Adaptive Urban Housing in Historic Landscapes: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Resilient Heritage in Damascus

Abstract

Historic urban cores face escalating pressures from climate change, rapid urbanization, and uncoordinated redevelopment, which often threaten their cultural identity and social cohesion, demanding innovative solutions that balance heritage conservation with contemporary housing needs. This study introduces an integrated evaluation framework encompassing 18 criteria across architectural, urban, and green dimensions to assess adaptive housing interventions in urban heritage contexts. Building on resilience theory, urban living, and sustainable urban futures, the paper traces the historical and contemporary design influences that have shaped urban housing design in Damascus, and investigates strategies to maintain prospective housing identity by applying the methodology of the developed framework to three representative dwellings in Damascus’s UNESCO-listed city. Considering the heritage-specific indicators, social place memory, and the cultural significance—with environmental performance and socio-economic viability—the developed compass-like tool in this research visualizes multi-criteria scores to identify leverage points for resilience. Results highlight priority zones for intervention and suggested policy incentives. Through the provision of a flexible, clear tool grounded in adaptive housing concepts, this study empowers planners, conservationists, and communities to develop sustainable, forward-thinking approaches for historic urban environments globally.

1. Introduction

Every innovation in architecture and planning is a result of a long process of continuous building and structural evolution. It emerges through iterative trials aimed at developing and advancing architectural strategies through a series of chosen steps. These steps form a quantitative and qualitative accumulation that serves as the foundation for architectural innovation. This process unfolds within big intellectual transformations that are continually happening in society, which in turn influence the structural formation of architecture and urbanism.

The housing sector is considered the most important component of urban environments [1] due to what it contains of cultural, social, environmental, and economic components that reflect all the changes and the transformations in the lives of the residents. Historic urban landscapes represent a unique blending of cultural heritage, architectural history, and urban lifestyle, reflecting centuries of adaptations to changing environmental, social, and economic circumstances. As cities around the world face rapid population growth, the impacts of climate change, and demands for modernization, these areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable to decline and significant transformation, and are at risk of loss of their unique identities.

This challenge is severe in heritage-rich contexts like Damascus, one of the world’s oldest continuously inhabited cities [2], where the complex layers of built form and social fabric are threatened by both physical decay and the pressures of urban renewal. Urban housing design in Syria is a tapestry woven from centuries of cultural, religious, and social influences. Traditional design elements derived from vernacular and Islamic architectural traditions, particularly Umayyad, have historically provided a unique identity to Syrian urban fabric as the theories of urban form and image. As Lynch’s theory of urban form and image suggests, visible historical features enhance spatial legibility which contribute to a stronger sense of place [3]. In recent decades, however, rapid urbanization and modernization have resulted in a critical tension between preserving historical identity and embracing contemporary design imperatives. This evolution posed a risk to the preservation of cultural memory embedded in housing design, which needs to be addressed in a multi-criteria assessment tool capable of capturing architectural, social, and environmental dimensions. The intersection of historic preservation and contemporary housing needs poses fundamental questions for urban planners and policymakers. The central questions guiding this study are as follows:

• What tools can effectively evaluate interventions to ensure that historic cores remain livable, resilient, and culturally vibrant amid twenty-first-century challenges?
• How can a multi-criteria evaluation framework be constructed to assess adaptability and sustainability in historic urban housing?
• What indicators, measurement approaches, and weighting methods best capture the diverse requirements of heritage housing in evolving urban contexts?

2. Materials and Methods

This paper investigates the above issues by examining the crucial architectural trends and movements that have shaped urban housing in Damascus. It develops an Architectural–Urban–Green (AUG) compass as a comprehensive evaluation framework. The aim is to assess adaptive housing within urban settings, combining the preservation of heritage with contemporary urban planning to enhance the livability and maintain the identity of housing sustainably. It provides a method to guide planning and conservation efforts by integrating factors associated with architecture, urban development, and the environment, alongside heritage-related metrics like material authenticity and collective memory. The research applies the designed framework (AUG compass) on 3 Damascus case studies—one being a UNESCO-recognized sample from the Old City of Damascus—and demonstrates how important a multi-criteria evaluation is to achieve urban resilience. This contributes to striking a balance between contemporary facilities and respecting urban heritage.

Case studies were selected to represent three distinct historical periods and design philosophies: (1) traditional 18th-century courtyard typology, representing pre-modern heritage; (2) mid-20th century, European-influenced early modernism urban villa, representing transitional design; (3) late modernist residential tower typology, representing contemporary density approaches. This chronological progression enables comparative analysis of design evolution and performance across eras.

This supports the concept that integrating historical aspects into modern planning enhances community identity and livability [3].

This paper uses the following resources and materials to shape the theoretical framework and to investigate how historical influences and modern interventions have shaped Damascene housing development and identity:

• Historical Documents: Urban and architectural plans, municipal documents, and archives that involve the development of housing in Damascus.
• Literature: Academic articles and books that are relevant, including foundational works of Lynch (1960) [3], Kristin Ring (2017) [4], and LAND (2024) [5], which contribute to the theoretical basis.
• Visual and Spatial Documentation: Each case study involved gathering detailed data and visual documentation that showcase the intersection of past and present of the housing designs of historical and contemporary housing designs (especially in the case studies portfolio, p23).

The research employs a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative analysis:

• Comparative Analysis: Data from the three case studies were systematically contrasted to identify patterns and differences in how housing maintains or loses cultural identity across historical periods.
• Synthesis and Framework Development: Findings were integrated to create a comprehensive evaluation framework that aligns historical heritage with modern urban necessities through the AUG (Architectural, Urban, Green) compass.

This approach combines qualitative evidence with quantitative assessment, through scoring methodology that is presented in Section 4 (the AUG evaluation framework, p8).

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Urban Futures and Adaptability

This study places adaptability within the framework of sustainable urban futures, defining it not as a reactive response to change but as a proactive capacity or skill to anticipate and respond to transformation. In terms of housing, adaptability is fundamentally about being prepared and proactive in any housing project design [6], developed to effectively address the changing demands of its environment [7]. This concept includes the structural ability of a building to accommodate varied uses while still being suitable for its primary purpose [8]. Schneider and Till addressed housing adaptability, describing flexible housing as homes that can adjust to the changing requirements of their residents [9]. They also differentiate between two key aspects: adaptability, which refers to the capacity for different social uses, and flexibility, which pertains to the ability for various physical configurations [9]. This dual characteristic allows homes to serve multiple purposes while retaining the structural capability for physical modifications.

3.2. The Proactivity

The proactive or anticipatory aspect of adaptability highlights the significance of planning for the future, incorporating design elements into housing to address both present and evolving needs of its inhabitants. This idea is consistent with resilience theory [10], which insists on proactive measures rather than responses after a crisis occurs. Lifecycle adaptability acknowledges that households evolve over time [11] (work schedules shift and physical abilities can change, necessitating that homes are equipped for these adjustments). Crisis mitigation through proactive adaptability also demonstrates measurable benefits: Schmidt III & Austin suggest that it is 22 times more efficient to design for adaptability initially [12] rather than modifying after issues arise.

Three fundamental principles underpin this proactive paradigm:

• Spatial flexibility (open floor plans that can be reconfigured for different uses, multi-functional spaces that serve various purposes throughout the day or over time, rooms with ambiguous purposes that allow occupant choice through ambiguity) [13]: successful adaptable housing considers the integration of soft flexibility through spatial generosity and a loose-fit layout, and hard flexibility through moveable partitions and modular systems [14].
• Constructional openness by separating levels and breaking down interfaces for easy modification, removal, or upgrading of components without affecting the whole system [15] (modular construction systems, detachable joints and connections, accessible building services and infrastructure) [16].
• Future-ready designs that include integrating tech advancements that address evolving needs (like smart homes, connectivity and the Internet of things, renewable energy systems, and accessibility features that can be activated when necessary). This can result in enhancing resilience. Moreover, allowing for thoughtful implementation of adaptive strategies in any urban setting including heritage contexts, where sensitive retrofitting requires methods that are reversible, modular, and non-intrusive.

3.3. Futures Studies Applications in Urban Planning

Future studies are essentially a structured approach to explore and understand potential futures, moving beyond simple prediction. In the housing context, these studies provide critical approaches to analyze potential long-term futures of socio-ecological systems [17], enabling better decision-making in terms of housing policies and urban development strategies. This is because the primary challenge we face today is how to create a sustainable, compact, and high-density urban area without sacrificing living quality or the surrounding ecosystem. While compact urban models promise efficiency and reduced urban sprawl, they also have high risks, like overloaded infrastructures, diminished social resilience, intensified heat islands, and limited capacity for adaptation. Therefore, the challenge is not just planning nice compact cities, but reimagining them as resilient, adaptable urban systems. This challenge becomes even more complex in historic urban landscapes such as Damascus, where density is already embedded in traditional urban form, but sustainability and adaptability remain contested.

Professor Christine Ring expands on this discourse through her “Toolbox,” a set of five key factors that operationalize future-oriented housing and urban strategies [4].

• Densification: This involves the construction, renovation, modification, or addition of buildings within the urban context, utilizing smart solutions to address the existing urban fabric.
• Neighborhood Benefits: This includes the variety of mixed functions and social diversity that can be achieved. A successful functional blend creates adaptable environments that support multi-generational housing models [4], ready to accommodate ever-changing lifestyles and living conditions, while encouraging social connectivity (positive interaction) and shared areas.
• New Forms of Living: A variety of new living spaces that add to the city’s vibrancy. Ring insists that these living environments must be adaptable to accommodate the evolving needs of residents over time, highlighting neutrality and diversity. Sustainable, affordable housing solutions are essential for forming high-quality residential communities.
• Costs: All the previous factors cannot happen without economic strategies that are aimed at reducing expenses to ensure affordability. The main cost factors are construction, compactness, standards, and minimization.
• Special Solutions: Ring shows innovative and unique approaches and rethought arrangements in her exhibition and book about future urban living, where projects from the International Urban Living Workshop and from the Self-Made City publication are presented [4]. Solutions like integrated living concepts that combine housing with workspaces, other shared amenities, and green infrastructure were promoted to support and ensure sustainable and socially inclusive urban living [4].

3.4. Adaptive Heritage Conservation in Urban Contexts

Historic urban centers worldwide face the dual challenge of maintaining cultural authenticity while also meeting contemporary housing needs. This issue is more complicated in cities like Damascus, as dense traditional urban fabric must accommodate modern requirements with evolving living dynamics without losing its “heritage status” [18]. Multiple areas surrounding Damascus basically include community-based (self-built) adaptations. These are mostly spontaneous and informal, to try to meet the genuine needs of residents. But by guiding the process and organizing it, adding supporting facilities and modifying spatial arrangements, these improvements will drive residents to contribute to the sustainable preservation of the architectural heritage [19]. This will improve both the functionality and livability of heritage structures [20].

Based on UNESCO, heritage conservation in urban environments has shifted from focusing on the monument approach to a more holistic framework that considers the complexities of living in historic cities. The institute in its “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape in 2011” states that heritage sites are not static museums but rather dynamic environments where contemporary life coexists with historical significance [21]. Additionally, Wong insists in the 2017 publication that successful heritage conservation requires moving away from approaches that “freeze buildings in time,” and promote frameworks that enable thoughtful transformation [22]. The perspectives of UNESCO and Wong align well with the urban resilience concept—that heritage is not a fixed asset to be protected unchanged but is a cultural resource capable of adaptation while retaining essential identity and values [22].

The integration of resilience theory into heritage conservation shows that cultural heritage should serve as “a container of accumulated experiences” that connects past, present, and future. It addresses both tangible aspects (physical challenges from natural hazards, climate change, and time effects) and intangible aspects (social cohesion, cultural practices, and community identity). Since heritage sites are complex socio-ecological systems, they require special integrated management with adaptive strategies that balance identity conservation with community wellbeing and economic sustainability [23].

However, the mission is not easy when it comes to housing preservation and rehabilitation in historic urban settlements, especially in regions experiencing conflict, displacement, or rapid urbanization. In Syria, these challenges are severe, as the country experiences conflict-related damage to urban sites and historic settings. UN-Habitat’s Considerations for a housing sector recovery framework in Syria of 2022 include both protection and constraints, requiring careful balance between preservation requirements and contemporary housing needs [24].

3.5. Evaluation Methodologies in Historic Landscape Management

Current evaluation methodologies for managing historic landscape have moved from single-criterion assessments toward integrated frameworks that adapt heritage conservation into contemporary and future living requirements. Tools like Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) have emerged as a follower to ICOMOS guidance. The aim is to systematically evaluate positive and negative effects of developing projects on heritage values, attributes, authenticity, and integrity [25]. However, traditional HIAs often focus on impact mitigation [26] rather than proactive enhancement of heritage through adaptive strategies which this study later addresses. Another effective tool is the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in heritage contexts, particularly for adaptive reuse decisions and strategies. In terms of heritage settings, the (H-MCDM) tool or method provides a flexible framework that systematically compares alternatives to multiple heritage and performance criteria [27]. Similarly, value-based frameworks integrate authenticity, integrity, significance, and adaptability criteria into structured decision-making processes [28].

The L.A.N.D [5] (Landscape, Architecture, Nature, Development) approach, on the other hand, seeks to integrate people-centered design, ecological resilience, and urban efficiency to create cities that are both dense and desirable. It is contributing to sustainability that helps in shaping future urban housing and city design. It examines how livability, accessibility, nature, and density can interact in order to create resilient and inclusive urban environments. L.A.N.D represents sustainability as compass in a conceptual framework that integrates key urban sustainability principles to achieve a compact, resource-efficient, and high-quality urban environment (Figure 1). This framework can be considered relevant in compact city models, where balancing density with livability is a critical challenge to achieving specific targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN 2030 Agenda [29].

Figure 1. Sustainability compass of LAND [5].

This sustainability compass is a tool that has already been used in the redevelopment of Milan’s Porta Nuova district. Although the district is not a heritage site, the tool provided a comprehensive analysis of the district’s sustainability performance, highlighting its impact across the four dimensions. This assessment contributed to Porta Nuova achieving dual LEED and WELL community certifications, marking it as the world’s first certified sustainable district [5]. It is worth mentioning that LAND’s sustainability compass is based on the sustainability goals of the UN, particularly the UN compass in Figure 2 [29].

Figure 2. UN sustainability compass [29].

Despite learning from the multiple available tools and their methodological advances, significant gaps remain in evaluation frameworks in terms of historic urban housing contexts. These tools often treat heritage conservation and housing adaptability as competing rather than complementary objectives. Furthermore, existing frameworks lack standardized criteria for assessing the integration of environmental performance, social sustainability, and cultural continuity within heritage contexts.

4. The AUG Evaluation Framework

This research focuses on the controllable aspects that surround a housing project in an urban setting, in this paper a heritage urban context. The tool is represented by a compass that points to three directions; “The Three Layers of Prospective Urban Living Strategies”. These strategies are based on the exhibition workshop book of K. Ring [4], the SDG’s goals [29], and LAND sustainability compass [5]. The framework is an integrated approach that aligns urban form, sustainable compactness, and adaptive strategies for future urban lifestyles in an inhabited heritage urban settlement [30]; these directions or layers are as follows:

• Architectural: This includes the Urban Form and Typology Layer—establishing a cohesive relationship between density, housing typologies, compactness, and adaptability to enhance efficiency and spatial quality.
• Urban: Adaptive Open space and Future-Oriented Strategies Layer—implementing flexible, hybrid, and community-driven housing models that accommodate shifting social, economic, and technological conditions.
• Green: This includes the Sustainable Layer—integrating climate-responsive, energy-efficient, and resource-conscious design solutions within compact urban developments.

The AUG framework represents a methodologically sophisticated approach that builds upon established academic traditions [31], but in 360 degrees. This three-dimensional assessment model (Figure 3) represents a multilayered evaluation analysis [31]. The 360-point scoring system mirrors the circular degrees, and it is not only conceptually elegant but also practically meaningful for evaluating housing projects in a clear way with clear results. This can help detect what is failing and what can be preserved or modified. It reveals the capacity of a housing project to become more suitable for contemporary and future urban living. This tool utilizes a 0–100% scale with 25% incremental thresholds.

Figure 3. AUG radar/compass visualization and scoring system [source: author].

In the illustration of the AUG compass (Figure 3), the codes for the sub-criteria are included to clarify the attributes that were accomplished for each project. The specific attributes of each criterion, along with the sub-criteria codes, are explained in detail in the following sections.

4.1. Theoretical Rationale for Three-Dimensional Division

The AUG framework’s three-dimensional structure reflects a fundamental principle: sustainable housing resilience requires simultaneous excellence across heritage authenticity, urban vibrancy, and environmental performance. This division is theoretically justified as follows:

• Architectural Layer addresses Ring’s [4] study of future urban form and Schneider & Till’s [9] principle that adaptability is a systemic design property. Architectural criteria measure a building’s capacity to maintain cultural continuity while accommodating contemporary living.
• Urban Layer operationalizes LAND’s research [5] and Lynch’s theory [3] principles of urban vitality, measuring how individual housing projects contribute to neighborhood-scale social, economic, and spatial vibrancy—recognizing that building quality alone cannot create urban resilience without community integration.
• Green Layer integrates climate resilience standards from the UN-Habitat’s sustainability goals [29], measuring energy efficiency, thermal comfort, water management, and biodiversity—essential for long-term housing viability in contexts of climate change and resource scarcity.

These three dimensions together capture the complexity of housing resilience; optimizing any single dimension (e.g., maximum density, maximum energy efficiency) while neglecting others produces the documented failures evident in contemporary urban housing (e.g., Pruitt–Igoe towers) [32].

The framework comprises 18 primary criteria (derived from theoretical framework) distributed equally across three dimensions (6 architectural, 6 urban, 6 green). Each criterion includes four sub-criteria, yielding 72 total measurement points. Each dimension (Architectural, Urban, Green) is allocated 120 points maximum, with no dimension weighted above the others, resulting in a total of 360 points, with a benchmark scoring system of 25% (5 points) increments. This equal allocation reflects a fundamental principle: housing resilience cannot be achieved by sacrificing any single dimension for optimization of others. This weighting philosophy prevents the “false economy” repeatedly observed in contemporary housing:

• Maximizing density (Urban optimization) while neglecting adaptability or environmental performance (producing Pruitt–Igoe-like failures [32]).
• Maximizing energy efficiency (Green optimization) while neglecting social integration or heritage authenticity.
• Maximizing architectural or heritage features (Architectural optimization) while ignoring community contribution or sustainability.

Equal weighting enforces that sustainable, resilient housing requires integrated performance across all three domains simultaneously. This approach aligns with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) [33] best practices for complex decision-making in contexts involving incommensurable values (heritage, sustainability, community welfare).

4.2. Statistical Tool Validation and Calibration of the 18-Criteria Structure

The AUG framework addresses sustainable housing assessment gaps by integrating adaptability considerations within a circular, compass (radar)-based methodology. The tool’s multi-context application preserves the essential flexibility needed for effective evaluation process across the diverse array of urban housing scenarios found worldwide. The framework’s strength lies in its ability to maintain standardized evaluation criteria while adapting the rich diversity of local conditions, cultural values, and contextual limitations that define sustainable and adaptive urban housing interventions on a global level.

Creating solid multi-criteria evaluation frameworks necessitates subjective validation and calibration to ensure methodological rigor and academic and practical applicability. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) [33] methodologies help in effective evaluation tools that demonstrate statistical validity and measurement reliability, across diverse application contexts [34]. For housing assessment tools specifically, validation must address the complexity of balancing quantitative measurements with qualitative assessments while maintaining stakeholder accessibility and professional applicability. The following detailed criteria structure demonstrates the framework’s methodological sophistication and operational precision, establishing clear measurement protocols and scoring rationales for systematic application across diverse urban housing contexts, including heritage environments requiring specialized considerations shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 1. AUG statical tool validation of the 6 Architectural criteria and its sub-criteria [author].

ARCHITECTURAL LAYER
MAIN CRITERIA	Code	Sub-Criteria	Measurement Method	Scoring Basis
A1. COMPACTNESS	A1.1	Site Coverage Ratio	Percentage of site covered by building footprint (heritage integration)	Optimal range for density and open space
	A1.2	Floor Area Ratio (FAR)	Total floor area divided by site area	Achieving desired density without overbuilding
	A1.3	Building Footprint Efficiency	Ratio of usable internal area to external wall area	Minimizing external surface area for heat loss/gain
	A1.4	Verticality/Horizontal Spread	Average building height vs. site area (heritage-sensitive)	Balancing density with urban form and context
A2. SHARED SPACES	A2.1	Proportion of Shared Area	Percentage of total building area dedicated to shared spaces	Providing adequate communal facilities
	A2.2	Accessibility of Shared Spaces	Proximity and ease of access to shared spaces for all residents	Design for inclusivity and convenience
	A2.3	Diversity of Shared Functions	Number and variety of functions supported by shared spaces (e.g., laundry, co-working)	Meeting diverse resident needs
	A2.4	Management and Maintenance Plan	Presence and clarity of a plan for shared space upkeep	Ensuring long-term usability and quality
A3. NEW FORMS OF LIVING	A3.1	Adaptability for Multi-Generational Living	Design features supporting cohabitation of different age groups	Flexibility for family structures
	A3.2	Integration of Live–Work Spaces	Provision for home offices or small business integration	Supporting evolving work patterns
	A3.3	Support for Community Interaction	Design elements encouraging informal social interaction	Fostering a sense of community
	A3.4	Technological Integration Readiness	Infrastructure for smart home technology and future upgrades	Future-proofing the living environment
A4. FLEXIBILITY	A4.1	Spatial Reconfigurability	Ease and cost of reconfiguring internal layouts (e.g., movable walls, modular units)	Adaptability to changing needs
	A4.2	Functional Transformation	Capacity for spaces to serve multiple functions over time	Versatility of design
	A4.3	Structural Modifiability	Design allowing for future vertical or horizontal expansion/contraction	Long-term structural resilience
	A4.4	Material and System Interchangeability	Use of standardized or easily replaceable components	Ease of maintenance and upgrade
A5. IDENTITY AND HERITAGE AUTHENTICITY	A5.1	Contextual Responsiveness and Heritage Character	Degree to which design reflects and enhances local culture, history, traditions, and unique features of the area	Harmonious integration, and heritage fabric integration
	A5.2	Distinctive Architectural Features, Material and Architectural Palette	Presence of unique design elements contributing to a sense of place, use of materials and styles in the local context	Creating memorable and recognizable forms, visual coherence, and heritage integration
	A5.3	Resident Personalization Potential	Opportunities for residents to customize their living spaces	Fostering individual expression
	A5.4	Public Perception and Appreciation	Community feedback and aesthetic appeal to the broader public	Positive social impact
A6. FUNCTIONALITY AND ACCESS	A6.1	Universal Design Principles	Adherence to principles ensuring accessibility for all users, regardless of ability	Inclusivity
	A6.2	Efficiency of Circulation	Clarity and directness of pathways within the building	Ease of movement
	A6.3	Access to Essential Services	Proximity to public transport, shops, schools	Convenience and reduced reliance on private vehicles
	A6.4	Safety Privacy and Security Measures	Implementation of design features and systems for resident safety	Crime prevention and sense of security

Table 2. AUG statical tool validation of the 6 Urban criteria and its sub-criteria [author].

URBAN LAYER
MAIN CRITERIA	Code	Sub-Criteria	Measurement Method	Scoring Basis
U1. OPEN SPACES	U1.1	Quantity of Open Space	Percentage of sites dedicated to open space	Providing ample green and recreational areas
	U1.2	Quality of Open Space	Design, landscaping, and amenities of open spaces	Usability, aesthetics, and ecological value
	U1.3	Accessibility and attraction of Open Space	Ease of access for residents and public	Connectivity and inclusivity
	U1.4	Integration with Urban Fabric	How well open spaces connect with surrounding streets, buildings, and public areas	Seamless urban integration
U2. MIXED USE	U2.1	Diversity of Functions	Number and variety of residential, commercial, and public uses within the development	Creating vibrant, self-sufficient communities
	U2.2	Integration of Uses	How well different uses are blended vertically and horizontally	Minimizing segregation and maximizing synergy
	U2.3	Activity Throughout the Day	Presence of activity across different times of day due to mixed uses	Fostering lively and safe environments
	U2.4	Economic Viability of Mixed Use	Balance of uses supporting economic sustainability and local employment	Contributing to local economy
U3. VARIATION IN CONTEXT	U3.1	Architectural diversity, and Respect for Urban Grain	How new development relates to the scale, rhythm, and pattern of surrounding buildings	Harmonious integration with heritage fabric
	U3.2	Multiple Living Units with Different Densities and Capacities	Implementing various living units for various users and residents	Multi-sized units, with different types and forms
	U3.3	Adaptability and Harmony to Site Topography	How well the design responds to natural contours and features of the site	Sensitive site planning
	U3.4	Multi-generational Living Units	Cohabitation of different age groups, with contemporary lifestyle adaptation	Departure from conventional typologies
U4. DENSIFICATION AND HUMAN SCALE	U4.1	Density Achieved	Dwelling units per hectare/acre	Optimal density for sustainability without overcrowding
	U4.2	Pedestrian Experience/Eye level city	Design of streets, sidewalks, and public spaces to prioritize pedestrian comfort and safety	Walkability and human-centric design
	U4.3	Building Height and Massing	How building heights and massing relate to the human scale and surrounding context	Avoiding overwhelming structures
	U4.4	Permeability and Connectivity	Number of connections and pathways through the site, allowing easy movement	Fostering a permeable urban environment
U5. WALKABILITY	U5.1	Pedestrian Network Quality	Condition, width, and safety of sidewalks and pedestrian paths	Creating a pleasant walking experience
	U5.2	Proximity to Amenities	Average walking distance to daily necessities (e.g., groceries, transit, parks)	Reducing reliance on cars
	U5.3	Streetscape Design	Presence of street trees, benches, lighting, and other elements enhancing pedestrian comfort	Creating inviting public spaces
	U5.4	Traffic-Calming Measures	Implementation of design strategies to reduce vehicle speed and volume	Prioritizing pedestrian safety
U6. NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFITS	U6.1	Local Economic Contribution	Creation of local jobs, support for small businesses, and increased property values	Positive economic impact
	U6.2	Social Cohesion and Interaction	Design elements fostering social interaction and community building	Promoting a strong sense of community
	U6.3	Access to Public Useful Services from the Neighborhood	Proximity and quality of access to schools, healthcare, and emergency services	Supporting community wellbeing
	U6.4	Surrounding Environmental Improvement	Contribution to local environmental quality (e.g., reduced pollution, increased biodiversity)	Ecological benefits

Table 3. AUG statical tool validation of the 6 Green criteria and its sub-criteria [author].

GREEN LAYER
MAIN CRITERIA	Code	Sub-Criteria	Measurement Method	Scoring Basis
G1. DAYLIGHT	G1.1	Daylight Autonomy	Percentage of occupied hours when daylight alone meets illumination requirements	Maximizing natural light use
	G1.2	Glare Control	Effectiveness of shading devices and window placement in preventing glare	Visual comfort
	G1.3	View Quality	Access to outdoor views from interior spaces	Connection to nature and visual relief
	G1.4	Uniformity of Daylight and Its Factor	Even distribution of daylight throughout interior spaces	Minimizing dark spots and over-lit areas
G2. WIND AND AIR QUALITY	G2.1	Natural Ventilation Potential	Design features supporting passive cooling and fresh air circulation	Reducing reliance on mechanical systems
	G2.2	Cross-Ventilation Effectiveness	Design allowing for efficient air movement across spaces	Maximizing air changes
	G2.3	Indoor Air Pollutant Control	Use of low-VOC materials and effective filtration systems	Promoting healthy indoor environments
	G2.4	Outdoor Air Quality Impact and Wind Protection	Design strategies to mitigate exposure to outdoor pollutants and improve local air quality	Responsible urban planning
G3. ENERGY EFFICIENCY	G3.1	Building Envelope Performance	Insulation levels, window U-values, and air tightness	Minimizing heat transfer
	G3.2	Renewable Energy Integration	On-site generation of renewable energy (e.g., solar panels, wind turbines)	Reducing reliance on fossil fuels
	G3.3	Efficient HVAC Systems	Use of high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems	Minimizing energy consumption
	G3.4	Smart Energy Management	Implementation of building management systems and smart controls for energy optimization	Intelligent energy use
G4. COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY	G4.1	Initial Construction Cost	Per square meter cost of construction	Cost-effectiveness and budget adherence
	G4.2	Lifecycle Cost Analysis	Long-term operational and maintenance costs	Overall economic sustainability
	G4.3	Affordability for Target Demographics	Housing prices/rents relative to local income levels	Meeting affordability goals
	G4.4	Financial Incentives and Subsidies	Utilization programs or financial aid for sustainable features	Leveraging available support
G5. BIOPHILIA AND BIODIVERSITY	G5.1	Connection to Nature within Buildings	Integration of natural elements, views, and patterns indoors	Fostering human–nature connection
	G5.2	Access to Green Spaces	Proximity and quality of access to parks, gardens, and natural landscapes	Promoting outdoor engagement
	G5.3	Use of Natural Materials	Incorporation of natural, non-toxic, and sustainably sourced materials	Environmental responsibility
	G5.4	Biodiversity Enhancement	Design features supporting local flora and fauna (e.g., green roofs, native planting)	Ecological contribution
G6. SPECIAL SOLUTIONS	G6.1	Innovative Site Management and Efficient Use of Resources	Implementation of systems for rainwater collection and greywater recycling, and provision for efficient waste segregation, composting, and recycling	Water conservation and waste reduction
	G6.2	Innovative Design Systems	Out-of-the-box thinking and new intelligent design systems, and solutions.	Creative problem-solving and innovation
	G6.3	Resilience to Climate Change	Design strategies to withstand extreme weather events and future climate impacts	Long-term adaptability
	G6.4	Innovative Technologies/Materials	Adoption of cutting-edge solutions for sustainability and performance	Pioneering sustainable practices

5. Case Study: Damascus Urban Housing Development and Framework Application

5.1. Historical Context and Urban Evolution

This part studies housing structures through history by time-tracking the development of urban housing to come up with the identity criteria. In practice, three residential patterns can be identified in Syrian cities that are linked to social, economic, and technical developments [35]:

• Traditional housing (until the late 19th century).
• Transitional period housing (French mandate period until independence 1920–1946).
• Modern period housing (from independence 1946 until the present day).

Each of these models has its own design characteristics that reflect the developments and historical stages that the city has gone through. This study will help with the identity criteria.

5.1.1. Traditional Housing

This housing period includes multiple eras that ended with the Ottoman colonization. Damascus city was built on a Greek and Roman city plan with a grid layout and central axis shown in Figure 4. This era laid the urban planning foundation that influenced later Islamic architecture.

Figure 4. (a) Greek plan that shows the Aramaic City from the 8th to 1st century B.C, and (b) the Roman/Byzantine plan of Damascus (1st to 7th Century A.D) [36].

This later architecture and planning of the traditional city were influenced by customs and traditions based on religious legislation, through a set of regulatory texts that addressed building boundaries and settled disputes as shown in Figure 5. This ensured the organization in the structure of the city, as there was no official government engineering planning for the urban space.

Figure 5. The Islamic City Plan in 8th century A.D. Source: [36].

The ancient Syrian cities were characterized by their continuous renewal and adaptation, to some extent, to the various social and economic changes to which they were exposed, as is the case in ancient Damascus and Aleppo, as two of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. That defined the morphology of the old city as an organic unit harmonious with the customs and traditions, and the lifestyle and needs of its residents [35].

• Architectural Heritage Typologies and Patterns:

Syrian residential architecture remains distinguished by several common factors, in that it contains internal courtyards that form a cohesive fabric, completely open to the inside, and at the same time completely closed to the outside. Many different influences—social, economic, and political—played a role in shaping the city’s urban fabric and the assembly of buildings within it. That was influenced from ancient civilizations like Mesopotamian, Greek, and Roman. The aesthetic form of the urban fabric and cityscape is expressed at the neighborhood scale through an organic alley network and the gradation and diversity of the skyline. This harmonious connection between buildings creates a distinctive backdrop—the city’s ‘hinterland’—with geographical elements like Mount Qasioun seen prominently in the distance, forming its unique urban image (Figure 6).

Figure 6. (a) Traditional housing fabric and (b) its fabric at eye level [37].

The traditional city is distinguished by its urban centrality, where the various activities and functions are arranged starting from the center and heading outward according to the importance of these activities to the residents [38].

The traditional urban house is characterized by its stone (Ablaq) construction and various configurations and consists mainly of a middle courtyard surrounded by rooms designated for daily activities. The number of internal courtyards is directly proportional to the economic situation of the owner. The importance of the privacy factor lies in the entrance, the separation in circulation of residents and visitors, and the separation between the sexes within the residence. This can be seen in the composition of the three parts: the basement which is used for the yearly storage of food supplies; the ground floor which comprises the main living areas called ‘Al Salamlek’ and the open courtyard; and the first floor which comprises the private areas called ‘Al Haramlek’, a word of Turkish origin meaning a women’s section in the house [37]. The first floor can also contain some terraces, allowing the sun’s rays to penetrate the courtyard. This typology considers the environmental and climatic aspects, due to it being opened towards the green interior courtyard that provides coolness and humidity in the summer, while it is closed to the dry and hot exterior. The construction technique, which is based on thick load-bearing stone masonry, provides adequate thermal mass. Landscaping also plays an important role in the traditional Syrian courtyard. It consists mainly of two categories: decorative planting such as climbing jasmine and rose bushes, which add color and scent to the courtyard atmosphere, and citrus trees such as orange and lemon [37]. An important part of the house is the “Iwan”, a covered open space located on the north façade of the courtyard, from which the aesthetic qualities of the courtyard can be enjoyed (Figure 7). Another element is the “Mushrabiya”, a wooden balcony located on the outer façade of the house. It provides a cool screened space for women, allowing them to view public spaces without being seen [37]. This design concept of this housing type emphasizes the factors of protection, security, and privacy in accordance with the residents’ social and religious values.

Figure 7. The traditional courtyard landscape, the arched “Iwan”, and the private 1st floor [37].

5.1.2. Housing During the Transitional Period

Following the end of the Ottoman Colonization, various economic, social, and political changes occurred which affected the structure and formation of families in Syria due to the reallocation to new neighborhoods. The French mandate brought new architectural styles to Damascus (blending European with local styles). Moreover, transformations have happened in the use of the land outside the Old City of Damascus. This process of transition, especially for those with high incomes among the population, had an impact on the changes in the urban fabric, which occurred very quickly, making it closer to replacement rather than adaptation [35]. However, Western modernity succeeded in making radical changes in the prevailing social, economic, and cultural structures, which was directly reflected in residential architecture [35], especially with the introduction of modern means of transportation (cars and trams, Figure 8).

Figure 8. Transportation means and openings on the outer street of the transitional period [39].

The grid method was followed in the planning study of the new expansion areas, in a gradual manner according to their importance. New sizes of blocks also appeared with the increase in the number of floors in one building, and this was accompanied by determining the general area of the partitions and the proportions of construction on them. The height of the building was also determined according to the width of the street to give a size consistent with the open space. The city expanded towards the north and the west at this stage, and new areas were created [36]. During the rule of the French mandate, a new planning policy was followed for Syrian cities. This policy was based on the French architectural model and the Western modernist style. The population of the city of Damascus at that time did not exceed 230,000 people. The year 1936 witnessed the development of the first urban plan for the city of Damascus (Figure 9), by French engineers Danger and Écochard, after historical research, a population census, and socio-economic study [36].

Figure 9. The 1934 first urban structure plan of Damascus source: [36].

These new changes at the housing level led to a greater focus on the external aspects of life, which had a significant impact on the residents’ customs and cultural values. That led towards the transformation from the opening towards the inner courtyard, to the opening towards the outer space. The architecture in that period was called the architecture of the 30s, and its buildings were distinguished by the beauty of their proportions. The accuracy and diversity of its details reflected the skill of the craftsmanship, creativity and ingenuity in implementing geometric decorations, and the emphasis on local privacy and preservation of identity [40]. Its entrances also corresponded to the front facades of attached buildings influenced by the colonial style and the Art Nouveau school (Figure 10).

Figure 10. (a,b) Residential buildings in the 1930s in Damascus city, Al-Salhiyeh district [40].

5.1.3. Modern Housing

Residential architecture in Syrian cities witnessed an active architectural and urban movement after independence due to increasing population growth and migration to the local cities. The urban and architectural landscape diversified, in which the economic and political factors took a greater share in shaping the features of the city. Housing continued to spread outside the old city and in expansion areas, and multi-story buildings were constructed, often consisting of one apartment per floor (urban villas). The concept of functional separation (day/night) has also evolved in some apartments. In the fifties and sixties of the last century, these areas followed in their typology the European systems and styles prevalent in that period.

Cement slab was used in construction instead of stone, which allowed the emergence of buildings liberated from all sides, with specific dimensions from the streets, and with fixed heights that reached six floors in some areas. These districts buildings were influenced by the “Bauhaus school” in terms of the shapes of its windows, the precision and simplicity of its metalwork (Figure 11), and the balconies that also appeared with distinguished and special characteristics that were called the Damascene Bauhaus [41].

Figure 11. Residential buildings in the 1940s in Damascus city, Abu-Rummaneh district [42].

Things changed in 1963, as the ruling party made a contract with French engineer Michel Écochard, who was one of the followers of le Corbusier, to prepare the second organizational plan for the city and be the organizer of the planning period in Damascus (Figure 12) [36]. He issued his own rules and policies, which are included in the current building system. His plan was based on the Fourth Ciam Conference in the functional separation, and included commercial and industrial areas, educational centers, parks, residential areas, etc.

Figure 12. New urban expansion plan of Écochard, 1963s [36].

Basic conditions have been set for the heights of residential buildings in urban areas. These new planned areas were different than what Damascus were known for; what most distinguishes these areas is the height that exceeds four floors, sometimes reaching fifteen floors (Figure 13), built from reinforced concrete in the style that prevailed in the period of Western Brutalist modernism and Russian Constructivism in the world in the forties of the last century [41].

Figure 13. Residential buildings in the 1970s in Damascus city, Almazza district [43].

• Contemporary Challenges and Pressures:

More problems started to spread beginning in the fifties of the last century. For instance, in green, forested, industrial, or other areas that are not classified for residential purposes in the city’s general plan, “spontaneous growth areas” (slums) which in Syria are officially called “collective informal clusters areas” were built without building permits [36] (Figure 14). They developed, grew, and expanded to include large areas of the city. The Syrian crisis after 2010 made things worse, in terms of economic purchasing power, destruction of areas, densification of safe cities, and a wider spread of self-built informal houses.

Figure 14. Collective informal clusters (slums), on the edge of Damascus [44].

Despite all the changes in the economic and social structure, the production method has maintained its traditionality in terms of repetitive and monotonous modules with the aim of producing economical housing for the state, like youth housing projects that have reached a very “modest” quality in terms of specifications due to the predominance of the cost factor [43]. Figure 15 shows a comparative fabric view of the three main Damascus housing case studies from the three different periods.

Figure 15. Comparison between the typologies and city fabrics between the 3 housing periods of Damascus [author].

5.2. Application of Adaptive Housing Principles

In order to showcase the practical application and contextual flexibility of the AUG evaluation framework, the study utilizes 18 multi-criteria and 72 sub-criteria method to examine three representative housing typologies in Damascus (by evaluating one example from each period) (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). This study emphasizes the framework’s ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in adaptability, heritage preservation, and sustainability, thereby informing targeted interventions and policy incentives for resilient, culturally cohesive future urban housing in Damascus or any relevant urban context around the world.

Table 4. Nizam residence project portfolio [44], and AUG benchmark scoring [author].

Name:	1. Beit Nizam (Traditional Period)
Project Figures: Source: [45]
Location:	Old City of Damascus, Suq al-Maydani district, Damascus, Syria
Architect:	N/A
Date:	18th–19th century—1760
Typology:	Traditional Courtyard House
Area:	Floor area:		950 m2		Plot area:			1400 m2
Number of units:	1 Unit—10 rooms (can be shared and rented by room)
Variation in units:	Traditional Single Family
Density:	FAR	≈0.68		UPH		9			low
Height:	≈10 m
Context:	Tight urban fabric within the historic Suq al-Maydani, adjacent to narrow market alleys.
Materials	Local limestone and basalt masonry, carved cedar wood “Mashrabiya” screens, gypsum plaster, traditional tile flooring.
Description:	One of the most luxurious Damascene palaces in the Shaghour district of Damascus, in the Minaret of Sham neighborhood, this is named after the Nizam family, the last to inhabit and restore it in the early twentieth century. In the mid-nineteenth century, the house served as the headquarters of the British consul in Syria. Beit Nizam embodies the classic Damascene courtyard house, with inward-facing rooms organized around a shaded courtyard that moderates microclimate and fosters privacy. Thick masonry walls and “Mashrabiya” regulate light and airflow, while carved wood and tile details reflect local craftsmanship. Its adaptable layout allows for discreet integration of modern services (HVAC, lighting) without altering heritage fabric. Central courtyard with fountain basin, raised iwan seating, mashrabiya for privacy and ventilation, solid exterior walls facing narrow streets.
Affordability:	Built through traditions, self-built, affordable in that moment of time, high maintenance.
AUG framework radar chart analyzation [author]:
Score in points:	210/360 [A 70/120—U 60/120—G 80/120]
Results:	From the AUG framework evaluation, Beit Nizam scored 210 out of 360 points (58%), indicating a moderate performance baseline. The house exhibits strong identity, spatial quality, and environmental performance. However, it falls short in several areas critical for meeting contemporary resilience standards. Its rigid traditional layout limits adaptability to contemporary living patterns, particularly regarding flexible workspaces, multi-generational households, and technological infrastructure. Despite these limitations, Beit Nizam demonstrates that heritage architecture can achieve strong environmental performance through climate-responsive design principles developed over centuries. The courtyard typology, passive cooling strategies, and natural ventilation systems remain highly effective in Damascus’s climatic context. However, the house performs poorly on contemporary urban housing criteria, including density, mixed-use programming, and social contribution. Its low-density, single-family occupancy model is incompatible with current urban housing demands, highlighting the challenge of adapting palatial heritage structures to meet modern residential needs. In conclusion, Beit Nizam exemplifies both the strengths and limitations of traditional Damascene palatial architecture, offering valuable insights for balancing heritage authenticity with the functional and urban demands of modern adaptive reuse. The evaluation reveals that while traditional typologies excel in environmental and cultural dimensions, significant interventions are required to address urban density and contemporary functional flexibility.

Table 5. Villa Shoura project portfolio [46,47] and AUG benchmark scoring [author].

Name:	2. Villa Shoura (Transitional Period)
Project Figures: [Author]	source: [46]						source: [41]
Location:	Abu Rummaneh, Damascus, Syria
Architect:	Nazir Shoura, Mounib Dardari
Date:	1945
Typology:	Urban Residential Villa
Area:	Floor area:		600 m2		Plot area:			1200 m2
Number of units:	3
Variation in units:	50–150 m2 studios, multibedroom, and town houses
Density:	FAR	≈0.5		UPH		8			low
Height:	≈10 m
Context:	Urban Core, low rise neighborhood
Materials	The facades are notably devoid of ornamentation, but all of the original iron window grills are painted crimson, matching the facades which were covered in crimson-colored concrete spray, with accents in a lighter-colored plaster. However, due to the peeling and cracking of the plaster over time, some brickwork in the northern façade got exposed.
Description:	The building mass is simple: an extruded rectangle with rounded corners penetrated by the stairwell in the middle of the main facade. The building has only three floors: a basement, a ground floor, and a first floor. It can be accessed through the main entrance on the northeastern side. Both the ground and first floors accommodate single apartments that span the entire floor with almost identical plans. Each apartment is equipped with two entrances: a main one that opens onto a lobby that leads to the office, the first living room, and the dining room; and a secondary entrance that opens up to a more private area of the house which includes the bedrooms, along with the service area that contains the bathroom and the kitchen. Additionally, each apartment features two mezzanines, 2.1 m high, the first located above the service area that can be accessed through a staircase in the lobby, and the second located above a portion of the office and its balcony. The building was frequently connected with the “Bauhaus” architectural style, owing to its distinguishing features and high-quality craftsmanship, which included some of the furniture and ironwork in the apartments (such as the internal stair rail), all created by the architect himself.
Affordability:	A family built and owned the private apartment for higher income when built.
AUG framework radar chart analyzation [author]:
Score in points:	150/360 [A 55/120—U 50/120—G 45/120]
Results:	Villa Shoura achieving 150/360 (42%) score positions it as a transitional bridge between typologies. It achieves moderate architectural refinement and urban integration yet reveals that mid-century modernism—without environmental upgrade and minimal mixed-use programming—cannot meet contemporary resilience standards. It represents a design-conscious modernist approach that prioritizes craftsmanship and space over pure efficiency and density. It achieves moderate architectural performance through space organization and cultural attention to domestic life at that era—but still falls short of contemporary standards for flexibility compactness and shared amenities. It shows that good design models do not automatically create urban vitality. The building demonstrates that architectural refinement alone cannot overcome limited programmatic diversity and community contribution. It severely lacks both internal shared courtyards and shared-roof open space and minimal ground-floor programming that could activate street-level neighborhood interaction. Inadequate insulation, single-glazed windows, and an uninsulated roof adds to poor thermal performance, with limited ventilation control. Mid-century modernism proves insufficient for contemporary demands. The concrete construction with limited lifecycle planning or material reuse consideration adds to the high embodied carbon with minimal green infrastructure. The building’s Bauhaus with local authenticity provides cultural assets for heritage reactivation, making it uniquely suited to become a demonstration project for how modernist heritage can contribute to vibrant, sustainable urban futures when thoughtfully adapted.

Table 6. Tijara residential tower project portfolio [41] and AUG benchmark scoring [author].

Name:	3. Tijara Residential Towers (Modern Period)
Project Figures: [Author]	source [41]
Location:	Mmdouh Zarkeli, Mhd Reyad Bastata
Architect:	Nazir Shoura, Mounib Dardari
Date:	1974
Typology:	Urban Residential Villa
Area:	Floor area:		≈7000 m2		Plot area:		1200 m2
Number of units:	44
Variation in units:	50–150 m2 studios, multibedroom, and town houses
Density:	FAR	≈1		UPH		44		Moderate
Height:	12 floors ≈ 40 m
Context:	Urban-core, high-rise neighborhood, around the Salam Park in Tijara, far from the shopping streets. Its characteristics are represented by typical late 20th century residential blocks, including buildings from the 1960s that reflect the landmarks of the era and form the identity of the area belonging to the modernist period in the West. The current function is purely residential, with few services compared to other areas.
Materials	The building was constructed with soviet construction techniques and was predominantly built using concrete systems combined with Hourdi blocks and reinforced concrete frames. The exterior walls were typically covered with dark brown or beige cement-based plaster (often called “roughcast”). The plaster frequently deteriorated due to poor application, inadequate weather protection, and minimal maintenance, leading to widespread staining, cracking, and water infiltration
Description:	A detached, 11-story, residential tower. The apartments are uniform in size and designed in a shape known as a whirlwind. These towers achieve dense development, with all residents enjoying good views of the gardens and all spaces well-lit but not receiving equal daylight. The facility connects existing spaces within the urban fabric and harmoniously integrates them. Its aim was to provide a quantitative solution to densification within the urban center and a reform of high-density urban environments. The lack of flexible layout made residents adjust the exterior facades to a certain extent, by closing off balconies to increase private space. A high number of apartments are available at reasonable prices, with good natural light and ventilation.
Affordability:	Used to be an affordable solution before the Syrian crisis.
AUG framework radar chart analyzation [author]:
Score in points:	125/360 [A 45/120—U 35/120—G 45/120]
Results:	This tower exemplifies the failure of socialist-influenced modernist housing design by achieving 125/360 points (35%), representing critical underperformance across all dimensions. It achieves its narrow objective of providing affordable housing density but fails dramatically on adaptability, community contribution, and environmental sustainability by prioritizing density and construction efficiency over human adaptability and livable space quality. The widespread unauthorized balcony enclosures are evidence that residents found the design inadequate for their needs. Rigid, inflexible layout as the standardized plan cannot accommodate diverse household needs—single occupants, multi-generational families, home offices, or flexible workspaces. It has monotonous, repetitive architecture with minimal spatial variation, utilitarian aesthetic lacking cultural identity or contextual integration, and in the urban layer, this model severely lacks mixed-use programming with minimal neighborhood benefits, and low social vibrancy. One of the positive attributes is the extended ground floor public open space. Weak contextual integration: modern tower form contrasts sharply with historic urban fabric without meaningful dialog. Despite its 11-story height, the tower achieves a floor area ratio (FAR) of only 1.0, indicating underutilization of site potential and inefficient density optimization compared to contemporary urban standards (typical mid-rise mixed-use development targets FAR 3–4). The 29% urban score reveals the fundamental inadequacy of tower-only development models for creating vibrant urban neighborhoods. Modern housing towers often become isolated enclaves rather than integrated community assets. The absence of active renewable systems, insulation, and water management makes the tower unsustainable for contemporary climate demands.

6. Results

This comparative evaluation reveals striking performance disparities across Damascus’s three studied housing typologies.

6.1. Beit Nizam—Traditional Courtyard

Beit Nizam’s traditional courtyard form achieves the highest adaptability score (58%) among the three case studies. This performance reflects strong heritage identity, spatial organization, and passive environmental performance. Constructed during Damascus’s Ottoman period, this model exemplifies how heritage-rooted design can simultaneously address historical, contemporary, and future housing needs.

6.2. Villa Shoura—Transitional Period Housing

Villa Shoura’s transitional housing (when European modernism engaged Damascus’s urban context) occupies a critical analytical position (42%). This indicates that mid-century modernism—despite architectural sophistication—offers only marginal improvement over contemporary towers when lacking environmental integration. It provides no shared open space and lacks programmatic diversity to activate urban vibrancy. Architectural refinement alone—evident in custom ironwork and spatial organization—cannot overcome programmatic isolation. This performance falls substantially below the AUG framework’s requirements, with a level of performance that is insufficient for current needs and needs a lot of work in order to be suited to future adaptability.

6.3. Tijara Towers—Modern Period Housing

Tijara tower residence housing model performs even worse than the previous, meeting just 35% of the criteria. This reflects a fundamental design paradox, the same design failures that doomed mid-century projects like Pruitt–Igoe [32]—prioritizing density, quantity, and construction efficiency over quality, human adaptability, community integration, and environmental performance. Yet, it fails even that narrow goal, with a floor area ratio of 1.0 being insufficient for sustainable urban regeneration. This demonstrates that towers conceived as density solutions without mixed-use programming and social infrastructure inevitably fail as livable neighborhoods.

6.4. Comparative Findings and Theoretical Implications

Collectively, the 85-point performance gap (23% disparities) between traditional and modern typologies suggests that design philosophy—not construction era—determines contemporary viability (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Comparison between the AUG compass scoring results of the case studies [author].

These analysis findings build upon existing literature on adaptive reuse, sustainable housing, and heritage urbanism and reveal regional specificity often absent from Western scholarship. While adaptive reuse studies of Plevoets & Van Cleempoel [28] typically frame adaptation as balancing functionality and authenticity, Damascus cases demonstrate greater complexity: contextual design rooted in heritage morphology can simultaneously enhance spatial flexibility, cultural continuity, and environmental resilience—expanding on Lynch’s theory [3]—when guided by integrated evaluation criteria weighing all three dimensions equally. This aligns with UN-Habitat’s sustainability goals [29] and UNESCO’s heritage recovery framework [21], which emphasizes socially inclusive rehabilitation in post-conflict contexts.

7. Discussion

The AUG compass advances beyond existing frameworks by integrating measurable sustainability indicators with heritage attributes, creating a balance among architectural, urban, and environmental green variables. This multidimensional assessment reveals that conventional metrics—which remain underdeveloped—cannot simultaneously measure design quality, community contribution, and environmental performance. Heritage conservation in continuously inhabited cities must be reframed as a dynamic performance system rather than static preservation.

Overall, the Damascus case studies reinforce the notion that sustainable urban futures in historic landscapes require frameworks integrating empirical data with cultural identity. Thus, the AUG framework not only complements existing theory but also operationalizes it through measurable criteria adaptable across various geographic and cultural historic contexts. It confirms that adaptability is not merely a design characteristic but a systemic property that underpins housing resilience over time. However, while the framework assesses adaptability and space flexibility, retrofitting such qualities into historic buildings like Beit Nizam would likely entail significant disruption and cost. The literature shows it is far more efficient to design for adaptability from the outset than to enact modification later [lines 135 and 136]. In practice, this involves substantial modifications such as reconfiguring interior layouts for various forms of living, repurposing the iwan and the guest room, rethinking the use of the private second floor, increasing density with new living units for cohousing functions, and upgrading infrastructure. These interventions, while improving the framework score, should always respect the building’s heritage integrity.

8. Conclusions

Examining Damascus through the AUG framework revealed the complexity and richness of its urban housing legacy. The analysis of traditional, transitional, and modern housing typologies highlights the ways adaptability, sustainability, and cultural authenticity are important and necessary to be intersected. Traditional houses (like Beit Nizam) are unique for their ingenious climatic design and deep social ties, yet they face challenges in achieving contemporary living standards. Transitional housing (such as Villa Shoura) represents a bridge between eras, benefiting from European designs and layouts. However, it often falls short in terms of efficiency and community benefits. Modern residences offer slightly increased density with high-rise approaches but without integrating sustainable methods or technologies, which detract from the neighborhood’s character, fabric, and ecological balance. Collectively, this study demonstrates the feasibility of quantifying adaptability in heritage contexts and highlights the urgent need for policies bridging heritage protection with functional modernization.

The scoring benchmark showed that these housing typologies lack requirements for contemporary and future adaptive, sustainable living. Enhancing the performance scores involves more than just numerical adjustments—it requires restoring equilibrium among the community and built environments.

This research faced some substantive constraints. First, restricted post-conflict field access in Damascus limited data collection to archival analysis and secondary sources; obtaining consistent housing documentation proved difficult. Second, the single city focus and analysis of only three typologies limit generalizability; additional cases (vernacular adaptations, post-conflict reconstruction) would strengthen findings. Third, a further limitation of the AUG framework is the inherent subjectivity that is partially present in some of the criteria within the qualitative assessment process, which may result in a degree of variability between evaluators. Fourth, the framework requires validation across larger datasets and multiple cities to substantiate geographic and cultural transferability. This can further benefit from the following:

Quantitative expansion: incorporating additional indicators related to occupant behavior, lifecycle cost, and energy simulation.

Comparative calibration: applying the tool across multiple heritage cities (e.g., Aleppo, Istanbul, Cairo).

Policy integration: translating research findings into municipal regulatory frameworks that incentivize adaptive, climate-responsive, culturally grounded housing development.

For Damascus and similarly complex historic cities globally, housing futures depend not on preserving the past or embracing the new but on systematic, measurable integration of both—guided by evaluation frameworks that prevent the design failures that have repeatedly undermined urban livability across generations. This is why the AUG framework is needed, since it does not only explain what is wrong but why some design decisions led to resident dissatisfaction (e.g., balcony encroachments, urban isolation, and environmental inadequacy), while simultaneously guiding retrofitting toward cultural–environmental hybrids that preserve architectural heritage while meeting climate resilience and community vibrancy standards.

Through such integration, heritage rehabilitation becomes not a preservation exercise but a strategic asset for urban resilience—ensuring historic cities evolve to meet future generations’ needs while honoring their cultural foundations.