Heuristic Framework for Heritage and Reuse Education: Evaluating Erasmus+ BIP Studios in Valencia and Istanbul

Abstract

Architectural education today faces a critical imperative: to transform its traditional product-centric paradigm into a model that cultivates systems-thinkers capable of addressing the climate crisis and socio-cultural fragmentation. This paper proposes heuristic pedagogy as a transformative framework for architectural education, emphasising its capacity to promote collective responsibility, adaptive learning, and context-sensitive design.

The argument is grounded in the experiential learning outcomes of two Blended Intensive Programmes (BIP) conducted in 2023: “Interventions on Contemporary Architectural Heritage” in Valencia and “Sustainable Cities and Communities” in Istanbul. The study analyses how discovery-driven heuristic methods (DDHM) – grounded in problem-based learning and iterative design cycles – can empower participants to navigate the complexities of heritage and reuse.

In Valencia, participants re-envisioned a modernist complex as a porous civic hub, integrating infrastructure, community, and environmental responsiveness. In Istanbul, heritage sites were re-imagined through multi-stakeholder perspectives, balancing tourism dynamics with local identity at an urban infrastructural scale. Through a structured methodological approach, encompassing virtual sessions, site visits, and participatory observation, both programs demonstrate the efficacy of DDHM practices, such as rapid prototyping, collaborative stakeholder workshops, and immersive observation, enabling context-sensitive, solution-based architectural proposals aimed at socio-ecological literacy.

Analysis of the case studies reveals a duality in scale and approach, with Valencia focusing on localised heritage intervention and Istanbul on systemic urban reintegration. The findings highlight the significant value of heuristic methods, demonstrating their transferability and scalability in mediating complex urban challenges.

The article concludes by calling for schools of architecture to evolve into laboratories of co-creation, embedding heuristic pedagogy as a core competence for the future of the discipline, and repositioning heritage as a living narrative one that represents the catalyst for resilient practitioners.

Keywords

heuristic, framework, transformation, pedagogy, education

1. Introduction

1.1 Repositioning heuristic pedagogy in architecture

Architecture as a discipline finds itself at a critical juncture, confronted with imperatives such as climate urgency and socio-cultural fragmentation. Traditional pedagogical models, often anchored in product-centric paradigms, increasingly fail to address the complexities of contemporary built environments. These models risk cultivating conformity and aesthetic formalism rather than enabling adaptive, critical and socially responsive practice.

The research stems from two simple questions: how did the heuristic pedagogy applied in the BIPs promote interdisciplinary collaboration skills among students of architecture and related fields; and what decision-making and design criteria emerged in the heritage reuse workshops, and to what extent were they influenced by local conditions (Valencia and Istanbul)?

There is an imperative to reimagine architectural education as a practice of collective responsibility. Heuristic pedagogy, based on discovery-driven, iterative learning, enables both disciplinary and non-disciplinary participants to engage actively in knowledge creation and civic agency. This approach contrasts sharply with conventional product-based models, which risk reinforcing conformity rather than promoting innovation.

1.2 Heuristic Theory

Heuristic pedagogy draws from interdisciplinary insights, mostly from the work of Daniel Kahneman in behavioural economics and Donald Schön’s theories on reflective practitioner [1]. Kahneman’s exploration of heuristics as cognitive shortcuts for decision-making under intense scenarios made from uncertainty, and Schön’s emphasis on a provocative and almost empirical “learning by doing”, situates architectural education in iterative cycles of reflection and action [2].

Invoked as a divergent set of arguments for theoretical disciplinary convergence, these principles can resonate with architectural practices in both conservation and reuse, where context-sensitive iterative approaches are essential to navigate layered “histories” and conflicting stakeholder priorities from clear decision-making relations.

1.3 Heritage Discourse

This argument acquires further depth when positioned within the evolution of critical heritage discourse. The classical polarity between Viollet-le-Duc’s rational restoration and John Ruskin’s ethical refusal of intervention, followed by William Morris’s material integrity ethos, continues to frame architectural debates. Françoise Choay’s critical interventions expanded this debate into a socio-ecological domain, emphasising the responsibility of heritage not as static artefact but as a living, dynamic narrative.

Reinterpreted through heuristic pedagogy, these legacies can be synthesised into what we term a binding resourceful synthesis: a methodological approach that assembles diverse resources and perspectives into adaptive frameworks, capable of reconciling past values with present urgencies. By juxtaposing le-Duc’s technical rigour with Ruskin’s ethical imperatives and Choay’s socio-ecological critique, architectural-heritage education can move towards capacitation of architects to balance material authenticity with efficient strategies on renovation and urban sustainable growth [3].

1.4 Global Imperatives and Blended Intensive Programmes

This transition is not optional. The built environment accounts for nearly 40% of global carbon emissions, rendering the reuse of existing structures a strategic necessity [4]. Yet sustainability cannot be reduced to environmental metrics alone; it must equally encompass the safeguarding of cultural identities and the equitable inclusion of community voices. Current curricula often fall short in these respects. Studio-based models tend to privilege formal aesthetics over systemic challenges such as climate adaptation or participatory design, a gap made particularly visible in heritage contexts where historical significance and contemporary functionality must be reconciled.

The Blended Intensive Programmes (BIPs) developed in Valencia’s Escuelas Profesionales San José [5,6] and in Istanbul’s Sustainable Cities and Communities provide concrete illustrations of how heuristic methods can transform architectural pedagogy. In these programmes, the conventional studio framework was reframed into porous, field-based exchanges that embedded students, communities, and policymakers in shared workshops. In Istanbul, participants were challenged to reinterpret heritage sites at the scale of urban infrastructure, navigating tourism dynamics alongside local identity. In Valencia, the focus fell on a modernist school complex whose programmatic decline mirrored wider community-city tensions, with heuristic tools such as risk assessment and value-based design exercises enabling students to identify vulnerabilities, including climate risk and social segregation, while proposing interventions respectful of both tangible and intangible heritage.

1.5 Persistent Challenges

In view of the opportunities brought by these events, we can also observe how some challenges persist. Despite discernible progress, significant gaps persist between theoretical aspirations and practical execution, stemming from a “strategy-tactic dichotomy”.

While heuristic approaches underscore stakeholder collaboration, their execution remains fragmented and difficult from both decision-makers to decision-takers. Valencia highlighted the challenge of balancing academic programmes with community engagement and client-based briefs, often marginalising more divergent approaches as a result. A shift from studio-based to field-oriented learning (as a possible collaborative politic of production as seen in both case studies), can only mitigate this by considering a horizontal and real-time negotiation of emerging and unforeseen conflicting priorities.

For instance, the Escuelas complex’s segregation from its surroundings was not only attributed to physical walls but also to institutional inertia, a challenge that is rarely addressed in academic settings. To overcome such factors, reuse practices must evolve into an open set of tools to collective design approaches and only then, advance to the intended solutions.

The case of Istanbul highlights the challenges associated with inclusivity, particularly in contexts involving diverse stakeholders, including academia, public institutions, and private actors. Despite the widely advocated value of inclusive participation, power asymmetries frequently impede meaningful engagement as this case demonstrates how the necessity for more structured frameworks can engage all relevant agents, such as co-creative design groups or policy-simulation exercises, in the development of mobility infrastructure in a mega city.

Therefore, this paper proposes to move beyond descriptive accounts of these case studies and towards a systematic analysis of their pedagogical and scientific reliability. By examining how heuristic pedagogy enables adaptive, collaborative and community-centred approaches to heritage and reuse, the paper aims to articulate the conditions under which architectural education can meaningfully contribute efficiently to rethink our current notion on equitable built environments.

2. Methods

Qualitative and Quantitative features used in this study are a structured methodological approach that included virtual sessions, site visits, and participatory observation. This approach allowed for a direct analysis of the programs’ effectiveness from the insight of two specific participants (the authors of this article).

The research used several qualitative methods to assess the heuristic pedagogy. Participatory observation was used to document how students engaged with the sites and with each other. Also, students conducted informal research by wandering the neighbourhoods and interacting with locals to gather perspectives that countered official narratives. The study also analysed the content and nature of group discussions, final presentations, and reflective journals to understand the decision-making and design criteria that emerged.

The study also analysed various quantitative aspects to compare the two BIPs such as participant numbers, logistics; ork session hours; group formation and composition; et cet. – Table 01 – Comparative analysis – study cases: UPV and ITÜ.

The methodology for both programs was based on Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle matrix, which includes four stages: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation and Active Experimentation:

Stage of cycle	Description	ActivitiesValencia	ActivitiesIstanbul	EvidenceDocumentation
1.Concrete Experience	Direct immersion in real situations, engaging with the object of study.	Guided visits to heritage buildings in the historic centre; on-site surveying.	Fieldwork in urban areas with Ottoman buildings; direct observation of current uses and problems.	Photographic record; field notes; digital platforms.
2.Reflective Observation	Analysing the experience, identifying patterns, difficulties, and opportunities.	Group discussions on heritage diagnoses; intercultural exchange of impressions.	Classroom discussions on conflicts between preservation and contemporary use.	Digital platform forums; excerpts from post-activity interviews; entries in reflective journals.
3.Abstract Conceptualisation	Constructing models, principles, and hypotheses based on reflection.	Development of intervention criteria: material compatibility, reversibility, environmental performance.	Development of conceptual schemes on adaptive reuse in Islamic and European contexts.	Assessment rubrics; group syntheses; presentation slides.
4.Active Experimentation	Practical application of concepts in new situations, testing solutions.	Development of reuse project proposals, presented in digital poster and presentation format.	Testing of architectural solutions through models and digital prototypes.	Final evaluated outputs; teacher feedback; recorded final presentations.

2.1 Framework & Objectives

The BIP falls under the Erasmus+ mobility activity under “Key Action 2 – Cooperation among organisations and Institutions supporting Partnerships for Excellence”. The “European Universities” protocol aims to promote alliances between higher education institutions to develop cross-border cooperation towards top-quality education, research and innovation based on shared common interests [7].

The Erasmus Guide Programme defines BIPs as “short, intensive programmes that use innovative ways of learning and teaching, including the use of online cooperation.” [8]. This mobility activity (“Blended Modality”) is a “combination of physical mobility and a virtual component, facilitating collaborative online learning exchange/teamwork.” [9]. The implementation of new and more flexible mobility formats aims (at its core) reach a broader student community [10].

The participating organisations must develop and implemented an event composed by at least three higher education institutions (HEIs) from at least three EU Member States and Third Countries associated to the Programme. The receiving HEI must develop the physical mobility at their site or at any other venue of its region/country. These protocols seek transnational [11] and transdisciplinary teams to work for a challenge-based learning to address contemporary challenges, including the United Nations’ sustainable development goals and other societal issues [12].

As a blended modality, although the duration for the virtual component has no restrictions, the duration of the physical activity must be established between 5 and 30 days for learners [13].

This innovative and flexible mobility format introduces a new learning experience and approach, representing an attempted departure from conventional curricula. It achieves this by expanding the range of interactions and discussions and engaging tutors and students from diverse academic, professional and cultural backgrounds in multimodal practices.

2.2 Case Studies

This study focuses on the modality of blended short-term student mobility for studies, applied to architectural education. It draws on the experience of members of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Porto (FAUP) who participated in these activities, thereby reinforcing the experiential dimension of the selected cases. Conceived as an open canvas for architectural education, the research examines heuristic pedagogy through two BIPs conducted in 2023: Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)’s Interventions on Contemporary Architectural Heritage and İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi (İTÜ)’s Sustainable Cities and Communities [14].

As outlined in Table 1 – Objectives, and aligned with the protocol guidelines, both programs framed their objectives around advancing the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) [15] yet diverged in methodological focus. While both case studies centred on heritage as a pathway to sustainable urban development, their analytical lenses differed. Valencia’s BIP focused on architectural heritage recognition and intervention within the context of city-community dynamics, focusing on adaptive reuse and material authenticity [16]. In contrast, Istanbul’s program treated cities and communities as broader case studies, integrating themes like urbanism, tourism, and heritage as interconnected drivers of sustainability.

The participating body had diverse number of eligible students within its university requirements from both workshops. The composition of the two workshop participants was determined by selecting participants from three cycles of study: master, post-graduation and doctoral programmes. In accordance with the student selection criteria of FAUP, students should be enrolled in the fourth and fifth year of the Integrated Master programme (MIARQ) or in the Doctoral programme (PDA) at FAUP. The selection was based on the average between the overall course, for Valencia, or Studio Design, for Istanbul, average with the motivation letter, with equal value. For Istanbul, FAUP selected only four students; while for Valencia, the number of pre-selected students ranged from four to eight, which later expanded to 11. In both BIPs, universities selected their students based on the current course group of the current year, except for Granada in Istanbul, which used an average base programme.

Both case study presented different corpus of study as well as methodological focus:

2.2.1 Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV): “Interventions on Contemporary Architectural Heritage”

The primary objective of the UPV BIP was to promote the appreciation of contemporary heritage and to advocate for contextualised design solutions through the careful consideration of its research case. The case study, EPSJ, was designed and built between 1961 and 1968 by architects Cayetano Borso di Carminati González and Rafael Contel Comenge in Valencia, Spain [17].

Participant schools and sample (teachers (T) = 12 ; students (S) = 28):

• École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Montpellier (ENSAM) (Tutors (T):1; Students (S): 3)
• TU Berlin (TUB) (T: 2; S: 8)
• Universidade do Porto (UP) (T: 3; S: 11)
• Univerza v Ljubljani (UL) (T: 3; S: 6)
• Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) (T: 3)

2.2.2 İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi (İTÜ): “Sustainable Cities and Communities”

ITU BIP main objective was to diagnose, discuss and compare different urban clusters: Istanbul (metropole), Safranbolu (rural), and Amasra (coastal town). Invoking other discipline, tourism impacts on urban, natural and cultural heritage was used to propose and improve sustainable cities and communities’ model. The methodology framework was first applied to Istanbul, and only later, after the guided visits in the smaller towns, we were able to extract the same conclusions on the work session prior to the final presentations [18].

Participant schools and sample (teachers (T) = 16; students (S) = 38):

• Istanbul Technical University (YTÜ) (T: 3; S: 7)
• Karabük University (KBÜ) (T: 2; S: 6)
• University of Applied Sciences, Nysa (PANS) (T: 3; S: 6)
• University of Porto (UP) (T: 2; S: 4)
• Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) (T: 1)
• University of Malaga (UMA) (T: 2; S: 4)
• University of Granada (UGR) (T: 3; S: 11)

2.3 Participants & Activities

As part of the available guidelines for the BIP implementation, there isn’t a preset regulation or requirement concerning the workshop structure. As such, a comprehensible system for comparative analysis based on the workshops organisation was formalised comprising the most relevant topics in Table 1.

From a logistical standpoint, Erasmus+ mobility funds were distributed accordingly, even within Turkey’s specific status as a third country associated with the programme. Each participant received a daily stipend of €70 for seven days, covering two travel days and five days of accommodation and subsistence as registered in Table 1 – Logistics. Both institutions provided basic refreshments such as water and snacks, with Valencia further offering a vegetarian lunch option. Valencia also promoted group cohesion by inviting tutors to organise a collective dinner, where participants exchanged traditional dishes from their regions. In Istanbul, three traditional meals were arranged; however, the workshop coincided with Ramadan, which posed additional challenges for scheduling shared activities.

Regarding participants, the ratio of tutors to students varied, as seen in Table 1. The Istanbul programme, timed to coincide with the academic calendar, had fewer tutors relative to the number of participants. The Valencia workshop, timed before the academic term, had a higher tutor/student ratio despite a smaller cohort.

Virtual mobility characterised the modality and influenced the expected outcomes by introducing a framework of user-friendliness into the overall process, as both programmes included compulsory attendance of the same duration, but with different formats, as seen in Table 1 – Virtual Mobility. Istanbul adopted a “traditional” presentation-based approach, with lecturers disseminating research findings unidirectionally. Valencia, on the other hand, introduced a rapid-fire debate format structured around three scales: location and site, new construction and models of approach to heritage. While this debate model developed students’ interpersonal and critical thinking skills, it inadvertently reinforced institutional ideologies by fabricating a “team” mentality that exacerbated inter-university rivalry during the physical workshop phase.

Group formation, registered in Table 1, had both observed and perceived pedagogical effects. In Istanbul, randomised group assignments and mixed thematic roles (e.g.: tutors and students from different schools) dissolved “school of thought” boundaries – reducing formal teaching constraints and producing less conditioned solutions by disciplinary conventions. In Valencia, the groups were self-organised but influenced by previous virtual interactions and initial site visits carried out under a university-led framework – this structure inadvertently perpetuated institutional biases, with solutions reflecting thematic alignments predetermined by tutors’ agendas.

Concerning the physical mobility category in Table 1, both timetables consisted of site visits, seminars, working sessions and final presentations. By displacing the students from their formal and cultural context, the visits were crucial activators for heuristic activities that, in addition to the traditional architectural survey and mapping of risks and vulnerabilities, encouraged the students to search for values about the significance of the heritage outside the more formal site visits. In Valencia, the site manager and a member of the Escuelas ecclesiastical body toured the complex and provided a very direct insight into the history and cultural development of the material and immaterial values embedded in the community. Also, students conducted empirical research outside of the normal site visit as part of a short spontaneous “participatory process” by wandering the immediate surroundings. This led students to reassess their own position with respect to the ephemeral position as both “visitor” and “stranger” to the values of the site. In Istanbul (as in the other cities part of the general program) although they had done guided tours in broad areas, the students had mostly made free site visits in the respective self-selected sites, giving them the freedom to interpret and question their built environment.

Addressed in Table 1, under Physical Mobility, Seminars were held at different planes. There were two other presentations by architectural researchers at both onsite workshops. In Istanbul, an activist and journalist delivered a lecture on “architectural crimes” committed against the protected landscape.

Onsite work sessions were primarily characterised by discussions initiated between tutor and students, which subsequently evolved into a discourse amongst the students themselves. It is noteworthy that Valencia’s programme encompassed twice the number of hours as Istanbul’s, despite the two BIP programmes having the same official duration, as logged in Table 1 under Physical Mobility: work sessions.

The work sessions then followed a similar structure:

1. discussion of each group study topic;
2. schematic planning, and site selection and analysis;
3. problem identification and strategy for possible solution;
4. design development from several design proposals;
5. final presentation.

In Valencia, the initial days of the workshop featured mid-term presentations by each group, followed by a set of open forum and questions, leaving only half a day dedicated exclusively to formal final presentations and an open discussion of the overall workshop. In Istanbul, the duration of the final presentations was equivalent to Valencia as compared at Table 1 under Physical Mobility’s Presentation, although here questions were made by the tutors at the end of each one.

Table 01 – Comparative analysis – study cases: UPV and ITÜ

3. Results

Approaching this section, the paper draws from primary sources the possible understanding of influential pedagogical commitments with the notion of reuse in architectural heritage. The experiential focus of the selected events as case studies, along with the emergence of methodologies for reuse, expand the field of education in the practice of architecture leaning-teaching dialectic. It demonstrates the opportunity to derive from the results of the established learning process (between Valencia and Istanbul’s online sessions and onsite examples), expanding from “seamless activities of conditioning new uses in historical buildings to incorporate broader methods that combine the intangible meanings of “common” constructions (as heritage not yet officially protected) and their purpose in a sustainable future”. Following the line of the article “Training Intervention on Contemporary Architectural Heritage through heuristic activities: values-based reuse designs for the Escuelas Profesionales San José, Valencia, Spain” for XIIth ReUSO Edition, this paper expands and integrates the same organisational structure, identifiable in three concurrent parts.

3.1 Assessing significance (values)

Evaluating significance of a heritage building, is a critical step in the adaptive reuse process. This assessment involves identifying and understanding the elemental values (historical, cultural, architectural, social, economic, et cet.) embodied by the building. The process typically includes comprehensive historical research, consultations with heritage experts, and engagement with the community to gather diverse perspectives on the building’s importance. This approach allows a holistic understanding of the nuances that build significance. A systematic evaluation provides the bases to activate relations between values and stakeholders directed at the making of informed decisions.

As presented in the article during the online sessions, Valencia students identified that most of the values attributed to the study case were architectural qualities, such as physical features. Initially, this was based on the familiar vocabulary from their academic training. After the on-site activities and being motivated to verify their judgements and to look for other values of architectural importance, some new lexical propositions emerged. The guided tour (as well as the informal student-led tour) was crucial in countering the official narratives of heritage assessment with the existential view of the real neighbourhood, gathered through occasional interviews and more informal investigative practices (sitting on a bench, looking at residents in their homes, buying water from local shops and cafes). This short “participatory process” has been translated into a hybrid map that accesses the social significance of the heritage complex through an emotional framework.

The map in figure 1 illustrates its classification as “exceptionally significant”, to the volumes of the complex as having an impact on its image in relation to the city (these include old dividing elements still visible in the current boundaries), and as ‘high significance’, the elements of the school programme, including the gallery of classrooms and the pavilion of the vocational school. This technical map produced a map of thresholds, which developed the objective landscape of the challenge into an immaterial sense of the strategy for the intervention. Material attributes were important to confirm its local roots, expressed in the quality of ceramics in different spaces and facades, a mix of metallic and concrete structures, visual frame alignments, expressive metallic window frames, programmatic works of art and expressive pavements defining potential activities.

Figure 1 – Assessment of significance map. Developed by Azar Mohammadpanah, Gabriela Souza, Inês Andrade, Margarida Pinhal, Maria Neves, Sérgio Magalhães, Sofia Câmara (FAUP)

In Istanbul, the mapping of significance (values) was not a direct factor for analysis. Most of the assessments were based on formal tours, complemented with free visits to the site for consulting. The language, Turkish, and the time of the visit, during Ramadan, made it difficult to contact locals and gather an additional sense of the place. Most of the values appointed were merely physical and architectural attributes correlated with the theme of the work. For example, “Visibility and Image” map (Fig.2.a) pointed the water and ground pollution, lack of visual urban alignments, monumental buildings, statues, characterisation of streets, the constant presence of cats, et cet. “Heritage and Memoryscapes” mapping (Fig.2.b) was mostly produced on the characterisation and identification of notable monuments and main historical routes.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2 – Collective maps on vulnerabilities and solutions for Istanbul: (a) Visibility and Image: Said Uludag (ITÜ), Berat Uzunal (KBÜ), Tetela Mariusz (PANS), Maria Inês Neves (FAUP), Halima A. Ahannach (UMA), Natalia G. Lozano (UGR), Andrea A. Ruz (UGR); (b) Heritage and Memoryscape: Emily Marszal (PANS), Arthur Dinis (FAUP), José Aragón (UMA), Saúl Morillo (UGR), Beyzanur Tokgoz (ITÜ), Taha Ozcan (ITÜ), Bilgen Hacialioglu (KBÜ).

3.2 Identifying vulnerabilities (risks and problems)

Identifying vulnerabilities in adaptive reuse involves assessing risks such as structural integrity issues, outdated building codes, environmental hazards, and financial contexts. Acknowledging these challenges is essential to developing strategies that ensure the building’s safety, code compliance, and functionality in its new purpose. However, this established set of common entry points to the assessment is insufficient to identify the deeply rooted ideological, social and cultural conditions that mainly influence the development of priorities for intervention and the correlations between all sides of the common setting of the problem.

In Valencia, both online and physical vulnerability analysis confirmed that the modern complex has been outgrown by the city, as well as the disregard of its design principles, given the several quick fixes surveyed, summarised in Figure 3. Also, an additional internal wall on the classroom gallery was the cause of blocked ventilation in the classrooms, resulting in the current demand for improvement of the climate condition of the building, intensified by the interiors of various types of infrastructure without proper care. On a social and urban level, the lack of initiative and integration on the part of the administration and site management was cited, which resulted in the segregation of the school site from its immediate urban setting and neighbourhood dynamics. In view of the observable material decisions, the site required a more sensible and effective use of decision-making protocol to protect and care for its authenticity and integrity.

Figure 3 – Different quick fixes: 1) The pastiche sun shading; 2) The school outdoors; 3) Wall at the classroom’s gallery, 4) School premises and limits (Source: Cristina Tasso, 2023).

Similar to the process of value assessment, all groups in Istanbul mapped their vulnerabilities according to the themes. For example, in “Walkability and Accessibility” (Fig.4), most of the vulnerabilities identified were correlated to topographical, material and facility in access, englobing both pedestrian and the different means of transportation. These vulnerabilities were materialised such as interrupted and broken paths, as well as the harsh topography, creating many inaccessible paths for both, pedestrians and transports.

Figure 4 – Site survey on the different cities: Walkability and Accessibility: R. Büşra Çakir (ITÜ), Ilgaz Atalay (KBÜ), Marszał Damian (PANS), Cristina Tasso (FAUP), Natalia C. Tapia (UMA), Juan C. S. Guzmán (UGR), Patricia M. Martinez (UGR).

3.3 Design Proposals

The following texts are brief summaries produced by the group participants to illustrate the design solutions they have created. They are contrasting in nature and represent opportunistic attempts to leave institutional frameworks by pursuing outside of normalised, expected outcomes.

3.3.1 User-centred interventions on contemporary heritage: assessing heritage significance thresholds by Azar Mohammadpanah, Gabriela Souza, Inês Andrade, Margarida Pinhal, Maria Neves, Sérgio Magalhães, Sofia Câmara. Tutor: Pedro Freitas (FAUP)

“In the current era, ambiguity is a potent instrument for mediation, analysis, and recognition of secondary narratives embedded in contemporary heritage projects, acting as catalyst in the pursuit of immediate solutions. This process begins questioning boundaries of common knowledge and investigating the reasoning of preexisting elements in each context. Hence, through the examination of the limits of intervention lies the responsibility of considering time, space, and significance where the imposition of absolute conditions is no longer a sustainable answer to contemporary necessities.

Upon recognizing the material configuration of a building, it became also clear the socio-technical apparatus of the habitat that defines the nature of the socio-cultural dispositive which is present and actionable in the urban scenario. This procedure has the potential to reconcile conservation and reuse of a building, extending beyond programmatic boundaries. Both observable and non-observable conditions contribute to the tangible and intangible recognition of values, conditions, and dynamics of a site. This recognition resides within the disciplinary responsibility towards society, mediated by the demands of a situated practice.

In the case of the Escuelas Profesionales San José, the act of demolishing a wall can be seen as a metaphor for inclusion, integration, and the possibility of appropriation. The enactment of unconditional access to the interior of a scholar/religious property may result in the impairment of the resident community, but it will undoubtedly impact the direct and indirect users and visitors, fostering a renewed engagement with the site as an appropriate place for collective prosperity. The proposal seeks to replan the thresholds appeared from the void, with the perspective of public-private access and private-public service in different areas, recovering complex’s purpose as heritage in the community. It is therefore necessary to cease appealing to the authority of architecture and immerse ourselves beyond commonly accepted universal dogma. Demolishing walls is only a starting point towards a transformational impact on the heritage site of Escuelas Profesionales San José.” (Fig. 5)

Figure 5 – “User-centred interventions on contemporary heritage: assessing heritage significance thresholds” emotional mapping board. Source: Azar Mohammadpanah, Gabriela Souza, Inês Andrade, Margarida Pinhal, Maria Neves, Sérgio Magalhães, Sofia Câmara (FAUP).

3.3.2 The Ground-Floor: reconnecting the public use of the surroundings by Cristina Tasso (FAUP), Matthias Grabowski, Samuel Kleinschmidt, Tsvetelina Markova. Tutors: César Trujillo Moya and Ralf Pasel (TU Berlin).

“The proposal focused on a holistic approach between the building, use, weather, and time. The school community is constituted by a variety of social groups who use the area throughout the day. The wall, constricting the complex block, acts as a severe separation between the interior school block and the neighbouring city. So, to free the school’s ground is essential to integrate the surrounding community.

Hence, the ground-floor is broken apart to integrate the fluidity of people flows and the surrounding city, while returning to the modern free-plan principle. The street level is elevated at its highest point, around 1.5 m of school ground. Thus, a park permeates the asphalt and restores the topographical terrain, regaining the pavement’s porosity back to its farm settlements. Based on the city grid, the surrounding five minor squares regulate the entrances and walking axis composing the park accessibility. The pergolas determine gathering places by offering refuge to the sun, interconnected with the landscape’s undulatory design.

The solution proposed for the complex entails a privacy inversion by reversing the ground-floor program towards the school terraces. The vertical stratification of privacy – public to private – is rearranged considering the different levels of education: 1st and 2nd – secondary; 3rd – special needs and elementary; 4th (terrace) – private playgrounds. The ground-floor captures the community’s livelihood through two new programmes: the canteen and a communitarian library. The canteen becomes a combination of cafeteria, canteen, and restaurant. Food becomes a social activator. At the park’s centre, the bookshelves prompt communitarian book exchange. The project foster community integration through a conscious design towards a renewed urban planning” (Fig. 6).

Figure 6 – “The Ground-Floor: reconnecting the public use of the surroundings” board. Source: Cristina Tasso (FAUP), Matthias Grabowski, Samuel Kleinschmidt, Tsvetelina Markova (TU Berlin), 2023.

3.3.3. Bike-ability: implementing a bike lane at the golden horn’s margin by R. Büşra Çakir (ITÜ), Ilgaz Atalay (KBÜ), Marszał Damian (PANS), Cristina Tasso (FAUP), Natalia C. Tapia (UMA), Juan C. S. Guzmán (UGR), Patricia M. Martinez (UGR). Tutors: Derya Güleç Özer, Demet A. Dinçay, Ecem Karabay (ITÜ), Elena Enciso (UMA).

“Based on the research by Derya Güleç Özer and others in the integration of Bike routes with the rail transport system in Zeytínburnu District, we were proposed to extend the research proposal and continue the study on the northern margin of the Golden Horn, as well as its integration in Amasra and Safranbolu. All cities shared the same issue of a difficult topography, with the exception of Amasra. Both Amasra and Safranbolu’s city grid share an integrated connectivity between paths and pavements, making it easier to implement even without bike lane separation. In Istanbul, particularly the area of study, discontinuity and fractions on the shore area, namely the pavements by the water are often interrupted by different road crossovers, and the tram and other private infrastructures.

For its implementation in Istanbul, we’ve first evaluated the potential application for the path through data recollection with Fulcrum, using the same criteria as the supportive research as presented bellow. The overall integration value for the complete path was 3,25/5,00. After the visit at the site, we’ve identified six different crossovers, present at the each section of the studied pathway, since these were the most disruptive promenades. The solutions act as means of integration towards the continuity of the urban tissue:

1. To distinguish pedestrians from bike lanes through the means of colour;
2. To integrate urban furniture;
3. To regulate a traffic limit to ensure safety for the bikes at the traffic;
4. Redesigning the public space surrounding the private hospital, by separating lanes and reorganizing the traffic hierarchy;
5. Contrary to the termination of the sidewalk by the river, making it compulsory to crossover, the solution ensures the extension of the pavement alongside the river margin;
6. The integration of a new bicycle lane outside the tram line.” (Fig. 7)

Figure 7 – “Bike-ability: implementing a bike lane at the golden horn’s margin” board. Source: R. Büşra Çakir (ITÜ), Ilgaz Atalay (KBÜ), Marszał Damian (PANS), Cristina Tasso (FAUP), Natalia C. Tapia (UMA), Juan C. S. Guzmán (UGR), Patricia M. Martinez (UGR), 2023.

From the foundational article for the XIIth ReUSO edition, “Training Intervention on Contemporary Architectural Heritage through heuristic activities: values-based reuse designs for the Escuelas Profesionales San José, Valencia, Spain” and the authors personal experience in the BIP events, this paper amplifies its call for pedagogical transformation through the inclusion of Istanbul’s case study: a strategic expansion that enriches the discourse on heritage reuse.

Analysis of both case studies reveals a compelling duality in scale and approach: Valencia’s surgical precision in heritage intervention – emphasising community participation, adaptive reuse and respect for pre-existing materiality – contrasts with Istanbul’s systemic reintegration of urban connectivity, where architectural solutions acted as catalysts for large-scale socio-spatial networks. These divergent yet complementary outcomes underscore a common imperative: architectural education must evolve beyond static methodologies to embrace heuristic pedagogy as a dynamic, values-driven framework. The Valencia experience demonstrated how heritage can be revitalised through localised, empathetic design, while the Istanbul proposals illustrated the transformative power of stitching fragmented urban fabrics into cohesive ecosystems. Together, they signal a pedagogical evolution – one that positions heritage not as a relic to be preserved, but as a living medium for new educational frameworks.

4. Discussion

The two BIPs analysed in this study show how heuristic experimentation can be a useful way to teach architectural design. By putting students into situations where there are no clear answers – between different subjects, different institutions and people from the community – these programmes have shown how important it is to work out what to do when there are different things to do and to make knowledge together. This kind of approach shows how architectural teaching can move beyond just focusing on products, while still maintaining a level of strictness.

The findings match heuristic pedagogy with well-known experiential learning frameworks, especially Kolb’s cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualisation, and experimentation, and Schön’s model of reflective practice. Students in both cases showed they could get through these stages, moving from direct experiences of heritage contexts, through thinking and coming up with ideas, to designing experiments. The idea is that these methods can help future architects find a balance between different levels and values, like objects and cities, memories and modernity, and big ideas and practical steps.

But the programmes also showed that there are still big problems and lacunae in architectural education. Some of the issues we’ve identified include the fact that Western academic ideas are dominant, there’s a power imbalance between teachers and students, and strict rules often get in the way of natural conversations. For example, we saw that guided tours weren’t very deep, that there was too much presentation and not enough discussion, and that prescriptive formats stopped people from just getting on with things. These conditions made it hard to have more productive and relevant debates.

From a disciplinary perspective, the study indicates that short-term mobility, when supported by digital tools, has the potential to scaffold decision-making in heritage reuse projects. Yet significant limitations emerged: the compression of design iterations, inconsistencies in assessment criteria across institutions, and uneven digital preparedness among participants. Addressing these requires institutional commitment to embed heuristic approaches as core competences rather than optional pedagogical experiments.

A broader reflection also arises on the transformative role of architectural schools. If they are reconceptualised as “laboratories of co-creation”, their curricula can incorporate socio-ecological literacy and cultural sustainability metrics alongside technical rigour. Such reorientation would foster empathy, systemic thinking, and the capacity to engage with communities in processes of collective value assessment. Examples from Valencia demonstrate how participatory traversing of neighbourhoods, daydreaming, and attentive listening to local narratives contributed to socio-technical evaluations of meaning and significance. These methods stand as counterpoints to protocol-driven exercises and illustrate the pedagogical richness of heuristic practices when opened to imaginative and divergent engagement.

Ultimately, the discussion points towards the necessity of integrating these practices into a long-term evaluative framework. Only through structured longitudinal assessment of BIP impacts—tracing their influence on career trajectories, professional competences, and institutional change—can the true potential of heuristic pedagogy be measured and advanced.

5. Conclusion

The findings of this research demonstrate that Erasmus+ BIPs provide fertile ground for the advancement of heuristic, discovery-driven pedagogy in architectural education. The two cases analysed demonstrate that when adequately structured, such programmes enable students to progress through experiential learning cycles, acquire collaborative competences, and apply conservation-oriented design criteria in heritage reuse contexts.

The study provides three key insights. Firstly, it demonstrates that heuristic pedagogy is compatible with experiential learning and reflective practice. Secondly, it shows that short-term mobility formats can support decision-making protocols in heritage reuse when supported by digital infrastructures. Thirdly, it highlights that rigid pedagogical protocols, uneven institutional criteria and digital asymmetries remain obstacles that must be addressed.

The implications for architectural curricula are unambiguous. Heuristic methods should be recognised not as peripheral tools but as foundational competences, equipping future architects to act as facilitators of systemic change. To address these challenges, schools of architecture should consider a reconfiguration of their structures and functions, with a view to establishing co-creation laboratories. In these laboratories, students would engage with communities, negotiate conflicting values, and incorporate cultural as well as environmental sustainability metrics into design processes.

In the context of escalating socio-ecological crises, such transformations are imperative. The re-establishment of architectural pedagogy as a catalyst for sustainable futures is dependent upon the cultivation of empathy, systemic thinking, and iterative design engagement. The overarching objective is to nurture architects who do not function as isolated auteurs, but rather as mediators of collective agency. These architects must possess the capacity to interweave heritage, resilience, and social equity into the built environment from reuse and conservation approaches.

References

[1] Rowe PG (1982). A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in Architectural Design. Journal of Architectural Education 36, 18-23.

[2] Reichlin B, Grignolo R (2018) (eds). History and Theory. Conservation, Restoration and Reuse of 20th-Century Heritage: A Historical-Critical Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1. Colmena. Basel.

[3] Fiorani D (2024). Heritage and sustainability: from general issues to concrete applications. A proposal for the assessment of historic buildings. In: Fiorani D, Franco G, Kealy L, Crisan R, Musso SF, Cunha Ferreira T (eds) Conservation/Sustainable Design. Porto, 317-332.

[4] Wood B (2006). The role of existing buildings in the sustainability agenda. Facilities 24(1/2), 61-67.

[5] Escuelas Profesionales San José – Fundación Docomomo Ibérico (n.d.). https://docomomoiberico.com/pt-pt/edificios/escuelas-profesionales-san-jose.

[6]Muñoz JF-L (2021). Escuelas Profesionales San Jose Valencia, 1964. Rafael Contel Comenge y Cayetano Borso di Carminati. In: Mestres. Modern Architecture in the Region of Valencia, 157–175.

[7] European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. 15-16.

[8] European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. 48.

[9] European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. P429.

[10] European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. P48.

[11] In the context of Erasmus, “Transnational” can be defined as: “unless otherwise indicated, to any activity involving at least two EU Member States and third countries associated to the Programme.” European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. P430.

[12] European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. P48.

[13] European Union (2025) Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 (20 January 2025). Publications Office of the European Union. P57.

[14] Dávila Balsera P, Naya Garmendia LM, Murua Cartón H (2014). La formación profesional en la España contemporánea: políticas, agentes e instituciones. Hist Educ 33, 43–74.

[15] United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Resolution 70/1. United Nations, New York.

[16]Universitat Politècnica de València (2023). Interventions on Contemporary Architectural Heritage. BIP Topics (27 Jun 2023). Universitat Politècnica de València, València.

[17] Open Call FAUP Valencia (2023). https://sigarra.up.pt/faup/en/noticias_geral.ver_noticia?p_nr=76842

[18] Open Call FAUP Istanbul (2023). https://sigarra.up.pt/faup/en/noticias_geral.ver_noticia?p_nr=75722

Tags:

• #article
• #bip
• #field
• #heuristic
• #phd
• #practice
• #rivista TEMA