**3. Historical Reality: Puente Mariano Moreno, Puente de La Escalinata or Puente Vivas Nos Queremos?**

The construction of Puente Mariano Moreno began in 1930 under the direction of Sergio Ojuela, within the framework of a relevant public works program. In the same manner, as a small rural parish of Gualaceo, a city near Cuenca, this bridge took the name of Mariano

Moreno—an illustrious patriot and promoter of public works in the region [40]—who was Governor of Azuay for two occasions (1859 and 1887) [41]. Moreover, it took ten years for the construction to be completed and another ten years for the opening [42] (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** An overview of the study case. (**a**) Geographical location. Own elaboration (2022); (**b**) Tomebamba River and El Barranco (Cod. 18606). Source: Fondo Nacional de Fotografía. Museo Pumapungo (1943); (**c**) Current use of the Puente Mariano Moreno by feminist organizations; (**d**) Mariano Moreno Bridge (Cod. 17049). Source: Fondo Nacional de Fotografía. Museo Pumapungo (1943); (**e**) Current use of the Puente Mariano Moreno by feminist organizations. Source: Authors (2022).; (**f**) Stereoscopic view of the Tomebamba River (Cod. 12890). Source: Fondo Nacional de Fotografía. Serrano, M.J. (1940–1950); (**g**) Current use of Puente Mariano Moreno by feminist organizations. Source: Authors (2022). Own elaboration (2022).

The need for such infrastructure arose from the growth of the El Ejido area. The Public Works Board of Azuay (La Junta de Obras Públicas del Azuay) stimulated the construction of La Escalinata Francisco Sojos Jaramillo and the replacement of the modest Tarqui bridge [41] as a recent means of accessing the current Historical Center, Paseo Tres de Noviembre and boulevard 12 de Abril, which precedes an avenue of the same name (Figure 3). Since then, despite the predominance of vehicles, it has been mainly used by pedestrians [43] due to the section's narrowness and the area's daily dynamics. The most representative activities were the washing of clothes, the drying of hats, and agriculture, which intensified progressively and was confirmed as an effective means of communication between river banks only in 1940. Sports activities would confirm this link from the 1980s onwards with the launch of Olympic walking.

There have been many historical events associated with the bridge; it survived the Tomebamba river flood, which destroyed the Todos Santos (Puente Roto) and El Vergel [42] bridges, likely due to its quality materials and execution, as well as being part of Cuenca's First Regulatory Plan in the late 19th century. The bridge has two slightly lowered arches with two lanes framed by plinths, rectangular columns and luminaires; it was constructed of boulders, brick and lime. These materials are particularly visible on the pavement and on the top surface, where the starts and supports are also highlighted, as well as the thick parapet with an oval-shaped balustrade.

In terms of urban infrastructure, the bridge marks the transition from one zone to another and distinguishes the old city from the new one (Figure 3). The northern area is commercial and administrative; the southern area is commercial, entertainment, and residential [42]. In addition to being the natural border, El Barranco is also the Tomebamba River corridor and contains buildings that have been adapting to the topography, demonstrating particular conformity to the natural landscape [44]. The area is currently primarily commercial; touristic; and to a lesser extent, residential. As the bridge is integrated into the landscape, cultural events such as craft gatherings, festivals and fairs are generally held on civic dates.

This scenario emphasizes the importance of cultural heritage, public space and social manifestations. The area's transformation has favored it since 2004, which was accentuated by the 2013 intervention of the Parque de la Madre. However, it was only after events promoted by the local feminist movement that it regained visibility between August 2020 and March 2021. The #MeToo or La Marea Verde [45] took the site to protest violence against girls and women in cases that shocked the local society 1. On 11 September 2020, messages in support of abortion legalization were posted. However, the action provoked a heated discussion and re-establishing of its previous aesthetics. Similar situations have occurred with the participation of public forces on a permanent basis, evidencing the contrasts of local society. At the same time, spaces such as the bridge are part of the city's living heritage, where new generations can appropriate and generate meanings [46].

The National Institute of Cultural Heritage [47] maintains a heritage asset file; however, it does not provide a comprehensive interpretation of heritage values. Furthermore, the document does not define limitations regarding physical changes observed or possible since it is not an effective conservation instrument. Moreover, there is no explicit inventory or record from the local administration in this context. However, based on the year of its construction and the literal law of art, 54 of the LOC [10], it falls into the category of national heritage. In 1982, the Historic Center was declared a national heritage site, and in 1999, it was designated as one of a set of World Heritage Sites: therefore, the heritage status of this building is legally defined, because it is one of a group of buildings constructed before 1940.

Aside from the administrative and regulatory perspective, also relevant is the bridge as a social asset. In recognition of the International Day for Non-violence against Women, the bridge was symbolically renamed Puente Vivas Nos Queremos <sup>1</sup> by adding a commemorative plaque [48]. This aspect is distinct from the conventional meaning of heritage. Nonetheless, the conjuncture revives the asset's historical and symbolic value by bringing together groups and activities with subtle changes [49] that represent access, use and appropriation regardless of historical conventions such as urban nomenclature.

#### **4. New Approach: Gender Perspective and Resignification**

Cities can be understood as the union of social, economic and cultural factors specific to those who inhabit them, resulting in the construction of identity processes connected to space [50]. To understand the link between people and the world around them, one must consider their identity and three additional aspects: (1) the selfhood of the individual, (2) the group relationship, and (3) the understanding and acceptance of global changes [51]. In general, identity can represent people's idea of who they are, what the world is, and

the security it provides them. This concept changes depending on the level of control over global logic and material security [52].

To resolve the uncertainty of a reality that can be inextricable, a certain search for identity originates in which the individual chooses cultural heritage. That resource can adapt to the rational and scientific concept of the world. At the same time, it does not represent an object that would produce subordination, keeping the essence of individuality based on autonomy. Therefore, cultural heritage is presented as a bridge to unite people with the past and, at the same time, guarantee them a future [53]; therefore, heritage assets are shown as a reflection of the passage of time; they become, unconsciously, instruments that lead people to feeling that they are part of a whole (Figure 4).

**Figure 4.** Identity relationship between individuals and cultural heritage. Source: [50–53]. Own elaboration (2022).

When speaking of cultural heritage as an element of identity, the social value should be emphasized as its raison d'être since it is the people who decide to protect and preserve it [54] or, failing that, to destroy and replace it. These facts explain the importance of the social–public spaces link as representatives of identity and well-being. In addition, the cityusers' relationship generates urban and architectural impacts [55], and it is society's axis to understand its configuration, dynamics and transformation over time. To understand the socio-spatial relationship, identity development must be considered as a dynamic cultural and historical framework between the individual and the social [56].

In this sense, two determining groups stand out: (1) societies of low socio-economic complexity and (2) the individual human being. The former is characterized by relational identity and are complex systems of interpellations and recognitions [57] supported by the collectivity to feel certainty and stability towards that which they cannot control without differentiating between men and women. The latter becomes visible as work becomes more specialized; men become individualized, while women remain in the role of relational identity, which finally represents female gender identity. Unlike the security that permanence in relational identity generates, men's individualization provides evidence of changes and transformation as synonyms of productivity and development.

In this way, the identity conception has presented a clear relationship with aspects such as gender or race [58]. Female identity is a construction; however, the individualized and patriarchal context in which societies have developed has linked women to an expressive and affective role, limiting their instrumental role and, therefore, the fulfillment of various goals [59]. According to Marx, women are included in the group of oppressed people, also defined as "others"; they are part of minorities and disadvantaged collectives [60]. This derives from the telling of history from an androcentric perspective [61], which has relegated the female figure from representations with which people identify themselves at an individual as well as collective level.

In response, feminism emerges as a movement in search of real equality between sexes; it goes through several processes or waves that seek its achievement: the first from the recognition and struggle against the bureaucratic state, capitalism and the patriarchal family [62]; the second for the valuation of women as subjects at the institutional and cultural level, allowing them to participate in political, economic and social spheres [63]. The third deals with inequality between men and women and the lack of recognition of the female collective, and the fourth emphasizes the struggle of women against violence [64] escalating in recent decades [65]. The last two waves are of particular interest in terms of the processes of valuation and resignification of cultural heritage today, and in both cases, the revaluation of women is the starting point for new social construction.

However, it is also important to note that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [66] establishes measures to limit actions based on the idea of inferiority–superiority of the sexes or stereotyped roles; however, traditional cultural practices are not considered a threat or do not contribute to discrimination against women. Entities such as UNESCO have worked on issues inherent to inclusion and equity, as well as on respect for the principle of non-discrimination in human groups in terms of gender. In this sense, it is appropriate to analyze how to redefine public spaces, social spaces par excellence, from a gender perspective and concerning cultural heritage to offer conservation scenarios as social dynamics have changed [67]. Particularly, the role of women in ICH contributes significantly; access and participation of expressions are determined by gender, and this is the ideal context for the shaping and transmitting roles and identities [68,69]. In addition, equality and non-discrimination are fundamental human rights; therefore, in ICH, we should not focus on the different gender roles but on preventing them from undermining the dignity and well-being of the actors [68].

For its part, from the socio-spatial relations, contemporaneity exposes several cases of potential resignification and positive impacts from the gender approach (Table 1), such as the case of the Plaza de la Constitución in Mexico City, whose strategic location allows for solving political, financial, administrative and urban problems. From this, the linking of political and social activities evidences a change in the use patterns [70]. Thanks to the 2008 intervention, the space improved; the inclusion of urban lighting elements guarantees free mobility for people with disabilities [71], deriving great success. In addition, it is currently influenced by gender and diversity in planning urban environments, improving safety and social integration. That is, it is consolidated as a versatile node for the changing activities of the year [72].

Another example is the Plaza de la República in Maracaibo, in which the political and civic use serves as an articulating axis for cultural and commemorative meetings, to which recreational activities and artistic performances are added [73]. This coupling is typical of the contemporary city, which adapts to globalization and replaces traditional activities. To achieve this, spaces and societies go through transitions that may or may not be successful; in the Venezuelan case, spatial transformation is a reference for the various activist and social groups that gather there [65]. Likewise, and as part of the understanding of the impact of gender in the urban environment, the Joan Miró Park in Barcelona has become a landmark for the meeting of feminist groups, despite the fact that the space does not consider any of their needs, the implementation of vegetation and public lighting has generated a safe environment and, therefore, greater accessibility [74,75].

In the previous context, Lugo et al. [76] evidenced the links in light of two questions: how do women and men participate in the conservation of cultural heritage in the community, and what is the importance of cultural heritage for territorial development with gender equity? Moreover, it is defined that women should be considered as social actors to vindicate their rights and create support networks that contribute to territorial development, not only to achieve social, economic and political equality. To this end, it is important to understand that the appropriation and shaping of urban spaces arise as consequences of individual and group identity relationships with their environment [77]. However, and although this relationship is logical, the urbanism of contemporary cities

includes patriarchal orientations and privileges; there is a differentiation between men and women regarding the use of public space due to time and space restrictions [72], especially due to behavioral patterns assumed by each one, which produces gender inequalities and intersectionality [78].

**Table 1.** Analysis references Source: [71–73,75]. Own elaboration (2022).


In opposition, feminism from urbanism proposes that the design of public spaces complies with urban policies of social diversity and responds to the differentiated needs of individuals, promoting the gender dimension from a collective approach that improves the quality of life [79]. In fact, in the complexity of today's society, the conception and use of public space are immersed in a broad framework of demands, needs and aspirations, which become more complex when dealing with spaces of heritage character, such as the Puente Mariano Moreno, Puente de La Escalinata or Puente Vivas Nos Queremos.

#### **5. Materials and Methods**

This research is primarily qualitative, with a descriptive, explanatory and relational framework. Using the case study as a research technique is an effective strategy to analyze heritage assets such as Puente Mariano Moreno, Puente de La Escalinata or Puente Vivas Nos Queremos, as an iconic scenario of feminist activism in Cuenca (Ecuador), particularly between the years 2020 and 2022.

The research process designed and applied is compatible with formal scientific research and its rigor [80]; therefore, it allows for describing in breadth from historical and theoretical inputs that symbolic appropriation has occurred due to the lack of citizen meeting spaces and how the different feminist collectives affect the construction of meanings. According to Carrasco [81], it would be descriptive social research, whose objective is to expose the characteristics of the social phenomenon in a specific spatio-temporal context [82]. The first phase includes a general bibliographic analysis (object, referents and concepts), the reading of the monument through time and its heritage valuation derived from the regulations. The second phase designs, validates and applies a qualitative tool to determine the values associated with the asset according to a focus group made up of key actors from academia, public administration, feminist groups, professionals, neighbors and citizens in general (Figure 5).

**Figure 5.** Research methodological structure towards urban heritage and gender perspective. Own elaboration (2022).

#### *5.1. Phase 1*

It develops the historical bibliographic research on the object of study and its context from local and national sources, without a specific time frame, since it seeks to characterize the object from its historical, architectural and heritage dimensions according to the authorized discourse [83,84]. In addition, three sub-phases are included; the first one is associated with the analysis of the scientific production, mainly from the last 5 years, employing a systematic search associated with the descriptors Puente Mariano Moreno, Puente Vivas Nos Queremos, Puente de La Escalinata, gender and cultural heritage, urban heritage, resignification and cultural value.

The second sub-phase relates similarities in terms of social problems: (a) Plaza de la República (Venezuela), (b) Plaza de la Constitución (Mexico) and (c) Parque Joan Miró (Spain). The selection is based on the determination of the incidence of the gender approach in public spaces, the activities they host and the contribution of feminism from urbanism in order to contrast the reality of appropriation and resignification. Based on the two previous sub-phases, the third phase carries out a heritage valuation exercise according to the criteria of the national regulations, applying four criteria and their different sub-criteria (Table 2). In the end, a degree of heritage protection [85] is established.


**Table 2.** Criteria for heritage valuation in public spaces [85]. Own elaboration (2022).

The quantification of the criteria and sub-criteria fluctuates between scores of 1 and 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, according to the following: very high valuation range: 5; high: 4; medium: 3; low: 2; and very low: 1 [85]. Based on the partial scores, a sum is added to determine the degree of protection of the asset according to the following ranges: 0 to 15: no protection (i.e., the asset is not heritage property); 16 to 30: conditional protection; 31 to 45: partial protection; and 46 to 55, absolute protection. These processes make up the so-called Baremo Scale, an official protection instrument of a quantitative nature and qualitative basis.
