Melbourne's Intangible Cultural Heritage

I've only just become familiar with the term "intangible heritage" over the last few weeks, and in particular the story of the National Trust's fight to preserve graffiti art, but also how it applies to other cases and who's role it is to preserve it.

Wikipedia defines cultural heritage as:

the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable
development.

Well besides the graffiti art, which has strong arguments on both sides of this coin (just about every local council in Melbourne now has an official graffiti strategy). I'm not an advocate for vandalism, but I was recently shocked by a visit to the long famous "Citylights" cultural art precinct at Centre Place which has been used in tourism promotions (such as the short one below) to discover that the once dingy and expressive lane had undergone at least a partial radical cleanup.



There are other recent examples and I personally believe that Australia is rich in intangible heritage - perhaps moreso than tangible heritage. As society changes, both demographically and in terms of technological advancement, I'd imagine that there will be plenty of fights to define and preserve intangible heritage in the future. Personally, I prefer to keep the tangible stuff. While I'm not trying to fight change completely, I just want to see the things saved that we will most definitely miss, just like I miss being able to walk down Bourke Street and marvel at the detail of the Eastern Arcade, what was once Melbourne's earliest and best surviving example of the Moorish Revival.

As a St Kilda resident, it is sad to see that Scheherezade, an Acland Street landmark that represents harmony in a multicultural community, will close its doors after 50 years of trading due to hostile landlords. You can find mentions of this restaurant in just about every guide to Melbourne and it is much loved by locals. Will St Kilda be the same without it - probably not. I think part of the reason the St Kilda pier kiosk was rebuilt is due not to the architectural or historical attributes of the building, but the intangible qualities of the business, Kerby's Kiosk, its memories and setting. I'd be similarly upset if Leo's sphagetti bar, probably Melbourne's first Italian restaurant opened in 1956, closed its doors. I know we can't protect businesses from closure, but surely some sort of rules could apply to offset their rents and help them to stay.

Reinstating the neon effect of the Skipping Girl sign could also fall under this category, and also living heritage like the corroboree tree at St Kilda junction and the little penguin colony at St Kilda pier. But some of this type of heritage there are so many grey areas, and one wonders just how, if and when you should try to save it without reducing our streets and parks to museums .... one thing is for sure, a practical solution needs to be found.

But the biggest question this whole thing poses to me is completely unrelated - why the hell are the National Trust trying to save intangible heritage like this when some of our most loved buildings are being demolished ? Have they given up the fight ?