
 UrbandevelopmentinGhent  / RozwójGandawy 39
tex  tile sector hardest, with a lot of manual work being 
moved to low-wage countries. Even the UCO (Union Co-
tonnière), once a ourishing textiles group, fell  on hard 
times. The decline in transit trac, in the wake of the oil 
crisis, also dealt severe blows to the port in Ghent. All at 
once, Ghent found itself with a surplus of industrial equip-
ment. A museum was founded in 1978 at the city archive 
to collect relics of Ghent’s industrial past.
It was some time before the Museum of Industrial Ar-
chaeology and Textile (MIAT), the forerunner to today’s 
Museum of Industry, found a home of its own. What does 
a collection of this kind entail? And where should it be 
housed? Before an answer was found to these questions, 
temporary exhibitions were held in various cultural and 
historic buildings in the city. A home was nally found for 
the museum in 1991, in the former Desmet-Guequier cot-
ton spinning mill on the Minnemeers in Ghent, where it is 
still located today. The building is on the border between 
the mediaeval city centre and the 19
th 
century suburbs, in 
the area that forms the transition between the city and the 
port area.
Given the importance of the textile industry for Ghent 
and the surrounding region, the museum concentrated on 
that branch of industry when it built up its collection be-
tween 1978 and 1989
3
. In the 1990s, however, its focus 
widened to encompass the material culture of industrial 
society in broader terms. The expansion of the collection 
was focused more on the acquisition of objects than on 
the development of themes. Most of these objects were 
acquired passively as donations, rather than by actively 
purchasing missing links. Forty years of collecting has 
resulted in a rich and diverse group of sub-collections, 
covering the history of textile production as well as areas 
such as printing, energy services, the metal industry and 
machine construction [2].
Who takes care of the big stuff?
There are two separate Flemish ministries with the au-
thority to protect heritage. The Ministry of Environment 
and Planning has the authority to protect monuments and 
buildings (immovable heritage). The Ministry of Culture 
has the authority to protect movable and intangible herit-
age. When it comes to preserving industrial heritage, this 
articial  division  often  provokes  challenging  disputes. 
Is a stationary steam engine movable or immovable? Is 
a gantry crane on tracks in the docks movable or immova-
ble? Are massive fermentation tanks at a brewery immov-
able by application? In short, who takes care of “the big 
stu”?
In Belgium and Flanders, besides private collectors and 
enthusiasts, it is mainly small, local organisations that take 
care of the preservation and maintenance of large-scale in-
dustrial and technical heritage. The permanent sta who 
look after the collections are often supported by dedicated 
3
  The museum houses the oldest spinning mule still in working or-
der. This semi-automated cotton spinning machine has been on the list of 
Flemish Community Masterpieces since 2010.
volunteers, many of whom are retired [3]. The latter bring 
their lifetime of accumulated knowledge from an active 
career related to the subject of their current passion. They 
are connected to a specic museum, location, installation 
or type of heritage that they know through and through. 
The commercial pool of restorers interested in large tech-
nology heritage is small. Commercial restoration of large, 
working industrial heritage, such as stationary steam en-
gines, is almost non-existent. The lack of a commercial 
option forms an obstacle to the further preservation, or 
sustainable preservation of knowledge about the preser-
vation – and ideally the restoration – of large technology 
heritage. This lack also complicates the redevelopment of 
de-industrialized sites that have been abandoned for some 
time. Private owners and project developers hesitate to 
get involved, although they do react positively to the idea 
of keeping the machines or installations on site. They en-
counter diculties in nding the right expertise, whether 
in terms of project and nancial planning or appropriately 
skilled manpower. 
Adaptive reuse, or the appreciation of large technology 
heritage in public space, changes over time. It tends to 
be sensitive to trends, and if it is not thought through, it 
may be poorly received by the public. This  specically 
applies to large machines that were not initially designed 
for outdoor use. Erected at important road intersections, 
they are intended as monuments or landmarks, promoting 
an active industry by creating a link with a nearby city 
or a long and glorious industrial history. Unfortunately 
this “roundabout heritage” quickly deteriorates, due to an 
under-estimation of the costs of periodic and long-term 
maintenance, or because of vandalism.
Large technology heritage can also prove challeng-
ing for museums. The mere size of some of these  pieces 
means that they may literally weigh on the storage fa-
cilities. Stripped of their context or taken out of their 
original environment, they tend to be dicult to integrate 
into museum exhibitions or projects. This was the case 
for a crane donated to the young MIAT during the period 
when industry started moving away from the 19
th
 century 
port. At that time, in contrast to cities like London and 
Antwerp, Ghent lacked a vision for port or maritime her-
itage. Moreover, the outside world experienced the sea 
port  of  Ghent  as  a  remote  closed-o  area  with  no  real 
link to the popular, mediaeval city centre. People only 
went there if they needed to. Concerned about the possi-
ble loss of important heritage, the museum accepted the 
gift of a crane from La Floridienne, a company trading 
in fertilizers and  chemicals. The “Titan” crane rests  on 
a high portal or gantry section, wide enough to allow two 
railway trains to pass underneath, side by side. Origi-
nally commissioned by the city port authorities in 1925, 
and constructed by the Antwerp company Titan Anver-
sois, the crane had had an active career on several quays. 
However, an inspection revealed that the gantry section 
had been damaged by years of exposure to corrosive fer-
tilizers. It was beyond restoration or repair, and scrapped 
for safety reasons. A lack of funding and changes in pol-
icy meant that the original plans to erect the crane in the 
museum garden, as an eye-catcher and a reference to