Developing Theoretical Framework of Value in Interior Architecture Design of Heritage Buildings Case Study: Garden Museum of the Qasr Prison

Document Type : Research Paper


1 PhD. Candidate, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran

3 Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Scince and Technology, Tehran, Iran. Visiting staff at Landscape Department, Sheffield University.

4 School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Conservation and development are the significant challenges in the field of cultural heritage which exist in every conservation practice on any scales, including interior architecture. In this regard, the main challenge is that how much the interior architect has the right to interfere with the components of the interior in the process of reuse of the heritage. This article is intended to provide a functional answer to the concept of managing the change in the process of interior architecture redesign. Then the concept of value is studied. Because it is in fact the value which specifies what kind and amount of changes can be made to the interior architecture in the building and what changes should not be made. This reveals that the task of the interior architect, after determining the extent and modifications of the interior architecture based on the values of the building, is to manage the changes to maintain and enhance the meaning of building. To achieve this goal, the qualitative research method is selected. In the first step, with the strategy of logical argumentation and content analysis technique, the main documents and theories are analyzed in the subject of value; in the second step, a theoretical framework for recognizing the values of a building on the scale of interior architecture is suggested that has the potential to be used in the evaluation of the redesigns.
Accordingly, the values of a building in eight types are "Age", "symbolic", "narrative", "spiritual-religious", "Aesthetic", "spatial characteristics", "activity - Use," " Evidential" and space The interior architecture was described in three categories of "fixed-Feature Space", "Semi-fixed Feature Space " and "Informal Space". The purpose of this theoretical framework was to provide the values and spaces of interior architecture with the shortest path to the design language, and, as far as possible, the path to various interpretations. In addition to helping the design team to recognize values, this provides a framework for evaluating changes in user experience in terms of success rate in maintaining and improving the values of the building on the scale of interior architecture. On this basis, we can evaluate the approach to them in terms of the weight of each of the values. In the following, the proposed framework was evaluated in a case study in the Garden of the Qasr Prison Museum by qualitative method.
The evaluation of the case study of this paper showed that with the help of this theoretical framework it is possible to take into account all the values of the work and to reveal how much they have been considered and promoted to each other. On the other hand, it is possible to examine all the spatial capacities of the manifestation of values. The study also revealed that the focus on Informal Space, including human activities and relationships, as part of the interior architecture of the project, has remained largely neglected. The application of this theoretical framework will assist in the process of regeneration of the interior architecture of the reuse of valuable monuments.


  • ایوبی، رضا، نیک‌زاد، ذات‌الله (1396)، حفاظت معماری و نسبت آن با تاریخ معماری؛ با نگاه به تجربه‌ی حفاظت در ایران، نشریه مطالعات معماری ایران (دو فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی معماری ایرانی)، شماره 11، بهار و تابستان 1396، صفحات 169-188.
  • حجت، مهدی (1380)، میراث فرهنگی در ایران (سیاست‌ها برای یک کشور اسلامی)، چاپ اول، انتشارات میراث فرهنگی، تهران.
  • حناچی، پیروز؛ ملازاده، فاطمه و سمیه فدایی‌نژاد (1396)، توسعه چارچوب مفهومی مدیریت ارزش مبنا در مکان‌های فرهنگی تاریخی (با نگاهی به فرهنگ اسلامی)، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی نقش جهان، شماره 3-7 ، پاییز 1396، صفحات 1-14.
  • شیروانی، مریم؛ احمدی، حسین و رسول وطن دوست (1395)، بازشناسی ارزش و عوامل تاثیرگذار در دگرگونی دیدگاه‌های ارشی در حفاظت از میراث فرهنگی در قرن حاضر، نشریه هنرهای زیبا، دوره 21، شماره 4 ، زمستان 1395، تهران: پردیس هنرهای زیبا، صفحات 39-50.
  • عبادی، رضا (1387)، تحلیلی پیرامون معماری منظر باغ-کاخ‌های تاریخی تغییر کاربری یافته (نمونه موردی: زندان قصر). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد معماری به راهنمایی دکتر محمدرضا پروجعفر و مشاوره‌ دکتر مجتبی انصاری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران.
  • عینی‌فر، علیرضا (1382)، الگویی برای تحلیل انعطاف پذیری در مسکن سنتی ایران، نشریه هنرهای زیبا، شماره 13، بهار 1382، تهران: پردیس هنرهای زیبا، صفحات 77-64.
  • فرهمند بروجنی؛ حمید، احمدی، حسین و ریحانه قاسم‌آبادی (1390)، مروری بر نظریه پردازی‌های مرمت نقاشی دیواری در اروپا، مرمت آثار و بافت‌های تاریخی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، ش (1)، 67- 55.
  • مردمی، کریم و اصغر محمدمرادی (۱۳۸۷)، الزامات ارزش گذاری به میراث فرهنگی در آموزش معماری، فصلنامه بین المللی مهندسی صنایع و مدیریت تولید 19 (6)،
  • میونز ویناس، سالوادور (1388)، نگره نگاهداشت معاصر، ترجمه فرهنگ مظفر، فاطمه مهدی زاده و حمید فرهمند بروجنی. اصفهان: گلدسته.
  • نژاد ابراهیمی، احد؛ پورجعفر، محمدرضا، مجتبی انصاری و پیروز حناچی (1392)، ارزش و ارتباط آن با رویکرد مداخله در آثار فرهنگی – تاریخی، نشریه علمی پژوهشی مرمت و معماری ایران، پاییز و زمستان 1392، سال سوم - شماره 6، صفحات 79 -98.
  • نصر، مینا؛ امرا، مهدی و محمد مظهری (1392)، زندگی دوباره بناهای تاریخی در توسعه شهری تهران (باغ موزه زندان قصر)، کنفرانس مهندسی عمران، معماری ومدیریت پایدار شهری، تیرماه 1392، گرگان.
  • هاشمی، پریناز (1388)، دیوار نوشته‌های زندان قصر، تهران: انتشارات چشمه.
  • هال، ادوارد تی. (1393)، بعد پنهان، ترجمه منوچهر طبیبیان، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
    • Appelbaum, B. (2007), Conservation Treatment Methodology, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
    • Athens Charter (1931), Restoration of Historic Monuments, Adopted at the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Athens.
    • Ashley-Smith, J. (1999), Risk Assessment for Object Conservation, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
    • Australia ICOMOS (1979) The Australia ICOMOS Guidelines for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (‘Burra Charter’), Accessed March 17, 2016.
    • Australia ICOMOS (2013), The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013, Burwood: Australia ICOMOS.
    • Bandarin, F.; Van Oers, R. (2012), the Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    • Bandarin, F.; Van Oers, R. (2014), Reconnecting the city: The historic urban landscape approach and the future of urban heritage, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    • Burra Charter (1997), Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICOMOS (revised in 1999).
    • Cane, S. (2009), Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of Conservation as a Cultural Construct, In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by A. Richmond and A. Bracker, 163–176. London: Butterworh-Heinemann.
    • Caple, C. (2009), The Aims of Conservation, In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by A. Richmond and A. Bracker, 25–31. London: Butterworh-Heinemann.
    • Carman, J. (1995), The Importance of Things: Archaeology and the Law, In Managing Archaeology, edited by J. Carman, M. A. Cooper, A. Firth, and D. Wheatley, 19–32. London: Routledge.
    • Carver, M. (1996), On Archaeological Value, Antiquity 70 (267): 45–56. Castellanos, C., F. Descamps, and M. I. Arauz. 2007. Joya De Cerén, El Salvador Management Plan Executive Summar, Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
    • Clark, K. (2001), Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and Their Landscapes for Conservation, London: English Heritage.
    • Darvill, T. (1995), Value Systems in Archaeology, In Managing Archaeology, edited by M. A. Cooper, A. Firth, J. Carman, and D. Wheatley, 40–50. London: Routledge.
    • De la Torre, M., ed. (2002), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
    • English Heritage (2008), Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, London: English Heritage.
    • Feilden, B. (2003), Conservation of Historic Buildings, Oxford: Elsevier.
    • Fredheim, L. & Khalaf, M. (2016), The significance of values: heritage value typologies re-examined, International Journal of Heritage Studies, London:Taylor & Francis.
    • Frey, B. (1997), The evaluation of cultural heritage: Some critical issues In Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage, ed. M. Hutter and I. Rizzo. London: Macmillan.
    • Gómez Robles, L. (2010), A Methodological Approach towards Conservation, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 12 (2): 146–169.
    • Hazen, H. (2009), Valuing natural heritage: park visitors' values related to World Heritage sites in the USA, Current Issues in Tourism, 12(2), pp.165-181.
    • ICOMOS New Zealand (2010), ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, Auckland: ICOMOS New Zealand, Accessed March 17, 2016.
    • ICOMOS (1994), Nara Document on Authenticity, Accessed March 17, 2016.
    • Jokilehto, Jukka (2006), World Heritage: Defining the outstanding universal value, City & Time 2 (2):1, retrieved December 2009 from
    • Kerr, J. (2000), Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance, Fifth ed., Sydney National Trust of Australia (NSW).
    • Klingenberge, Ellen. (2012), Conservation of Cultural Memories In Interiors, Oslo: IE International Conference: Reinventing Architecture and Interiors, 28-29 March 2012.
    • Lertcharnrit, T. (2010), Heritage Values and Meanings in Contemporary Thailand, In Heritage Values in Contemporary Society, edited by G. S. Smith, P. M. Messenger, and H. A. Soderland, 279–285. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
    • Lipe, W. (1984), Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources, In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems, edited by H. Cleere, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Maeer, G. (2014), The Values and Benefits of Heritage: Do Economists Think about More than Money?, Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 45 (2/3): 57–63.
    • Mason, R. (2002), Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices, In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, edited by M. de la Torre, 5–30. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
    • Mason, R. (2006), Theoretical and Practical Arguments for Values-centered Preservation, CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3 (2): 21–48.
    • Munoz Vinas, S. (2005), Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
    • Orbaşlı, A. (2008), Architectural Conservation: Principles and Practice, Oxford: Blackwell Science.
    • Pearson, M., and S. Sullivan (1995), Looking after Heritage Places: The Basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators, Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
    • Pye, E. (2001), Caring for the past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums, London: James & James.
    • Richmond, A., and A. Bracker, eds. (2009), Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, London: Butterworh-Heinemann.
    • Riegl, Alois (1903), Der moderne Denkmalkultus, sein Wesen und seine Entstehung, Vienna. (English translation: Forster and Ghirardo, ‘The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origins ’, in: Oppositions, number 25, Fall 1982, pp. 21 –51.)
    • Rudolff, B. (2006), ‘Intangible’ and ‘Tangible’ Heritage: A Topology of Culture in Contexts of Faith, PhD diss., Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz.
    • Russell, R., and K. Winkworth (2010), Significance 2.0: A Guide to Assessing the Significance of Collections, Collections Council of Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Accessed March 17, 2016.
    • Sadeghi, S. (2008), Ghasr Prison: The Renovation & Restoration Strategies, Asia Art & Technology Office Published, Tehran.
    • Sadeghi, S. (2013), A Connected Garden: Critical View on the Restoration of Ghasr Prison, Built Heritage 2013 Monitoring Conservation Management Conference, Milan, Italy.
    • Schädler-Saub, U., and A. Weyer, eds. (2010), Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: Reflections on the Roots and the Perspectives. London: Archetype.
    • Stephenson, J. (2008), The Cultural Values Model: An Integrated Approach to Values in Landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2): 127–139.
    • Stubbs, J. H. (2009), Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    • Szmelter, I. (2010), A New Conceptual Framework for the Preservation of the Heritage of Modern Art, In Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: Reflections on the Roots and the Perspectives, edited by U. Schädler-Saub and A. Weyer, 33–49. London: Archetype.
    • Teutonico, J. M., and G. Palumbo, eds. (2002), Management Planning for Archaeological Sites, Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
    • Thompson, M. (1979), Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Throsby, D. (2001), Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Worthing, D., and S. Bond (2008), Managing Built Heritage, Oxford: Blackwell.
    • URL 1:, Accessed: 2018/30/11