Heritage Regeneration Models for Traditional Courtyard Houses in a Northern Chinese City (Jinan) in the Context of Urban Renewal

Abstract

The fundamental disputes in urban heritage regeneration stem from variations in power dynamics and inherent value systems among stakeholders. Addressing conflicts and power differentials involving governmental bodies, market forces, community residents, experts, and scholars is crucial for fostering sustainable urban heritage development. Recently, these contradictions have grown more pronounced as China’s urbanization has transitioned from rapid expansion to a phase focused on existing urban assets. In the present research, the typical traditional courtyard-style residential buildings in Jinan, a historic city in northern China, were selected as the object of study. These houses often suffer from problems such as outdated infrastructure and low living conditions and have become difficult to adapt to contemporary urban life. A case study approach was employed focusing on a representative courtyard house to develop models for renewing and regenerating urban heritage, specifically tailored to traditional courtyard houses. The aim was to address conflicts and power disparities among urban heritage stakeholders through diverse mechanisms. Methodologically, the research integrates historical study and field investigation, participatory analysis, and policy analysis. Primary data sources include field surveys, historical research, oral interviews, and drone aerial photography. Models were constructed in the present study—namely, the heritage self-renewal, heritage revitalization, and heritage transformation models—for traditional courtyard houses. These models were designed to foster sustainable urban heritage development through collaborative efforts across various stakeholders and administrative levels. They will optimize the renewal mechanism of urban heritage, thus providing diversity and multiple possibilities for the preservation and reuse of architectural heritage in China. They aim to realize comprehensive urban heritage values, including vitality, health, efficiency, and equity, while accommodating the interests of diverse stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Since the inception of China’s Reform and Opening Up policy in 1978, urban construction in the country has entered the phase of increment planning, which refers to “the spatial expansion based planning with new construction land as the object” and has exhibited a trend characterized by “Growth Supremacism” [1,2]. During the process of urban renewal, many traditional districts and buildings have been demolished, and many original residents have been forced to move out. In recent years, as China’s urban structure has stabilized, it has transitioned to a phase of inventory planning [3,4], which refers to the promotion of functional optimization and adjustment of built-up areas by means of urban renewal [5,6]. The developed countries with mature urbanization have earlier shifted from incremental planning to inventory planning [7], among which representative international experiences include the top-down land readjustment [8,9], the gentrification community [10,11], and the brownfield redevelopment [12,13]. Overall, it is the consensus of inventory planning to guarantee the participation of various stakeholders and to respect property rights and public opinions [7].

The shift from incremental planning to inventory planning in urban construction also aims to optimize urban resources, enhance urban quality, and preserve urban culture and heritage [14]. As such, addressing various contradictions such as commercialization, authenticity, community participation, and representation of minority group interests in the preservation and utilization of urban heritage has emerged as a critical issue in heritage research [15,16]. The main research objective of this paper is to examine how to balance the interests of stakeholders related to urban heritage by optimizing the renewal mechanism under the framework of urban renewal and heritage preservation in China, so as to provide diversity and multiple possibilities for the preservation and utilization of urban heritage.

The courtyard house is a typical type of traditional residential architectural heritage in China, which is mainly characterized by the fact that in addition to residential buildings, it also includes one or more courtyards enclosed by buildings or courtyard walls [17]. Influenced by traditional Chinese feudal customs, courtyard houses typically feature inward-facing designs, contrasting with the open courtyards found in Western mansions [18]. Northern Chinese courtyard houses, shaped by climate and cultural factors, commonly adopt a square layout, emphasizing spacious central yards. Notably, there are several problems with the existing courtyard houses. Many courtyard houses have evolved into “large miscellaneous yards” accommodating original householders, long-term tenants, and temporary residents. At the same time, these buildings contend with outdated infrastructure, substandard living conditions, and other issues that hinder their adaptation to modern social life. How to protect and utilize the architectural heritage of courtyard houses is the main starting point of this paper.

1.1. Research Review

The relationship between various stakeholder groups in urban heritage renewal is an important issue in the field of community heritage research. The community’s heritage is the tangible and intangible expressions of people’s social, cultural, economic, and spiritual lives that result from their interactions with the natural environment and contribute to the social and cultural fabric of contemporary society and its well-being [19,20]. In general, the assessment and planning processes for community heritage include two models: top-down, expert-driven research and bottom-up, community-driven research. An expert-driven approach ignores aspects that are important to the community, favoring areas where experts want to work, while a community-driven approach tends to favor what is “popular” and ignores or even actively ignores aspects that do not fit the community model [21].

Traditionally, the heritage assessment and planning process has tended to be largely expert-driven, and it is almost the exclusive domain of heritage management professionals [22]. Nowadays, community involvement is widely recognized as crucial in heritage decision-making, implementation, and execution [23,24]. It has been argued that there is a significant positive correlation between the sustainability of community heritage and the level of local community involvement. Increased levels of community involvement activities contribute to awareness of the importance of heritage and access to cultural knowledge [25]. However, giving each community the right to decide on the future of its heritage can also lead to potential problems such as over-glorification and the disappearance of “dissonant heritage sites” [26,27]. For example, in Australia in the 1990s, attempts were made to broaden community participation in heritage decision-making, transforming heritage planners into facilitators or organizers. As a direct result of this model, community participation was largely based on consultation with community members who were perceived to be knowledgeable [28].

Cultural heritage is also examined and studied in terms of the values of the various stakeholder groups involved in nominations and valuations [29]. Community consultation and dialogue on heritage values can enhance the relevance of heritage to the strength of the values attached to it [30]. Valuation should take into account both those values held by specialists, such as art historians, archaeologists, and architects, as well as other values proposed by new stakeholders, such as social and economic values [31]. Even so, the values held by different stakeholders are sometimes conflicting [32].

In addition to the mechanism of community heritage evaluation and protection, the reuse and commercial development is also an important area of research. The concept of “Compatible Use” was introduced in the Burra Charter [33], and the functional renewal of urban heritage is considered to be an effective way to achieve a win–win situation between urban development and architectural heritage conservation [34]. Relevant research also involves studies on adaptive reuse and sustainable reuse of architectural heritage [35,36]. The concept of Heritage Urbanism was derived from a study conducted by the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Zagreb between 2014 and 2018 [37,38]. Within its framework, urban heritage is viewed as active and creative entities that require continual renewal to integrate effectively into the contemporary and future lives of the communities they serve. By exploring the relationships between urban heritage and the public, institutions, physical locations, and users of heritage, it develops suitable models for modernizing heritage while preserving its distinctive identity features, which include models of revitalization, enhancement, and sustainable use of heritage [39,40].

In recent years, it has been increasingly recognized that the preservation of community heritage, whether tangible or intangible, would be a valuable economic source [41,42]. At the same time, market participation in cultural heritage preservation is recognized as crucial. Over-reliance on government support and public subsidies can result in insufficient funds to finance cultural heritage preservation [43].

1.2. Research Background in China

China entered a period of rapid development when the Chinese government implemented the Reform and Opening Up policy in 1978 [44]. The renovation of China’s historic urban areas and the preservation of architectural heritage have evolved through three distinct phases. Initially, from the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the government enacted the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics and launched the National Famous Historic and Cultural Cities project [45]. The subsequent phase, spanning the early 1990s to the early 2000s, witnessed a detrimental focus on real estate-driven urban renewal, leading to significant alterations and losses in many historic districts and architectural landmarks. In the current phase, starting from the mid-2010s to the present, there has been a marked shift towards stricter preservation policies at national and local levels. These policies aim to curtail development within historic districts while emphasizing the enhancement of urban environments and functions, thereby promoting sustainable urban renewal with historical integrity [46].

The spatial expansion of cities since the Reform and Opening Up policy has destroyed the sense of place, the integrity of the urban fabric, and the uniqueness of neighborhoods, with some historic urban areas losing their traditional roles, functions, and population [47,48]. The challenges and contradictions in renewing historic urban areas primarily arise from the intricate and evolving political dynamics among stakeholders during urbanization and modernization processes. Initially, renewal efforts were predominantly led by government and capital. However, there has been a notable shift towards a more collaborative approach involving multiple stakeholders such as communities, residents, and minority groups. Projects such as the Xiaoxihu Block in Nanjing reflect this transition, emphasizing joint participation and negotiation as integral mechanisms in the renewal process (

Table 1. Major regeneration models in China’s historic districts.

Model	Business Development Model	Adaptive Renewal Model	Micro-Update Model
Land concession	Almost all ceded	Some ceded	Some ceded
Subject	Real estate developers and government functionaries	Government departments, related organizations, community residents	Government departments, neighborhood committees, community residents, state-owned construction platforms, and community planners
Public participation	Real estate developer negotiates with the government, planning departments to force residents to comply with expropriation	Government-organized consultations within communities and residents, with technical support from designers	Consultation among the parties to carry out administrative services in accordance with the law
Relocation of aborigines	Relocation of all the people who used to live there	Some residents relocated after internal consultation	Some residents relocated after internal consultation
Typical cases	Sanfangqixiang in Fuzhou in1994, Xintiandi in Shanghai in 2007	Wuzhen in Tongxiang in 1999, Nanchizi in Beijing in 2003	Xiaoxihu in Nanjing in 2015

).

The Xiaoxihu Block serves as a notable example of micro-urban regeneration in recent years. Spanning over six years from 2015 to 2021, this project diverged from traditional approaches of large-scale demolition and construction. Instead, it prioritized respecting property rights and incorporating residents’ preferences. The project operated on the principle of taking property owners as the fundamental unit and implemented a model focused on “small-scale and gradual conservation and regeneration” [49,50]. Based on the two paths of top-down spatial structural protection and reconstruction and bottom-up gradual renewal and creation, it preserves streets, alleys, and public facilities and constructs public spaces such as shared courtyards [51,52,53].

Moreover, the preservation and utilization of architectural heritage in the context of inventory planning is a significant focus among Chinese academics currently [4,5,16]. Scholars have begun applying theories such as Urban Catalysts and Urban Acupuncture to urban renewal practices, highlighting their role in initiating and catalyzing transformations at specific points [54]. On the basis of protecting the diversified values of architectural heritage, such approaches can better serve contemporary social life [55,56]. Nonetheless, the intensified social-spatial differentiation has led to deep-rooted problems such as unfair distribution of public resources, residential segregation, the entrenchment of poverty, and social and cultural disintegration [57].

Recently, participatory planning and design methods have gradually shifted from theoretical research to practical applications in heritage renewal [58]. Much of the current research focuses on establishing effective public participation mechanisms [59,60]. Another emerging area of interest is micro-urban regeneration, which concentrates on enhancing the functionality and quality of small-scale public spaces or buildings through renovation, repair, and local improvements, while maintaining the original land use and architectural structure. This approach aims to cater to community life needs [61,62]. Additionally, scholars have introduced the theory of complex adaptation to study urban architectural heritage. This involves constructing complex adaptation systems for urban architectural heritage and analyzing their adaptive mechanisms [63].

The preservation of urban heritage can be likened to the two sides of a coin: Excessive development risks destroying historical heritage, while an overly nostalgic approach may burden the present generation, stifling creativity and impeding future development [64]. Therefore, the core of heritage conservation addresses the fundamental research question of how to renew urban heritage while safeguarding its historical identity, values, and character, while also adapting it to contemporary needs [37,38]. It is equally crucial to develop sustainable methods for renewing and reinterpreting heritage, ensuring its adaptation and vitality in contemporary contexts. This necessitates a reassessment of urban heritage issues and achieving a harmonious balance among conservation efforts and the diverse stakeholders involved. The strengths of each stakeholder should be utilized to build an efficient, rational, and sustainable mechanism for urban heritage renewal. The objective is to advance methodologies for cultural heritage restoration and enhancement, thereby fostering the development of local communities through the utilization of urban heritage resources [38,39].

1.3. Research Aim

The aim of this paper is to advance the conceptual models that provide a diversity of options for stakeholders of urban heritage prior to the renewal process of historic cities and districts. An investigation was conducted into the establishment of a heritage regeneration paradigm tailored for traditional courtyard houses in northern China, using a case study of typical courtyard houses in Jinan. The research aimed to achieve several specific objectives: first, to comprehensively understand the architectural characteristics of traditional courtyard houses in terms of location, spatial layout, structure, materials, and usage patterns; second, to consider the interests and needs of stakeholders including government entities, investors, and local residents; and third, to develop models for heritage self-renewal, revitalization mechanisms, and functional transformation specific to traditional courtyard houses in northern China. The regeneration paradigm proposed in this study aims to promote the scientifically informed and rational renewal of this architectural heritage type, offering valuable insights for urban renewal and heritage conservation efforts in China during the stage of inventory planning.

2. Materials and Methodology

2.1. Case Selection

The courtyard house is a unique and relatively stable spatial combination pattern formed in the interaction between traditional Chinese cities and the natural environment, history, and culture, which constitutes the basic spatial genes of traditional Chinese cities [65,66]. Influenced by climatic conditions and humanistic factors, the courtyard houses in the north and south of China show different characteristics (Figure 1). The spatial scale of the courtyard shows a trend of change from open to compact from north to south. Specifically, the courtyards in the north are larger than those in the south, and the ratio of openings to depths of the houses is smaller [67]. It is mainly due to the long and cold winters and the small solar altitude angle in the north, so the local houses use spacious courtyards to absorb solar heat. In the south, where summers are hot and rainy and the sun’s altitude angle is large, local houses reduce the scale of the courtyard to reduce the absorption of solar heat and use multiple small courtyards (tianjing) to organize ventilation and drainage. Among them, the courtyard in Jinan, located in northern China, combines the spatial characteristics of both southern and northern China.

Jinan, located on the banks of the Yellow River, holds significance as a renowned historical and cultural city in China with a history spanning over 2000 years (Figure 1). With a history spanning over 2000 years, Jinan holds significance as a renowned historical and cultural city in China. The old city of Jinan is rich in spring water resources, and the dwellings are often laid out according to springs, wells, and rivers, reflecting the characteristics of spring water settlements. It is mostly a splicing layout of courtyards, where the courtyards themselves are not very spacious, and the courtyards are connected to each other by changes in the vertical and horizontal axes [68]. But the area has faced challenges such as damage from four Yellow River floods between 1949 and 1982, which affected many dwellings. Furthermore, since the onset of the Reform and Opening Up policy, the historic city has undergone significant renovation efforts, leading to the demolition of numerous residential buildings. Therefore, most of the preserved courtyard houses in Jinan are one-entry courtyards, and many buildings have undergone transformations (Figure 2).

The Jiangjunmiao Historic District stands out for its concentration of courtyard-style residences and is recognized as one of Jinan’s three designated historical and cultural districts under the Regulations on the Protection of Famous Historical and Cultural Cities (Figure 3a,b) [69]. In China, the system of architectural heritage protection employs a two-tiered mechanism consisting of cultural relics protection units and historic buildings. Based on research conducted in the Jiangjunmiao Historic District, it has been observed that cultural relics protection units have generally undergone restoration and renovation efforts, primarily serving as exhibition spaces (Figure 3c). Nevertheless, a large number of historic buildings are still in urgent need of renewal. Among a total of 32 historic buildings, 15 of them only retain a single house or a gate, and 17 of them still retain a courtyard pattern (Figure 3d,

Table 2. Preservation of existing historic buildings in Jiangjunmiao Historic District.

Number	Location	Building Condition
MJ-LX-47	12 Xigongjie Street	Main gate, main room, east wing room, west wing room
MJ-LX-48	48 Xigongjie Street	Main room, east wing room, west wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-90	38 Xigongjie Street	Main room, east wing room, west wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-79	23 Shuangzhongci Street	Main gate, main rooms
MJ-LX-78	14 Kangshoufo Street	Main gate, main room, east wing room, west wing room
MJ-LX-69	43 Bianzhi Lane	Main room, west wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-70	45 Bianzhi Lane	Main gate, east wing room, west wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-72	71 Bianzhi Lane	Main gate, main room, east wing room, west wing room
MJ-LX-73	107 Bianzhi Lane	Main gate, east wing room, west wing room
MJ-LX-74	119 Bianzhi Lane	Main gate, east wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-56	53 Qiming Street	Main room, east wing room, west wing room
MJ-LX-57	55 Qiming Street	Main gate, main room, east wing room, west wing room
MJ-LX-62	83 Qiming Street	Main room, east wing room
MJ-LX-63	87 Qiming Street	Main gate, main room, west wing room
MJ-LX-64	91 and 93 Qiming Street	Main room, east wing room, west wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-52	5 Jiangjunmiao Street	Main room, east wing room, west wing room, backside building
MJ-LX-53	10 Jiangjunmiao Street	Main gate, east wing room, west wing room

). These buildings are generally characterized by structural deterioration, aging equipment and facilities, and haphazard construction. Some of the residential buildings have become a compound occupied by numerous households, resulting in low spatial quality and poor quality of life (Figure 4).

No. 55 Qiming Street (MJ-LX-57), which retains a relatively complete pattern of courtyards (Figure 5), was selected as the object of study. The building embodies the general and typical characteristics of courtyard-style residential houses. The specific reasons are as follows:

(1)

No. 55 Qiming Street retains the typical south-facing courtyard layout characteristic of traditional Jinan courtyard houses, making it an exemplary model of this architectural style. It also reflects the mixed characteristics of Chinese and Western architectural cultures in modern times [70].

(2)

The existing buildings include the main gate, the main room, the east wing room, and the west wing room, which are representative of traditional masonry, woodwork, and other construction techniques and decorative art features.

(3)

The north courtyard of No. 55 Qiming Street is a “compound” inhabited by several families and tenants, while the south building is inhabited by the original owner of the house. The coexistence of homeowners and tenants exemplifies a common problem in the use of cohousing.

(4)

The property right of No. 55, Qiming Street is clear, which facilitates the implementation of renewal and reconstruction.

(5)

Positioned near Huajiajing Spring, one of Jinan’s renowned 72 springs, the spatial setting of No. 55 Qiming Street exemplifies a typical environment within the city, enhancing its historical and cultural significance.

Figure 5. Aerial view of No. 55 Qiming Street.

Figure 5. Aerial view of No. 55 Qiming Street.

2.2. Methodology

Primary data for the present study were collected through field research, building mapping, and oral interviews. In addition, a combination of qualitative research methods was utilized, such as historical study and field investigation, participatory analysis, and policy analysis. The details are as follows:

(1)

Historical Study and Field Investigation: The historical research mainly involves the investigation of historical maps, satellite maps, and historical data, examining the development of the Jiangjunmiao Historic District and summarizing the architectural characteristics of Jinan’s courtyard houses. The field investigation includes the research and mapping of the architectural heritage, aerial photography by drones, and evaluation of the state of integrity of the architectural heritage, etc. Based on the historical research and current situation investigation, the fragmentary layers of the buildings in different historical stages can be revealed, providing the data basis for the conservation and reuse practice [71].

(2)

Participatory Analysis: Firstly, through the interview with the present owner of the south building of No. 55 Qiming Street, we examined the original state of the building and its later additions and alterations. Secondly, through oral interviews with the 13 existing residents of the north courtyard, we learned about the problems in living and the specific demands for modernization. Finally, we negotiate with the tenants and revise the renewal program, so as to explore the balance between value preservation and tenants’ demands.

(3)

Policy Analysis: The policy analysis consisted of five components, namely, important issues and goals to be pursued, identification of alternative courses of action, prediction of the outcome of each alternative, identification of criteria to measure the achievement, and indication of the preferred choice of action. The main purpose was to identify effective strategies for addressing heritage regeneration challenges. Through thorough investigation and analysis, the study aimed to propose viable solutions that stakeholders could consider when making decisions. This approach aimed to provide actionable insights into resolving heritage regeneration issues and facilitating informed decision-making among stakeholders [72].

3. Case Presentation

3.1. History

No. 55 Qiming Street is located in the Jiangjunmiao Historic District of Jinan (Figure 6a), and the existing buildings include the main gate (Figure 6f), the inner alley (Figure 6c), the main room, the east and west wing rooms in the north courtyard (Figure 6d), and the two-story brick building added on the south side. The residence at No. 55 Qiming Street, constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, holds the distinction of being designated as a Jinan Outstanding Historic Building. Originally situated on Huajiajing Street (Figure 6b), the street derives its name from the Huajiajing spring, known for its sweet water that historically drew people from the vicinity to collect water, rest, and perform laundry tasks (Figure 6e).

The courtyard was initially used as the office of the German Carlowitz & Co. in Jinan, which was involved in a wide range of businesses such as shipping, insurance, trading, mining, etc. and was a well-known German company in the Far East [73]. Later, the courtyard was occupied by the company’s bookkeeper, the maternal grandfather of the present owner of the south building. In the 1950s, the north courtyard was sold to the Jinan Canvas Factory, where it was occupied by the factory’s employees. In order to increase the number of rooms, the factory made additions and remodeled the north courtyard and the buildings. Today, five families live in the north courtyard. The south courtyard was renovated by the owner, and a two-story brick structure house was built. The change in ownership and the use of the buildings over the years have resulted in the development of large mixed-use buildings at No. 55 Qiming Street.

3.2. Original and Current State

According to a historical survey and interviews with residents, No. 55 Qiming Street was originally a three-entry courtyard (Figure 7). Upon entering from the inner alley, the layout of No. 55 Qiming Street unfolds with distinct courtyards: The first courtyard, positioned at the entrance, comprises the rear building and servants’ rooms on either side. Moving deeper, the second courtyard occupies the northern side, featuring the main building along with east and west rooms. Finally, the southernmost part accommodates the third courtyard, designated for storage purposes. This north–south orientation typifies the traditional layout characteristics found in courtyard houses across northern China.

The overall pattern of No. 55 Qiming Street has changed considerably due to upgrading and reconstruction in the later years of its use. Currently, the existing buildings at No. 55 Qiming Street retain only the original north courtyard, which has suffered significant damage from private additions (Figure 8). In the renewal process, it is crucial to consider the removal of these additions and restore the courtyard’s original pattern. However, the two southern courtyards have been demolished and replaced by a two-story structure, disrupting the original courtyard layout and architectural style coherence. Furthermore, openings created for neighboring house entrances on the east side have transformed the inner alley from a private passage into a semi-public space.

4. Discussion

4.1. Interest Relationship of Urban Heritage

Differences in the power status and value orientation of the relevant subjects in the process of urban heritage reproduction and consumption are the source of contradictions in the utilization of urban heritage, which ultimately form the intrinsic contestations in the utilization of urban heritage [74]. It involves the interests of the government, capital, scholars, as well as community residents, and other subjects. Some scholars define the competition for power and resources in urban heritage renewal as the politics of heritage and believe that the root cause of the increasing prominence and intensification of the contradictions in heritage renewal is the continuous transmutation of interest relations [75]. This specifically includes the following:

(1)

The traditional elitist and expert-led approach to heritage research and heritage reproduction is increasingly challenged [76,77].

(2)

Communities and minorities, once marginalized, have begun to participate in decision-making in various ways.

(3)

The management of heritage conservation has shifted from direct oversight by public sectors to more privatized and entrepreneurial approaches [15].

Conflicts among heritage-related interest groups and power imbalances are also significant challenges in contemporary Chinese urban renewal practices. Initially, urban renewal involved extensive demolition, resettlement, and development managed solely by local governments, resulting in substantial debts and unsustainable economic returns. While this approach could achieve social benefits and serve as a political showcase, it proved economically unsustainable [4]. The over-reliance on market forces and capital has also led to the destruction of urban heritage and the displacement of indigenous populations in China [78]. To address these issues, it is essential to clarify the roles and responsibilities of government, capital, and the public. Balancing the interests of government, market stakeholders, residents, and experts is crucial. This balanced approach can harness the strengths of each group, fostering a virtuous cycle and promoting healthy development models for urban heritage renewal.

Based on the described analysis, three models of heritage renewal for traditional courtyard houses were proposed in the present study, namely, the heritage self-renewal model that prioritizes the interests of community residents, the government-led heritage revitalization model, and the market-oriented heritage transformation model (Figure 9).

4.2. Heritage Self-Renewal Model

The heritage self-renewal model emphasizes the “living conservation” of indigenous peoples. In 1999, the Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage incorporated community sharing, living traditions, and cultural identity into the conservation framework of the built vernacular heritage [79]. In 2011, the Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns, and Urban Areas stated that “the loss and/or substitution of traditional uses and functions, such as the specific way of life of a local community, can have major negative impacts on historic towns and urban areas” [80]. In contemporary urban regeneration, the concept of “genius loci” no longer exists as a static presence but rather as an ongoing process of evolution and creation involving people and places. Ethically, heritage conservation should respect the nostalgia of local residents who are deeply connected to their homeland and reluctant to leave [81]. Preserving their spatial rights and the continuity of their homeland life becomes crucial. This approach not only respects cultural identity but also offers opportunities for the self-renewal of architectural heritage.

The heritage self-renewal model prioritizes the daily routines and particular needs of indigenous populations, thereby shifting the role of local residents from mere participants to active agents in heritage preservation. Both the local government and residents contribute financially to heritage conservation and renewal efforts, while specialists and scholars offer design and technical expertise (Figure 10). For No. 55 Qiming Street, both the occupants of the north courtyard and the owner of the south building have lived in the house for decades. Interviews with the occupants revealed that a total of 13 people lived in the three buildings in the north courtyard, and their main demands are in terms of insufficient living space, cluttered building layouts, and poor infrastructure. The renewal design adheres to principles of authenticity and reversibility, aiming to enhance living conditions and spatial efficiency while minimizing harm to heritage values and ensuring their preservation.

In the renewal process, programs are developed by interacting with the prioritized stakeholders. The additions in the north courtyard will be demolished, and the design of the main room and east and west wing rooms will be renovated based on the specific requirements of each household. Space reorganization will involve the addition of partition walls and mezzanines to optimize the proportion of each functional room (Figure 11) and enhance both public and private spatial requirements (

Table 3. Comparison of living space per capita before and after renewal.

Room Type	Living Room	Bedroom	Toilet	Kitchen	Dining Room	Study	Total
Per capita area before renovation (including the illegal additions)	3.08 m2	7.55 m2	0 m2	2.74 m2	1.86 m2	0.96 m2	2.70 m2
Per capita area after renovation	5.42 m2	5.68 m2	1.12 m2	0.83 m2	1.77 m2	2.35 m2	2.86 m2

). This initiative aims not only to restore the original public space of the courtyard (Figure 12) but also to improve overall living quality. On the south side of the building, the original courtyard layout will be reinstated according to the actual needs of elderly homeowners living alone. This approach enhances sunlight and ventilation within living spaces and incorporates family suites and guest rooms for occasional stays by the elderly’s children (Figure 11e).

4.3. Heritage Revitalization Model

While the heritage self-renewal model emphasizes personalized designs centered around community residents, the heritage revitalization model holds broader significance. This model focuses on the modernization and renewal of courtyard houses, guided by the local government and involving collaborative efforts from all stakeholders. The heritage revitalization model is coordinated by the local government, which formulates policies and provides the majority of funding. Funding is also contributed by commercial platforms and community residents, while experts and scholars provide technical support (Figure 13). The model provides greater flexibility for urban renewal, offering a variety of options for community residents, actual tenants, and commercial operations. For homeowners and tenants who prefer to remain in their current residences, the government and tenants can jointly finance regeneration efforts. Alternatively, for tenants willing to sell their property rights, the government and commercial platforms can negotiate acquisition terms to convert properties into hotels, homestays, or primarily residential apartments. Through leading by example and continuous cycles of the renewal model, more residents are encouraged to participate, thereby enhancing neighborhood vitality.

The heritage revitalization model is based on respecting the heritage value of the building and adopting a “low-tech approach” to improve the living environment by upgrading the functional space and facilities. Restrooms are the focus of the renovation. Considering the age composition, floor area, and financial situation of the residents, three types of bathroom modules, namely, the economic, standard, and elderly friendly models, were designed for different groups to choose from (Figure 14). The standard module is suitable for the common household, which is well-equipped and has sufficient space (Figure 14b). The economy module is suitable for single persons or young people’s apartments and is relatively small in size (Figure 14c). The elderly friendly module is suitable for the elderly and has more space for wheelchair access and other relevant facilities (Figure 14d).

4.4. Heritage Transformation Model

The heritage transformation model refers to changing the function, purpose, and use of urban heritage to make it better serve contemporary social life [67]. It builds on the social diversity of urban heritage to achieve sustainable use of heritage spaces by reshaping the way urban heritage is used on a daily basis and through social interaction [3,82]. The introduction of new uses for heritage sites stimulates the development of surrounding communities, preserves local residency, and reinforces community identity. Thus, the reuse of urban heritage is viewed not in isolation but as integral to a broader living space and local community context.

The heritage transformation model is also a critical pathway to capitalize on the market value of urban heritage. In this model, urban heritage is seen as a commodity and one that can be multi-sold in many market segments [83]. It can leverage the market to provide the capital necessary for the maintenance, revitalization, and enhancement of urban heritage, which is conducive to generating profits, developing tourism to heritage sites, and driving economic development in communities [84]. In this model, enterprises assume a leading role, while local governments transition to focus on urban management and service provision. They coordinate policy formulation, develop platforms, facilitate cooperation, and guide social attention and investment [85]. Experts and scholars primarily offer design services and technical advice to prevent irreversible damage to architectural heritage from excessive intervention (Figure 15).

While preserving the value elements and historical information of the urban heritage, the urban heritage should be actively adapted to the surrounding architectural types, spatial forms, and traffic patterns, among others, so as to identify new uses that match the architectural space and forms. In the case of No.55 Qiming Street, the spatial scale, characteristics, and newly implanted functional requirements are considered in a comprehensive manner by means of “scale stitching”. The possibility of transforming the architectural heritage into various uses such as a homestay, office, exhibition, and cultural business is examined to realize the suitability of the architectural heritage and new functional uses (

Table 4. Feasibility study for functional upgrading of No. 55 Qiming Street.

Function	North Courtyard	South Building	Plan	Expanded Axonometric View
Homestay	Living space units and a communal courtyard	Renovated into lobby and homestay
Office	Office space units and communal courtyards	Renovated into co-working space and leisure space
Exhibition	Exhibition space units and outdoor exhibition areas	Restoration of the courtyard layout to serve as exhibition and auxiliary office space
Cultural business	Commercial space units and outdoor exhibition Spaces	Restoration of the courtyard layout to serve as leisure space

). To address the spatial demands amidst varying development intensities, it is essential to satisfy volume requirements during renewal while carefully managing the balance between new and old to prevent “renewal-type damage”. The north courtyard, being closer to the street, will be designated for more public functions. On the south side, renovations will be guided by practical needs, ensuring that any new construction harmonizes in scale, height, and spatial adaptability with the north courtyard. This approach aims to integrate new and old structures into a cohesive and harmonious whole (Figure 16).

Urban heritage regeneration based on a functional transformation takes advantage of the economic and cultural capital of urban heritage. The new heritage narrative contributes to the gentrification of the surrounding environment and promotes the urban renewal process and the revival of old town areas [86,87].

4.5. Comparison of 3 Models

This paper is not about the general mechanism of a community’s heritage renewal but rather adapts a model of regeneration of architectural heritage units under the current district-scaled urban renewal in China. China adopts a government-led approach to urban heritage research, planning, and practice, and administrative power is crucial in China’s current heritage conservation practice. As a result, the community-driven mechanism such as the one in New South Wales, Australia, where the community selected heritage sites deemed worthy of preservation and professional historians prepared historical thematic studies [21], is difficult to implement in China.

These models are an attempt to change the current norm whereby the government commissions experts to develop conservation plans, state-owned enterprises are responsible for expropriation, and conservation and regeneration are carried out by either state-owned enterprises or the market. By upgrading the functions of urban architectural heritage, these approaches can incrementally contribute to the revitalization of old urban areas. The three proposed models are alternatives to one other, offering diverse possibilities for urban heritage regeneration. Each of them is driven by a distinct set of interests among the stakeholder groups. Any preservation approach inherently entails “sacrifice”, but Chinese wisdom emphasizes pragmatism (“expediential”) [64].

A Primer for Policy Analysis presents a five-step model of the policy analysis process, including significant issues and goals to be pursued, identification of alternative courses of action, prediction of the outcome of each alternative, identification of criteria for measuring the achievement, and indication of the preferred choice of action [72]. A comparison of the three models through this methodology presents a clearer picture of the differences and similarities between the three models (

Table 5. Comparison of three models of heritage regeneration.

	Heritage Self-Renewal Model	Heritage Revitalization Model	Heritage Transformation Model
Objective	Improve the quality of living spaces	Upgrade equipment and modernize spaces	Utilize economic and reuse values
Course of action	Negotiation and co-financing between local residents and local government, with experts and scholars proposing specific regeneration strategies	Local government negotiates with enterprises and local residents, and experts and scholars provide regeneration suggestions	Enterprises take the lead in acquiring property rights and land exchange, local governments supervise, and experts and scholars provide technical support.
Predicted outcomes	Renovations of some buildings	Upgrading of equipment in most buildings	Functional replacement of some buildings
Criteria	Whether living space has increased and living conditions have improved	Whether facilities have been upgraded and living spaces modernized	Whether the urban heritage has revitalized the surrounding area and increased its commercial value
Preferred choice of action	Local residents not willing to leave their residence	Local residents have more choices	Local residents are willing to leave their current residence

). As evidence, all three models prioritize the wishes of the residents of the heritage site, although the dominant stakeholders are different. In other words, before the practice of heritage renewal begins, the residents of a heritage site can choose to remain in the site (the heritage self-renewal model), partially move out of the site (the heritage revitalization model), or move to a new place of residence (the heritage transformation model). The three models also reflect the differentiated values of the stakeholders: The heritage self-renewal model places more emphasis on social values (social cohesion, community identity, or other sense of belonging), while the heritage transformation model places more emphasis on economic values (real estate, income, spending power, industry drivers, etc.) [32]. The heritage revitalization model is somewhere in between. It may also bring some new vitality to the heritage site, such as interaction between local residents and new groups of travelers, tourists, and short-term tenants. This has already been tried in the Xiaoxihu Block [49,50].

As there is a consensus that increased levels of community participation contribute to the sustainability of urban heritage [23,25], the heritage self-renewal model is the most appropriate in this context, one that meets the needs of the indigenous population as far as possible and preserves the spatial and functional aspects of the originally built heritage. However, it should be recognized that many residents are unable or do not wish to bear the excessive costs of renovation and renewal of their built heritage. Residents of heritage sites sometimes prefer to live in new towns with better infrastructure, more modern functions, and more comfortable spaces than to remain in the declining old towns [88]. Something similar is happening in Chinese cities [89]. The inability to afford repairs has even led to off-site preservation. For example, a Huizhou traditional residence named Yin Yu Tang House was bought, dismantled, shipped, and rebuilt in Salem, Massachusetts, by the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) in the United States due to a lack of funds for conservation [90].

In reality, preserving the original inhabitants of heritage sites can sometimes be viewed as idealistic by experts and scholars. Redevelopment and relocation may be more prevalent among displaced populations, who might see heritage interventions as a rare chance to significantly enhance their quality of life, even if it requires moving to a different location [91]. In these circumstances, a diversified heritage regeneration model offers residents of heritage sites more options, aiming to prevent widespread demolition and subsequent gentrification of historic areas [92].

Based on the above analysis, the heritage revitalization model is the most suitable one for urban heritage regeneration in China nowadays. It strikes a balance between the administrative power of the government and the wishes of the inhabitants of the heritage site, as well as between social and economic values. It can also promote the enthusiasm of market participation and have a broader significance. In addition, this model can also avoid the absolute discourse of a single interest group, such as the over-development of the heritage site, the potential problems brought about by the community having autonomy, and so on [26,27]. The heritage site’s residents have more choices, and the selection hinges significantly on the needs of them. While acknowledging the influence of external market forces, it has evolved into a conservation mechanism co-led by local residents. Within this intricate dynamic, the concept of “hometown sentiment” resonates amidst the backdrop of contemporary commercial culture [86].

Nonetheless, urban renewal in China is characterized by uneven development across regions. Taking Nanjing’s Xiaoxihu block as an example, neighboring historic districts like Fuzimiao and Laomendong have undergone extensive commercialization previously, creating a new commercial and cultural foundation that serves as a precedent for the exploration of the Xiaoxihu block. In contrast, the renewal efforts in Jinan’s historic areas are still in the exploratory and early stages. Despite the establishment of the Jinan Urban Renewal Special Plan (2021–2035), which outlines renewal mechanisms, policy guarantees, and specific strategies [93], Jinan’s historic districts continue to face challenges such as inefficient land acquisition, significant government debt, and ineffective methods for reusing historical heritage. In this case, it is necessary to utilize the economic value of the urban heritage by applying the heritage transformation model locally in the historic district. This means promoting the vitality of the historic district in the way of Urban Acupuncture [54] and then applying other models. It should be an expediential approach in some inactive historic areas of Jinan.

To sum up, integrating a standardized approach to urban heritage preservation into the framework of urban development during the era of inventory planning is crucial. The redistribution of urban heritage space aims to shift away from prioritizing economic gains alone towards a model that prioritizes sustainable social development. The three models built in this paper are an exploration in the context of urban heritage regeneration in China, aiming to leverage the strengths of various stakeholders to establish a healthy and sustainable historic district regeneration approach that can be replicated in other contexts.

5. Conclusions

As China’s urban development enters the stage of inventory planning, the protection and utilization of urban heritage encounter both new opportunities and challenges. The conflicts and power imbalances among interest groups related to urban heritage are becoming increasingly prominent. These dynamics involve strategic interactions among local governments, residents of heritage sites, the market, and specialists and scholars. Due to different value orientations, the process of heritage renewal becomes an interactive process of conflict, negotiation, and compromise among different groups. Based on the perspective of inventory planning, the mechanism and strategy of urban heritage conservation and regeneration were explored by taking the traditional courtyard houses in Jinan as an example. A self-renewal model, a heritage revitalization model, and a heritage transformation model for traditional courtyard houses were constructed in the present study. Their goal is to align with the current stage of urban development in China and transform the interactive dynamics among stakeholders in urban heritage renewal into an efficient and implementable heritage renewal model.

In contemporary urban regeneration, whether it involves a historic area, district, or building, the focus should be on creating spaces that serve people and society. These spaces need to continuously evolve and be infused with new life and vitality to meet changing social and economic demands. The authenticity of urban heritage is not static; rather, it is sustained through ongoing spatial reproduction, ensuring that historical heritage remains vibrant and relevant. The reproduction of urban heritage requires the collaboration of all kinds of subjects such as government, market, local residents, and experts and scholars. This encompasses the protection of values, transformation of functions, organization of spatial layouts, and upgrading of infrastructure within physical spaces. Additionally, it entails innovating social systems such as heritage policies, management practices, and service delivery. Realizing the comprehensive value of urban heritage—encompassing vitality, appropriateness, efficiency, and equity—requires coordinated efforts from various stakeholders and different levels of governance to promote new understandings and methods of heritage renewal. The heritage regeneration models built in the present study represent ideal frameworks under the leadership of three primary stakeholders, and they are an exploration within the framework of China’s current urban heritage renewal. In the next step of the research, the three models need to be tested with a stratified representative sample of the Jinan Historical Districts to determine what the wider acceptance of the three models might be. It will also be the focus of the next research work.