See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362164390

Aspects of contextual architecture regarding traditional/contemporary

architecture, physical/cultural and place identity: a systematic literature
review

Article in Open House International · June 2022

DOI: 10.1108/OHI-01-2022-0007

CITATIONS READS

4 1,720

2 authors:

Nessma Amin Qasem Al-Hammadi Kokan Grchev

Eastern Mediterranean University Eastern Mediterranean University
6 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nessma Amin Qasem Al-Hammadi on 16 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Aspects of contextual architecture Aspects of
contextual
regarding traditional/ architecture

contemporary architecture,
physical/cultural and place
identity: a systematic Received 8 January 2022
Revised 17 March 2022

literature review 23 May 2022

Accepted 23 May 2022

Nessma A. Q. Al-Hammadi and Kokan Grchev

Department of Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Famagusta/North Cyprus, via Mersin 10 Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – Adopting Mapping Literature, the purpose of this study is to notice the tendency in defining
contextualism through extrinsic aspects neglecting the intrinsic ones generating three theoretical gaps in
understanding contextualism, especially in terms of (1) physical/cultural aspects (P/C); (2) traditional vs
contemporary architecture (T/C); and (3) place identity (PI).
Design/methodology/approach – A directed systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to
investigate the Web of Science and Google Scholar engines for the related studies, resulting in 66 texts of book
chapters, conferences, articles and practitioners’ texts. Using the PRISMA reporting method, the study
presented the SLR procedure that narrowed the related studies to 66 texts of book chapters, conferences,
articles and practitioners’ texts. Both consensus and debates in understanding the relation between
contextualism and (T/C, P/C and PI) were re-visited (see Appendix).
Findings – According to the findings, the studies tend to address contextualism through either extrinsic or
intrinsic values. The undefined balance between extrinsic and intrinsic aspects in understanding and creating
contextual architecture seems to be the common reason why the three theoretical gaps exist.
Originality/value – This paper did not only conduct an SLR investigation on the topic, which is limited in the
field, but it also highlighted the need for further and constant discussions despite the previous one to improve
the understanding of contextual architecture.
Keywords Context/contextualism, Extrinsic/intrinsic aspects, Physical/cultural aspects, Traditional/
contemporary architecture, Place identity
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The context in architecture has been discussed widely, and yet the consensus in defining it is
limited. Attempting to explain this lack of consensus, Komez-Daglioglu (2015) argued that the
architectural work divides contextualism discussions into two periods: in the 1950s and after
the 1980s. During the 1950s, several unorthodox buildings (iconic buildings) were widely
created due to modernism neglecting the surrounding fabric, such as the Miraculous Medal
Church by Felix Candela in 1955 (ArchEyes, 2020) and the National Museum of Western Art
by Le Corbusier in 1959 (Tonossu, 2021). This provoked different debates about whether we
need to consider the surrounding context, which overgrew in the 1980s when architects
became more alert to regional and local aspects. Positive discussions toward contextualism
were generated by several studies, such as Ray (1980), Tugnutt and Robertson (1987),
Frampton (1993) and others. Nonetheless, debates were also created, considering
contextualism a sign of weakness and a lack of design creativity (Wigley and Johnson, Open House International
1988). Koolhaas added his famous phrase in 1994, “fuck the context,” which became a motto © Emerald Publishing Limited
0168-2601
afterward in the field (as cited in Otero-Pailos, 2000, p. 385). DOI 10.1108/OHI-01-2022-0007
OHI In the 1980s, the architectural theory was developed rapidly, increasing the architects’
(theoreticians and practitioners) interest in nationalism and regionalism (Crysler et al., 2012).
Portoghesi (1980) elaborated that post-modernism aimed to reconnect architecture to its historical
roots for creating more contextual forms in that era. Additionally, the 1980s is when the
historicist school of post-modernism took the lead in the architectural field (Mallgrave and
Goodman, 2011). Frampton (1993) also argued that architecture is facing the concern of becoming
modern while considering the sources to create a contextual architecture that can be recognized
mainly through its urban physical condition. The concentration on the physical condition led the
architect’s work to be considered as decorative paintings during the 1980s (Smith, 2012).
Consequently, on the one hand, the concentration of contextual architecture during the
1980s seems to drift toward the buildings’ visual appearance, neglecting their theoretical or
cultural aspects (Salama, 2014; Rhee et al., 2019). On the other hand, architecture has become
more rationalist, shifting toward the urban centers instead of concentrating on the buildings
as separate units, i.e. considering more social and cultural aspects (Mallgrave and Goodman,
2011). It is noteworthy that studies discussed contextualism indicating the awareness variety
of the approach, which is confirmed by the remaining tendency to build more iconic buildings
disregarding the urban fabric’s surrounding physical, social and cultural aspects. In other
words, creating contextual architecture has faced a recognizable lack of interest in the field,
indicating the need for more investigation and discussion on the topic. For keeping the
conversation going on contextual architecture, this study will conduct a systematic literature
review (SLR) adding to the debates started by Komez-Daglioglu (2015) (2017).

2. Contextual architecture background and related work

The context in architecture has been discussed differently and developing what has been
called “Contextualism,” referring to the theoretical body of the design approach that
corresponds to the built environment. Wigley and Johnson’s (1988) argued that contextualism
application attempts in the 1980s were not always positive, as contextualism was considered
a sign of weakness and lack of design creativity. Similarly, Koolhaas stated his famous
phrase in 1994, “Fuck the context,” which became a motto afterward in the field (as cited in
Otero-Pailos [2000, p. 385]).
Komez (2012) argues that the 1980s is when contextualism started to shape its
understanding following different practical ideas and different approaches. For instance, the
understanding of contextualism could be returned to the notion of the “fitting in approach,”
following the American Preservation Movement and postmodern eclecticism. The author
highlighted the understanding of contextualism being shifted between historical revival and
modernity. This explanation points out that contextualizing architecture was considered an
excuse for uncreative design projects where the surroundings forced their power against the
designer’s intention to create new ideas. However, it is recognizable that this perspective has
changed gradually with numerous attempts emphasizing the crucial need to contextualize
contemporary architecture for further protection of the local character.
The lack of understanding of contextualism meanings and relations is noticeable in the
literature; after a thorough investigation by using mapping literature, three main discussion
gaps are highlighted: traditional vs contemporary architecture, physical/cultural aspects and
place identity. These aspects were discussed in several studies describing their different
relations to contextualism without a clear consensus (as shown in Appendix); therefore, this
study aims to shed the light on the relations between the discussion gaps and the contextual
architecture approach. It is worth mentioning that after applying mapping literature and
SLR, this study did not cross any systematic methodology in investigating contextualism
which highlights the added value of the present study that classifies and analyzes
systematically the understanding of the related literature.
3. Research methodology Aspects of
The research’s main question is: “How contextual architecture is described regarding contextual
physical/cultural aspects, traditional and contemporary architecture, and place identity?”
This question responds to the research aim to Investigate the studies’ understanding of
architecture
contextualism in terms of physical/cultural aspects, traditional and contemporary
architecture and place identity. For doing so, the investigation was conducted in two
phases to direct the study scope and control its size:

3.1 Phase one: Mapping literature (ML)

It is a type of review that does not investigate the studies’ results but identifies their
characteristics (Cooper, 2016) and overlaps (Deringer, 2017). This allows the researcher to draw
the initial patterns and themes of the related literature to conduct a directed SLR (Creswell, 2008;
Abdullah et al., 2010). Cruz-Benito (2016) describes the Mapping Literature (ML) as a
brainstorming tool that helps the researcher reach a deeper scope and more directed investigation
of SLR. This emphasizes the argument that a deeper SLR requires an initial ML analysis.
Consequently, the present study adopted ML as an initial and general investigation using
the Google Scholar research engine to widen the investigation of this phase since this engine
provides border results unlike the Web of Science which offers more directed results (De
Winter et al., 2014). All the possible synonyms (separately and combined) of contextual
architecture that relate a building to its surroundings (such as contextualism, context,
settings, site, urban fabric, architectural surroundings, built environment and so forth) were
used in this phase. Using those terminologies narrowed the used keywords of the literature in
discussing contextual architecture to be adopted later in the second phase (the SLR
investigation). In other words, the ML findings narrowed the keywords to the topic’s directly
related terms (architecture, context, contextual architecture and contextualism), with three
other terms used in the literature on contextualism; “field” (Gausa et al., 2003; Komez, 2012;
Allen, 2013), “site” (Rossi and Eisenman, 1982; Dodds, 2001; Burns and Kahn, 2005) and
“instauration” (Dodds, 2001).
This phase also defined contextualism by recognizing the previously repeated aspects (in
various contexts) and the literature pattering in describing contextual architecture which
highlighted the vague relations of the approach regarding three aspects; (1) physical/cultural
aspects (P/C), (2) traditional vs contemporary architecture (T/C) and (3) place identity (PI). In
this follow-up, the SLR is focused on the three discussion gaps to direct the investigation and
expect to raise the value of the findings.

3.2 Phase Two: Systematic literature review (SLR)

Khan et al. (2003) summarized the SLR steps as follows: constructing review questions;
identifying relevant works; evaluating the studies’ results; summarizing and data synthesis;
and interpreting the findings. Kitchenham and Charters (2007) added that SLR identifies,
evaluates and interprets all available research on particular research questions, topics or
phenomena. As phase one (ML) narrowed the scope of the second phase (SLR) to investigate
the literature within the three gaps (P/C, T/C and PI), a limited number of relevant papers was
chosen after excluding those that did not contain the entire search string, as recommended by
Fern
andez-S
aez et al. (2010). Guided by Cruz-Benito (2016) and Mariano et al. (2017), the
present SLR was designed to investigate the contextual architecture understanding from
1980 (the beginning of the contextual architecture operational phase) until the current time.
Such a study is needed to build a solid base on the contextualism approach providing a
concrete understanding of its relations and attributes.
In this sense, this SLR investigation explored how studies explain contextualism in terms
of physical/cultural aspects, traditional and contemporary architecture and place identity
OHI (the addressed gaps). To conduct a wide and directed investigation, both Web of Science and
Google Scholar database engines were used to collect reliable English language studies
covering different types of related texts, including book chapters, conferences, articles and
practitioners’ writings, to represent both researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of the
approach. The keywords formula of the advanced investigation in the Web of Science was
(architecture AND context AND contextual architecture OR contextualism AND field AND site
OR instauration). It is worth mentioning that “contextual architecture” and “contextualism”
were connected with (OR) since they are considered synonyms, while “field” and “site” were
connected with (AND) to ensure the study’s relations to the architectural field. This formula
was chosen after several attempts by the authors to reach the relevant studies that discussed
contextual architecture in terms of the three gaps. The protocol of this SLR, as shown in
Table 1, describes the selection process (including and excluding criteria) and the research-
specific questions. Once the text was identified through the mentioned selection criteria, it
was scanned for explicit and implicit contextual architecture descriptions.

4. Research analysis
4.1 Phase one: Mapping literature (ML)
In the ML phase, a broad research was conducted using Google Scholar, which led to (47)
directly related studies describing context meaning. It analyzed contextual architectural
understanding, discussions and debates that were mentioned either explicitly or implicitly
within their description of the building surroundings indicating several discussion points.
First, although the majority of discussions have emphasized the importance of considering
both physical and cultural aspects of contextual architecture, there is a noticeable focus on
understanding contextual aspects through the extrinsic aspects neglecting the intrinsic ones
(Salama, 2014; Rhee et al., 2019). Despite the widespread agreement on the critical role of
cultural aspects, studies still limit contextualizing the building through the visual aspects
(Ayiran, 2011; Lambe and Dongre, 2019; Riza and Doratli, 2015; Saradj, 2016; Scotland, 2010),
highlighting the disconnect between what has been said and what has been done, which
requires further discussion.
Moreover, while some studies relate contextualism to fitting the building within the
current settings (Hull et al., 1997; Burden, 2001), others relate it to the correspondence to
traditional and historical aspects (Venturi and Brown, 1984; Sotoudeh and Abdullah, 2012).
This assumes that when the architect considers traditional and historical aspects, he/she will
correspond to the contemporary setting, which will neglect the in-between random changes in
the context that do not necessarily relate to the area’s historical background, but most
probably to the social needs of that time. This non-clear boundary between traditional and
contemporary architecture unchains the link that architecture should maintain and preserve
for future generations.
Finally, place identity refers to the process of people–place interaction where people define
themselves through their belonging to a particular place (Stedman, 2002). Several scholars,
such as Navickien_e (2012), Tøsse (2014), Saradj (2016) and others, relate place identity directly
to contextual architecture due to the latter’s role in creating the former. Nevertheless, place
identity’s aspects regarding contextual architecture are still undefined, especially since they
were limitedly mentioned in the contextualism studies, underlining the need for further
elaboration (Capon, 1999; Dey et al., 2001; Sotoudeh and Wan Abdullah, 2013). This phase also
underlined that even though contextual architecture has been discussed back and forth over
the years, ambiguous points regarding three theoretical discussions (T/C, P/C and PI) are still
recognized and need more clarification. It is worth mentioning that this general searching
phase included non-architectural studies that defined the term’s context to offer more
clarification in understanding the meaning of the term. All the collected studies were directed
Main question How contextual architecture is described regarding physical/cultural aspects, traditional and contemporary architecture and place identity
Objective Investigating the studies understanding of contextualism in terms of: physical/cultural aspects, traditional and contemporary architecture and place
identity
Inclusion Criteria Google Scholar Engine

Keywords: “Contextualism,” “Contextual Architecture,” “Context,” “Settings,” “Fabric,” “instauration,” “Site” and “Field”

Language: English

Date of Publication: from 1980 to 2020

Document type: all types of texts

Accessibility: Available documents, whether as downloadable pdf and doc texts or as eBooks

Content: Studies described the meaning of context or contextual architecture
Web of Science Engine

Keywords formula: (architecture AND context AND contextual architecture OR contextualism AND field AND site OR instauration)

Language: English

Date of Publication: from 1980 to 2020

Document type: all types of texts

Accessibility: Available documents, whether as downloadable pdf and doc texts or as eBooks

Fields: Architecture, History Philosophy, Environmental Studies, Environmental Sciences, Urban Studies, History, Social Science, Regional Urban
Planning

Content: Studies contain at least one of the keywords in discussing the meaning of context or contextual architecture
Exclusion
Did not include all the mentioned criteria
Criteria
Duplicated studies

Mentioning “context” with the meaning of setting; design studio context, study context, the project settings, and so forth (as in Architectural
Education studies)

Studies discussed (P/C), (T/C) and (PI) with no referring to contextualism or context understanding

Studies explained contextualism far from the theoretical gaps of (P/C), (T/C) and (PI)
Specific 1. What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual architecture regarding place identity?
Questions 2. What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual architecture regarding physical/cultural aspects?
3. What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual architecture regarding traditional vs contemporary architecture?
architecture
contextual
Aspects of

The study protocol

Table 1.
OHI to investigate the three theoretical discussions along with the next phase of the systematic
review analysis (Figure 1).

4.2 Phase two: Systematic literature review (SLR)

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) was used to
improve reporting of this SLR procedure, as recommended by Moher et al. (2009) and Liberati
et al. (2009) (Figure 1). The procedure was designed to follow the SLR’s main aim of
investigating contextualism understanding in terms of (T/C), (P/C) and (PI), the selected
studies. The second phase conducted advanced research for the architectural field using the
Web of Science engine. The second search led to 1,096 studies (1,143 besides the earlier 47
selected studies of phase one), which were collected following the inclusion criteria. In
conclusion, about 972 studies were in different fields, 10 studies were repeated and 74 were
irrelevant from their title and abstract. By analyzing the remaining studies’ content, another
21 studies were also excluded (irrelevant content), resulting in 66 studies that discuss
contextual architecture understanding and relations in terms of the research questions.
Table 2 shows the different types of selected studies, of which the majority were journal
articles (43), books (14) and conferences (5). It is worth mentioning that context as a term was
explained in a similar manner to architecture in the conferences and considering them
enriched the understanding of the term itself. Three Doctoral/Master theses were also
included, while only one study was a report. Figure 2 displays the studies’ variations
regarding years of publication, showing the noticeable missing years of publication during
the earlier 2 decades (from 1980 to 2000), unlike the case of the last decades (from 2000 to
2020), in which almost every year has a study that investigated contextual architecture. This
demonstrates the growing attention over the years to explore contextualism meanings in
terms of (T/C), (P/C) and (PI) that increased rapidly in the past decades, especially in 2012–
2015 (as shown in Figure 2). It is noteworthy to mention that the selected studies’ citation
rates follow their year of publication, decreasing recent studies and vice versa; therefore,

Figure 1.
PRISMA flow
reporting the
procedure of selecting
the SLR data
Study Count Study
Aspects of
contextual
Journal 43 Heidegger (1971), Ray (1980), Lucan (1992), Norberg-Schulz (1992), Portoghesi (1992), architecture
article Frampton (1993), Brown (1997), Otero-Pailos (2000), Dey (2001), Dodds (2001), Gausa
et al. (2003), Schaffer (2004), Baldauf et al. (2007), Radford (2009), Ayiran (2011), El-
Shorbagy (2011), Guimaraes (2012), Henriques (2012), Jencks (2012), Masoud and
Beikzadeh Shahraki (2012), Allen (2013), Molaee and Mahdavinejad (2013), Sotoudeh
and Wan Abdullah (2013), Salama (2014), Tøsse (2014), Abedi and Iravani (2015),
Harding et al. (2015), Komez-Daglioglu (2015), Riza and Doratli (2015), Salama and
Grichting (2015), Zhou and Zhang (2015), Saradj (2016), AboWardah and Elsayed
(2017), Xu (2017), Jerliu and Navakazi (2018), Jon-Nwakalo (2018), Navickien_e and
Riaubien_e (2018), Abid et al. (2019), Lambe and Dongre (2019), Kou et al. (2020), Şener
and Kishali (2020)
Book 14 Rossi and Eisenman (1982), Venturi and Brown (1984), Tugnutt and Robertson (1987),
Wigley and Johnson (1988), Capon (1999), Heritage (2001), Burden (2001/2012), Burns
and Kahn (2005), Voordt and Wegen (2005), Beaver (2006), Architects Design
Partnership (2007), Thomas and Garnham (2007), Lefaivre and Tzonis (2012), Camiz
(2014), Spanu (2020)
Conf 5 Hull et al. (1997), Dey and Abowd (2000), Komez (2012), Navickien_e (2012), Goussous
and Qashmar (2019) Table 2.
Thesis 3 Wolford (2005), Çizgen (2012), Komez-Daglioglu (2017) Numbers of the
Report 1 Scotland (2010) selected studies
Total 67 per type

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Figure 2.
0 Number of the selected
studies per year
1980
1982
1984
1987
1988
1992
1993
1997
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

analyzing their citations will not be relevant in the present study. Regarding the related
international documents, they were the foundation of the contextual understanding in the
selected studies, which is why these documents were not included individually.

5. Research findings and discussion

As the purpose of extracting and selecting the related studies is to respond to the research aim
of addressing the theoretical gaps regarding T/C, P/C and PI (see Table 3; Appendix), several
questions were created to be discussed through this SLR study.
RQ1. What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual architecture regarding
place identity?
Out of 29 studies, 12 studies (almost 41%) explicitly mentioned “identity,” describing that
contextualism is about corresponding to “place identity” (Lefaivre and Tzonis, 2012; Lambe
OHI Aspects of contextual architecture according to the related literature

Place identity
Tugnutt and Robertson (1987), Lucan (1992), Norberg-Schulz (1992), Portoghesi (1992), Frampton (1993), Capon
(1999), Otero-Pailos (2000), Dey (2001), Gausa et al. (2003), Schaffer (2004), Baldauf et al. (2007), Çizgen (2012),
Jencks (2012), Lefaivre and Tzonis (2012), Navickien_e (2012), Salama (2014), Tøsse (2014), Abedi and Iravani
(2015), Harding et al. (2015), Komez-Daglioglu (2015, 2017), Zhou and Zhang (2015), Saradj (2016), Abid et al.
(2019), Lambe and Dongre (2019), Kou et al. (2020), Şener and Kishali (2020)
Physical/Cultural aspects
Heidegger (1971), Brolin (1980), Rossi and Eisenman (1982), Frampton (1993), Capon (1999), Dodds (2001),
Heritage (2001), Voordt and Wegen (2005), Wolford (2005), Beaver (2006), Architects Design Partnership (2007),
Thomas and Garnham (2007), Chaouni (2009), Radford (2009), Scotland (2010), Ayiran (2011), Çizgen (2012),
Guimaraes (2012), Henriques (2012), Komez (2012), Sotoudeh and Abdullah (2012), Allen (2013), Molaee and
Mahdavinejad (2013), Camiz (2014), Harding et al. (2015), Komez-Daglioglu (2015, 2017), Riza and Doratli (2015),
Salama and Grichting (2015), Zhou and Zhang (2015), Saradj (2016), AboWardah and Elsayed (2017), Xu (2017),
Jon-Nwakalo (2018), Navickien_e and Riaubien_e (2018), Goussous and Qashmar (2019), Lambe and Dongre
(2019), Rhee et al. (2019), Spanu (2020)
Traditional/Contemporary architecture
Table 3. Ray (1980), Venturi and Brown (1984), Wigley and Johnson (1988), Brown (1997), Hull et al. (1997), Capon (1999),
Numbers of the Heritage (2001), Burns and Kahn (2005), Sotoudeh and Abdullah (2012), Salama (2014), Abedi and Iravani
selected studies per (2015), Harding et al. (2015), Zhou and Zhang (2015), Saradj (2016), Komez-Daglioglu (2017), Jerliu and Navakazi
discussion gap (2018), Navickien_e and Riaubien_e (2018), Lambe and Dongre (2019)

and Dongre, 2019), “national identity” (Komez-Daglioglu, 2015) and “city identity” (Çizgen,
2012). Others defined it through two main components; “sense of place” (Navickien_e, 2012;
Tøsse, 2014; Lambe and Dongre, 2019) and “local character” (Frampton, 1993; Sepe, 2009).
The 17 other studies described place identity implicitly as communication between three
entities: place, people and buildings or objects. Place identity was also defined in some studies
through communication between three entities: place, people and buildings or objects (Capon,
1999; Dey et al., 2001).
Regarding the sense of place, contextualism emphasizes the architectural spatial
character, behavioral patterns and image-making (Salama, 2014; Lambe and Dongre, 2019).
This image-making has been referred to as “organizational sensemaking,” presenting the
people/place connections (Hull et al., 1997), which contains the identity that shapes how
people perceive the sense of the place (Tøsse, 2014), and responds to their needs (Abedi and
Iravani, 2015). Additionally, the sense of place can be reached by reviving the area’s old
qualities or place quality (Sotoudeh and Abdullah, 2012), covering natural, physical and
atmospheric values (Zhou and Zhang, 2015; Komez-Daglioglu, 2015, 2017). The intrinsic
properties of cultural and social values (Lefaivre and Tzonis, 2012), (i.e. intrinsic properties
[Baldauf et al., 2007]), have evolved over the years, generating unique environmental
meanings (Norberg-Schulz, 1992) or the meaning of the context lows (Jencks, 2012). Similarly,
Navickien_e (2012) argued that contextualism needs to respond to the spirit of the place, which
was mentioned as a synonym to sense of place, although it includes both extrinsic elements
(buildings, landscape, site, etc.) and intrinsic elements (memories, traditional knowledge,
contextual values, etc.). Hence, the spirit of the place combines architecture with human
activities and the related functions that create the place’s particularities. In other words, as
Schaffer (2004) mentioned, buildings should correspond to the surrounding context,
recognizing the context-dependence features.
This emphasizes that contextualism needs to follow the physical patterns (Saradj, 2016),
(buildings’ visual quality [Salama, 2014]) of the area, which has been referred to as the “local
area character” of the surrounding neighborhood (Frampton, 1993) and the wider context
(Tugnutt and Robertson, 1987; Burden, 2001/2012). By considering the historical, regional
and environmental aspects of the context, architects will be able to understand the place Aspects of
(Gausa et al., 2003; Salama, 2014). In this manner, contextualism plays the role of the bridge contextual
that connects past and present spirits (Saradj, 2016), through respecting the context of
heritage values (Salama, 2014), and real forces of both history and present (Otero-Pailos,
architecture
2000), establishing a relationship between everyday experience and traditions
(Portoghesi, 1992).
RQ2. What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual architecture regarding
physical/ cultural aspects?
The analysis showed that 36 studies out of 43 (almost 84%) recognized contextualism
through the physical aspects (visual appearance), focusing on the extrinsic attributes
(tangible values) and neglecting the intrinsic ones (intangible values). The focus of the
studies’ discussion can be divided, respectively, into three groups: the physical condition,
both physical and cultural aspects, and only cultural aspects. The first group (18 studies,
almost 42%) limited their definition of contextualism to only the physical aspects, attributes,
patterns, characteristics and elements of the surrounding area and historical heritage
(Frampton, 1993; Voordt and Wegen, 2005; Ayiran, 2011; Molaee and Mahdavinejad, 2013;
Riza and Doratli, 2015; Saradj, 2016). On the one hand, this external description was
mentioned in a broader perspective relating it to the nature law (appearance) or natural
environmental aspects (Xu, 2017), including geographical (Guimaraes, 2012), climatic aspects
and built environment features (Çizgen, 2012).
Other studies understand contextualism through other layers, such as functional identity
(Rossi and Eisenman, 1982; Guimaraes, 2012); historical features, traditional perception
(Allen, 2013); and design principles that reflect the area’s visual appearance (Zhou and Zhang,
2015). On the other hand, a narrower perspective suggests that contextual architecture can be
recognized through patterns of existing routes (Heritage, 2001), streetscape (Brolin, 1980),
landmarks (Scotland, 2010), mass, ratio, scale, size, proportion, traditional or local materials
and the surrounding setting or the built environment (Heritage, 2001; Thomas and Garnham,
2007; Scotland, 2010; Riza and Doratli, 2015; Rhee et al., 2019). Additionally, the studies
argued that analyzing both architectural type and style (building types) (Lambe and Dongre,
2019) and urban fabric can provide the totality image of the city, which defines the particular
contextual architecture of that setting (Radford, 2009; Molaee and Mahdavinejad, 2013;
Camiz, 2014).
The second group (13 studies, almost 30%) combined physical and cultural aspects to
define contextualism, arguing that contextual layers of man-made and natural environments
need to be interpreted (Komez-Daglioglu, 2012, 2015; Jon-Nwakalo, 2018; Navickien_e and
Riaubien_e, 2018). These layers should cover intrinsic (socio-political, economic, historical,
social, cultural aspects, cultural functions and activities) and extrinsic aspects (physical and
traditional elements of buildings and sites) (Capon, 1999; Architects Design Partnership,
2007; Sotoudeh and Wan Abdullah, 2013; Harding et al., 2015; Saradj, 2016; Spanu, 2020).
Contextualism also needs to consider the cohesion of internal and external relations between
architectural works and their settings (Radford, 2009). Considering both physical and non-
physical aspects (internal and external relations) creates visual harmony and conformity of
architecture with its surrounding environment (Wolford, 2005; Beaver, 2006), which
considers one of the most crucial aspects of contextual architecture (Riza and Doratli, 2015).
This seems to be the reason why some studies argue that contextual architecture can be
created by manipulating the architectural shapes according to internal and external
conditions (Henriques, 2012).
Finally, the last group (10 studies, almost 23%) discussed that contextualism should focus
mainly on social (socio-spatial [Harding et al., 2015]), policies, cultural, environmental,
aesthetic values and economic needs responding to historical aspects (Architects Design
OHI Partnership, 2007; Salama and Grichting, 2015; AboWardah and Elsayed, 2017; Goussous
and Qashmar, 2019). Thus, several studies (Salama, 2014; Goussous and Qashmar, 2019;
Şener and Kishali, 2020) advise the architects to prioritize the historical and cultural
properties of the surrounding urban fabric. These studies argue that architects should give
more attention to intrinsic aspects to improve their manifestation in architecture (Komez-
Daglioglu, 2017) or buildings (dwellings) (Heidegger, 1971).
RQ3. What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual architecture regarding
traditional vs contemporary architecture?
Nine studies of 19 texts (almost 47%) explained that contextualism could be achieved
through considering traditional architecture within the contemporary one, where architects
need to respect and revive the older architecture (i.e. premodern architecture Zhou and Zhang,
2015) and the traditional principles and rules (Sotoudeh and Abdullah, 2012). This is due to
the modernity effect, which causes the architecture to abandon traditional aspects of its
surroundings (Harding et al., 2015). Thus, the natural appearance of domestic areas needs to
be preserved by combing and organizing new sites with the surrounding historical fabric
patterns (Abedi and Iravani, 2015; Zhou and Zhang, 2015). In other words, the place’s spatial
character (Zhou and Zhang, 2015), historical patterns (Saradj, 2016) and regional aspects
(Salama, 2014) need to be understood, preserved and emphasized.
Moreover, as contextualism is considered the bridge between the past and present (Zhou
and Zhang, 2015), architects play a role in connecting the past to be reconsidered within the
existing surroundings (Saradj, 2016). Two studies have discussed this past–present
relationship as “fitting,” where contemporary architecture fits within the old structure
(Lambe and Dongre, 2019) and the local context (Heritage, 2001). Lambe and Dongre (2019)
also argued that these relationships are more accurately described as the “harmony” that
contemporary architecture must achieve with its traditional context. This harmony could be
achieved through protecting the local architecture, understanding architectural meanings
and using historical and traditional approaches (Venturi and Brown, 1984). The fitting and
harmonizing contemporary architecture will allow the visual continuity between the old and
the new (Capon, 1999). Nevertheless, this continuity should avoid copying from the past (i.e.
traditional and historical buildings) (Çizgen, 2012; Zhou and Zhang, 2015; Saradj, 2016). The
past–present balancing discussion was not the argument in all studies where scholars only
described contextualism from the contemporary perspective. They argued that architecture
should respond to the current situation of the users’ settings (Hull et al., 1997) and the modern
living requirements (Heritage, 2001; Saradj, 2016). Responding to today’s conditions will
require neglecting the historical concerns (Navickien_e and Riaubien_e, 2018), which
contradicts the previous discussion.
In Table 4, the key phrases for describing contextual architecture for each SLR question
are mentioned to show the tendencies of the studies’ understanding. Question one argued that
studies mainly defined two components: the sense of place (cultural, social and other intrinsic
values) and local character (visual or historical patterns, values and heritage, i.e. extrinsic
attributes). Question two discussed that physical aspects consider the materials, visual
patterns and elements of the surrounding historical heritage, including the site’s
environmental features. In contrast, the cultural aspects focus mainly on historical, social
and other intrinsic functions and aspects. Finally, question three showed how the studies’
understanding of contextualism varied between protecting the physical features of old, local
architecture and reviving traditional values and principles.
Comparing these findings, several controversial points are highlighted. For instance,
linking between recognizing contextual architecture through physical elements and the
context identity indicates the current understanding of the local character through the visual
appearance. In other words, studies limit the definition of identity and the character of the
SLR questions Related aspects
Aspects of
contextual


RQ1: What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual


Place identity architecture
architecture regarding place identity? National identity

City identity

Place, people and buildings
communication

Sense of place

Local character

Context lows

Spirit of the place

Context-dependence features

Past and present spirits

Contextual heritage values
RQ2: What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual
Physical aspects, attributes, patterns,
architecture regarding Physical/cultural aspects? characteristics and elements

Natural environmental aspects

Built environment features

Functional identity

Historical features

Existing routes, streetscape and
landmarks

Mass, ratio, scale, size, proportion

Traditional or local materials

Image of the city

Cohesion of internal and external
relations

Social, policies, cultural and
environmental

Aesthetic values and economic needs
responding to historical aspects
RQ3: What is the explicit/implicit understanding of contextual
Traditional principles and rules
architecture regarding traditional vs contemporary
Surrounding historical fabric patterns
architecture?
Place’s spatial character

Historical patterns

Regional aspects

Past and present bridge

Fitting with the old structure Table 4.

Harmony with traditional context The summary of

Current situation aspects discussing SLR

Modern living requirements questions

context through the visual appearance of the surrounding urban fabric (i.e. the image of the
city). This neglects the intrinsic side of local character, including social and cultural aspects
that can affect future practice. Additionally, comparing the discussions of Q2 and Q3, studies
seem to define contextualism through physical aspects and traditional/historical aspects,
which also underlines the studies define traditional and historical aspects through mainly
physical aspects. Again, this leads to the lack of concern toward the intrinsic aspects, calling
for further investigation to uncover the possible reasons for this negligence.

6. Conclusion
The findings showed the studies’ consensus and contradictions regarding the three
mentioned gaps, indicating the ongoing variation in understanding contextualism. It is
noticeable that all the previous discussions were divided into extrinsic and intrinsic aspects
OHI and the relations between them. In the place identity discussions, studies show a consensus in
linking contextualism and protecting the local character and identity. In contrast, the
discussions of physical and cultural aspects show a noticeable inconsistency in describing
contextualism through either physical or cultural, with limited attempts to balance between
them. Lastly, traditional and contemporary architecture discussions tend to connect
contextualism to traditional and historical patterns more than the modern ones.
The study is adding to the definition of the contextual architecture approach, which still
varies on how to establish cohesion between extrinsic and intrinsic aspects. The findings
suggest a redefinition of local character (place identity) as well as traditional and historical
patterns as a step toward this cohesion where both aspects combine extrinsic and intrinsic
features that need to be considered. Thereby, it is expected that both theoreticians and
practitioners will gain a better understanding of how to integrate new architecture into
existing contexts while preserving the link between old and new (i.e. past/present harmony).
The awareness of the intrinsic aspects of both local character and traditional or historical
patterns will prevent the buildings from being crude copies of their surroundings, avoiding
mimicry and facadism in architecture. By raising awareness of this matter, the balance
between what considers “new” and what considers “old” can be achieved, which will
ultimately protect the urban fabric of any given context. Consequently, understanding
contextualism cannot rely only on extrinsic or intrinsic aspects, but on the connection and the
balance between them, which limited studies seem to address and discuss how to achieve
such a balance. In this sense, it seems that studies either neglect the intrinsic aspects in
describing contextualism or miss-balance the extrinsic and intrinsic aspects that ultimately
led to non-contextual architecture.
By limiting this investigation to three theoretical gaps (T/C, P/C and PI) in discussing
contextualism, the study enriched the understanding of the contextual architecture approach.
Nevertheless, this restrained the study from investigating the literature for any other possible
theoretical gaps, which is recommended for extended further studies. More theoretical
investigation for each theoretical gap (far from their relations to contextualism) is also
recommended to be compared with the study findings, which might bring more insight into
the topic.

References
Abdullah, A.A., Rahman, H.A., Harun, Z., Alashwal, A.M. and Beksin, A.M. (2010), “Literature
mapping: a birds eye view on classification of factors influencing project success”, African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 19, pp. 4174-4182.
Abedi, S. and Iravani, H. (2015), “Analysis of the contextual architecture and its effect on the structure
of the residential places in Dardasht neighborhood of Isfahan”, European Online Journal of
Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 158-168.
Abid, G., Contreras, F., Ahmed, S. and Qazi, T. (2019), “Contextual factors and organizational
commitment: examining the mediating role of thriving at work”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 17,
p. 4686.
AboWardah, E.S. and Elsayed, H.A. (2017), “Addressing the urban contextual envelope: an analytical
study in architectural design studio”, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research,
Vol. 12 No. 18, pp. 7043-7051.
Allen, S. (2013), “Field conditions (1997)”, in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992–2012, pp. 62-79.
Architects Design Partnership (2007), Education and Contextualism: Architects Design Partnership,
Black Dog Publishing, London.
ArchEyes. (2020), Felix Candela Church: Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, ArchEyes, available at:
https://archeyes.com/our-lady-of-the-miraculous-medal-church-felix-candela/
Ayiran, N. (2011), “Architectural continuity towards cultural sustainability in Bodrum”, Open House Aspects of
International, Vol. 36 No. 2, p. 82.
contextual
Baldauf, M., Dustdar, S. and Rosenberg, F. (2007), “A survey on context-aware systems”, International
Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 263-277.
architecture
Beaver, R. (2006), The Architecture of Adrian Smith, Som: Toward a Sustainable Future (Master
Architect Series Vii), Images Publishing Group.
Brolin, B.C. (1980), Architecture in Context: Fitting New Buildings with Old, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Brown, B. (1997), “Coral bleaching: causes and consequences”, Coral Reefs, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. S129-S138.
Burden, D. (2001), “Building communities with transportation”, Transportation Research Record
Journal, Vol. 1773 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Burden, E. (2001/2012), Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture, McGraw Hill Professional, New York.
Burns, C. and Kahn, A. (2005), Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies, Psychology
Press, Routledge, New York.
Camiz, A. (2014), Urban Morphology and Architectural Design of City Edges and Vertical Connections
in Historical Contexts, Delft University Press/IOSPress, Amsterdam.
Capon, D.S. (1999), Architectural Theory, John Wiley, New York.
Chaouni, A. (2009), “Cabo Negro Tourist Resort by Elie Azagury: modernism and metissage”,
Docomomo Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 50-55.
Çizgen, G. (2012), Rethinking the Role of Context and Contextualism in Architecture and Design,
Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU).
Cooper, I.D. (2016), “What is a ‘mapping study?’”, Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA,
Vol. 104 No. 1, p. 76.
Creswell, J.W. (2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Cruz-Benito, J. (2016), “Systematic literature review and mapping”, Education in the Knowledge
Society PhD programme, GRIAL Research Group, Department of Computers and Automatics,
University of Salamanca, Salamanca, pp. 4-62, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.165773, available at: https://
repositorio. grial.eu/bitstream/grial/685/3/201611_PhD_EKS_SLR-1.pdf.
Crysler, C.G., Cairns, S. and Heynen, H. (2012), The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory, Sage,
New York.
De Winter, J.C., Zadpoor, A.A. and Dodou, D. (2014), “The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of
Science: a longitudinal study”, Scientometrics, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 1547-1565.
Deringer, S.A. (2017), “Mindful place-based education: mapping the literature”, Journal of Experiential
Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 333-348.
Dey, A.K. (2001), “Understanding and using context”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-7.
Dey, A.K. and Abowd, G.D. (2000), “The context toolkit: aiding the development of context-aware
applications”, Workshop on Software Engineering for Wearable and Pervasive Computing.
Dey, A.K., Abowd, G.D. and Salber, D. (2001), “A conceptual framework and a toolkit for supporting
the rapid prototyping of context-aware applications”, Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 16
Nos 2-4, pp. 97-166.
Dodds, G. (2001), “Architecture as instauration”, Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 127-150.
El-Shorbagy, A.M. (2011), “Contextualism: architecture and context”, Urbanisme, Architecture and
Design, [online], available at: http://architecture.knoji.com/contextualism-architecture-and-
context/ (accessed 10 January 2020).
OHI Fern
andez-S
aez, A.M., Bocco, M.G. and Romero, F.P. (2010), “SLR-tool: a tool for performing
systematic literature reviews”, ICSOFT, p. 2.
Frampton, K. (1993), “Towards a critical regionalism: six points for an architecture of resistance”, pp.
26-31, [online], available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ad.1973.
Gausa, M., Guallart, V., Muller, W., Soriano, F., Porras, F. and Morales, J. (2003), The Metapolis
Dictionary of Advanced Architecture, Actar, Barcelona, pp. 517-518.
Goussous, J. and Qashmar, D. (2019), “The dialectic dimensions of architectural identity in heritage
conservation, the case of Amman city”, Proceedings of The International Conference on
Advanced Research in Social Sciences.
Guimaraes, M.V.T. (2012), “A precedent in sustainable architecture: bioclimatic devices in Alvar
Aalto’s summer house”, Journal of Green Building, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
Harding, C.M., Nasr, M.A., Kinsella, R.L., Scott, N.E., Foster, L.J., Weber, B.S., Fiester, S.E., Actis, L.A.,
Tracy, E.N. and Munson, R.S. Jr (2015), “A cinetobacter strains carry two functional
oligosaccharyltransferases, one devoted exclusively to type IV pilin, and the other one
dedicated to O-glycosylation of multiple proteins”, Molecular Microbiology, Vol. 96 No. 5,
pp. 1023-1041.
Heidegger, M. (1971), “Building dwelling thinking”, Poetry, Language, Thought, Vol. 154, pp. 1-26.
Henriques, G.C. (2012), “TetraScript: a responsive Pavilion, from generative design to automation”,
International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
Heritage, E. (2001), Building in Context: New Developments in Historic Areas, English Heritage/CABE.
Hull, R., Neaves, P. and Bedford-Roberts, J. (1997), “Towards situated computing”, Digest of Papers.
First International Symposium on Wearable Computers.
Jencks, C. (2012), “Contextual counterpoint in architecture”, Log, No. 24, pp. 71-80.
Jerliu, F. and Navakazi, V. (2018), “Socialist modernization of Prishtina: interrogating types of urban
and architectural contributions to the city”, Mesto a Dejiny, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 55-74.
Jon-Nwakalo, C.C. (2018), “Discourse on contextualism in architecture and design: the French hotels
and the African paradigm”, Discourse, Vol. 8 No. 12, pp. 8-22.
Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J. and Antes, G. (2003), “Five steps to conducting a systematic review”,
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 118-121.
Kitchenham, B. (2007), Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software
Engineering, Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University and
University of Durham.
Komez-Daglioglu, E. (2012), “Architectural contextualism and emerging hybrid morphologies”,
EAAE/ISUF International Conference “New Urban Configurations”, Delft, 16-19
October 2012.
Komez-Daglioglu, E. (2015), “The context debate: an archaeology”, Architectural Theory Review
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 266-279, doi: 10.1080/13264826.2016.1170058.
Komez-Daglioglu, E. (2017), Reclaiming Context: Architectural Theory, Pedagogy and Practice since
1950, Delft University of Technology.
Kou, H., Chalana, M. and Zhou, J. (2020), “Diverse approaches to the preservation of built vernacular
heritage: case study of post-disaster reconstruction of the Xijie Historic District in Dujiangyan
City, China”, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Lambe, N.R. and Dongre, A.R. (2019), “A shape grammar approach to contextual design: a case study
of the Pol houses of Ahmedabad, India”, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City
Science, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 845-861.
Lefaivre, L. and Tzonis, A. (2012), Architecture of Regionalism in the Age of Globalization: Peaks and
Valleys in the Flat World, Routledge.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, Aspects of
P.J., Kleijnen, J. and Moher, D. (2009), “The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and contextual
elaboration”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. e1-e34. architecture
Lucan, J. (1992), “Contextualism and universality”, Lotus International, Vol. 74, pp. 110-111.
Mallgrave, H.F. and Goodman, D.J. (2011), An Introduction to Architectural Theory: 1968 to the
Present, John Wiley and Sons.
Mariano, D.C., Leite, C., Santos, L.H., Rocha, R.E. and de Melo-Minardi, R.C. (2017), “A guide to
performing systematic literature reviews in bioinformatics”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05813,
pp. 3-12.
Masoud, M. and Beikzadeh Shahraki, H. (2012), Infill Buildings in the Historical Context, the Principles
of Design and Evaluation Criteria, Azarakhsh publication, Tehran.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V.,
Barrowman, N. and Berlin, J.A. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (Chinese edition)”, Journal of Chinese Integrative
Medicine, Vol. 7 No. 9, pp. 889-896.
Molaee, M. and Mahdavinejad, M. (2013), “Architecture in context-inspiration of contextualism in
architectural designing”, Global Journal of Arts Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Navickien_e, E. (2012), “Infill architecture: chasing changes of attitudes in conservation of urban
heritage”, HERITAGE 2012-Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Heritage and
Sustainable Development.
Navickien_e, E. and Riaubien_e, E. (2018), “Changes of approach to urban context in international
guidelines and experiences in Lithuanian urban environment”, Landscape Architecture and Art,
Vol. 13 No. 13, pp. 7-17.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1992), Genius loci. Paesaggio, ambiente, architettura. Documenti di Architettura,
Electa, Milano.
Otero-Pailos, J. (2000), “Bigness in context: some regressive tendencies in Rem Koolhaas’ urban
theory”, City, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 379-389.
Portoghesi, P. (1980), “The end of prohibitionism”, in The Presence of the Past: First International
Exhibition of Architecture, La Biennale di Venezia, pp. 9-13.
Portoghesi, P. (1992), “Setting and spirit of the timeþ contextualism”, Lotus International, Vol. 74,
pp. 116-118.
Radford, A. (2009), “Responsive cohesion as the foundational value in architecture”, The Journal of
Architecture, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 511-532.
Ray, K. (1980), Contextual Architecture: Responding to Existing Style, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rhee, J., Cardoso Llach, D. and Krishnamurti, R. (2019), “Context-rich urban analysis using machine
learning – a case study in Pittsburgh, PA”, Proceedings of the 37th eCAADe and 23rd SIGraDi
Conference, Porto, Vol. 3, pp. 3-12.
Riza, M. and Doratli, N. (2015), “The critical lacuna between new contextually juxtaposed and freestyle
buildings in historic settings”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp.
234-257.
Rossi, A. and Eisenman, P. (1982), The Architecture of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Salama, A.M. (2014), “Interrogating the practice of image making in a budding context”, Archnet-
IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 74-94.
Salama, A.M. and Grichting, A.K. (2015), “Edge, center, and spine: exploring the multi-dimensionality
of contemporary landscapes in Middle Eastern cities”, ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of
Architectural Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 113-136.
OHI Saradj, F.M. (2016), “Compatible development solutions in the context of historical settings in Iran”,
Urbanism. Arhitectura. Construcţii, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 285-300.
Schaffer, J. (2004), “From contextualism to contrastivism”, Philosophical Studies: An International
Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 119 Nos 1/2, pp. 73-103.
Scotland, A.A. (2010), Assets Alliance Scotland, Scottish Government/Scottish Community
Development Centre (SCDC)/Long-Term Conditions Alliance Scotland (LTCAS).
Şener, M. and Kishali, E. (2020), “Conserving modern architectural heritage: review on first Numune hospitals
of Turkey”, ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 88-111.
Sepe, M. (2009), “PlaceMaker method: planning ‘walkability’ by mapping place identity”, Journal of
Urban Design, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 463-487.
Smith, K. (2012), Introducing Architectural Theory: Debating a Discipline, Routledge.
Sotoudeh, H. and Abdullah, W. (2012), “Affected variables on successful infill design in urban historic
context”, Arts and Design Studies, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 7-11.
Sotoudeh, H. and Wan Abdullah, W. (2013), “Contextual preferences of experts and residents: issue of
replication and differentiation for new infill design in urban historical context”, Journal of
Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1276-1282.
Spanu, S. (2020), Heterotopia and Heritage Preservation, Springer.
Stedman, R.C. (2002), “Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based
cognitions, attitude, and identity”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 561-581.
Thomas, R. and Garnham, T. (2007), The Environments of Architecture: Environmental Design in
Context, Taylor and Francis.
Tonossu, N.Y. (2021), “National Museum of Western Art in Tokyo/Le Corbusier”, ArchEyes, 22 April,
available at: https://archeyes.com/national-museum-western-art-tokyo-le-corbusier/
Tøsse, S.E. (2014), “Concern and confidence. Architects making sense of climate adaptation”,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 24-38.
Tugnutt, A. and Robertson, M. (1987), “Making Townscape: a contextual approach to building in an
urban setting”.
Venturi, R. and Brown, D.S. (1984), A View from the Campidoglio, Harper and Row, New York.
Voordt, T. and Wegen, H. (2005), Architecture in Use, The Arhitectural Press, Oxford.
Wigley, M. and Johnson, P. (1988), Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, Little
Brown, New York and Boston.
Wolford, J.N. (2005),Architectural Contextualism in the Twentieth Century, with Particular Reference to
the Architects E. Fay Jones and John Carl Warnecke, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Xu, C. (2017), “Technology-oriented regulatory model in China and the west: a contextual analysis of
digital rights management architecture”, Trames, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 233-249.
Zhou, S. and Zhang, S. (2015), “Contextualism and sustainability: a community renewal in old city of
Beijing”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 747-766.
Source
Navickien_e (2012)
Saradj (2016)
Tøsse (2014)
Salama (2014)
Kou et al. (2020)
Şener and Kishali (2020)
Lambe and Dongre (2019)
Zhou and Zhang (2015)
Lefaivre and Tzonis (2012)
Schaffer (2004)
Komez Daglioglu (2015)
Jencks (2012)
Tugnutt and Robertson (1987)
Frampton (1993)
Capon (1999)
SLR summary of
architecture)
and contemporary
discussed the three
(1. Place identity,
theoretical gaps
Table A1.
aspects, 3. Traditional
studies’ quotations that
2. Physical and cultural
Texts
1.1. Place identity

“Contexts relates to the sense of place, spirit of the place, and place attachment” Appendix

“Architecture should follow the area character resulted from the natural and human interaction”

“Spirit of the place include between the tangible elements (buildings, landscapes, sites, etc.) and the intangible elements
(memories, traditional knowledge, values, etc.) that shapes the context”
“New design needs to consider the physical patterns of the surrounding historic heritage (respecting the past while responding to
the present spirit)”

“identity, practice, and context are essential elements for the organizational sensemaking”

“sense of place covers identity, rules, ideas and routines that shape how the people perceive, notice, interpret, and act in a place
“sensemaking”

“both identity and context need to be analyzed”

“Contemporary architecture becomes more concern on evoking a sense of place by image making”

“Contextual approach needs to understand the place through regional, historical, and environmental aspects of the existing
region”

“the identity of an area can be created through buildings’ visual qualities”
“Separating the sites from their area references interrupt the continuity and ruin the area historical narratives”
“To protect the historical bridge of an area between past and present, both heritage and values need to be defined in a broader
perspective”
“Lack of identity and continuity of a place separates the new development with the traditional core
The spatial characters, elements, and behavioral patterns of the architectural peculiarities create the sense of place identity that
needs to revive the old qualities and respond to the contemporary needs of the community”

“The spirit of place generates the spatial identity, which is the combination of architecture, function with people’s activities that
create the place’s particularity”

“The place quality is characterized through natural, physical and atmospheric values”

“The place unique meaning is retrieved from its cultural values that evolves over the time”
“Recent regionalist prioritized the place identity that covers the area ecological, social and cultural aspects”
“Contextualism respond to the context-dependence features”

“Contextualism should resist globalism uniformity and national identities’ valorization for avoiding alienation and fake
identities”

“Context relates to the spirit of a place”
“Contextualism holds the meaning of the context lows”
“To understand the local context, the wider context needs to be considered”
“Architects should consider and reinterpret local character within contemporary terms”
“Context is about community and communication of both people and buildings”
(continued )
architecture
contextual
Aspects of

Table A1.
Source
Dey and Abowd (2000)
Burden (2001/2012)
Dey (2001)
Baldauf et al. (2007)
Çizgen (2012)
Harding et al. (2015)
Abedi and Iravani (2015)
Abid et al. (2019)
Komez-Daglioglu (2017)
Norberg-Schulz (1992)
Portoghesi (1992)
Lucan (1992)
Gausa et al. (2003)
Otero-Pailos (2000)
Rossi and Eisenman (1982)
Rhee et al. (2019)
Guimaraes (2012)
Allen (2013)
Komez (2012)
Ayiran (2011)
Navickien_e and Riaubien_e (2018)
Saradj (2016)
Salama and Grichting (2015)
OHI
Texts
“Context is characterized within three entities: person, place and object”
“The building needs to correspond first to the surrounding the settings and the city in its totality”
“Context include three entities: place, people and things”
“Contextualism attributes can be categorized to identity, location, intrinsic properties and identifying events”

“Modern architecture uses abstract formation language weaking the dialogical relation with the context”

“Contextualism aims to not only protect the structural harmony but to also to encourage its evaluation according to the city’s
general identity”
“Context is about place making to create connections between people and places”
“Place identity offers proper mental image of the site and considers the community needs”
“Contextual architecture is created by the human psychological perception and responding to the contemporary human needs”
“Context is embodied in the notion of the spirit of the place”
“Architecture aims to convert a site to place uncovering the environment meanings. It combined nature and human experience”
“Architecture should establish a relation between experience and traditions”
“Contextual architecture considers the reality of a particular context sustaining the universality and the contemporary
technological means”
“Context could be called field being more flexible, receptive, and reactive of the place”
“Context returns to the past where buildings relate to the context through considering the real forces of present and history that
shapes the reality”
1.2. Physical and cultural aspects
“Context relates to persistence of a function over time or as a part of the built environment”
“Context is the building’s surrounding of the physical built environment within a certain range”

“The building should respond to the surrounding geographic and natural built environment”

“Functional, social and visual aspect should be concerned in designing a space”
“The space’s traditional perception is based on the static visual appearance”
“Contextualism contains identifying and interpreting the setting layers and characteristics (historical, social, physical,
environmental, . . ., etc.)”
“New design should refer to the surrounding physical patterns and characteristics”
“Context includes several layers (natural environment, manmade environment buildings’ formal appearance)”

“New design needs to consider the physical patterns of the surrounding historic heritage (respecting the past while responding
to the present spirit)”

“Designing in historic areas need to consider the relations between architectural and cultural functions”

“Any intervention needs to support the socio-spatial context to achieve a serious contribution”

“Best architectural practices balance social and economic needs with responding to the historic fabric”
(continued )
Source Texts

Radford (2009)
“Design seeks for internal and external cohesion”

“The architectural aesthetic lies in the interaction level between the architectural features and the contextual individuality”
Lambe and Dongre (2019)
“The structures create their place identity through the physical manifestation of the people aspirations”

“Architectural style of the surrounding area needs to be analyzed for decide the suitable contextual design approach”
Spanu (2020) “Historical, functional and social aspects need to be analyzed for contextual approach (external and internal relations)”
Xu (2017) “Contextualism is the external description of the nature of law”
Henriques (2012) “To contextualize a building, its shape needs to be manipulated responding to internal and external conditions”
Camiz (2014) “The cities building type, elevations, urban fabric defines the contextual deformation of the cities”
Zhou and Zhang (2015)
“Main aim of contextualism is to preserve the natural appearance of the site”

“New urbanism’s contextualism is reflected by reviving the premodern architectural forms and their traditional design
principles”
Scotland (2010) “New design should respond to the urban structure, urban grain (the architectural rhythm), density (plot types), scale, materials,
landscape, landmarks, and historical developments”
Heritage (2001) “A successful project relates to the place’s geography and historical, exiting routes pattern, the area views and landmarks,
materials, and create new views to the area”
Frampton (1993) “Context is mainly understood through the surrounding physical conditions”
Riza and Doratli (2015)
“New construction needs to consider the context rhythm, mass, traditional materials, ratio, size, scale, proportions and masses”

“Harmony is the most crucial aspect for a new construction in a context”
Komez Daglioglu (2015)
“Contextual approach includes both the physical features and the social aspects”

“Context is a relational construct of both architectural works and their settings. It contains both extrinsic and intrinsic values”
Capon (1999) “The contextualist comprehensive thinking includes functional aspects, form (scales), meaning (historical relations), feelings of
place, and nature”
Wolford (2005) “Contextual architecture allowed the strong relations with physical, visual, and environmental aspects to create the visual harmony
and conformity of the surrounding context”
Voordt and Wegen (2005) “Contextual architecture responds to the particular physical characteristics”
Beaver (2006) “Responding to the context responding to the physical and cultural features”
Architects Design Partnership (2007) “Context is what form the building’s setting which includes social, political, cultural and economic aspects”
Chaouni (2009) “Regionalism responds to the context through considering its geographical and climatic features”
Thomas and Garnham (2007) “Contexts contain several factors including geographic features, human history, cultural, and local materials”
Sotoudeh and Abdullah (2012)
“The degree of contextualism can be recognized through the urban skyline”

“Contextualism mainly aims to revive the cultural properties of architectural, historical, environmental, visual and aesthetic
characteristics”
Çizgen (2012) “Context can be defined as the environment background, framework, setting or circumstances”
Molaee and Mahdavinejad (2013) “Contextualism refers to the urban planning approach that considers the totality of the city, and defines the architectural type
responding to the physical and locational aspects”

(continued )
architecture
contextual
Aspects of

Table A1.

Table A1.
Source
Sotoudeh and Wan Abdullah (2013)
Molaee and Mahdavinejad (2013)
Harding et al. (2015)
AboWardah and Elsayed (2017)
Jon-Nwakalo (2018)
Goussous and Qashmar (2019)
Brolin (1980)
Dodds (2001)
Komez-Daglioglu (2017)
Heidegger (1971)
Komez-Daglioglu (2017)
Navickien_e and Riaubien_e (2018)
Saradj (2016)
Salama (2014)
Lambe and Dongre (2019)
Jerliu and Navakazi (2018)
Zhou and Zhang (2015)
Hull et al. (1997)
OHI
Texts
“Historical context includes both tangible and intangible aspects of buildings, place, and people”
“Context relates to the area physical attributes”
“Vernacular architecture responds to the context through consider both physical features (site, building and their physical aspects)
and non-physical features that relates to (socio-political, economic and cultural environments)”
“Contextual attributes include functional, identity and environmental aspects”
“Architecture needs to consider physical context and cultural context”
“To conduct contextual investigation both historical and cultural aspects need to be considered”
“New buildings need to be compatible with the contextual existing community unifying the street scape of the neighborhood”
“Contextualism recognizes the sites’ cultural and temporal realities”

“Context should be understood in respect of policies, history, culture, and aesthetic values”

“Context could be considered as the intrinsic aspects of the site where architecture is their material manifestation”
“Responding to the context is about situated buildings as dwellings”
1.3. Traditional and contemporary architecture
“Context ranks between the physical aspects that include the geography and climate, and the cultural aspects that follow the
traditional and local forms and motivations”

“Context includes several layers (natural environment, manmade environment (buildings’ formal appearance)”

“Architectural context should only respond to today’s condition and needs neglecting traditional, historical and visual
concerns”

“Urban planning should respond to the contemporary requirements avoiding the copying form the past”

“New design needs to consider the physical patterns of the surrounding historic heritage (respecting the past while responding
to the present spirit)”

“Contextual approach needs to understand the place through regional, historical, and environmental aspects of the existing
region”

“the identity of an area can be created through buildings’ visual qualities”

“Context refers to the surrounding area where the new building needs to fit with the old structure”

“Creating harmony with the traditional context has become one of the major concerns form the architectural practice”
“Traditional values and historic dimension need to be considered in new urbanism”

“Contextualism emphasize the architectural bridge between past and present”

“Main aim of contextualism is to preserve the natural appearance of the site”

“New urbanism’s contextualism is reflected by reviving the premodern architectural forms and their traditional design
principles”

“New contextualism design should not copy the old building and traditions (blind imitation)”

“Contextualism emphasizes the place spatial and historical character and their relations to the buildings’ elements”
“Context is about the current situation aspects”
(continued )
Source Texts

Brown (1997) “Contextual architecture responds to the users’ setting”

Capon (1999)
Heritage (2001)
Sotoudeh and Abdullah (2012)
Çizgen (2012)
Venturi and Brown (1984)
Harding et al. (2015)
Abedi and Iravani (2015)
Ray (1980)
Wigley and Johnson (1988)
Burns and Kahn (2005)
“Contextualism helps the context to continue the visual harmony between the old and the new”
“Contextualism considers modern living requirements and fitting within the surrounding local context”
“The new architecture respects the older architecture reminding people with their history. It should consider the context traditional
values preserving the area culture”
“Modern architecture uses abstract formation language weaking the dialogical relation with the context. Generally, the mass and
the façade of the surround context are copied form to the new designs as a method to create the area unity”
“Architects should understand the crucial role of the architectural meaning while using traditional and historical approaches. They
need to protect the local architecture for securing the context harmony”
“Modernity relates to contextualism has created a visual imbalance with the traditional surroundings”
“Architecture should preserve the domestic areas, combine historical and new site to create residential areas, organize these
residential areas according the historical fabric”
“Architecture needs to be responsive to the traditional elements”
“Contextualism has been used as an excuse of mediocrity (lack of creativity)”
“Context directing to the past through the existing surrounding”
architecture
contextual
Aspects of

Table A1.
OHI About the authors
Nessma A. Q. Al-Hammadi is a PhD candidate at the Department of Architecture, Eastern
Mediterranean University. She received both master’s and bachelor’s degrees from the University of
Jordan. She has teaching experience in the design studio with several publications in SCI-indexed
journals. Her PhD thesis discusses the contextual architecture in multi-layered cities where the research
interest has been directed toward architectural and urban conservation with a focus on contextual
architecture in historic areas. Nessma A. Q. Al-Hammadi is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: nessma1990@gmail.com
Prof. Dr. Kokan Grchev graduated in 1989 at the State Faculty of Architecture in Skopje. His master’s
and PhD studies were at the Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje. From
1990 to 2006, he was working at the National Research institute as architecture researcher, being
promoted as scientific advisor in 2000. In the period 1998 to 2013, he specialized in conservation and
restoration with the National Conservation Center and Ministry of Culture of Republic of North
Macedonia. He was promoted to full-time professor in 2006 and reelected in 2013 at the University
American College Skopje. He was teaching as a visiting professor at different universities. Since 2014, he
is full-time professor at EMU Department of Architecture, teaching Theory and History of Architecture
and Art, Theory and Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration as his main field of interest. He also
participates in the design studio and other area oriented courses.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats