Advanced search

Tangible Cultural Heritage Re-Appropriation Towards A New Urban Centrality. A Critical Crossroad In Semi-Peripheral Eastern Riverside Lisbon

Full Text:


. The transformation of decayed semi-peripheral riverside areas and its Tangible Culture Heritage is presented today as a contributing factor in urban regeneration by several public preservation bodies and agendas, as well as privately led investment. These practices demand the economic and symbolic valorization of abandoned Tangible Cultural Heritage, where the social coexistence of residents, workers and visitors is seen as a smoother urban integration of these deprived territories and their communities into the surrounding contemporary cities.

We’ll focus our approach on socio-spatial changes occurring in Marvila and Beato, presented today as new urban areas in which to financially invest after the 2011 economic crisis occurred in Portugal, discussing public and private re- appropriation of Old Palaces, Convents and Farms and Reconverted Warehouses (industrial and commercial); towards the creation of a new urban centrality in Lisbon. In this case, public ground-field intervention established a culture led regeneration process, with the creation of a municipal library, a crucial point in the cultural use of this space, community participation and gathering. Dealing with private investors, despite the positive effects, such as a reduction in unemployment, economic diversification and re-use of urban voids, there is always the possibility of undesired consequences. This paper argues, and the research experiments in many European cities show us that the ambition to improve the image of these deprived areas, despite somGonzalex encouraging ground level achievements, has unwanted or unexpected outcomes, starting as urban regeneration practices, often sliding towards gentrification, where local public powers have a determinant role.

About the Author

Joao C. Martins
Universidade de Lisboa

Instituto de Ciencias Sociais

Avenida Professor Aníbal Bettencourt

9, Lisbon, 1600-189


1. Binns L. (2005). Capitalising on Culture: an Evaluation of Culture led Urban Regeneration Policy, Futures Academy, Dublin Institute of Technology.

2. CML, Camara Municipal de Lisboa (2020). Plano Estratégico para o Turismo da região de Lisboa 2020-2024, [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 10 Mar. 2020].

3. CML, Camara Municipal de Lisboa. Lisboa a Oriente, Roteiro Cultural, Direção Municipal de Cultura (2019). Lisbon: The Camara.

4. Chang T. (1997). Heritage as a tourism commodity: traversing the local tourist-local divide, Journal of Tropical Geography. [Online] 18 (1), 46-68, Available at:, [Accessed 20 Feb. 2019], DOI: 10.1111/1467-9493.00004.

5. Couch C., Sykes O., Borstinghaus W. (2011). Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain, Germany and France: the importance of context and path dependency, Progress in Planning, [Online] 75, 1-52. Available at: S0305900610000747 [Accessed 15 Feb. 2019].

6. Evans G. (2005). Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s Contribution to Regeneration, Urban Studies. [Online] 42, 1-25. Available at: [Accessed 10 Feb. 2019], DOI: 10.1080/00420980500107102.

7. Evans G. (2009). Creative Cities, Creative Spaces and Urban Policy, Urban Studies. [Online] 46: 1003-1040. Available at: https://journals. [Accessed 25 Jan, 2019], DOI: 10.1177/0042098009103853.

8. Ferilli G., Sacco P., Blessi G., Forbici S. (2016). Power to the people_ when culture works as a social catalyst in urban regeneration processes (and when it does not), European Planning Studies. [Online] 25(2), 241-258, Available at: [Accessed 8 Feb. 2020], DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1259397.

9. Ferilli G., Gustafsson C., Sacco L. (2017). Cognitive Keynesianism: Heritage conservation as a platform for structural anti-cyclic policy. The case of the Halland Region, Sweden, Journal of Cultural Heritage, [Online] 27, 10-19, Available at: [Accessed 17 Feb. 2020], DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.019.

10. Freeman L. (2019). Enacting property: Making space for the public in the municipal library, Politics and Space, [Online] 37(2), 199-218, Available at: [Accessed 7 Feb. 2020], DOI: 10.1177/23996544187840249.

11. Glass R. (1963). Introduction to London: aspects of change. London: Centre for Urban Studies.

12. Graham B, Asworth J., Tunbridge E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy, London, Routledge.

13. Hubbard P. (2018). Retail Gentrification, In L. Lees, & M. Phillips, (eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 347-362, DOI: 10.4337/9781785361746.

14. INE (2011). Censos 2011 – Importação dos principais dados alfanuméricos e geográficos (BGRI). Instituto Nacional de Estatistica. Available at: [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019].

15. INE (2019). Valor mediano das vendas por m2 de alojamentos familiares (€), Freguesias Lisboa, Instituto Nacional de Estatistica. Available at[Accessed 1 Feb. 2019].

16. JPI. (2014). Cultural Heritage, a challenge for Europe. Joint Programming Initiatives Available at SRA-2014-06.pdf . [Accessed 15 Feb. 2020].

17. Jochumsen D. 2013 The role of public libraries in culture-led urban regeneration, New Library World. [Online] 114, 7-19. Available at: [Accessed 25 Aug. 2019], DOI: 10.1108/03074801311291929.

18. Lees L. (2012). The Geography of Gentrification: Thinking Through Comparative Urbanism, Progress in Human Geography. [Online] 36(2), 155-171. Available at: [Accessed 15 Feb. 2019], DOI: 10.1177/0309132511412998.

19. MacCarrone-Eaglen, A. (2009). An Analysis of culture as a tourism commodity, Tourism, Culture & Communication. [Online] 9, Available at: [Accessed 15 Jun. 2019], DOI: 10.3727/109830409X12596186103879.

20. Marcuse P. (2015). Gentrification, Social Justice and Personal Ethics, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, [Online] 39(6), 1263-1269. Available at: [Accessed 7 Feb. 2020], DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12319.

21. Mattern S. (2014). Library as Infrastructure, Places Journal. [Online] Available at: infrastructure/?cn-reloaded=1#0 [Accessed 16 Mar. 2019], DOI: 10.22269/140609.

22. Mendes L. (2013) A regeneração urbana na política de cidades: inflexão entre o fordismo e o pós-fordismo, urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana (Brazilian Journal of Urban Management), [Online] 5(1), 33-45. Available at: [Accessed 16 Jan. 2019], DOI: 10.7213/urbe.7784.

23. Pratt A. (2009). Urban Regeneration: From the Arts ‘Feel Good’ Factor to the Cultural Economy: A Case Study of Hoxton, London, Urban Studies, [Online] 46 (5-6), 1041-1061. Available at: [Accessed 15 Jan. 2019], DOI: 10.1177/0042098009103854.

24. Savini F. (2011). The Endowment of Community Participation: Institutional Settings in Two Urban Regeneration Projects, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. [Online] 35(5), 949-968. Available at: [Accessed 16 Jan. 2019], DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00997.x.

25. Smith N. (2006). Gentrification Generalized: From Local Anomaly to Urban «Regeneration» as Global Urban Strategy, in M. Fisher and G. Downey, (eds) Frontiers of Capital: Ethnographic Reflections on the New Economy, Durham, Duke University Press. 191-208.

26. van de Kamp L. (2019). The heritagization of post-industrial re-development and social inclusion in Amsterdam, Journal of Urban Cultural Studies. [Online] 6(1), 199-218. Available at: [Accessed 25 Aug. 2019], DOI: 10.1386/jucs_00010_1.

For citation:

Martins J.C. Tangible Cultural Heritage Re-Appropriation Towards A New Urban Centrality. A Critical Crossroad In Semi-Peripheral Eastern Riverside Lisbon. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2020;13(3):139-146.

Views: 187

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)