4.2 Article

Re-using 'uncomfortable heritage': the case of the 1933 building, Shanghai

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 211-229

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1362580

Keywords

Dark heritage; adaptive reuse; strategic forgetting and selective remembrance; buildings of control and reform; slaughterhouse; heterotopia

Funding

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Programme [295045]
  2. Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship [SURF201493, SURF201514]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper opens up a discussion over the processes of forgetting and remembering that occur in the adaptive reuse of quite commonplace buildings that, nevertheless, have been classified as 'heritage'. For most buildings survival depends upon finding a new economic use once original use has ceased. At this point decisions are also made about what stories are carried forward from the building's past. The principal case study discussed in this paper is the former Shanghai Municipal Abattoir, a modernist concrete sculpture now branded 1933 Shanghai. The paper delineates how a process of 'strategic forgetting and selective remembrance' has been undertaken, negotiating the bloody nature of the building's past, in its reuse as an upscale commercial venue. Reuse is further considered within the wider frames of a 1920-1930s Shanghai urban branding 'imaginary' and as a 'building of control and reform' - a category of buildings developed from the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment-thinking. In reflecting upon this negotiation in the heritage making process with potentially difficult past events, we propose the category of 'uncomfortable heritage', as part of a wider spectrum of 'dark heritage', and conclude with a final reflection upon 1933 Shanghai as a heterotopic space.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available