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.