the architect as mediator between the built heritage ...

46 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
and the project of adaptive reuse. This appropriation goes far beyond identification on a regional or national level. Forgetting about the informal actors is not ...
TRACK 2 — HERITAGE AND LOCAL IDENTITY: FRAGILE SCENARIOS?

THE ARCHITECT AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE BUILT HERITAGE AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT DRS. ARCHITECT & MSC. CONSERVATION, GISÈLE GANTOIS Research Department of Architecture - Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, campus LUCA Brussels/Ghent [email protected] PROF. DR. YVES SCHOONJANS Research Department of Architecture - Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, campus LUCA Brussels/Ghent. [email protected]

KEYWORDS Community participation; networks; appropriation; cartes parlantes; close reading. INTRODUCTION The increasing attention for built heritage (heritage is here understood as literally what we ‘inherit’ if we want to save it or not) can only be seen in a renewed vision on sustainability. The possibility to re-use and re-define a building of the past depends more than ever on the cultural and social aspects of that building, on its cultural footprint and its possibility to adapt a cultural and social sustainability within the realm of the future. Monuments in the original sense, namely a building, structure or sculpture deliberately erected to commemorate a notable person or event (Oxford Dictionaries), represent only a small part of all protected fabrics. Most other ones became monuments unintentionally (Riegl, 1928) because at one moment they were considered to be of historical importance or interest or an enduring and unique example of something. This does not necessarily mean that the creators did want to leave evidence of their artistic and cultural life to

249

ABSTRACT Within managing built heritage, there is a well-known framework to cope with the material aspects of conservation and restoration, but for the intangible layers it is lacking. One is hardly focusing on the ‘nameless local’, i.e. the person or social groups that appropriated the building and its significance ‘in the meantime’, the time between the original occupation and the project of adaptive reuse. This appropriation goes far beyond identification on a regional or national level. Forgetting about the informal actors is not difficult as they are disappearing amid all other elements, especially if one focuses only on the materiality of the building as a historic data. This is enforced by the fact that there are no approved ways for it tracing this. There is a shift in architectural paradigms from conventional to community-based architecture and the redefined roles of architects responding to this shift. Just like ‘Der Erzähler‘ of Walter Benjamin (1936), the architect can be the mediator between the built heritage and the social construct. Within the Design Studios in the faculty of Architecture, we are searching for and testing out, different strategies focussing on their possibilities and limitations in generating knowledge about this value in multi stakeholder projects.

250

ADU2020

Figure 1 — Chapel of Saint-Rochus, Opwijk, The time a building will last depends on the value that generations after generations want to attribute to it (Gisèle Gantois, 2009)

TRACK 2 — HERITAGE AND LOCAL IDENTITY: FRAGILE SCENARIOS? future generations. Rather than the works themselves by virtue of their original purpose, the beholders assigned meaning and significance to the existing structure. A historical building is multivalent, it will be read in a chosen way, as the result of a particular perception in different ages, governed by prejudices of the time, and consequently liable to restoration and adaptive re-use or not according to those bias. What would be demolished at one time, could be of great value in other times. The added values are contemporary. Any place or fabric in the landscape may hold significance for many different people for many different reasons. It is the meaning that is transitory. Then the term “monument”, which we nevertheless use to define these works, can only be meant subjectively. By protecting it by law the building with its subjective meaning becomes objectively a monument – values are frozen. In the successive theories dealing with restoration there is no clear distinction made between the deliberate and the unintentional monuments. Although there is a growing interest for intangible heritage all over the world, the intangible aspects of the tangible heritage are often neglected. The approach in built heritage practice and legislation is still oriented towards conservation and restoration of the material, preferable of the monumental heritage. It is true that the vision on restoration changed together with the social and political conditions but it is up to today still very much object focused. Within the historic meaning one is hardly focusing on the actual meaning given by the ‘nameless’, individuals or social groups that in most cases appropriated the building and its significance or gave it a different meaning ‘in the meantime’, in the time between the original occupation and the project of adaptive reuse.

In the second part we want to address the issue of how we can detect intangible and informal aspects of built heritage and its relation to the social construct and entangle that complex interaction. How can education contribute to this renewed vision on heritage and support a changing attitude? What kind of skills or competences is needed? Although the research is in an early stage we tested some aspects in the first year of bachelors and the master years of the International Masters in Architecture. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Within the academic world and the governmental policies one can detect a shift in architectural paradigms from conventional to community-based architecture, from top down towards a bottom-up more participatory way of working and the redefined roles of architects responding to this shift. But especially in the discipline of heritage the decisionmaking remains mainly top-down in contradiction to recent charters and conventions, emphasizing that an adequate social function is required for the restored building and

251

In the first part of this paper we focus on a few concepts, which might me important to consider when restoring and reusing unintentional monuments of local importance. That kind of heritage is interesting because there is very often a lively interaction with the local community. By this it becomes much more difficult to restore and reuse, since one has to go beyond the pure material restoration taking into account the societal interaction and multiple meanings that have been generated. This modest heritage cannot be removed from human affairs or it will be uninhabitable and as a result socially not accepted. The time a building will last depends on the value that generations after generations want to attribute to it. This is determined by the personal and shared memory which is not necessarily based on architectural, historical or archaeological aspects, called AHAvalues, alone but as well on individual or common experiences, say more ‘intangible’ values. It is here that heritage is of an incredibly importance, since it generates the cultural and social identity of a local society.

252

ADU2020 that the community should closely be involved in the programming operation. (UNESCO Recommendation, 1976) As the architect works with that of others who have preceded him when restoring or altering a building, and also in precedence of those who will come after him, one might suppose that as a consequence the work of restoration and adaptive reuse is closely linked to the human experience. But if we consider the broad range of theories on restoration we notice that for everyone involved, it still seems evident that the building on its site is the essence of the assignment. Not human experience but the architectural and artistic, historical and archaeological values of the monument are in the very centre of the discussion. This does not mean that people are entirely excluded, but the attention is not focused on them. They are put outside the framework. Their presence is only indirect noticeable by the traces they left. Remarkable enough this ‘perimeter’, this intangible and social significance very often seems to lie at the very centre of the challenge of the project posted. Forgetting about it is not difficult as it is often invisible or disappearing amid all the other elements, especially if one focuses only on the materiality of the building as a (historic) data. Within managing heritage, there is a well-known and elaborated framework to cope with the material and functional aspects of conservation and restoration, but a framework for the intangible layers is lacking. Furthermore it is difficult and complex to define what local communities are in a world that is struggling with societal transition processes, between the global and the local, immigration and inter-culturality. Although community involvement (Leuven, 2014) now tends to become a sine qua non for heritage management, its level of application and implementation as it happens today can nevertheless be questioned. It is very often limited to informing the public about the new function of the building and about accountability of the cost of the adaptive reuse. The main question though is not the functionality of the building, but the aim to generate meaning in a cultural durable land- and cityscape. As a consequence it becomes much more interesting to transcend the approach of concentrating on the fabric alone and to develop methods beyond this narrow focus, to relate it towards a bigger framework of cultural and spatial experiences, urban and landscape structures. Community participation can than be seen as a subtle involvement of different actors even at first sight invisible ones in the design process. The (future) architect as a stranger has to develop the ability to take time to ‘listen’ to and to observe both the natives and the newcomers. He shouldn’t take up a central role as preceptor, but always position himself slightly to one side. This is a respectful but not necessarily subservient attitude, nor is it related with a demagogic tendency of Populism.

APPROPRIATION – ‘PATRIMONIALISATION’ Even if modest heritage is sometimes materially rather poor, it is socially often more important than high standard monuments that are, at times, socially oppressive.

NETWORKS A valid viewpoint on heritage matters does not always depend on the different meanings of the individual fabrics alone but rather on the network of small buildings and public spaces. Although they might not have much individual value, in their grouping or agglomeration they create a valuable human made (urban) landscape in the past, present and future. Dealing with monuments of small scale and local importance historical social, cultural, religious or political networks can be detected once we transcend the solely focus on the object. At the same time those buildings remain to have, up to today, an impact on the social and cultural stratification and an engaged community involvement is very often present. They form complex spaces of experiences, places of attachment and recognition. Throughout the diversity of these small structures a familiarity can be detected. We perceive images of everyday life – small buildings leading their own slow life. These are structures that were not submitted to rapid change, to fashion or to temporal, fluid and ever shifting ideas. There is nothing heroic or spectacular about these buildings. They are completely rooted in the ordinary. They belong to the well-known trusted things. All together these buildings and sites form a stimulating part of the multi-layered environment and tools for community building in which natives and newcomers can take part. Considering the modest historical buildings as part of a network of public spaces, routes and landscapes, nature can take its righteous place into it as an important extra layer of

Figure 2 — Chapel of Saint-Rochus, Opwijk, initially privately owned, became collective by the use. (Gisèle Gantois, 2009)

253

Those unintentional monuments attribute the human scale to the landscape and are built along old paths and routes, on walking distance or on one day horse riding, in between two hamlets. Often initially privately owned, they became collective by their use, local significance or representation and turned into beacons, points of reference or meeting points. These are spaces people use for satisfying their social needs. They are places of collective independence where people can take initiatives that support their desire for the collective but also highlight an inherent sense of personal freedom, balancing the concept of togetherness with the concept of independence. In this collective space ordinary life can play its play and stay present in the collective memories. (de Solà-Morales, M: 1992) The territory of these small buildings is often not clearly defined by a real boundary. And even if sometimes, physical walls or hedges surround them they have no mental barriers around. It seems like no one owns them but ideally all have use of them. In most cases these historical buildings are appropriated ‘in the meantime’, the time between the original occupation and the new project of adaptive reuse. In our changing society this appropriation of the existing fabric is complex and goes beyond solely regional or national identification. An interesting concept to grasp that phenomenon is the idea by Vincent Veschambre (2008) of ‘patrimonialisation’ (Walsh, 1992), stating that the interest of a community or an individual for an existing structure or landscape becomes explicit the moment the building or landscape is in danger. Finding ways to discover, to observe and to map this can give new insights on the significance of the building today and the possible projects of adaptive reuse. Veschambre (2008) explains the process of ‘patrimonialisation’ which very often goes together with appropriation in his paper ‘Patrimonialisation et enjeux politiques: les edifices le Corbusier à Firminy.’ where in one generation concrete building and social housing estates have been shifting from an architectural status to a heritage status. This heritage process is often subject to conflict.

ADU2020

254

ecological value. ENDLESS CONVERSATION There is usually over time an interaction between the built form in the environment and its occupants. The people are engaged in a dialogue with the landscapes and structures in which they live. Next to the historical and material layering there are these timeless immaterial attachments expressed in the endless conversations between the existing and the individual or community. One side of this interaction involves the locals giving meaning to places through the events in their lives, which have taken place in the specific landscape or fabric. Generations pass knowledge of these events to each other by marks and traces. But eve n if the events have left no mark, people remember what has happened. They seem to ‘perceive’ them as if they had mapped them, as they became part of the collective memory. It is as if they carry around in their mind a plan of the landscape, which has all these places and their meanings, detailed on it. The other side of the conversation is the triggering of memories and feelings by the simple sight of a place: this is the landscape or fabric ‘talking’ to us. The individual attributes significance to the environment that appeals to him beyond the physical environment itself. The way he sees this is affected by what he already knows, believes or remembers from other places. Here enters the value of the existing buildings and landscapes for the newcomer in our intercultural society. The never-ending interactions or conversations between the landscape or building and the individual or community are very complex. Taking time to study the AHA values now often being the primary determinants of significance in heritage matters can in fact support and help to better understand the attachment of individuals and communities to heritage places and items. (Ardler, Byrne, Brayshaw and Ireland 2001) THE (FUTURE) ARCHITECT AS STORYTELLER. What are the possible tools to develop (historical) buildings in their context differently by reading, mapping, unveiling and understanding these more hidden aspects of heritage? How can education contribute to this renewed vision on heritage and support a changing attitude? The research on the existing buildings and landscapes relies on a range of primary and secondary materials: archives, maps, drawings, paintings, photographs, artistic writings, essays, articles, oral stories and books. But while working with local heritage, written sources are often hardly to find as the micro, fragile scale only got a poor place into the historiography. The true source of all sources then is the built environment itself. The key thing is that the (future) architect is an outsider in the local landscapes and buildings he has to study. One can never discover the world of meaning just by observing a place and doing material survey only. Understanding the ‘in-laying’ ((Ardler, Byrne, Brayshaw and Ireland 2001) of the building into the site is important. But we would like to add the necessity of a long period of in-dwelling for the (future) architect accompanying the designing process while observing people on location and collecting their ‘stories’. (Collecting meaning) Time and slowness are essential features in social significance assessment. The process of assimilation, which takes place in depth, requires a state of rest. Therefore the period of analysis and registration of the existing takes an important place in the assignment. An interesting parallel can be traced between both the story and the storyteller and the cultural landscape and the architect. As in a story, the cultural landscape or building consists out of different strata: every period, every act in history has left its traces and relicts and consists of thin, transparent layers placed one on top of the other interacting with each other on hinged points. The slow piling is revealed through the layers of a variety

TRACK 2 — HERITAGE AND LOCAL IDENTITY: FRAGILE SCENARIOS?

255

of “retellings”. We can look at existing buildings as to palimpsests. These can be seen as a form of destruction of the existing but could also be seen as new added valuable layers on top of or through yet existing ones. We could add to the literal layers of archaeological remains, a description of the way people experience time, that is, the different social and cultural values people contribute to an existing building or site as we understand just how great the implications of these values are and just how minimal the extent in the architectural projects often is up till now. In “Der Erzähler. Betrachtungen zum Werk Nikolai Lesskows” (The Storyteller. Reflections in the work of Nokolai Lesskows) written by the German historian Walter Benjamin in 1936 ‘the figure of the storyteller gets its full corporeality only for the one who can picture both the man who has stayed at home who knows the local tales and tradition and the one who comes from afar. One could picture these two groups through their archaic representatives, one is embodied in the resident tiller of the soil (der Ackermann) and the other in the trading seaman (der Seemann).’ (Benjamin, 1936) Just like the storyteller, the (future) architect can be the mediator between the native nameless inhabitant and the newcomer in dealing with an existing structure in a given environment. The student is invited to go beyond collecting information and add to his own experience that of others when surveying a given site. The question of empathy then becomes paramount. Through narrative and discourse, one is able to reflect upon experiences and share them with others. Ultimately, it is the integration of experience enabled by open narrative that leads to wisdom. According to Benjamin information can only be taken in as raw data. Information is objective while a story can be interpreted by the reader and made his own. The beauty of the storyteller is his ability to communicate a story and allow the audience member to integrate this story into her own experience. This changing attitude of the architect as storyteller was introduced in the Design Studio of the first year of bachelors in architecture and this in existing exercises. To start with there were only two actors involved: the student and the site. A clear distinction was made between collecting objective information such as size, orientation and materialisation represented in drawings, pictures and models. In a second step they collected meaning: subjective information, personal impressions and tactile experiences expressed in sketches, images and concept-models. The design project started from the interaction between the site and the beholder, the objective information and the subjective interpretation. The students had to become conscious of the fact that it is their own memories and feelings, which are triggered by the simple sight of a place that act as primary generators of their projects.

ADU2020

256

Figure 3 — Personal impressions and tactile experiences, Xanthe. Title exercise: Tien (10!) vierkante meter toegevoegde waarde – Factor 2!,(Ten (10!) square meter added value – Factor 2!), ba1ar semester 1, 2013-2014, Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, campus LUCA.

Figure 4 — Private space, urban context, Xanthe. Title exercise: Tien (10!) vierkante meter toegevoegde waarde – Factor 2!, (Ten (10!) square meter added value – Factor 2!, ba1ar semester 1, 2013-2014, Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, campus LUCA.

TRACK 2 — HERITAGE AND LOCAL IDENTITY: FRAGILE SCENARIOS? In the second exercise we introduced a third actor, namely a fellow student, which takes up the role of the client. In each team of two students each one is client and architect for the other one at the same time. In the role of client they communicate by notes in a notebook (2D) and as an architect they communicate with models (3D). They learn to ‘listen’ to this new protagonist. Now the student adds from his own experience to the experience of the other when developing a project in a precise context. The architectstudent questions the reflections, demands or wishes of the client-student. He starts the ‘narrative’ in a three dimensional way as an interaction with the two dimensional writings and thumbnail sketches of his colleague client, the site and his own experience.

257

Figure 5 — Notebooks of the client-students, drawing and models of the architect-students, Laurens and Justine , Title exercise: Framed/Sandwiched, ba1ar semester 2, 2013-2014, Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, campus LUCA.

In the masters the assignment (International Master, 2013-2014) is more complex. The students combine the objective information with the interaction of many different actors, protagonists and antagonists on the design process. Now different stakeholders are involved and the project goes beyond the focus on the object. Together with the students we are testing out the strategy of the Architect as Storyteller. Different concepts within this strategy are taken into account such as Appropriation, Endless Conversation and Networks. As they are working on a protected monument, the meticulous survey of the AHA elements then becomes a tool to gain time in favour of the uncovering of meanings by unveiling different layers and networks and an opportunity to discover the more fragile actual meaning. Although this assignment is not finished yet we experience how difficult it is to take in account different actors and to go beyond the own experience although the survey is done quite thoroughly. Especially when dealing with a protected monument, the architectural, historical and archaeological values tend to be the essence of the projects.

ADU2020

258

New tools such as ‘Cartes Parlantes’ (Oles, 2008) and Close Reading are introduced. Different methods to ‘listen to’ the different actors in order to collect their stories have been tested. Although two qualitative research methods and research techniques in the field of anthropology namely participatory observation and social network analysis are based on interviewing, literature study and participatory appraisal techniques, we experience that interviewing isn’t the most effective method to discover more hidden values as this tends towards a collection of anecdotes. According to Christopher Alexander (1975) in the Oregon Experiment an individual takes these extra, subtle needs into account as a matter of course when he creates his own place, because he can feel them. But when he has to explain these needs to a (student) architect, the only ones which get across are the ones which he can state in words.’ CARTES PARLANTES –SPEAKING MAPS By analysing a site we tear apart what belonged together and make abstraction of a lot of information. Issues as function, structure, scale and program have to be considered in a context of constant change integrating the historical, archaeological, architectural, natural, cultural and social values of an existing fabric. In the physical world, context will have a dimensional and a historical dimension, both of which go to make up the layering of a place with masses and territories with enclosures or boundaries that determine the landscape. If we look over the modern landscape we see a world carved and sliced for so long that it is hard to imagine it even having been otherwise. On interpenetrating hinged points between the neighbouring horizontal layers we can detect the tangible: Places, man made landscapes, spaces, tracks, monumental heritage, that which values cathedrals, palaces & monuments, and is of great (universal) importance, but also built heritage of local importance. Between the vertical slices we discover relations between territories, the intangible: Language, tradition, memory, identification, meaning. All layers and slices interfere with each other and form invisible three-dimensional networks that contribute to the physical and mental identity of our cultural landscapes. They are determined by a permanent evolution of use and reuse. Every new event or interference intervenes in a specific historical situation. Society is conceived as an organic and integrated whole. Landscapes grow in an organic continuous or discontinuous way. They might be viewed under the aspects of economy, or family, or religion, or politics but all these interpenetrate one another and constitute a single reality. Subdivision fades into the background of human experience because it is omnipresent: the parcel is a receptacle for people and events, endlessly moved, exchanged, replaced, forgotten. The initial image of layering and slicing appears too limiting here. In the design studio we are searching for new possible mapping methods to be able to develop historical buildings in their context differently. We can refer to the Middle Ages where instead of maps, they used what the modern Historian François de Dainville called ‘Cartes Parlantes’ (Oles, 2008). These ‘terriers’ listed hundreds, or even thousands of individual plots of land in a set of fields, giving the exact location of each. They were judged according not to the adherence to coordinates or scale, but rather according to the faithfulness with which they described relationships between people – usually landowners – and their physical environment. (Sack, 1986) A map could be conceived not to represent either manor in its entirety, but rather to document the point of their meeting and source of most likely conflict. Readapting the concept of the Cartes Parlantes could bring us to a different way of observing, recording relationships between people and territories next to the more acknowledged information as measurements, quantities or proportions.

TRACK 2 — HERITAGE AND LOCAL IDENTITY: FRAGILE SCENARIOS? CLOSE READING Observing the existing by close reading is a result of recurrence. The reappearance of similar forms and objects indicates a permanent and persistent investigation of the same phenomena, which manifest themselves however each time differently depending on the context. Referring to daily life – enclosed by redundancy – the (future) architect should not focus on the unique but on the recurrent events and buildings that structure our life. One needs the sharp eye to discover the trusted things. Like is the case when taking photographs one could, while zooming in and out on the object, look at the blur, at what happens at the borders of the picture. The act of watching closely can lead to real closeness. But perception is more than just the eyes. In his book Critical Regionalism Frampton (1985) seeks to complement our normative visual experience by readdressing the tactile range of human perceptions. In so doing, it endeavours to balance the priority accorded to the image and to counter the Western tendency to interpret the environment in exclusively perspectival terms. According to its etymology, perspective means rationalized sight or clear seeing, and as such it presupposes a conscious suppression of the senses of smell, hearing and taste, and a consequent distancing from a more direct experience of the environment. This self-imposed limitation relates to that which Heidegger has called a “loss of nearness.” (Frampton, 1983) The act of drawing, one of the main tools of the (future) architect, is a way of observing and therefore a way of reflecting. Drawing makes one see things differently. The drawing so becomes a tool for the eye and all the other senses. Retracing the existing makes things clearer and feeds the understanding of the meaning of the existing today in its context.

Understanding the endless interactions with and the attachments of people to their environment, hidden networks together with the land-shaping factors of our cultivated landscapes and structures can help us in developing better and more nuanced urban and landscape strategies. Briefly, the (future) architect has to learn to know the building better in its social and cultural, natural or landscaping context and from there, to start to create its narrative. This could prevent him to be tempted to try to revive the hypothetical forms of a lost vernacular with a purification of its meaning to its initial one, or to remove the history of the building since its inception neglecting the adaptations of the (former) occupants, the use of it in the meantime and the new significances attributed to the structure both by natives and newcomers. In the case of monuments we don’t necessarily want to question the AHA values acknowledged and framed the moment of protection of the built heritage but we would like to consider new added actual social and cultural values in order to contribute to social cohesion and to the preservation of the built environment. This changing attitude has an implication on architectural education.

259

CONCLUSION

ADU2020

260

REFERENCES Alexander, C.: 1975, The Oregon Experiment, Oxford University Press. Ardler, J., Byrne, D., Brayshaw H., Ireland, T.:2001, Social Significance, a discussion paper., NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Research Unit, Cultural Heritage Division. Benjamin, W.: 1936, The Storyteller, Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov. (online available): http://slought.org/files/downloads/events/SF_1331-Benjamin.pdf, http://modernism.research.yale.edu/wiki/index. php/The_Storyteller (last consulted 03/05/2014). Community Involvement in valuing and managing monuments and sites. Thematic week 22-24, January 2014 Arenberg Castle, Leuven (Belgium) Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation de Solà-Morales, M.: 1992, Public and Collective Space: The Urbanisation of the Private Domain as a New Challenge, in La Vanguardia, May 12th, Barcelona, reprinted in A Matter of Things, Nai Publishers, Rotterdam 2008. Frampton, K., (1983), Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance, in The AntiAesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture edited by Hal Foster, Bay Press, Seattle. P.29. Grafe, C.: 2011, Dierbaar is duurzaam. Zes stellingen rond architectuur, cultuur en ecologie. Vlugschrift Vlaams Architectuurinstituut. See also Schech S. & Haggis, J.: 2000, Culture and development: a critical introduction, and Ashworth, G., Graham B. and Tunbridge, J.:2007, Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Idendity and Place in Multicultural Society, and Bullen, P.: 2011, Factors influencing the adaptive reuse of buildings. International Master (Ma2AR Int – Master Dissertation 2013-2014, Faculty of Architecture, KU Leuven, campus LUCA ) the assignment is about Critical Sustainability: Complexity. In the studio Gisèle Gantois the title of the assignment is ‘The PIVO site in Asse-Zellik revisited. The Balloon Warehouse as Primary Generator.’ This is a reconversion project of the balloon warehouse of the military barracks Serge Eckstein (1922) / housing project in Zellik/Asse. Oxford Dictionaries: Monument: 1.A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a notable person or event. Other meanings are 1.1.A statue or other structure placed over a grave in memory of the dead or 1.2.A building, structure, or site that is of historical importance or interest or 1.3.An enduring and memorable example of something Oles, B.: 2008, Recovering the wall: enclosure, ethics and the American landscape, 2008, PhD, Retrieved from: http:// hdl.handle.net/1721.1/45437 . Riegl, A.: 1928, Gesammelte Aufsätze, Augsberg, Vienna: Dr. Benno Filser Verlag, G.m.b.H, 144-93; originally publihed as Der moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung, Vienna: W. Braumuller, 1903. Translated bu Karin Bruckner with Karen Williams. Sack, R. D.:1986, Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. New York: Cambridge University Press, , 100:62. UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas already stated in 1976 that “this programming operation should be undertaken with the closest possible participation of the communities and groups of people concerned” (art. 21). Veschambre, V.: 2008, Traces et mémoires urbaines, enjeux sociaux de la patrimonialisation et de la demolition, Presses universitaires de Rennes. Walsh, K,: 1992, , The representation of the past : museums and heritage in the postmodern world, Londres, Routledge, 1992, 204 p. There is no clear term to translate the word from French to English: ‘Heritagization’ first used by Walsh, K. in 1992 as a pejorative way to refer to “the reduction of real places to tourist space (…) that contribute to the destruction of actual places.” ‘Patrimonialisation’ means more precisely the process of making heritage, including identification, preservation, etc; it also describes how something gets to be thought of as heritage. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=239777.