Advertisement

Sao Paulo: Participation and Social Inclusion on Cultural Heritage

  • Carlos Leite
  • Claudia Acosta
  • Fernanda Militelli
  • Guillermo Jajamovich
  • Mariana Wilderom
  • Nabil Bonduki
  • Nadia Somekh
  • Tereza Herling
Chapter
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 13)

Abstract

Based on the elitist social representation in the restoration of historical monuments, the cultural heritage policy in Sao Paulo is scarcely linked to the preservation of urban settings and to social inclusion practices. Scarcity of resources and lack of public interest, added to a scenario of social inequality, have not favored the allocation of resources towards preservation. Considering this framework of limitations, it is possible to argue that the priority of policies related to cultural assets should lie on the protection of low-income urban settlements, associated to social housing, and within a community-based perspective.

This text aims to introduce potential instruments within the perspective of a social urban policy, as well as practices related to financing and inclusion which can be replicated in different places and circumstances. They represent the result of a critical analysis of the evolution of cultural heritage preservation practices in Brazil and in Sao Paulo, as well as the debate on patrimonial charters, especially the “Recommendations of Sao Paulo,” recently approved by Icomos (International Council of Monuments and Sites). They are also based on the experience accumulated by the Fábrica de Restauro (Restoration Factory) in the lower part of Bixiga, a neighborhood located in the central region of Sao Paulo.

Keywords

Cultural heritage Sao Paulo Social urbanism Land policy Social inclusion Participatory process Historic neighbourhoods Urban plan Urban requalification Restoration factory Historical monuments Preservation pratices 

References

  1. Baffi M (2006) O Igepac e outros inventários. Revista do Arquivo Histórico Municipal 14:169–190Google Scholar
  2. Cogep (1975) PR. 025/1. Projeto Centro. Cogep, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  3. Cogep (1976) Plano de Reambientação, vol 1. Cogep, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Alambert C, Correia C, Fernandes PCG (2006) Bela Vista: a preservação e o desafio da renovação de um bairro paulistano. Revista do Arquivo Histórico Municipal 204:151–168Google Scholar
  5. Emplasa (1984) Bens Culturais Arquitetônicos no município e Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Empresa Metropolitana de Planejamento da Grande São Paulo S/A. Secretaria Municipal de PlanejamentoGoogle Scholar
  6. Emurb (1976) Estudo de implantação do instrumento transferência aplicado às áreas históricas do município de Sao Paulo definidas como Z8-200 na Lei 8.328 de 02/12/1975. Emurb, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  7. Smith N (2006) A Gentrificação generalizada: de uma anomalia local à regeneração urbana como estratégia urbana global. In: Bidou-Zachariasen C (ed) De volta à cidade: gentrificação e revitalização dos centros. Annablume, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  8. Somekh N (1994) A cidade vertical e o urbanismo modernizador: Sao Paulo 1920–1939. Tese (Doutorado em Arquitetura e Urbanismo). Universidade de São Paulo, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  9. Swyngedouw E, Bonsiepe JP, Peck J, Fezer J, Mayer M, Brenner N, Theodro N, Holert T (2017) Civic City: Notes pour le design d’une vile sociale, Paris, pp B42–B79Google Scholar
  10. Ventura DVB (2014) Incentivos à preservação do patrimônio cultural edificado em São Paulo: a transferência de potencial construtivo e a “Lei de Fachadas”. 12° Congresso Internacional de Reabilitação do Patrimônio Arquitetônico e Edificado, BauruGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Leite
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudia Acosta
    • 3
    • 4
  • Fernanda Militelli
    • 1
    • 5
  • Guillermo Jajamovich
    • 6
  • Mariana Wilderom
    • 7
  • Nabil Bonduki
    • 7
    • 8
  • Nadia Somekh
    • 1
    • 9
  • Tereza Herling
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Architecture and UrbanismMackenzie Presbyterian UniversitySão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.PPG-CIS-Uninove and Institute of Advanced StudiesUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Fundação Getulio VargasSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for the Latin AmericaWashington, DCUSA
  5. 5.Universidade PaulistaSão PauloBrazil
  6. 6.Institute of Latin American and Caribbean StudiesUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  7. 7.School of Architecture and UrbanismUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  8. 8.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  9. 9.Institut d’Urbanisme de ParisUniversity of Cergy-PontoiseCergyFrance

Personalised recommendations