Much of the building stock subjected to the upcoming European Renovation Wave is neither listed as heritage nor considered valuable architecture. This also applies to Dutch housing built between 1965 and 1985, more than 30% of the Dutch housing stock, for which there is no consensus on their cultural significance. Their successful renovation process requires broad support. What attributes do citizens consider significant in their neighbourhood? How do we include a multitude of stakeholders? And can digital methods help collect and process responses? This article reveals significant attributes of residential neighbourhoods from 1965 to 1985, assessed by various stakeholders with a digital tool based on case studies in Amsterdam and Almere. A mobile application allowed individuals to identify significant attributes at various scales while visiting the neighbourhood. By qualitative data analysis of survey and interview results, groups of tangible and intangible attributes were deduced. Results show that identifying attributes by current stakeholders broadens existing expert-led assessments on 1965–1985 neighbourhoods by including, for example, generic attributes not originally intended by the designers. Asking open-ended questions is considered essential to identify undiscovered attributes by alternative stakeholders, although dealing with large numbers of responses is recognised as a challenge to cluster and classify. Lastly, the mobile application appears to be a useful digital tool, but integrating scientific consistency and usability is recommended for further development. Engaging multiple stakeholders with such mobile applications allows for collecting opinions, anticipating conflicts, or shared interests between stakeholders and integration into renovation designs. It can empower citizens to preserve the neighbourhood attributes that are most significant to them.@en

Purpose
Interventions are essential for the management of built heritage because they extend the lifespan of buildings and enable them to be enjoyed by multiple generations. International organisations and institutions, such as UNESCO and ICOMOS, have adopted doctrinal documents over time, stimulating best practices in built heritage management worldwide. Although these documents are often referenced in academic work, they are seldom systematically researched. Which interventions are referenced or omitted? Are they defined? What trends are noted in the understanding of best practices as interventions?

Design/methodology/approach
This research consists of a systematic content analysis of nine international doctrinal documents, which were selected from nearly seventy international doctrinal documents—mainly adopted by UNESCO and ICOMOS. The main aim is to reveal and compare the concepts used for reference interventions and further use the definitions to reveal and discuss the relationships between them. The trends of these interventions being used were determined based on the frequency of mentions per intervention term in the selected documents.

Findings
Regarding the definition of the intervention concepts, there are three main findings. First, instead of being treated as a single concept, ‘conservation’ has been presented as an umbrella concept for other interventions and thus has been the most popular concept since the first version (1992) of the New Zealand Charter was implemented. In contrast, ‘preservation’ remains a single concept, among the highest scales, to maintain the integrity of built heritage, including use. Second, ‘repair’ was found to play a paradoxical role between ‘restoration’ and ‘reconstruction’, which created divergent opinions in the documents. Third, since the notions of ‘use’ have expanded from the functions of monuments (International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites: The Venice Charter, 1964) to the ‘associations of places’ (The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, with associated Guidelines and Code on the Ethics of Co-existence, 1999; The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013), which include activities, traditional habits, accessibility, etc., the complexity of mentioning different forms of ‘use’ has led to some (re)interventions, such as ‘adaptation’, ‘adaptive reuse’, and ‘rehabilitation’, being put into grey areas and used interchangeably.

Originality
This research advances the current understanding of intervention concepts and their relationships, as well as differences and similarities in definitions.@en

Marking the anniversary of the redevelopment of the Van Nelle Factory in Rotterdam, the related project archive was formally transferred to the Rotterdam City Archive in order to enable proper archival conservation and public accessibility of this essential documentation. This article sheds light on the documentation and redevelopment process of a modern World Heritage (WH) site and on the role of archives as an example for other protected heritage projects or sites.@en

A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for governing, managing, maintaining and eventual changes of the Aula Building at the Delft University of Technology, aimed at optimizing the balance between the value as a listed national monument and the value for daily use of the building.
The CMP provides advice to all parties concerned, based on studies of the building concerning the Cultural Building History; Use and Safety; Concrete Structures and Surfaces; Energy and services; and Public (Outdoor) Spaces.
The CMP however is not a plan for renovation, restauration or modernization of the Aula Building. The advice provides considerations and principles to be used when a plan for the building is developed.
@en

Purpose: Even if there is a wealth of research highlighting the key role of values and cultural significance for heritage management and, defining specific interventions on built heritage, seldom the relation to their leading values and values hierarchy have been researched. How do values and interventions relate? What values trigger most and least interventions on heritage? How do these values relate and characterize interventions? And what are the values hierarchy that make the interventions on built heritage differ? Design/methodology/approach: This paper conducts a systematic content analysis of 69 international doctrinal documents – mainly adopted by Council of Europe, UNESCO, and ICOMOS, during 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the intervention concepts and their definitions, in relation to values. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and values is determined based on the frequency of mentioned values per intervention. Findings: There were three key findings. First, historic, social, and aesthetical values were the most referenced values in international doctrinal documents. Second, while intervention concepts revealed similar definitions and shared common leading values, their secondary values and values hierarchy, e.g. aesthetical or social values, are the ones influencing the variation on their definitions. Third, certain values show contradictory roles in the same intervention concepts from different documents, e.g. political and age values. Originality/value: This paper explores a novel comparison between different interventions concepts and definitions, and the role of values. The results can contribute to support further research and practice on clarifying the identified differences.

@en

Although attention for citizen involvement in urban development and heritage management processes is growing, both in practice and in research, the specifics of stakeholders’ interests have been less researched. This paper reveals and discusses the assessment by individuals and groups, to differentiate stakeholders, based on the heritage significance they convey on neighbourhood attributes. Fifty-nine interviews on a Dutch neighbourhood in Amsterdam Zuidoost were analysed integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. Results confirm important differences between and within stakeholder groups regarding their interest in particular attribute categories and scales, indicating the need to further specify stakeholders beyond the commonly used ‘community’ and ‘experts’. The identification of stakeholder interests is important to involve relevant groups in the identification and designation of significant attributes, buildings, and areas and to anticipate potential conflicts or shared interests in neighbourhood renovation processes.@en

In the last century, the concept of what can be heritage has expanded in definition, opening to everyday architecture and living environments. More recently, the group of stakeholders to be involved in heritage assessment and management has slowly grown, with authorities acknowledging that heritage significance lies in the representation and identification for people and that people could help define it. Studying the significance of everyday residential neighbourhoods and the inclusion of individual responses creates a demand for new methods. Although in heritage studies these methods remain undefined, studies on housing preferences offer starting points for new approaches. This paper presents a significance assessment of an everyday living environment by its residents, from a new heritage perspective. By analysing individual responses, this research discusses more inclusive methods of assessing significance. A neighbourhood in the Dutch town Almere, is used as a case study. Based on a survey in diary format, residents’ appreciation of their living environment is analysed using values-attributes and means-end theory. Results show that assessments of individual residents consist of chains of tangible and intangible attributes. The paper proposes a new analytical model, the ‘Web of Attributes’, which visualizes residents’ responses and reveals the diversity and relations between the attributes best appreciated in a specific living environment. The Web of Attributes can serve as visual reporting in statements of significance, for listed and non-listed neighbourhoods. By combining theories from housing preferences and heritage significance assessment, this novel research explores narrow the gap between the assessments of heritage and everyday neighbourhoods.

@en

Purpose: Attributes conveying cultural significance play a key role in heritage management, as well as in differentiating interventions in built heritage. However, seldom the relation between interventions and attributes, either tangible or intangible, has been researched systematically. How do both tangible and intangible attributes and interventions relate? What attributes make interventions on built heritage differ? Design/methodology/approach: This paper conducts a systematic content analysis of forty-one international doctrinal documents—mainly adopted by the Council of Europe, UNESCO and ICOMOS, between 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the selected eight intervention concepts, namely—restoration (C1), preservation (C2), conservation (C3), adaptation (C4), rehabilitation (C5), relocation (C6), reconstruction (C7) and renewal (C8)—and their definitions, in relation to attributes, both tangible and intangible. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and attributes is determined based on the frequency of the mentioned attributes per intervention. Findings: There were three key findings. First, although the attention to intangible attributes has increased in the last decades, the relationship between interventions and tangible attributes remains stronger. The highest frequency of referencing the tangible attributes was identified in “relocation” and “preservation,” while the lowest was in “rehabilitation.” Second, certain attributes play contradictory roles, e.g. “material,” “use” and “process,” which creates inconsistent definitions between documents. Third, as attributes often include one another in building layers, they trigger the intervention concepts in hierarchical patterns. Originality/value: This paper explores and discusses the results of a novel comparative analysis between different intervention concepts and definitions, with a particular focus on the attributes. The results can support further research and practice, clarifying the identified differences and similarities.

@en

Dutch residential neighbourhoods built after 1965 (Post 65) are characterised by a varied range of housing and living environments. As a reaction to the post-war Reconstruction period, architects and urban designers focussed on quality of life and identification with the living environment. Midrise housing was the compromise between high-rise and low-rise, combining quality and efficiency. Today, Post 65 residential neighbourhoods are not recognised as valuable architecture or cultural heritage. Although academic interest in Post 65 architecture is increasing, attributes of midrise typologies are understudied. Research is necessary to document and assess them, to inform stakeholders and contribute to decision making in renovation processes. The central question in this paper is: What are the urban and architectural attributes (tangible and intangible) of Dutch midrise residential neighbourhoods built after 1965? The paper discusses a comparative analysis of five residential midrise examples, focussing on building typology and visual language. The research applied mixed methods and integrates fieldwork, archival and literature research and uses 2D-matrices, juxtaposing urban and architectural attributes. Results show a variety in terms of typology and use of visual language. Two spatial organisational concepts are identified. A 'snake' shapes the urban space, and creates a front. It refers to a formal urban model in which the urban form is the starting point and the development of the building block a means to that end. A 'mesh' arranges housing units and urban space in a sprawling structure, in which a human scale living environment is the starting point. Regarding visual language, the projects show referencing to various architectural movements. This pluralism applies to the 'collection' of Post 65 midrise complexes but also to single neighbourhoods. The urban and architectural attributes are diverse, with diversity as the common denominator. Following Jencks' definitions, the Post 65 midrise neighbourhoods can therefore be regarded as Post-Modern.

@en

Dutch New Towns are in-between old and new. They are not yet recognized as cultural heritage. At the same time, they are passing through major transformations. Research is therefore necessary to document and assess them, to inform stakeholders and prevent later regrets for disregarding this Groeikernen legacy. This paper presents a comparative analysis of five low-rise suburban neighbourhoods in Dutch New Towns. The central question in this research is: what are the urban and architectural attributes (tangible and intangible) of the residential architecture in Groeikernen? The applied methods were fieldwork, archival, and literature research. The paper presents two extreme positions in design concepts and societal aims that have dominated the Groeikernen residential architecture. On the one hand, the humanist approach advocating an organic architecture focused on the human scale, diversity, and inclusivity. This architecture was a countermovement to Modernism, producing mass housing in disguise. On the other end, a neo-rationalist reintroduction of the Modernist tradition by a pragmatic and formal architecture manifests mass housing unambiguously. This paper discusses the influence of these two positions on the architectural discourse, by illustrating their specific impact on the documented neighbourhoods. Many designs of housing typologies adopt characteristics of these extremes, playing on both sides. This leads to a rich collection of typologies, combining humanist and neo-rationalist characteristics. The exploration of tangible and intangible attributes of the Groeikernen legacy in this paper aims to enable a future discussion about its values, which is needed for the development of informed heritage policies, conservation, and transformation.

@en

The Section for Heritage and Architecture of the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment at the Delft University of Technology specializes in architectural education for adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, with a specific focus on the built heritage of the 20th century. Our approach combines architectural design and technological knowledge with an approach that places values as central informants. Here we present our approach, explore the past and project a future evolution of our educational methodology. Finally, we reflect on the lasting relevance of the tangible and intangible heritage of the recent past as aim and source of our educational practice.@en

Increasing the energy efficiency of the housing stock has been one of the largest challenges of the built environment in the Netherlands in recent decades. Parallel with the energy transition there is an ongoing revaluation of the architectural quality of pre-war residential buildings. In the past, urban renewal was traditionally based on demolition and replacement with new buildings. This has changed to the improvement of old buildings through renovation. Housing corporations developed an approach for the deep renovation of their housing stock in the period 1995–2015. The motivation to renovate buildings varied, but the joint pattern that emerged was quality improvement of housing in cities, focusing particularly on energy efficiency, according to project data files from the NRP institute (Platform voor Transformatie en Renovatie). However, since 2015 the data from the federation of Amsterdam-based housing associations AFWC (Amsterdamse Federatie Woningcorporaties) has shown the transformation of pre-war walk-up apartment buildings has stagnated. The sales of units are slowing down, except in pre-war neighbourhoods. Housing associations have sold their affordable housing stock of pre-war property in Amsterdam inside the city’s ring road. The sales revenue was used to build new affordable housing far beyond the ring road. This study highlights the profound influence of increasing requirements established by the European Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD) and the revised Housing Act of 1 July 2015, for the renovation of the pre-war housing stock. The transformation process to climate-neutral neighbourhoods inside the ring road is slowing down because of new property owners, making a collective heat network difficult to realize; furthermore, segregation of residents is appearing in Amsterdam.@en

Increasing energy efficiency of the housing stock is one of the largest challenges in the built environment today. In line with the international Paris-Climate-Change-Conference 2015, Dutch municipalities and housing associations have embraced the ambition to achieve carbon neutrality for their social housing stock by 2050. However, most deep renovation designs for increasing the energy efficiency of dwellings focus on the relatively easy portion of the housing stock: postwar row housing. Furthermore, such design solutions are mostly produced without much care for architectural quality and cultural heritage, nor for testing for consumer preferences. Yet, such aspects are of major importance in tenement housing, particularly regarding the architectural quality of the huge numbers of walk-up apartment buildings from the inter- and postwar periods owned by housing associations in the larger cities. Renovation of buildings of this typology is more complex because of, among others, technical, social, and heritage factors. To support decisions in this complex context, a General Transformation Framework and a Roadmap has been developed for generating design solutions for deep renovation of representative parts of postwar walk-up apartment buildings with the aim to increase energy efficiency; retain its architectural legibility and cultural heritage value; and allow for the presentation of (end) users, with various options for adaptation to assess their preferences.@en

Anne Lacaton has been a visiting professor at the TU Delft Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment during the Fall Semester 2016-2017, hosted by the Chair of Heritage & Design. In the professional field of Heritage & Design the starting point for design is not just a functional brief and a blank sheet of paper but the challenge of an existing spatial setting and cultural-historical context. It is a dynamic and innovative field in architecture that deals with the architectural re-interpretation, adaptive reuse and restoration of historic buildings. This book reports on her workshops and studios during her time at TU Delft. It presents re-use projects at different scales, in different situations and with different programs. These projects generated reflection along with pertinent and inventive ideas that made it possible to overturn the situations in a positive manner, to change the approach and bring forth interesting solutions, a new situational intelligence and a new intelligence towards thinking about architecture and the urban situation.In these projects, what is initially seen as obsolete and as a constraint or restriction through an opening of the mind and a change in outlook and approach, becomes an opportunity, a chance and an asset. If you look at a situation without a frame or filter and with an open spirit, a building that no longer has a purpose and is a hindrance becomes a liberty.The students adhered to this specific approach: No longer looking at something existing as imperfect, constraining, obsolete, not beautiful etc., but instead as a resource, a component, a stratum/layer and a basis for creativity.The idea of drawing value from everything existing, producing richness with less money but with the greater means and parameters offered by existing situations. Extending the story to do better and more of it. A process of regeneration, extension, adaption and re-use rather than replacement. This way of seeing, thinking, projecting is not really widespread. Making new, remove and replace, restarting from the empty remains mostly the way of doing; whereas the superposition, addition, combination, overlapping, infiltration, appear accurate, contemporary, rich, innovative. Therefore, with regard to this work of the semester and to conclude the guest invitation, I think it’s important to collect and publish these ideas and positions by students and teachers involved with the semester’s work. We hope that this booklet will leave a trace and a lasting material for reflection and discussion.@en

Aldo van Eyck's celebrated design for a new orphanage concerns two series of four pavilions in a green setting connected by an 'internal street'. Within a geometric pattern of structural cells each pavilion was specifically designed for a certain age group and gender, featuring different built-in play elements and furnishings. This masterpiece of the postwar Modern Movement is generally recognized as an epitome of the ideas of Team X and the cradle of Structuralism. The famous original pictures of the building that fueled the canonical status of the building - as did Van Eyck's inspiring and poetic writings - were carefully orchestrated to reflect his ideas rather than reality, thereby waning the difference between the 'real' original and its 'mythical' manifestation. The actual use of the building diverted fundamentally from the architect's preconceptions. Rather than giving room to individuality and freedom, the particular spaces and specificity of the built-in elements regulated the children's behaviour, and some elements were almost instantly removed. Hence, the building is characterized rather by its metamorphosis, than by its mythical original existence. Its conversion into offices since 1990 required interventions that were partly designed by Van Eyck himself. The building has recently been restored, creating a contemporary office environment at the same time. Major questions were how to value the lost elements of the original building and how to deal with Van Eyck's own alterations, also given the new use as generic office space, i.e. as an unbounded working environment, rather than a regulating domestic environment?@en