When persons are memories, is heritage the agent?

Abstract

The current use of the word heritage focuses on the meaning of preservation, predominantly of the building, of the material and refers to conservation and restoration techniques, when technique, aesthetics and architecture gain prominence and relevance. In the debate on the requalification and preservation of historical centers, and on the cultural use of large deactivated industrial areas, interventions of a business nature predominated, a model in which heritage is the scenario for consumption of culture and tourism as a commodity. Such practices brought to the fore the debate about the expulsion of local populations, the financial valuation of urban environments, called “gentrification” or urban ennoblement. The question posed for reflection in these terms is: can it be assumed that such a phenomenon applies in a generalized way, in metropolitan contexts or not? What specificities are under debate in other urban centers, such as medium-sized cities in the interior of São Paulo? How to value collective memory to the detriment of the aesthetic and material overvaluation of heritage spaces? When heritage policies value people, is heritage the agent?