ABSTRACT
Expert interpretations of heritage tend to favour a materially-focused definition, which can often conflict with an unofficial and less tangible interpretation, resulting not just in contrasting perceptions of significance, but in conflict and dissonance. The majority of those who wrote to both English Heritage and Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), as well as to local newspapers, about Bradford Odeon all expressed an emotional attachment to the site and a desire to see it reopened. Faro also challenges us to enable heritage processes that move beyond experts in government ministries to include the different publics who are associated with heritage sites. The heritage profession's authority to make binding statements on what should be conserved is increasingly being challenged. Faro also states that we need to put people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of heritage. But heritage is also multivocal meaning that sites are considered to be significant from multiple perspectives.
