**1. Introduction**

The construction of an urban image following the demands of international tourism has defined the success of Cuenca [1] as a historic settlement. As a result, its architecture is part of the refined aesthetic that has historically excluded rural, popular, indigenous, queer and controversial manifestations in multiple Latin American cases. Likewise, gentrification processes, influenced by a strong foreign presence, reproduce colonial social relations and marginalize popular [2] and informal economic activities.

There is a scenario where the middle classes are positioned with higher incomes than the local ones, who, attracted by historical urbanism, displaced the original groups, resulting in an increasing impact on the use and meaning of urban areas [2]. It is not confined to Cuenca (Ecuador) as a phenomenon; intermediate and small cities are also experiencing it. In addition, disputes over public space, gender, identity and class have a long history, and certain passages stand out. The oldest dates back to the colonial establishment when it imposed an urban order characterized by social and spatial segregation [3–6], along with the dispossession of the collective.

**Citation:** Aguirre Ullauri, M.d.C.; Rodas Espinoza, P.F.; García Cordero, A.P. A Bridge with No Name: The Controversial Resignificance of Urban Architectural Heritage from a Gender Perspective in Cuenca (Ecuador). *Heritage* **2023**, *6*, 4411–4433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ heritage6050233

Academic Editors: Lucia Della Spina, Paola Pellegrini, Antonia Russo, Maria Rosa Valluzzi and Angela Viglianisi

Received: 1 April 2023 Revised: 1 May 2023 Accepted: 3 May 2023 Published: 19 May 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

By 1980, Cuenca's social elite was shocked by the popular and indigenous appropriation of symbolic urban spaces [7,8]. Approximately a decade later, commercial and architectural elites initiated a "reconquest" based on large investments, which displaced lower-income residents [2]. Nowadays, these spaces resist intertwining formal and informal activities, making it increasingly difficult to separate, forget and purify [9]. There is no denying that Cuenca, like other Latin American cities, is increasingly problematic for local authorities [2], as popular uses of public space, leisure activities and planning ideals clash with the nostalgia of elites. Taking this into account, Ecuador's Organic Law of Culture (Ley Orgánica de Cultura—LOC, in Spanish), which defines cultural heritage as the "dynamic, integrating, representative collection of goods and social practices, which people create, maintain, transmit, and recognize as cultural heritage, communities, communes, nationalities, collectives and cultural organizations" [10], warns against such events.

To address the case of contemporary processes of spatial appropriation and heritage resignification, this research analyzes Puente Mariano Moreno, Puente de La Escalinata or Puente Vivas Nos Queremos, a symbol of urbanization during the twentieth century and a progressive icon for El Ejido area. We propose an analytical and reflexive approach from a heritage, historical and feminist perspective. Due to the scarcity of similar studies in both the city and the country, this position is of particular interest. On the contrary, there is a predominance of historicist [11,12], urban [13–15], architectural [16,17], anthropological [18,19], archaeological [20], mobility [21,22], participatory management [23,24], heritage management and public policy [25–27], and tourism [28–30] studies. In addition, studies related to the right to the city [31,32] have gained relevance in challenging the notion of the historic city.

Consequently, this work contributes to the understanding of contemporary phenomena, including female empowerment and freedom of expression from unauthorized voices, as well as cultural heritage, which is becoming increasingly important for its preservation, exercise of rights and quality of life.

#### **2. Cultural Heritage: Conservation Visions and Orientations**

In the Historical Center of Cuenca (Centro Histórico de Cuenca—CHC, in Spanish), the concept of regeneration of public space has been adapted as a form of "cleaning" social practices. This institutionalized process has displaced, relegated or forgotten actors, conditions, motivations and more, ultimately, cultural patrimony itself [33]. For Navas and Torres [34], it has been a strategy to strengthen the image of the heritage city as a distinctive brand and to adapt the urban policy to real estate and tourism demand. Therefore, local policies regarding public space use and occupation have been designed to promote tourists rather than citizens. Furthermore, despite institutional attempts to eradicate them, citizens' social use of cultural heritage has survived as a historical legacy, thus reaffirming their right to the city through the process of appropriation [34].

As part of its urban-architectural rehabilitation program framed in plans and projects initially situated around the Tomebamba River [35], the municipal administration created the El Barranco Foundation in 2004 to provide technical assistance in the recovery of public space [36]. As one of the most prominent advocates for traffic calming, this entity is recognized as an obstacle to securing higher commercial and residential rents for historic properties [2]. Several interventions to recover public space have been made since 2008. The most iconic are the modernized squares Cívica, Hermano Miguel, del Rollo, de las Secretas, La Mercedes, San Francisco and del Otorongo (Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** Location of public space according to the type of intervention in the Historical Center of Cuenca. Own elaboration (2022).

In these cases, the hygienist orientation eliminated the old uses and the displacement of its users, which weakened the social memory and the possibilities of coexistence [31]. Conversely, more conservative interventions have been shown to increase them (Figure 1), such as those in Plaza de San Sebastián, Plaza de San Blas and even Parque Calderón. The Plaza de las Flores, adjacent to the Monastery of El Carmen de la Asunción, is a perfect example of this dichotomy. A series of interventions were conducted between the modernized and conservative sectors due to the widespread rejection of the former and the need to renovate the latter.

On the other hand, Eljuri [18] argues that female occupations in CHC squares are strongly associated with craftsmanship from the perspective of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). In these markets, an asymmetrical male-production and female-commercialization relationship turned many market squares into essentially feminine spaces; however, female workers have been doubly excluded from the hegemonic narratives. Despite these conditions, contemporary urban design and intervention have been limited to reproducing historical strategies, excluding the protagonists and eradicating their features. San Francisco Square, for instance, has been the subject of repeated rehabilitation initiatives since 2006, but these projects have been dismissed by not considering the links between actors and uses. Only in 2017 did the intervention become concrete. The lack of vision regarding intangible heritage values and social use was apparently resolved. However, in practice, historical users are excluded [18], and gender approaches are absent (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** The case of the Plaza de San Francisco. (**a**) Case study location in the Historic Center of Cuenca. (**b**) Cuenca, San Francisco (Cod. 14096). Fondo Nacional de Fotografía (1920–1930); (**c**) Cuenca, San Francisco (Cod. 14097). Fondo Nacional de Fotografía (1920–1926); (**d**) San Francisco prior to urban-architectural interventions. CPM Project, University of Cuenca (2015); (**e**) San Francisco after urban-architectural interventions (2021). Own elaboration (2022).

Although there has been a permanent interest in recovering public heritage spaces, citizen participation dynamics are rarely incorporated. Alternatively, the regulations and instruments are built and applied within the public administration structure. In this way, disruptive, emergent, spontaneous or unplanned manifestations are presented as an attack on the space's quality and the occupants' well-being. Even though social relevance is recognized in the occupation and transformation of space, little is known about the limitations (or possibilities) that certain historical, social and political factors may represent [31].

While physical interventions bring indisputable improvements and UNESCO World Heritage status such as that of CHC can be an important stimulus to urban economies [37], they are insufficient to provide livelihoods for all residents or, at least, not for the majority [38], which often exacerbates spatial injustices. Thus, even though the intervention might affect economic dynamics, there are symbolic implications, perhaps even greater than and appropriate for the immaterial dimension of cultural heritage, and by doing so, the "improvements" end up reproducing colonialism [2].

In the end, the recovery of heritage public space has been a function of power groups, including the public administration, being able to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate uses [37,39]. Within the framework of the latter, the present study aims to demonstrate the forcefulness with which their presence resignifies the heritage asset.
