Temporality has become an increasingly visible concern in urban heritage studies, yet the field remains conceptually dispersed. Time related questions appear across discussions of collective memory, continuity, authenticity, integrity, place identity, adaptive reuse and the Historic Urban Landscape approach, but these concerns are rarely synthesised within a common analytical structure. This article systematically reviews how temporality has been conceptualised in urban heritage research and identifies the major thematic and theoretical patterns shaping the field. Using Web of Science as the primary database, the review combined one core temporality focused search with three supplementary searches on collective and urban memory, authenticity and change, and adaptive reuse, resilience and future oriented heritage. The search yielded 2294 records, reduced to 1666 unique records after duplicate removal. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 121 studies were retained for provisional qualitative synthesis, with 64 studies used for close thematic interpretation and theory building. The review identifies four recurring themes: temporality as memory, continuity and identity; authenticity, integrity and change; lived and perceived urban experience; and governance, layering and the management of urban transformation. These themes are further consolidated into broader theoretical families. The findings show that temporality is an underlying organising problem in urban heritage studies, but is often acknowledged in broad terms rather than translated into explicit analytical methods. Future research would benefit from more explicit temporal methods for addressing layered urban histories, present day inhabitation and contested heritage futures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: