that could be converted into a railway museum in its stead.
When the workshop is gone, there will be no comparable railroad and industrial site. How can it be given to those who would make it into an art museum?
Of course, the city government says that the proposed museum will make an effort to incorporate railway culture, with railroad art represented in various media. However, in the absence of any real railroad culture conservation, this faux art with its somewhat tenuous associations to what it is supposed to be representing is hardly likely to engage the public.
As to the buildings within the premises, the city government is planning to convert them into facilities for “related cultural exhibitions and performances, commercial retail, leisure, administrative and residential” options.
It is common knowledge that there are no sanctions against destroying historical buildings within the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (文化資產保存法), and it would even be possible to demolish the entire lot, leaving nothing but a single window frame as a token gesture to conservation. Are the valuable buildings going to be converted into shops for young culture vultures, offices or residential buildings? Remember that developers could just pull down the whole edifice and pile up the rubble to the side as a piece of installation art. Why is the railway cultural heritage that belongs to the nation going to be sacrificed in this way?
Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said that there are a lot of railway fans in the nation, and that any development should only proceed after careful consultation, but qualified this sentiment by saying that the development must also be “optimized” in terms of the benefits it brings.
A contradiction exists between these two statements. Cultural preservation is not a profit-making enterprise. It has a far more profound mission: to educate and pass on cultural heritage to subsequent generations. If art and culture are reduced to being measured in commercial terms, the whole project is consigned to going the same way as the Huashan Creative Park and the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park, two other projects that the city government botched. It will become another commercial playground for young culture-vulture pretenders, a place utterly bereft of historical context and devoid of any cultural significance.
Senior government officials must intervene and make sure that the site is not converted into an art museum and shopping mall, so that it can become a historic site for the railway industry that Taipei can feel proud of.
A site for a “living” railroad museum in which the many engines and carriages that still exist can be displayed is a must, and the maintenance and manufacturing processes should be reconstructed.
Hung Chih-wen is an associate professor of geography at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers