Contextualizing UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape Approach: A Framework for Identifying Modern Heritage in Post-Blast Beirut

Abstract

This paper reflects on the application and adaptation of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach in Beirut, Lebanon, in post-disaster conditions. Adopted by UNESCO in 2005, the HUL approach marked a shift in addressing urban heritage, echoing an evolution in theory. However, contextualizing the HUL approach to address distinct local, geographic, and cultural conditions and reframing its scale and scope of operation remains a challenge. This paper uses a case-study-based methodology as it reflects on the application of the Historic Urban Landscape approach in the post-blast context of Beirut. Commissioned by UNESCO, an interdisciplinary team at the Beirut Urban Lab used the HUL approach to identify modern heritage in Beirut after adapting it to the post-colonial and Mediterranean context of the city. This study contextualized modern heritage definitions, proposed a periodization of modern built and landscape heritage, and designated modern heritage based on its formal/spatial, urban/landscape, socio-cultural, and environmental values. This paper argues that the study contributes to the advancement of the Historic Urban Landscape approach by operationalizing it into an applicable heritage framework, employing a transdisciplinary model that involves local people at the institutional and community levels, and serving as a basis for generating conservation strategies responsive to place and culture. This study also pioneered a comprehensive, integrative, and transdisciplinary reading of modern heritage in Beirut, breaking the professional silos between disciplines and bringing landscape into the identification of heritage in Lebanon.

1. Introduction

A century-long effort to redefine the scope of urban heritage has culminated in the development of the Historic Urban Landscape approach. A comprehensive survey of UNESCO’s charters, conventions, and recommendations reflects a changing perspective on heritage, echoing an evolution in theory. Influential figures in heritage conservation throughout history shifted focus from the tangible, object-oriented, and monument-centered approach to giving value to the intangible and holistic meanings of heritage [1]. It started with Ruskin [2] in the mid-nineteenth century when he first attributed value to elements beyond the ‘isolated richness of palaces’ [1]. The turn of the twentieth century witnessed a shift toward an urban approach [3] after Sitte [4] advocated for integrating monuments within the urban fabric. Around the early twentieth century, Geddes [5] brought heritage to the discourse of urban development while advocating for a comprehensive surveying of the city with broad participation from a variety of relevant stakeholders [6]. At the time, Giovannoni and Ventura [7] also introduced the term ‘urban heritage’ while recognizing the interconnectedness of monuments and vernacular architecture within cities [1]. Also in the twentieth century, Sauer [8] expanded our understanding of the notion of ‘cultural landscapes,’ which was first introduced by Otto Schlüter in 1899 and which, at later stages, became foundational to the core of the Historic Urban Landscape approach [9].

The notion of cultural landscapes offers a framework important to the historical urban setting, particularly because it focuses on vernacular culture and reinforces the idea that landscapes are ‘cultural constructs’ [9]. As Makhzoumi [10] puts it, cultural landscapes encompass nearly all of our surroundings, from ‘untouched nature’ to the highly humanized environments of cities. Within these framing of landscape, Sauer [8] attributes significance to temporal and social continuity in identifying heritage values [11], translated into a practical framework during the late 1980s and 1990s [12]. Heavily influenced by the pioneering works of cultural geographers, this period was marked by a critical discourse and a deeper understanding of cultural heritage [12]. Eventually, this theoretical progress led to what is known as the landscape approach to heritage, a holistic and integrative understanding of heritage that encompasses the tangible, physical/spatial, and intangible cultural values and practices. It also engages with the social and economic roles of historic cities [1].

The core ideas behind the landscape approach shaped the concept of the Historic Urban Landscape, as is evident in its definition:

“The historic urban landscape is the urban area understood as the result of a historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the notion of “historic centre” or “ensemble” to include the broader urban context and its geographical setting.”

[13] (p. 3)

UNESCO first announced the concept of the Historic Urban Landscape in 2005 at the Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture [14], and its application was later recommended in 2011 [13]. The uniqueness of the latest recommendation lies in its consolidation of complementary principles, concepts, approaches, and scopes previously addressed and adopted independently in earlier European and international documents [15].

Since its inception, the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach has been subject to discussion and criticism. Although it was widely adopted in various case studies worldwide [16], the concept still raises many inquiries [17]. It has been questioned for its ambiguity and the absence of practical tools for its suitability and application in diverse contexts [1,15,17,18,19,20,21]. An extensive body of literature suggests the need to adapt the approach to the context of application while considering its local, geographic, and cultural specificity. An example of this adaptation is the project “Identifying Cultural Heritage Attributes in Beirut Blast Damaged Areas.” In this project, the Beirut Urban Lab at the American University of Beirut collaborated with an interdisciplinary team of experts in the fields of built and landscape heritage, planning and legal frameworks, and participatory models and tools. The team worked to adapt the HUL approach to the post-colonial and Mediterranean context of Beirut in Lebanon. The project targeted an area extending over 2.2 square kilometers (see Figure 1) and was heavily impacted by the Beirut Port Blast on 4 August 2020. The interdisciplinary team proposed an urban and landscape framework that is substantially grounded in a historical reading of Beirut and based on a contextualized framing of modern heritage. In the absence of a comprehensive legal framework for protecting modern heritage in Lebanon, and given the post-port disaster setting, the project produced a milestone framework necessary for identifying and valorizing heritage.

This paper critically reflects on the outcomes of the project and argues that the produced urban and landscape framework contributes to advancing the HUL approach in three ways. Firstly, it operationalizes HUL to respond to local contexts, moving HUL from a broad and abstract concept into a robust and applicable heritage framework. Secondly, it counters the universalization approach to heritage identification by employing a transdisciplinary model that involves local people at the institutional and community levels. Finally, by introducing clusters and ensembles, it introduces the intermediate scale of the historic urban landscape that goes midway between the urban fabric as a whole and individual buildings. This scale serves as a basis for generating conservation strategies that are responsive to place and culture. Additionally, this study also pioneered the first comprehensive, integrative, and transdisciplinary reading of modern heritage in Beirut, breaking the professional silos between disciplines and bringing landscape into the identification of heritage in Lebanon. The paper has three main sections. The first section sheds light on the critical discourse surrounding the HUL approach in the literature. The second section introduces the case study, highlighting historical and geographical transformations in Beirut and the existing legal framework for heritage. The third section presents the urban and landscape framework for identifying and valuing modern heritage in Beirut. The paper concludes with a discussion and reflections on the project.

2. The Historic Urban Landscape Through a Critical Lens

HUL emerged in response to the increasingly complex challenges posed by global processes and projected urbanization patterns [22]. Its core idea is centered on reshaping the role of urban heritage within society and redefining the criteria for its conservation, adaptation, and inclusion in urban decision-making processes [22]. From the lens of its advocates, the approach embodies a shift from the conventional notion of a ‘historic area/center/city’ into a prioritization of ‘urban heritage’ in preservation policies, thus enabling a shift towards a more adaptable, inclusive, and community-driven approach to conservation [22]. In addition, this shift brought discussions about natural heritage to the table, putting forth landscape and ecological urbanism as an important dimension in urban conservation, as well as intangible heritage [22]. Its uniqueness lies in its ability to ‘reconnect’ the ‘historic’ and the ‘modern,’ allowing for a holistic understanding of urban heritage and influencing urban development and rehabilitation [22]. The HUL concept transcends the historic city and instead looks at the urban ensemble as a whole [20], while its most crucial concept is layering [23]. It considers the entire urban area as an accumulation of human interaction across time, focusing on the lively continuity in time and space while studying the urban fabric [23].

According to its founders, HUL is perceived as a ‘mindset’ or an ‘understanding of the city’ [24], which hints at a broad, theoretical, and abstract concept. Its ideas are flexible; the all-encompassing definition allows for numerous interpretations, making its implementation not binding but indulgent [25]. Ideally, it is envisioned as a tool to be incorporated into existing policies and principles but not replacing them, encompassing the legacy of a century-long accumulation of ideas [26]. It brings to the table the challenge of a new approach that is genuinely global and can cover a variety of historic urban contexts [27]. As it provides an all-embracing framework, it can aid in structuring and improving policies in urban heritage management [1]. It also offers a versatile methodology to tackle a range of issues by encouraging collaboration and connections among urban areas of different scales and their surrounding rural and peri-urban environments [28]. Thus, the broadness of the HUL approach is intentional, and it is rooted in the need for flexible guidelines that can be adapted to different contexts and cultures [29].

To facilitate the adaptation and implementation of HUL, involved stakeholders on the operational levels must initially be open to comprehending its underlying rationale and assessing its applicability within unique contexts [19]. However, adapting these international standards to local contexts has been a challenge. This contextualization requires practical tools that are rarely present in an approach that is more theoretical than practical [17]. The broadness of the HUL approach did not help in clarifying matters but rather caused further complications [29]. The approach has been criticized for including so many items yet remaining at the general level and avoiding detailed explanations. According to Azpeitia Santander et al. [17], HUL “acts as a whirlpool that engulfs everything without providing effective tools capable of managing the huge number of items it covers” [17] (p. 8). Moreover, at the practical level, implementing the HUL recommendations within a local context depends largely on the effectiveness of existing legislative and institutional frameworks for heritage preservation [1,18]. In that regard, translating theoretical concepts into actionable strategies becomes more complex in the context of global south cities [15], more so in Arab cities where it is challenging to interpret and translate the word ‘landscape’ locally [11,19]. The absence of a proper translation of the word poses a problem in the Arab region, as the outdated translation of the word, like hada’ik (gardens), fadha’at kharijia (outdoor spaces), and bi’a (environment), do not grasp its complexity in English [11].

The first step towards the practical application of the HUL approach was outlining six steps for Member States to assist local authorities in the implementation, collectively known as the Historic Urban Landscape Action Plan. The initial three steps of this action plan entail a comprehensive identification and mapping of natural, cultural, and human assets, followed by a valuation phase using participatory planning and a stakeholder analysis alongside a vulnerability assessment [30]. Once completed, the fourth step involves formulating a City Development Strategy (CDS) to embed urban heritage values and vulnerability assessments within a broader city development framework. The final two steps require prioritizing policies and actions for conservation and development, in addition to establishing local partnerships. Also, executing the Historic Urban Landscape Action Plan requires consultations with higher government levels [30].

Therefore, a prerequisite for successfully implementing the HUL approach is narrowing the gap between international standards and local contexts. This phase requires translating these broad theoretical concepts into a practical framework consistent with the HUL approach. One of the mainstream tools employed to assess the use of the HUL approach in different contexts is the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis, as seen in Alsalloum [31] in Aleppo, Syria, Ginzarly and Teller [18] in Tripoli, Lebanon, Rey-Pérez and Avellán [32] in Ecuador, and El-Bastawissi et al. [33] in Beirut, Lebanon. However, each context’s local, cultural, and geographical specificity requires more thorough, tailored approaches. This contextualization is especially crucial in contexts of post-disaster recovery. As heritage is perceived as a critical catalyst of post-conflict recovery [34], a tailored HUL approach can be utilized in identifying and valuing heritage, thus becoming a recovery agent. This was seen in the project “Identifying Cultural Heritage Attributes in Beirut Blast Damaged Areas” following the Beirut Port Blast on 4 August 2020.

3. Case Profile

3.1. The Context

On 4 August 2020, a massive blast hit the Beirut Port, shattering entire neighborhoods and causing severe damage to the urban fabric. Most of the damage was concentrated in the historical neighborhoods surrounding the port. Many of these neighborhoods have built heritage, open spaces, and natural landscapes with significant historical and cultural value to the rest of Beirut. They also host a diversity of social groups and unique socio-economic practices. According to a report on the Order of Engineers and Architects in Beirut published shortly after the blast, around 25% of the heritage buildings were at mid to high risk of collapse [35].

Besides the damages caused by the blast affecting heritage buildings, these neighborhoods were threatened by ongoing urban trends of gentrification. A significant transformation in the urban fabric was already taking place before the blast, and the Municipality of Beirut granted many demolition permits, especially along the main roads, according to data from the Beirut Urban Lab. According to a source at the Directorate General of Antiquities in Lebanon (DGA), a considerable number of property owners also filed for demolition permits, seizing an opportunity after the blast, further threatening the built fabric in the area.

Shortly after the Beirut Port Blast, UNESCO commissioned the Beirut Urban Lab to conduct a study entitled “Identifying Cultural Heritage Attributes in Beirut Blast Damaged Areas.” The Beirut Urban Lab, formed in 2018, is a collaborative and interdisciplinary research space with a long-term collective experience and research trajectory formulated in response to disasters and urban traumas in different contexts, including historic cities and landscapes in the Arab region. Their work advocates for culture as a catalyst for more people-centered, place-specific, and heritage-led strategies of recovery. Focused on sites of recovery, members of the lab engaged with works in the Beirut Central District after the civil war (1975–1990), the historic core of Bint Jbeil in South Lebanon after the 2006 war, Aleppo in Syria during the Syrian conflict, and back to Beirut after the port blast in 2020. These works resulted in theorization and critical reflections through different publications.

The study area, designated by UNESCO, included the neighborhoods closest to the blast epi-center and mostly affected by it, in addition to being some of the richest neighborhoods in heritage buildings and landscapes in Beirut, like Gemmayzeh, Mar Mikhael, Mar Nkoula, and others. It is bordered by the Beirut River to the east, Karantina to the north, Georges Haddad Street to the west, and Charles Malek Street to the south (see Figure 1). In response, the Beirut Urban Lab formed an interdisciplinary team of experts led by Howayda Al-Harithy and including Hana Alamudin, Habib Debs, Jala Makhzoumi, Robert Saliba, and Serge Yazigi to conduct the study. They utilized their expertise and scholarship in the fields of built and landscape heritage, planning and legal frameworks, and participatory models and tools. As per a requirement by UNESCO, the team adopted the Historic Urban Landscape approach to identify modern urban landscape heritage in the study area. This study was grounded in a thorough reading of the historical layers of the city at large and in the understanding of the existing legal framework for heritage protection in Lebanon.

3.2. A Historical Synopsis

Beirut exemplifies a Mediterranean city that is rich in natural and cultural heritage shaped by geographical complexity and a colonial legacy. With a history dating back to the fourteenth century B.C., its evolution intertwined with the presence of empires (such as the Ottoman Empire) controlling parts of the Middle East [36]. Unfolding these historical layers shows a radical transformation of a natural landscape into a cultural one, especially during the late Ottoman rule and the French mandate periods. This transformation contributed to changes in the built and social fabrics of the city, thus shaping modern Beirut.

3.2.1. The Geographical Complexity

Beirut sits on a peninsula protruding into the Mediterranean Sea and forming a triangular shape, with the sea delimiting two of its sides [37]. The foothills of Mount Lebanon border the city from the third side, thus adding to its geographical complexity. The topography is equally complex, with hills, coastal cliffs, and spurs that render the city a “remarkably defensible site” [37] (p. 146). The two hills of Achrafiyeh and Ras Beirut are the main contributors to the defense line of Beirut, the latter also protecting the city against prevailing winds [38]. Another spur to the west and a cliff to the eastern edge constitute a second line of defense. Beirut emerged at the lowest point in this complex wedge.

3.2.2. Transformation of the Historic Urban Landscape

By the end of the eighteenth century, Beirut was a small coastal Ottoman village with a population of 4000 inhabitants. At the time, inscribed inside its medieval walls, the city was of minor political and economic significance [37]. The city walls separated two contrasting areas: the inner space, which was a dense built-up area known as dâkhil al madînat (inner city), and the outer space, zâhir al madînat (back of the city) [37], which included watchtowers, caravan stops, livestock markets, gardens, public spaces, and cemeteries [37] surrounded by orchards and productive landscapes. Many place names referred to features of the rural landscape that dominated the hinterland; for example, ayn (spring), mazra’at (farm), and joubbat (mound) [37]. The productive landscapes included olive and carob trees, mulberry for silk production, figs, pomegranates, and date palms, with prickly pears demarcating the dirt roads [39]. The Beirut fertile plain that was open to the Mediterranean Sea, abundant springs, and proximity to the Beirut River secured food and water from land and sea [38] (See Figure 2).

Much of Beirut’s modern history was shaped by global changes around the mid-nineteenth century [40]. The global development of capitalist systems and the shift in major trade movements from inland caravan cities to coastal cities contributed to the rise of Beirut as a commercial port city [37,40]. With the declaration of Beirut as a regional administrative center in 1832, the city witnessed economic and urban growth. As a result, it acquired an administrative role and attracted diplomatic representation [41]. Additionally, the construction of the Beirut-Damascus Road in 1863 played a crucial role in this economic revitalization as it established a strong connection between Beirut and other Arab cities and made it a hub for regional trade [42].

This period also witnessed an influx of migrants into Beirut, escaping the sectarian conflicts in Mount Lebanon, triggering the first urban expansion, and leading to the formation of the first garden suburbs in the peripheries [37,40]. As more migrants came, the city expanded in concentric circles following roads leading out of the city [37,43] (see Figure 3). Between 1860 and 1918, the urban peripheries expanded and became denser, some developed with distinctive spatial organizations that differed fundatmentally from the traditional urban fabric of the walled city [37]. The migrants transformed the rural orchard/garden into an urban domestic gardens, a reminder of the valued landscape from where they came [44]. By the end of World War I, the city peripheries grew further, changing the character of Beirut from an Arab city to a Mediterranean bourgeois city [37].

Under the French mandate, Beirut was declared the capital of the newly established Lebanese State. This period constituted the enactment of new property laws, the development of transportation networks, and the expansion of the port [45]. Furthermore, the development of residential neighborhoods in the periphery required the establishment of public institutions. A tramway was constructed on Gouraud Street, which transformed it into a commercial street. Construction technologies introduced between the 1920s and 1940s facilitated construction on steep slopes and the erection of multi-story buildings [45]. As land in the city became scarce and its value increased, residential gardens started to disappear, and the urban fabric progressively densified.

As a result, the late Ottoman rule and French mandate periods marked a transition in the history of Beirut, witnessing a radical urban expansion and a shift in the socio-cultural composition from a Muslim urban culture into a Christian middle-class society. What remains of these periods today is a palette of urban and landscape fabrics with an eclectic mix of typologies and styles that reflect the hybrid nature of the modern period in Beirut. However, many of these fabrics remain unprotected due to the absence of a comprehensive heritage protection law in Lebanon.

3.3. The Legal Framework for Heritage Protection in Lebanon

Heritage buildings in Beirut, especially those in the oldest neighborhoods, face considerable pressure from building laws and zoning regulations [46]. These regulations are problematic because they allow for significantly high floor-to-area and exploitation ratios with no restrictions on building heights, thereby compromising the integrity of low-volume, low-density urban fabrics [46]. This regulatory setup paves the way for the unrestricted spread of towers in heritage-rich neighborhoods and incentivizes heritage building owners to opt for demolition [46]. With these threats to heritage in Beirut, the current legal framework for heritage protection in Lebanon falls short of providing adequate protection. The current framework is outdated, incomprehensive, and object-oriented, with landscape heritage completely overlooked.

3.3.1. Built Heritage Protection Law

The protection of built heritage in Lebanon continues to be regulated by a law originating from the French mandate period. The Antiquities Law number 166, dated 7/11/1933 of the Lebanese Law, is limited, object-oriented, and insufficient on several grounds. First, the law does not mention the word ‘heritage’; instead, it addresses man-made ‘antiquities’ that reflect a focus on objects, artifacts, and monuments. By definition, objects are deemed antiquities if they predate 1700. Other immovable objects from 1700 are also treated as ‘antiquities’ if their conservation is deemed of public interest from historical or artistic points of view and are, thus, listed on the “General Inventory of Historic Monuments.” Currently, around 500 buildings, 75 of them in Beirut, are listed on this inventory [47]. As per the antiquities law, they are protected by the Directorate General of Antiquities, and their demolition is prohibited. However, the limited time frame of this law excludes a rich layer of modern heritage integral to the heritage of Beirut, whereby their protection requires an administrative decision to be listed on the inventory list.

Awaiting a more contemporary heritage protection law, the Ministry of Culture resorted to other provisional measures through administrative decisions to protect unregistered heritage buildings. In this regard, the list of ‘buildings whose demolition is suspended’ was created by virtue of the Governmental Act No. 57 dated 10/03/2010. The list is a result of different surveys that took place between 1995 and 1998 by several consultants, namely APSAD (1995), DGU (1997), and Khatib and Alami (1998). Due to political pressure, the number of buildings on this list was reduced from 1016 to 458 buildings [46]. Another administrative decision by the Minister of Culture in 2010 required the owner of every building, regardless of its heritage value, to request a demolition permit from the Directorate General of Antiquities [46]. Therefore, heritage building protection is not based on an effective and robust law but rather on ad hoc administrative decisions that can be subject to legal appeals.

3.3.2. Landscape Protection Laws

There are no current precedents for a legal setup in Lebanon that recognizes landscape as ‘heritage’ comprehensively. Laws on the protection of landscapes do not attribute value to landscapes beyond their natural and environmental value, with little regard to the cultural aspects of the landscape. The latter follows from Landscape Protection Law No. 0/1939 of the Lebanese Law, issued during the French Mandate, that recognizes the importance of protecting natural landscapes but disregard cultural landscape heritage. A more contemporary law called the Protected Areas Law No. 130/2019 of the Lebanese Law recognizes the importance of the ecological biodiversity and cultural value of a ‘Hima’, community protected landscape, but similarly does not acknowledge the heritage value of designed landscapes, such as parks, gardens, and other open spaces. Like heritage buildings, some landscapes are protected through administrative decisions by the Minister of Culture to list them on the “General Inventory of Historic Monuments”. Examples are Tobagi Garden and Massaad Stairs in Beirut by virtue of Decision No. 194 in 2018 and Decision No. 104 in 2014, respectively.

In conclusion, laws on the protection of heritage are deficient, focusing on monuments and buildings, disregard the surrounding fabric, and similarly disregards landscape heritage. These laws fail to address built heritage holistically and comprehensively, with a limited timeframe that excludes rich layers of modern heritage from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Above all, current protection measures operate through compartmentalized and uncoordinated administrative decision making.

Due to the adverse effects stemming from this outdated framework, including the distortion of the built environment and gentrification in certain areas, preparations are underway for the issuing of a more modernized legal framework. The new draft law recognized an urban approach to heritage that was absent in the antiquities law. The following is Article 1 of the new draft law issued through Decree No. 1936 dated 29/11/2017, translated from Arabic.

“The law aims to protect, revive, and showcase archaeological or historical sites, structures, landmarks, buildings, and components thereof with heritage or historical value, including built and unbuilt properties, that individually or collectively form an urban or heritage fabric in cities, villages, and towns. These properties have artistic, historical, architectural, scientific, heritage, natural, environmental, or cultural value due to their architectural character, coherence, or integration into their natural or urban surroundings.”

However, the Lebanese Parliament has not yet adopted this law. And amid the current state of political instability, modern heritage in Beirut continues to be is still threatened.

4. An Adaptation of the Historic Urban Landscape Approach to Post-Blast Beirut

4.1. The Historic Urban Landscape Approach as a Premise

The initial step carried out by the team of experts included establishing an overarching framing of urban heritage with the Historic Urban Landscape approach as the main premise. As such, this framing departed from the notion of the Historic Urban Landscape being the outcome of a historical layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, as defined by the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [13]. This definition broadens the idea of the Historic Urban Landscape to extend beyond the notion of the historic center or ensemble and includes the wider urban context and geographical setting [13]. Within this framing, the team also acknowledged an extended definition of urban heritage that was framed in the European Union research report Nº 16 (2004), Sustainable Development of Urban Historical Areas through an Active Integration Within Towns—SUIT, and referenced in the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape Approach (2011). The report identifies three main categories: (a) monumental heritage of exceptional cultural value, (b) non-exceptional heritage elements but elements that are present in a coherent way with a relative abundance, and (c) new urban elements to be considered, such as urban built form, open space, and urban infrastructure [48]. In addition to this, the framing acknowledges that urban heritage should not be treated as large, isolated monuments or groups of buildings but as living historic cities, precincts, and/or groups of buildings intricately engaged with the urban fabrics of living cities. This general recommendation was mentioned in the final outcomes of the conference entitled “Heritage in Urban Contexts: Impacts of Development Projects on World Heritage Properties in Cities,” held at Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan (2020).

4.2. Modern Heritage in Universal Contexts

In the process of framing the definition of modern heritage, the team gave special consideration to the notion of cultural landscapes, as the focus shifted away from the visual landscapes, like an individual building or groups of buildings, styles, and building technologies. Rather, the focus was on the impact of modernity and modernization as forces for shaping the built environment. In the team’s framing, the definition of modern heritage relied on the outcomes outlined by the Modern Heritage Program, which was established by UNESCO, ICOMOS, and DOCOMOMO, and the Twentieth-Century Historic Thematic Framework published by the Getty Conservation Institute. On the one hand, this program understood modern heritage as a product of the design professions. It concluded that the World Heritage Convention applies to the architecture, town planning, and landscape designs of the twentieth century, with that of the nineteenth century after industrialization and colonialism as equally important [49]. Individual monuments of these periods were considered as important as other built forms, such as urban ensembles and city patterns, infrastructure and works of engineering, or landscape designs [49].

The Getty Conservation Institute, on the other hand, adopted a more comprehensive view as they correlated modern heritage with “key social, technological, political, environmental, and economic drivers of change that shaped the world from 1900 to 2000” [50] (p.8). Although universally designed, Marsden and Spearritt [50] provided a tool that can be employed to identify heritage places, contextualize them locally within the twentieth-century timeframe, and carry out a comparative evaluation between them. The ten themes discussed in this framework evolved swiftly in the twentieth century, though many trends were rooted in the nineteenth century [50].

It was also important to differentiate between the following three terms: modernization, modernity, and modernism. Modernization, as described by Berman [51], refers to “the processes of scientific, technological, industrial, economic, and political innovation triggered by these revolutions and that also become urban, social, and artistic in their impact” [51] (pp. 16–17). Modernity refers to the ways in which modernization infiltrates everyday life and permeates its sensibilities. Baudelaire [52] describes it as “the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent” and characterizes urban life under modernity by speed, mobility, novelty, and mutability. Modernism, however, refers to an avant-garde movement that, from the early twentieth century onwards, has responded in various ways to these changes in sensibility and experience [53].

4.3. A Contextualized Definition of Modern Heritage

After formulating a thorough understanding of modern heritage in international contexts, the team developed a contextualized definition of modern heritage for the city of Beirut. The first step was to evaluate the ten themes provided by Marsden and Spearritt [50] in the local context of Beirut (see Figure 4). This step is crucial as each region in the world responded differently to the wave of modernity that started in Europe and was reflected in regional expressions and nuances [49]. Subsequently, it was possible to formulate a synthetic definition of modern urban heritage. The three main categories from Dupagne et al. [48] were also redefined to align with the project. The monumental heritage with exceptional cultural value was defined as architecture, town planning, and landscape design of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A new dimension for the non-exceptional heritage elements was then added, which is the intangible social data. Finally, landscape heritage was assigned under new urban elements.

It was also important for the team to understand the terms modernity and modernism in the context of Beirut and to differentiate between Western and post-colonial contexts. Ascher [54] subdivides Western modernity into three phases: early modernity extending from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution, high modernity extending from the eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, and late modernity starting from the 1970s till now. In post-colonial contexts, modernity corresponds to the second phase with the European transfer of its manufactured products, its lifestyles, and its economic system through colonialism [55]. As such, Saliba [55] defined three stages of modernity that shaped Beirut’s central and peripheral districts. The three stages are early modernity (1840–1943), high modernity (1943–1975), and late modernity (1980–now) (see Figure 5).

Accordingly, modernity and modernism were redefined in the context of Beirut. Modernity was defined as the modernization that started in the second half of the nineteenth century as a twin phenomenon of colonialism, particularly in the late Ottoman rule and French mandate periods. Modernism refers to the architectural movement that was adopted and appropriated in the 1930s by local architects to produce their brand of ‘Beiruti modernism.’ Spatially, both modernity and modernism are related to the drivers of change introduced by Marsden and Spearritt [50].

In conclusion, the primary periodization of Beirut’s modern heritage was classified as such: (1) the mid-Ottoman period (before 1830) and the Egyptian rule (1830s), (2) late Ottoman Beirut (1840–1919), (3) French mandate Beirut (1920–1943), and (4) Independence Beirut (1944–1975) (see Figure 6).

4.4. A Framework for Identifying Attributes of Modern-Built Heritage

The next step carried out by the team was to articulate an analytical framework for the periodization of modern built heritage. The team relied heavily on the set of variables proposed by Saliba [41], which relate to the formal, functional, and contextual attributes of buildings. Those variables were subdivided into three sets: external, internal, and status indicators. External indicators are visual clues observable from outside buildings, and they yield reliable information on the chronological dating and typological classification of structures. While these indicators depend on outside observations, internal indicators require accessibility to the interiors of buildings for spatial investigation. Status indicators describe differences in terms of size and quality of design and construction, as well as the level of ornamentation, between buildings sharing the same stylistic and typological features. The high diversity of façade treatment and the relative continuity in internal planning led to the emphasis on façade typologies for dating (i.e., visual dating) and assessing. Accordingly, the team conducted a comparative analysis of inventoried buildings to outline several façade typologies related to each modernization phase. In the process, the team resorted to secondary resources, such as Arbid [56], Ragette [57], and Kassab [58].

The proposed periodization distinguishes between four built heritage classifications: (1) late Ottoman heritage (1850–1919), (2) colonial eclectic heritage (1920–1935), (3) early modernist heritage (1936–1955), and (4) high modernist heritage (1956–1971).

4.4.1. Late Ottoman Heritage (1850–1919) as 1st Phase of Modernization

This phase was characterized at the urban level with increasing suburbanization. In less than a century, the adjoining agricultural hinterland changed into a sprawling suburb, then into a series of well-defined urban districts exhibiting a high diversity of socio-economic characteristics and lifestyles. This was reflected in an array of domestic building typologies that are relevant to this study, especially the central hall suburban house (commonly known as ‘the Beiruti House’) and the early rental walk-up apartment building, which became common from the 1900s onwards. While most of the buildings from this period shared the central bay and triple-arched façade typology, a diversity in façade treatment and building typologies responded to varying socio-economic conditions (mansion, mainstream house, and basic/farmhouse) (see Figure 7), as well as geographic/landscape conditions (hillside, flat, foothill). Moreover, these buildings were highly influenced by the introduction and increasing use of red-tiled roofs over both existing and new structures.

4.4.2. Colonial Eclectic Heritage (1920–1935) as the 2nd Phase of Modernization

This phase was characterized by land speculation and an increasing rural-to-urban migration. Additionally, there was a gradual adoption of concrete as a building material. The superimposition of eclectic styles was also particular to this period, from neo-Classical to neo-Islamic to Art Nouveau and Art Deco, over a traditional spatial scheme: the central hall plan. Besides stylistic variations (see Figure 8), the central bay morphed into two additional façade types: the veranda type and the bay window type in the walk-up apartment buildings. The first type was created by the addition of a concrete veranda, while the second was a European import.

4.4.3. Early Modernist Phase (1936–1955) as the 3rd Phase of Modernization

In this phase, the main drivers of change are stylistic influences, especially of the Paquebot Style, where horizontality and rounded edges are prominent (see Figure 9). Technological changes involved the gradual assimilation of the elevator and the dissociative local carpentry style expressed in openings and shutters. This was reflected in the partial assimilation of Art Nouveau and Art Deco styles and the progressive simplification of forms under the impact of early modernism. The main building typologies from this phase are mid-rise elevator apartment buildings as well as low-rise apartment buildings. Notable façade features are protrusions, elongated linear balconies, elongated curvilinear balconies, and bays, such as the central bay and the recessed central bay.

4.4.4. High Modernist Phase (1955–1971) as the 4th Phase of Modernization

In the early 1950s, a shortage of residential units led to the drafting of a new building and zoning law in 1954. The main changes included increasing height limits, the introduction of the ‘gabarit’ (equivalent to the building envelope), incentivizing ‘pilotis,’ and the introduction of locally produced aluminum. The high modernist phase was characterized by the full assimilation of the modernist style, thus producing local modernisms and the leading role of key architects and engineers, both locals and foreigners, in shaping Beirut’s urban architecture. Main façade typologies were classified according to the modular grid (integral through balconies, structure, glazing, etc., or detached as a second skin) and horizontal/vertical compositions (through balconies, bands, and other elements) (see Figure 9). The main typological features included the ‘pilotis’ on the ground floor, walled balconies, and blank walls. Distinctive elements included concrete pergolas, aluminum/steel frames, and concrete awnings.

The end of this phase marked the beginning of the late modernist phase. The main changes were driven by the amendment of the Building Law in 1971, which canceled the height restriction and modified the building’s ‘gabarit.’ The law also specified regulations for the ‘pilotis’ floor that remained unchanged to date. This period saw the emergence of regionalism after the publication of “L’habitation au Liban” by Kalayan and Liger-Belair [59] and “Architecture In Lebanon: The Lebanese House During the 18th and 19th Centuries” [57]. It also saw the influence of brutalist architecture on local practitioners. The matrix in Figure 10 synthesizes the phases of modernization (periodization) with the main ‘drivers of change’ and the resulting building and façade typologies.

4.4.5. Framing Natural and Landscape Heritage

The team distinguished between two categories of urban natural heritage. The first category embraces the geomorphology, landform, coastline, and river features that justified locating the city historically and shaped the character of Beirut in the centuries that followed. These natural features were covered by successive layers of habitation and are, for the most part, hidden. The second category of natural heritage embraces green and open spaces, gardens and parks, streets, and public stairs. Seeing how natural and cultural heritage is intertwined in this second category, the term ‘landscape heritage’ was used to distinguish them from architectural and built heritage.

For landscape heritage, three categories were identified. The first category included residential gardens, which are privately defined on cadastral maps and associated with traditional houses, villa houses, and apartment buildings. The second category included enclosed green/open spaces, which are semi-publicly defined on cadastral maps and associated with institutional sites, including religious, educational, health, and governmental buildings. The third category included open and public spaces, like streets and public stairs. Together, the natural landscape and built landscape form Beirut’s unique historic urban landscape heritage.

Residential garden typologies closely follow the typologies and periodization of the modern architectural heritage of residential buildings. They were the focus of this study as they constitute the largest portion of the site area. Changes in garden landscapes are few and at a much slower rate than the development of architectural typologies. These typologies are as follows: (a) the productive garden, which constitutes the remainder of a ‘bustan’ containing mostly fruit trees; (b) the traditional house garden, which constitutes extensive trees planted around a suburban late Ottoman house; (c) the villa garden which surrounds mansions with a westernized character and large plot area; (d) the apartment building garden which occupies one side of an apartment building plot; (e) the modern apartment building garden which constitutes the garden of a modernist apartment building with a minimal green cover; and the (f) modern residual garden which is limited to the planted areas of the residential plots, generally within building setbacks (See Figure 11). In defining these typologies, the team relied heavily on the outcomes of the research conducted on the ‘hakura’ garden style [60] and the Beiruti house garden [44]. The matrix in Figure 12 synthesizes the phases of modernization (periodization) with the main ‘drivers of change’ and the resulting residential garden typologies. For institutional green/open spaces, four typo morphologies were delineated and surveyed, associated with religious, educational, health, and governmental buildings.

4.5. Defining Values and Attributes of Modern Heritage

The following step carried out by the team entailed defining values and attributes for modern built and landscape heritage. To do so, the team formulated a set of questions that guided the assessment of buildings and landscapes. For modern built heritage, three sets of values were identified: formal/spatial value, urban/landscape value, and socio-cultural value. Formally, a building is assessed on how it represents a historical period, including its style, typological elements, and its stylistic integrity. The urban value focuses on aspects of the building’s relationship with its immediate environment, such as its interaction with streets and other buildings, its position on the plot, its visual prominence, and its overall contributions to the urban fabric. As for the socio-cultural value, it considers the importance of the building to the social history, cultural practices, and urban narrative, reflecting its impact on the collective memory and heritage.

A similar set of values was used to assess modern landscape heritage but with additional consideration for environmental value. Like buildings, a garden or green space is assessed spatially based on its reflection of a historical period and embodiment of societal values through its design, layout, and adaptation to local geographic and cultural contexts. The urban value assesses the contribution of the garden or green space to the urban landscape character or identity. The socio-cultural value pertains to the garden’s significance to the shared memories of a place and contributions to its social history. As for the environmental value, it assesses the impact on urban microclimate and biodiversity. The matrix in Figure 13 summarizes the values and attributes of the modern built and landscape heritage.

4.6. Validating the Framework

Building on the participatory approach advocated by the Historic Urban Landscape approach in items no. 22 and 23, the team operated through a collaborative model to validate the proposed framework. This model included public agencies, local and international non-governmental organizations, local experts and researchers in the field of heritage, and members of local communities. The aim was to include a wide range of stakeholders involved in the identification and protection of heritage in Beirut.

In this process, the team held three thorough meetings and discussions with UNESCO and the Directorate General of Antiquities in Lebanon (see Figure 14a). The purpose of the meetings was to reflect on the values and identification criteria for heritage selection in the context of the Historic Urban Landscape approach. Additionally, the team held two expert workshops on the identification of modern heritage in Beirut. The purpose of these workshops was to present and discuss the proposed definition and criteria for the identification of modern urban heritage within a framework of identified values and attributes. The workshops engaged local and international experts and academics to reach a shared definition and periodization of modern heritage in Lebanon and to identify its constituent elements and related attributes and values (see Figure 14b).

To advocate for UNESCO’s Historical Urban Landscape approach and its application in Beirut, the team organized two public information sessions entitled ‘The HUL Approach in the Context of Beirut-Blast Damaged Areas.’ These sessions aimed to present the Historic Urban Landscape approach and how it applies to Beirut within a framework of identified layers, values, and attributes. A diverse audience attended both sessions, including scholars, architects, restoration specialists, students, and civil society actors.

Furthermore, to solidify the participatory approach, the team engaged local citizen scientists, who are residents and members of the local communities trained by the Beirut Urban Lab on research methods and ethics (also called local researchers), in three urban walks (see Figure 14c). These urban walks aimed to identify sites of shared memories and significant places that hold urban and socio-cultural importance to the residents and local communities. These walks were recorded by photographing, audio-recording, and mapping the main places identified by the participants as significant landmarks, places, and practices.

4.7. Designation of Modern Built and Landscape Heritage

After extensive fieldwork resulting in 2464 surveys on built and landscape heritage, the team evaluated the results and proposed a scheme to designate modern built and landscape heritage. The designation was based on the assessment of the values of each building and the relationship it possesses with a given cluster or ensemble. It consists of four categories: A, B, C, and D. For built heritage, category A corresponds to individual monuments. They are buildings that demonstrate high architectural, urban, and socio-cultural value. Buildings falling under this category are envisioned to be protected even if they are not part of a cluster or ensemble. Category B corresponds to buildings that constitute elements of the Historic Urban Landscape. They demonstrate low to high standing across the three values, as follows: B1 buildings have high to low standing across all values, B2 buildings have low to high standing across two values, and B3 buildings have high standing architectural value. Buildings that fall under category B are envisioned to be protected as part of a cluster or ensemble. As for Category C buildings, they possess a high-standing urban value and are considered elements of the Historic Urban Landscape. It is recommended that they are assessed further within a detailed study of a given cluster or ensemble. Finally, designation D corresponds to buildings that have no value across any of the categories, and they are envisioned to be released (see Figure 15). A similar designation scheme was formulated for landscape heritage covering residential gardens, green/open spaces, and main streets and stairs.

4.8. Defining Clusters, Ensembles, and Garden Concentrations

In the process of reading the site as a Historic Urban Landscape, the team formulated a definition of a cluster, an ensemble, and a garden concentration. A cluster is distinguished as a group of modern heritage buildings sharing common architectural and urban attributes, thus forming the smallest ordered homogeneous group and constituting a recognizable urban form, like alignments, blocks, and squares. Each cluster is understood in context and in relation to how it contributes to the formation of space and the definition of urban identity (see Figure 16). An ensemble is identified as a sequence of clusters, or a group of modern heritage buildings, that are diverse in terms of their age, typologies, and other attributes. Accordingly, they form a comparable group of buildings. As for a garden concentration, it is defined as a group of gardens constituting a conglomeration of mature tree canopies that are of significance in shaping the Historic Urban Landscape character.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Applying the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), a broad, theoretical, and abstract international concept, to local contexts requires tailored approaches. The framework for identifying modern built and landscape heritage developed for the project “Identifying Cultural Heritage Attributes in Beirut Blast Damaged Areas” serves as an example of an adaptation of the Historic Urban Landscape approach to the post-colonial and Mediterranean city of Beirut, within and beyond post-disaster conditions. While most applications of this approach are centered in Europe and, most recently, in China [20], there were previous attempts to apply this approach in contexts similar to that of the case study. However, such attempts were limited to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the HUL approach, in addition to identifying its role in the conservation of heritage [18,33]. El-Bastawissi et al. [33], for example, investigated the application of the four tools identified in the Recommendation and assessed the possibility of their application in the context of Beirut using a SWOT analysis [33]. Some applications were limited in scale, applying HUL to one street in Beirut, namely Armenia Street. While their research provides a valuable contribution to the study of heritage in Beirut, a more thorough and detailed reading of heritage is needed in this context, given the cultural and geographical complexity that requires a holistic reading of heritage. This is especially important for modern heritage, given the very limited research in that field and the absence of this layer from the legal framework in Lebanon. Therefore, a thorough identification of this layer is needed prior to any intervention in this context, especially given the post-blast condition. Countering this challenge required a major effort from the Beirut Urban Lab, embodied in the employment of six local experts who undertook a thorough investigation of modern heritage in Beirut. Therefore, we argue that the framework proposed by the BUL Team contributes to advancing the Historic Urban Landscape approach in addition to its contribution to the study of modern heritage in Beirut.

First, with HUL as an overarching premise, this study constitutes a holistic and integrated approach to urban heritage that is spatially expansive, embracing buildings and streets, open spaces and gardens, just as it is inclusive of socio-cultural practices and local cultural values. The HUL integrative framework engendered a layered reading that captured the complexity of the living heritage of cities. This aided the study in expanding the identification of modern heritage beyond individual monuments and buildings to incorporate both built and landscape heritage as integral and integrated components of the Historic Urban Landscape. By introducing and articulating the term landscape heritage in local contexts, this study pioneered the coupling of landscape and heritage within in-depth interpretations of heritage in the regional context. Through a thematic reading of the urban context, this study aligned the formation of modern heritage with its underlying ‘drivers of change’ [50], identifying key components, including infrastructure, open spaces, and the intangible heritage of social practices and collective memories. While providing a systematic valuation method for urban and landscape heritage with a detailed list of attributes specific to each category, the study can also serve as a cornerstone in heritage recognition, providing a reading of heritage that is inclusive of the urban fabric as a whole, thus moving beyond a historicized reading. HUL also became a tool for identifying and valuing heritage, moving it from a broad and abstract concept into a robust, integrative, and applicable heritage framework. Tangibly, this documentation of modern heritage in Beirut paved the way for a series of workshops that took place between public agencies, UNESCO, heritage experts, economists, policy experts, and academics in order to propose an amendment to the heritage protection law in Lebanon.

The participatory model through which the team validated the framework highlighted the importance of agency in the process of identifying and valuing heritage. Based on the recommendation, the team engaged a wide range of stakeholders, including public entities, the private sector, research and academic institutions, local non-governmental organizations, and international agencies, in addition to local community engagement through urban walks. As a result, HUL nurtured a true collaboration with local communities and across disciplines, potentially described as ‘transdisciplinary’ in its collective framing and the proposed collective reading. Scholarly work across disciplines accounts for the layered reading of urban heritage and the innovative concepts of urban heritage attributes in post-colonial, global south cities. It has been argued that since HUL was introduced by UNESCO, it can often be considered enforced by international bodies, thus disregarding the specificities of local contexts [15]. This model, however, countered the universalization of heritage and brought back the agency by identifying heritage with local institutions and local communities. In this sense, the framework kept heritage, as Al-Harithy [61] argues, associated with the cultural context to which it belongs and engrained in the identities of local communities.

The recognition of ‘landscape’ as heritage is another key contribution of the project discussed in this article, demonstrating the potential of a holistic landscape reading of the site. For the first time in Beirut, the project recognized ‘nature in the city’, those fragments of living landscapes that include gardens and abandoned sites, street trees, and cemeteries, as opposed to the ‘nature of the city’, morphological features of the virgin site of Beirut that include landform and the coastline, transformed and/or incorporated into the urban fabric (See Figure 17). The reading of nature in/of Beirut was the basis for identifying the ‘garden concentrations’, exemplifying a holistic reading that incorporates open landscapes and buildings, gardens, and public stairs. By introducing urban clusters and ensembles, the framework also studied the relationships between buildings and their surrounding urban and landscape fabrics. The cluster analysis recognized the value of urban components and layers, not necessarily within themselves but also in their contributions to the memories and socio-cultural identity of the city. These elements provided an intermediate scale for the Historic Urban Landscape that was crucial for studying the urban morphology of the study area. Equally significant are the identified garden clusters that served as milestones in the next phase of developing strategies and guidelines for the conservation of heritage. They also contributed to innovative approaches to identifying urban heritage attributes and heritage conservation guidelines. As such, this study can serve as a pilot for the application of the Historic Urban Landscape approach in a regional context that shares a common colonial legacy and cultural characteristics. The authors encourage further research that investigates the applicability of the proposed framework in similar contexts.