Ketch Yorlye Daun Paradise: Sense of place,heritage and belonging in Norfolk Island’s Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area

Introduction

Senses of place are strongly intertwined with senses of heritage, belonging and cultural identity. Place, heritage and identity are not separate or static phenomena but continuously produced and reproduced, adapted and transformed, in dynamic interaction with one another. Heritage – as the present interpretation and articulation of the past – is often tied to physical locations, including buildings, landscapes and other spaces that have been significant to individuals or communities. Such heritage places are distinctive not only for their tangible, material dimensions, but also the intangible, symbolic qualities which give them meaning and enmesh them with cultural practices and identities (see Smith, 2006). Heritage management practices, however, do not always align with a community’s sense of place, particularly as conservation efforts have not typically prioritised intangible meanings in the assessment of heritage value.

This article explores transnational issues surrounding sense of place and heritage management through a focus on a particular localised case study: the former Paradise Hotel (c.1930–1987) in Norfolk Island’s Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area (KAVHA), one of 11 sites in the Australian Convict Sites property inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2010. Norfolk Island is located in the South Pacific Ocean, approximately 1,600 km northeast of Sydney, Australia. It is a small island with an area of about 35 km² and a population of over 1,700 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). KAVHA, a delineated heritage site in the southeast of the island, holds significance for all four of the island’s distinct human settlements: a Polynesian settlement (c.1150–1450); a British agricultural settlement (1788–1814); a British penal settlement (1825–1855); and the Pitcairn settlement (1856–present). Visually, KAVHA is dominated by the ruins and restored structures of the penal settlement – impressive Georgian buildings set against a bucolic landscape of green pastures, towering Norfolk pines and vivid blue seas. While the Pitcairn settlement ‘extend[s] for well over a century longer than the convict phase and continu[es] in various forms through to today’, this heritage has had ‘limited recognition or visibility’ in KAVHA’s interpretation (Gibbs et al., 2017: 96). The focus of this article, the site of the former Paradise Hotel, is an example of a place in KAVHA that holds cultural significance associated with the Pitcairn settlement. Originally situated opposite the Stipendiary Magistrates Quarters (No. 1 Quality Row) and next to the Superintendents of Convicts Duplex (No. 2/3 Quality Row) (see Figure 1), today the site is a picnic area that features very little indication of what once stood there, including no interpretive signage (see Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Map of surrounding area of the Paradise Hotel. Illustration by Rogan Sharpe.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Green space where the Paradise once stood, 2020. Image taken beside the shared wall with No. 2 Quality Row, overlooking No. 1 Quality Row. Photograph by Sarah Baker.

Our focus in this article is on the ways in which the Paradise mattered (and continues to matter) to Pitcairn Settler descendants and others in the community with long and deep connections to Norfolk Island. The Paradise began as Dewville, a guest house constructed in the early 1930s. Dewville was an early example of tourist accommodation on the island and over time underwent various expansions and name changes (e.g. Oceanside). By the late 1950s, and until its demolition, it was known as Hotel Paradise, Paradise Hotel, or simply ‘the Paradise’ (see Figure 3). It became a popular hotel for locals and tourists to congregate, drink, dance and listen to live music. For a significant period of its operation, the lease of the site was held by Travelodge Australia, who planned to redevelop the property. As the heritagisation of Kingston got underway in the 1960s, the Paradise was increasingly viewed unfavourably by Australian heritage organisations, consultants and the Australian Government, and the Travelodge proposals were rejected (Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, 2004). The presence of the hotel was said to mar the heritage value of Quality Row, an area otherwise occupied by an ‘outstanding collection of fine Georgian buildings’ (Richards et al., 2019: 15). The Australian Council of National Trusts (1971) identified the Paradise as ‘the greatest intrusion into the historic environment of Kingston’ (p. 55), noting the ‘building should have been demolished and the site cleared’ (p. 28). By the early 1980s, and with the Australian Government looking toward the bicentenary celebrations planned for Norfolk Island in 1988, urgency to demolish the Paradise had intensified: ‘As the conservation and enhancement of the Kingston and Arthur’s Vale area on Norfolk Island proceeds, the incongruity of the existence of the Paradise buildings has become apparent and their removal more urgent’ (Commonwealth of Australia, 1985: 10–11). By 1988, the Paradise buildings had been removed from the site.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Paradise Hotel exterior, 1960. Photograph from the Earle Viénet Collection courtesy of Trevor Viénet.

Drawing on interviews and a zine created with Norfolk Island residents, this article highlights the complex dynamics between tangible and intangible facets of heritage places and the politics of preservation and destruction. Firstly, it considers aspects of the ‘person-to-place bond’ (Nelson et al., 2020: 237) evident in the community’s remembrance of the Paradise, unpacking a multitude of ways participants articulate connections to the Paradise in the past and present. Secondly, in establishing elements that constitute this sense of place, the article questions the effects of a dominant ‘authorised heritage discourse’ (Smith, 2006) in the Australian Government’s oversight of KAVHA. Specifically, the article explores how the removal of the Paradise impacts participants’ relationships to the site and considerations of its interpretation. Finally, the article concludes by reflecting on the various ways that heritage value and sense of place is constructed and maintained despite the hotel’s physical absence in Kingston.

Place: A contested concept for heritage

Informed by the work of Massey (2005: 9), we understand place as heterogenous, pluralistic and ‘always under construction’ – the ‘product of interrelations’ at the level of both the local and the global. Massey (1994: 155) advocates for a ‘progressive concept of place’ that rejects traditional understandings of it as closed, fixed or possessing a ‘single, unique’ identity; rather, places are ‘full of internal conflicts’ and linkages to elsewhere, and their specificity is constituted by multiple elements, actors and processes. Broadly, we take space/place to be made up of three intertwined components: material elements (e.g. built environment, landscape, geographic location, objects); symbolic qualities (e.g. myths, meanings, representations, mental mappings, imaginaries, memories); and lived experiences (e.g. spatial practices, social relations, everyday rhythms and mobilities, affective and embodied engagements) (Cantillon, 2019; Soja, 1996; Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]).

As places are ‘in a continuous state of becoming’, they are closely linked to senses of time via heritage (Ashworth and Graham, 2005: 4). Likewise, Lesh (2020: 439) argues that place is ‘an essential building block of heritage’ and highlights how ‘heritage value can never truly be contained within’ a site’s physicality, which, as we note above, is only one dimension of many to consider. Yet the practice of heritage conservation has tended to ‘prioritise materiality and fabric’ and ‘de-emphasise communities and their sense of place’ (Lesh, 2020: 433). This tendency is reflected in what Smith (2006) terms an authorised heritage discourse that has long underpinned professional heritage practice in the West. Smith (2006: 3) notes that the authorised heritage discourse:

emphasize[s] the material basis of heritage, and attributes an inherent cultural value or significance to these things. Furthermore, the sense of gravitas given to these values is also often directly linked to the age, monumentality and/or aesthetics of a place.

What, then, is a sense of place in relation to heritage? Smith (2006: 75–6) observes that while ‘site’ was often traditionally used in heritage contexts – particularly in the fields of archaeology and architecture – there has been a shift to the use of ‘place’, which is thought to better capture senses of belonging and cultural attachments. Sense of place has become a familiar phrase in heritage practice and heritage studies (see, e.g., Malpas, 2008; Ashworth and Graham, 2005; Waterton, 2005), but has not always been explained in detail or deployed with a consistent meaning. Brakman (2016: 121) uses ‘sense of place’ and the term ‘genius loci’ (or ‘spirit of place’) interchangeably, with both referring to ‘the typical nature or atmosphere of a place that leaves an impression’. For Schofield and Szymanski (2016), sense of place is relative and cumulative, developed over generations. It provides ‘reference points’ that come to be embedded in ‘memories and affections’ that inform our orientation to the world around us (Schofield and Szymanski, 2016: 3). They suggest that sense of place has multiple entry points in a community, with each individual having views shaped by their knowledge, experience and the extent to which their ‘memories and stories [have been] woven into’ the fabric of place across time and space (Schofield and Szymanski, 2016: 4). What therefore becomes important in assessing an historic environment or determining heritage value is not simply ‘a set of features, sites or buildings’, but also ‘people’s engagements with and understandings of them’ (Townend and Whittaker, 2016: 68).

Madgin and Lesh (2021: 7) observe that while sense of place has been ‘influential within heritage practice’, its presence in conservation protocols and declarations ‘has not coalesced into a coherent conceptual framework’ for heritage places. Brakman (2016) similarly raises questions over the difficulties faced by heritage conservators or managers who seek to apply ideas like sense of place when assessing heritage significance or determining heritage policies and plans. For Brakman (2016: 121), what is needed is a greater understanding of characteristics that can point to when a sense of place emerges and, subsequently, ‘why a place has this sense’. In research on the Cornish Mining World Heritage Site, Orange (2016) considers how sense of place is understood by local residents and the possible implications of these understandings for heritage professionals. While it was determined that there was no ‘single understanding of what sense of place means’ among respondents, local understandings could be grouped according ‘to four major themes: the intrinsic character and atmosphere of place, a sense of belonging, emotional response, and knowledge and understanding’ (Orange, 2016: 115). Madgin and Lesh (2021: 2) have called for heritage studies and practice to move away from using the term ‘sense of place’, arguing that ‘place attachment’ better encapsulates ‘the emotional relationships between people and place’ and the ways in which people invest heritage places with meaning and value. However, we take emotion and attachment to be particular components of sense of place.

Clearly, the term sense of place is multi-faceted and contested, much like place itself. To approach this complexity in the analysis that follows, we begin with Nelson and colleagues’ (2020: 256) suggestion to consider the question: ‘What connects or attaches someone to a place?’. We strive to emphasise the ‘social, affective, emotional and experiential aspects of place in order to overcome the enduring privileging of fabric and materiality’ (Lesh, 2020: 433) in heritage conservation, management and interpretation. Following Smith (2006), we explore not just what our research participants’ memories and stories can tell us about the significance of the Paradise Hotel, but also what they reveal about belonging within the Norfolk Island community and the politics of heritage management.

Methodology

This article arises from the Australian Research Council-funded project ‘Reimagining Norfolk Island’s Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area’ (2021–24), which examines KAVHA as a living heritage site. In particular, we focus on the experiences of Pitcairn Settler descendants – and other residents with long and deep connections to the island – and their relationships with Kingston. The project also explores the politics, policies and processes related to KAVHA’s heritage management and site interpretation. Underpinned by a ‘cultural justice’ lens (Cantillon et al., 2021), the project pays specific attention to how cultural injustices – including underrepresentation, disrespect and nonrecognition – are reinforced or resisted in KAVHA. Data collection for this project involves unstructured and semi-structured interviews with residents and other key stakeholders, as well as using zine-making as an arts-based method to collect data while creating co-produced public history outputs. The analysis in this article emerges from the first of these zines: See You at the Paradise / Ketch Yorlye Daun Paradise (Baker and Cantillon, 2021).

Zines are self-published booklets, DIY in style and with a cut-and-paste aesthetic, ‘resembl[ing] a photocopied scrapbook’ (Fife, 2019: 229). They have often been associated with countercultural or activist social movements (e.g. Riot Grrrl) (see Watson and Bennett, 2021). Fife (2019: 229) notes that zine culture has typically been marked by a ‘disrespect for institutional rules, professional techniques and the re-writing of majority and mainstream culture to reflect subcultural and often subversive values’. Very recently, there has been growing interest in zines as a methodological tool for participatory research (see Baker and Cantillon, 2022; French and Curd, 2021; Velasco et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2018). French and Curd (2021) observe that zine-making can be useful for how it supports varied creative expressions, enables learning and sharing via participation with others, places emphasis on counter-narratives and everyday experiences, and fosters democratisation and plurality. Moreover, we note that zine-making is a valuable means through which to bring research participants together to engage in an embodied, affective, creative activity that requires no specialised skills and capitalises on their existing vernacular knowledge, local expertise, lived experiences and memories. In the Reimagining KAVHA project, the zine-making workshops are data collection points designed to facilitate the reflection, discussion and resistance of cultural injustices experienced in the heritage management and interpretation of Kingston (for a more in-depth analysis of our use of zines as a methodological tool in this project, see Baker and Cantillon, 2022).

We chose the Paradise as the focus for the project’s first zine following a series of initial conversations with Norfolk Islanders about which facets of KAVHA’s history were underrepresented in its heritage interpretation. Contributions to the zine were sourced via interviews with four Norfolk Island residents who had a connection to the Paradise, as well as two three-hour zine-making workshops. There were 12 participants across both workshops, aged from 12 through to their 80s. The zine workshops involved guiding participants through writing and reminiscence exercises, sharing and discussing items (e.g. photo albums, newspaper clippings) brought along by participants, and facilitating a zine-making session using their written responses, printed photographs, printed policy excerpts and other materials. The authors of this article then collated these pages into a final zine, which also included an editorial, four abridged interview transcriptions (‘conversations’), and two additional written contributions – one from a staff member of Norfolk Island Museums and another from an individual who provided images to be used in the zine.

Analysis of the interviews, zine contributions and transcripts of the workshop recordings were guided by the Thesis Eleven special issue brief to address ‘how place shapes social life’. The data was coded manually with a view to capture the practical functions of the Paradise, as well as to tease out the different ways participants engaged with the site in regard to the ‘social, affective, emotional and experiential aspects of place’ (Lesh, 2020: 433). Emergent themes within and across those dimensions were identified in the first coding pass by Sarah, and codes were then audited and refined by Zel. Our approach to coding and theme identification was guided by an orientation towards ‘analytic inspiration’ which, in ethnographic research, ‘places conceptual imagination at the center of the research process’ (Gubrium and Holstein, 2014: 35). The coding of the data was systematic but at the same time attuned to ‘empirical excitement’ where the data seemed to ‘coalesce in an unexpected way’ (Gubrium and Holstein, 2014: 37), offering a moment ‘of insightful understanding’ (p. 47) and shifting how themes were imagined. Much of the data analysed for this article can be found in its original context in the published zine See You at the Paradise / Ketch Yorlye Daun Paradise (Baker and Cantillon, 2021; see reimaginingkavha.com/see-you-at-the-paradise/), indicated below by the inclusion of page numbers.

Participants’ real names are used in this article in accordance with the ethical clearance for our project. Norfolk Island is a small community with a strong sense of familiarity among residents and strong bonds within and across Pitcairn Settler descendant families. As such, the use of pseudonyms in a project like this would not ensure anonymity, with participants’ responses, stories and experiences likely making them identifiable. The project’s informed consent package explains that participation in the research is ‘on the record’ and that if participants want to share something in confidence, they can request a segment of the interview to be ‘off the record’ (i.e. statements made may continue to inform the project but will not be quoted verbatim or be attributed to a participant in any outputs). Interview participants are provided with a transcript of their interview to offer them an opportunity to check what they have shared and to request that parts of the transcript be removed from the record or not be included in the project zines.

Sense of place in recollections of Hotel Paradise

Below, we outline the dynamic sense of place surrounding the Paradise that emerged in our interviews and participants’ discussions during zine-making workshops. This section is structured according to the following dominant themes: a place for tourists, a place for locals, a place to work, a place for love, a place called home, and the Paradise repurposed.

A place for tourists

Located in Kingston among the penal settlement ruins and overlooking the natural beauty of Emily Bay, the hotel was an ideal base for those visiting the island. As Merv put it: ‘Paradise had d baas side f’ one hotel’ (p. 65). Robyn explained that guests would stay for two weeks due to the fortnightly flight schedule from New Zealand and Australia, and ‘accommodation included breakfast, lunch and dinner, morning and afternoon tea and all tours, plus entertainment at night’ (p. 40). The hotel was therefore central to guests’ experience of Norfolk Island and anchored their relationship to Kingston.

Anona brought to the workshop ‘a photo album from 1950’ that had been bequeathed to her mother by Miss Edwards, a past guest at Oceanside (Anona, workshop 1, 13 June 2021). Carefully flicking through the pages, Anona observed that Miss Edwards ‘kept everything’ from her visit, including the Oceanside menu (workshop 1, 13 June 2021). The album included annotations of the memorabilia contained within. The other workshop participants huddled around Anona while she worked her way through the album (see Figure 4). Comments were made as participants recognised relatives in the photos and other memorabilia. For example, Anona explained her connection to ‘Mr Nicolai’ who picked guests up from the airport, and Russell recognised his mother’s name as an owner of one of the horses in the New Years horse race held opposite the guest house (workshop 1, 13 June 2021). The tourism mementos that the album contained acted as a trigger for participant memories, reinforcing their relationships to the Paradise and its immediate vicinity.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Workshop participants and researchers look at a photo album together. Photograph by Rogan Sharpe.

The Paradise repurposed

When the Paradise was closing down, much of its contents, including parts of the buildings, were sold off. Pieces of the Paradise are, therefore, now scattered across the island. Dids and Robyn both spoke of the removal of buildings and materials from Kingston. Dids explained that Robyn purchased whole sections of buildings, while the remainder was ‘disassembled, and I took truckloads and truckloads of timber that had just been denailed and then was reused to build other structures’ around the island (p. 63). Robyn showed us photographs that had been taken of the disassembling process at Kingston (see Figure 5), featuring trucks rolling out along Quality Row with sections of buildings on board (p. 48). Other images depict these sections being offloaded in different locations on the island to form the structures of new homes (which were named things like Paradise Regained and Paradise Lost, paying tribute to the hotel) (pp. 46–7).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Images of the Paradise Hotel being removed from its original site in Kingston. Photograph by Zelmarie Cantillon of images from Robyn Tavener’s personal collection.

Our interview with Robyn took place in her home. Sitting in the living area, she showed us photographs of the home being built: ‘So this [image] is June 2003, so that’s what the house looked like before we started working on it which is – both sections of that is Paradise’ (p. 49). These images were then put into context as Robyn gave us a tour of her home: ‘if you come back in here, this part here, that piece of building is part of Paradise…that actual building part was brought here [from Kingston] and put there’ (p. 49). In addition to the Paradise being incorporated in the structure of her home, Robyn has various other Paradise artefacts throughout the house, including doors, ashtrays, a safe, a tea trolley and ‘big chunky china’ (p. 51). As Robyn described it, there are ‘bits of the Paradise sitting around’ that she uses ‘every day’ (p. 52).

The Paradise may no longer be at Kingston, but its significance lives on in different forms in people’s lives. Robyn continues to live among the Paradise – it was ‘a big part of [her] life’ growing up as a child living in the hotel, and it continues to be today (p. 52). Likewise, Dids described the Paradise as having been significant in his life: ‘I grew up there. Bubby, my father, was always – it had Bubby’s Corner branded on one side of the bar, you know. So as a child I spent a lot of time there. I knew each and every one of the managers’ (p. 61). In addition to having been involved in the removal of building materials from the Paradise, Dids purchased items from the hotel which have been given new lives elsewhere. Out at his farm on the west side of the island, Dids mentioned having ‘the old desk out of the Paradise…You can’t see it because it’s actually buried under stuff’ as well as ‘the old trough from the Paradise’ in ‘the men’s loo’ (p. 61). Dids also secured ‘big commercial kitchen pots’ (p. 62), which have cultural importance for being ‘really good for Bounty Day’, the anniversary of the Pitcairner arrival to the island. Dids explained the pots were useful for ‘when you’re going down [to Kingston] and feeding a hundred people or whatever’ (p. 62). The afterlives of the Paradise’s material remnants illustrate how sense of place is not bound to a singular geographic location, as well as how sense of place continues to be shaped in the present.

Capturing sense of place in heritage interpretation

The material collected for the zine highlights that the Paradise site held a dynamic, vital place in the heart of the Norfolk Island community during the period of its operation, but also that it continues to do so now, over 30 years since the hotel’s closure and dismantlement. The findings illustrate the varied engagements that people had with this place – as visitors, patrons, workers, residents – which not only forged their attachment to it but contributed to constructing its sense of place as somewhere lively, sociable, homely, special. Beyond these memories and emotional attachments, the data emphasises the hotel’s place or role within the wider community, as a particular node in a network of exchanges that supported Norfolk Island’s tourism and agricultural economies. In short, the sense of place attached to the hotel reached far beyond the physical location in Kingston. The zine workshops also demonstrated how sense of place extends to participants’ own locatedness within a particular space, time and community – telling stories and enacting ‘collaborative reminiscence’ (Baker and Cantillon, 2022) draws participants together based on shared experiences and collective memories of the Paradise. This point resonates with Smith’s (2006: 75) conceptualisation of sense of place, which invites us to consider not just meanings associated with physical spaces but one’s own position within a community or history:

Heritage, particularly in its material representations, provides not only a physical anchor or geographical sense of belonging, but also allows us to negotiate a sense of social ‘place’ or class/community identity, and a cultural place or sense of belonging.

Although our discussions with participants focused primarily on their stories of the Paradise while it was still in operation, we also invited them to reflect on the place today – a picnic area with no heritage interpretation to indicate what else was once there. In the second zine-making workshop, participants were invited to respond to the prompt: ‘If there was going to be an interpretive sign at the old Paradise site, what would it say?’. This elicited a back and forth between participants as they attempted to establish the historical facts – names of managers and the dates of their involvement, the date the Paradise finally closed, the date it was dismantled, the date-span for when it was leased by Travelodge, where the whale bones that framed the hotel’s entrance now reside. Such responses align with the ‘pragmatic and rationalised’ approach to heritage conservation, management and interpretation which prioritises tangible aspects of a heritage place (Lesh, 2020: 431), an approach which dominates the interpretive signage in KAVHA that the participants were familiar with. What was missing from this initial discussion was all the aspects of sense of place that had been revealed in the workshop up until that point – the nuanced experiences of the Paradise that had emerged from participants’ sharing of stories and memories, the ‘cultural place or sense of belonging’ referred to by Smith (2006: 75).

After we drew participants’ attention back to the writing exercise, they wrote and read aloud statements that went beyond the preliminary discussion of historical facts to reveal the Paradise’s role as an ‘anchor’ of community identity and connection (Smith, 2006):

What appears in these statements is a mixture of pragmatic details about the site’s history (some factual, others not) and its significance as a social and affective space. Pat and Clare make political comments on the removal of the Paradise – ‘Closed by the Commonwealth of Australia because they could not read a map’, ‘the Australian Government required its removal, as it didn’t fit the surroundings’ – that speak to a more difficult layer of the site’s history, indicating the plurality and contestations implicated in that place and its heritage. Gaye opts not to draft a sign, recognising that such a task would involve careful research to do justice to the special place that the Paradise continues to have for people on Norfolk Island. In our interview with Dids (cited in Baker et al., 2021: 8), he similarly reflected on the challenges with capturing the dynamic qualities that constitute a sense of place and living heritage:

post-1856 needs more interpretation, you know? And sometimes it’s difficult, because – I can’t think of the right word. When you just know it? Intangible! The intangible things that are so much a part of KAVHA, you know. You’ve got so many tangible things, but there are also many, many, many intangible things. And they’re hard to put onto a sign. They are hard to portray to someone unless that person actually sees a Bounty Day parade. It’s very hard to explain a Bounty Day parade without saying, ‘Oh well, they get dressed up in period costume and they march from the pier to the cemetery’. It doesn’t paint the picture. You’ve actually got to experience it.

As suggested by Smith (2006: 79), the authorised heritage discourse promotes a ‘consensual view of the past and its meanings in the present’, downplaying contestations and the plurality of meanings and experiences that constitute place. The interpretive signage text produced by workshop participants, and the See You at the Paradise / Ketch Yorlye Daun Paradise zine more broadly, offers a counter-narrative to this discourse, amplifying the symbolic, intangible and pluralistic qualities of place. At the same time, the participants’ contributions capture the extent to which ‘Heritage is something vital and alive. It is a moment of action, not something frozen in material form’ (Smith, 2006: 83). As Lesh (2020: 433) observes, ‘historic fabric is not any more or less important than the social meanings of a place’ and heritage processes therefore need to treat both equally in order ‘to achieve positive heritage and social outcomes’.

Conclusion

Although the Paradise may have been considered, by some, to be an ‘ugly blot on the landscape’ (Russell, p. 18), it nonetheless holds heritage value for those with long and deep connections to it. The participants’ stories and memories demonstrate the Paradise’s significance goes beyond aesthetics and materiality, but there was also a suggestion that, if it were standing today, the Paradise would have had value as a ‘twentieth-century heritage place’ (Marsden and Spearritt, 2021) in the Pitcairn settlement. Indeed, Ken went so far as to express that he ‘would have liked to have seen it [the outside structure] kept as was…I think it would be great if it was still there’ (workshop 1, 13 June 2021).

Although the loss of that physicality has impacted on the specificities of the sense of place associated with the Paradise (or Dewville or Oceanside), it has not decimated the sense of place entirely – remnants of that materiality still exist, as do the intangible, imaginary dimensions. As Massey (1994) observed, places are always linked to and constituted by what is beyond or outside them. Our participants’ ‘meanings and memories’ of the Paradise are as much shaped by their ‘contemporary interactions’ (Smith, 2006: 77) with the Paradise – with the green space where the Paradise once stood, the items from the Paradise they encounter in everyday life, and the stories that are told as people reminisce about their shared past with the hotel – as they are by the physical structure that is now long gone. Likewise, our participants’ articulations of the sense of place of the Paradise are informed by experiences of past and present heritage management and interpretation strategies in Kingston. These strategies are, in turn, connected to global heritage processes, with the authorised heritage discourse being a transnational force with local resonance for the experience of Kingston’s living heritage. These contemporary interactions with the Paradise, including those facilitated by the workshop process, work to revive, restore or remake meanings and memories. In doing so, they bind the community once more through the collective (re)discovery and (re)construction of the site’s sense of place (Smith, 2006: 77) in a moment in time where there is much at stake for the people of Norfolk Island in relation to their political autonomy and sense of belonging to and custodianship of where they live (Nobbs, 2017, 2021).

Understanding place as always in-process and constituted by multiple elements and relations, we can see that the Paradise is not something that only existed in the past, while it was in operation. This article captures how, in both material and symbolic ways, the sense of place of the Paradise remains strong despite its physical absence in Kingston. Indeed, the loss of the Paradise, and the contributing factors to this loss, have been powerful in shaping the sense of place that persists today. With the physical structures of the hotel long gone from their original location, the sense of place associated with the Paradise is characterised by an absent presence – where its significance and meaning still linger in participants’ individual and collective memories, reinforced by their engagement with the Paradise through material forms now repurposed across the island. Inasmuch as the Paradise is characterised by an absent presence, what is also apparent is its present absence – where the passing of time since the building’s removal, inflected by very real changes to governance and people’s relationships to place, has served to amplify a need for collective remembrance. Taken as such, the expressions of longing for the sense of place of the Paradise Hotel captured in See You at the Paradise / Ketch Yorlye Daun Paradise speak to more than the loss of the physical and social space of the hotel. Rather, the absent presence/present absence of the Paradise in many of the participants’ memories, stories and reflections are suggestive of how governance changes and political disenfranchisement – including shifts in Norfolk Islanders’ involvement in the heritage management of KAVHA – have affected Kingston’s sense of place more broadly and related expressions of belonging and cultural identity. In this way, the case study of the Paradise Hotel highlights the local effects of transnational heritage policies and discourses that seek to define heritage value and manage heritage sites without appropriate engagement with communities and their sense of place.