Welcome to this week’s briefing.
This week’s topic is heritage. More specifically, it is about what happens when conservation stops being treated solely as a matter of material repair.
Across recent research and institutional work in Asia, a pattern is emerging. Heritage is increasingly being seen as something that must remain usable, legible, and socially anchored under changing conditions, rather than merely technically preserved after deterioration.
The bottom line
Conservation practice is widening. Building heritage now reaches beyond walls, roofs, and finishes to include living knowledge, community use, adaptive reuse, impact assessment, and emergency planning.
For architects, this requires a shift in focus. A heritage project is no longer solely about restoring a building with precision. It also involves ensuring that the site continues to function effectively, maintaining people's connection to it, and proactively addressing future stresses to mitigate potential damage.
The mechanism
A broader conservation toolbox is taking shape.
Research and training now emphasise four key aspects beyond technical repair: recognising living practices associated with the site, assessing project impacts before intervention, repurposing buildings to maintain their activity, and preparing heritage sites for potential disruption rather than solely reacting post-damage. In this context, technical conservation becomes part of a broader effort to ensure continuity.
That's why the current discussion seems more operational. It is no longer just about retaining the material but also about maintaining necessary functions, ensuring knowledge remains accessible, and anticipating risks from the outset.
Market signals
NUS: conservation is being framed through living knowledge
A recent NUS research seminar on “Towards Resilient Heritage” suggests that resilience in conservation develops through the connection between tangible heritage and intangible knowledge. The key message is clear: maintaining consistent practices is now as important as preserving the physical materials in conservation discussions.
HKU: living heritage is being linked to emergency response
HKU’s April 2026 seminar on living heritage and emergency response links conservation to crisis situations, stakeholder involvement, community awareness, and technology. Heritage is discussed here as something that needs preparedness, not just restoration.
ICCROM: Impact assessment is being taught as a practical planning tool
ICCROM’s Southeast Asia workshop on heritage impact assessment emphasised mitigation measures and monitoring systems, placing assessment earlier in the project process before design decisions become irreversible and cause damage.
UNESCO: the projects being rewarded signals deeper approaches to heritage conservation
UNESCO’s 2025 Asia-Pacific Awards jury highlighted a stronger focus on community engagement, sustainability, and context-sensitive conservation across the region. The Iwami Ginzan Library project in Japan is notable, transforming a former merchant residence into a community-focused library and educational space through long-term local collaboration.
China research: living heritage is being turned into a framework for reuse
A January 2026 study on cave dwellings in China introduces a “Yao Dong Solution” that connects adaptive reuse, community resilience, and local economic development. Instead of viewing conservation as only structural, the study emphasizes stewardship, transmission, and ongoing occupation.
Intelligence brief
How can architects use this to improve their conservation practice? A deeper dive into heritage conservation starts with skimming the surface for valuable signals.
Begin by defining significance in terms of use (not only structure) before planning interventions. ICCROM’s people-centered guidance and People-Nature-Culture training both emphasize that heritage places hold multiple values for different groups. Who opens the space each day? Which rooms serve ritual, social, or educational purposes? Observe existing movement patterns, gatherings, maintenance routines, and informal care activities that keep the space lively. This initial step is crucial because it broadens the definition of what is meaningful. For example, a side room might seem unremarkable but might be vital to daily activities. Similarly, a circulation route could be more significant than decorative elements. Failing to recognize these relationships early can lead to preserving only the structure while unintentionally harming other forms of heritage.
Conduct an impact assessment before finalizing the strategy. This goes beyond verifying that a new element is suitable. It requires evaluating whether a design change compromises access, disrupts established uses, isolates local stakeholders, or complicates emergency responses. Even a technically sound new stair, plant room, or service route can undermine the social functions that give the space its meaning if not done with care. ICCROM’s Southeast Asia workshop approach teaches us to identify potential harms early, establish mitigation measures before approval, and determine what to monitor after the project is completed.
Approach adaptive reuse as a form of continuity in design. The most successful reuse projects do more than simply place a new function within an old structure; they select uses that enhance public meaning and foster local stewardship. The Iwami Ginzan Library is a good example, as its new purpose supports education, public access, and local development. This challenges the idea that reuse is only about occupancy. The key question isn't only whether something fits, but whether it helps the place stay relevant, visited, and cared for.
Integrate emergency planning into the design process from the outset. Consider which areas must remain accessible during disruptions, which objects, records, or functions require immediate protection, and who has the local knowledge, keys, authority, or responsibility for response. If these questions are addressed only after the project is completed, the conservation plan may face problems later. Based on signals from HKU and ICCROM, a better approach is to first identify vulnerable spaces and critical functions, coordinate with local stakeholders early, and let considerations of access, storage, escape routes, and stabilization needs inform the project while it remains adaptable.
One lesson runs through all of this. Heritage work becomes more useful when architects stop treating conservation as the correction of old fabric alone and instead treat it as a form of continuity under pressure. The better examples already point the way.
In a world that changes faster than ever, taking time to preserve what’s already there has never been more relevant. I’d like you to take a moment to reflect: How do you work with intangible qualities, such as cultural and social heritage? Do you have any good examples of how to approach them with care? Share your ideas!
That was all for this week! If you enjoyed it, spread the word!
See you soon!
-Johan