Professor Aylin Orbasli

Architectural Regeneration will address the different perspectives, scales and tools of architectural regeneration by means of detailed overviews of the current state of thinking and practice, with case studies from around the world used as examples to support the theoretical arguments.

The combined processes of globalisation, urbanisation, environmental change, population growth and rapid technological development have resulted in an increasingly complex, dynamic and interrelated world in which concerns about the meaning of cultural heritage and identity, the depletion of natural resources, the increasing gap between rural and urban areas, and the impacts of climate change are increasingly prominent in the global consciousness. As the need for culturally and environmentally sustainable design grows, the challenge for professionals involved in the management of inherited built environments is to respond to this rapidly evolving context in a critical, dynamic and creative way. In addition to by now well-established historic conservation practices, the active regeneration, rehabilitation or revitalisation of existing buildings has emerged in recent years as an important field of architectural practice.   

At a time when regeneration policy has shifted to the recognition that ‘heritage matters’ and that the historic environment and creative industries are a vital driver of regeneration, an increasing workload of architectural practices concerns the refurbishment, adaptive re-use or extension of existing buildings. Architectural regeneration, which we define as: the collective activities of reusing, adapting and evolving existing buildings within an urban or rural context in ways that recognise the impacts these decisions and interventions have on the regeneration of a place, and that are underpinned by the principles of environmental, social and cultural sustainability, has clearly claimed its place as a fertile and productive means to respond to the need for heritage management and sustainable built environments in a dynamic and creative way.
 
For many architectural practices working on existing buildings is a significant portion of their workload, averaging 50% across Europe, and reaching 70% in Italy (Van Clampoeel 2018). Maintaining and continuing to use already built buildings has become a component of policies focusing on meeting carbon emission reduction targets. Not only is work on existing buildings now an established component of architectural practice, it will also feature heavily in the future workload of many of today’s architecture graduates. This is why it is profoundly significant that training in the necessary skill set is a component of architectural education. So far, however, the study of architectural regeneration has lagged behind practice and our knowledge and understanding of the principles, approaches, methods and impacts of architectural regeneration remain poorly articulated.  
 
Literature on architectural regeneration remains limited and is mainly focused on the description and evaluation of process and elaboration through multiple case studies. The purpose of this book is to address this lacuna by presenting a balanced overview of what is happening at the present time, and establish a theoretical standpoint for architectural regeneration and explore its disciplinary interconnectedness and multi-disciplinary perspectives. Although the starting point of the book is the UK and Europe, it has a global reach. The chapters have been convened in a way that they can be read independently, but altogether they form a framework that defines what makes up architectural regeneration. Each chapter addresses different perspectives, scales and tools of architectural regeneration by means of detailed overviews of the current state of thinking and practice, and all are supported with case studies from around the world. The chapters focus on different scales and types of regeneration (urban, rural, suburban, temporary); discuss the economic, planning, policy and social contexts of regeneration processes; and investigate the design process and the role of the architect.

Cycles of decline and rejuvenation, and the adaptation and re-use of buildings, have been common constants of the built environment throughout the history of human settlement. The more formalised practices of building conservation and regeneration on the other hand are an outcome of movements that emerged in the nineteenth century, which were informed by theoretical standpoints that were products of the post-Enlightenment positivist, rational and romantic outlooks (Gelernter 1995). Some of these theories and standpoints continue to inform interventions in the built environment, while others have been eclipsed by alternative worldviews and environmental realities. Architectural regeneration as a notion and as a distinct discipline emerges from a number of those concurrent, symbiotic, complementary and sometimes conflicting theories. The purpose of this chapter is to position architectural regeneration into its theoretical context and to demonstrate how it continues to be informed by a range of contemporary philosophies.  
 
Worldwide, laws, policy and guidance concerning the protection and conservation of historic buildings have come to be based on a set of principles that have emerged from an international conservation movement that can be traced back to Eurocentric philosophies of the nineteenth century (Jokilehto 1999). The design of the urban realm, buildings and interiors meanwhile are regularly discussed and critiqued in the context of prevalent design theories which in the latter half of the twentieth century were deliberately separated from theories pertaining to the conservation of historic buildings. The processes of adaptive re-use, which architectural regeneration encompasses, can be seen simultaneously as part of the collective theoretical frameworks of conservation and design, and also outside of them. Although ‘architects have led the conservation world in matters of principles and philosophy’ (Muñoz Viñas 2011: 71), they have also been instrumental in de-coupling conservation from design. Architectural regeneration has emerged in this middle ground between conservation and architectural design. 
 
At the same time, the broader realm of regeneration is often positioned in the domain of policy, spatial planning and economic development. Growing environmental concerns and climate change awareness are driving innovation in multiple arenas, including urban planning and building design. The current environmental crisis has become one of the key drivers for making better use of existing resources as well as for buildings to adapt to respond to new realities (Leatherbarrow and Wesley 2018).  
 
Starting from the latter part of the twentieth century there have been an increasing number of publications on the subject of adaptive re-use. Nonetheless, a shared and accepted vocabulary and definition of what adaptive reuse is, and what it involves, remains ambiguous, with various terminologies and definitions prevailing (Plevoets and Van Cleempoel 2013: 13). The same ambiguity applies to regeneration more generally. One of the earliest books on the subject of re-use is Sherban Cantacuzino’s New Uses for Old Buildings, published in 1975. The content, as that of many others that have been published since, is prescriptive and focuses on potential new uses linked to building typologies. Many of the volumes that have followed have remained technical (Eley and Worthington 1984; Highfield 1987) and heavily depend on case studies that are used to exemplify the processes, practicalities and design potential of re-use (Austin et al. 1988; Larkham 2000; Morrison and Waterson 2019). A new perspective was introduced by Stewart Brand in his book How Buildings Learn, published in 1997, where the value of built-in flexibility is upheld as a characteristic conducive to easy adaptability and a long use-span for buildings. There remains, however, a theoretical vacuum framing the subject, which this chapter intends to redress.
 
The chapter consists of two sections. In the first section we examine the various theories within which architectural regeneration is contextualised, and the second proposes a number of key principles that inform the processes of architectural regeneration.

Heritage or conservation-led regeneration has now become an accepted and recognised approach to the conservation, economic and social development of historic areas. The benefits of reusing the existing building stock, however, can be much wider and should not be confined to strictly ‘heritage’ areas or those perceived as having a ‘historic’ character. Reuse and adaptation of existing buildings contributes to regeneration and sustainability at many levels.
 
The existing building stock includes a broad range of buildings from highly significant historic buildings where sensitive and meticulous conservation is of the essence to buildings that are arguably less important in their own right but nonetheless contribute to the character of an area. Existing buildings, whether they are of great historic significance or not, form a significant part of the real estate asset with opportunities for change and reuse. Pressures on land and increasing density in city centre locations can result in buildings being demolished and replaced every 50 years, and as often as every 20 years in places of rapid urban change. Furthermore, the ‘development’ process is often seen in the context of new build, adding pressure for demolition and replacement in inner city sites or favouring greenfield sites outside of central areas. In many cases, demolition and new build is seen as a more straightforward option for development than reusing the existing assets. Added to this are generalised misconceptions that new build is more economical than adapting an existing building, or that a more energy efficient new building would make a significant reduction on carbon emissions.  
 
The reasons for keeping, maintaining and reusing existing buildings are manifold. The benefits of reuse range from the intangible benefits of heritage to society and cultural identity to measurable economic and environmental advantages. Sustainable development concerns not only environmental targets but also economic, social and cultural ones. The fact that in many European countries well over 50% of buildings that will be around in 2050 have already been constructed and that refurbishment is overtaking new construction as the dominant sector of the industry, positions architectural regeneration as a key component of urban development (Kohler and Yang 2007; Palmer and Cooper 2013). In recent years there has been a growing body of literature, studies and reports supporting the value of historic and existing buildings in building sustainable communities. This chapter evaluates the economic, environmental and social benefits that can be derived from the imaginative and efficient reuse of the existing building stock. It also considers benefits ranging from tangible environmental benefits to less tangible benefits such as place identity, social cohesion and wellbeing. In doing so it demonstrates why architectural regeneration needs to be socially responsible and financially grounded.
 
It is not possible, feasible or desirable to conserve and reuse all existing buildings, and part of the renewal process is through new buildings. There are nonetheless lessons to be learnt for designing buildings that have the capacity and flexibility for future adaptation. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. On the one hand it sets out the positive economic, environmental and social benefits regeneration can deliver, and on the other hand it highlights how an understanding of these benefits or adverse impacts can inform the practice of architectural and area-based regeneration to deliver sustainable outcomes over long term horizons.

The absence of an adequate understanding of historic buildings and their conservation within the core curriculum of architectural or interiors education has long been noted internationally (Erder 1983; Orbaşlı and Whitbourn 2002; Santana and Settles 2014). For many years the typical design studio project took on the prospect of an empty plot and the construction of a new building. In the UK, the Royal Institute of Architects’ Plan of Work (RIBA 2013) typically follows the process of a new build, and this focus is also reflected in the Part II and Part III professional practice components of teaching. Although a conservation guide to the Plan of Work now exists (Feilden 2018), the emphasis remains on the conservation of listed buildings and monuments.  
 
There has, however, been a steady growth in Architecture Schools of students being set projects that consider existing buildings as a starting point.1 Some of these are short design assignments, others are linked into longer masters level programmes that combine design studio skills with teaching in the subject area. There are likely to be a range of reasons for a growing interest in reusing and repurposing existing buildings. Amongst them is a growing breadth of what is now valued as ‘heritage’, an increasing awareness in sustainability, a proliferation of high profile and award-winning projects that involve existing buildings and a demand from students who recognise that they are more than likely to encounter work in existing buildings in their careers as practicing architects.
 
Oxford Brookes University’s School of Architecture has been a pioneer in this respect, teaching re-use and adaptation of existing buildings to Part II architecture students as a specialisation since the 1980s under the title Built Resource Management and later Built Resource Studies. At the time, teaching the conservation of what was considered the ‘ordinary end’ of the built environment was something new. Many early student projects focused on the regeneration of former industrial buildings, at a time when authorities across Europe were beginning to recognise the value of their industrial legacy and seek solutions to afford them a viable future.  
 
Built Resource Studies, in combination with a parallel programme in International Vernacular Architecture Studies, formed the foundations of the International Architectural Regeneration and Development programme (hereafter referred to as Architectural Regeneration). Established in 2006, the programme builds on an understanding in the fields of anthropology of architecture, area-based conservation, development studies and cultural sustainability. The masters programme has been attracting graduates with degrees in architecture, planning, interior design, law, arts, cultural heritage management as well as craftsmen. It also continues to be offered as a design specialism for Part II architecture students. As the programme has evolved to become more theoretically grounded and internationally expansive, the challenges of teaching design through the existing built environment remain as relevant as ever. Over time, the influence of the programme is evident in a growing focus on existing buildings as a subject matter in design studios across all levels of the school.
 
As already discussed in this volume, architectural regeneration is more than simply considering the mechanics of adaptive re-use. In Chapter 10, Bassindale emphasises the need not only to understand the building, but also the set of values that characterise it. This process has to incorporate an understanding of ‘how the traditional buildings and morphology make up the character of the place, how they have come to be used, and how they relate to current economic, social, cultural and environmental needs’ (Orbaşlı and Vellinga 2008: 162).
 
Whilst most programmes in the field of regeneration are focused on policy and planning issues, those centred around building conservation tend to be concerned with the preservation and restoration of monuments, historic buildings and places, with either a material conservation, or a heritage management focus. The revitalisation of historic quarters and traditional settlements with their vernacular traditions often requires an approach that simultaneously recognises conservation principles, but also delivers on the regeneration objectives of economic, social and cultural sustainability (Orbaşlı and Vellinga 2008). 
 
The purpose of this chapter is to reflect on our combined experiences of teaching architectural regeneration over the past thirty years. In doing so, we will discuss how within a time-bound programme we strive to achieve a balance between the practical, theoretical and research-based aspects of architectural regeneration. We particularly consider how an appreciation of the existing built environment in all its forms can be actively integrated into the architecture curriculum; how design teaching (and learning) can incorporate an understanding and appreciation of the theories that underpin decisions and the broader and far reaching social, environmental and economic implications that design decisions can have. A number of student projects are presented as case studies throughout the chapter.

The previous chapters have considered regeneration as a long term investment in an area through securing the future of buildings and places of architectural and communal significance. This chapter expounds the temporal dimension of regeneration and specifically focuses on short term or time bound interventions, considering their longer term implications for architectural regeneration in the context of the economic and social sustainability of places.

Temporary structures have always been a fixture of urban and rural places, allowing spaces to be used for different functions, such as weekly markets or seasonal festivals. In rural areas temporary structures provide accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers, while entire towns are temporarily constructed to house pilgrims (Mehrotra and Vera 2015). In many parts of the world, temporary street vendors contribute to diversification of the retail offer and activate public spaces in the urban realm. There are also a host of other temporary activities that combine the need for an activity or use with a space that is permanently or temporarily redundant and vacant.   

These types of temporary interventions, some of which are trendily referred to as ‘pop-ups’ are emerging as a recognised component in the process of urban regeneration in the UK and across Europe (Bishop and Williams 2012; St Hill 2015). Pop-up architecture has become a regular thematic focus of design events, including the Venice Architecture Biennale since 2016. The trend is epitomised by images of re-purposed shipping containers, street food outlets and other functions that are prefixed with the word ‘pop-up’ (St Hill 2015). Often initiated by grass roots movements and/or young entrepreneurs, pop-ups generally involve the temporary use of a redundant space for a commercial, semi-commercial or charitable/community function. Temporary interventions come in multitudes of size, shape and duration and can be characterised by their function, type of space they occupy, intended purpose, instigators or duration and longevity.  
 
Temporary, locally initiated (and sourced) interventions are often viewed as a commitment to a locality. From an urbanism perspective, they highlight the dynamic nature of the built environment and its accompanying social fabric, where change and innovation are inseparably incorporated into everyday rhythms of daily life. Temporary interventions are being actively encouraged as part of urban regeneration in the spirit of co-creation, a shared activity of place making between planners and users (Fernandez 2015). Nonetheless, temporary activities, especially those with commercial purpose, can spearhead new opportunities but also represent conditions of precarity. While the flexible nature of a temporary venture can support the development of new products and services and test their viability, temporality can also be linked to the hand-to-mouth nature of the less permanent business model.  
 
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the characteristics and implications of a growing trend of temporary and short term approaches being adopted in architectural regeneration. In doing so the chapter will explore the condition of temporariness and its implications for the urban environment, evaluate the roles various actors take on in the processes of temporary urbanism, and reflect on the physical, socio-economic, political and cultural implications in the context of architectural regeneration.

Historic buildings, urban quarters and even small remnants of past layers all contribute to the character, identity and diversity of the urban environment. The value of historic quarters as one of the defining elements of a city’s identity now enjoys global recognition (Bandarin and van Oers 2012). The walkability, mixed use and low-rise high density characteristics, particularly of preindustrial quarters, are part of the attraction that see them variously re-imagined as centres for creativity, as tourism magnets and more recently as templates for sustainable living. An historic quarter or urban area can be any number of things to include tight knit town centres with medieval or earlier origins, former villages now absorbed into urban conurbations, colonial settlements and planned neighbourhoods of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and former industrial clusters and waterfronts. Most importantly, they are integral components of a greater urban whole, markers of a city’s identity and lived-in places of community networks and economic activity.  
 
The fundamental shift from monument preservation to area-based conservation practices is based on the recognition of group value, whereby the collective whole achieves a higher value than each individual component (Pickard 1996). These components including layout, buildings, open spaces, landscape elements and how they interact with one another, and their static and temporal relationships combine to define the character and townscape values of a place (Rodwell 2007). Urban conservation is more complex than monument conservation as it is a ‘political, economic and social concern’ (Orbaşlı 2000a: 17); and as conservation theory shifts towards a more values-based approach, urban conservation and regeneration practices are also expanding to recognise the role of intangible values and meanings places hold beyond the attributes of the physical fabric. Regeneration practice today recognises the collective value of settlements as holistic and integrated systems that are characterised not only by their architecture, settlement morphology and setting, but also by the complex dynamic of intangible and communal values that shape them.
 
Nonetheless, the ways in which historic urban areas are valued and exploited varies greatly. Although urban conservation and regeneration has become a recognised discipline and component of the conservation movement, the protection and management of historic urban environments remains highly contested and continuously exposed to new challenges. Rapid levels of urban growth that are now experienced in some parts of the world, implications of de-industrialisation, and in some cases urban shrinkage, all impact on how the historic environment is protected and regenerated.  
 
Urban conservation and regeneration practices are shaped by locational specificities, political agendas and drivers of regeneration, alongside any number of external factors that fall beyond the remit of local decision makers. The drivers and the outcomes of regeneration are discussed in this chapter. The first part starts with some definitions before setting the context by briefly considering the emergence of the urban conservation movement and how it has broadened its remit up to the political and economic context of the present day. The second part of the chapter examines a range of scenarios that have emerged as common narratives and experiences of urban conservation and regeneration. The chapter concludes with a review of the factors that influence successful urban conservation and regeneration practices that maintain the tangible and intangible character of an area whilst delivering social and economic benefits locally. 

The MENA region enjoys a rich urban heritage from modest rural settlements to the historic centres of bustling major cities that compliment a wealth of major Islamic monuments. As many historic settlements are threatened by the forces of globalisation, development pressures and urban growth, they are also becoming recognised as distinct tourism destinations that offer visitors not only a historic-town experience, but one with a sense of the exotic and an orientalist allure. Through an evaluation of different scenarios prevalent in urban heritage tourism in the region, this chapter examines the nature of the tourist experience and the ways in which tourism informs cultural heritage protection and impacts on local community well-being. The chapter also examines the link between urban heritage as a commodity that is marketed as a tourism product and its role in local or national identity formation. More specifically it considers the inherent conflict arising from notions of privacy embedded in the urban form of the Islamic city and the tourism-driven priorities of access, visibility and commercial opportunity.

Like much of the rich and diverse vernacular architecture of Saudi Arabia, the historic towns of the Red Sea Coast, many of them the product of various cultural influences, are in serious danger of being lost forever. Lack of maintenance, insensitive interventions and development pressures and the abandonment of entire historic districts has become a common occurrence across the wider region. Since the 1950s a new era of wealth following the exploitation of the region’s oil resources amongst other factors has led to the decline and
wholesale abandonment of most traditional settlements across the Kingdom. Meanwhile the rich and diverse cultural heritage of the region, including historic towns, is being recognised as a significant component within Saudi Arabia’s burgeoning tourism development programme. This in turn is opening up new opportunities to revitalise some historic settlements in coastal regions through linked tourism initiatives. Tourism and cultural heritage, though increasingly linked in urban conservation discourse and practice are not necessarily mutually compatible. This paper evaluates how tourism can play a role in the conservation of a unique architectural heritage and the regeneration of historic urban quarters, which have been abandoned. The aim is to acknowledge the challenges facing conservation and the development of tourism in a unique set of circumstances including significant levels of decay and abandonment, local disengagement with tangible aspects of cultural heritage and social norms that dictate tourism practices. The paper is based on research, in-depth field work and on-site observations most of the coastal and inland historic towns of the Red Sea Coast undertaken between 2002 and 2008.

This papers focuses on the fast disappearing urban heritage of the modernist neighbourhoods in the Middle Eastern. This often overlooked architectural legacy of the mid-twentieth century is significant for the role it played in the early transformation of many cities into their ‘modern’ image. Though often modest in scale these buildings collectively exemplify a critical period of modernisation and urbanisation in the region. Rarely recognized as ‘heritage’ the modernist vernacular is rapidly disappearing as it is subsumed by urban growth and renewal or adapted beyond recognition. There are, however, a number of examples where the value of this heritage and early modernist neighbourhoods is being recognized, though often in the context of new functions.

Cultural heritage, not only makes places attractive to tourism, but is a significant contributor to urban identity and place attachment for residents. Older neighbourhoods, through their walkable scale, diversity of uses and tenures support better community relationships and contribute to urban resilience. Tourism, while an important economic contributor, places pressure not only on cultural heritage but also on urban and community infrastructure. Moreover, conditions of overtourism, threaten to disrupt established networks and engender conditions of temporality and fragmentation for the local population, thus reducing the capacity for resilience. Often emerging as small scale stressors, disruptions triggered by tourism can slowly shift conditions over thresholds that adversely impact local wellbeing and equitable access to resources. This paper argues that the tourism industry and its multiple players, cultural heritage management and urban resilience planning need to become better integrated, so as to safeguard heritage, support local communities and to improve the capacity of historic neighbourhoods to adapt to ongoing changes caused by or linked to climate change.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the position for the conservation traditional settlements in conjunction with tourism development in Saudi Arabia. The paper starts by identifying the processes of change that have lead to the gradual decay and ultimate abandonment of many historic settlements on of Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coast.  In seeking solutions for their protection, conservation and revitalisation, tourism emerges as a new vehicle that could regenerate historic urban quarters. Various options are discussed in light of the significant levels of decay and abandonment, local disengagement with tangible aspects of cultural heritage and the social norms that dictate tourism practices in the Kingdom. In conclusion options beyond tourism, and ways in which ‘life’ can be injected into historic settlements are discussed.