Evidence-Informed Renewal Zoning for Sustainable Urban Heritage Tourism: A Comparative Study of the Kuanzhai Alley and Daci Temple Historic Districts in Chengdu, China

Abstract

Rapid renewal and tourism-driven commercialization intensify tensions between heritage conservation and redevelopment in historic districts, and decision-oriented tool chains that translate Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) layering into change management remain limited. Taking Chengdu’s Kuanzhai Alley and Daci Temple historic districts as comparative cases, this study traces four benchmark time slices (1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025) using georeferenced historical maps, remote-sensing imagery, planning base maps, archival documents, and field checks. An auditable morphological-evidence coding manual is developed for street–alley skeletons, plot integrity, redevelopment intensity, interface commodification, connectivity, and heritage-anchor integrity, and it is triangulated with resident-population and commercial-mix evidence to interpret regeneration mechanisms. The results show that morphological continuity can coexist with social discontinuity. Kuanzhai Alley retains a legible street–alley backbone, while plot/operational consolidation and intensive commodification coincide with resident withdrawal. The Daci Temple district experiences broader street–plot reconfiguration and upscale clustering that heightens landmark visibility but challenges contextual integrity and community continuity. Based on these mechanisms, four renewal zoning prototypes and zone-specific monitoring indicator domains are proposed to operationalize HUL’s feedback loop and to support balanced governance of heritage, everyday life, and sustainable urban heritage tourism.

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization, inner-city redevelopment, tourism-led commercialization, and the expansion of transport infrastructure have driven historic environments to shift from continuous settings of everyday urban life toward commodified spaces shaped for symbolic consumption and staged urban scenery [1,2]. Conventional conservation models—typically monument-centered and implemented through townscape/character controls—often struggle to meet conservation objectives amid complex socio-economic and spatial transitions, largely due to their limited scale, narrow toolkits, and fragmented governance arrangements [3]. As a nationally designated historic and cultural city, the old city of Chengdu, China, embodies more than two millennia of urban development, where traces of ancient Shu civilization, the flourishing Tang–Song era, and modern–contemporary spatial configurations accumulate and overlap as a dense urban palimpsest. At the same time, rapid expansion and infrastructure-led construction have persistently disrupted the historic townscape: Some traditional neighborhoods have been replaced by high-rise developments and widened roads, placing the integrity of the historic environment at risk. Methods for sustaining historical continuity while undertaking urban renewal have therefore become an urgent planning and management challenge for Chengdu and other historic cities.

Historic districts—where urban historical layers are most concentrated and legible—also constitute the most frequently used and operational management units in planning practice. They have long been treated as the key arena for heritage conservation and renewal governance. The Washington Charter underscores that the value of historic towns and urban areas lies not only in individual buildings but also in street- and plot-defined spatial structures, the relationships between built and open spaces, and the overall historical character produced through scale, materials, and the built environment as a whole [4]. In the 21st century, the Valletta Principles further recognize change as a normal condition of historic cities; the priority is no longer to prevent change but to establish sustainable institutions and tool systems capable of steering the direction, intensity, and quality of change [5]. Accordingly, historic districts have gradually moved from passive protection toward proactive governance, with an explicit concern for safeguarding key structures and values through change.

In 2011, UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) provided a robust theoretical and methodological framework for this shift [6]. The HUL approach neither simply expands the conservation boundary nor rejects traditional district-based conservation and renewal; rather, it promotes a landscape perspective that understands the city as a historical layering of natural and cultural values and attributes over time, and it seeks to align heritage conservation with sustainable development within broader social, economic, and institutional contexts [7,8]. A growing body of research suggests that the historic-district scale is particularly suitable for translating HUL principles into operational planning instruments [9,10,11]. Within a relatively manageable spatial scope, it becomes feasible to identify layers, assess values, diagnose risks, and implement zoning-based controls; coupling these with surrounding urban functions and transport/industrial policies can further enable a heritage-led transition from district renewal to city-wide transformation. This aligns with insights from urban morphology, which emphasize plan form as a critical entry point for reading historical layering [10,12]. Morphological approaches centered on planform analysis treat street systems and plot patterns as structural elements that can be repeatedly verified across historical maps and contemporary imagery, thereby revealing how urban form is overlaid, sustained, and transformed across periods and providing spatial evidence for operationalizing HUL.

Recent localized applications of HUL across countries and cities further demonstrate its broad relevance. Heritage is increasingly reframed not as an obstacle to development but as a strategic resource for urban transition, place quality, and social resilience [9,13,14]. Methodologically, the literature has evolved along three complementary strands. First, an evidence-oriented strand anchored in layer identification emphasizes constructing a layering framework through spatial morphology and historical documentation [10,15,16]. A study of Shenyang Fangcheng, for example, builds on HUL to propose a multidimensional heritage-layering framework that identifies accumulated structures through built-environment elements, spatial patterns, and regional cultural contexts, thereby informing layer-sensitive strategies for conservation and development [10]. Related work also incorporates urban morphology and building typology within the HUL framework, tracing district evolution and layering mechanisms along a logic chain spanning historical areas, spatial form, material carriers, and value attributes, underscoring the pivotal role of morphological evidence in translating HUL into planning and regulatory tools [13]. In this sense, morphological evidence not only supports explanations of urban evolutionary processes but also provides a more verifiable basis for rule-setting and renewal interventions.

A second governance-and-participation strand treats conservation and renewal in historic districts as processes of multi-actor negotiation and institutional design, rather than mere spatial repair [3,17,18]. In the case of the Kyrenia historic harbor area in Cyprus, Kırmızı and Karaman summarize key HUL elements in terms of landscape and cultural dimensions, stakeholders and diversity, equity and participation, capacity building, and interdisciplinary collaboration, and they develop an integrated conservation management framework that highlights the need for participatory mechanisms to steer change quality under dynamic urban development [3]. The value of this strand lies in moving HUL beyond value statements toward governance problematics, demonstrating that change management must address the coupled relations among spatial form, social structure, and decision-making processes.

A third, more reflective strand focuses on the implementation gap: whether HUL’s conceptual expansion has actually yielded replicable and assessable pathways. Based on a systematic review of HUL-related studies from 2010 to 2018, Ginzarly et al. observe that the literature largely concentrates on value-based argumentation, while tool development and operationalization remain comparatively underdeveloped, especially in terms of contextual alignment with local heritage discourses, governance drivers, and power structures [19]. In many non-Western urban contexts, questions of who defines value and how values are mobilized for economic gains have become unavoidable governance issues [14,20]. Likewise, Rey-Pérez and Pereira Roders’ review of 140 peer-reviewed publications from 2008 to 2019 indicates that, despite the widespread uptake and continuous expansion of the HUL concept, studies that clearly document implementation processes, tool chains, and feedback mechanisms are still relatively scarce [21]. Responding to this critique, recent work has increasingly explored zoning as a bridge that translates value identification into executable units. Ghanbari et al., for instance, propose a character-area delineation model to address the discontinuity between conventional monument-and-buffer approaches and broader conservation areas, combining HUL value assessment with spatial classification techniques through mixed methods [4] to better coordinate heritage values with urban development needs via spatial subdivision.

Overall, HUL-oriented urban heritage research is shifting from conceptual advocacy toward methodological construction and practical application. At the district scale, key agendas have concentrated on layer identification, zoning translation, and negotiated governance. Yet the literature repeatedly notes a persistent methodological weakness between value recognition and governance execution [22,23,24], most notably the absence of a reusable operational chain that can support continuous translation from morphological evidence to conservation rules and then to on-the-ground processes. This gap, to some extent, undermines the practical utility and wider transferability of HUL at the district scale.

In Chengdu, recent conservation and regeneration practices in the historic urban area have crystallized into two sharply differentiated models. Kuanzhai Alley exemplifies a progressive renewal approach led by townscape conservation [25], whereas the Daci Temple historic district reflects a higher-intensity, redevelopment-driven reshaping trajectory [26]. This contrast mirrors two polarized tendencies frequently observed in contemporary renewal practices across historic urban areas in China. One emphasizes maintaining heritage character and urban fabric while incrementally inserting new functions; the other relies on large-scale reconstruction to enhance commercial value, pursuing regeneration through the juxtaposition of new and old. The former may drift toward excessive commercialization and weakened everyday vitality, while the latter risks eroding cultural authenticity and deepening social alienation. For Chengdu’s old city—where historical layers are particularly complex—achieving a dynamic balance between conservation and development through change management is especially critical.

Existing research and practice further suggest that broad-level approaches or single technical fixes are insufficient for this complex challenge [3,5,6,19,20]. Although Chengdu has, since the 1980s, delineated conservation areas (including Daci Temple) and produced multiple rounds of historic-city conservation plans and area-based urban design schemes, renewal in practice has still witnessed recurring cycles of demolition, rebuilding, and renewed demolition—signaling misalignments and failures in planning control and value judgment [26]. This underscores the need for a more fine-grained pathway: on the basis of rigorous diagnosis of intra-urban differences in heritage layering, renewal zoning strategies should be tailored to the heritage values and practical demands of different sub-areas.

This study responds to the urgent need for decision-oriented tools that reconcile heritage conservation with the intensified pressures associated with sustainable urban tourism. Using Kuanzhai Alley and Daci Temple—two historic districts with markedly different regeneration trajectories—as a comparative case, this study develops a methodological framework that links heritage-layer identification, regeneration-mechanism diagnosis, and renewal-zoning prototypes. The aim is also to respond to the frequently noted insufficiency of tool chains when HUL is translated from value identification into district-scale change management. The analysis addresses three interrelated questions: First, based on multi-period historical-map evidence, what landscape characters and layering trajectories have emerged in the two districts across different periods? Second, how do divergent regeneration paths reconfigure morphological structures and socio-economic elements, and what differentiated outcomes and risks do they generate in terms of heritage legibility, community continuity, and functional vitality? Third, under HUL guidance, how can this evidence and mechanism-based explanation be translated into renewal zoning prototypes for change management, with explicit governance priorities and regulatory focal points, thereby responding to contemporary development needs while sustaining urban historical continuity? The contribution of this study is not to propose additional layering dimensions but to demonstrate the strong auditability and cross-temporal comparability of morphological evidence embedded in historical maps at the district scale and to translate this into a reusable procedure of interpretation and triangulation that offers a traceable governance entry for historic-district renewal and tourism management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Chengdu was historically known as Yizhou and Jincheng and is also commonly referred to as Rong. It is situated in southwestern China, on the western margin of the Sichuan Basin and along the eastern edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Geographically, it lies between 102°54′–104°53′ E and 30°05′–31°26′ N, with a total land area of approximately 14,335 km². Chengdu’s historic urban area broadly encompasses the former walled city and adjacent zones of traditional townscape character, covering about 24.66 km² [27]. This area includes major historic districts such as Kuanzhai Alley, Wenshu Monastery, Daci Temple, Shuijingfang, and Jinli and constitutes the principal locus of surviving urban traces from multiple phases of Chengdu’s more than two-millennia-long development (Figure 1).

The Kuanzhai Alley historic district is located in the Shaocheng area of Chengdu’s old city. It comprises three parallel historic streets—Kuan Alley, Zhai Alley, and Jing Alley—and 45 courtyard compounds between them, representing the remaining material traces associated with Chengdu’s three-millennia Shaocheng tradition and its three-century Mancheng legacy (Figure 2). As a concentrated representation of the old city’s traditional townscape, Kuanzhai Alley initiated a conservation-oriented rehabilitation programme in the early 21st century and was officially opened to the public after restoration was completed in 2008. Its renewal followed a conservation principle of minimal demolition and maximum repair, pursuing repair in the original manner to sustain the district’s existing urban fabric and architectural character through minimal intervention.

By contrast, the Daci Temple historic district has followed a markedly different regeneration trajectory. Located in the core of Jinjiang District and adjacent to the Chunxi Road commercial district (Figure 3), the area underwent large-scale, comprehensive redevelopment. With the exception of the Daci Temple monastery—founded between the third and fourth centuries CE and with a history of more than 1600 years—and a limited number of protected heritage buildings, most of the historic street fabric and residential communities were demolished and replaced by the Sino-Ocean Taikoo Li commercial complex, which opened in 2015. While this redevelopment injected substantial commercial value into Chengdu’s city center, drawing tens of millions of visitors annually and creating a new urban landmark, it has also prompted debate over heritage authenticity and the continuity of local communities.

2.2. Data Sources and Workflow

This study relies on historical maps as the primary evidence base, complemented by recent remote-sensing imagery, official planning base maps, archival and published documentary records, and targeted field checks. Four benchmark time slices (1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025) were selected to represent historically and analytically distinct phases of urban transformation, while also corresponding to the main periods for which comparable cartographic, documentary, and field-based evidence could be assembled. The 1911 slice captures the late Qing urban fabric at the end of the imperial period, while 1933 represents the Republican era and provides a second historical benchmark for observing the early modern restructuring of street and plot patterns. By contrast, 1994 was chosen to reflect baseline community and morphological conditions before the major renewal interventions of the two districts, whereas 2025 represents the most recent post-renewal operational condition after these interventions had been completed and stabilized.

Historical maps were collected from archival repositories and published map atlases (e.g., Chengdu Street Market Map in the Third Year of Xuantong, Plate made in August of Showa 13 (survey map of the 22nd year of the Republic of China), Chengdu Old Maps Atlas), while contemporary datasets were used to validate the present-day spatial referents of historical features and to cross-check the continuity or displacement of key urban elements. To strengthen interpretive reliability beyond cartographic depiction, local gazetteers, historical documents, and prior studies were additionally consulted to compile evidence on population scale, residential structure, and commercial composition; site visits were conducted at key nodes to verify religious–cultural anchor sites, major street–alley sequences, and representative street-edge/interface morphologies.

All map series were georeferenced into a common coordinate reference frame to support cross-temporal comparison, following established approaches in urban morphological research that reconstruct urban change through the alignment and comparative interpretation of historical cartography [28]. Because historico-geographical urban morphology treats street systems and plot patterns as key elements of town-plan structure, the present study used them as the primary carriers for tracing layering and regeneration change across periods [29]. Ground control points were preferentially selected from permanent, cross-temporally stable, and clearly locatable features (e.g., temples and associated open spaces, major intersections, bridges, and landmark public buildings). Georeferencing quality was checked through iterative alignment of intersection nodes and landmark footprints across periods. Where positional discrepancies remained, they were inspected at the block scale to ensure that street–plot assignment and frontage continuity judgments were not driven by cartographic misfit. To maintain auditability, a short log was kept for each time slice, noting the control-point selection rationale, major adjustments during alignment, and the locations where cartographic uncertainty could potentially affect interpretation.

Based on the aligned map set, on-screen vectorization focused on district-scale structural elements that are both observable and repeatedly verifiable across time: (i) street centerlines or street-edge lines to reconstruct network frameworks and connectivity patterns; (ii) plot boundaries to capture fine-grained changes in operational and residential units; and (iii) street frontages to delineate public-realm boundaries and the continuity or disruption of commercial interfaces. This selection follows town-plan analysis, which emphasizes streets, plots, and their boundaries as the most stable and repeatedly comparable spatial units for cross-period analysis [29,30,31]. Vectorization followed a consistent set of digitizing rules: Street segments were snapped at intersections to preserve network topology; plot boundaries were digitized only when they were explicitly depicted or could be inferred from stable physical edges; ambiguous boundaries were flagged rather than forced into a definitive line. This conservative digitization strategy was adopted because historical maps often vary in scale, projection, geometric precision, and cartographic convention; preserving topology while avoiding over-inference helps maintain comparability across time slices [32].

The analytical design combines diachronic and synchronic components. The diachronic component tracks additions, removals, relocations, and reconfigurations within each district across the four time slices to distinguish persistent frameworks from areas of pronounced change. The synchronic component juxtaposes the two districts under the same time slice and interprets mechanism-specific differences using corroborating socio-economic evidence, thereby identifying path dependence in regeneration trajectories (Figure 4).

2.3. Morphological-Evidence Coding and Triangulation

To avoid an impressionistic map-reading narrative, this study established a morphological-evidence coding manual that translates observable and verifiable structural features on historical maps into explicit and consistent interpretation rules (

Table 1. Qualitative codebook for morphological layering and regeneration change.

Dimension	Code	Operational Definition	Typical Evidence on Maps	Corresponding Governance Implications
Street skeleton continuity	S0–S3	0 = Reconfiguration; 1 = major changes to the main street axis; 2 = main street axis stable, with alley network adjusted; 3 = main street axis and alley network largely continuous	Persistence of primary streets/alleys; alignment shifts; hierarchy changes; intersection/node continuity	Conservation baseline and disturbance sensitivity of the skeleton layer
Plot/courtyard integrity	P0–P3	0 = Large-scale plot replacement; 1 = extensive plot consolidation/subdivision; 2 = partial plot consolidation; 3 = plot boundaries largely continuous	Plot/courtyard boundary persistence; emergence of oversized plots/superblocks; annexation/merging traces	Fine granularity of daily life; risks of operational consolidation
District redevelopment intensity	D0–D3	0 = Full demolition and reconstruction; 1 = structural reconfiguration; 2 = gradual renewal; 3 = dominated by authentic preservation	Neighborhood-scale reshaping; block re-parceling; new superblocks; major road insertion; continuity of built fabric	Structural reconfiguration vs. incremental repair
Interface commodification	C0–C3	0 = Low; 1 = emergence of commercial nodes; 2 = continuous commercial interface; 3 = highly consumerist interface	Change in entrance/main-street frontage orientation from daily life to commercial dominance (supported by literature/planning analysis)	Touristification and high-end upscaling displacement; boundaries of publicness
Connectivity structure and permeability	N0–N3	0 = Closure; 1 = reduced accessibility; 2 = partial improvement; 3 = enhanced openness	Open blocks vs. enclosed complexes; blocked/controlled access routes; gate/wall lines; disappearance of minor alleys	Structural support for publicness and daily accessibility
Heritage-anchor integrity	H0–H3	0 = Heritage anchor lost; 1 = only scattered anchors remain; 2 = anchors + partial surrounding preserved; 3 = anchors + surrounding context largely continuous	Presence/absence of temple/node building; continuity of associated open space/sequence; preservation of anchor-context relationship	Safeguarding of spatial context and narrative continuity

Note: Ambiguity-handing rule: S: If a shift is likely a cartographic misfit (minor offset but same topology), treat as stable (S2/S3). If the main axis changes direction/position or is replaced, classify as S1; if both axes + network are reorganized, classify as S0. When unclear, flag as verification-required and decide using adjacent time slices + landmark alignment. P: If plots are not clearly drawn in early maps, infer only from stable physical edges (street lines, walls, and landmark precincts). Do not invent boundaries. Where only plot tendency is readable, code conservatively (P1/P2) and flag as verification-required. P0 is used only when superblock replacement is unambiguous across sources/time slices. D: If evidence conflicts (e.g., map suggests change but photos/docs suggest partial retention), classify by the dominant transformation logic at neighborhood scale (not isolated building changes). When uncertain between D1 vs. D2, select the lower intensity and flag as verification-required; upgrade only with corroboration (imagery/docs/field). C: Because commodification may not be explicit on maps, it requires at least one corroborator (archival text, planning doc, the literature, or field check). If only weak signals exist, cap at C1 and mark as inferred. Use C3 only when multiple sources indicate staged consumption/upscale retail dominance and publicness boundary shift. N: If access control is seasonal/management-based but not depicted on maps, do not over-code—use N1/N2 and flag as verification-required (confirm by field or official operation rules). Use N0 only when routes are physically blocked/enclosed (superblock walls, cul-de-sacs replaced by alleys). H: If the anchor remains but the surrounding fabric is rebuilt, classify as H2 (anchor preserved, context partial). Use H3 only when both the anchor and its spatial context/sequence remain legible across time slices. If anchor depiction varies across maps, resolve using stable landmark alignment + documentary/field corroboration; otherwise, flag as verification-required.

). This step was informed by the qualitative coding literature that emphasizes clear code definitions, explicit decision rules, and analytic transparency as a basis for reliable interpretation [33]. Coding units were defined primarily at the street/alley-segment level and the urban-block level (or plot clusters), and they were supplemented where necessary by frontage fragments to meet identification needs for network frameworks, operational/residential units, and public-realm boundaries. The coding manual includes (i) concise definitions for each code, (ii) decision rules that specify how to code common ambiguous cases (e.g., partial frontage disruption, alley infill, and plot amalgamation), and (iii) illustrative examples drawn from the two districts to anchor consistent interpretation. The coding scheme operationalizes key dimensions of layering and regeneration change, including street-skeleton continuity, plot/courtyard integrity, redevelopment intensity, interface commodification, connectivity/permeability, and heritage-anchor integrity, such that cross-temporal comparisons are grounded in traceable rule sets rather than intuitive visual reading alone [29].

Coding reliability was strengthened through a two-round verification procedure. First, maps from each period were interpreted independently, and initial codes were assigned to all defined units. Second, after a time interval, key units were re-coded to assess internal consistency. In addition, five experts with practical experience in heritage conservation or urban renewal conducted an external review of both the coding manual and the resulting zoning interpretation. Disagreements or unstable units identified during re-coding or external review were handled through an adjudication step: Researchers returned to the original cartographic evidence, carried out comparisons across adjacent time slices, and documented the reason for the final decision. Units that could not be resolved without over-interpretation were retained as verification-required and were excluded from claims that depend on fine boundary precision. For early maps with simplified depictions or blurred boundaries, structural trends were prioritized, and interpretive boundaries were strengthened through targeted field checks or documentary corroboration. Through this workflow, auditable coding outputs provide the principal basis for substantiating change intensity and for maintaining comparability across periods. All verification-required labels and adjudication decisions followed the IF–THEN rules summarized in

Table 2. Decision-tree adjudication rules for morphological-evidence coding.

Dimension	IF (Evidence Condition)	THEN (Code Assignment)
S: Street skeleton continuity (S0–S3)	IF the main street axis is replaced/rerouted and the alley network is broadly reorganized	THEN S0 (reconfiguration)
	IF the main street axis changes substantially, but parts of the skeleton persist	THEN S1 (major changes to the main street axis)
	IF the main axis is stable, but the alley network is added/removed/reshaped	THEN S2 (axis stable, network adjusted)
	IF both the main axis and the alley network remain largely continuous across slices	THEN S3 (high continuity)
P: Plot/courtyard integrity (P0–P3)	IF there is a large-scale plot replacement/superblock substitution that is unambiguous	THEN P0
	IF there is extensive consolidation/subdivision across the area	THEN P1
	IF there is partial consolidation (some have merged), but not widespread	THEN P2
	IF plots are clearly depicted and boundaries remain largely continuous	THEN P3
D: District redevelopment intensity (D0–D3)	IF the district shows full demolition and reconstruction (comprehensive replacement of neighborhood-scale form)	THEN D0
	IF the overall neighborhood-scale form is reshaped but not totally replaced	THEN D1
	IF changes are incremental/gradual (repair, minor additions, and limited reshaping)	THEN D2
	IF the period is dominated by authentic preservation with minimal disturbance	THEN D3
C: Interface commodification (C0–C3)	IF there is low commercial indication and the daily life interface dominates	THEN C0
	IF commerce appears as nodes/patches (not continuous along the interface)	THEN C1
	IF a continuous commercial interface forms along key frontages	THEN C2
	IF the interface becomes highly consumerist/staged (strong touristification/upscale consumption)	THEN C3
N: Connectivity and permeability (N0–N3)	IF routes are physically blocked/closed and through-movement is structurally prevented	THEN N0
	IF accessibility is reduced (fewer connections, more barriers)	THEN N1
	IF accessibility is partially improved (new links but not fully open)	THEN N2
	IF openness is enhanced (more through-links, permeability increased)	THEN N3
H: Heritage-anchor integrity (H0–H3)	IF key anchors are lost (cannot be identified/verified)	THEN H0
	IF only scattered anchors remain without coherent context	THEN H1
	IF anchors remain and partial surrounding/context persists	THEN H2
	IF anchors and the surrounding context/sequence are largely continuous and legible	THEN H3

Note: Verification-required trigger (add†): S0: Add † if the reroute could be explained by georeferencing misfit or map generalization rather than true relocation. S1: Add † if only one time slice shows the change and adjacent slices do not corroborate. S2: Add † when alleys are faint/missing, likely due to scale/symbol differences. S3: Add † only when continuity relies on inference rather than visible depiction. P0: Add † unless replacement is corroborated by adjacent slices + imagery/docs (P0 is high-claim). P1: Add † when early maps do not reliably show plot lines (avoid forced digitization). P2: Add † when merges are inferred (not explicitly drawn). P3: No † unless boundary clarity is low (faint lines). D0: Add † unless multiple sources/time slices converge (D0 is the strongest claim). D1: Add † when change is patchy/mixed and dominance is uncertain. D2: Add † when D1 vs. D2 is borderline; default to D2 + † unless corroborated. D3: Add † only if preservation is claimed without support beyond map depiction. C0: Add † if commercial signals are not observable and no corroborator exists. C1: Add † when based primarily on inference rather than corroborated evidence. C2: Add † when continuity depends on interpretation (maps rarely encode use directly). C3: Require ≥1 corroborator (literature/planning/field). If not, cap at C2 and add †. N0: Add † if closure is suspected to be management-based rather than physical. N1: Add † when depiction differences may reflect map style rather than true barriers. N2: Add † if improvement is inferred (not visible as added links). N3: Add † when permeability relies on non-cartographic evidence without explicit mapping cues. H0: Add † if loss is based on absence in a single map edition (may be omission). H1: Add † when anchor identification is uncertain. H2: Add † when context is inferred rather than legible in spatial sequence. H3: Add † unless continuity is supported by multiple time slices + corroboration.

, and they were recorded with a brief justification (evidence consulted and reason for the final assignment). All adjudication decisions were recorded in an internal log, including unit ID, time slice, contested dimension(s), evidence sources consulted (map/adjacent slice/field/doc), final decision, and whether the unit was marked as verification-required.

The corroboration of map-based coding with population and commercial evidence follows a triangulation logic. Rather than treating any single dataset as self-sufficient, triangulation compares different forms of evidence to strengthen interpretive validity, identify both convergence and tension, and reduce the risk that one source type is mistaken for the phenomenon itself [34]. Morphological evidence helps explain how spatial structures change, yet assessing how heritage values are enacted and how community continuity is reconfigured requires corroboration from socio-economic evidence [35,36,37]. Accordingly, this study uses two key corroborating variables: (i) population size and composition, and (ii) the volume of commercial establishments and the typology of the commercial mix. Population evidence is used to gauge the intensity with which a district shifts from a residential community to a consumption-oriented arena and to assess the sustainability of everyday use; commercial evidence is used to identify how economic revitalization is organized and how it reshapes the boundaries of the public realm, the sense of place, and locally embedded practices. The corroboration follows a morphological coding–social evidence–mechanism interpretation chain: changes are first identified through coding of street networks, plots, and street frontages; population and commercial evidence are then used to test the associated social outcomes; finally, convergences and tensions between the two are incorporated into the mechanism discussion. This procedure helps avoid treating rising pedestrian volumes or commercial prosperity as a straightforward proxy for community vitality.

More specifically, the comparison was conducted by aligning morphological and socio-economic evidence at the same district and benchmark time slice. Morphological coding first generated hypotheses about the type and level of change. For example, stable street skeletons and relatively intact plot structures suggested structural continuity, whereas plot amalgamation, frontage commodification, and reduced permeability indicated compression of fine-grained everyday use. These hypotheses were then checked against socio-economic evidence. Population size and composition were used to assess whether an area still functioned as a resident-serving community or had shifted toward a more externally oriented consumption arena; the quantity and typology of commercial establishments were used to determine whether frontage and plot changes corresponded to everyday services, mixed local commerce, or high-intensity visitor-oriented clustering. Interpretations were strengthened where the two evidence types converged, while tensions between them were retained analytically as warning signals rather than forced into a single conclusion. This study does not directly measure individual mobility trajectories; instead, abrupt changes in resident population and the replacement of everyday-service functions by visitor-oriented formats are used as cautious proxies for shifts in residential stability and community continuity.

3. Results

3.1. Spatial Morphological Characteristics and Evolutionary Trajectories

Street networks and plot patterns constitute the most auditable forms of structural evidence and provide a robust basis for identifying and interpreting historical layering [6,7,8,10,12]. Using four benchmark time slices (1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025), this study first documents the cross-temporal evolution of street networks and plot patterns in each district. This study then applies morphological-evidence coding to distinguish persistent structural backbones from areas of pronounced change, while interpreting these patterns jointly with population and commercial datasets such that renewal paths are assessed in both spatial and socio-economic terms. This enables us to interpret the regeneration mechanisms underpinning observed morphological change and to assess their implications for heritage legibility and community continuity, thereby establishing linkages among spatial form, functional transition, and governance risk.

It should be noted that the control extents used in Figure 5 and Figure 6 include the core area. This choice, first, responds to the HUL emphasis on integrity and contextual interrelations by incorporating the coupling between the core and surrounding structures within a single morphological evolution chain, allowing boundary effects and the influence of external structures on core stability to be examined [38]. Second, it reflects practical constraints in data availability: historical materials for the surrounding control zone are more difficult to obtain in a complete form. A continuous analysis using the same control extent was therefore adopted to maintain interpretive consistency and cross-period comparability.

3.1.1. Kuanzhai Alley Historic District (1911–2025)

At the level of overall street-network form, Kuanzhai Alley exhibits strong continuity in its spatial backbone. Across all four time slices, the figures consistently show a linear organization dominated by three parallel primary alleys. Within the district, the hierarchy and directional order of streets and alleys remain relatively legible; change is expressed mainly through the addition or removal of secondary alleys and fine-grained adjustments to nodal connectivity, rather than through rupture or reconfiguration of the primary backbone (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Cross-temporal evolution of the street–alley structure and plot pattern in the Kuanzhai Alley historic district (control area): 1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025. The sequence shows strong persistence of the three parallel primary alleys, while major changes are concentrated in secondary-alley adjustment and internal plot reorganization; renewal therefore proceeded mainly through internal consolidation rather than replacement of the historic backbone. Colors and symbols indicate retained, adjusted, and restructured street/plot elements across the four time slices. Source: drawn by the author.

Figure 5. Cross-temporal evolution of the street–alley structure and plot pattern in the Kuanzhai Alley historic district (control area): 1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025. The sequence shows strong persistence of the three parallel primary alleys, while major changes are concentrated in secondary-alley adjustment and internal plot reorganization; renewal therefore proceeded mainly through internal consolidation rather than replacement of the historic backbone. Colors and symbols indicate retained, adjusted, and restructured street/plot elements across the four time slices. Source: drawn by the author.

Considering street networks and plots within a single evolutionary sequence allows the mechanisms of backbone persistence and internal reorganization to be identified more clearly [31,39,40]. The evolution maps for the control extent indicate that both the district perimeter and the internal system of primary alleys remained relatively stable over the long term, whereas pronounced changes concentrated in plot subdivision patterns and localized connectivity configurations. This persistent backbone–dynamic fabric trajectory aligns with hierarchical modularity in complex adaptive systems: higher-level topological structures (e.g., the street network) sustain the robustness of connectivity, while lower-level geometric units (e.g., plots) reorganize to accommodate socio-economic disturbance [30].

Kuanzhai Alley retained a highly persistent alley backbone across the four benchmark periods, with the three parallel primary alleys and their characteristic spatial sequence continuing to provide the basic layer of heritage legibility (

Table 3. Cross-period coding matrix of Kuanzhai Alley historic district.

Round	1911–1933	1933–1994	1994–2025
1	S3 + P3 + D3 + C0 † + N3 + H3	S2 + P2 + D2 + C1 † + N3 + H3	S2 + P2 + D2 + C3 + N3 + H2
2	S3 + P3 + D3 + C0 † + N3 + H3	S2 + P1 + D2 + C2 † + N3 + H3	S2 + P1 + D2 + C3 + N3 + H2

Note: Composite codes are reported as Sx + Px + Dx + Cx + Nx + Hx. C-level coding is not directly legible from cartographic symbols; it was inferred through triangulation using documentary/planning evidence and commercial-mix statistics; therefore, C is flagged as verification-required (^†). Round 2 is treated as the final adopted code set, while Round 1 is retained for transparency. For 1933–1994, the main street axis remains stable, while the alley network shows partial adjustment; therefore, the street-skeleton continuity is summarized as S2 (axis stable, network adjusted). Internal boundary reworking under residential pressure warrants moderate plot/district change (P2/D2). Commercialization is more consistently represented as node-based insertions (C1) rather than a continuous interface. For 1994–2025, systematic operational consolidation supports P1 and confirms a highly consumerist frontage (C3) under tourism-led regeneration, while the street–alley backbone remains broadly stable (S2).

). During 1911–1933, both the street–alley structure and courtyard units remained broadly stable, and the district functioned mainly as a residential, community-oriented area, with commerce appearing only as sporadic and temporary insertions. During 1933–1994, rising residential pressure led to finer subdivision of courtyard uses and the reworking of internal boundaries, producing a denser everyday-life network without altering the primary backbone. This pattern is consistent with the spatial restructuring observed in many built-up urban areas under rapid urbanization, where internal spatial adjustment becomes a key means of accommodating demographic pressure and improving land-use efficiency [41].

Morphological persistence did not translate into social continuity (

Table 4. Statistics on the number of permanent residents in the Kuanzhai Alley historic district from 1911 to 2025 (core area).

Year	Population (Persons)	Population Structure	Data Source
1911	280–320	The majority were Manchu-Mongolian people, with a small number of Han people (mainly servants hired by the Manchu nobles).	Chengdu Archives, Annals of Chengdu Streets
1933	850–920	The mixed Han and Mongol settlement pattern was formed, with the Han population and the descendants of the Mongol nobility; there were also a few mansions of high-ranking officials and dignitaries.	Chengdu Archives
1994	3200–3400	The indigenous population accounts for over 95% of the total, with the majority being employees of state-owned enterprises and a small number of individual business owners.	Archives of the Preliminary Research for the Renovation Project of the Chengdu Urban Planning Bureau
2025	45–50	The figure refers to the permanent on-site resident population rather than the hukou-registered population. Most of the remaining residents are business operation managers living in the district, while the proportion of indigenous residents is less than 5%.	Kuanzhai Alley Operation Management Company

). While the inherited spatial framework remained legible, the permanent resident population declined sharply by 2025 after earlier intensification in the pre-renewal period. This suggests that conservation-oriented rehabilitation preserved the visible street pattern more successfully than the resident-based everyday social life that had historically sustained the district. The result is a form of continuity at the level of spatial image, accompanied by a sharp contraction in household-based and indigenous community continuity, rather than the complete disappearance of all on-site residents.

Street-front functions shifted from small-scale, everyday service commerce toward highly staged cultural-tourism consumption (

Table 5. Statistics on the number and types of commercial establishments in the Kuanzhai Alley historic district from 1911 to 2025 (core area).

Year	Quantity	Shop Types	Description	Data Source
1911	0–5	Manchu people’s commodity exchange point (informal store)	There was no fixed storefront; most of the vendors set up their stalls temporarily at the entrances of the courtyards; the clientele was limited to the Manchurian nobility and a small number of Han Chinese who came to the city.	Chengdu Archives
1933	28–35	Tea house, tobacco shop, tailor shop, private school, grocery store, flour and rice store, meat shop, pharmacy, silverware shop, embroidery shop, woodenware shop	Formed the front store, back residence model; the service targets were mainly the local wealthy officials and dignitaries, as well as the local residents; a few characteristic stores catering to the entire city emerged.	Chengdu Archives
1994	42–48	Small grocery stores, barber shops, restaurants, vegetable markets, appliance repair, bicycle repair, watch repair shops, old tea houses, mahjong parlors, second-hand book stalls, private clinics, Chinese medicine shops	The shop area is small (usually 10–20 square meters), with simple decorations; the service radius is limited to the area only; the goods are priced low, meeting basic living needs.	Kuanzhai Alley Community Residents’ Committee Record
2025	164	Intangible cultural heritage experience centers, cultural product stores, museums, academies, Sichuan cuisine restaurants, specialty snacks, tea houses, coffee shops, luxury goods, jewelry, local specialties, designer brands, boutique hotels, homestays, theme inns	Business and culture have been deeply integrated, with an annual tourist volume exceeding 30 million people; the night economy is thriving.	Chengdu Municipal Bureau of Culture, Broadcast-TV, and Tourism

). During 1994–2025, conservation-oriented rehabilitation largely retained the primary backbone and townscape appearance, yet operational logics and property consolidation drove systematic merging of internal units. Overall, change in Kuanzhai Alley was concentrated less in the replacement of the inherited street framework than in the reorganization of internal operational units, the withdrawal of permanent residents, and the commodification of frontage interfaces [42,43,44]. From an HUL perspective, governance priorities should therefore move from preventing change toward safeguarding backbone continuity while managing the scale of internal consolidation and the boundaries of the public realm, thereby reducing the risk that living heritage is displaced by façade-level display.

3.1.2. Daci Temple Historic District (1911–2025)

The Daci Temple historic district shows spatial characteristics of rupture and reconstruction in its long-term evolution (Figure 6). This traditional urban form and functional layout is consistent with the coordinated relationship between functions and street networks in many historic city centers. For example, research on commercial blocks in the old Beijing city shows that there is a close correlation between street-network structure and economic, political, and cultural characteristics [45].

Figure 6. Cross-temporal evolution of the street–alley structure and plot pattern in the Daci Temple historic district (control area): 1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025. The sequence shows a shift from a dense religious–commercial street fabric in the early periods to weakened connectivity around 1994 and larger-scale street–plot reorganization by 2025; renewal, therefore, involved stronger structural restructuring and greater pressure on contextual continuity. Colors and symbols indicate retained, adjusted, and restructured street/plot elements across the four time slices. Source: drawn by the author.

Figure 6. Cross-temporal evolution of the street–alley structure and plot pattern in the Daci Temple historic district (control area): 1911, 1933, 1994, and 2025. The sequence shows a shift from a dense religious–commercial street fabric in the early periods to weakened connectivity around 1994 and larger-scale street–plot reorganization by 2025; renewal, therefore, involved stronger structural restructuring and greater pressure on contextual continuity. Colors and symbols indicate retained, adjusted, and restructured street/plot elements across the four time slices. Source: drawn by the author.

The Daci Temple historic district experienced not merely internal adjustment but structure-level reorganization of its street–alley hierarchy and block–plot framework (

Table 6. Cross-period coding matrix of the Daci Temple historic district.

Round	1911–1933	1933–1994	1994–2025
1	S2 + P2 + D2 + C2 † + N2 + H3	S1 + P1 + D1 + C2 † + N2 + H2	S0 + P1 + D1 + C3 + N3 + H1
2	S2 + P2 + D2 + C2 † + N3 + H3	S1 + P1 + D1 + C2 † + N1 + H2	S0 + P1 + D1 + C3 + N3 + H2

Note: Composite codes are reported as Sx + Px + Dx + Cx + Nx + Hx. C-level coding is not directly legible from cartographic symbols; it was inferred through triangulation using documentary/planning evidence and commercial-mix statistics; therefore, C is flagged as verification-required (^†). Round 2 is treated as the final adopted code set, while Round 1 is retained for transparency. Round 2 re-coding primarily reconciled connectivity (N) and heritage-anchor integrity (H) with codebook thresholds and the manuscript narrative. The 1911–1933 stage is summarized with enhanced permeability (N3) because the district exhibits dense street–alley texture and strong nodal permeability. The 1933–1994 stage is summarized as reduced accessibility (N1) given the documented shrinkage of street–alley hierarchy and weakened connectivity around 1994. For 1994–2025, redevelopment produced neighborhood-scale structural reorganization and extensive plot consolidation; however, because selected anchors and portions of the surrounding fabric remain within the control boundary, the dominant transformation logic at the district scale is summarized as D1/P1 rather than full replacement (D0/P0). Localized sub-areas may approach replacement-level transformation, but these are treated as within-district heterogeneity rather than district-wide dominance. Heritage-anchor integrity is summarized as H2 in Round 2 because the temple anchor remains experienceable even though its surrounding fabric is partially rebuilt. Commercialization is summarized as highly consumerist (C3) due to post-2015 open-scene retail agglomeration.

). During 1911–1933, the district maintained a marketplace fabric centered on religious anchors, with dense street–alley texture and strong node permeability, while commerce and temple-fair activities together constituted a service scene oriented to the city. Around 1994, however, the district’s connectivity organization and street–alley hierarchy had already shrunk significantly, and the spatial structure tended toward simplification. After 2015, redevelopment produced a further reorganization at the block and plot levels, forming an open consumption setting and a cluster of upscale retail formats. In this case, regeneration altered not only the pattern of use but also the very structure through which historical continuity had previously been read.

There is a sustained decline in residential carrying capacity, culminating in a very limited permanent population by 2025 (

Table 7. Statistics on the number of permanent residents in the Daci Temple historic district from 1911 to 2025 (core area).

Year	Population (Persons)	Population Structure	Data Source
1911	389–405	The majority are long-term local families, with a small number of personnel from the temples, and there are almost no temporary outsiders.	Chengdu Archives
1933	372–420	The district still mainly consists of local permanent residents, and families have begun to become smaller in size.	Sichuan Land Survey Bureau of the General Staff Headquarters
1994	243–270	The local residents are mostly first-generation settlers who have lived there for generations. The population structure is aging, with a high proportion of retired individuals.	Archives of the Old and Substandard Housing Renovation Center of Jinjiang District, Chengdu City: Number of Residents and Population Statistics in Daci Temple Area
2025	40–45	The permanent residents are the on-site staff and the religious personnel.	Chengdu Jinjiang District Bureau of Culture, Sports and Tourism

). This indicates that the reconstruction of the district did not restore the everyday-life system in the sense of community, even where important cultural landmarks were retained. In other words, the reorganization of spatial form is not equivalent to the return of historical continuity. Once the original street–alley–plot–interface system has been fundamentally reworked, community-based continuity becomes far more difficult to recover synchronously than landmark visibility or commercial vitality.

Table 8. Statistics on the number and types of commercial establishments in the Daci Temple historic district from 1911 to 2025 (core area).

Year	Quantity	Shop Types	Description	Data Source
1911	42–47	Silk shop, fabric store, tea house, snack bar, silverware shop, embroidery workshop, Chinese medicine store	The layout is such that there are shops along the street and houses behind them. Within the courtyard, there are small workshops. There are also numerous temporary stalls set up for the temple fair around Daci Temple.	Chengdu Archives
1933	50–52	Traditional commerce and modern service industries (watch shops, photography studios, pharmacies, foreign goods stores)	The shops are concentrated along the main street, and some courtyards have been merged into commercial buildings, forming small commercial districts.	Chengdu Archives
1994	38–40	Grocery store, small restaurant, barber shop, tailor shop, hardware store, market stall	The ground-floor shops along the street and the scattered shops within the courtyards are mostly run by local residents, providing services for local life. The business types are diverse.	Archives of the Old and Substandard Housing Renovation Center of Jinjiang District, Chengdu City: Statistics on the Number and Operating Conditions of Commercial Properties in Daci Temple Area
2025	>280	International luxury brands, high-end fashion retail, Michelin-starred restaurants, cultural and creative bookstores, boutique cafes, art galleries	Open layout of the street, individual flagship stores, and themed business clusters; the cultural and commercial elements in the vicinity of Daci Temple are organically integrated.	Chengdu Jinjiang District Bureau of Culture, Sports and Tourism

confirms the post-redevelopment concentration of upscale and externally oriented commercial formats. The renewed vitality of the Daci Temple historic district was achieved through a profound restructuring of inherited fabric and social base. Under such conditions, heritage legibility depends less on the simple preservation of historic form than on whether religious and cultural anchors, together with their associated spatial sequences, remain identifiable and accessible within the reconstructed scene. Therefore, for areas such as the Daci Temple district that have undergone structure-level reorganization, the focus of change management should be placed on maintaining the identifiability and accessibility of the anchor–sequence–context framework, while remaining alert to the crowding-out effect of high-end agglomeration on publicness and local practices. This large-scale structural de-densification and strong transformation of the historic fabric are also comparable to the pressures experienced by many historic districts in rapidly urbanizing Chinese cities [46].

3.2. Synchronic Impacts of Regeneration Modes on Heritage Values and Community Vitality

HUL calls for addressing the coupled relations among spatial form, social structure, and governance decision-making under dynamic urban development. Accordingly, comparing the two historic districts should not be limited to a diachronic narrative of change; it also requires juxtaposition at the same time points to trace where divergent mechanisms originate. Building on this logic, this section conducts a synchronic comparison using two benchmark years—1994 and 2025—as the main thread. These correspond, respectively, to baseline community conditions before renewal interventions and to post-renewal operational conditions after implementation. The morphological and socio-economic contexts of 1911 and 1933 are used as references to clarify differences in starting conditions and the path dependence of the two regeneration trajectories.

3.2.1. Key Time Point of 1994

In 1994, Kuanzhai Alley exhibited a typical high-intensity, everyday-life-oriented residential community condition. The street-and-alley backbone remained stable, while secondary alleys and courtyard accessibility jointly supported a fine-grained network of daily activities. Spatial organization, therefore, leaned toward a highly inhabitable, fine-grained structure rather than a consolidated layout optimized for operations. This configuration was reinforced by the population scale and occupational structure at the time: The resident population was high and largely composed of local households, and the commercial mix was dominated by everyday services, such as groceries, repair shops, and teahouses. Both the user groups and temporal rhythms of use primarily served internal community needs.

Over the same period, the Daci Temple historic district displayed a combined pattern of built-stock decline and weakened connectivity. Compared with earlier periods, the street-and-alley hierarchy and accessibility structure contracted markedly; public spaces and street frontages became less active. Together with declining residential capacity, the area approached a low-intensity, weak-growth form of everyday stability. Commerce remained centered on daily services—small eateries, barbers, hardware shops, and stalls—yet, under reduced scale and connectivity, these uses functioned more as compensatory maintenance for a declining community and generated limited appeal at the city-wide level. This cross-case contrast suggests that, prior to renewal interventions, the two districts occupied distinct baselines: a high-residential-intensity–high-everyday-density community condition versus a low-capacity–weakly connected decline condition. These structural baselines helped shape the subsequent divergence in regeneration choices.

More specifically, the divergence between the two renewal paths was rooted not only in different structural conditions but also in different inherited functional roles and social backgrounds. Kuanzhai Alley entered the renewal period as a courtyard-based, everyday-life-oriented residential quarter, in which local households, fine-grained alleys, and small-scale service commerce jointly sustained an internally oriented community structure. By contrast, the Daci Temple historic district historically functioned less as a purely residential enclave than as a religious-commercial node, where temple-related activities, marketplace exchange, and city-oriented movement were more closely intertwined. This difference is important for interpreting later regeneration choices: In Kuanzhai Alley, renewal could proceed by conserving the visible street-and-alley framework while reorganizing internal operational units and everyday-use structures; for the Daci Temple historic district, renewal was more readily driven toward redevelopment-led re-centralization, in which the visibility of cultural anchors and the attraction of commercial capital became the dominant organizing logic.

3.2.2. Key Time Point of 2025

In 2025, Kuanzhai Alley reflects a highly staged, tourism-consumption-oriented regeneration outcome. The street-and-alley backbone and townscape appearance were largely retained, yet internal operational units were systematically consolidated. The inhabitable fine-grainedness embedded in courtyard and plot boundaries was continually compressed, shifting the area from a permeable everyday-life network toward a more controllable spatial arrangement geared to commercial operations. In parallel, the population structure underwent an abrupt, discontinuous shift: The permanent on-site resident population declined sharply, and the remaining resident base consisted mainly of business operation managers rather than indigenous households; the district therefore shifted from a resident-based community to a cultural-commercial arena driven largely by external consumption. The number of establishments and the intensity of commercial uses increased substantially and clustered, producing visible external vitality indicators, such as high pedestrian volumes and the night-time economy (Figure 7). The social costs, however, are equally apparent. The outward displacement of residential functions significantly weakens continuity of community life, pointing to typical risks of renewal-induced gentrification and social-structural replacement. This population shift was driven not simply by demographic fluctuation but by the combined effects of tourism-oriented functional substitution, the consolidation of operational units, and the compression of inhabitable fine-grained courtyard and plot structures. As a result, community vitality became increasingly detached from stable residence and everyday mutual support and more dependent on externally generated consumption flows and short-duration use rhythms.

In 2025, the Daci Temple district reasserts centrality through redevelopment. An open, mixed-use commercial complex and a concentration of upscale uses strengthen landmark visibility and capital attraction (Figure 8). Despite these phenomena, the resident population has fallen sharply, and vitality is generated mainly through frequent external consumption and short stays rather than through the everyday reproduction of a stable residential community. Here, resident decline was associated with redevelopment-led reorganization of the street–plot system, the replacement of low-intensity local services by upscale clustering, and the resulting reduction in conditions for ordinary long-term habitation. The social consequence is that the district’s vitality becomes more visible in commercial terms yet weaker in the sense of community structure, because routine neighborhood interaction, resident-based service demand, and locally embedded everyday practices are no longer reproduced at the same intensity.

Meanwhile, the juxtaposition of religious–cultural anchors with upscale consumption settings makes experiences of authenticity and place-based practices more likely to be overshadowed by curated narratives, increasing the district’s dependence on a single market logic. This comparison shows that growth in external vitality does not necessarily translate into stronger community vitality. Change management must therefore assess both visible spatial outcomes and the less visible costs to social continuity; otherwise, even when street spaces are repaired or rebuilt, a paradox can emerge—tangible renewal without everyday vitality.

Figure 8. Commercial status of the Daci Temple historic district. Source: taken by the author.

Figure 8. Commercial status of the Daci Temple historic district. Source: taken by the author.

3.2.3. Background Comparison of 1911 and 1933

The two districts’ divergent regeneration starting points are not determined by policy choices alone; they are also closely tied to their initial functional attributes and to the heritage narratives that can be (re)interpreted and mobilized from those attributes. In 1911, Kuanzhai Alley had almost no fixed commercial presence; only by 1933 did a limited number of distinctive establishments gradually emerge in a shop-front, dwelling-behind configuration, providing services beyond the immediate neighborhood. This indicates that its underlying historical orientation was primarily residential and community-based. Consequently, the later shift toward tourism consumption required highly interventionist spatial consolidation and symbolic production to achieve functional substitution, making disruptions to everyday continuity and resident withdrawal more likely. By contrast, the Daci Temple district already hosted multiple businesses in 1911, which—together with temple-fair activities—formed a city-facing setting for trade and services. By 1933, commercial activity further expanded and exhibited a coexistence of traditional commerce and modern services. This implies that its historical value could be more readily folded into a commercial–cultural landmark narrative; regeneration, therefore, tended to amplify centrality through capitalization and upmarketization, with the primary risks shifting toward the consumption-led rewriting of religious–cultural context and the displacement of place-based practices.

3.3. Synergistic Pathways of Holistic Conservation and Organic Renewal Under the HUL Concept and Renewal Zoning

Synergy between holistic conservation and organic renewal should not depend on uniform, one-size-fits-all controls at a single regulatory intensity. Instead, zoning should differentiate both types of value-bearing elements and the sources of vitality mechanisms, enabling conservation priorities, renewal approaches, and operational constraints to be tailored to local conditions [47]. Evidence from Kuanzhai Alley suggests that persistence of the street-and-alley backbone does not automatically sustain everyday-life structures; internal-unit consolidation and resident withdrawal constitute the dominant risks. Zoning should therefore prioritize safeguarding fine-grained spatial structure, strengthening public-realm provision, and reinstating everyday use. Evidence from the Daci Temple district indicates that structure-level reconfiguration has created new consumption settings, yet the value narrative depends more critically on maintaining heritage anchors and a system for contextual interpretation. Zoning should thus emphasize the recognizability and experiential accessibility of religious–cultural nodes, while paying attention to the displacement effects of upscale clustering on the public realm and place-based practices. Building on these differences, this study proposes a shared set of zoning-type prototypes for spatial representation while differentiating their spatial targeting and governance tools in application.

It should be noted that the renewal zoning proposed here is conceived as change-management-oriented prototypes that organize governance priorities and key constraints, rather than being directly equivalent to statutory regulatory zoning under detailed control plans. Zoning allocation follows a minimal rule set linking evidence, mechanisms, and prototypes: First, boundaries are preferentially delineated along cross-temporally stable street-and-alley backbones, major plot boundaries, or clearly identifiable frontage/interface breaks to ensure legibility and auditability; second, heritage anchors and their associated spatial sequences are prioritized within heritage core and high-sensitivity zones, with frontage intervention and functional substitution treated as key objects of constraint; third, areas retaining traces of everyday life and offering conditions for strengthening the public realm are assigned to townscape-continuity and everyday-life repair zones, using everyday services and public space as the principal governance levers; fourth, primary streets and gateway nodes with concentrated commercial intensity and continuous frontages are classified as commercial–cultural frontage regulation zones, constrained through rules on commercial composition, public-realm boundaries, and visitor-flow organization; fifth, corridors that transmit peripheral development pressure and key areas of traffic organization are included in coordinated control and buffer–transition zones, where impacts on the core are mitigated through the integration of the active-mobility system, traffic capacity, and surrounding development intensity. Parameterizing thresholds and refining statutory boundaries require further calibration in relation to property rights, implementing actors, and the planning regulatory system. Here, the researcher only provides the auditable prototype logic and schematic spatial representation (

Table 9. Mapping rules for zoning prototype.

Types	Entry Criteria	Key Risks	Core Governance Levers
Heritage core and high-sensitivity zones	Stable key sequences/nodes; sensitive interface transformation	Context dilution; heritage anchors overwritten by consumerist narratives	Preserve anchor points and sequences; impose strict controls on interface and function replacement
Townscape-continuity and everyday-life repair zones	Skeleton sustainable; traces of daily life restorable	Hollowing-out of living heritage	Provision of publicness, community services, and moderate repopulation
Commercial–cultural frontage regulation zones	Continuous commercialization of the entrance and main street frontages	Homogenization, exclusion, and contraction of publicness	Business format structure, public space, and rules for pedestrian flow organization
Coordinated control and buffer–transition zones	External pressure corridors/critical to traffic carrying capacity	Pressure transmission leads to the destabilization of the core area	Non-motorized transport system, traffic organization, and coordination of surrounding development intensity

).

The translation from diagnosis to zoning did not rely on morphological evidence alone. The zoning assignment was based on a joint reading of the spatial level at which change occurred and the socio-economic direction of that change. Morphology identified whether change mainly affected the street skeleton, plot/courtyard structure, frontage interface, connectivity, or anchor-context relations, whereas socio-economic evidence indicated whether the associated social outcome was resident stability, resident withdrawal, everyday-service persistence, externally oriented commercial clustering, or rising exclusion pressure. Where the street skeleton remained legible but resident population declined sharply and the commercial mix shifted toward tourism- and experience-oriented clustering, the area was treated not simply as preserved but as requiring townscape-continuity/everyday-life repair and frontage regulation. Where anchor integrity remained important but contextual accessibility and use inclusiveness were weakened by upscale concentration, the priority shifted toward heritage-core protection and coordinated buffer control. In this sense, morphology identifies where and how change is occurring, while socio-economic evidence indicates whether that change sustains or erodes community functions, publicness, and locally embedded practices; zoning decisions are made only through their combined interpretation.

Differential emphasis is required when applying the four zoning types to the two districts. These differences are jointly shaped by which morphological levels have been affected by change and how the structure of vitality has been transformed. For Kuanzhai Alley, the persistence of the street-and-alley backbone provides a relatively clear conservation baseline. Yet the consolidation of internal operational units and the withdrawal of residents create a risk of façade-level retention alongside the erosion of everyday life. Accordingly, the heritage core and high-sensitivity zone should treat courtyard-scale structure and the continuity of street frontages as primary targets for control, preventing further plot consolidation from eroding fine-grained spatial structure and the diversity of spatial settings. The townscape-continuity and everyday-life repair zone should explicitly prioritize reinstating residential/everyday functions and strengthening the public realm, building an everyday-use structure that complements the cultural-tourism economy. The commercial–cultural frontage regulation zone should curb homogenization and excessive appropriation by diversifying the commercial mix and safeguarding public space. The coordinated control and buffer–transition zone should focus on visitor management and the active-mobility network such that pressure on the core can be spatially redistributed and moderated.

For the Daci Temple historic district, renewal has already reached the level of restructuring street-and-alley networks and plot organization. Governance priorities should therefore shift from celebrating post-reconfiguration functional prosperity toward rebuilding heritage legibility and safeguarding contextual integrity. The heritage core and high-sensitivity zone should use religious–cultural nodes and their associated spaces as anchors, prioritizing narrative continuity and experiential accessibility and preventing commercial frontage interventions from obscuring the sacral character of key places. The townscape-continuity and everyday-life repair zone should provide more inclusive everyday services and public activity spaces, mitigating potential social exclusion and temporal homogenization produced by upscale clustering. The commercial–cultural frontage regulation zone should explicitly manage the displacement effects of upscale uses on place-based practices and the public realm, reducing the district’s dependence on a single market logic for value realization. The coordinated control and buffer–transition zone should integrate commercial spillover management, traffic capacity, and landscape-corridor continuity, thereby stabilizing the environmental context of cultural nodes.

To render the zoning strategy assessable, this study further specifies monitoring indicator domains for each zone, operationalizing the HUL closed loop of change management. For Kuanzhai Alley, monitoring should prioritize indicators that capture the reinstatement of everyday life, including the intensity of plot consolidation, the proportion of public space, the extent of resident population recovery, and the diversity of the commercial mix. For the Daci Temple district, monitoring should focus on accessibility to heritage anchors, the sustained use of traditional activity spaces, the inclusiveness of the use structure, and—at the control-zone level—changes in traffic capacity and surrounding development intensity. By coupling zoning with indicators, holistic conservation moves beyond boundary delineation, and organic renewal is no longer reduced to project delivery. Instead, both can be coordinated through a unified evidence framework, supporting a more robust governance pathway that sustains the city’s cultural roots while responding to contemporary development needs.

To facilitate practical implementation, the proposed renewal-zoning prototypes can be embedded into an iterative district-level governance workflow rather than treated as standalone academic maps. In practice, the workflow may proceed in five linked steps. First, planning and heritage authorities delineate provisional zoning units on the basis of the morphological-evidence diagnosis and the dominant regeneration risks identified in each area. Second, these prototypes are translated into implementable control tools, such as conservation-plan annotations, urban design guidance, frontage-management rules, and project-review checklists. Third, proposed interventions are assessed zone by zone according to the corresponding objectives, key constraints, and preferred directions of change such that demolition, plot amalgamation, functional substitution, interface redesign, and traffic organization are no longer reviewed in an undifferentiated manner. Fourth, the indicator domains proposed in this study can be incorporated into periodic monitoring to assess whether actual changes remain consistent with zone objectives. Fifth, where monitoring reveals sustained deviation, the intensity of control, permitted uses, or public-space requirements can be adjusted through a feedback mechanism. In this sense, the zoning proposed here is not a substitute for statutory planning but a decision-support layer that helps align heritage conservation, urban renewal, and tourism management within existing governance procedures.

In terms of implementation, the proposed monitoring indicators should be embedded into the statutory planning system in a differentiated rather than uniform manner. Indicators with relatively clear spatial and regulatory implications—such as plot-consolidation intensity, public-space proportion, frontage continuity, traffic capacity, and surrounding development intensity—can be translated into control items or review parameters within conservation plans, detailed regulatory plans, urban design guidance, and project approval checklists. By contrast, indicators that primarily capture social and cultural outcomes—such as resident recovery, commercial-mix diversity, accessibility to heritage anchors, inclusiveness of use structure, and continuity of traditional activity spaces—are better treated as district-level monitoring and evaluation indicators, to be reviewed periodically rather than imposed as fixed statutory quotas. In this way, the monitoring framework proposed here does not seek to replace the existing statutory indicator system; instead, it supplements it by linking binding spatial controls with adaptive performance monitoring, thereby making heritage-sensitive renewal both more assessable and more adjustable over time.

In practical terms, these zoning priorities should be translated into project-review criteria. For Kuanzhai Alley, stricter review should be applied to excessive courtyard amalgamation, frontage homogenization, and the erosion of resident-serving functions. For the Daci Temple district, the review should prioritize the protection of anchor–sequence–context relations; the continuity of traditional activity spaces; and the control of frontage intervention, traffic pressure, and surrounding development intensity. Thus, the zoning types are operationalized through district-specific combinations of control priorities, review criteria, and monitoring focuses.

4. Discussion

4.1. Methodological Robustness and the Evidentiary Contribution of Morphological Coding

The findings both reinforce and extend the three strands identified in this literature review. First, consistent with evidence-oriented HUL studies that emphasize layer identification through spatial morphology and historical documentation, the Chengdu cases confirm that streets, plots, and frontages provide a relatively auditable basis for tracing heritage layering across periods. Second, in line with governance-and-participation research, the results show that renewal of historical districts cannot be understood as a matter of spatial repair alone, because changes in urban form are closely coupled with resident withdrawal, commercial restructuring, and the redefinition of publicness. Third, responding to the implementation gap repeatedly noted in previous HUL studies, this study demonstrates how morphological evidence can be translated into renewal-zoning prototypes and monitoring domains, thereby moving from value recognition toward executable change management.

Unlike studies that derive density metrics from fully unified vector datasets, historical maps vary across periods in survey accuracy and cartographic conventions. If ostensibly cross-temporally comparable numerical metrics are treated as the primary evidence, archival bias can be mistaken for morphological change. This study, therefore, adopts an auditable strategy comprising morphological coding, two-pass verification, and cross-evidence triangulation. Judgements are anchored in traceable interpretation rules, with emphasis placed on structural trends and mechanism-based explanation rather than on local absolute magnitudes. This approach does not negate the value of quantitative metrics; instead, it treats them as a direction for further refinement. Once more consistent vector datasets—or multi-case calibration conditions—become available, a parameterized indicator system for street networks and plots can be introduced to test the robustness of the proposed zoning prototypes across broader contexts.

4.2. Methodological Continuity and Social Discontinuity in Historic-District Renewal

The most important finding is not simply whether the two districts changed but the identification of an often underappreciated structural fact in the renewal of historical districts: morphological continuity and social continuity do not necessarily move in the same direction. In Kuanzhai Alley, the street-and-alley backbone and spatial sequences remain sufficiently legible to sustain a recognizable historic image. Yet consolidation at the plot level and within operational/commercial units can substantially reconfigure how everyday life is organized, triggering the withdrawal of indigenous and household-based residence and a shift in the district’s functional focus. In both districts, resident withdrawal should be understood less as an isolated demographic event than as the social outcome of renewal logics that reorganize spatial granularity, use structure, and the balance between everyday residence and externally oriented consumption. By contrast, renewal in the Daci Temple district is closer to a reconfiguration of the street-and-alley and plot system as a whole. While morphological remaking produces a new high-intensity spatial network, it does not necessarily restore a lived community; instead, value articulation depends more on whether cultural anchors and contextual interpretation can remain operative within the new setting. These results move the analysis beyond the common evaluation of whether morphological retention succeeds toward a mechanism-based discussion of how value is realized through change [29,43,48], and they provide a more verifiable evidentiary basis for change management in the HUL context.

Further, although the two districts diverge in their morphological strategies, they exhibit a convergent risk profile in social outcomes: Weakening residential functions and a strengthened consumption orientation may occur simultaneously. This suggests that equating rising pedestrian volumes or commercial prosperity directly with community vitality is not robust. Vitality must be redefined with reference to social relations, everyday use, and the boundaries of the public realm [49,50]. The contribution here lies in coupling morphological evidence with socio-economic evidence to assess renewal paths not only in terms of spatial restructuring but also in terms of resident continuity, commercial transformation, and the social costs that may accompany visible regeneration success.

4.3. Touristification, Social-Cultural Reconfiguration, and Inherited Path Dependence

Beyond the spatial and economic restructuring described above, touristification also reshapes the social and cultural organization of historic districts in more substantive ways. In Kuanzhai Alley, the sharp contraction of the resident base, together with the consolidation of plots and operational units, implies not only a change in land-use intensity but also the erosion of proximity-based everyday relations, local service routines, and community rhythms. The district increasingly functions as a curated cultural–commercial arena for external consumption, while the social infrastructure supporting ordinary residence becomes more fragile. In the Daci Temple district, the issue is not simply resident decline but the transformation of cultural heritage from a lived urban milieu into a setting more readily interpreted through symbolic display and destination consumption. When religious and cultural anchors are retained, but their surrounding everyday context is replaced by high-end clustering and short-stay consumption, traditional culture faces a subtler form of loss: not necessarily the disappearance of all heritage markers but the weakening of locally embedded practices, informal social interaction, and the continuity of use through which cultural meaning is reproduced. In this sense, the social cost of touristification lies in the joint reconfiguration of community structure, temporal rhythms of daily life, and the cultural conditions that sustain heritage as lived practice rather than staged representation. The present study does not directly trace individual migration trajectories; rather, it interprets resident withdrawal, functional replacement, and the weakening of everyday-use structures as observable social outcomes of touristification.

The contrast between the two districts should therefore be understood not only as a difference in morphological transformation but also as a difference in inherited functional positioning and social background. Kuanzhai Alley was historically sustained by a stronger residential social base, with fine-grained courtyard habitation, local households, and everyday services forming the primary structure of urban life. Under such conditions, tourism-led regeneration did not need to replace the main street framework in order to produce profound change; commodification could occur through the consolidation of operational units and the gradual displacement of resident-based everyday rhythms. The Daci Temple district, by contrast, inherited a more mixed and outward-facing role as a religious-commercial node. Its historical significance depended not only on built fabric but also on the continuing interpretability of anchors, flows, and associated public activities. As a result, its renewal more readily took the form of redevelopment-led re-centralization, in which landmark visibility and consumption intensity were strengthened, while contextual continuity and community-based use became more fragile. In this sense, Kuanzhai Alley exemplifies the touristification of a residential townscape, whereas the Daci Temple district exemplifies the scenographic redevelopment of a religious–commercial core.

4.4. From Regeneration Mechanisms to HUL-Oriented Governance Translation

The Kuanzhai Alley case suggests that renewal often affects heritage values first at the level of spatial granularity and tenure/rights-of-use arrangements, rather than at the level of the street-and-alley backbone. When the street pattern remains recognizable, rapid functional reorientation can be achieved through restructuring operational units. Under conditions of strong tourism appeal and high operational intensity, space is readily re-scripted into commodified experience sequences, with the consequence that the temporal rhythms and social structure of everyday life are substantially rewritten. This mechanism helps explain why an area may still appear historic morphologically while exhibiting rapid gentrification tendencies and resident withdrawal socially [51,52,53].

The Daci Temple district’s trajectory reveals a more forceful mechanism: when renewal entails the wholesale reorganization of street-and-alley and plot systems, the continuity of heritage value is more likely to be governed by the logic of scenographic (stage-set) production. In the comprehensive redevelopment of the Daci Temple district, the religious core and a small number of protected heritage buildings were retained, while large portions of the historic fabric and residential communities were replaced by a major commercial complex. This process indeed enhanced central-area landmark visibility and tourist attractions while bringing questions of authenticity and community continuity to the foreground. In such a context, heritage is no longer primarily sustained through everyday use within a lived network; it is more readily displayed and consumed as symbolized nodes, and risk shifts from physical damage to the rewriting of value [54].

Importantly, these mechanisms cannot be attributed to a single project or a single capital-driven action. They are better understood as outcomes of coupling among spatial form, market structure, and governance arrangements. A macro-level concept or a single technical instrument is unlikely to resolve such a complex problem. Recurrent cycles of demolition and rebuilding point to misalignments in planning control and value judgement, underscoring the need for more fine-grained zoning strategies grounded in diagnosis of heritage-layering differences such that controls are implementable and evaluable. This also provides the real-world contextual rationale for the change-management closed loop proposed in this study, with zoning as the key vehicle.

Relative to studies that prioritize multidimensional layering indicator systems or historical-map translation pathways [7,13,21], this study’s contribution is not to add more layering dimensions but to argue that morphological evidence at the district scale is more auditable and more comparable across periods and to position it as a key medium linking value identification to zoning-based governance. Prior work has shown that HUL enables identification of accumulated district structures through multi-dimensional hierarchies and that historical-map translation can reveal layering mechanisms [10,19,55,56]. This study further connects evidence-based identification to regeneration-path interpretation and to the control of zoning intensity such that layering becomes not merely a descriptive framework but a logical starting point for differentiated governance.

Moreover, multiple studies have repeatedly observed that HUL research often remains at the level of value argumentation and conceptual expansion [8,21,22,57,58]. By using the contrast between two extreme regeneration modes as a case entry, this study renders change management more than a rhetorical principle: It becomes an evaluable, zoning-based agenda that constrains the direction, intensity, and quality of change, thereby responding more directly to the methodological gap. HUL also stresses governance and participation, treating historic districts as processes of multi-actor negotiation and institutional arrangement [59]. Linking morphological layering to renewal zoning provides a shared, spatially visible, and operational object for negotiation. Participation, therefore, need not stop at value statements; it can be organized around zone-specific objectives, permitted types of change, and monitoring indicators. While prior work has outlined broad frameworks for participatory models and stakeholder collaboration [60,61], the morphological evidence and zoning logic developed here can be viewed as a complementary operational entry point at the district scale of spatial units.

4.5. Scope Conditions, Transferability, and Implementation Challenges

At the same time, the present toolchain is derived from two highly visible, capital-intensive regeneration cases, and this affects its immediate scope of application. The Kuanzhai Alley and Daci Temple district are both star historic districts under strong tourism pressure with high symbolic visibility and concentrated investment, where rapid commercialization and large-scale intervention make morphological and socio-economic shifts easier to detect. In non-star historic districts, however, change may occur more incrementally, with weaker market attraction, lower redevelopment intensity, and more mixed forms of everyday decline, underinvestment, piecemeal adaptation, or resident-led persistence. Under such conditions, the same zoning logic may still be useful, but the indicator emphasis, threshold setting, and governance priorities would likely need recalibration. In other words, the universal value of this study lies less in assuming that all historic districts follow star-district trajectories than in providing a diagnostic and zoning framework that can be adjusted to different intensities and modes of renewal.

The broader applicability of this study, therefore, lies less in statistical representativeness than in analytical transferability. While the empirical cases are both located in Chengdu, they represent two contrasting regeneration modes—backbone retention with internal commodification versus structural reorganization with anchor-led redevelopment—and the coding logic, zoning prototypes, and monitoring framework developed here may be adapted to other historic districts facing similar tensions between heritage conservation, tourism development, and community continuity.

A further issue is that the proposed zoning recommendations may face substantial implementation challenges in practice. The first is stakeholder coordination. In historic districts under strong tourism and redevelopment pressure, local governments, developers, heritage managers, business operators, residents, and religious–cultural actors may not share the same priorities. Governments often seek visible regeneration outcomes and fiscal returns, and developers tend to favor operational flexibility and commercial intensity, whereas heritage managers and local communities may place greater weight on contextual continuity, publicness, and everyday-life functions. The second challenge concerns balancing commercial development with heritage conservation. In areas such as the Kuanzhai Alley and Daci Temple districts, commercial activation can provide investment, visibility, and maintenance resources, yet excessive upmarketization, frontage homogenization, and project-driven consolidation may weaken resident-serving functions and reduce the interpretability of heritage as lived practice. The third challenge lies in potential social and cultural resistance. Restrictions on use types, plot amalgamation, traffic organization, or frontage intervention may be opposed by operators and investors who prioritize profitability, while communities and cultural stakeholders may resist renewal if they perceive it as further displacement, symbolic packaging, or erosion of locally embedded practices. For this reason, the zoning framework proposed here should not be understood as a purely technical prescription. Its effectiveness depends on whether zone objectives, review criteria, and monitoring indicators can be embedded in a negotiated governance process that allows trade-offs to be made explicit, conflicts to be identified early, and compensatory or corrective measures to be introduced when necessary.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to address three interrelated questions concerning heritage-layer trajectories, regeneration mechanisms, and the translation of evidence into renewal-zoning prototypes. These objectives were achieved through a comparative analysis of the Kuanzhai Alley and Daci Temple historic districts across four benchmark time slices, supported by georeferenced historical maps, morphological coding, and cross-evidence triangulation. Ultimately, this study contributes a reusable, decision-oriented pathway for historic-district change management by treating planform evidence embedded in historical maps as an auditable backbone and by operationalizing it through morphological coding, two-pass verification, and cross-evidence triangulation. The key finding is structural rather than descriptive: morphological continuity and social continuity do not necessarily move in the same direction. In Kuanzhai Alley, a legible street–alley framework enables the persistence of a recognizable historic image, yet consolidation at the plot/operational level and intensive commodification reshape everyday-life organization and coincide with dramatic resident withdrawal (from about 3200–3400 in 1994 to about 45–50 in 2025). Commercial activity in 2025 reaches 164 establishments and is dominated by experience-oriented and high-consumption formats, illustrating how visible success can coexist with hidden social costs. In the Daci Temple district, renewal proceeds closer to a reconfiguration of the street–plot system, accompanied by a comparable decline in permanent residents (about 243–270 in 1994 to about 40–45 in 2025) and an upscale retail agglomeration exceeding 280 establishments by 2025; the reorganization of spatial form is therefore not equivalent to the return of historical continuity.

Practically, the proposed renewal zoning prototypes translate mechanism diagnosis into differentiated governance priorities, and the indicator domains render the strategy assessable by embedding monitoring and feedback into each zone. These indicators are intended to operate as a supplementary control-and-monitoring layer within existing planning procedures: some can be translated into reviewable spatial-control items, whereas others function as periodic evaluation indicators for adaptive governance. For Kuanzhai Alley, monitoring should prioritize the reinstatement of everyday life—plot consolidation intensity, public-space proportion, resident recovery, and commercial-mix diversity. For the Daci Temple district, monitoring should prioritize accessibility to heritage anchors, sustained use of traditional activity spaces, inclusiveness of the use structure, and (at the control-zone level) traffic capacity and surrounding development intensity. These findings also indicate that the cost of touristification is not only morphological or functional but also social and cultural: community-based everyday life becomes more fragile, resident continuity weakens, and heritage risks being reproduced more as a curated display than as lived practice.

This study also has several limitations. First, the accuracy and availability of historical maps vary across periods, which means that the analysis is better suited to identifying cross-temporal structural trends and relative change than to establishing highly precise absolute metrics. Second, while morphological evidence is effective for explaining how spatial structures change, understanding how heritage value is perceived, negotiated, and distributed requires more direct social data and evidence on governance processes.

Future research can therefore build on the coding framework and zoning prototypes developed in this study by incorporating parameterized network-and-plot indicators, operational records, and behavioral data to strengthen the monitoring closed loop and provide a firmer basis for threshold calibration. In particular, because the present study is grounded in two highly visible, capital-intensive star historic districts, further studies should test how our framework performs in non-star historic districts characterized by weaker tourism pull, lower redevelopment intensity, and more incremental forms of change. Such research would help determine which elements of the zoning logic are broadly transferable and which require recalibration under different development pressures. Further studies may also test the transferability of this framework to other Chinese and international heritage tourism renewal contexts with different cultural and social conditions, and the long-term tracking of resident continuity, commercial restructuring, public-space use, and heritage-anchor accessibility should be conducted in order to evaluate the enduring community and heritage effects of renewal strategies.