From art object to rubble

Abstract

This article investigates the impact of the valuation of demolition materials on its ultimate destination in the city of Brussels between 1860 and 1940 via an analysis of municipal policy on demolition. It examines the process of revaluation and devaluation in buildings, shifting the focus from large-scale urban developments to individual elements and materials. The study entails an analysis of the rules embedded in the building regulations and specifications for demolition projects, as well as records, reports and correspondence illustrating the enforcement of these rules. A brief outline of the legal and administrative framework is followed by a discussion of the criteria used in categorizing and evaluating demolition materials.
 In the period under consideration the Brussels city council, in common with many European municipal governments, embraced large-scale demolition operations as a radical solution to the challenges facing city centres. The stable policy during the period 1860-1940 exhibited various valuation processes across comparable demolition projects. The Brussels authorities pursued a stratified policy, integrating the different categories of demolition materials according to their nature and value. These categories comprised (1) treasures, artworks, objects related to numismatics and natural history, and all other objects of any value, (2) materials and objects, and (3) rubble, soil and waste.
 The city prioritized artworks and objects of artistic or historical value, over which it retained ownership, and invested in the preservation, exhibition and reuse of such materials. Other demolition materials were sold to the demolition contractors, meaning that the city government had little direct influence over their ultimate destination. Nevertheless, the building inspector estimated the financial value of the various materials and objects prior to organizing a public sale of these materials. The limited interest in rubble and waste evident in the administrative documents did not necessarily point to an absence of policy, but rather to the relation between various categories of demolition materials. By drawing attention to their financial value, the public sale of such materials not only generated financial returns for the city, but also indirectly influenced the reuse of these materials and so also the proportion of rubble and building waste.
 As such, the study serves to clarify the dynamics between revaluation and devaluation of demolition materials. This new perspective on demolition materials illustrates their role in policymaking with respect to large-scale urban transformation projects. It contributes to a broader understanding of the importance of the reuse of demolition materials in the period between 1860 and 1940, and sheds light on the relation between urban development, heritage preservation, reuse and waste management.