1st Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1CroCEE 2021

The research that gave rise to the following text is part of the institutional research project at Zagreb’s Faculty of Architecture entitled “Rebuilding Zagreb after 2020 Earthquake” with the sub-topic: „Earthquake (non)resistance and housing estate in Zagreb“. One of the aims of this research is to analyse the resymbolization of Zagreb that took place after the earthquake. Images of sheer devastation and demolished buildings are viewed as counterimages of previous symbols with news media representation giving them new senses of the city’s identity.
We endeavour to reach the most damaged places and those that attracted more news media attention as images of the Zagreb earthquake to illuminate the underlying dynamics of urban symbolics construction and deconstruction and to discuss the roles of a wide range of actors involved in these processes. Residents made spontaneous and personal interventions with an aim to make their living space fit for humans. Collecting the visual data of these interventions brings into focus bottom-up actions, in other words, civil society activism as a robust mechanism and/or a corrective for identity politics coming from the top. The images of collapsed buildings will be regarded as symbolic capital and its impact on Zagreb’s new identity cityscape will be analysed asking the question whether destruction without material reconstruction could also have an affirmative character.
The aim is to investigate the correlation between Zagreb’s symbols before and after the earthquake and to use this data to compile a list of new symbols as a new collective memory of the city. We are going to re-examine the notion – of an enduring architecture, of the continuity of the city's image, and of longevity of spontaneous interventions whose temporary nature becomes a lasting legacy. The outcome of this re-examination will open our minds to new interpretations of the city's timeless appeal. Is it possible to look at resilience not only as a building’s constructive feature but also as a transfigured concept of our flexibility to accept demolition as an inevitable part of urban vitality?