Heritage Governance and Adaptive Reuse in Southern Chile: Case Studies from Lota and Punta Arenas

Abstract

In recent decades, the redefinition of heritage has led to research focused on the governance and management of heritage reuse, particularly emphasizing the role of communities in these processes. This article examines the influence of new uses and the participation of social stakeholders in fostering sustainable reuse and inclusive governance. Drawing on a qualitative methodology—combining documentary sources and interviews with key stakeholders—this study analyzes two heritage sites in the southern Chilean cities of Lota and Punta Arenas, using a critical heritage framework. The findings suggest that a hybrid model of collaboration between public institutions and civil society organizations positively contributes to the sustainability of heritage reuse. A key challenge identified is ensuring the sustained engagement of these diverse stakeholders in the long-term administration of heritage sites.

1. Introduction

This article examines strategies of governance and valorization in cultural heritage, addressing their use as a foundational principle for its preservation. Beyond formal recognition at local and national levels, it argues for the necessity of incorporating future uses for cultural heritage that are meaningful to communities within comprehensive development or management frameworks [1]. It underscores the imperative to transition from the mere designation of monuments toward the implementation of medium- and long-term management plans that anticipate conservation needs and the associated risks.

This study specifically investigates the impact of new uses and the engagement of social organizations in fostering inclusive governance practices and adaptive reuse. Its analysis focuses on two buildings designated as National Monuments in central and southern Chile: Pabellón 83 in the city of Lota—originally constructed as workers’ housing within a major coal mining complex—and a former prison complex in Punta Arenas, comprising the prison-penitentiary and courthouse.

The research contributes to two key areas. First, it advances the understanding of challenges related to heritage reuse, particularly in the Latin American context [2], drawing upon critical heritage studies and the increasing role of social stakeholders in heritage stewardship [3]. Second, it broadens the geographic focus of heritage research in Chile by analyzing sites located outside the capital, which have often been overlooked in the academic literature [4,5,6].

From a political perspective, this debate is particularly timely in light of ongoing legislative processes and public discussions surrounding the comprehensive reform of the now-outdated National Monuments Law [7,8], the recent restructuring of institutions responsible for promoting Chilean cultural heritage [9], and the strengthening of public policies aimed at heritage promotion. The proposed reform emphasizes heritage management as a central component of protection efforts, and the recent enactment of a National Heritage Education Policy [10] illustrates the growing relevance of a broader ecosystem of civil society actors.

From a territorial perspective, this study analyzes two cases that are particularly significant for local communities. Although they reflect different cultural contexts, both were subject to heritage-based interventions that varied in their approach and pace. These cases are located in urban areas where the reuse of historic buildings has historically been overlooked. Such territorial disparities enable the application of critical heritage concepts, contributing to what several scholars have described as an *epistemological shift* in heritage studies [11]. In both cases, attention is redirected from the heritage object itself to the social and institutional processes of heritagization and the actors involved [12]. This shift acknowledges the challenges posed by the conceptual fragmentation of the field [13,14], as well as the growing uncertainty surrounding the meaning and function of cultural heritage [15].

The working hypothesis posits that while local community participation in defining new uses is essential for social appropriation, the involvement of public institutions in the management process is equally critical to ensure the social and economic sustainability of heritage reuse and conservation.

Although the two case studies differ regarding stakeholder involvement, current usage, and conservation status, both underscore the need to conceptualize heritage not as a static designation, but as an evolving cultural process [16]. This analysis falls within the field of critical heritage studies, which advocates for a focus on heritage uses, community recognition, inclusive governance, and the promotion of flexible and adaptive strategies.

The article is organized into four main sections. The first one presents the conceptual framework, examining the notions of adaptive reuse and governance in relation to the roles of different social stakeholders. The second section outlines the methodology and the criteria guiding the selection of case studies. The third section analyzes the findings across three dimensions: the rehabilitation of the buildings, promotion of new cultural uses, and strategies for their protection and financing. The final section discusses the key challenges revealed by the case studies within the broader analytical framework and the types of heritage they represent.

2. Adaptive Reuse and Inclusive Governance of Heritage

In recent decades, the concept of heritage has evolved from an aesthetic and monument- or material-focused understanding to a broader perspective that acknowledges its relationship with lived experiences and ways of life. This expanded view encompasses both tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage [17,18,19,20,21,22].

Three significant shifts have emerged in heritage studies, particularly concerning the built heritage. First, there has been a transition from emphasizing original uses to embracing the notion of adaptive reuse [23,24,25,26]. Adaptive reuse refers to repurposing heritage buildings to meet contemporary needs while safeguarding “their historical and cultural significance” [24] (p. 2). This process offers opportunities for preservation by respecting both tangible and intangible elements and enhancing heritage relevance and sustainability in current societal contexts [19,20,27,28]. In this way, heritage works as a medium for preserving collective memory while engaging with contemporary challenges such as consensus, social cohesion, sustainability, and climate change [21].

A second major shift pertains to the increasing role of local communities in heritagization processes. Heritage is no longer perceived as the exclusive domain of elites; instead, diverse communities and civil society organizations have assumed a central role in advocating for the social legitimization of their cultural legacies [29]. In making new voices available, ‘critical heritage’ studies have been instrumental in this transformation by challenging traditional top-down narratives and promoting participatory approaches that integrate traditionally marginalized groups [19,21,30,31,32,33,34]. Within this framework, the concept of Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) has been used to critique privileging dominant narratives, while the notion of ‘subaltern heritage’ has emerged to highlight communities and identities historically excluded by official and institutional narratives [19]. Industrial heritage, for instance, represents the legacy of working-class histories and evokes a distinct form of collective memory and pride rooted in labor experiences [34]. Another category that has emerged within these new debates is ‘difficult’ or ‘dissonant’ heritage [35,36]. This refers to legacies that generate controversy or opposing readings between different social groups, places where acts of violence have taken place, and interpretations of heritage that exclude the histories of minority or underrepresented groups. Some examples are memory sites linked to human rights violations, ruins, or war sites.

A third shift in heritage studies concerns the increasing attention to governance and management in heritage discourse [37,38]. Contemporary approaches emphasize the need for transparent, inclusive, and equitable decision-making structures that address power asymmetries and promote meaningful community engagement in defining, interpreting, and conserving heritage. Similarly, critical heritage frameworks advocate for the democratization of governance. It has also been proposed that decision processes need to be grounded in a critical reflection and understanding of the inhabitants’ perceptions and needs to reinforce local identities [37]. This implies reimagining management not as static preservation but as dynamic conservation, anchored in everyday life, local identity, and adaptability, that prioritizes the renewal of the built legacy. Finally, heritage management is also framed as a catalyst for equitable economic, cultural, and territorial development, highlighting the importance of integrating it into sustainable development strategies through viable economic models that are socially equitable and respectful of territorial identity [39,40]. In this context [38], we propose a multi-actor governance model that integrates public, private, and community stakeholders to foster inclusive and locally responsive heritage management.

Positioned within the paradigm of critical heritage studies, this article adopts a dual analytical lens to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of two heritage reuse experiences: (i) the process through which new uses were implemented and (ii) the governance arrangements established in each context.

3. Methodology, Sources, and Case Studies

This study employs a qualitative methodology, drawing on three primary sources: (i) decrees and planning documents from the National Monuments Council (Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, CMN), the institution responsible for heritage designation at the national level; (ii) local press materials; and (iii) interviews with key stakeholders.

For Pabellón 83, documentary evidence was contrasted and supplemented with sources from the National Heritage Service (SERPAT) of the Ministry of Arts, Culture, and Heritage and the Housing and Development Council of the Junta de Andalucía (Spain). In the case of the former prison complex in Punta Arenas, additional documents were consulted from the former Directorate of Libraries, Archives, and Museums (DIBAM)1, the Regional Government (GORE), the Ministry of Public Works (MOP), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) regarding public policy instruments and contractual frameworks to materialize the valorization efforts.

Four semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2024 and January 2025. In the case of Pabellón 83, interviewees included the Executive Director of the Centre for Education and the Promotion of Solidarity Action (CEPAS) Foundation, responsible for managing the Pabellón 83 Community Cultural Centre and Historical Monument, and the head of the Centre’s Heritage and Cultural Unit. For the prison complex, two members of the community group La Vecindad were interviewed, as former occupants and users of the site (

Table 1. Interviewees’ demographics.

Code	Organization	Position	Gender	Age Range
E1	CEPAS Foundation	Director	Female	Middle-aged adults
E2	CEPAS Foundation	Head of the Heritage and Cultural Unit	Male	Middle-aged adults
E3	La Vecindad	Member	Male	Middle-aged adults
E4	La Vecindad	Member	Female	Middle-aged adults

Note: Interviewees were categorized as “middle-aged adults,” defined here as individuals aged 45–59 years [41].

).

The data were systematized using two analytical instruments. First, a chronological timeline was constructed, organizing three types of events: (i) implementation of new uses between 2000, which marked the start of the processes, and 2024; (ii) deployment of public programs or instruments, including funding sources; and (iii) participation of relevant stakeholders. Following [2], stakeholders were categorized as public institutions or civil society organizations. Second, a comparative table was developed to summarize key variables for each reuse process: new uses, stakeholders involved, and financing mechanisms. Finally, these instruments were triangulated and compared using the sustainable governance and reuse parameters outlined in the theoretical framework. The analysis identifies each case’s primary features, strengths, and weaknesses (Figure 1).

Using the proposed theoretical framework, the two case studies were selected to conduct a contextually grounded descriptive study. Although both buildings were listed as National Monuments (NMs) in 2009 and shared similarities and differences, Pabellón 83 had already undergone restoration prior to its designation, whereas the prison complex still remains under rehabilitation. While Pabellón 83 is linked to industrial heritage, the prison and courthouse complex (hereafter, the former prison complex) pertains to public institutional infrastructure. Both are considered forms of subaltern heritage, the former reflecting the legacy of coal miners and the latter representing difficult or dissonant heritage.

3.1. Pabellón 83 in Lota

In Chile, the central-southern region, particularly the Province of Concepción, was a major hub of coal mining activity. This extractive industry operated primarily through large industrial complexes in Lota and Coronel, which were active from the mid-19th century until the late 20th century [42]. In the early 1970s, the Chilean government nationalized the mines, forming the National Coal Company (Empresa Nacional del Carbón, ENACAR), which assumed control over the Lota and Coronel mining operations. ENACAR ceased operations in 1997, when the state terminated production following a prolonged economic and industrial decline. In response to the socioeconomic impacts of this closure, the government initiated a process of productive reconversion aimed at mitigating the region’s economic downturn [43].

More than three decades after the closure of the mines, the mining legacy of Lota has become the subject of extensive study across the social sciences, architecture, and urban studies [44]. With respect to the architectural heritage of the Lota mining industry, between 1990 and 2021, ten sites were designated as Historical Monuments (HMs), and one area—the Lota Alto Typical Zone (Zona Típica, TZ)—was granted special protection [45]. This zone includes the historical company town and the workers’ housing block known as Pabellón 83 (Figure 2). Furthermore, in 2019, seven public institutions signed a collaboration agreement to support the “Lota Plan: Toward a World Heritage Site” initiative, led by the Ministry of Arts, Culture, and Heritage (SERPAT).

Located on a plateau, Lota Alto was developed and managed by the mining company founded in 1852 by Matías Cousiño Jorquera and Tomás Garland. Below it lies Lota Bajo, the city’s public sector. Constructed in 1915, Pabellón 83 was originally built by the mining company to accommodate twenty working-class families. The housing typology included a kitchen and living room on the ground floor, a master bedroom on the second floor, and an attic space often used by children to play and sleep. Shared amenities, such as laundry areas and bathrooms, were located outside the block. In 1956, a major fire destroyed half of the building, after which only ten families continued to inhabit it (Interview E1, 2024).

3.2. Prison Building in Punta Arenas

In the late 19th century, the Chilean state undertook a series of infrastructure projects to strengthen its institutional presence in peripheral regions. These efforts were particularly significant in areas where state authority remained limited [46,47,48]. Punta Arenas, located at the southern tip of the country, was no exception. Among the facilities constructed to assert state control and administrative order were a police station2, a prison-penitentiary3, and a courthouse4 [47].

These institutional buildings were strategically located in the central sector of Punta Arenas, near the main public square: Benjamín Muñoz Gamero Plaza. The penitentiary compound was developed gradually over an extended period, during which time its physical infrastructure was repeatedly expanded and modified. The complex ultimately housed multiple functions, including the courthouse, the judge’s residence, the mayor’s office and home, and the prison itself [49,50].

Over time, as administrative functions shifted and the buildings fell into disuse, the prison and courthouse were gradually repurposed to accommodate office and administrative duties for the Chilean Prison Service (GENCHI) throughout the 2010s (Figure 1).

4. Results: Pabellón 83 in Lota

4.1. Recovery of the Property

According to the interviews (E1 and E2), the restoration of Pabellón 83 began in 2002–2003, when ENACAR’s board of directors decided to repurpose the building for cultural, heritage, and community functions. To facilitate this initiative, the company established a Joint Actions Committee (Comité de Acciones Conjuntas, CAC), which included three additional public agencies: the Solidarity and Social Investment Fund (FOSIS5), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (MINVU), and the Comprehensive Urban Poverty Program (PPU)6. The CEPAS Foundation—a non-governmental organization active in Lota since 1998, with educational and cultural programming—was also invited to participate. The Junta de Andalucía, a Spanish public body responsible for social housing and heritage rehabilitation, joined the project as part of an international cooperation initiative launched in 1997 to support the restoration of miners’ housing7 (Figure 3).

The project’s objectives were twofold: to provide a housing solution for the remaining families and to restore the building. The CAC secured funding through contributions from the participating institutions. The restoration was implemented via a Workshop School (Escuela Taller), inspired by a Spanish model and promoted by the Regional Ministerial Secretariat of Housing and Urban Planning (SEREMI MINVU). The school trained fifty young people from nearby communities—including Lota, Caleta El Blanco, and El Morro—in carpentry and heritage rehabilitation. The restoration plan preserved only the building’s external envelope while reconditioning its interior. Works took place between 2002 and 2004, with architectural oversight from the PPU and coordination from the Municipality of Lota (Figure 4).

4.2. Cultural Uses

In 2005, the CAC issued a call for proposals to identify an organization to manage Pabellón 83 for cultural and community purposes. Multiple organizations applied, including the local municipality. Ultimately, the CEPAS Foundation was awarded stewardship through a 100-year loan agreement.

Since assuming administration, the CEPAS Foundation has actively engaged with Lota’s cultural and heritage legacy. This commitment led to the formation of the Citizens’ Panel for Heritage, Culture, and Tourism (hereinafter, the Panel), one of the city’s earliest heritage organizations. The former Pabellón’s spaces served as the cradle for community mobilization and leadership. Among the key figures who emerged to valorize Lotino heritage was Benjamin Chau, who played a central role in local heritage activism and later became the Centre’s director.

The importance attributed to heritage by the CEPAS Foundation and its ability to foster inter-institutional and community collaboration are reflected in this testimony:

“...it has to do with the foundation’s ethos, but also with Benjamin’s work on heritage and social organization—convincing and sensitizing leaders across institutions. This is really how the Heritage, Culture, and Tourism Panel was born, in the rooms of Pabellón 83.” (E1 Interview, 2024)

Anecdotes also highlight the Foundation’s engagement with national cultural institutions. One such story recounts how, during an informal meeting in Santiago, a regional representative spontaneously proposed the name that would later be adopted for the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage, established in 2018 (Interview E1, 2024). Whether true or not, the story reflects a local sense of pride and perceived influence in shaping national cultural policy.

Cultural programming initially attracted modest audiences but grew steadily through collaboration with neighbourhood associations, family committees, and the Panel. Activities included theatre, dance, visual arts exhibitions, literary events, music festivals, and documentary screenings. The building housed two multipurpose spaces—the Victoria Room and the Baldomero Lillo Room—for these events (Figure 5). Between 2006 and 2007, heritage tours of Pabellón 83 began as part of the “Lota World Heritage” initiative. Event scheduling was participatory, with an open public call for proposals launched each September to emerging and established companies and artists to schedule the following year’s activities. However, it also left open the possibility of accepting applications that may arise during the year.

A Documentation Centre was also created to house research conducted by students and academics on Lota and the coal basin8 (Figure 5). Noteworthy initiatives include the “My Parents Told Me” storytelling contests (2009–2017), which collected narratives from local writers on mining history, popular songbooks, customs and trades of the coal area, and the history of labor movements, among others9.

The Foundation also collaborated with FOSIS to implement a digital literacy program, creating a public Information Centre on the first floor. The Centre had computers and offered free courses to the community. More recently, the space was converted into a museum room showcasing artefacts from the Refractory Brick Factory and the Lota Green Ceramics Factory—both integral to the former mining complex. In 2023, a space for memory and human rights was also created to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1973 coup d’état.

4.3. Heritage Protection and Financing

In 2009, the CEPAS Foundation prepared and submitted the application for Pabellón 83’s designation as a Historical Monument. This designation helped broaden its visibility and formalize its cultural role.

According to the Foundation’s director, community collaboration and networking played a pivotal role in the dossier’s preparation:

“We had a lot of collaboration—not only from the Monuments Council, but also from community entities with valuable background information, including university support and theses. That is how the file was assembled.” (E1 Interview, 2024)

Since its reopening, use of Pabellón 83 has remained free of charge. However, the Foundation plans to introduce modest fees in the future to support financial sustainability. Until now, operational costs have been covered by collaboration agreements with various state agencies. As of 2024, a key funding source is the Ministry of Culture’s Support Program for Collaborating Cultural Organizations (PAOCC), which covers personnel costs through an annual management plan; 180 organizations nationwide currently benefit from this support10. In parallel, additional funds are pursued through competitive project-based applications, such as SERPAT for the museum room.

Infrastructure upkeep requires further competitive funding and compliance with the CMN’s procedural requirements for HMs. In brief, securing consistent financial resources remains a central challenge to ensuring Pabellón 83’s continued relevance and accessibility to the community.

5. Results: Prison-Penitentiary and Courthouse Buildings in Punta Arenas

5.1. Recovery of the Property

Since 2004, various institutions, including the MOP’s National Directorate of Architecture, had petitioned the National Monuments Council (CMN, in Spanish) to designate the former prison and courthouse buildings in Punta Arenas as Historical Monuments. These efforts were part of broader public valorization programs [51]. The designation was granted in 2009, covering the Regional Directorate of the Chilean Prison Service (GENCHI), originally housed in the courthouse and the judge’s residence11, as well as the Local Penitentiary and the Police Prefecture.

Years of intensive institutional use, combined with neglect and the use of inadequate materials in prior modifications and repairs, had contributed to the site’s physical degradation. However, the buildings’ status as public property and their central location prompted the Ministry of Public Works (MOP) to include them in its heritage valorization plan, which had been launched in 200712. The designation as a Historical Monument and the setting aside of funds for their rehabilitation were also requested. Thus, actions began to provide them with a new use, which came to fruition in 2014, under an agreement between the MOP and the former DIBAM, which proposed repurposing the site as a Regional Library and Archive. This plan was reaffirmed in 2020 through a new agreement involving the Regional Government (GORE), SERPAT, and the MOP’s Regional Architecture Directorate [52].

Although the restoration process has progressed slowly, it has benefited from clear political will. In her 2014 Presidential Address, President Michelle Bachelet referred to the project as a state commitment to meet a long-standing debt regarding regional cultural demands: “(…) we will create regional libraries in all those regions that do not yet have them, including the new Magallanes Regional Library and Archive in the former Punta Arenas Prison” [53]. Following the withdrawal of public services between 2003 and 201413, two parallel processes unfolded: (i) a state-led initiative that secured substantial public investment for long-term reuse and (ii) a brief but dynamic occupation by local cultural groups in 2016.

5.2. Cultural Uses

Cultural uses of the prison compound began in 2003, immediately after it was vacated, and in the courthouse, which was abandoned between 2013 and 2014, cultural uses began in 2016. These included specific events organized or supported by public institutions. A second, more sustained phase was materialized by a community group in 2016. Regarding the modality, all the activities brought social and media interest, especially when the prison was used for a film in 200314, namely, the “Cultural Blizzards” (Ventiscas Culturales), named metaphorically after the region’s intense winds, where theatrical and dance performances were staged in the prison yard in 2005.

The former prison served as a venue for guided tours, exhibitions, and news reports15, with its opening for Heritage Day standing out. On the other hand, the courthouse would be home between December 2015 and April 2016 for La Vecindad16 [54], a registered community organization founded in 2011 to promote civic and cultural engagement [55]. They were later joined by Circo del Sur, an informal collective dedicated to circus arts.

Although La Vecindad coordinated the use of the courthouse, both groups occupied the premises with tacit consent from DIBAM, which informally permitted their use of the space previously held by the Regional Prison Service Directorate. A social leader recalled the transition:

“(The prison officers) left, and we entered. There was no separation. And we remember that because we were finding their things—photographs, documents. The building was still in good condition, at least the wing they used. The cell blocks were already in disrepair.” (E3 Interview, 2025).

While La Vecindad was not officially granted control over the entire site, they quickly appropriated both the cell area and the former courthouse, converting them into spaces for artistic production and community use. The old courthouse was used as an office and workshop space. In the words of one of its members, on entering the building, which still had basic services and was in good condition, they occupied the entire site, setting up the offices of La Vecindad on the second floor and allocating space to other collectives, such as Circo del Sur. Even though the transfer was understood as temporary, awaiting repairs that “still have not occurred”, the group knew how to adapt, consolidating a self-managed space for cultural production and a creative use of the built heritage (E3 Interview, 2024).

The cultural and community activities of La Vecindad and Circo del Sur triggered a growing interest among other grassroots organizations to move into the available premises:

“People from culture, art, sports, history, and recycling began to arrive. They were organized, not improvising. DIBAM had left, and we had the building available. So they would come, we would give them an office, they would put on a lock on it, and in exchange, they would offer free workshops to the public.” (E4 Interview, 2025)

The space eventually housed both formal and informal groups and featured a cultural calendar. Circo del Sur installed trapeze rigs, mats, and circus infrastructure in the former prison yard (Figure 6), organized performances, and undertook minor repairs to the site. Through an internal assembly, they renamed the occupied areas “El Árbol Cultural Space17.” However, in 2016, the Health Authority ordered the closure of the premises, bringing this grassroots initiative to an abrupt end.

5.3. Heritage Protection and Financing

Although adjacent to a designated Typical Zone since 1991, and with origins in the 19th century, the prison and courthouse buildings were only declared Historical Monuments in 2009. In 2015, the site was included within the extended protection area of the square when the protected polygon’s application and extension were approved. From the outset, institutional actors envisioned not just preservation but also the active reuse of these structures for cultural purposes. CMN documents from as early as 2004 emphasized this dual vision:

“...a meeting of the National Monuments Council of the Magallanes Region unanimously agreed to nominate the ‘Punta Arenas Prison’ building for declaration as a National Monument.”.

[56]

The goal was to halt further deterioration, maintain public engagement through cultural activities, support urban revitalization in the city center, and prepare for a comprehensive restoration project. This plan included the creation of a Regional Library, Archive, Cultural Council, and Event Centre [57].

Subsequent efforts included expanding the protected designation to cover additional buildings formerly used by GENCHI and the Police Prefecture. This required coordination among the Regional Government, the Municipality of Punta Arenas, and the MOP’s Architecture Directorate. Funding was secured through the Valorization Program (PPV), supported by loans from the Inter-American Development Bank [58,59].

Because the MOP does not directly execute projects it oversees, the former DIBAM organized a National Architectural Competition18 in September 2014 to guide the site’s restoration. Its goal was the restoration of the HMs, comprising the prison and GENCHI’s premises, to be used as a Library and Archive. The competition allowed the architectural design to remove non-original elements and propose additions that respected the site’s heritage value. The results were announced in December that year [56], and the final project has been under construction since 2024.

Upon completion, the prison-penitentiary and old courthouse will house the Regional Headquarters of the National Archive and a new Regional Library, both managed by SERPAT. These functions are expected to ensure the site’s long-term use, upkeep, and reinterpretation.

6. Results: Comparative Analysis

Both case studies focus on cultural functions when considering new uses (

Table 2. Comparative analysis.

Variables	Pabellón 83	Former Prison Complex
Similarities
Type of Uses	Cultural uses with a clear and intentional connection to the region’s mining history and heritage.	Cultural uses that reflect local identity.
Financing of Rehabilitation and Restoration	The state played a central role.	The state played a central role.
Differences
Sequence of Interventions/Consistency of Use	Initial step: rehabilitation and restoration of the building.	Initial step: designation as a Historical Monument.
	Nine years later, it was designated as a Historical Monument.	Twelve years later: A brief period of use.
	Consistent use for XX years.	Underutilized or vacant for XX years.
Governance Model	Formal alliance between public agencies and civil society stakeholders.	No comparable coordination platform. Limited participation from civil society.
Financing of Ongoing Operations	A combination of collaboration agreements with various state agencies and competitive project-based funding.	Included in the State’s annual budget.
Financing of Upkeep and Infrastructure Upgrades	Based on competitive project-based funding.	Included in the State’s annual budget.

). While the definitive program for the former prison complex in Punta Arenas is still pending implementation, the site has hosted a variety of cultural activities that reflect local identity and respond to the spatial needs of an extreme southern territory. Similarly, Pabellón 83 has been repurposed for cultural use, with a clear and deliberate connection to the region’s mining history and heritage.

A key distinction between the two cases lies in the sequence of interventions. In the case of Pabellón 83, the initial step was rehabilitating and restoring the building to support new uses. Within two years of forming the CAC, the reuse process was operationalized. The site was formally designated as a Historical Monument only nine years later. This timeline has enabled over two decades of sustained occupation and cultural programming.

By contrast, the former prison complex was declared a Historical Monument shortly after its abandonment. However, it was not until twelve years later that a brief period of stable occupation occurred—one that was subsequently interrupted and never resumed. Consequently, the complex has remained underutilized or vacant for much of the past two decades. These findings indicate that heritage designation alone does not ensure successful reuse or management. Such declarations remain largely symbolic without an engaged community or effective governance mechanisms. Furthermore, heritage sustainability requires not only legal protection but also ongoing programming, institutional support, and coordination among public and civil society stakeholders.

Differences in stakeholder involvement are also significant. In the Pabellón 83 case, a formal alliance—represented by the CAC—was established from the outset, bringing together public agencies and civil society stakeholders. This collaborative body facilitated the building’s rehabilitation and subsequent transfer to the CEPAS Foundation for administration. In contrast, the prison complex has lacked any comparable coordination platform. Here, the MOP has assumed a predominant role through its Valorization Program, and, alongside the CMN, initiated the heritage designation process (a requirement for the applicability of the PPV). Civil society participation has been limited and largely informal, restricted to episodic use of the facilities rather than structural involvement in decision-making.

In terms of financing, three categories of funding must be considered: (i) for rehabilitation and restoration; (ii) for the ongoing operation of the cultural centers; and (iii) for upkeep and infrastructure upgrades. In both cases, the State played a central role in financing the initial restoration. However, notable differences emerge with respect to operational funding. While both initiatives rely on public resources, particularly from the Ministry of Culture (MINCAP), the funding model differs substantially.

Finally, the financing of infrastructure improvement and maintenance works generates even greater gaps between the cases. Pabellón 83 depends on annual competitive grants administered by SERPAT (MINCAP), which create uncertainty and administrative burdens for the CEPAS Foundation. In contrast, operational expenses for the future Library and Archive at the former prison complex are expected to be integrated into the permanent budget of MINCAP, as it will be managed directly by a state agency.

In this way, the components of both cases have been addressed, allowing us to synthesize the results for a broader and more general discussion. The importance of property recovery—and who owns a heritage site—is a relevant fact, as is the intended use of the site, since it influences the degree of permanence in the fate of the asset and, finally, the capacity to secure funding. These components are crossed by three key axes that emerge from this study and were already recognized in the initial framework: community engagement, a shared governance structure, and public involvement and democratic participation. This is the way in which we can synthesize the results that guide our discussion and conclusions.

7. Discussion

This study analyzed how governance strategies and adaptive reuse contributed to the preservation and valorization of cultural heritage, emphasizing the role of community engagement and future-oriented uses. By examining two nationally designated heritage sites in Chile, the research explored how inclusive governance and social participation supported sustainable management frameworks beyond formal monument recognition.

Based on an analysis grounded in the initial concepts used to examine both case studies, it is possible to return to the original conceptualization of heritage reuse and inclusive governance in order to contribute to broader reflection. Three core recommendations emerge to advance a sustainable approach for building heritage preservation. First, the analysis reaffirms the importance of repurposing historical buildings for new uses. A key consideration is that the new uses respond both to contemporary needs of the local community and to the goal of enhancing local memory and local identity [24]. The case studies suggest that the implementation of these new uses should be one of the first actions to be executed in the heritagization process. In contexts of subaltern heritage, special attention should be given to the goal of preserving the memories of traditionally marginalized or less visible groups. Only in this way will the heritagization project contribute to a greater inclusion within heritage practice. The case of Pabellón 83 illustrates this: the early architectural intervention allowed for the integration of new community-oriented cultural uses. Also, the content of the cultural programming reflects a commitment to preserving both tangible and intangible aspects of Lota’s mining heritage [19,21,27,28]. Finally, including testimonies from former workers and their families highlights the building’s role as a vehicle for collective memory and a platform for historically underrepresented voices. Moreover, the adaptive reuse model aligns with the notion of living heritage, as interior spaces evolve in response to community dynamics [35]. The case of the Prison Building highlights the need for a thoughtful and well-supported approach to the adaptive reuse of historic buildings—one that reflects authentic community engagement and ensures the necessary backing to sustain the physical and symbolic integrity of the reinterpreted site.

Second, the governance dimension reveals two interlinked objectives: (i) ensuring community representation in decision-making and (ii) securing economic sustainability. The analysis suggests that, regarding both types of goals, a key aspect is the creation—from the initial phases of the process—of a management entity that reunites both inter-institutional public agencies and local community stakeholders. This finding supports the argument of Iaione [28] regarding the effectiveness of multi-actor governance models in achieving sustainability.

Regarding the first goal, the analysis suggests that the representation of the local community at the management level strengthens social sustainability by building community networks [29], by maintaining a sustained dialogue with local leaders, through a commitment to supporting local heritage and cultural organizations, and, for the case of repurposing buildings for cultural uses, through a transparent and participatory system for cultural programming. Conversely, the case of the former prison complex is an example of top-down decision-making almost exclusively led by public institutions, with civil society limited to a passive or temporary user role.

Regarding the second goal, the analysis also suggests that, within the Chilean context, the economic sustainability of the heritagization processes remains a major challenge, especially for the long-term operation of the preserved buildings. That is how, after the recovery of the building, the following operational phase has only two alternatives for its management. One of them is a fully publicly managed model, and the other is a fully private (non-profit) model. Neither model has managed to achieve both economic sustainability and social equity. The fully private governance model analyzed in the case of Pabellón 83 was unable to secure consistent operational funding. Conversely, the state administration model analyzed in the case of the prison complex offers greater stability in funding, albeit with weaker community engagement.

8. Conclusions

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings has gained increasing relevance globally as cities seek to reconcile preservation with sustainable urban development. However, the success of these processes depends not only on the architectural or historical value but also on the governance structures and social frameworks in which reuse initiatives are embedded. This study contributes to a growing body of literature that calls for more nuanced and participatory approaches to heritage management, particularly in contexts marked by institutional fragmentation and limited community engagement. By focusing on two recent cases in Chile, it sheds light on broader challenges and opportunities for heritage reuse efforts across Latin America and other regions where similar tensions between preservation, development, and social inclusion persist.

This study confirms that inclusive governance and the valorization of heritage, grounded in the effective integration of diverse stakeholders, are essential for the sustainability of adaptive reuse processes. The two case studies analyzed demonstrate that heritage designation alone does not ensure the activation or preservation of a site. Instead, successful outcomes depend on comprehensive management strategies, the implementation of continuous use, and the articulation of cooperative relationships among state institutions, social organizations, and other relevant stakeholders.

Based on these findings, the following implications can be drawn with respect to public heritage preservation policies in Chile.

First, these two processes—contemporary and relatively recent—reveal, through their markedly different trajectories, how heritage reuse initiatives have been addressed in a case-by-case manner, which is highly contingent on contextual factors. In other words, they are processes that move forward without the support of an integrated policy framework capable of globally planning how to address them successfully, particularly from a sustainability perspective.

A second reflection concerns the stark contrast between the current focus of heritage policy, which remains largely centered on the historic designation of buildings, without including other key objectives essential for sustainable preservation. These include the implementation of new uses that are meaningful for the community and the establishment of a governance model that ensures long-term sustainability. The comparative analysis underscores the advantages of a mixed governance model that brings together public institutions and civil society stakeholders. While public agencies can offer institutional legitimacy and financial resources, civil society contributes through local knowledge, community engagement, and meaningful cultural uses anchored in place.

Finally, in institutional contexts where the agency responsible for heritage designation lacks mechanisms for implementing reuse, it becomes essential for public heritage policies to (i) define concrete steps and timelines for inter-agency collaboration and (ii) promote within these protocols—or even require—the incorporation of local civil society organizations at early stages of the reuse process. Addressing these three aspects is critical for ensuring that heritage reuse is both socially and economically equitable.

Although grounded in specific cases, the findings presented here invite broader reflection on the urgent need to align heritage preservation policies with principles of inclusivity, adaptability, and long-term sustainability. The Chilean experience illustrates how the absence of a comprehensive policy framework and limited institutional coordination can hinder the transformative potential of heritage reuse. Looking ahead, both in Chile and beyond, there is a pressing need to reframe heritage governance—from a static and protectionist approach toward one that actively incorporates community interests, enables shared decision-making, and ensures the allocation of sufficient resources for implementation. Only by embedding reuse strategies within wider social, cultural, and urban agendas can heritage become a living and resilient component of the contemporary city.

The main strength of this study lies in the in-depth analysis of two case studies, which has enabled the identification of key variables for understanding governance and the adaptive reuse of heritage sites. By closely examining each context, the research offers valuable insights that can guide future inquiries and inform policy or practice. However, given the limited number of cases, the findings should not be interpreted as representative of broader patterns or structural trends. Rather, they should be seen as exploratory contributions that highlight central issues while acknowledging the risks of overinterpretation. The context-specific nature of the cases reinforces the importance of depth over breadth in this phase of the research. This represents a promising and relevant line of future research, as incorporating additional and more diverse case studies could contribute to broader comparative insights and help develop more generalizable understandings of governance and heritage site reuse.