old building and provide social or economic benefits to the surrounding context. However, in most cases, the identity of the space or site becomes lost.
5
There is no doubt that adaptive reuse and other solutions have played an essential role in preserving structures and spaces. However, in some cases, implementing a new programme may disconnect the original identity or history of the site or space. New programmes introduced with adaptive reuse are often justified on the ground that the previous programme has become obsolete. Some may argue that the original form and skeleton express the previous identity, but identity is more than a tangible object or sense. Hayden (1995) describes a unique relationship between identity, memory and place. She states that: “identity is intimately tied to memory: both our memories (where we have come from and where we have dwelt) and the collective or social memories interconnected with the histories of our families, neighbours, fellow workers, and ethnic communities…urban landscapes are storehouses for these social memories, because natural features such as hills or harbours, as well as streets, buildings, and patterns of settlement, frame the lives of many people and often outlast many lifetimes” (Hayden, 1995:226).
Thus , rather than considering other solutions for preservation to be wrong or unsuccessful, the distinction between Hayden (1995) and the other solutions is that there is a gap between the identity of the original site and new programme. The challenge may be to regenerate the derelict landscapes with the identity of the space as an active solution to reconnect the site back to the urban fabric. This approach may be sensitive and demonstrate that, even if a building, place or space has been neglected, a new programme that is unrelated to the identity is not always the solution. Instead, it is important to consider how a new programme that incorporates the history and identity of the space may be used as a tool for regeneration.
