Cultural assessment as the meeting point in the dialogue between heritage studies and architectural practice - the adaptive reuse of Trinity College, Coimbra (Portugal)

Citation: Loren-Méndez, M.; García- Casasola, M.; Galán-Caro, D. Cultural Assessment as the Meeting Point in the Dialogue Between Heritage Studies and Architectural Practice— The Adaptive Reuse of Trinity College, Coimbra (Portugal). Architecture 2024, 4, 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/ architecture4040052 Academic Editors: Carlos J. Rosa Jiménez and Daniel Navas Carrillo Received: 16 September 2024 Revised: 29 October 2024 Accepted: 31 October 2024 Published: 6 November 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Article Cultural Assessment as the Meeting Point in the Dialogue Between Heritage Studies and Architectural Practice—The Adaptive Reuse of Trinity College, Coimbra (Portugal) Mar Loren-Méndez, Marta García-Casasola and Domingo Galán-Caro * Department of History, Theory and Architectura Composition, Higher Technical School of Architecture, University of Seville, 41004 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (M.L.-M.); [email protected] (M.G.-C.) *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: More than a century after Riegl took the first steps in the theory of value that characterised the 20th century, conservation is now being challenged from the perspective of understanding heritage intervention projects. Critical transformation of heritage, based on knowledge, modifies the characteristics of what is of value, its significance and its materiality. This work process deals with questions related to citizens’ perceptions, where consensus is sought to agree on what has value in a heritage context and how intervention projects affect this consideration. This article represents a revision of heritage methodology insofar as it establishes a contemporary dialogue between architectural practice and heritage studies through the identification and management of cultural values. It takes as a case study the Trinity College in Coimbra, by Aires Mateus. This work is framed within the declaration of the University of Coimbra as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This methodology can be extrapolated to other case studies, providing a necessary framework for understanding design action in different heritage contexts. This research attempts to equate the heritage asset’s initial values with those generated or activated after the intervention, highlighting the recognition of these values as a key objective of heritage studies and design action. Keywords: heritage methodology; adaptive reuse; sustainable reconstruction; resilience; Aires Mateus; architectural refurbishment; cultural values; heritage assessment; University of Coimbra; Colégio da Trindade 1. Introduction The concepts of value and monument set out by Riegl in The Modern Cult of Monuments are part of an open and constantly evolving debate. Françoise Choay states that “ . . . any artefact built by a community to remind itself or to make other generations remember people, events, sacrifices or beliefs will be called a monument. [ . . . ] Among the immense and heterogeneous background of historical heritage, I have chosen as an exemplary category the one that directly concerns the setting in which our lives take place: built heritage” [1]. This concept of heritage can be understood as a multifaceted reality, which, before intervening on a heritage asset, calls for the decoding and understanding of the heritage problem that materialises or is accounted for in attributes which characterise it and embody values [ 2 ]. Consequently, values have played a key role in “defining and directing conservation of built heritage” [ 3 ]. These values-based approaches in heritage intervention processes draw directly from the Burra Charter (1979) and the World Heritage Convention (1972) and have acquired particular strength during the 21st century, generating a new debate on the classification and categorisation of such cultural values [ 4 , 5 ]. Focused on the identification of values and cultural assessment, the applied methodologies are complex as they are working with significance, a constantly evolving concept [ 6 , 7 ]. This debate appears Architecture 2024,4, 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture4040052 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/architecture Architecture 2024,4990 as a dynamic and changing action, which depends entirely on the heritage asset in question. As a result, some authors claim that “any attempt to categorise all values is determined to fail” [ 8 ]. For this reason, the present moment is focusing on the “discursive approach” and not on the identified values classification [9]. Along these lines, certain trends exist that have advocated values-based approaches in heritage conservation since the 1980s, and which are currently considered as the most suitable processes in this architectural practice [ 10 ]. This is so because such values are what justify the exceptional status of a heritage asset for a community [ 2 ]. Despite this, some experts confirm that on occasion, values-based approaches are not the most correct methods when intervening in heritage, because “decisions are based on incomplete understandings of heritage and its values” [ 5 ]. Hence, it becomes crucial to contrast knowledge derived from the design processes within architectural practice in interventions with the methodological procedures employed in heritage studies. In this way, we can examine how rehabilitation actions enter into dialogue with these values-based approaches, and clarify whether they take heritage assessment as a starting point in this process. If we are to understand the dynamic nature of values, it is important to go beyond their traditional consideration from the perspective of the history and materiality of places. Indeed, the field is now characterised by taking into account citizens’ perceptions. This paper focuses on the opportunity to identify the interaction between heritage studies and design practice but surrounded by participatory processes. In the same way, the proposal is understood as a tool to improve the quality of the results of a heritage intervention project by placing values at the centre of the discussion. The mechanisms envisaged for this are the Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA), which are still refining their approach to monitoring values [6]. Therefore, this research proposes an approach to heritage intervention which has as its main objective establishing a comparative dialogue between the methodologies consolidated in heritage studies and the design processes undertaken within the discipline of architecture. This is undertaken to elucidate whether this proposed dialogue is operational and whether the practice of architectural rehabilitation needs to be brought closer to heritage studies in order to better explain design strategies and decisions. In order to achieve this objective, this article is organised by first describing the working methodology, and then presenting the case study to be applied: a contemporary intervention on a cultural asset in a World Heritage area. Once the object of study has been contextualised, the identification of values is approached on the basis of a classification established according to their origin. By comparing the values recognised and reformulated in the project, the critical discussion makes it possible to prioritise the fundamental values. Mindful of the controversy generated by the categorisation or classification of values in a heritage asset for intervention [ 5 ], we take the case of Trinity College (TC) in Coimbra to put the proposed methodology into practice (Figure 1). This contemporary rehabilitation by Aires Mateus is designed as an intervention within the framework of a values-based approach. Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 2 complex as they are working with significance, a constantly evolving concept [6,7]. This debate appears as a dynamic and changing action, which depends entirely on the heritage asset in question. As a result, some authors claim that “any attempt to categorise all values is determined to fail” [8]. For this reason, the present moment is focusing on the “discursive approach” and not on the identified values classification [9]. Along these lines, certain trends exist that have advocated values-based approaches in heritage conservation since the 1980s, and which are currently considered as the most suitable processes in this architectural practice [10]. This is so because such values are what justify the exceptional status of a heritage asset for a community [2]. Despite this, some experts confirm that on occasion, values-based approaches are not the most correct methods when intervening in heritage, because “decisions are based on incomplete understandings of heritage and its values” [5]. Hence, it becomes crucial to contrast knowledge derived from the design processes within architectural practice in interventions with the methodological procedures employed in heritage studies. In this way, we can examine how rehabilitation actions enter into dialogue with these values-based approaches, and clarify whether they take heritage assessment as a starting point in this process. If we are to understand the dynamic nature of values, it is important to go beyond their traditional consideration from the perspective of the history and materiality of places. Indeed, the field is now characterised by taking into account citizens’ perceptions. This paper focuses on the opportunity to identify the interaction between heritage studies and design practice but surrounded by participatory processes. In the same way, the proposal is understood as a tool to improve the quality of the results of a heritage intervention project by placing values at the centre of the discussion. The mechanisms envisaged for this are the Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA), which are still refining their approach to monitoring values [6]. Therefore, this research proposes an approach to heritage intervention which has as its main objective establishing a comparative dialogue between the methodologies consolidated in heritage studies and the design processes undertaken within the discipline of architecture. This is undertaken to elucidate whether this proposed dialogue is operational and whether the practice of architectural rehabilitation needs to be brought closer to heritage studies in order to better explain design strategies and decisions. In order to achieve this objective, this article is organised by first describing the working methodology, and then presenting the case study to be applied: a contemporary intervention on a cultural asset in a World Heritage area. Once the object of study has been contextualised, the identification of values is approached on the basis of a classification established according to their origin. By comparing the values recognised and reformulated in the project, the critical discussion makes it possible to prioritise the fundamental values. Mindful of the controversy generated by the categorisation or classification of values in a heritage asset for intervention [5], we take the case of Trinity College (TC) in Coimbra to put the proposed methodology into practice (Figure 1). This contemporary rehabilitation by Aires Mateus is designed as an intervention within the framework of a values-based approach. Figure 1. Exterior image, cloister and courtyard of Trinity College (2024). Architecture 2024,4991 This case study was chosen based on the contemporary nature of the architectural intervention, the simultaneity of the design process with the declaration of the University of Coimbra (UC) as a World Heritage (WH) Site, and the fact that this architectural intervention is originally based on the theory of value. The architects conducted a prior heritage assessment to support their intervention design strategy. Finally, it presents an opportunity to examine heritage intervention from the perspective of Portuguese architectural practice, and foment a cross-examination within the general guidelines and the internationally accepted heritage intervention criteria. This comparative methodological approach between heritage studies and architectural praxis is especially relevant in the field of heritage intervention, since it is an experimentation that seeks a potential transfer to other contemporary heritage interventions, also adding the critical exercise of the interpretation of values as a preliminary step before the intervention project. 2. Architectural Context This research is inserted in the Portuguese architectural context of contemporary heritage intervention, which is currently characterised by a dichotomy in terms of how this type of architectural practice is approached. To begin with, it is necessary to mention that Fernando Távora (1923–2005) was one of the most representative figures of modern Portuguese architecture and, consequently, one of the precursors of the current trends in heritage intervention in this country. In 1945, he published the manifesto O problema da casa portuguesa (republished in 1947 [ 11 ]), in which he began to speak of the ‘third way’ which he cites as ‘an evolution of modern architecture with the capacity to identify itself with tradition [12]. These lessons are those that would mark what is currently known as the Escuela do Porto, a contemporary trend in Portuguese architecture based on the models of the Modern Movement. It consisted of a number of architects trained at the Escola Superior de Belas- Artes do Porto (ESBAP), which is now divided into the Faculty of Fine Arts and the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Porto. This attitude ‘is nothing more than the radical rejection of all scenographic and anecdotal stylism proposed as a pretext or alibi for the death of totalitarian visions and the mobility and dispersion of the contemporary world’ [ 13 ]. This group of architects understands intervention in built heritage as a superimposition of languages that gives a new form to the pre-existence, using it as a material of the project. They work on these interventions by interpreting them in the flow of time, assuming the different juxtapositions that have taken place on them and understanding contemporary intervention as another layer superimposed on it [13]. On the other hand, the interventions that take place within the architectural context of the schools of Lisbon have an approach closer to the Charter of Venice (1964), which determines that any new action must be shown as such and be differentiated from the monument itself. This has generated a way of intervening in the heritage that respects the values of scale and texture of the pre-existing building, but totally differentiates itself from it, with minimal opportunities for interference or interaction between the intervention and the original building [13]. In Portugal, therefore, the debate on how to approach this type of architectural action continues to rage. On the one hand, there is the aspect of intervention on the building, as one more layer of this palimpsesto. On the other, there are those who align themselves with international recommendations and advocate non-interference in the pre-existence, so that the addition is understood as such and, consequently, differentiated from the original. Despite this, in order to avoid generalisations in this matter, the theory of intervention that advocates the singularity of each case is gaining strength. 3. Methodologies in Dialogue This study is based on the heritage project methodology developed by the Andalusian Institute of Historical Heritage (IAPH), which is based on the motto “to know in order Architecture 2024,4992 to intervene”. It is a process based on four phases: knowledge (studies), reflection (project values), intervention (execution, enhancement) and maintenance (management). The main resources used are document management and graphic representation. In a transversal way, transfer, participation and sustainability run through the whole process [ 14 – 17 ]. While this methodology, which is already consolidated, focuses on the knowledge and assessment of a heritage asset with a view to a future heritage intervention, this methodological innovation in dialogue with the project processes approaches the heritage asset after the final intervention has been carried out. Heritage assessment is understood as a dynamic and changing process, since “values are generated through continuous learning processes and their definitions change over time, giving rise to diversity. The measurement of values is most appropriately expressed in terms of monitoring their impact” [18]. Therefore, a methodology based primarily on the one applied in heritage studies is presented, and a dialogue is set up with the design processes of heritage intervention (Figure 2). This takes place when analysing the rehabilitation of a building and contrasting it with the international heritage intervention context. Throughout this process, particular attention is paid to the cultural assessment of the monument and the intervention, which must go hand in hand with the needs of the community [19]. Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 4 3. Methodologies in Dialogue This study is based on the heritage project methodology developed by the Andalusian Institute of Historical Heritage (IAPH), which is based on the motto “to know in order to intervene”. It is a process based on four phases: knowledge (studies), reflection (project values), intervention (execution, enhancement) and maintenance (management). The main resources used are document management and graphic representation. In a transversal way, transfer, participation and sustainability run through the whole process [14– 17]. While this methodology, which is already consolidated, focuses on the knowledge and assessment of a heritage asset with a view to a future heritage intervention, this methodological innovation in dialogue with the project processes approaches the heritage asset after the final intervention has been carried out. Heritage assessment is understood as a dynamic and changing process, since “values are generated through continuous learning processes and their definitions change over time, giving rise to diversity. The measurement of values is most appropriately expressed in terms of monitoring their impact” [18]. Therefore, a methodology based primarily on the one applied in heritage studies is presented, and a dialogue is set up with the design processes of heritage intervention (Figure 2). This takes place when analysing the rehabilitation of a building and contrasting it with the international heritage intervention context. Throughout this process, particular attention is paid to the cultural assessment of the monument and the intervention, which must go hand in hand with the needs of the community [19]. Figure 2. Conceptual outline of the applied methodology (2024). The first step is to search for and document all of the information relating to the heritage asset—its location, its construction and its history—from a territorial and urban perspective. This approach provides an integrated view of the property, highlighting all of the shared physical and heritage resources that link these assets to the city. Secondly, the building and its different layers are analysed and characterised in more detail, paying particular attention to its morphological evolution up to the present day. Emphasis is placed on a more individualised view of its spatial units, its materiality and its typological issues. This is followed by a more detailed technical analysis of the contemporary intervention of the case study, understood as the final stratum of the building. Project strategies are subject to close scrutiny, to determine whether the intervention is based on monument values. Finally, before showing the results, the intervention is placed in an international context, to ascertain how it responds to current trends in heritage intervention. To this end, the alignment of this project with international charters on built heritage intervention is checked. Figure 2. Conceptual outline of the applied methodology (2024). The first step is to search for and document all of the information relating to the heritage asset—its location, its construction and its history—from a territorial and urban perspective. This approach provides an integrated view of the property, highlighting all of the shared physical and heritage resources that link these assets to the city. Secondly, the building and its different layers are analysed and characterised in more detail, paying particular attention to its morphological evolution up to the present day. Emphasis is placed on a more individualised view of its spatial units, its materiality and its typological issues. This is followed by a more detailed technical analysis of the contemporary intervention of the case study, understood as the final stratum of the building. Project strategies are subject to close scrutiny, to determine whether the intervention is based on monument values. Finally, before showing the results, the intervention is placed in an international context, to ascertain how it responds to current trends in heritage intervention. To this end, the alignment of this project with international charters on built heritage intervention is checked. 4. Case Study—Colégio Da Trindade 4.1. Context—Coimbra and Its University up to Its Inclusion on the World Heritage List Coimbra is a Portuguese city located in the central part of the country, belonging to the district of Coimbra. Regarding the origins of the city, there is evidence of its existence as far back as in Roman times, when it was built on a settlement called Æminium, which stood on a hill next to the river Mondego. It was the capital of Lusitania for a lengthy period, until the 13th century. The city is considered one of Portugal’s main regional centres, outside the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Porto, and a hub for the country’s entire central region. It has a dense urban area, and is known chiefly for its university, which Architecture 2024,4993 has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2013. As such, it has a cultural life that generally revolves around the University of Coimbra, which has always attracted notable writers, artists and academics, giving it a reputation as the Lusa-Athens (or Athens of Lusitania) [20]. The university, meanwhile, was transferred between this city and Lisbon several times between the 13th and the 16th centuries. In 1537, after finding apparent stability in Lisbon, the Portuguese king at the time, Joao III, decided to re-establish the Portuguese university ex-novo and move it once again to Coimbra. The aim of this decision was to create a new university centre on a par with its European counterparts. Advantageously, Coimbra was supported by a network of colleges that Lisbon lacked [20]. As a result, two major urban planning interventions were carried out over time. These were both quite clearly defined, but simultaneously contrasting in their logic: the linear model of the Rua da Sofia, and a grid layout set out over a series of roads and streets for the construction of new schools, known as the Alta (Figure 3): Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 5 4. Case Study—Colégio da Trindade 4.1. Context—Coimbra and Its University up to Its Inclusion on the World Heritage List Coimbra is a Portuguese city located in the central part of the country, belonging to the district of Coimbra. Regarding the origins of the city, there is evidence of its existence as far back as in Roman times, when it was built on a settlement called Æminium, which stood on a hill next to the river Mondego. It was the capital of Lusitania for a lengthy period, until the 13th century. The city is considered one of Portugal’s main regional centres, outside the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Porto, and a hub for the country’s entire central region. It has a dense urban area, and is known chiefly for its university, which has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2013. As such, it has a cultural life that generally revolves around the University of Coimbra, which has always attracted notable writers, artists and academics, giving it a reputation as the Lusa-Athens (or Athens of Lusitania) [20]. The university, meanwhile, was transferred between this city and Lisbon several times between the 13th and the 16th centuries. In 1537, after finding apparent stability in Lisbon, the Portuguese king at the time, Joao III, decided to re-establish the Portuguese university ex-novo and move it once again to Coimbra. The aim of this decision was to create a new university centre on a par with its European counterparts. Advantageously, Coimbra was supported by a network of colleges that Lisbon lacked [20]. As a result, two major urban planning interventions were carried out over time. These were both quite clearly defined, but simultaneously contrasting in their logic: the linear model of the Rua da Sofia, and a grid layout set out over a series of roads and streets for the construction of new schools, known as the Alta (Figure 3): Figure 3. Map of the University of Coimbra. Heritage areas of Rua da Sofia (left) and Alta (right) (2021). In 2013, these two areas of the historic centre were added to UNESCO’s list of WH Sites (Figure 4). In addition to having been the only Portuguese-speaking university in the world until 1911, the UNESCO declaration valued its remarkable scientific and cultural relevance, as well as its vast urban and architectural heritage. To be declared a WH Site, this complex met three of the criteria imposed by UNESCO for inclusion on the list [21]. Figure 3. Map of the University of Coimbra. Heritage areas of Rua da Sofia (left) and Alta (right) (2021). In 2013, these two areas of the historic centre were added to UNESCO’s list of WH Sites (Figure 4). In addition to having been the only Portuguese-speaking university in the world until 1911, the UNESCO declaration valued its remarkable scientific and cultural relevance, as well as its vast urban and architectural heritage. To be declared a WH Site, this complex met three of the criteria imposed by UNESCO for inclusion on the list [21]. This distinction was primarily awarded based on the site’s architectural and urban quality, as it is a clear reflection of the urban evolution it has witnessed, and also for the values of authenticity—it encompasses all of the elements that demonstrate its Outstanding Universal Value as a university city, and its architectural ensemble illustrates the various periods of university development related to the ideological, pedagogical and cultural reforms—and integrity: each of the university’s buildings is representative of the historical, artistic and ideological periods in which it was built [21]. Architecture 2024,4994 Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 This distinction was primarily awarded based on the site’s architectural and urban quality, as it is a clear reflection of the urban evolution it has witnessed, and also for the values of authenticity—it encompasses all of the elements that demonstrate its Outstanding Universal Value as a university city, and its architectural ensemble illustrates the various periods of university development related to the ideological, pedagogical and cultural reforms—and integrity: each of the university’s buildings is representative of the historical, artistic and ideological periods in which it was built [21]. Figure 4. Map of the UNESCO World Heritage Site University of Coimbra and protection area. (2023, Source: drawn up by the authors, based on the delimitation plan of the property in the declaration of the University of Coimbra as a WH Site). 4.2. The College, from Its Beginnings to Its Intervention in the 21st Century TC was established in 1552, in some pre-existing houses next to the Old Cathedral of Coimbra. The collegiate priests settled here leading a cloistered, regular life, under conditions of silence and meditation. However, it was not until 1562 that the construction of this building commenced on an empty plot in the Upper Intramural Area [22]. The building was one of the first programmatic designs, later used in other university colleges in Coimbra. It is a church with an adjacent cloister, to which a U-shaped volume is attached to house workshops on the ground floor and the cells on the first floor around a courtyard. These spaces were adapted to the new urban layout in this part of the city. Figure 4. Map of the UNESCO World Heritage Site University of Coimbra and protection area. (2023, Source: drawn up by the authors, based on the delimitation plan of the property in the declaration of the University of Coimbra as a WH Site). 4.2. The College, from Its Beginnings to Its Intervention in the 21st Century TC was established in 1552, in some pre-existing houses next to the Old Cathedral of Coimbra. The collegiate priests settled here leading a cloistered, regular life, under conditions of silence and meditation. However, it was not until 1562 that the construction of this building commenced on an empty plot in the Upper Intramural Area [22]. The building was one of the first programmatic designs, later used in other university colleges in Coimbra. It is a church with an adjacent cloister, to which a U-shaped volume is attached to house workshops on the ground floor and the cells on the first floor around a courtyard. These spaces were adapted to the new urban layout in this part of the city. Constructively and aesthetically, this building was composed of a U-shaped volume with two corridors around a courtyard, which hosted the dormitory area, divided into cells on the different floors, in the eastern part. The western part accommodated the main uses of a conventual building: a classical church and a square-shaped cloister, which had four galleries comprised of four-arched vaults supported by brick edges. The northern and eastern façades were very simple, with a series of openings to serve programmatic functional needs. The western façade, meanwhile, was characterised by the church, the gabled roof of which was flanked by two towers, one of them being a balcony onto the southern façade, reminiscent of an Italian loggia which afforded views of the Mondego River [23]. Architecture 2024,4995 As the building emerged as a university college, its spaces were necessarily transformed with the passage of time and the evolution of society, according to its activities (see Figure 5and Table 1). In the 21st century, it was again transformed, on this occasion by Aires Mateus, in order to continue its life and service to the UC. Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 7 Constructively and aesthetically, this building was composed of a U-shaped volume with two corridors around a courtyard, which hosted the dormitory area, divided into cells on the different floors, in the eastern part. The western part accommodated the main uses of a conventual building: a classical church and a square-shaped cloister, which had four galleries comprised of four-arched vaults supported by brick edges. The northern and eastern façades were very simple, with a series of openings to serve programmatic functional needs. The western façade, meanwhile, was characterised by the church, the gabled roof of which was flanked by two towers, one of them being a balcony onto the southern façade, reminiscent of an Italian loggia which afforded views of the Mondego River [23]. As the building emerged as a university college, its spaces were necessarily transformed with the passage of time and the evolution of society, according to its activities (see Figure 5 and Table 1). In the 21st century, it was again transformed, on this occasion by Aires Mateus, in order to continue its life and service to the UC. Figure 5. History of interventions on Trinity College in the context of International charters and declarations (2024). Finally, this building, coupled with the university colleges of Coimbra, is a rather peculiar architectural case, since at the time of the re-foundation of the UC, there were no references in Portugal for this type of construction. Its design ended up being subordinated to its programme of usage and the new teaching methods of the time. It is a typology composed of a church and an adjacent cloister, a repeated structure that coexisted with residential and teaching uses. Table 1. Trinity College background (based on [22]). GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION Tv. da Trindade, 15.1 CITY Coimbra, Portugal COORDINATES 40.20682, −8.42562 USE University College BUILT AREA 4093 m2 PLOT AREA 2300 m2 CATEGOR Y Monumen t TYPOLOGY Conventual PROTECTION UNESCO WH TRANSFORMATIONS PERIOD PROPERTY USE TRANSFORMATION 1527–1809 University of Coimbra University College Building constructed in several phases: a U-shaped residential building and a church with an adjacent cloister. 1809–1814 British Army Headquarters - Figure 5. History of interventions on Trinity College in the context of International charters and declarations (2024). Table 1. Trinity College background (based on [22]). GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION Tv. da Trindade, 15.1 CITY Coimbra, Portugal COORDINATES 40.20682, −8.42562 USE University College BUILT AREA 4093 m2PLOT AREA 2300 m2 CATEGORY Monument TYPOLOGY Conventual PROTECTION UNESCO WH TRANSFORMATIONS PERIOD PROPERTY USE TRANSFORMATION 1527–1809 University of Coimbra University College Building constructed in several phases: a U-shaped residential building and a church with an adjacent cloister. 1809–1814 British Army Headquarters - 1814–1834 University of Coimbra University College Modifications for teaching use: incorporation of a library and a classroom in P1, which modifies its volume in height. 1834–1849 Out of use. In 1849, a public auction is held. 1849–1899 National Treasury Private Court of Justice Residential Division of the western part into private housing units, and modification of the elevations. Alterations to the west side: church and its surroundings, to house the Court of Justice. 1899–1988 St. Elizabeth Congregation Private Religious Carpentry workshop New spatial adaptation of the central body in 1928 to adapt it to Queen Saint Elizabeth’s College. 1988–2014 Disused. In February 1988, collapse of a large section of the southern façade of the Trinity Church, bringing down the loggia and most of the temple’s vault (Murtinho and Capela, 2018). Simoes Días’ project for the construction of the European School is adopted, but only the stabilisation of the school is ultimately executed). 2014–2023 University of Coimbra Administrative UC After several collapses, the stone envelope of the building is maintained. Introduction of new, light volumes and roofs inside the building to accommodate the new use. Architecture 2024,4996 Finally, this building, coupled with the university colleges of Coimbra, is a rather peculiar architectural case, since at the time of the re-foundation of the UC, there were no references in Portugal for this type of construction. Its design ended up being subordinated to its programme of usage and the new teaching methods of the time. It is a typology composed of a church and an adjacent cloister, a repeated structure that coexisted with residential and teaching uses. 4.3. Interventions Prior to the Contemporary Project—A Reading Based on the Strata of the College The morphological development of the building was primarily influenced by changes in ownership and alterations in its usage over time. In the 18th century, the canons of the Holy Trinity made modifications to the body of the building which, on the level of the programme of functions, reflected the educational concerns of that period. The most significant changes were the addition of a library and some classrooms on the +92.95 m floor, above the cloister and left-hand chapels of the church (Figure 6). Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 1814–1834 University of Coimbra University College Modifications for teaching use: incorporation of a library and a classroom in P1, which modifies its volume in height. 1834–1849 Out of use. In 1849, a public auction is held. 1849–1899 National Treasury Private Court of Justice Residential Division of the western part into private housing units, and modification of the elevations. Alterations to the west side: church and its surroundings, to house the Court of Justice. 1899–1988 St. Elizabeth Congregation Private Religious Carpentry workshop New spatial adaptation of the central body in 1928 to adapt it to Queen Saint Elizabeth’s College. 1988–2014 Disused. In February 1988, collapse of a large section of the southern façade of the Trinity Church, bringing down the loggia and most of the temple’s vault (Murtinho and Capela, 2018). Simoes Días’ project for the construction of the European School is adopted, but only the stabilisation of the school is ultimately executed). 2014–2023 University of Coimbra Administrative UC After several collapses, the stone envelope of the building is maintained. Introduction of new, light volumes and roofs inside the building to accommodate the new use. 4.3. Interventions Prior to the Contemporary Project—A Reading Based on the Strata of the College The morphological development of the building was primarily influenced by changes in ownership and alterations in its usage over time. In the 18th century, the canons of the Holy Trinity made modifications to the body of the building which, on the level of the programme of functions, reflected the educational concerns of that period. The most significant changes were the addition of a library and some classrooms on the +92.95 m floor, above the cloister and left-hand chapels of the church (Figure 6). Following the dissolution of the religious orders in 1834 and the subsequent public auction in 1849, the division into two halves was accentuated when the eastern part became private property. The building was divided into residential units on this side, while the western part became the property of the National Treasury [23], which transformed the church and its surrounding buildings into the District Court of Justice. Figure 6. Plans with schematic diagrams of uses; 17th and 18th century building layout. (Source: the author, based on Lobo, 1999 (2023)). Following the dissolution of the religious orders in 1834 and the subsequent public auction in 1849, the division into two halves was accentuated when the eastern part became private property. The building was divided into residential units on this side, while the western part became the property of the National Treasury [ 23 ], which transformed the church and its surrounding buildings into the District Court of Justice. The building was maintained as such until 1988, when the south façade on the Couraça de Lisboa, next to the church, and the top two floors of the central part collapsed, including the south loggia. Immediately afterwards, stabilisation work was carried out on the College and a project was drawn up by the architect Simoes Dias for the construction of the European College and University Support Facilities in this building. Perhaps due to a lack of funds, the work was interrupted and the focus shifted to stabilising the building [23]. Like the cloister, the Church of the Holy Trinity was one of the spaces least affected by the transformations and the passage of time, despite having undergone some minor interventions. In terms of volume, it lacks the loggia on the south elevation, as it was never Architecture 2024,4997 rebuilt after the collapse in 1988 and, in addition to being used as one of the recreational spaces of the school, it was symmetrical with the bell tower. The last remains of the Alta of Coimbra At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, the building remained largely intact, and the body of the church and the cloister on the ground floor, as well as the load-bearing walls delimiting the outer perimeter of the school, were still recognisable (Figure 7). “Throughout the project process, the architects had two significant interlocutors for both the proposal and its problems: the UC, as the client, and time itself, which played an important role in determining which elements would be maintained in the intervention” [24]. Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 9 Figure 6. Plans with schematic diagrams of uses; 17th and 18th century building layout. (Source: the author, based on Lobo, 1999 (2023)). The building was maintained as such until 1988, when the south façade on the Couraça de Lisboa, next to the church, and the top two floors of the central part collapsed, including the south loggia. Immediately afterwards, stabilisation work was carried out on the College and a project was drawn up by the architect Simoes Dias for the construction of the European College and University Support Facilities in this building. Perhaps due to a lack of funds, the work was interrupted and the focus shifted to stabilising the building [23]. Like the cloister, the Church of the Holy Trinity was one of the spaces least affected by the transformations and the passage of time, despite having undergone some minor interventions. In terms of volume, it lacks the loggia on the south elevation, as it was never rebuilt after the collapse in 1988 and, in addition to being used as one of the recreational spaces of the school, it was symmetrical with the bell tower. The last remains of the Alta of Coimbra At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, the building remained largely intact, and the body of the church and the cloister on the ground floor, as well as the load-bearing walls delimiting the outer perimeter of the school, were still recognisable (Figure 7). “Throughout the project process, the architects had two significant interlocutors for both the proposal and its problems: the UC, as the client, and time itself, which played an important role in determining which elements would be maintained in the intervention” [24]. Figure 7. Holy Trinity Church (Source: SIPA), cloister and load-bearing walls of the dormitory area prior to the intervention (Source: Aires Mateus). 5. The Inhabited Ruin—The Aires Mateus Intervention Project “This project took a long time to be approved because our proposal, contrary to what was asked for in the competition, was not about stopping time. Instead, we were interested in everything that, even when working at compression, was timeless and as a result, had been preserved. We kept elements that belonged to different periods, but which had the strength to remain” [25]. The issue of time becomes even more evident during the years that passed between the presentation of the proposal by Aires Mateus (2001) and the start of the work (2013), which were key to the gestation of the project. This time exerted a progressive decanting effect on the ensemble, and it was the building itself which signalled what was to be maintained and what was not [26]. So much so that during this period, another defining event took place for the UC and, in this case, for TC: the inclusion of the UC in the UNESCO WH list, a key event in the process of the project “because it entailed a much greater scrutiny of the development of the work itself” [25]. Figure 7. Holy Trinity Church (Source: SIPA), cloister and load-bearing walls of the dormitory area prior to the intervention (Source: Aires Mateus). 5. The Inhabited Ruin—The Aires Mateus Intervention Project “This project took a long time to be approved because our proposal, contrary to what was asked for in the competition, was not about stopping time. Instead, we were interested in everything that, even when working at compression, was timeless and as a result, had been preserved. We kept elements that belonged to different periods, but which had the strength to remain” [25]. The issue of time becomes even more evident during the years that passed between the presentation of the proposal by Aires Mateus (2001) and the start of the work (2013), which were key to the gestation of the project. This time exerted a progressive decanting effect on the ensemble, and it was the building itself which signalled what was to be maintained and what was not [ 26 ]. So much so that during this period, another defining event took place for the UC and, in this case, for TC: the inclusion of the UC in the UNESCO WH list, a key event in the process of the project “because it entailed a much greater scrutiny of the development of the work itself” [25]. The loss of certain elements over the course of the project influenced the subsequent reflection of the intervention. The proposed inclusion of newly built volumes inside TC, conceived with their temporary purpose and which could eventually disappear over time, in the same way as the old roofs and slabs did, make the intervention “reversible in nature” [ 27 ], highlighting Aires Mateus’ understanding of the passage of time in architecture (Figure 8). The authors’ use of the concepts of eternal and ephemeral was brought into dialogue with the values previously expressed by A. Riegl (1982), and this could constitute the initial hypothesis of the project, starting from a conceptual strategy of cleaning up the ephemeral, a task ultimately realised through the passage of time. For that reason, in the intervention “it became mandatory to assume contemporaneity, proceeding with the creative valorisation with the artefacts of this age, and bear witness to a vision for the future” [23]. Architecture 2024,41004 cated but essential process. Notwithstanding the existence of theories that see the approach to interventions through values as a dissatisfaction with the present, in search of a past identity [ 10 ], the definition of values is inherent in the project process. Despite the changing condition of the values of a monument, and the supposed subjectivity under which the process of cultural assessment of a heritage asset may be conducted, the values-based approach is a rigorous procedure for acting on an asset in order to maintain its identity and authenticity. For all the difficulties in categorising or grouping these values, it is an effort that must be made throughout the whole process of intervention on a heritage asset. Therefore, the dialogue of heritage methodology with this type of architectural practice is an example that can be extrapolated to other instances of heritage rehabilitation. Insertion in the theory of value and an international context of heritage intervention enriches this process. This is why, from the research carried out in this article, the materialization of this dialogue process is taking shape through a new methodology for heritage intervention, which ensures a rigorous action that respects the identity and authenticity of the heritage asset via the identification and preservation of values throughout the process (Figure 12). Architecture 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 16 nificance. Furthermore, it is aligned with this task, in that it seeks the preservation of cultural values as opposed to economic benefits. Despite this, the cultural assessment conducted in the intervention focuses solely on tangible aspects for maintenance of the monument’s identity, by opting for a reversible intervention. Yet this assessment process overlooks aspects intrinsic to the intangible heritage asset, such as its social or cultural significance, which transcend the reversible nature of the intervention. 7. Discussion and Conclusions Throughout this article, we have expounded on the question of value in the project process of a contemporary heritage intervention, especially in a listed building, and therefore restrictive heritage requirements had to be met. This is an arduous task in the process of critical analysis of this type of action, as well as a necessary one. Evidently, this is a complicated but essential process. Notwithstanding the existence of theories that see the approach to interventions through values as a dissatisfaction with the present, in search of a past identity [10], the definition of values is inherent in the project process. Despite the changing condition of the values of a monument, and the supposed subjectivity under which the process of cultural assessment of a heritage asset may be conducted, the valuesbased approach is a rigorous procedure for acting on an asset in order to maintain its identity and authenticity. For all the difficulties in categorising or grouping these values, it is an effort that must be made throughout the whole process of intervention on a heritage asset. Therefore, the dialogue of heritage methodology with this type of architectural practice is an example that can be extrapolated to other instances of heritage rehabilitation. Insertion in the theory of value and an international context of heritage intervention enriches this process. This is why, from the research carried out in this article, the materialization of this dialogue process is taking shape through a new methodology for heritage intervention, which ensures a rigorous action that respects the identity and authenticity of the heritage asset via the identification and preservation of values throughout the process (Figure 12). Figure 12. Diagram of the process of bringing heritage studies into dialogue with architectural practice, with heritage assessment as a central point. Therefore, this study proposes a sequence of actions to be carried out on the analysis of heritage intervention: framing,documenting,acting and contrasting are part of a cyclical process which contextualises, characterises and documents the layers of the heritage asset, including its contemporary intervention. Transversal to the application of these actions is that of assessing, which runs through the whole process, within the framework of the theory of value. This procedure tries to bridge the gap between heritage studies and architectural practices by monitoring cultural values, which evolve constantly. This research opens up a path for the discipline of architecture when dealing with contexts of a special heritage nature, which are subject to restrictive intervention requirements. Conservation as an attitude towards heritage is presented as an alternative, favouring a better and greater consideration of the context, transcending the physical in order to cater for the cultural. Decisions based on values permeate typical conservation processes [ 3 ]. In this way, the creative role and architectural responses are reformulated, and the generation Architecture 2024,41005 of form goes further, seeking to promote new spatial relationships in which the perception of the spectator-actor is especially relevant. An example of this is the dialogue between the techniques of heritage studies and the Colégio da Trindade rehabilitation. It is possible to see how the presence of heritage assessment throughout the project process has made possible a quality architecture, capable of responding to heritage regulations while achieving an action that is inserted in an urban logic and that respects and enhances its heritage values. Finally, and as has already been pointed out, this research paper is part of a broader scope, and therefore some aspects of the intervention in question have not been referred to in this article, but should be considered in the development of the research as a whole, such as the social and participatory component, which are inherent aspects of this kind of heritage. Here, Latour’s proposal to define objects in their hybrid condition within a scenographic context—quasi-objects/quasi-subjects—is transferred so as to reinforce the definition of heritage based on things material and immaterial, where what matters more than their own significance are the relations generated. Such a context is defined through the network of actors who are no longer observers, considering the role of objects as inserted in a kind of “parliament of things”. A democratic situation of possible relations between objects in which relations/actions can take place in a field of balances [58]. Moreover, there is an open avenue for research on this topic, with the need to further align heritage studies and architectural intervention practices in order to ensure the quality of the results of interventions on heritage environments by identifying values. This offers an alternative for architecture when intervening in heritage contexts, based on conservation as a project tool that works by placing values at the centre of the debate. The identification of values must go beyond classification working the argumentative style, improving the description of the characteristics and the main aspects to be preserved in each project and process of managing values. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.L.-M., M.G.-C. and D.G.-C.; methodology, M.L.-M., M.G.-C. and D.G.-C.; software, D.G.-C.; validation, M.L.-M. and M.G.-C.; formal analysis, M.L.-M., M.G.-C. and D.G.-C.; investigation, D.G.-C.; resources, D.G.-C.; data curation, D.G.-C.; writing—or iginal draft preparation, D.G.-C.; writing—review and editing, D.G.-C.; visualization, D.G.-C.; supervision, M.L.-M. and M.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: All data used during the study are included in the paper. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References 1. Choay, F. The Invention of the Historic Monument, 1st ed., 1999; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; p. 6. 2. Tarrafa, A.; Pereira, A. Taxonomias do significado cultural do património: Valores e atributos. In Gestão do Património Cultural. Experiências e Desafios; Marado, C., Valente, T., Bernardes, J.P., Eds.; Universidade do Algarve—Centro de Estudos em Arqueologia, Artes e Ciências do Património: Faro, Portugal, 2021; pp. 10–31. Available online: https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/ portalfiles/portal/119510619/Pages_from_LIVRO_Gesta_o_do_Patrimo_nio_Cultural._Experie_ncias_e_desafios.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2024). 3. Avrami, E.; Mason, R. Mapping the Issues of Values. In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions; Avrami, E., MacDonald, S., Mason, R., Myers, D., Eds.; Getty Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019; pp. 9–34. Available online: https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part-one/2/ (accessed on 16 September 2024). 4. ICOMOS. The Burra Charter; ICOMOS: Burra, Australia, 1999; Available online: https://icomos.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/0 1/burra1999_spa.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2024). 5. Fredheim, L.H.; Khalaf, M. The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2016,22, 466–481. [CrossRef] Architecture 2024,41006 6. ICOMOS. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Assets. 2011. Available online: https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/icomos_guidance_on_heritage_impact_assessments_for_cultural_ world_heritage_properties.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2024). 7. UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS/IUC. Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context. Paris. 2022. Available online: https://bit.ly/3HgHxLm (accessed on 16 September 2024). 8. Rudolff, B. ‘Intangible’ and ‘Tangible’ Heritage: A Topology of Culture in Contexts of Faith. Ph.D. Thesis, Johannes Gutenberg- University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany, 2006; p. 60. 9. Fouseki, K. Heritage Dynamics. Understanding and Adopting to Change in Diverse Heritage Contexts; UCL Press: London, UK, 2022. 10. Poulios, I. Moving Beyond a Values-Based Approach to Heritage Conservation. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2010,12, 170–185. [CrossRef] 11. Távora, F. O problema da casa portuguesa. Cad. Arquit. 1947,1. Available online: https://revisitavora.wordpress.com/2018/06/ 27/o-problema-da-casa-portuguesa-fernando-tavora-2/ (accessed on 16 September 2024). 12. Ordóñez-Castañón, D.; Cunha Ferreira, T. Toward the adaptive reuse of vernacular architecture: Practices from the School of Porto. Heritage 2024,7, 1826–1849. [CrossRef] 13. Costa, A.A. La Pousada de Sta. Marinha o el fluir de la historia. DPA Doc. Proy. Arquit. 1998,14, 46–53. Available online: https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2099/12178/DPA%2014_46%20COSTA.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 16 September 2024). 14. Loren-Méndez, M. Metodologías de caracterización patrimonial. Nuevos procesos para nuevos patrimonios. In Arquitectura, Ciudad y Patrimonio. Historia, Teorías e Intervención Contemporáneas; Loren-Méndez, M., Ed.; Abada Editores S.L. Lecturas de Arquitectura: Madrid, Spain, 2022; pp. 374–413. 15. Castellano-Bravo, B.; García-Casasola, M. La conservación de la arquitectura del Movimiento moderno. Metodologías para conocer, metodologías para actuar. In re-HABITAR EL CARMEN. Un Proyecto Sobre Patrimonio Contemporáneo; IAPH. Consejería de Cultura y Patrimonio Histórico. Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2020; pp. 76–98. 16. Acosta, P.; Del Espino-Hidalgo, B.; García-Casasola, M.; Gómez-Villa, J.L.; Pérez-Cano, M.T. Guía Básica Para el Uso, la Gestión y la Intervención del Patrimonio Cultural de Andalucía; Consejería de Cultura, Turismo y Deporte, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2022. 17. Law 14/2007, of November 26, 2007, on the Historical Heritage of Andalusia. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act. php?id=BOE-A-2008-2494 (accessed on 9 November 2023). 18. Jokilehto, J. Heritage values and valuation. Conversaciones Con. 2017,2, 7–18. 19. Council of Europe. Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention). Faro, Portugal. 2005. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=199 (accessed on 19 September 2023). 20. Lobo, R. Coimbra: Evolução do espaço urbano. ECDJ Novos Mapas Para Velhas Cid. 2000,3, 27–34. 21. UNESCO. University of Coimbra—Alta and Sofia-World Heritage Declaration. 2013. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/ en/list/1387/ (accessed on 16 September 2024). 22. Figueiredo, J.M. A in-Temporalidade da Arquitectura. O Colégio da SS. Trindade. Master’s Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2013. 23. Murtinho, V.; Capela, J. From Colégio da Trindade to the House of Jurisprudence: The recovery of value. Metálica Int. 2018,7, 18–23. [CrossRef] 24. Capela, J.; Murtinho, V. O património como projeto de intervenção urbana: O caso do Colégio da Trindade da Universidade de Coimbra. Iberografias 2019,36, 207–221. 25. Aires Mateus, M. Email interview with Domingo Galán-Caro (Personal communication), 15 March 2023. 26. Tuñón, E. Una conversación con Manuel y Francisco Aires Mateus. El Croquis 2016,186, 10–33. 27. ICOMOS. The Nara Document on Authenticity; ICOMOS: Nara, Japan, 1994; Available online: https://www.icomos.org/en/ charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/386-the-nara-document-on-authenticity-1994 (accessed on 16 September 2024). 28. Murtinho, V. De quétempo éeste lugar. Rua Larga 2016,46, 6–13. 29. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. 30. Loren-Méndez, M.; Rodríguez-Segura, A.; Galán-Conde, J.M. The experiential and emotional dimension in the updated heritage knowledge after the Cultural and Affective Turns. Its transfer to the tangible characterization of architecture. Arte Individuo Y Soc. 2023,35, 77–102. [CrossRef] 31. García-Casasola, M. Memoria, Tiempo y Autenticidad: Tres Ficciones Para Interpretar e Intervenir el Patrimonio. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain, 2012. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11441/24261 (accessed on 10 October 2023). 32. Buckley, K. Heritage Work: Understanding the Values, Applying the Values. In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions; Avrami, E., MacDonald, S., Mason, R., Myers, D., Eds.; Getty Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019; pp. 50–65. Available online: https://www.getty.edu/publications/heritagemanagement/part-two/4/ (accessed on 16 September 2024). Architecture 2024,41007 33. Sánchez-Montañés, B.; Castilla, M.V. Fábricas de resiliencia. Una oportunidad para el patrimonio industrial: El caso de La Trinidad. ACE Archit. City Environ. 2020,15, 9192. [CrossRef] 34. Riegl, A. The Modern Cult of Monuments, 1st ed.; Visor: Madrid, Spain, 1987. 35. Darvill, T. Value Systems in Archeaology. In Managing Archaeology; Cooper, M.A., Firth, A., Carman, J., Wheatley, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1995; pp. 40–50. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203975 152-14/value-systems-archaeology-timothy-darvill (accessed on 16 September 2024). 36. Pye, E. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums; James & James: London, UK, 2001. 37. Throsby, D. Economics and Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. 38. Mason, R. Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage; de la Torre, M., Ed.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, GA, USA, 2002; pp. 5–30. 39. Feilden, B. Conservation of Historic Buildings; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2003. 40. Keene, S. Fragments of the World: Uses of Museums Collections; Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2005. 41. Appelbaum, B. Conservation Treatment Methodology; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2007. 42. Pereira, A. Re-Architecture: Lifespan Rehabilitation of Built Heritage; Eindhoven University of Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2007. 43. English Heritage. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment; English Heritage: London, UK, 2008. 44. Orba¸slı, A. Architectural Conservation: Principles and Practice; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2008. 45. Gómez-Robles, L. A Methodological Approach towards Conservation. Conserv. Manag. Archeaolog. Sites 2010,12, 146–169. [CrossRef] 46. ICOMOS New Zealand. ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value; ICOMOS: Auckland, New Zealand, 2010; Available online: https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/ICOMOS_NZ_Charter_2010 _FINAL_11_Oct_2010.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2024). 47. ICOMOS. The Venice Charter; ICOMOS: Venice, Italy, 1964; Available online: https://www.icomos.org/en/participer/179-articles- en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/157-thevenice-charter (accessed on 16 September 2024). 48. Ashley-Smith, J. Risk Assessment for Object Conservation; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1999. 49. Szmelter, I. A New Conceptual Framework for the Preservation of the Heritage Modern Art. In Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: Reflections on the Roots and the Perspectives; Schädler-Saub, U., Weyer, A., Eds.; Archetype: London, UK, 2010; pp. 33–49. 50. Lipe, W. Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In Approaches to the Archeaological Heritage: A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Magament Systems; Cleere, H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984; pp. 1–11. 51. ICOMOS. The Declaration of Amsterdam; ICOMOS: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1975; Available online: https://www.icomos. org/en/and/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam (accessed on 16 September 2024). 52. UNESCO. Recommendation of the Historic Urban Landscape; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2011; Available online: https://whc.unesco. org/en/hul/ (accessed on 16 September 2024). 53. Lertcharnrit, T. Heritage Values and Meanings in Contemporary Thailand. In Heritage Values in Contemporary Society; Smith, G.S., Messenger, P.M., Soderland, H.A., Eds.; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 279–285. 54. Aires Mateus, M.; Aires Mateus, F.X. Renovation of Colégio da Trindade—European College. El Croquis 2016,186, 136–143. 55. ICOMOS. The Cracow Charter; ICOMOS: Cracow, Poland, 2000. 56. Sierra, J.R. Arquitectura, programa y plusvalía: El proyecto patrimonial. Neutra 2004,11, 14–21. 57. Council of Europe. Towards a High-Quality Baukultur for Europe (Davos Declaration); Council of Europe: Davos, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: https://davosdeclaration2018.ch/en/ (accessed on 12 June 2024). 58. Latour, B.; Woolgar, S. La Vida en el Laboratorio. La Construcción de los Hechos Científicos, 1st ed.; Alianza Editorial S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 1995. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.