The historic urban landscape paradigm understands cities as evolving phenomena, aligning the intangible cultural heritage perspective with the discourse on sustainable urban development. It recognizes the crucial role of collective custodianship in preserving cultural diversity. Tourism-focused, reductionist policies prioritizing economic development in cities of the Global South affected by rampant globalization profoundly challenge heritage resilience. This paper seeks to advance the discussion about sustainable development of social and cultural capital by providing evidence on the essential role of integral choral custodianship and communing for the preservation of living historic urban landscapes. It discusses a study on an endangered cultural practice of a world heritage site in Bhaktapur, Kathmandu Valley, focusing on a preeminent collective of the urban communities around a mobile and mutable cultural object: the Bhailakha chariot of the Biska Jatra festival. We describe the complex networks of relationships and spatial practices involving various human and non-human actors participating in the chariot event. We use qualitative ethnographic methodology guided by a redressed Actor-Network Theory framework. By examining the interactions between the key actors of this event, the research highlights how the Bhailakha’s stable concrete and symbolic dimensions depend on its dynamic becoming in the ever-changing socio-technical conditions. The paper elucidates the processes of affirmation, negotiation and transformation surrounding the Bhailakha, revealing the indeterminate interplay between tradition and modernity, conservation and renovation, and immanency and transcendence. The findings show the relevance of sustained, pluralistic and collaborative commoning practices for resisting endangered urban landscapes with differential development. The conclusion reflects on the contribution of applied relationality theory to the sustainable heritage discourse, advocating for the institution and adoption of a framework that requires historic urban landscape preservation policies to be based on a deep understanding of the complex embedded social, cultural and concrete dynamics of the pertinent productive networks of actants.

Keywords: Sustainable cities, community resilience, historic urban landscape, actor network theory, global south heritage, Bhaktapur

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. Deleuze G, Patton P. Difference and repetition. New York: Columbia University Press; 1994 [1968].
2. Smith L. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge; 2006.
3. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. 2011 [cited 2024 Oct 20]. Available from: https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/
4. Tweed C, Sutherland M. Built heritage: meaning and value. The Journal of Architecture. 2007;12(3):341–62.
5. Managing cultural world heritage. Paris: UNESCO; 2013.
6. Latour B. Whose cosmos, whose cosmopolitics? Comments on the peace terms of Ulrich Beck. Common Knowledge. 2004;10(3):450–92.
7. Smith N. Uneven development: nature, capital, and the production of space. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press; 2008.
8. Manfredini M. Affirmatively reading deterritorialisation in urban space: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. In: Brighenti AM, Kärrholm M, editors. Territories, environments, governance: explorations in territoriology. London: Routledge; 2022. p. 111–35.
9. Manfredini M. Envisioning urban commons as civic assemblages in the digitally augmented city. In: Taufen A, Yang Y, editors. The Routledge handbook of sustainable cities and landscapes in the Pacific Rim. Routledge; 2022. p. 687–703.
10. Bonnin C, Moore-Cherry N. Livelihoods as everyday heritage: urban redevelopment, heritage discourses and marketplace trade in Moore Street, Dublin. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2023;29(7):678–94.
11. Kawan SS, Manfredini M, Wang H. Commoning and territoriality in the public space “Plasma” of historical cities: investigating emplaced network dynamics in Bhaktapur, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Indonesian Architecture and Planning (ICIAP 2022), Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Swasto DF, et al., editors. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte. Ltd.; 2023. p. 215–31.
12. Dhaubadel O. Bisket jatra sambandi kehi tipotharu. 2018.
13. Duval M, Smith B, Hœrlé S, Bovet L, Khumalo N, Bhengu L. Towards a holistic approach to heritage values: a multidisciplinary and cosmopolitan approach. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2019 Dec 2;25(12):1279-301.
14. Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
15. Law J, Mol A. Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2001;19(5):609–21.
16. Latour B. Paris, invisible city: the plasma [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2024 Oct 20]. Available from: www.bruno-latour.fr.

The historic urban landscape paradigm understands cities as evolving phenomena, aligning the intangible cultural heritage perspective with the discourse on sustainable urban development. It recognizes the crucial role of collective custodianship in preserving cultural diversity. Tourism-focused, reductionist policies prioritizing economic development in cities of the Global South affected by rampant globalization profoundly challenge heritage resilience. This paper seeks to advance the discussion about sustainable development of social and cultural capital by providing evidence on the essential role of integral choral custodianship and communing for the preservation of living historic urban landscapes. It discusses a study on an endangered cultural practice of a world heritage site in Bhaktapur, Kathmandu Valley, focusing on a preeminent collective of the urban communities around a mobile and mutable cultural object: the Bhailakha chariot of the Biska Jatra festival. We describe the complex networks of relationships and spatial practices involving various human and non-human actors participating in the chariot event. We use qualitative ethnographic methodology guided by a redressed Actor-Network Theory framework. By examining the interactions between the key actors of this event, the research highlights how the Bhailakha’s stable concrete and symbolic dimensions depend on its dynamic becoming in the ever-changing socio-technical conditions. The paper elucidates the processes of affirmation, negotiation and transformation surrounding the Bhailakha, revealing the indeterminate interplay between tradition and modernity, conservation and renovation, and immanency and transcendence. The findings show the relevance of sustained, pluralistic and collaborative commoning practices for resisting endangered urban landscapes with differential development. The conclusion reflects on the contribution of applied relationality theory to the sustainable heritage discourse, advocating for the institution and adoption of a framework that requires historic urban landscape preservation policies to be based on a deep understanding of the complex embedded social, cultural and concrete dynamics of the pertinent productive networks of actants.

Keywords: Sustainable cities, community resilience, historic urban landscape, actor network theory, global south heritage, Bhaktapur

🔒 This is a subscription article

Full text is available to subscribers and institutional members. Please choose an option below to access it.

1. Deleuze G, Patton P. Difference and repetition. New York: Columbia University Press; 1994 [1968].
2. Smith L. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge; 2006.
3. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. 2011 [cited 2024 Oct 20]. Available from: https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/
4. Tweed C, Sutherland M. Built heritage: meaning and value. The Journal of Architecture. 2007;12(3):341–62.
5. Managing cultural world heritage. Paris: UNESCO; 2013.
6. Latour B. Whose cosmos, whose cosmopolitics? Comments on the peace terms of Ulrich Beck. Common Knowledge. 2004;10(3):450–92.
7. Smith N. Uneven development: nature, capital, and the production of space. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press; 2008.
8. Manfredini M. Affirmatively reading deterritorialisation in urban space: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. In: Brighenti AM, Kärrholm M, editors. Territories, environments, governance: explorations in territoriology. London: Routledge; 2022. p. 111–35.
9. Manfredini M. Envisioning urban commons as civic assemblages in the digitally augmented city. In: Taufen A, Yang Y, editors. The Routledge handbook of sustainable cities and landscapes in the Pacific Rim. Routledge; 2022. p. 687–703.
10. Bonnin C, Moore-Cherry N. Livelihoods as everyday heritage: urban redevelopment, heritage discourses and marketplace trade in Moore Street, Dublin. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2023;29(7):678–94.
11. Kawan SS, Manfredini M, Wang H. Commoning and territoriality in the public space “Plasma” of historical cities: investigating emplaced network dynamics in Bhaktapur, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Indonesian Architecture and Planning (ICIAP 2022), Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Swasto DF, et al., editors. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte. Ltd.; 2023. p. 215–31.
12. Dhaubadel O. Bisket jatra sambandi kehi tipotharu. 2018.
13. Duval M, Smith B, Hœrlé S, Bovet L, Khumalo N, Bhengu L. Towards a holistic approach to heritage values: a multidisciplinary and cosmopolitan approach. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2019 Dec 2;25(12):1279-301.
14. Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
15. Law J, Mol A. Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2001;19(5):609–21.
16. Latour B. Paris, invisible city: the plasma [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2024 Oct 20]. Available from: www.bruno-latour.fr.