pre-liminary thoughts 1

look at:

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SFi4zVXee7EC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=pereira+roders+re-architecture&source=bl&ots=oMBtEoGZJC&sig=6rouBQ92cWPWo3qwOt-iYgKy1CY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QJIxT9LJAe6OiAfX9Jz-BA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=pereira%20roders%20re-architecture&f=false

-In the wake of destruction, ruined and abandoned buildings, we see that our built enviornenment is not permernant, but it is architecture's legacy that continues long after its physical form is destroyed, by its ability to actively participate in people's own collective memories

-larger issues of memory/ history/ movement

-other examples, learning from their successes and failures (Munich, Detroit, Dresden, Nuremburg, Hiroshima, Cologne, Catheridge)

-Christchurch context (I have learnt that I do want a site(s) here!)

-choose sites of different types: totally flattened, ruined, damaged

-Their grief associated with certain sites, but no guilt, at least not like in German cities... therefore I should not be interested in treatment of Nazi buildings resulting from their guilt

-acknowledge each building and site should be treated differently. Not one single approach, or series of rules. So what am I doing? demonstrating a personal approach? revealing values and an example methodology or process from which to look at as an example? 

-not interested in memorials themselves, but allow that the nature of revitalising a building or site (if this is what my research leads to) creates a living memorial of the former building and memories

-memorials = reminders so that tragedy may be prevented from again recurring...
BUT
reminders in this context: to remember loss of people, buildings, and the nature and event of earthquakes.

reminders cannot prevent the tragedies from re-curring. Christchurch people have those reminders, in the form of after-shocks every day. Do they need further ones?