PROYECTA MEMORIA FOUNDATION
-
Upload
fundacion-proyecta-memoria -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
description
Transcript of PROYECTA MEMORIA FOUNDATION
Who we are
1 www.proyectamemoria.cl
PROYECTA MEMORIA F O U N D A T I O N
CHILE
ITALY
GERMANY
We are a private foundation, nonprofit, stationed in the city of
Concepción, Bío Bío Region, Chile [one of the most seismic city of
the around the world and has suffered throughout its history 8
large earthquakes] and we emerged after the sixth largest
magnitude earthquake in the history of mankind, February 27,
2010.
The Foundation aims to preserve and protect the
architectural heritage destroyed by natural disasters and man-
through techniques, principles and policies for reuse and recycling
of debris symbolic in public open space. Under the order
described above, the Foundation aims to be a way to spread a
vision that is specified through an interdisciplinary network of
international support, both theoretical and practical, which adopts
a new approach to heritage conservation, to strengthen economic
identities destroyed through binding participation among
communities, public and private sectors.
In order to its purpose and vision expressed before, the
Foundation aims to generally promote the safeguarding,
conservation and recycling of tangible architectural destroyed by
disasters. Then in order to fulfill its purpose and manifestation of
his vision and goal, the Foundation recognizes, without being
exhaustive, the following objectives:
1) Raise awareness about the importance of safeguarding the
heritage, this debris as symbolic as a resource for
sustainable development in disaster-vulnerable communities
2) Cooperate with national and international principles, techniques
and policies for the conservation of architectural heritage,
disaster and environmental protection.
3) Enhance the public space as an element of memory
development and awareness to disasters both in prevention,
response and renewal of cities and communities vulnerable
4) Provide new looks estate renewal, developing positive effects
at the cultural and environmental tourism.
Team
Vulnerabilities and amnesias
2
Day after day hundreds of urban memories are being
destroyed by natural and artificial disasters affecting our planet,
generating dreadful amnesia. This is having an effect on
architectural heritage and sometimes even resulting in deaths,
because of our lack of prevention and response to them.
After a catastrophe, we forget our memories and life
experiences, which are our main shields against foreign cultures
that are attempting to swallow us. We also forget about
prevention in our cities, since after inappropriate planning and
construction we generate more catastrophes, complicating
everything even more by the incorrect handling of trauma and
loss. Therefore, we need to change this negativity approaching
the reconstruction of a city with the right attitude, and even more
when the threat of new catastrophes persists. There must be
memory processes, not only for the generation that has been
affected –as a resilience mechanism- but also for the future
generations –as an offering.
What have previous generations done to remember and
commemorate catastrophes and architectural heritage? What is
the origin of disaster? Is it ignorance or lack of prevention? Are
we aware of our right and duty to memory? How can architecture
and city planning assume responsibility over this situation? What
should we remember? How do we do it? How can we bequeath
the past to new generations? How can we discover the affective
dimension of memories and information? How do we turn the
negative features of catastrophe into something positive?
This philosophy intends to answer these questions
introducing a new philosophy of life and perception, which may be
considered attractive because it leads to a new way of looking at
things around us. What we used to consider ugly will now be
considered beautiful. What used to be seen as useless will now
become useful, because we will assign value to a material which
represents the destruction generated by an earthquake, a
tsunami or a slide. However, this material -resulting from
destruction and historically considered as “waste”- is the only
tangible testimony of the hope in a community’s memories:
symbolic rubble.
What we used to consider a weakness may become our
main strength to preserve memory. Symbolic rubble stops being
considered as waste and starts being considered as material to
be used in projects, filled with memories that will help us solve
completely the various cultural problems produced by a
catastrophe. At present, architecture, geography and city planning
do not address nor teach waste management in an efficient way.
Moreover, urban planners and architects tend to design with
brand-new materials, they do not incorporate materials that have
had a previous use or that have deteriorated, contributing even
more to the destruction of our landscape, the exploitation of our
natural resources for the construction of our cities. Therefore,
symbolic rubble must not be seen as an element at the end of a
life cycle but as a new process of regeneration. We need to be
aware that it is an inexhaustible source of materials, which will
always be available in our cities and they must be integrated as a
sustainable development resource. We need to make its origin
known, since symbolic rubble comes entirely from the destruction
of our architectural elements, so that it becomes absolutely
feasible for architects and city planners to use it and generate
changes in their designs, accepting the death of buildings and
generating their transformation.
But where should these isolated materials be reused or
recycled? Where should the culture of memory by generated?
The answer to these questions is in public spaces.
Public space and symbolic rubble are in perfect
symbiosis to generate a sense of property in people, which
makes them love spaces, finding in them spiritual delight for
activating their memories and that is what we can identify as
beauty. It is a beauty that has not been discovered yet, a new
beauty that has not been explored, since memories are its main
inspiration. Through this kind of beauty, a new ritual for the loss of
a loved one, with whom we shared for decades. They are our
architectural heritage, and walls, pillars, milestones and
fragments, after their destruction, have the chance of becoming
brand-new urban elements, exclusive, universal and poli-
functional, just like urban furniture, pavings and topographic
elements in public space. This approach considers heritage as a
renewable resource which is never lost but just transformed.
The symbolic The word RUBBLE initially generates the
association with rubbish. The dictionary of the Real
Academia Española, RAE, “wastes, trash, rubble that
is left from bricklaying work or a collapsed or
destroyed building”.
Unfortunately, this definition is gaining strength
and we adopt it as a social convention when we
consider rubble as something useless, avoidable
which needs to be hidden. We reject decay as
something negative because we do not see its value,
let alone its possible uses. However, even if we do not
want to, we are destined to live with it because, as we
go on building and expanding our cities, we do not
consider that as a result of a condition of urban life or
an unexpected event like a catastrophe, rubble will
always be there. We cannot erase them, as decay is
inherent to the development of cities because they are
living entities.
Historically, the topic of rubble has never been
solved. In the process of projecting and renewing
spaces, architects and city planners seek to innovate
focusing on the creation and use of new materials.
Rubble is not considered simply because they do not
know it and consider it an element that has already
completed a life cycle. This search for the new has
triggered a dissociation of rubble as material for
projects, so designing with rubble is not considered as
an option. However, when do we consider an element
to be waste? When does a material become useless,
with no merits to be reused?
Although these definitions categorically stress
the concept of waste for those elements which were
once part of our urban landscape, we have decided to
go beyond and find their meaning. It is difficult to
understand that, from one day to the next, what was
valuable becomes disposable, generating no doubts
to society nor reconsiderations as to whether these
elements should be used and considered as materials
for projects, where the process of adaptability and
cultural change are critical.
The rubble you can see that it has a dual
memory which will help us remember two absences
after a catastrophe: amnesia with respect to tragedy
and patrimonial loss. Firstly, rubble generates a
disturbance because it represents a negative memory,
since it is associated with destruction, an unstable
condition and death. Moreover, one of the most
common methods to evaluate the damage produced
is by considering the amount of rubble. But there is
another loss that arises among its multiple pasts and
its functionality. This is the loss of another kind of
memory which is completely different from the
previous one. It is a positive memory, since it
becomes the only tangible symbol of our identity,
where inert matter and the fusion of past memories
supply it with life.
RUBBLE WITH MEMORY
Unlike generic rubble, rubble with memory is
associated with affection which is generated with the
passing of time and the experiences lived by a
community.
Rubble
3
Rubble with memory should never be disposed of
because it is attractive as it is associated with a
previous human use. This rubble has an evocative
power of the passing of time and transmits, with its
remains, both the memory of the building already
gone and the present perception of the catastrophe
which makes us feel incomplete. Depending on
whether it has an individual or a collective appeal, this
rubble can be classified into personified rubble and
symbolic rubble
In order to analyse this classification, we must
remember that a society is made up of individual and
collective aspects. Therefore, there is a memory for
each of them. The first one refers to the importance
that the individual gives to his possessions and the
level of appropriation, generating an affection to the
building which is based on past experiences,
memories and living his/her life in them. A personal
past, present and future, unique and unrepeatable, is
built in an interaction with furniture and buildings. As
to buildings, humans attach value to architectural
objects, to the extent of personifying them. Activities
such as studying, playing, creating, living or praying
enable us to identify ourselves with the building where
these activities are performed. We feel a personal
attachment to such places, we satisfy our individual
projects for personal realization, we get joy from them
so they become a part of our life history and identity.
One of these cases is our house. It is the best
example to contextualize this category because it
triggers evocations in those who lived there, so its
future rubble will have an enormous value for the
owner or family. This is what we call personified
rubble.
Classification of rubble based on memory
Piece rubble
Fragment rubble
Dust rubble When the attachment to the building goes
beyond personal interests and the complete loss of an
element generates a devastating feeling for a whole
community, a neighbourhood, a city, a commune, a
region or a country, the remains of this architectural
object are considered symbolic rubble. It has a
intangible heritage value because it belongs to a
building which is part of collective memory, both for the
meaning of the building where the rubble comes and for
the memory of the catastrophe that generated it.
Therefore it cannot be classified as disposable.
When we talk about architectural heritage we
usually think about those buildings which have been
officially declared as such. In Chile, law 17.288
regulates national monuments. Every monument which
has been protected by this law, after a long process of
accreditation as an element of importance for the
country, is recognized as heritage and is automatically
under the tuition of the State, represented by the
Council of National Monuments. This organ depends on
the Ministery of Education and is at present undergoing
a process of regulatory and institutional change to
become the Ministery of Culture and Heritage. When
this kind of building suffers total damage which cannot
be repaired, we would have symbolic rubble from official
heritage.
It is also necessary to consider that there is
non-official heritage, which is not affected by any law
that officially makes it national monument, but which
has an intangible value earned through history. It is a
building that is highly recognized by the community and
in this case the rubble that is generated by the
destruction of this kind of building would be classified as
symbolic rubble with popular value.
Therefore, symbolic rubble may be divided
into two sub-categories: official heritage and that with
popular value. Sadly, these two categories of symbolic
rubble receive no protection at present because of this
concept of “waste” we have of these elements and
which prevents us from seeing the beauty in them and
the memory they generate. This is why there is no law
protecting these pieces and recognizing their value. We
need to understand that this rubble has a memory and
an identity, and that they should be protected because
its conservation will allow us to treasure our collective
memory.
CLASSIFICATION OF RUBBLE DEPENDING ON THE
CATASTROPHE
The level of deterioration experienced by buildings
after a sudden event varies depending on the nature of
the disaster. It is necessary to state that there are two
big types of catastrophe: natural and technological
catastrophes (UN, 2008). Among the natural
catastrophes we find: a. disasters produced by dynamic
processes inside our planet such as earthquakes,
tsunamis and volcano eruptions; b.disasters generated
by dynamic processes on the surface of the Earth such
as slides, collapses, avalanche, flash floods, huaycos;
c.disasters resulting from meteorological or hydrologic
disasters such as floods, droughts, frost and hail
storms, tornados, hurricanes; and d. disasters of a
biological origin such as plagues and epidemics. Among
technological disasters we can find fires, explotions,
chemical spills, environmental pollution, wars,
subversion episodes and terrorism.
Among these typologies, it is worth noting that
they do not all have the same destructive effects on
architectural heritage nor they generate the same types
of rubble. There are even some that are harmless for
buildings but not for human beings. Within these
categories, there are some that bring about massive
and chaotic destruction, while after others there is a
higher level of identification of buildings after the
destruction.
RUBBLE BASED ON MATERIALS AND VOLUMES
Symbolic rubble can have different sizes, shapes and
materials which make the fragments varied,
heterogeneous and unique. If we take into account size
and shape, we may refer first to the dimensions of these
objects: height, width and length. In terms of physical
contrasts, there are three types of symbolic rubble:
piece, fragment and dust rubble. As to materials, five types of rubble may be distinguished considering texture and colour: clay , sand, metals, wood, stone and concrete . They have different properties with respect to hardness, mechanical or fire resistance, or ease of cleaning.
4
What should be done to make us understand that we have a heritage
which has been turned into rubble, which is still ours and we should be
taking care of it?
5
The responsibility of public space Why should something be remembered in one
particular place? Why does memory need a place?
Public spaces are those public elements where the
public and prívate interests, the collective and the
individual co-exist. They are tangible elements and that
is a crucial feature to actívate effective memorizing
processes, because the culture of oral memory is very
fragile and vulnerable. A society interacts everyday in
these places, generating an urban life, with physical,
social and cultural functions intended to satisfy urban
needs that go beyond individual interests. These are
places where practices that strengthen solidarity,
fraternity, freedom and equality among people are
generated, where imagination, symbols and creativity
are developed. They are all elements that promote the
creation of an identity as a community who mostly feels
that it owns this place, generating a culture as society.
Thus, the main feelings that remain after the
destruction of heritage when you visit the public spaces
of a destroyed city are disorientation, the feeling of
walking through an imposed emptiness and the loss of
architectural references that orientate urban life which
unfortunately has turned into rubble. Therefore, one of
the expressions of need experienced by people after an
architectural loss or the loss of a “loved one” is the
need to preserve their memory and all the experiences
developed with a particular identity. Post-catastrophe
symbolic rubble appears as a material which is
appropriate to be used in projects and which has a
memory to recall the destroyed architectural object but
tansformed into something completely different from
what it used to be, as it is described in the criteria in this
proposal
The idea is that public spaces in cities that
suffer from catastrophes keep traces from the past,
such as a street along which you may walk and
remember, and keep traces of the catastrophe, not in
an invasive way but pervading the collective culture and
heritage, with a wide variety of spaces incorporating
symbolic rubble.
Why should symbolic rubble be reused in public
space? Firstly, because pubic space must meet all the
needs of a community, one of them being the
transmisión of memory. In this role of transmitting
memory, public space becomes the best testimony of
the cultural state achieved by a community in its
process of evolution. Therefore, the reuse of symbolic
rubble is meant to become a reference point in the
territory, giving the city a character, an identity and a
memory that is understandable to the resident.
Certainly the possibility of evoking memories in the
residents becomes one of the biggest responsibilities of
public space, like a supervisor of constant positive
memories. The second reason has to do with a true
sense of belonging because, as it is represented in an
architectural element that is “private” and whose access
is restricted, heritage often alienates people and users,
generating an overprotective conservation which leads
to the death of these elements. Therefore, the idea is to
understand that legally architectural heritage, in spite of
being privately-owned, has always been considered a
property of all and for all, that is, a public element. In
other words, when these elements are transformed into
urban elements in public space, the concept of property
becomes real and coherent, as you can interact with it
at any moment, even if it has been transformed into a
seat or a fountain. It is important to conceive this
element as a a gift to the community after a
catastrophe, which is also a sign and symbol of beauty.
Public space consists of areas for staying, such
as squares and/or parks, and areas for circulating, such
as pedestrian precincts, boulevards, bike paths and
streets for vehicle use which can be located inside or
outside cities.
Historically, the most popular commemoration
places have been squares and parks, but also
pedestrian areas and streets, which can be given an
innovative new use.
When an architectural object suffers damage and
becomes symbolic rubble, there are two alternative
places for future location forthe conservation of heritage
and which depend on the area of influence, the needs
of the context and the fact that a private space may
become public, if the element had been housed in a
private property.
The second alternative is to move the
symbolic rubble to a nearby public space which
precincts, squares or parks, may be streets,
pedestrian
This alternative depends on the area of influence of the
former building. The transfer of the rubble may be total,
that is, all the rubble from the former architectural object
is taken and reused on the same place, or the transfer
is completed in a scattered way, generating different
proposals on different spaces.
6
WITH OR WITHOUT MOVING THE ORIGINAL SPACE
Scheme of generation of space without transfer of original site. Scheme of generation of space with single transfer of original site. Scheme of generation of space with dispersed transfer of original site.
The transformation
The chemist Lavoisier in 1785 proved that
matter is neither created nor destroyed, only
transformed. However, is it possible in an architectural
environment to replicate this conception for
architectural heritage? If you analyze this law from a
spiritual point of view, you may perceive a connotation
of hope and expectation after the total destruction of
an object because, according to this Frenchman,
matter will always remain and will never be lost. This
is more so much so when patrimonial matter, in this
case, is transformed into symbolic rubble,
experiencing an evolution and change in its fusion
with memory. The concept of “conservation” is the key.
Thus, architectural heritage and its memory
will never be lost, but its conservation will depend on
the way it is transformed. Up to now, transformation of
symbolic rubble into materials to be used in projects
has been approached in a negative way. Rubble has
been considered as waste and there has been no
positive reflection following a basic principle of
strengthening and embellishment, in order to develop
new signs and symbols, conceived and placed in
strategic places as public space.
Transformation of patrimonial matter or
“symbolic rubble” may be a tool that stimulates
changes in life or in perception, because when you
generate public space with those destroyed
architectural elements you establish a precedent in
history, with rubble as the link between two areas –
architecture and city planning- standing on an edge
which may become interesting and unique after a loss.
Transformation of walls, flagstones or pillars of
an architectural object into urban elements generates
an unexplored principle of symbiosis of beauty
because both symbolic rubble and public space
depend on one another and do not work
independently. This new kind of transformation is a
revelation as to a potential branch of heritage
conservation which could develop a new
philosophy of renovation. This could contribute with
a new meaning to the present heritage charters -
Venice, Athens, Amsterdam or Rome- since they are
based exclusively on the rebuilding of architectural
objects. That is, they keep the same architectural
element. It is important to bear in mind that many of
these positions do not recognize the object as a “living
being”, that dies and is then transformed because
today death is not accepted and even scars are
hidden behind faked stories which make no reference
to the negative event –an earthquake or a war which
affected the building. A new kind of damage is silently
spreading and affecting both the architectural object
and the society because they will never remember nor
will be aware of change or vulnerability of architecture,
restricting the reusing and recycling of symbolic rubble
in public space.
But do these urban elements created from
symbolic rubble represent beauty? When a building is
completely destroyed by a catastrophe, the shape of
the object –its width, length and height- is lost but not
its content, which are the memories and identities of
the affected community. This is the element that
provides symbolic rubble with beauty, because the
concept of beauty does not make reference to
aesthetic values but to the pleasant emotions that are
generated and which perpetuate a positive reflection
about the meaning of our own existence and how we
reinvent ourselves.
The activation of imagination produced by rubble
could be identified as its biggest beauty and its true
soul. Plato taught us that the world may be seen by
everyone, but that beauty is only a manifestation of
true beauty that lives in the soul and which we can
only discover if we immerse in its knowledge. If a city
resident or a tourist learn about the past background
of a piece of rubble, they will discover its true beauty.
Therefore, the external beauty of rubble will
depend on the treatment it receives and the way it is
organized. A new social consensus and perception
would arise, since at first sight rubble may be
perceived as something unaesthetic due to its
asymmetrical and unexpected proportions. It is not
very common either to use rubble in the design of
public space because what is unusual is often
evaluated as alien and ugly. However, perhaps with an
appropriate process of adaptability and a deep
understanding of why it should be used, people may
change their conception of rubble.
Human beings resist change. In order to be
able to accept change, we need to go through a
process of adaptability towards this new philosophy.
The process must consider a period of time that
allows the understanding of its postulates and a new
way of conceiving life, because adaptability is a
mental process which implies a willingness to accept
change based on being confident of what we can do
and choose in the future. In other words, in order to
reuse symbolic rubble in public space and recognize it
as a day-to-day element, a new perception of decay
and rubble must be accepted and assimilated so as to
allow us to see these elements as resources of
conservation and sustainable development.
7
After a disaster
Renovation
8
9
Urban elements
Based on recycling and reuse of symbolic rubble, several criteria for design
are considered. They include regulations in order to develop a universality of rubble
considering two variables: dimension, which includes piece, fragment and dust
rubble, and the different materials.
The aim of these proposals is to stimulate the reader’s imagination and to be
able to create new possibilities. In other words, no absolute laws are given but
rather guidelines are presented, where the economic element is decisive in order to
generate a proposal that is as sustainable as possible.
It is important to point out that the generation of elements to be used for urban
furniture built with pieces of symbolic rubble is more economical than those built with
fragments. Dust rubble obviously requires a much more elaborated process to be
used in public space, though it is still economical. In this collection, the proposals
consider basically piece and fragment rubble, while dust rubble could be included in
a future roject.
These proposals have been divided into three categories of urban elements:
urban furniture, pavings and topography elements, including an overall of 21
possibilities. From the different combinations of volumes of rubble and material, a
huge number of different possibilities arise. This collection does not include
elements which are movable –elements that are carried from one place to another
do not generate identity in a space- or that require highly technical elements such as
signs, fences, traffic lights or rubbish bins.
It is also important to consider that urban elements are introduced in isolation
in this part, but their arrangement in space is vital to be able to capture the damaged
identity and urban memory in these places. This organization of space will be
determined by two conditions: urban memory and the continuity of the architectural
act onto an urban act. This will be dealt with more exhaustively in another chapter.
Now these options for recycling and reuse of symbolic rubble are introduced.
As to the materials and volumes of symbolic rubble, sixteen urban elements are
described: urban seats, hand rails, rubbish bins, drinking fountains, bollards,
advertisement boards, sculptures, decorative fountains, lamp posts, masts,
flowerbeds, elements in playgrounds, tables, bus stops, protections for trees and
roofs, pavings and topography elements
10
The sequencing of urban elemens according to memory
WAYS TO APPROACH MEMORY
One of the purposes of this exploration is to find
guidelines and criteria for the organization of urban
elements with a sense of memory, based on the greater
characterization of destroyed architectural objects in
order to achieve a functionality of the symbolic needs of
the community.
An isolated bench or a sculpture, with no clear
sense, on a square or a park, would fail to convey
enough information of the former architectural object.
However, by taking memory factors, as suggested by
Kevin Lynch and Christian Norberg-Schulz, in terms
of the shape of the architectural object as a milestone or
the act that was performed inside, we may use these
parametres to achieve a continuity of transformed
memory while maintaining its essence. This relationship
between destroyed architecture converted into squares,
pedestrian areas or streets opens a new line of research
in art projects which may be universal but they respect
the context needs, not to be imponed as absolute laws,
where the affected community has the last word.
CONTINUITY OF THE ACT To live, to work, to study, to play, to buy, to
travel, and to marry are among the acts that are lost
after the destruction of important architectural objects in
vulnerable areas.
But what is the relationship between the
architectural act and memory? According to Christian
Norberg-Schulz (1975), “places are centres where we
experience the most significant events in our lives. But
they are also the starting points from which we orientate
ourselves and we take posession of the surrounding
environment”. This definition shows that the objects
themselves are not important in a memory where man
positions himself, but when and how it is given by
intentional acts, where the events inside are the ones
that generate the image to belong to a social and
cultural whole. Thus, architectural heritage is recognized
because it originates full acts for a community where
memory is the key.
Here we can see the parallel between memory
and the way we place it depending on the act. The
architectural act is the key to open the door to the
knowledge of memory, which is destined to contain man
and his whole life. Can the act and its fusion with this
object be transmitted to rubble? What happens to this
loss of memory? Can there be continuity of the
developed act in the architectural object through rubble
as material for projects in public spaces? This is a
condition that may be explored through design criteria
and the way elements are organizad in order to create
and move from an architectural act to an urban act.
However, this depends on the architecture, since rubble
has the tangible memory of the old object and, thus, it
brings the memory of the architectural act.
So what is the diversity of architectural
heritage acts? Architectural objects have the following
functions that are compatible with urban acts:
Based on this classification we will explore the
possibilities of continuing the act of these architectural
objects in public spaces, transforming them into urban
acts, maintaining the consistency of the essence of
experimentation between them. In order to do this, the
two previous criteria will be used as the basis -where
and what- in order to determine the organization of
urban elements, pavings and topography, elements
based on the diversity of public spaces -squares, parks,
pedestrian areas and streets, and to preserve the urban
memory, based on a formal, spatial and structural but
consistent transformation.
This raises a transformation of the architectural
act into a new urban act with a continuity to preserve the
memory and replace the loss of that act in that context.
The most important is find compatible context needs
with the intervention of the new act urban public space.
Religious Architecture
Open chapels
Continuity of the act/ Transformation
Continuity of the act/ Transformation
Continuity of the act/ Transformation
Continuity of the act/ Transformation
Continuity of the act/ Transformation
Cultural architecture
Open amphitheatres to perform plays
Sports Architecture
Children’s play areas, sports fields
Transport architecture
Pedestrian areas
Commercial architecture
Areas for relaxation after shopping
11
ABATEMENT OF FACADE
Among the main characteristics of this philosophy we
find the concept of rubble as a sustainable development
resource, as it responds to social, environmental and
economic aspects:
-Architectural heritage is a dynamic resource
because when it is transformed into a component of public
space, it may be touched, used, you can play with it, pray
on it, sit on it, study feeling the object, that is, you can
come close to it. This was not possible when it was an
element of architecture.
This is a polifunctional position, since every project
has as a main objective which is that of satisfying the
needs of an urban act like playing, educating, meeting,
observing, etc. Additionally it also includes the inherent act
of remembering as it is a place whith a double emotional
load and a memory, thanks to the symbolic rubble.
These conservation projects will always be unique and
exclusive because they use rubble from a unique and
unrepeatable architectural object as they are heritage
elements. Destruction generates unique pieces of rubble
with different sizes and volumes so serial building of
elements or furniture would not be possible. The aim is to
give them a true identity and to make space attractive so
as to generate cultural tourism as well.
Considering their condition of being unique and
unrepeatable, projects will vary depending on the kind of
rubble that they work with. In other words, the rubble will
determine the possibilities of intervention, allowing for a
development of identity and appreciation of projects. This
is completely different from the way the creation of public
space is managed today, which works with standardized
furniture.
-Another characteristic is its potential as a phylosophy
of universality, where the processes of reusing and
recycling symbolic rubble in public space may be
replicated anywhere in the world affected by a
catastrophe, either natural or man-made, generating the
destruction of their heritage. At this point it is important to
mention that this idea should be analyzed in each
particular case, because its integration is associated to
each culture and rituals must be respected.
-Architectural heritage, when reused and recycled in
public space, will become an element that generates
awareness towards conservation and memory. It is clear
that it is necessary to value architectural heritage objects
that are still standing as well as those that have been
affected by decay. We need to remember that
catastrophes are part of our history and we cannot be
consumed in social amnesia with respect to these events
because that would leave us helpless.
-In environmental terms, when we reuse this non-
traditional material, we are contributing to a reduction in
the explotation of natural resources, because when a
catastrophe hits a city it is necessary to rebuild the public
spaces that have been damaged and rubble is an efficient
material.
At present there is not a good management of rubble
regarding its elimination: it is accumulated on fertile land
and coastal borders, it generates environmental and visual
deterioration and a negative impact as it does not
decompose easily or mingle with other organic elements
such as wood, steel or others. Therefore, its correct
handling could reduce environmental pollution and the
amount of wastes that could have a negative
environmental impact. This would also reduce the need for
landfills and incineration, and cut down on greenhouse
gas emissions.
As to economic benefits, rubble and the processes
associated to it would create new jobs. Besides, it is an
economical raw material that can be used in the
construction of public spaces as there would be no need
to buy stones or bricks.
Another positive aspect is that it may activate
environmental awareness and various new reuse and
recycling processes, because residents as well as tourists
would see areas that have been created by those same
processes. The cultural component of rubble is very
important since it gives the community a full and lasting
representation of these spaces and environmental issues.
-Awareness of vulnerability to catastrophe is the second
important effect of the creation of this new memory
process because rubble represents catastrophe and
becomes a stimulus for prevention, a controller, an
incentive to the development of intellectual capital to face
catastrophes, and a contribution to the solution of amnesia
with respect to catastrophe.
Lastly, these projects are a sample of a city’s urban
resilience because they help us assimilate the processes
of change after a disaster. They also generate public
spaces which complement the lost act of an architectural
object. For example, the act of worship which used to be
performed in a church, after its destruction could be
replicated in the creation of additional spaces with rubble.
In other words, what used to be an architectural act
becomes an urban act, like an oratory in the open, in the
case of a church. After a catastrophe, it is possible to have
resilient spaces which are better assimilated by a
community, as the cultural aspect endows them with a
greater hierarchy and representation.
This intervention is not based on the continuity of the act as an element of memory,
but it highlights the shape of the former architectutal object within the urban fabric.
Urban memory is commonly associated with the shape of the architectural object, that
is, it is based on the diversity or contrasts among them, which become landmarks or
references in cities. This the case of Brunelleschi’s Dome, which is located in an
urban context that is uniform in height and provides hierarchy and image.
According to Lynch, this position of urban memory is based
on landmarks because of its shape in the image of the city. Taking advantege of this
quality, a transformation of its shape is generated into an abatement of facade of the
disappeared architectural object.
In order to undestand this view of conservation, the destroyed architectural
object needs to be located at the front of a vast open space, which allows
contemplation of all its edges.
These characteristics condition this position, since the intention is to replicate
the old destroyed facade on a large space such as a square, where the designed
base may be lifted on the basis of its main lines, as a form of commemoration or
memory. There are two experiences which have tried to implement the abatement of
facade of a building: Filippo Brunelleschi in Italy during the Renaissance, and Miguel
Ángel Roca in the Church and City Hall of Córdoba, Argentina. The idea is to develop
an evolution of these positions: what used to be done in two dimensions is now done
in three, where the door or the window is now transformed into urban furniture, seats
or exhibition areas. This leaves a tangible record of their proportions to acieve the link
between the two areas and eras of the city: the historic and the modern.
An example of this is found in the hypothetical design of the Spain Square in
Concepción, with the abatement of facade of the old building of the Regional Council,
where the shape of the former building forms the new square, recalling its old shape
and thus its memory.
Citizen participation and management
Responding to real social needs and demands
is the objective of a more sustainable and humane city
planning. The relationship between urban memory and
residents has a close correspondence with producing
attractive public spaces that people use and become
part of their collective unconscious.
The inclusion of a real and effective citizen
participation in project management must be seen as
an instrument to successfully achieve sustainability
within time the proposals that are undertaken. The
imposition of models must be avoided and socialization,
use and consolidation of a pre- and post-catastrophe
memory in the place of commemoration must be
encouraged. As we integrate citizens in the
development of projects we strengthen the users’
identification with the generated results. With respect to
our particular area, citizen participation contributes to
solving a particular problem that affects this kind of
problems: what is accessibility to memory? How can
public space be used as a place of memory if future
generations did not experience the events that are
remembered there? How does it become part of a
collective memory? If one generation was involved in
the process of creation of a project and felt it truly their
own, their children and grandchildren will most certainly
know the importance of that place.
It is interesting to refer to one advantage of this
type of projects working with symbolic rubble in public
spaces. Unlike other creations in these places, it is
feasible and easy to attract people to take part in the
process because you do not start working with new
materials but with heritage elements that have been
part of their life history. It has been proved that during
the first weeks after a disaster, there is a greater need
and disposition from communities to help and to do
volunteer work in the recovery of their cities. It is clearly
necessary to take care of this help civilians feel like
offering during the emergency stage. This can be done
providing ways to channel all the possible help and it is
essential to be able to organize and channel human
resources which will start to diminish as the country
begins to stabilize.
12
13
Hospitals for symbolic rubble are places for storing rubble inside or outside a city. They can be located on state or privately-owned land and they play a protective role this inert rubble for its future recycling or reuse in public space. Symbolic rubble is to be kept there until the crisis after the disaster is stabilized and the most urgent problems are solved. It is important to wait until the critical issues are dealt with when a community experiences a mega-disaster and there are no resources to globally meet all the needs. This is why the first steps are to solve problems in housing, food, health and psychological assistance and only then go on to develop cultural projects that enable the restoration and improvement of cities and the society. We need to bear in mind that we must always do the very best to rescue the most of symbolic pieces because, as it was already explained, they are the ones that keep the characteristics of the buildings (remains from facades, doors, pillars, tiles, etc.) so they become tangible and representative testimony of memory. It is necessary to remember that these “symbolic collections of rubble”, besides protecting symbolic rubble for their reuse in public spaces, they may also contribute to the protection of that rubble which will be used to restore a patrimonial building. This very important because, alter a crisis, rubble becomes a problem and nobody even effectively considers its use in architecture. Organs like the Council of National Monuments and the Ministry of the Environment are key for the planning of these Hospitals for Rubble.
They may become prevention mechanisms and in anticipation to a future catastrophe may write a list with possible sites where symbolic rubble may be gathered with the endorsement from Health Authorities. Hospitals will need to have different sites for the organized storage of pieces, fragments and dust rubble, considering the various degrees of fragility of inert residues such as adobe rubble which is highly vulnerable in outdoor conditions. City halls and authorities will also need to be informed about the localization of these sites for the exclusive storing of this kind of rubble. They will also need to keep a data base with all the information which will be available so that new projects may easily be generated with citizen participation. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE: WHERE AND WHICH ONES?
Storing in the same site: The rubble is left in its place
of origin. Temporary protection is needed to avoid their alteration or that they may be moved away or eliminated. A perimeter fence may be used to avoid visual or environmental pollution.
Hospitals for symbolic rubble
Storing in another site: The rubble is removed from
the original site. A supervisor must be present during this operation to guarantee the future Project. It is necessary to manage the feasibility of storing the elements separately to avoid mixing them with other materials. Ideally this new site should also give the possibility of carrying out necessary maintenance to the most fragile rubble. A city may organize more than one hospital to receive the different “patients” but it is important that they do not get mixed as they could generate a so called “false historical.” CRITERIA FOR THE LOCATION OF HOSPITALS
With respect to sites for the location, the Ministers
of the Environment and of Health, through their office in the Biobío Region developed a study in 2010 including different criteria that you need to consider when installing a site for the storage of rubble which may also be used for the creation of hospitals for symbolic rubble. 1, ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERION: The site must not affect any surface or underground watercourses. It must also avoid lands that are flooded in certain periods during the year (you need to ask the local inhabitants), those which have a special landscape value or biodiversity (areas under protection, wetlands, etc.) and those which have the necessary characteristics for camps and/or provisional houses. 2. LOGISTIC CRITERION: The condition of provisional collection centre implies the need for the classification of residues. Therefore, the site must allow expeditious access to heavy machinery and should also be close to plants for reuse, recycling and final elimination in order to reduce the costs of the process of recovery of materials. 3. TOPOGRAPHIC CRITERION: The site should have a slope of 5% or less to guarantee the stability conditions of the rubble. 4. ECONOMIC CRITERION: Agricultural land, which has value for tourism or another activity developed in the area should not be used. With respect to transportation of symbolic rubble, it is a good idea to find a site as close as possible so as to reduce the costs of transport.