Ehsan Masoud, Alireza Einifar,
Volume 31, Issue 1 (1-2021)
Abstract
Changing and repurposing existing buildings for their continued use was quite common in the past and buildings deemed to be structurally safe were adapted to meet new functions and needs. In modern conservation theory, Adaptive Reuse is an important means of preserving cultural heritage. The main questions asked is what are the priorities and shortcomings of adaptive reuse theoretical references within interior architecture based on comparative study with Nara Document parameters? The research method in this study is of a qualitative, with logical argument as a strategy. The priorities were studied and then the most important weaknesses and drawbacks of these approaches to Adaptive Reuse were analyzed in a comparative study with the Nara Grid by 32 semi-structured interviews with experts in the fields of Architecture, Interior architecture and conservation. The results show four main Adaptive Reuse priorities extracted from the reviewed literature: Host Space Function, Programmatic Approach to New Use, Technical Requirements and Design-oriented strategies and solutions. These theoretical priorities do not negate each other; in fact, they are rather complementary. However, if one of them gains more importance in the process it can lead to many losses. Of their most important disadvantages, the following are worth mentioning: A physical outlook and a lack of attention to intangible and soft values, a lack of attention to the meaning and characteristics of functions of the building in the past, ignoring the human presence and its needs, ignoring architectural details and interior architecture, lack of interdisciplinary research, and lack of adequate strategies in line with building values. It seems like the issues mentioned above could be avoided and redeemed through an emphasis in conservation policy on fixed feature spaces, semi-fixed feature spaces, and informal spaces in interior spaces, as well as considering human needs and social sciences in the redesign process, and following each priority and approach in the redesign process accordingly.
Masoud Shafiei-Dastjerdi, Azadeh Lak, Ali Ghaffari,
Volume 33, Issue 2 (4-2023)
Abstract
One of the main goals of the resilient discourse in the recent urban design literature has been creating resilient places. Urban resilience is defined by the URFs (urban resilience features) for operation and realization in various fields. Due to continuous urban developments, there is a need to revise URFs with a place-based approach. URFs addressed in literature are so diverse that placing them into one single general list creates many contradictions and ambiguities. To reduce or eliminate inconsistencies in the definition of URFs and the qualitative performance of each URF in delivering urban resilience, this paper justifies the key factors for ordering and classifying URFs. In this study, a systematic review of the literature on urban resilience was performed in five stages using the Scopus databases within the 1973-February 2020 period. Then, 16 URFs, using three guidelines based on the corresponding evaluation of place and resilience, were identified and classified into three groups: (1) the intrinsic (internal) characteristics of the constituent components of a resilient system, (2) the behavioral proxies (proactive/reactive) of a resilient system and (3) the resilience-reinforcing attributes of a system in relation to the external environment. This study can shed light on the proper definition of urban resilience and its operational URFs.
