From Punishment to Luxury: The Silence of Memory in the Adaptive Reuse of Difficult Heritage

Öz

Cultural heritage sites do not capture the architectural remnants of the past only, but also they illustrate the politics of memory in societies. Nevertheless, transformation of buildings linked to trauma, oppression, and shame identified as difficult heritage is a source of ethical dilemma, which troubles more conventional conservation practice. This paper analyses the adaptive reuse of Het Arresthuis prison in Roermond, Netherlands, into a luxury hotel in terms of architecture, meaning, and morality. The paper examines the dilemma between the physical integrity of the building and its functions as memory-vectors within the context of universal standards including the Venice Charter, the ICOMOS principles and the Dutch national statutes (i.e. the Erfgoedwet and the Omgevingswet). As a case study surveyed through qualitative research techniques, it was established that although the building has maintained its architectural originality, the transformation of prison information into the components of a luxury consumption has provided a sort of a dark tourism ambiance. The findings indicate that although physical conservation was successful, narrative strategies aimed at confronting the past remained insufficient, and a silence of memory was produced by aestheticizing the historical burden of the space. Consequently, the study argues that in such transformations, not only technical and legal protection but also principles of social participation and critical narrative must be integrated into the process.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Difficult heritage
• Het Arresthuis
• Adaptive reuse
• Prison architecture

Cezalandırmadan Lükse: Rahatsız Edici Mirasın Adaptif Yeniden Kullanımında Anı Suskunluğu

Öz

Kültürel miras alanları yalnızca geçmişin mimari kalıntılarını barındırmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda toplumların hafıza siyasetini de gözler önüne serer. Bununla birlikte, rahatsız edici miras (difficult heritage) olarak tanımlanan; travma, baskı ve utançla ilişkilendirilen yapıların dönüşümü, geleneksel koruma pratiklerini zorlayan bir etik ikilem kaynağıdır. Bu makale, Hollanda'nın Roermond kentindeki Het Arresthuis hapishanesinin lüks bir otele dönüştürülmesini mimari, anlam ve etik açılarından analiz etmektedir. Çalışma, yapının fiziksel bütünlüğü ile bir hafıza taşıyıcısı olma işlevi arasındaki ikilemi; Venedik Tüzüğü, ICOMOS ilkeleri ve Hollanda ulusal yasaları (Erfgoedwet ve Omgevingswet) gibi evrensel standartlar bağlamında incelemektedir. Nitel araştırma teknikleriyle incelenen bir vaka analizi olarak; binanın mimari özgünlüğünü korumasına rağmen, hapishane unsurlarının lüks tüketim bileşenlerine dönüştürülmesinin bir tür karanlık turizm atmosferi yarattığı tespit edilmiştir. Bulgular, fiziksel korumanın başarılı olmasına rağmen, geçmişle yüzleşmeyi amaçlayan anlatı stratejilerinin yetersiz kaldığını ve mekânın tarihsel yükünün estetikleştirilerek bir anı suskunluğu üretildiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, bu tür dönüşümlerde sadece teknik ve yasal korumanın değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal katılım ve eleştirel anlatı ilkelerinin de sürece entegre edilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rahatsız edici miras
• Het Arresthuis
• Adaptif yeniden kullanım
• Cezaevi mimarisi
• Anı suskunluğu

Kaynakça

1. [1] Macdonald, S. (2009). Difficult heritage: Negotiating the Nazi past in Nuremberg and beyond. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203871452
2. [2] Logan, W., & Reeves, K. (Eds.). (2009). Places of pain and shame: Dealing with ‘difficult heritage’. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875498
3. [3] Szuta, A. F., & Szczepański, J. (2019). The difficult heritage: The reuse of former prison buildings. Technical Transactions, 8, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.4467/2353737XCT.19.090.10872
4. [4] Stone, P. R. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and macabre-related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 54(2), 145–160.
5. [5] Carlton, B. (2024). Heritage, resistance and dissonance: reconstructing Pentridge in a prison tourism theme park. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 30(11), 1304–1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2023.2284727
6. [6] Astudillo, F. J., Hunt, C. A., Aizpurúa, I. I., & Carvajal-Contreras, D. R. (2024). From Prison Islands to Island Paradises: Are Violent Histories Being Overwritten with Nature-Based Tourism Imaginaries? Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 26(2–3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2024.2409132
7. [7] Lennon, J. J. (2017). Conclusion: dark tourism in a digital post-truth society. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 9(2), 240-244.
8. [8] Gregory, A. (2014). The silence of memory: Armistice Day, 1919-1946. Bloomsbury Publishing.

9. [9] Engelman Architecten. (n.d.). Hotel Het Arresthuis [Photographs]. Retrieved December 1, 2025, from http://www.engelmanarchitecten.nl/nl/projecten/het-arresthuis/
10. [10] Foote, K. E. (2013). Shadowed ground: America's landscapes of violence and tragedy (Rev. ed.). University of Texas Press.
11. [11] Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. Wiley.
12. [12] Wilson, K., & Freeman, S. (2024). Penal heritage and the architecture of incarceration: Ethics of adaptive reuse. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-01-2024-0009
13. [13] Nederlandse Overheid. (2016). Erfgoedwet. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0037521/
14. [14] Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. (2016). Heritage Act 2016. https://english.cultureelerfgoed.nl/publications/publications/2016/01/01/heritage-act-2016
15. [15] Jans, J. H., Robbe, J., & Backes, C. W. (2016). Integratie door de Omgevingswet. Den Haag: Boom juridisch.
16. [16] Government of the Netherlands. (2024). Omgevingswet – Environment and Planning Act. https://www.government.nl/topics/environmental-law/omgevingswet
17. [17] Council of Europe. (2005). Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention). https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention
18. [18] Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. (2016). Heritage Act 2016: Protection of cultural heritage in the Netherlands. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
19. [19] UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/638/
20. [20] ICOMOS. (2020). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/World_Heritage/HIAGuidance_2020_EN.pdf
21. [21] ICOMOS. (1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf
22. [22] Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2019). Adaptive reuse of the built heritage: Concepts and cases of an emerging discipline. Routledge.
23. [23] Kirova, T. K., & Mezzino, D. (2015). Toward a holistic heritage conservation. Technical Transactions, 2015(Architecture Issue 7-A (10) 2015), 61-74.
24. [24] Hancock, P., & Jewkes, Y. (2011). Architectures of incarceration: The spatial pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 611-629.
25. [25] Chiacchiera, F., & Mondaini, G. (2023). Another Chance: Adaptive reuse of the built heritage strategies for circular creativity. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(2), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n2-5