This chapter aims to critically analyse theories of architectural heritage, and evaluate how these concepts fare in a post disaster context. I argue that current definitions of architectural heritage are insufficient to deal with post disaster contexts, and offer a new definition of architectural heritage that recognises the importance of the religious, social and cultural uses of architectural heritage. These uses are reflected in the ways this architecture is used in cultural processes of social and personal remembering. Through these uses the built environment, in this case architecture, can be used to provide survivors with sources of resilience in the face of disasters. Smith (2006) argues that showing how heritage is used is essential to understand the nature and significance of heritage. This thesis draws on the general arguments developed by Smith (2006) and applies them directly to understand architectural heritage, and identifies the influence of the “modern conservation ethos” on understandings of architectural heritage. This ethos, embedded in what she has called the Authorised Heritage Discourse, defines architectural heritage as tangible, objectively authentic and monumental, and in line with this architectural style is defined as the most important aspect of architectural heritage values. Further, it is assumed architectural heritage
physically represents a collective identity. That is, only physical aspects of a building are considered as a reflection of identity.
This thesis will move outside of the elite European understanding of heritage. I do this to highlight marginalised aspects of heritage -‐-‐ the religious, cultural, and social roles of iconic architecture in providing sources of resilience for survivors -‐-‐ which are overlooked by the Eurocentric AHD. The AHD has globally promoted a European understanding of heritage through international organizations like UNESCO and ICOMOS (Smith, 2006). As a number of authors have argued, European understandings of heritage have been applied in various contexts, which have undermined local communities’, and non-‐European understandings of heritage (see for example Byrne, 1991; Cleere, 2001; Meskell, 2002; Labadi, 2007;
Aikawa-‐Faure, 2009; Waterton & Smith, 2009).
To do this I look at new ways of understanding heritage, which argue that heritage is intangible and has wider social and cultural roles. This new approach has emerged in the last decade through the work of several figures, such as David Harvey, Laurajane Smith, John Urry and Denis Byrne. Smith (2006) defines heritage as not necessarily the site itself or a physical place; rather that heritage is a cultural performance concerned with remembering, sense of place and identity. Similar understandings have also been put forward by Bella Dicks (2000), David Harvey (2001), Denis Byrne (2009) and John Urry (1996), all of whom define heritage as cultural processes, acts of communication, or an act of connection to the past in which we negotiate our social values, cultural identity and personal and collective memories. Through their work, they shift the understanding of heritage as a ‘thing’ to understanding it as a ‘verb’ Harvey (2001), as something which is
done or performed. This new understanding has inspired me to rethink how architectural heritage should be (re)-‐defined, and to question why this kind of heritage is still strongly dominated by ideas of materiality and ‘authenticity’. Is it that the nature of architecture is too strongly bonded to expert concerns about its material aspects? Or is the concern simply reflective of the nature of expert training and interpretation?
I argue that architectural heritage conservation practice has fallen behind in coping with the dynamic of social change and the growing body of critical literature in heritage studies. One modern architectural heritage conservation method, which has moved beyond a complete preservation of fabric, and on the surface seems to accommodate the dynamic and the debate in the critical heritage literature, is adaptive reuse to old buildings. This approach has been widely believed to be a panacea for conserving architectural heritage in post-‐destruction, post-‐industrial, and areas of rapid development and modernization such as in Asia. This approach strongly mediates sustainability issues in the light of climate change and environmental protection. In this chapter, I would like to investigate the extent to which this approach is actually successful, and open up debate on this issue by drawing on Riegl’s (1903 [1982]) theory of the modern cult of the monument, and use this approach as my point of departure from modern architectural conservation debates.
To do this I divide the chapter into four parts. Firstly, I explore a discussion of the critical literature on heritage studies. Secondly, I provide a critical view on architectural conservation in the light of critical heritage literature. I also discuss the current debate on architectural heritage and conservation in post-‐disaster
contexts, especially in the relation to the act of remembering, memory, identity, and resilience. Thirdly, I provide a critical analysis on current architectural conservation with specific attention to adaptive reuse. Finally, I unpack the idea of architectural heritage and propose a new understanding, borrowing Smith’s (2006) argument that heritage is a cultural process concerned with remembering the past. I expand her theory to understand how architectural forms and functions interlink to facilitate heritage processes, and how these may help people gain resilience in the face of disaster. In defining architectural heritage, I also bring back a sufficient weight to materiality of architectural forms, something that Smith (2006) does not pay sufficient attention to. In other words, although I privilege the function and uses of architecture, I give slightly greater weight to architectural forms than Smith (2006) does.