Page 8 - JCAU-6-4

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Suzhou heritage building reuse

the repurposing and alteration of the function and space It is important to note that publications such as “The
of heritage buildings. This process extends the life of these Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World
historical structures to meet contemporary needs while Heritage Properties” (ICOMOS, 2011) and “The Ename
preserving both their physical and immaterial significance Charter” (ICOMOS, 2008) have contributed to a deeper
(Abdulameer & Abbas, 2020; Fiorani et al., 2017; Yung & and broader understanding and knowledge of interpreting,
Chan, 2012). The term “regeneration” is akin to “adaptive presenting, and utilizing architectural heritage. Despite these
reuse,” but according to Orbasli & Vellinga (2020) in their advancements, the fundamental concept of architectural
recent book Architectural Regeneration, it is defined as heritage reuse can still be traced back to the Recommendation
the collective activities of reusing, adapting, and evolving of The Madrid Conference (Sixth International Congress
existing buildings, guided by the principles of environmental, of Architects, 1904), which categorized monuments into
social, and cultural sustainability. While “reuse,” as a two classes. The first class consists of “dead monuments,”
broad term, highlights awareness of ongoing changes in referring to those belonging to a past civilization or serving
the community, the more technical term “rehabilitation’ obsolete purposes, which should be preserved to prevent
is commonly employed in conservation standards and their falling into ruin. This type of monument can be called
guidelines. It describes a choice of conservation treatment the “specimen type.” The second class encompasses “living
— distinguished from “preservation” and “restoration” — monuments,” referring to those still in function and should
that makes contemporary use of historic places through be repaired to a state that can be used sustainably; this can be
repairing and, sometimes, replacing historical features called “living type” (Liu, 2012).
(Canada’s Historic Places, 2010). Corresponding to the heritage building, comprehensive
The term “reuse” holds distinctive context and protection should be applied to ensure the authenticity
connotations in the administration of architectural heritage and integrity of these structures, portraying them as
resources in China. Historically, the conventional approach “specimens” that showcase their historical, cultural,
of Chinese cultural heritage authorities was relatively scientific, and social values. However, when it comes to
cautious when dealing with designated heritage buildings. demonstrating these values, ensuring the continuation
New functions were strictly restricted, and public access of their functions, and considering the utilization of
was limited, emphasizing the protection of architectural the buildings and their surroundings, a more dynamic
structures. However, the absence of adaptive reuse could approach is required, treating the heritage buildings as
lead to the rapid deterioration of these historical buildings “living entities.”
in the absence of inhabitants. Moreover, proper involvement This paper argues that a successful case of heritage
of private sector entities, such as heritage planning building reuse effectively addresses the complex and
enterprises or developers, with access to alternative sources diverse value system that combines both the “specimen”
of financing and revenue for covering repairs, operation, and “living” aspects. It involves operating, intervening, and
and maintenance costs, brings new opportunities. This managing heritage buildings from various perspectives
involvement can contribute to the conservation of more related to value, culture, society, economy, and technology.
heritage buildings and provide public benefits. Furthermore, In the reuse process, the “specimen” aspect of the heritage
a growing understanding of community engagement, social building necessitates a comprehensive interpretation of its
justice, and sustainability has prompted the architectural value, emphasizing its historical and cultural significance.
heritage field and the government to reassess architectural Conversely, the reuse of the building as a “living” entity
conservation practices. relies on operational management and technological
One notable document reflecting this change is the considerations. Essentially, the process of reusing heritage
issuance of the Opinions on Strengthening Historical and buildings entails transforming the characteristics of both
Cultural Protection and Inheritance in Urban and Rural the “specimen” and the “living” elements into a harmonious
Construction by the State Council of China in September operation. Identifying the priorities to address during this
2021. This document underscores the importance of process is crucial for the successful reuse of heritage buildings.
“promoting the use of heritage buildings to enhance
preservation efforts, encouraging increased accessibility 1.2. Literature Review
to cultural relics, and facilitating the perpetual inheritance In recent years, China has been actively exploring ways
of historical and cultural heritage through effective to protect and utilize architectural heritage resources.
utilization.” In this context, “reuse” emphasizes the delicate Heritage buildings refer to officially designated historic
balance between preserving these structures effectively buildings that fall under China’s heritage protection
and deriving benefits from their utilization. system at the national, provincial, municipal, and county

Volume 6 Issue 4 (2024) 2 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.2158