How should we analyse historical works of architecture, urban planning, garden design etc. An original methodology proposal for planning conservation, adaptation and promotion, as well as academic teaching

Artur Kwaśniewski

doi:10.37190/arc230110

Abstract

This paper presents an original methodology of analysing the heritage value of historical buildings, which can be useful both for structures, as well as urban, garden and landscape layouts. The methodology is based on treating analysis as a study of cause-and-effect chains: direct dependencies between a heritage site’s matter, its values and their postulated conservation. The proposed method of heritage site value analysis covers three stages of reasoning: collecting resources and determinants – their assessment based on objectivised criteria – formulating conclusions that solely communicate the necessity, feasibility and potential procedures to be applied to the monument to conserve its values and expose its features. The author presents a method that allows for accounting for all environmental aspects that are essential in planning the conservation and adaptive reuse of heritage sites and presents the suitability of the method in the academic education of future architects, urbanists and planners.

Keywords:
methodology-of-historic-architecture-research
historic-structure-reports
analysing-the-heritage-value
education-in-architecture

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2023

1(73)

Artur Kwaśniewski*

How should we analyse historical works of architecture,

urban planning, garden design, etc.

An original methodology proposal for planning conservation,

adaptation and promotion, as well as academic teaching

Introduction

The progressive loss of cultural heritage assets is a prob-

lem that may appear marginal in view of other issues such

as human interference with the environment. The rampant

exploitation of the natural environment, climate change or

ecological catastrophes attract the attention of the media,

decision-makers and public opinion to a much greater de-

gree than the decay of historical structures, settlement lay-

outs or the culture of local communities. It is nevertheless

a fact that, due to little care or because of planned develop-

ment projects, the cultural legacy of past generations, both

tangible and intangible, is either progressively destroyed

or irreversibly altered before our very eyes, thus losing its

authenticity. The conservation of heritage at the interna-

tional, state and local level merely slows down this process

and only slightly limits the scale of harmful interventions.

There can be no doubt that the substantive basis for

heritage conservation is the knowledge based on buildings

of cultural value. Conducting the study of monuments is

standard practice in the civilised world. However, quality

standards concerning the scope, precision, and methodol-

ogy of such work – which condition eective conservation

– are highly diverse. This paper discusses only a section of

this problem: the “building value analysis” stage, which is

key in the research process aimed at planning the preser-

vation, adaptive reuse and promotion of monuments. The

objective of this study is to present an original answer to

the four questions below:

– how to dene and structure an “analysis” that is per-

formed during the investigation of the material cultural

environment (especially historical buildings) in order to

plan approaches to monuments,

– how to comprehensively approach a monument as

a part of pre-design analysis without losing sight of its

overall value,

– how to visualise and verbalise the contents of said

analysis so that they can be a legible record of the inves-

tigator’s reasoning and argumentation, that is also a road-

map for architects, urban designers and planners,

– how can we use this methodology in academic teach-

ing, especially in educating future architects, urban de-

signers and planners.

The literature on methodological bases of investigating

heritage, both practical and theoretical, is extensive. It in-

cludes handbooks and instructions on procedures, as well

as discourse on the object and objectives of conservation,

the axiology of heritage, monument evaluation criteria, as

well as the eectiveness of research methods, techniques

and tools. Matters discussed in this paper have not been

dealt within research previously. It is presumably so be-

cause the comprehensiveness of pre-design analyses is

a postulate that goes beyond the standard scope of “heri-

tage investigation”, while the form of recording these anal-

yses is treated as a technical problem and not as something

that conditions the quality and usefulness of research.

The devaluation of cultural heritage occurs on a range

of scales:

– in settlement landscapes and in unsettled areas trans-

formed by humanity,

– in historical zones of cities and rural areas – develop -

ment complexes, areas of greenery, agricultural areas, etc.,

DOI: 10.37190/arc230110

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

* ORCID: 0000-0002-5094-2050. Faculty of Architecture, Wro-

cław University of Science and Technology, Poland, e-mail: artur.

kwasniewski@pwr.edu.pl

106 Artur Kwaśniewski

– within historical plots (in their development and use),

– in buildings (in their functional, spatial, compositio -

nal and semantic structures).

Each of these components co-creates the cultural envi-

ronment and its visible layer, namely the landscape, which

should be perceived as a system (from the standpoint of

systems theory), a structural whole, and not only a set of

“vistas”. In this system, disrupting a singular element de-

grades an entire structure, often irreversibly.

In the case of historical structures – works of architec-

ture, civil engineering and technical infrastructure – the

cause of destruction is not conned to illegal demolition,

construction without permits or a lack of conservation that

leads to ruination. It is also caused by legally sanctioned

renovations and adaptive reuse projects conducted with-

out due respect to historical values. During construction

work, a historical structure can lose its authenticity when:

– a building is not under legal protection,

– a building has been entered in the heritage register,

but legal regulations allow for excessively interfering

with a building’s historical substance and proper conser-

vation of historical values is not provided,

– legal regulations provide sucient protection to

a building, but conservation institutions do not rigorously

enforce them,

– legal protection has been enacted and is enforced, but

the ocial, architect and developer have an insucient

or incorrect knowledge about a building, its history and

historical values – and hence they make decisions that are

harmful to the monument,

– a developer or ocial commissions a conservation

study, but it follows obsolete standards or is performed

unreliably, which makes the knowledge about the building

either incomplete or falsied,

– the person that conducts a conservation study uses

contemporary methods, techniques and tools, but uses

an excessively vague procedure, which does not obligate

them to perform a methodical and comprehensive inves-

tigation and analyses – leading to the failure of relevant

conclusions to account for all the values that require con-

servation,

– the rules of procedure to be applied to the monument

have not been laid out in a detailed and categorical man-

ner in the investigation report, or when these guidelines

intentionally serve the client’s interests and sanction inter-

ference planned by the developer or architect.

In the author’s opinion, the last three phenomena men-

tioned above have the same source. It is a lack of detailed

and precise requirements concerning the method of con-

ducting research and preparing a report. This diagnosis is

based on the author’s personal professional experience in

the study of heritage sites and planning their conservation.

The arguments put forth in this paper are the products of

many years of research and teaching, which included the

study of research methodologies and an analysis of reports

in terms of methodology, preparing original methodolog-

ical solutions and implementing them in the investigation

of historical sites (edices, gardens, settlement layouts),

as well as postulating and teaching standards that serve

to better protect the authenticity of heritage sites [1], [2].

The author’s critical analysis of historic building inves-

tigation report preparation instructions merited the con-

clusion that even detailed guidelines, which can be found

in, e.g., the US [3], [4], Austria [5], [6], Germany [7], the

Czech Republic [8], [9], or Poland [10] have no “safe-

guards”, which can protect the entirety of the values of

a heritage site instead of only a part of them. Investigators

are not bound by an instruction’s provisions to factor in

the complete spectrum of a building’s value and to ac-

count for all of these values in “conservation guidelines”,

which leads to the scope of the building’s conservation

being discretionary. This aw can be observed in cultural

heritage investigation guidelines for larger scales: green-

ery complexes, urban/rural layouts [11]–[13].

In the author’s opinion, the crux of the problem is the

absence of directives that can ensure (mandate) close cor-

relation between queries and eld studies, the evaluation

of specic assets, and approach to these assets postulated

by the investigator. This concerns provisions that could

impose the following three obligations on the investigator:

– to obtain and interpret the content of all essential

sources and reports, as well as documenting the status of

the entire building and its site, and not only their selected

components,

– to account for all essential values of a heritage site in

analysis conclusions,

– to formulate the conclusions as a list of rules of pro-

cedure for the heritage site (conserving and exposing its

features), and not as a list of design ideas.

The postulates presented below refer to the methodol-

ogy of analysis in investigating any form of the cultural

“built environment” with an emphasis on the scale of the

structure, as the author believes that historico-architectural

investigations are the most useful in diagnosing and illus-

trating the methodological phenomena under discussion.

The meaning of the term “analysis”

In an etymological sense, the term “analysis” (from

Old Greek ἀνάλυσις “to take apart”) is a process of iden-

tifying the characteristics of a phenomenon or notion, or

the elements of an object or substance [14]. The objective

of an analysis is to better understand the course of a pro-

cess or the composition of a structure. Almost all elds of

science use this term, treating “analysis” either as a eld

of knowledge or a research method or technique. This has

produced a multitude of specialist denitions which dras-

tically dier from one another. In plain terms, “analysis”

is referred to all forms of reasoning used to determine

something. It is also used colloquially by scholars who

write about “causal analysis”, which is not always “taking

something apart”, although it always serves to better un-

derstand phenomena or processes.

In some sections of the humanities, such as philosophy

and linguistics, analysis is a method of determining mean-

ing. This is how scholars of the cultural environment: arts

historians, architecture historians and ethnologists, un-

derstand analysis. They use analysis not only to identify

an object’s features (forms and content) but also its value

(scholarly, artistic, historical, aesthetic, emotional, etc.),

How should we analyse historical works of architecture, urban planning, garden design, etc. 107

which derive from meanings that humans ascribed and

continue to ascribe to various elements of the environ-

ment. A disassembly of a heritage site’s values into its

constituent parts and staging the valorisation process can

be found in “monumentological evaluation analyses” used

by Polish arts historians based on theses by Walter Frodl

[15]. This method was constructed as a process of reason-

ing which includes “identifying a monument’s values”,

“determining the rank of the vehicles of these values” and

a “value classication”. It should also be noted that the

term “analysis” is used in two scopes: in a “narrower” (de-

tailed scope) and “broader” (general) scope. Examples in-

clude “artwork analysis” as a research method, which cov-

ers detailed formal, semantic and contextual analyses [16].

“Heritage site analysis”

as the basis for rational design solutions

In the case of investigating the cultural environment

from the standpoint of the need to protect and shape it,

it is justied to expand the notion of “analysis” for it to

cover not only the value identication stage, but the en-

tire interpretation of a heritage site: its reading (under-

standing), evaluation and the formulation of conclusions.

“Causal analysis” can be seen as a benecial hint here.

In acknowledgement of the universal features of this for-

mula, the author postulates for “analysis” in heritage site

investigation to be dened as a process of reasoning based

on the following implications: “resources ⇒ valorisation

⇒ conclusions” [1]. This process covers three stages (see:

Fig. 1, Table 1):

1. Identifying assets/resources (isolating structures and

elements that form the structure, complex or site).

2. Assessing each asset/resource (especially identifying

heritage value by conducting detailed analysis).

3. Formulating conclusions (indicating precepts of pro-

ceeding with the heritage site and its values and the objec-

tive of these procedures) based on the assessment.

These measures can be found in almost all cultural her-

itage investigation methodologies. However, in historical

structure reports, evaluations and conclusions are typically

treated separately, written in dierent sections or subsec-

tions [3], [6], [17]. This breaking up of the content hinders

the ability to detect direct dependencies between a heri-

tage site’s substance, its values, and the postulated conser-

vation of these values and articulating these causal links

in the report. Applicable report standards do not make it

clear to the investigator that an entire heritage site and

each of its components need to be evaluated, that every

evaluation implicates conclusions, and every conclusion

must be accounted for in planning a heritage site’s future.

The necessity to expose causalities in studies of the

cultural environment was noted by Janusz Bogdanow ski,

one of the founders of the so-called Krakow landscape

architecture school [18]. His “method of architectural-

landscape units and architectural-landscape interiors”, pub-

lished in 1976, assumes that successive investigation stages

– asset identication within a given area, the

valorisation of

Fig. 1. Analysis as an investigation of direct dependencies between a heritage site’s matter, its values, and the postulated conservation of these values

(elaborated by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 1. Analiza jako badanie bezpośrednich zależności między materią zabytku, jego wartościami i postulowaną ochroną tych wartości

(oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

Asset/resource Valorisation Conclusions

(7) Phase VII (prior to 1595 or after 1601): thorough remodelling of the palace in the lower castle area

(7.1) Spatial layout

(double-wing,

single-bay,

with elements of

a hall-based layout)

– Plan with a high heritage value, valuable on

the regional scale (compared to 16

-century residential

architecture in Silesia) due to atypical solutions

(e.g. elaborate apartment layout, use of an antechamber

between the hallway and the great hall) […]

– It is necessary to account for original spatial divisions

and the original size of rooms in the reconstruction

and adaptive reuse design.

– Due to late-modern-period and contemporary damage

to the palace’s interiors (from phases XI and XII),

it is recommended to restore the plan from phase VII […]

(7.5) Privy shaft

in the southern wall

– A valuable element of historical technical

infrastructure, one of the few such solutions

in residential architecture in Silesia

from before the mid-17

century […]

– It is necessary to preserve all historical structural elements.

– It is recommended to expose the lower portions of the shaft

and the opening for flushing the cistern and reconstructing

missing elements […]

Table 1. Postulated “three-stage” analysis of heritage values for a heritage site in table form, on the example of a castle Nimmersatt-Niesytno

in village Płonina (Poland, Silesia) – analysis fragment from a report from 2015 (elaborated by A. Kwaśniewski)

Tabela 1. Postulowana trójetapowa analiza wartości zabytkowych dla budowli historycznej w zapisie tabelarycznym

na przykładzie zamku Niesytno w Płoninie (Polska, region śląski) – fragment analizy z raportu z 2015 r. (oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

108 Artur Kwaśniewski

these assets and preparing “guidelines” – must be presented

in a single table, in separate columns. In this form, the con-

tent of the rows is not only a collection of information about

individual assets, but also an image of a reasoning process.

In the author’s view, the essential assumptions of Bog-

danowski’s method remain up to date, but its detailed

solutions are unacceptable. Treating “guidelines” as arbi-

trary design decisions is a crucial fault here. Bogdanowski

did not provide rules on how to proceed (conserve and

shape), instead he delivered pre-made solutions – as if he

had assumed that every investigator that would use his

methods was also a competent designer [11]. In the case

of “valorisation”, the problem is that the list of criteria for

assessing landscape units is too short and it reduces all

of its environmental values to a single rating expressed

by a number. These simplications make the conclusions

drawn from such assessments incomplete, and the deci-

sions made based on an incomplete insight can be poten-

tially dangerous to the heritage site.

“Heritage site analysis”

as an effective conservation tool

The author’s experience, collected by research and

teaching, provided a basis for formulating the following

postulates:

– a cultural environment analysis made for planning

purposes should account for both assets/resources and

determinants of an environment, namely, factors that de-

termine a site’s present and future (e.g., the developer’s

intent, user needs, legal state),

– the general body of assets and determinants can be

structured into four “compartments” – the content of these

“compartments” consists of four crucial aspects of the en-

vironment, linked to its conservation and shaping:

• the functio-spatial layout, namely the contemporary

uses of areas and buildings, elements of technical

infrastructure, technical condition, utilitarian value,

ecosystem services viewed in terms of benets to

people, etc.,

• the natural environment, namely factors and ele-

ments of the natural environments, ecosystem ser-

vices viewed through the prism of environmental

benets, ecological value, legal forms of nature con-

servation, etc.,

• the cultural environment, namely areas and struc-

tures and their components from all phases of spatial

development, heritage values, legal forms of heritage

conservation, etc.),

• the composition-landscape layout, namely plan fea-

tures, elements linked to the exposition of areas and

structures, aesthetic value, etc.

– in the case of analysing a heritage structure, this

“four-aspect” perception of the environment can be ap-

plied in two ways:

• when we analyse a singular structure, each of the

aspects is to be accounted for during the valorisation

stage, with various criteria used to evaluate assets;

for instance, we can identify the “heritage value” of

a building’s historical plan, the “utilitarian value” of

the contemporary indoor space layout, the “environ-

mental value” of an attic as a bird or bat habitat, the

“aesthetic/compositional value” of façade articulation,

• when a structure is examined together with its his-

torical surroundings (e.g., as an architectural-land-

scape complex) – one should isolate four groups of

assets/resources, and every structure can be placed

into any and all of the “compartments”, for instance:

we examine a tree as an element of contemporary site

development, as a plant specimen, as a remnant of

a historical garden, as a compositional accent; in this

variant, the reasoning “resource – valorisation – con-

clusions” should be extended to include “nal con-

clusions”, which should summarise and hierarchical-

ly structure preliminary partial conclusions,

• when analysing heritage sites with their anthropo-

genic and natural material, along with the complexity

of their functional, compositional and landscape lay-

out, it is necessary to use all four “compartments”, as

well as “nal guidelines”.

The necessity of such a “four-aspect” approach to ana-

lysing a historical site shall be illustrated using the case of

a medieval castle’s ruins, whose walls support the branch-

es of an impressive specimen of the common ivy (Hedera

helix). When we use the traditional heritage site analysis

method – using solely criteria of heritage value (histori-

cal, academic, artistic) – we will conclude that the plant is

a “foreign body” to the historical structural matter, it ob-

scures the stone face of the wall, hinders its conservation,

etc. The postulated “three-stage/four-aspect” analysis pre-

vents such simplied conclusions. It forces the investigator

to record the vine during the asset identication stage as an

environmental component that accompanies the structure.

During the valorisation stage, the investigator must iden-

tify not only the threat to historical and utilitarian value,

but also the environmental and aesthetic value of the plant.

During the conclusion stage, they must formulate recom-

mendations for each of the four aspects, including those

that concern the conservation of environmental assets. The

end stage is a list of nal conclusions that shall obligate

the designer and developer to preserve the vine without

any interference (due to its unique environmental value)

or to pursue a conciliatory solution (due to the necessity

to conduct construction work). In any case, the nal ver-

dict of the analysis will not constitute “design guidelines”

based on selective treatment of environmental values.

In green area or urban design, as well as in planning, the

four-aspect analysis forces the designer to note and eval-

uate assets that they may typically nd “disharmonious”

and treat them as an obstacle to attaining initially assumed

design goals. Such “negated” environmental components

include signs of long-term natural succession in a neglect-

ed historical park, which, from a conservation standpoint,

“erase” the historical composition, but nevertheless form

an ecosystem of signicant natural value. The develop-

ment at the back of plots in old-town and downtown ar-

eas is also being liquidated – all sorts of storage sheds,

backyards, fences, etc. Such structures, often neglected

or makeshift, can certainly negatively trigger a designer’s

sense of aesthetics, but nevertheless have cultural value as

How should we analyse historical works of architecture, urban planning, garden design, etc. 109

they preserve and clarify a historical urban structure: plot

boundaries, their functional zoning and the “peripheral”

character of a place [19].

To improve the eectiveness of the method, detailed

guidelines are required to limit the investigator from mak-

ing shortcuts during the analysis.

– During the “asset/resource” stage, one should account

for every phase of structural/spatial development and their

respective structural components – ranging from global

(massing, oor, room structure and use, plan) to detailed

ones (architectural detail, infrastructure elements). Divid-

ing the heritage site into structures and elements will be

more logical if we analyse the building as a system (fol-

lowing systems theory): we account for the functions of

elements, interrelations, relations with the environment,

the process of change.

– During the “valorisation” stage, one should use an

elaborate list of valorisation criteria and follow recom-

mendations included in most research methodologies

and in heritage conservation theories and doctrines [20]–

[24]. One should also assess the interrelations within the

structure and relationships with the surroundings, and

specically note any conicts, threats or disharmonies.

Valorisation should be performed in an expert manner

and verbalised descriptively instead of being expressed in

numbers. Parametric ratings make it easy to manipulate

conclusions (as in a multi-criteria analysis), which is why

it should only be included as a supplementary method at

most. We can accept it when analysing the value of heri-

tage conducted at a regional scale, e.g., to assess econom-

ic potential [25], but not at the settlement, complex, or

building level.

– During the conclusion formulation stage, one should

provide the precepts of how to proceed with the heritage

site and dene their rigour with the use of phrases such

as: “it is necessary to…” (“one should absolutely…”), “it

is recommended to…” (“one should…”), “one could…”,

etc. This phrasing of the conclusions allows one to clearly

present necessities, potentials, and alternatives, instead of

arbitrary decisions (see: Table 1, 2).

An in-depth presentation of the subject would require

a range of essential clarications concerning the use of

the proposed analysis methodology in research practice,

namely: how the structure of the research documentation

should look like, wherein the analysis is a prominent, sep-

arate procedure stage, and how to optimise the precision

of analyses adequately to the formula, objective and scope

of an investigation; how to formulate content in terms of

its later use in education. However, it should be noted that

regardless of a site’s scale and type of research , the sec-

tion entitled “Studies”, which is to be the most volumi-

nous section of the report and include the ndings of ar-

chival queries and eld surveys – for we can competently

formulate “assets/resources”, “assessments” and “conclu-

sions” only when the use the insight from the information

included there is a basis.

“Three-stage/four-aspect analysis”

in academic teaching

Academic courses with any and all ties with heritage

conservation typically include heritage value analyses in

their curricula. However, how this subject is treated de-

pends on the type of university or college and its faculty.

Courses that educate future heritage conservators or arts

historians teach research methodology via dedicated mod-

ules. As part of university programmes that educate future

designers – architects, landscape architects, urbanists,

planners – students engage in design subjects situated in

cultural landscapes already at the start of their education,

but methodological matters are typically taught to them in

a simplied manner, without theoretical foundations, as

part of design studios. They can encounter lectures on re-

search methodology later, as part of specialist education:

during Master’s programmes (e.g., pursuing a special-

ist “monument/heritage conservation” course, or during

modules that focus on this), as well as part of certain PhD

and graduate programmes. Lectures and seminars on his-

torical architecture and urban planning during Bachelor’s

programmes are an often-wasted opportunity to develop

investigative competencies in future designers. Attendees

of such classes typically gain insight into the history of

construction, instead of the ability to investigate historical

buildings for the purposes of future design work [26].

In the author’s opinion, design school students have

limited opportunities to familiarise themselves with her-

itage investigation methodology as part of Bachelor’s

programmes. Current curricula, in which a graduate’s re-

search competencies are seen as of secondary signicance

and historical context is treated like a nuisance instead of

a potential, are an obstacle to this. However, the key ele-

ment of the research methodology presented – three-stage/

four-aspect analysis – can be successfully implemented

in architectural, urban and planning education already

Table 2. “Three-stage/four-aspect” analysis structure (elaborated by A. Kwaśniewski)

Tabela 2. Struktura analizy trójetapowej/czteroaspektowej (oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

Three stages:

Four aspects:

Assets / resources

and determinants

Valorisation Conclusions Final conclusions

functio-spatial layout

natural environment

cultural environment

composition and landscape layout

110 Artur Kwaśniewski

during the initial stage – as part of any design studio in

which site-specic conditions are considered and treated

as essential to a project.

In every type of design, the starting point is to obtain

an insight about the project site. This insight is typically

gained by visiting a site and studying reference materials

given to the designer by the client, obtained at an insti-

tution or found online. However, the more complex the

image of determinants and assets – stemming from the

development density of an area and a complicated func-

tio-spatial structure, or a multitude of environmental and

cultural assets – the more dicult it is to competently

identify them using solely one’s intuition or a selective

interpretation of accounts. In such cases, a “three-stage/

four-aspect analysis” can be a tool that aids the designer in

structuring information about the project site and its vicin-

ity, forcing them to account for all aspects of the environ-

ment and facilitating the record of ratings and conclusions.

When designing site development, an architectural or

urban complex, or a green area, it is recommended to re-

cord analyses in graphical form. Such a record consists of

sketch maps with legends and notes, prepared for each of

the aspects in an “asset/resource – valorisation – conclu-

sions” format and a map of “nal conclusions” (Fig. 2).

Visualising analysis content using maps is nothing new

in the work of an architect or urban planner, but the ap-

plication of the proposed method turns the drawings into

a cohesive narrative that depicts a process of analytical

reasoning and allows one to eectively argue their design

solutions in meetings with a developer or decision-maker.

The author and his colleagues from the Faculty of

Architecture of the Wrocław University of Science and

Technology have been using the “three-stage/four aspect

analysis” in teaching design as part of the architecture

and urban planning and spatial management courses and

the landscape architecture post-graduate course. During

a single-semester design studio module, students devote

no less than half of the allotted time (six to seven meet-

ings) to conducting investigations and analyses using this

method. They begin preparing the design only after gain-

ing insight about the site and the subject of the design as-

signment. Conclusions from their investigation facilitate

the formulation of a design proposal and provide rational

justication during working discussions and during as-

signment presentation. The primary teaching goal of the

module thus devised is to teach design thinking, in which

it is essential to respect environmental and cultural condi-

tions and to creatively make use of a site’s potential. Stu-

dents are encouraged to embrace creativity, understood as

inquisitiveness in identifying and solving the problems of

the environment.

Conclusions

In 2008, Rab Bennetts wrote: […] leading architects

and, I would argue, many involved in education still hang

on to notions of unbridled creativity, fostering the illusion

that architects retain the freedom to create more or less

what they want and that some sort of technological x is

available in support [27, p. 13]. Most architecture school

students and graduates still present their design propos-

als by starting with the words “I would like to…”, “I in-

tend to…”, “My idea was to…”. They typically perceive

site-specic determinants as an obstacle rather than a po-

tential. They design a building and treat its surroundings as

something insignicant. They adapt a historical building

by attempting to ll its walls to the brim with all the pos-

sible functions and installations oered by contemporary

construction and its standards. In urban designs and zoning

plans, they intervene in the structure of historical cities and

rural areas following the abstract notion of “spatial order”

instead of knowledge based on a comprehensive identi-

cation of the cultural environment’s assets and values.

The “three-stage/four-aspect analysis” with its table-

form recordation is intended to constrain the harmful conse-

quences of a designer’s “unbridled creativity”. It structures

the process of design reasoning and inclines one to change

priorities in perceiving goals and means. It aids in deter-

mining a project site’s values and problems, and suggests

a pro-environmental approach. It allows for “stripping”

a historical (widely speaking: landscape) spatial structure

into elements, subjects the whole and its parts to assess-

ment, and formulates conclusions without the risk of miss-

ing a component. By using tables as a means of recording

the reasoning process, it facilitates in convincingly present-

ing one’s ndings. It aids creativity based on an inquisitive

search for rational solutions and justications. It supports

creativity that is not devising, but research and design

work. It is based on a simple, almost intuitive procedure

algorithm, which is easy to remember and put into practice.

Fig. 2. Scheme of the graphical record of preliminary design analyses carried out using the proposed methodology (elaborated by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 2. Schemat zapisu graficznego analiz przedprojektowych sporządzonych w oparciu o postulowaną metodykę (oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

How should we analyse historical works of architecture, urban planning, garden design, etc. 111

The analysis method in question has been present in

public greenery preservation and design standards devel-

oped by the Landscape Architecture Association for local

municipal and county-level governments for many years

[28]–[30]. In the opinion of ocials who implement these

standards, one major benet of the method’s use is that it

allows one to formulate conclusions with a varying degree

of rmness (“it is necessary to…”, “it is justied to…”,

“one can consider…” etc.) which signicantly improves

decision making and facilitates project planning

It should be stressed that the three-stage/four-aspect

As per information received from Doctor Łukasz Dworniczak,

the main author of the standards, who monitors the process of the docu-

ments’ adoption (by municipal or county councils) and implementation.

analysis does not undermine or replace the immense body

of methodology associated with analysing cultural envi-

ronment assets. It also does not alter the methodologi-

cal foundations of pre-design studies in architecture and

urban planning [31]. It merely postulates a principle of

structuring and processing information obtained based

on detailed studies and analyses – so that “conservation

guidelines” can be inseparably tied with objective value

assessments instead of being a list of “ideas” dictated

by a designer’s ego and a developer’s expectations. It is

a means of supporting the preservation of environmental

values, especially the cultural environment and its authen-

ticity, which is fragile and non-replicable.

Translated by

Krzysztof Barnaś

References

[1] Kwaśniewski A., Zamki i dwory obronne polskich Górnych Łużyc

od XIII do XVIII wieku w świetle źródeł historycznych i badań ar-

chitektonicznych, raport z serii SPR Nr W1A/S-029/2016, Politech-

nika Wrocławska, Wrocław 2016 [manuscript in: CWiNT, PWr].

[2] Kwaśniewski A., Why research – how to research. Comments on

the methodology of contemporary historical and architectural stu-

dies and on their application in the adaptation of historic buildings,

“Architectus” 2019, No. 1(57), 3–20, doi: 10.5277/arc190101.

[3] Slaton D., The preparation and use of historic structure reports,

“Preservation Briefs” 2004, 43, 1–16.

[4] Schmitt M.C., The Evolution of the Historic Structure Report:

A Review of Ist Past and a Look at Ist Future, MA thesis, University

of Pennsylvania, Theses (Historic Preservation), 87 2007, https://

repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/87 [accessed: 21.11.2021].

[5] ABC Standards der Baudenkmalpege, B. Hoche-Donaubauer,

H.A. Liebich (Hrsg.), Bundesdenkmalamt, Wien 2014.

[6] Richtlinien für Bauhistorische Untersuchungen, B. Euler-Rolle,

W. Hauser, A. Liebich, J. Moravi P. Schicht (Hrsg.), Bundesdenk-

malamt Österreich, Wien 2018.

[7] Praktische Denkmalpege. Handreichung zur Bestandsuntersu-

chung und Dokumentation, A. Haseley, U. Steinecke (Hrsg.), Lan-

desamt für Denkmalpege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle

(Saale) 2010, https://archlsa.de/leadmin/landesmuseum/alle/pdf/

pdf_veroeffentlichungen/handreichung_bestandsuntersuchung_

dokumentation.pdf [accessed: 12.02.2023].

[8] Macek P., Standardní nedestruktivní stavebně-historický průzkum,

Státní ústav památkové péče v Praze, Praha 2001.

[9] Beránek J., Macek P., Pařízková-Čevonová J., Patrný M., Záhor-

ka J., Zahradník P., Beránková L., Metodika stavebněhistorického

průzkumu, Národní památkový ústav, generální ředitelství, Praha

2015.

[10] Brykowska M., Metody pomiarów i badań zabytków architektury,

Ocyna Wydawnicza PW, Warszawa 2003.

[11] Krejčiřík P., Pejchal M., Architektonicko-historický průzkum pa-

mátky krajinářské architektury, Zahradnická fakulta Mendelo-

vy univerzity v Brně, [Lednice 2015], http://web2.mendelu.cz/

zf_563_krarch/1.3.1_METODIKA-Architektonicko-historicky

-pruzkum-pamatky-krajinarske-architektury/Certifikovana_Me-

todika_Architektonicko-historicky-pruzkum-pamatek-kraj-arch_

komplet.pdf [accessed: 12.02.2023].

[12] Kuča K., Kučová V., Principy památkového urbanismu, Státní

ústav památkové péče, Praha 2000.

[13] Welc-Jędrzejewska J., Kulesza-Szerniewicz E., Makowska B.,

Stieler E., Jagielska E., Problematyka ochrony dziedzictwa kultu-

rowego i zabytków w studiach uwarunkowań i kierunków zago-

spodarowania przestrzennego gmin oraz w miejscowych pla

nach

zagospodarowania przestrzennego. Poradnik dla planistów oraz

sa mo rządów lokalnych, Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, Warszawa

2011, https://krajobrazmojegomiasta.pl/wp-content/uploads/

2021/10/

poradnik_dla_planistow_i_samorzadow_lokalnych.pdf [accessed:

12.02.2023].

[14] Beaney M., Analysis, [in:] E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Ency-

clopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, Stanford 2018, https://

plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/analysis/ [accessed:

20.12.2021].

[15] Krawczyk J., Dialog z tradycją w konserwatorstwie – koncep-

cja zabytkoznawczej analizy wartościującej, “Zabytkoznawstwo

i Konserwatorstwo” 2013, 44, 507–529, doi: 10.12775/AUNC_

ZiK.2013.021.

[16] Barnet S., A Short Guide to Writing About Art, Pearson Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle River 2008.

[17] Clark K., Understanding historic buildings and their landscapees

for conservation, English Heritage, London 2001.

[18] Bogdanowski J., Metoda jednostek i wnętrz architektoniczno-kra-

jobrazowych (JARK-WAK) w studiach i projektowaniu (podstawo-

we wiadomości), Wydawnictwo PK, Kraków 1994.

[19] Kwaśniewski A., Architektura drewniana na peryferiach. Uwagi

o wartości zabytkowej drewnianych elementów zagospodarowania

historycznych parcel miejskich i możliwościach ich ochrony, [in:]

M. Jaworska (red.), Zabytkowa architektura drewniana w ośrod-

kach miejskich – problematyka ochrony, Miasto Stołeczne Warsza-

wa, Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, Warszawa 2022, 131–146.

[20] How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, R.H.

Schrimpton (ed.), “National Register Bulletin” 1990, 15, 1–54,

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_

web508.pdf [accessed: 5.12.2021].

[21] ICCROM Working Group Heritage and Society, Denition of Cultu-

ral Heritage. References to Documents in History, J. Jokilehto (sel.),

2005, http://www.ycarhe.eu/uploads/media/rural-heritage/Cultu-

ral-Heritage-denitions_ICOMOS2005.pdf [accessed: 5.12.2021].

[22] Szmygin B., Theory and criteria of heritage evaluation as the ba-

sis for its protection, “Wiadomości Konserwatorskie – Journal of

Heritage Conservation” 2015, Vol. 43, 44–52, doi: 10.17425/WK-

44PROTECTION.

[23] Stendebakken M.O.G., Grytli E.R., Olsson N.O.E., Proposed as-

pects for evaluation of the value of spaces in historic buildings,

“Procedia Economics and Finance” 2015, Vol. 21, 23–31, doi:

10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00146-X.

[24] Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Mission in

Kosovo, Guidebook on Standards for Drafting Cultural Heritage

Management Plans, OSCE, [Priština] 2020, https://www.osce.org/

les/f/documents/2/d/461188.pdf [accessed: 1.03.2023].

112 Artur Kwaśniewski

Abstract

How should we analyse historical works of architecture, urban planning, garden design etc.

An original methodology proposal for planning conservation, adaptation and promotion, as well as academic teaching

This paper presents an original methodology of analysing the heritage value of historical buildings, which can be useful both for structures, as

well as urban, garden and landscape layouts. The methodology is based on treating analysis as a study of cause-and-eect chains: direct

dependencies

between a heritage site’s matter, its values and their postulated conservation. The proposed method of heritage site value analysis covers three stages of

reasoning: collecting resources and determinants – their assessment based on objectivised criteria – formulating conclusions that solely communicate

the necessity, feasibility and potential procedures to be applied to the monument to conserve its values and expose its features. The author

presents

a method that allows for accounting for all environmental aspects that are essential in planning the conservation and adaptive reuse of heritage sites

and presents the suitability of the method in the academic education of future architects, urbanists and planners.

Key words: methodology of historic architecture research, historic structure reports, analysing the heritage value, education in architecture

Streszczenie

Jak powinniśmy analizować historyczne obiekty architektury, urbanistyki, sztuki ogrodowej itp.

Autorska propozycja metodyki na potrzeby planowania ochrony i adaptacji zabytków oraz dydaktyki akademickiej

W artykule przedstawiono autorską metodykę sporządzania analizy wartości zabytkowych budowli historycznej, użyteczną zarówno w odniesieniu

do obiektów architektury, jak i założeń urbanistycznych, ogrodowych, krajobrazowych. Istotą tej metodyki jest traktowanie analizy jako badania

związków przyczynowo-skutkowych: bezpośrednich zależności między materią zabytku, jego wartościami i postulowaną ochroną tych wartości.

Proponowany sposób analizowania zabytku pod kątem jego wartości obejmuje trzy etapy postępowania: zgromadzenie zasobów i uwarunkowań – ich

ocenę w oparciu o przyjęte zobiektywizowane kryteria – formułowanie wniosków mówiących wyłącznie o konieczności, zasadności, możliwości po-

stępowania z zabytkiem w celu chronienia jego wartości i eksponowania walorów. Autor zaprezentował sposób objęcia analizą wszystkich aspektów

środowiskowych istotnych w planowaniu ochrony i adaptacji obiektów zabytkowych oraz omówił przydatność tej metody w edukacji akademickiej

przyszłych architektów, urbanistów i planistów.

Słowa kluczowe: metodologia badań historyczno-architektonicznych, raport z badań historyczno-architektonicznych, analiza wartości zabytkowych,

edukacja architektoniczna

[25] Król K., Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Potential in Po-

land, “Sustainability“ 2021, Vol. 13, Iss. 12, 6637, doi: 10.3390/

su13126637.

[26]

Neumann D., Teaching the History of Architecture in Germany, Aus-

tria, and Switzerland: “Architekturgeschichte” vs. “Bauforschung”,

“Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians” 2002, Vol. 61,

Iss. 3, 370–380, doi: 10.2307/991790.

[27] Bennetts R., Reasserting tha architect’s position in pursuit of sus-

tainability, [in:] S. Roaf, A. Bairstow (eds.), The Oxford Confere-

nce. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture, WIT Press,

Southampton 2008, 11–15.

[28] Standardy kształtowania zieleni w Łodzi. Załącznik nr 1 do zarzą-

dzenia Nr 8378/VIII/21 Prezydenta Miasta Łodzi z dnia 24 wrze-

śnia 2021 r., Ł. Dworniczak, P. Reda (red.), https://uml.lodz.pl/

les/bip/public/KS_2020/VIII_8378.pdf [accessed: 20.02.2023].

[29] Dworniczak Ł., Kulon M., Standardy kształtowania zieleni po-

wiatu pruszkowskiego. Załącznik do uchwały nr XXXIII.258.2021

Rady Powiatu Pruszkowskiego z dnia 11 maja 2021 r., https://

bip.powiat.pruszkow.pl/dokument_druk.php?iddok=5940&idm-

p=1398&r=o [accessed: 9.03.2023].

[30] Zatoński K., Jak zadbać o zieleń i właściwie ją pielęgnować. Ka-

towice przygotowały standardy kształtowania zieleni w mieście,

“wKatowicach.eu”, 6.06.2022, https://www.wkatowicach.eu/infor-

macje/w-katowicach/Jak-zadbac-o-zielen-i-wlasciwie-ja-pielegno-

wac.-Katowice-przygotowaly-standardy-ksztaltowania-zieleni-w

-miescie/idn:1098 [accessed: 9.03.2023].

[31] Niezabitowska E.D., Metody i techniki badawcze w architekturze,

Wydawnictwo PŚ, Gliwice 2014.