See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307858367

Renovation or Preservation: The Dilemma of Existing Buildings

Article  in  Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 297

2 authors, including:

Silvio Mendes Zancheti

Federal University of Pernambuco
57 PUBLICATIONS   225 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SOLVING CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS IN THE HERITAGE SITE OF THE BATTLEFIELD OF GUARARAPES (RECIFE, BRAZIL) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Silvio Mendes Zancheti on 06 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GLOBAL
THE

STUDIES
JOURNAL

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL
http://www.globalstudiesjournal.com/

First published in 2012 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com

ISSN: 1835-4432

© 2012 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2012 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism
or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may
be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For
permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.

THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes

of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only
intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel

typesetting system
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
Renovation or Preservation: The Dilemma of Existing
Buildings
Paula Maciel Silva, Catholic University of Pernambuco, Brazil
Sílvio Mendes Zancheti, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

Abstract: A city is a living organism where changes and adjustments happen to meet people’s new
demands. Building is the unity of the urban scale and loss of quality for developing human activities.
Usually, this leads to under-­utilization and emptying. The consequence is the reduction of the city’s
economic, social, and cultural value. The consequence on the urban scale is that a building that used
to generate life becomes a negative influence. Revitalization can reverse the process, preserving the
initial value or even increasing it. In the environmental context, a retrofit is presented as one of the
more sustainable alternatives. An intervention in an existing building may have two possibilities:
renovation or preservation. In the first case, use is the end;; in the second, it is the means. This study
raises questions about which buildings should be preserved. A feature of several Latin American
urban areas is that most of them have had an accelerated process of urbanization in the twentieth
century, a period where modern architecture represented a reflection of social and technological
changes. The process of urban development and renovation still occurs, and the consequence is that
many singular examples of modern architecture have been lost. This paper discusses issues related to
preserving the value of modern buildings, highlights that this need should be recognized by the general
population, raises the problem of conservation of large building complexes, and discusses differences
that may exist between conservation actions in buildings of different scales.

Keywords: Conservation of Buildings, Retrofit, Sustainability

Introduction

T
HE 20th century was marked by an accelerated process of urbanization. Cities grew,
and became consolidated urban areas, and many of them are still targets of continuous
transformations. In Brazil, for example, this period coincides with the emergence of
modern architecture and urbanism. Urban centers in various Brazilian state capitals
like Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Porto Alegre, have had their lay-­outs changed so as to
make room for constructing new buildings, especially of the vertical type (HARRIS, 1987).
On the outskirts, examples of modern architecture have spread out and include functions
such as residential housing, schools, hospitals, etc.
Modern architecture is understood to be an architectonic production that took place between
1920 and 1980. It was the fruit of an era of changes in which what stood out was mass pro-­
duction, industrialization, and the spread of new means of transport which brought about
demands for new types of buildings. The advance of construction techniques and exploiting
the use of materials such as concrete, glass and steel enabled the emergence of a new aesthetic
order (CURTIS, 2008).
A hallmark of this period is the construction of housing estates. This reflects two major
changes that occurred at the start of the 20th century: the shift from craft methods of construc-­

The Global Studies Journal

Volume 4, Issue 3, 2012, http://www.globalstudiesjournal.com/, ISSN 1835-­4432
© Common Ground, Paula Maciel Silva, Sílvio Mendes Zancheti, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-­support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL

tion to those of industrialization, and the predominance of a new lifestyle (GIEDION, 2004).
These changes were the response to the need to offer housing to rapid growth in the urban
population. Most estates consisted of multifamily buildings with different height patterns,
but there were also single-­story or duplex housing units. After these estates had been used
for a few years, they displayed problems resulting from the difficulty of adapting to social
changes, their occupants becoming richer or poorer, the poor quality of the materials and
labor force used, lack of maintenance, etc. The consequence was a loss of quality of life, as
they were left unoccupied or invaded by squatters. There were few examples, if any, that
underwent some kind of intervention action. The conservation of large housing estates is a
global issue since they are part of the urban landscape of various cities in the world.
At the end of the 20th century, modern architecture saw itself as a hostage of the urban
growth and technological changes that had marked the previous twenty or so years. Amorim
(2007) draws attention to the loss of significant examples of modern architecture in the state
of Pernambuco, Brazil. The author presents various types of architectonic death among
which are: death by neglect, when the buildings become unfit to undertake their activities;;
by transfiguration, when the mode of use is parasitic;; and the pronouncement of death, when
one form of architecture is exchanged for another. This is the aspect of architectonic loss
and, as a loss, has a negative character. The other aspect undergoes the understanding that
the process of renewing cities is something inherent to its being a living organism. It is a
process that has always occurred in cities since their inception. What changes now is the
speed with which it occurs. Buildings quickly become obsolete, the increasing value given
to urban land, associated with town planning legislation, encourages vertical integration;;
new uses are incorporated into the city;; and there is a tendency for it to become quickly
transformed. This is good, very good! “The only constant thing in life is change.” (HENKET,
1998, p.14). On the other hand there is more than one way to drive change. To bring about
change it is not always necessary to destroy. Some buildings will be demolished and give
way to new ventures;; others will be renovated and will acquire a new functional quality and,
possibly, an aesthetic one;; and finally, others will be restored and will remain as a link
between the present-­future city and the past.
In the context of the building as a generator of environmental impact, retrofit presents itself
as an alternative to reducing the consumption of natural resources1.
Given the decision to intervene in an existing building, there are two choices: to renovate
or to preserve. In the former, use is the end;; in the latter, it is the means. On renovating or
technologically rehabilitating a building, the concern is to restore or possibly increase its
economic value, to adapt it to new uses, and to improve the environmental quality of its in-­
ternal space. This makes it viable, attractive, and functional. There is no link to the original
project. On the other side, conservation brings a different way to approach buildings. What
needs to be preserved is the value of a building that has roots in the past and significance in
the present and future.
What should be preserved? Preservation has taken place when the value is recognized.
However, preservation is not always a spontaneous process, even if the property is valued
and this is recognized even before it becomes a listed property. The Amsterdam Manifesto
(ICOMOS, 1975) warned that financial and real estate speculation takes advantage of eve-­

1
Retrofit compared with the construction of the new building represents economy on the consumption of natural
resources. It does not refer to cost.

212
 PAULA MACIEL SILVA, SÍLVIO MENDES ZANCHETI

rything and squashes the best projects. Obviously, this depends on the context in which the
building is placed. What we wish to show evidence of is that the areas or buildings to be
preserved are not merely those that are left after a city has been renovated but should include
examples of complete groupings and the spaces in which the original design set them.

Conservation of Buildings
The term conservation “means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its
cultural significance”. (ICOMOS, 1980, article 1). It is the sum of activities including the
acts to preserve (to maintain the current state of the property) and restore (to change its
physical appearance) (MUÑOZ-­VIÑAS, 2005).
A decision is taken to conserve a building because it is understood that it has a value that
distinguishes it from other ones. The properties listed by UNESCO have Outstanding Uni-­
versal Value which means that the significance of any one is so exceptional that it “transcends
national boundaries and is of common importance for present and future generations of all
humanity” (UNESCO, 2008, § 49). The essence of conservation is in conserving value. If
the value is lost, the reason for preserving the property is lost. Value is not an intrinsic
characteristic of the object. It is the subject who recognizes it. The subject is any of the
stakeholders who include specialists, users and the general public (MUÑOZ-­VIÑAS, 2005).
Value is transported by the attributes. The attributes are of a tangible and immaterial nature
and should express the value of the property with integrity and authenticity. Integrity refers
to the degree of completeness of the attributes. These are considered authentic when their
cultural values are expressed in a truthful and credible way (UNESCO, 2008). The aspect
of value that is tackled in this article is value as the central analytical category for determining
the significance of a building. It is the value system that represents the cultural significance
attributed by a community to its buildings (ZANCHETTI & HIDAKA, 2010).
The significance of a building can be recognized on the basis of characteristics such as
areas of significance (architecture, education, ethnic heritage, industry, religion, science,
transportation), periods of significance (dates and associations between dates and events or
people), distinctive characteristics (type, period or construction technique, or if it was the
work of a master craftsman) (PARK, 2006). It refers to all the elements that contribute to
its meaning, such as context, history, use and social and spiritual values, and not just to the
material aspect or appearance of the property. The significance may increase or decrease
over time, or be redefined, and new values can be created (MASON, 2004;; RUSSELL,
2001). The identification of the values of a property is what guides the decisions of the
conservation action that considers the need to preserve these values in the physical charac-­
teristics of a property (RUSSELL, 2001).
A target building of a conservation project displays, in general, a state of functional and
physical obsolescence, and may be found to be in different states from those of the original
one. One must be careful not to mummify buildings. The material is testimony of the past,
but does not fetter the present. There is a need to consider the expectations from the new
building developments arising from their use, new patterns of occupation, legislation, tech-­
nological requirements, improvement in thermal performance, etc. These are aspects that
contribute to the action of conservation being a sustainable action. Use and conservation
add value to the building. However, what are still valid, are the considerations pointed out
by Brandi (1963) with regard to preserving the historic and aesthetic value of the building.

213
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL

The functional issue is important, a fundamental one, but it is not the only one that determines
the decisions of the conservation actions.
The result of a building after a conservation action is not the return to its original condition.
This is a situation which one should not forget is difficult to determine. What would the
original building look like? Is it the drawing board one in all its details and with all its spe-­
cifications or that which was actually built? What must be considered are the historical marks
of time, the demands of the present and the flexibility to intervene in the future. Parts of the
building remain, others are removed (subtraction) and others still added. A building after
being conserved still bears old marks from the past, and new additions which project it into
the future (Figure 1). It is essential to recall the basic principles of the ethics of a conservation
action: minimal intervention and reversibility. It should intervene as little as possible to meet
the objectives proposed for the building. These interventions should be such that it remains
possible to remove changes and return the property to its previous state.

Figure 1: Processes in the Action of Conserving a Building. Source: The Author, 2010

Conservation of Modern Architecture

The first initiatives to preserve modern architecture in Europe occurred in the 1960s and
1970s, with the recognition and subsequent conduct of works of conservation of architectonic
icons such as those of the Bauhaus School and other buildings in Dessau, Germany, in the
Villa Savoye (Le Corbusier), France, and the Zonnestral Sanatorium (Jan Duiker), Nether-­
lands. At the end of the 20th century, the creation of DOCOMOMO2 represented one of the
signs of the international efforts towards recognizing icons of modern architecture being
consolidated (PRUDON, 2008). What makes a building an example of modern architecture
is the fact of its containing attributes that identify it as such. The end goal of conservation
is not only to preserve the material itself, but to maintain the ability the building has to
convey the meanings and values that the generations of the 20th century saw as important
to culture.
One of the problems of conserving modern architecture is the lack of recognition of its
significance as a cultural object. One of the justifications for this fact is that there still is
much modern architecture in our cities. Or at least, in many cities, it is a building type that
is present in larger numbers than traditional ones. This contributes to the reduction of the

2
Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement.

214
 PAULA MACIEL SILVA, SÍLVIO MENDES ZANCHETI

interest of the general population for recent heritage. Rarity is one aspect that gives evidence
of value and runs alongside common sense (SAINT 1996). And moreover daily contact with
the remote past brings it close to the present and it becomes difficult to assign value to it.
Caple (2000) explains that the loss of a connection with the past causes properties to acquire
value. If to be part of everyday life, on the one hand, might result in reducing significance,
on the other, it may also create a strong meaningful relationship with users which goes
beyond even the value of the cultural property in itself. But recognizing a building cannot
be delegated to chance. The specialist has a primary role in recognizing and broadcasting
value (MUÑOZ-­VIÑAS, 2005).
In the action of conserving modern architecture there are challenges arising from its spe-­
cificity which have not yet been extensively tested and are therefore worth reflecting on.
The problems emerge from the new way of conceiving of modern architecture buildings,
arising from design solutions, construction techniques and the lack of understanding the
performance of new materials in the long term. Another aspect: the interruption of production
lines of elements such as tiles, tile pads and breeze blocks (porcelain, glass or ceramic)
caused difficulties in maintenance (MACDONALD, 2003). What is found is that modern
architecture, if compared with traditional buildings, needs significant repairs within much
shorter periods. Conservation action requires corrections, which represents a loss of authen-­
ticity, but contributes to the integrity of the property as a whole. One has to consider that
the evidence of the original design errors are records of a moment of technical experimentation
(ALLAN, 2007). On the other hand, there will be few examples which will remain as visible
witnesses of these flaws. Making documentary and photographic records will precede the
corrections needed for the good functioning of the building.
What becomes increasingly a consensus is that despite the specificities, the principle of
conservation of the modern architecture follows the theoretical concepts of conservation of
traditional buildings. The solutions for a conservation action, objectively, could be differen-­
tiated from traditional cases, but the basic principles of conservation, such as minimum in-­
tervention, reversibility, integrity and authenticity will always be at the base of the process
of judging decisions.

How Should Intervention in Modern Architecture be Made?

Different ways of protection require different degrees of conservation. Alterations should
be made respectfully, but they will also aim to make the use and retention of the building
viable. Not all modern buildings will be preserved in the same way. There is a hierarchy of
interventions “since not all buildings have to be conserved to the same degree of authenticity.”
(HENKET, 1998, p.16). The author identifies three ways to conserve constructions of the
20th century, but he does not detail what, in practice, each way of intervention means:

• Restoration to its original state: few examples;;

• Pragmatic restoration: a limited number;;
• Reuse with economic value: buildings with social significance.

215
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL

A bibliographical search in the publications that record the experiences of interventions

made in modern buildings also identified different levels of intervention and enabled the
categories presented by Henket (1998) to be defined. A study was made of 30 cases of
buildings with different functions and different levels of intervention.
The properties listed by UNESCO and other significant ones which have the client of the
client-­conservation type fit into the first category. Those are internationally important
buildings. In general, this concerns institutions that manage properties that have become
exhibition spaces in which, among other matters, the design faults arising from experiment-­
ation that characterized the beginnings of modern architecture are recorded. Another category
is formed by those buildings the intervention actions for which are concerned with the integrity
and authenticity of the property. Flaws are corrected;; the spaces are made fit for new uses
and to meet legislation requirements with a view to preserving the original material. Another,
covering a larger number, is concerned with the preservation of form and of external appear-­
ance. The authenticity of the material is preserved when it does not compromise performance.
Conservation actions, to date, have occurred in isolated buildings. Even on the campuses
of the Universities of Mexico and Venezuela, groupings listed by UNESCO, the actions
have occurred on buildings in isolation. One question still unanswered is how to proceed
with conserving large public housing estates, striking buildings of modern architecture. There
follow reflections in order to start a discussion that will unfold over time.

Public Housing Estates: An Inheritance from Modern Architecture

The appearance of large housing estates marked the landscape of several cities in the world
despite having been motivated by various causes. In Europe, the destruction caused by World
War II, and in Latin America, the rapid population growth in urban centers, led to a demand
for housing on a large scale to be provided within a short period of time. Modern architecture
was innovative in construction techniques, in the manner of living, and proposed offering
housing with a better quality of life for the population. Corbusier (2004) proposes a machine
for living which might be summarized as the minimum, flexible and comfortable space to
live in. Besides the space of the dwellings there should be spaces for common services,
leisure, and to play sports. An example is the Housing Unit, in Marseille, France (1947-­53),
Le Corbusier, which adds to vertical housing concepts such as the street in the air and other
support services to the resident. This is an important example and so in Brazil, at the national
level, it is the Residential Housing Estate of Pedregulho, in Rio de Janeiro (1948), Affonso
Eduardo Reidy and Oscar Niemeyer’s Copan Building (1951), in São Paulo. Examples of
lesser appeal today, but important ones historically speaking are the public housing blocks
built in cities such as Glasgow, Lyons, Moscow or Saint Louis. What, on the one hand proved
to be an alternative for a moment in history, was later presented as a problem on a dimension
commensurate with its scale. In some cases, premature aging occurred due to the poor
quality of construction and materials used. In others, the lack of an ongoing maintenance
policy and preservation of the open spaces contributed to the houses losing value. Moreover
it should be noted that there were situations in which the worsening economic circumstances
of the target population contributed to the lack of maintenance (CURTIS, 2008).
Listing and conservation is one solution for the examples with a specific character such
as buildings that “were prototypes of construction systems, groups of buildings marking
town planning thinking of the age with a character of being an important urban reference

216
 PAULA MACIEL SILVA, SÍLVIO MENDES ZANCHETI

point” (MOREIRA, 2001, p.1). For most estates, other forms of renovation can be opted for
which cover the addition of new infrastructure equipment, services and new homes, land-­
scaping and street furniture, reformulating standardization so as to give identity to the sectors,
and so forth (MOREIRA, 2001).
An important matter to be raised in conservation decision-­making is: in what does the
significance of housing estates lie? In the size of the estate? In the standardization of the
blocks? In the construction technique used? In the housing unit? In the diversity of uses? In
the open spaces? Possibly, all these aspects will have to be considered.
Some examples will remain as solid marks, records in the present of a past that has sur-­
vived. This is the case of Churchill Gardens in England. The alterations made respected the
original building, were restricted to the changing the door-­and window-­frames, while keeping
the original design, to improve thermal performance (HARWOOD, 1996). Others are more
invasive and interfere with the authenticity of the estate. In the Pihlajamaki estate on the
outskirts of Helsinki, Finland new elements such as lifts and layers of thermal insulation
were introduced. This was the first Finnish estate entirely made of prefabricated elements.
It is significant because it was pioneering (MOREIRA, 2009). The most extreme case of
conserving a heritage site is Park Hill in Sheffield, England. In the 70s it began to become
degraded and became a place that few wished to live in. The greatest physical damage was
in the physical concrete structures and verandas, these too of concrete (ENGLISH HERIT-­
AGE, 2008). The intervention project preserves only the skeletal structure and modifies the
entire external sealing surface of the building which represents a loss in the original intent
of the project. Internally, a redistribution of space also occurs in terms of uses and function.
The decision was based on the understanding that the significance of the project is in the
structural solution used. It is understood, however, that what is preserved in this case is the
scale of the estate. The structural grid on the façade remains, but its value and meaning have
been reduced as it changes its relationship with the sealing surfaces of the facade. It is more
a solution for revitalization than one of conservation. Of course, there are reminiscences of
the past, but the percentage of the parts removed is significant which brings about the loss
of authenticity and integrity of the original proposal.

Final Considerations
The high stock of buildings present in cities brings up the problem of how to deal with the
process of renovating them. Taking advantage of the existing building is generally a more
sustainable alternative that may reduce the consumption of natural resources. Part of this
stock was produced in the period of modern architecture and is the witness of a historical
moment in time in which there was significant change in the manner of designing, constructing
and occupying buildings. Much has been lost of significant examples. But it is nevertheless
true, that much is still to be done. Recognition of the value of modern architecture is the first
step on the path to conserving it.
Possibly, the critique of modern architecture which, in the 1960s and 1970s, questioned
the aesthetic and functionalist values of the modern movement, contributed to the construction
of a negative imaginary of this architectonic production (FRAMPTON, 2008). With rare
exceptions, its examples did not exercise appeal, and recognition and appreciation of its
significance was lacking. After more than 45 years of this period, there is a need for a more
mature relationship with the heritage of the 20th century. It helps to change the angle at which

217
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL

the perspective is viewed, and instead of looking at the architectural production of the 20th
century, by taking the present moment as a reference, to transport oneself to the past and to
(re)discover what the emergence of modern architecture meant. It represented a break with
the past at a speed that had not happened yet. The innovative and daring solutions were not
always successful (there is no doubt about that!). But the conservation of modern architecture
represents the preservation of this historical moment of transformations of the way of con-­
ceiving of the built environment.
As for the discussion of intervention in the public housing estates, it is understood that
the solution given to Park Hill is a proposal to retrofit. Elements remain that relate the
building to the past, but it is not a conservation action. The principles of minimum intervention
and reversibility were not considered. It is a solution to intervene in large estates and maybe
this may be the fate of those which have suffered high levels of degradation. It becomes an
alternative to demolition and a remote link with the past remains. Significance? A new sig-­
nificance has to be acquired because of what the estate represented in the past. A recovery
in the economic value is hoped for as too that this may contribute to the revitalization of the
urban area occupied by the building.
The questions that this article has raised on the solution applied to Park Hill do not set
out to adversely criticize the decisions taken. The desire has been to define two distinct pos-­
itions for an existing building: to renovate or to preserve. In the case of large estates, especially
those which find their state of conservation status is very poor, it is possible that they may
not become the target of conservation actions. At Park Hill, did not the reconstitution of the
damaged elements because of the state of abandonment come to take away from the authen-­
ticity of the building?
This reflection raises new questions to be considered in the design stage of rehabilitating
a building. What is the relationship of the new building with the previous one? Is there the
wish that this relationship should be perceived by the general public? Is/are there value/values
in the building, or in the grouping that one wishes to preserve? Proportion? Scale? The ex-­
ample of Park Hill makes one reflect on the fact of there being examples that, although not
a target of conservation action in themselves, can bear a meaning that can somehow be pre-­
served and passed on to future generations. The decisions of a retrofit project, because they
do not have the constraints of conservation, cannot exempt themselves from such a respons-­
ibility.
On the other hand, the conservation and recognition of heritage properties of the recent
past are taking their first steps. It is within the context of cultural sustainability which aims
to provide future generations with the knowledge of a period in history, of a reflection of a
society, and of a cultural, economic and intellectual standard, which is embodied in the ar-­
chitecture and engineering of the built space. Modern architecture has its value expressed
by the attributes present in each building. Actions will be diversified, will occur on many
levels, but there will be few examples that will use more stringent criteria. An important
step in conservation them is that the general public recognizes this value. The dilemma of
the existing building–to renovate or to preserve-­is defined based on recognizing the signific-­
ance of the property and the extent to which its value can be expressed with integrity and
authenticity by the attributes.

218
 PAULA MACIEL SILVA, SÍLVIO MENDES ZANCHETI

References
Allan, John. Points of Balance. Patterns of Practice in the Conservation of Modern Architecture. In:
MACDONALD, Susan;; NORMANDIN, Kyle;; KINDRED, Bob (ORG). Conservation of
Modern Architecture. Dorset: Donhead Publishing, 2007. P. 13–46.
Amorim, Luis. Obituário Arquitetônico: Pernambuco Modernista. Recife: Laboratório de estudos
avançados em arquitetura/UFPE/Delfim Instituto Amorim/FUNCULTURA, 2007.
Brandi, Cesare. Teoria del Restauro. Torino: Einaudi, 1963.
Caple, Chris. Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method and Decision Making. London and New York:
Routledge–Taylor & Francis Group, 2000.
Corbusier. Precisões: Sobre um Estado Presente da Arquitetura e do Urbanismo. São Paulo: Casac
& Naify, 2004.
Curtis, William. Arquitetura moderna desde 1900. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008.
English Heritage, 2008. Park Hill. Available at <http://www.english-­heritage.org.uk/caring/conservation-­
projects/park-­hill/> Accessed on 30 April 2011.
Frampton, Kenneth. História Crítica da Arquitetura Moderna. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008.
Giedion, Sigfried. Espaço, Tempo e Arquitetura. O Desenvolvimento de uma Nova Tradição. São
Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2004.
Harris, Elizabeth Davis. Le Corbusier: Riscos Brasileiros. São Paulo: Studio Nobel, 1987.
Harwood, Elain. The Windows of Churchill Gardens. In: MACDONALD, Susan (ORG). Modern
Matters. Principles and Practice in Conserving Recent Architecture. Dorset: Donhead Pub-­
lishing, 1996. P. 70–77.
Henket, Hubert-­Jan. The Icon and the ordinary. In: CUNNINGHAM, Allen (ORG). Modern Movement
Heritage. London: E & FN SPON, 1998.
Icomos. 1975. The Declaration of Amsterdam. Available at: <http://www.icomos.org/docs/amster-­
dam.html> Accessed on 20 May 2011.
_____. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Aus-­
tralia: 1999. Available at: <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-­content/uploads/-­BURRA_
CHARTER.pdf>. Accessed on 20 May 2011.
Macdonald, Suzan. 20th Century Heritage: Recognition, Protection and Practical Challenges. In:
ICOMOS, World Report 2002–2003 on monuments and sites in danger. Paris: ICOMOS,
p.1–14. 2003.
Mason, Randall 2004. Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of “Significance”. Places:
Forum of Design for the Public Realm, Califórnia, vol. 16, n. 1, 2004. Available at
<http://escholarship.org/uc/ced_places?volume=16;;issue=1>. Accessed on 2 December
2010.
Moreira, Fernando Diniz. Introdução à Conservação da Arquitetura Moderna. Recife-­PE: I Curso
Latino Americano sobre a Conservação da Arquitetura Moderna (MARC/AL), 2009. Notas
de aula.
Muñoz-­viñas, Salvador. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-­
Heinemann. 2005.
Park, Sharon C. Respecting significance and keeping integrity: approaches to rehabilitation. APT
Bulletin, vol.37, n.4, 2006. Association for Preservation Technology International. Available
at: <http://www.jstor.org/pss/40004145>. Accessed on 18 September 2008.
Prudon, Theodoree H.M. Preservation of Modern Architecture. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2008.
Russell, R.;; Winkworth. Significance: a Guide to Assessing the Significance of Cultural Heritage
Objects and Collections. Heritage Collections Council. Canberra, 2001. Available at:
<http://www.collectionsaustralia.net/sector_info_item/5>. Accessed on 15 November 2010.

219
THE GLOBAL STUDIES JOURNAL

Saint, Andrew. Philosophical Principles of Modern Conservation. In: MACDONALD, Susan (ORG).
Modern Matters. Principles and Practice in Conserving Recent Architecture. Dorset: Donhead
Publishing, 1996. P. 15–28.
Unesco, World Heritage Centre. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. Paris, 2008. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/archive/-­opguide08-­en.pdf>.
Accessed on 20 May 2011.
Zancheti, Sílvio Mendes;; Hidaka, Lúcia Tone. Um Indicador para Medir o Estado de Conservação de
Sítios Urbanos Patrimoniais: Teoria e Estrutura. In: ZANCHETI, Sílvio Mendes (ORG).
Indicadores de Conservação e Sustentabilidade da Cidade Patrimonial. Recife: CECI, 2010.
CD.

About the Authors

Prof. Paula Maciel Silva
Professor Maciel Silva has a Master of philosophy in energy and environmental comfort.
She is a Ph.D. student and is developing research in the conservation of modern architecture
for the graduate program at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Recife, Brazil.

Prof. Sílvio Mendes Zancheti

Professor Zancheti is a senior professor at the Federal University of Pernambuco and research-­
er for the Center for Advanced Studies in Integrated Conservation in Recife, Brazil.

220
Editors
Jan Nederveen Pieterse, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA

Editorial Advisory Board

Jin-Ho Jang, Institute for Social Development and Policy Research,
Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
Lena Jayyusi, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Mark Juergensmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Seung Kuk Kim, Pusan National University, Busan, South Korea
Habibul Haque Khondker, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Iain Donald MacPherson, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Bhikhu Parekh, University of Hull, Hull, UK; Member, House of Lords, UK
Thomas Pogge, Columbia University, New York, USA
Jan Nederveen Pieterse, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Timothy Shaw, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad
Manfred B. Steger, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Gustavo Lins Ribeiro, Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Brasília,
Brasília, Brazil
Fazal Rizvi, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
The Global Studies Community
This knowledge community is brought together by a common intersest in the dynamics
of globalization in the world today. The community interacts through innovative, annual
face-to-face conference interactions, as well as year-round virtual relationships in a
weblog, peer reviewed journal and book series—exploring the affordances of the new
digital media. Members of this knowledge community include academics, policy makers,
public administrators, members of non-government organisations, educators and
research students.

Conference
Members of the the Global Studies community meet at the Global Studies Conference,
held annually in different locations around the world, each selected for its particular
place in the dynamics of globalization. The inaugural Conference was held at the
University of Illinois, Chicago in 2008; in 2009, the Conference was held at Zayed
University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates and in 2010, the Conference was held at Pusan
National University, Busan, South Korea. In 2011, the Conference was held at JW
Marriot, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and in 2012, the Conference will be held at Moscow
State University, Moscow, Russia.

Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtual participation, in which
community members can submit a video and/or slide presentation with voice-over, or
simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in the Journal.

Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

Publishing
The Global Studies community enables members to publish through three mediums.
First, by participating in the Global Studies Conference, members can enter a world of
journal publication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums—a result of the
responsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process. The
Global Studies Journal provides a framework for double-blind peer review, enabling
authors to publish into an academic journal of the highest standard.

The second publication medium is through the book series On Globalization, publishing
cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and manuscript
submissions are welcome.

The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news
updates from the Global Studies Community, as well as major developments in
globalization issues. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter or
subscribe to our email Newsletter.
 Common Ground Publishing Journals

AGING ARTS
Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal The International Journal of the Arts in Society.
Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/ Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOK CLIMATE CHANGE

The International Journal of the Book The International Journal of Climate Change:
Website: www.Book-Journal.com Impacts and Responses
Website: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT DESIGN

The International Journal of the Design Principles and Practices:
Constructed Environment An International Journal
Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal Website: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITY FOOD
The International Journal of Diversity in Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
Organizations, Communities and Nations Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/
Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com

GLOBAL STUDIES HEALTH

The Global Studies Journal The International Journal of Health,
Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com Wellness and Society
Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIES IMAGE
The International Journal of the Humanities The International Journal of the Image
Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNING MANAGEMENT
The International Journal of Learning. The International Journal of Knowledge,
Website: www.Learning-Journal.com Culture and Change Management.
Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUM RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY

The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum The International Journal of Religion and
Website: www.Museum-Journal.com Spirituality in Society
Website: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY SOCIAL SCIENCES

The International Journal of Science in Society The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com Social Sciences
Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWS SPORT AND SOCIETY

Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of The International Journal of Sport and Society
Urban and ExtraUrban Studies Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal
Website: www.SpacesJournal.com

SUSTAINABILITY TECHNOLOGY
The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, The International Journal of Technology,
Economic and Social Sustainability Knowledge and Society
Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com Website: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING UNIVERSITIES

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal Journal of the World Universities Forum
Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/ Website: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact

subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com

View publication stats