Theme (3): ARCHIVE UTOPIA

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE: BETWEEN HISTORY,

MEMORY AND TRANFORMATION
Author: PhD. Student Architect Trifa Raluca-Maria, UAUIM Bucureti
E-mail adress: trifa_raluca@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Key-Words: industrial heritage, memory, landmark, identity,
culture, re-use
The subject of this article - Industrial Heritage: Between History,
Memory and Transformation wishes to bring into question some of the
issues facing valuable buildings dedicated to this architectural program.
The industrial ensembles, once an expression of prosperity and
progress of the early twentieth century, have become today symbols of
decay, victims of a system in transition. However, over time, the factory
not only provide a functional role, but was also a witness to the various
stages of technological transformation, economic, social and political life
undergone by the European society.
Through their location and size, the former production facilities have
left their mark on the city, conditioning its structure and influencing the
future urban development. The industrial complex constituted over time
meeting points and exchange places, in which each individual culture and
traditions have evolved differently, contributing greatly to the
implementation of a special character in the area they were located.
However, the visual identity, the distinct images generated by industrial
buildings, allowed them to become landmarks for the local community.
The factory, the plant and the production workshop talk about history,

transformation, progress as well as social control and exploitation, thus

becoming places of memory.
As Christian Norberg Schultz observes, any place is a center - what
is within the limits, as close to the center, differs in rank from what
remains outside. This is particularly obvious in the case of industrial
buildings. By definition, they are islands", inaccessible, absolute places,
which creates a boundary between inside and outside. Industrial
ensembles can be defined as heterotopias: real places, a kind of utopia
actually realized, with a specific function, organized by its own rules. A
place is not heterotopic by internal homogeneity, but precisely because of
external differences. Heterotopias are related to certain cuts of time and
also requires a closing and opening that makes them penetrable and
isolates them simultaneously. At the same time, heterotopias can
juxtapose in one place several spaces, which are otherwise incompatible 1.
In here, the time is narrated and exposed spatially, the space of history,
full of symbols and interpretations, along with the contemporary space
offering meaning to the historical time.
As Pierre Nara notes, such topographic areas represents places of
memory defined by space, objects or ideas possesing a symbolic value,
that encourages the connection of a community with its past and thus,
becoming elements of identity. However, in our contemporary world,
remembering is experienced less frequently often by appealing to our
consciousness, to the meanings acquired over time by the community.
The memory is now manifested only through external representations and
tangible markers of the extinct history. The new role of memory is to
record, delegating archives (museums, libraries, monuments, symbol buildings) the responsibility of remembering2.
In the context of major transformations occurred in the past half
century, the remains of industrial architecture can create a link between
the different social layers, different generations being able to relate to
them. Understood in this sense, the industrial complexes can be
assimilated to these places of memory, the buildings dedicated to
production, alongside the actors of the industrialization process, being the
carriers of such meaningfull messages. Even if the industrial ensemnble is
perceived by the materiality of its vestiges, the intangible sources of
1 Foucault Michel, Of Other Spaces
2 Nora Pierre, Between Memory and History, Rev. Representation nr. 26 (Special
Issue: Memory and Counter: Memory), University of California Press, 1989, (p. 89)

memory become equally important during the revitalisation process. In

the absence of these informations, the understanding of the industrial
culture can be distorted and impossible to decipher.
A series of discussions concerning the condition of industrial
heritage is required: Can we talk about the memory of the place in the
case of an abandoned, deconstructed site? It is possible to perpetuate the
significance of industrial heritage by selective preservation of a
fragmented history? Can the conservation requirement be reconciled with
the current needs of new users? Can industrial heritage regain a stable
reference, becoming once again a landmark for the community? This
article tries to answer these questions, based on the analysis of the
industrial heritage (yet) existent in Romania.