Comparing Urban Conservation and Urban Regeneration in the Field of Change Process (from the Perspective of Contemporary Scholars)

Document Type : Research Article


1 department of conservation and restoration, Art University of Isfahan. Iran

2 Assistant professor/art university of isfahan

3 Associate Professor, Architectural & Urban Conservation Department,, Restoration Faculty, Art University of Isfahan


Problem statement: Urban regeneration and urban conservation originate from the concept of change in two contexts: conservation and development. For decades, attempts have been made to converge these two approaches by continuously changing and adopting new definitions, to a point where some scholars now consider them as a single integrated approach. Conversely, some studies find them contradictory due to pursuing different directions. However, previous research studies have not explored these approaches together, and their relationship or distinctions in the change process are not yet determined.
Research objective: The present study aims to identify, compare, and contrast these two approaches. Hence, understanding their purposes, components, and definitions (i.e., urban regeneration and urban conservation), as well as their similarities and differences in the change process, are the main topic in question. Accordingly, this study aims at achieving a more constructive dialogue between these approaches in the cities.
Research Method: Apart from applying a qualitative comparative analysis for this study, the codes regarding urban regeneration, conservation, and change processes were extracted by selective coding. For this purpose, using a comparative variable-oriented method, the similarities and differences between urban regeneration and urban conservation were compared and analysed in terms of certain aspects and details in the change process.
Conclusion: According to current results, urban regeneration and urban conservation were not a single integrated approach, as they had different purposes, definitions and components. Also, they were not necessarily contradictory and could be complementary and congruent at times. Furthermore, they were simultaneously associated with components of both conservation and development, albeit with a different priority order.