Purpose This paper revisits the concept of compatibility between old and new architecture to clarify its meaning. Design/methodology/approach Document analysis is employed to critically review relevant literature, including Charters and UNESCO Recommendations. Findings Visual and/or tangible indicators such as forms and materials are often suggested in the literature to determine compatibility and to inform decision makers whether new architectural projects should reproduce, or reinterpret, or rather contrast with, historic buildings in situ . As a consequence, compatible design becomes confined to a visual, object-based, worldview. Yet, architecture transcends the sense of vision. Research limitations/implications Examples of architectural projects are given to explain each design option, but are not thoroughly described. Still, this paper provides a useful reference for future dialogue and research that aim at reducing the conservation vs development struggle in historic places, whether urban areas or entire cities, such as World Heritage Cities. Practical implications The lessons learned may stimulate reflection on the effectiveness of design criteria and other tools in guiding decision makers in their search for, and assessment of, compatibility. Originality/value This paper reveals that compatibility is an evolving concept, associated with human, man-made and natural indicators. Design options are not simply aesthetic categories. The author proposes that the selection of a design option for new architecture should follow the process that guides the selection of a conservation treatment for old architecture.
Roha W. Khalaf (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: