International Journal of Sustainable Development and

Planning
Vol. 18, No. 5, May, 2023, pp. 1467-1475
Journal homepage: http://iieta.org/journals/ijsdp

The Contextual Design Criteria of Infill Building Façade in Malaysian Urban Historic
Districts: A Systematic Review
Mohd Amirul Hakim Zamri* , Mohd Hisyam Rasidi , Roshida Abdul Majid

Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor 81310, Malaysia

Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180517 ABSTRACT

Received: 24 February 2023 The urban historic district is one of the man-made places with strong genius loci through its
Accepted: 23 April 2023 cultural heritage character and values. Architectural heritages are the core element constituting
its urban fabric character. However, the emergence of infill buildings that intervene in the
Keywords: urban historic fabric with their conspicuous contrast façade architectural design threatens the
infill building façade, contextual design genius loci of the urban historic districts. Therefore, this paper aims to systematically review
criteria, urban historic district the contextual architectural design criteria of infill building façade in urban historic districts.
Using the content analysis method, this paper extracts the previous scholars’ studies on
heritage conservation guidelines, contextual infill building façade design approaches and the
design criteria for the contextual infill building façade design in urban historic districts to
answer the highlighted issues. In an urban historic district, the contemporary architectural
intervention, especially the infill building façade design, must critically consider and respond
to the existing urban fabric that has long been characterized by the place's genius loci to sustain
its cultural heritage character and values. The infill building façade design must appropriately
be articulated by balancing “compatibility” and “differentiation” elements in its architectural
design as well as consider creating a “bond” and having family resemblance with the existing
urban fabric of the historic district.

1. INTRODUCTION districts including Melaka, George Town, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh,

Taiping, and Muar. As shown in Figure 1, Among the elements,
Urban identity can be defined as a set of characteristics of a architectural heritage through its architectural design is seen
place in the urban area that shows the quality of continuity and as the main element constituting the urban historic district
distinctiveness [1, 2]. It is described as “genius loci” by identity [4, 13]. Architectural heritage is considered as an
Norberg-Schulz [3], where the place has its spirits or architectural work either a historic monument or a group of
characteristics that vibrance the man-made place. Shamsuddin historic heritage buildings that helps us to understand the
[4] argues the character continuity of place depends on the relevance of the past to contemporary life [14]. Soosani [15]
degree of familiarity or sameness in essential characteristics and Semes [11] argue that architectural heritages characterize
that lead to people-place attachment and a sense of place that urban historic districts through spatial and visual attributes.
evoke the memory and meanings toward the place. Moreover, Spatial attributes comprise the building's formal shape, the
Cohen [5] states a well-defined urban character will constitute mass, the sitting, or building placement setting in the place,
a district in the urban area. Following this, the distinctive and its interrelation with the urban and street pattern and the
quality of a place is a unique character constituted from the urban spaces while visual attributes are set by façade and roof
continuous essential characteristics that make the place design that contribute to shaping the urban scape. The building
distinct from others. The community socio-culture of the place façade is a crucial part of the urban identity constitution, and
is synthesized and expressed through tangible and intangible it can be perceived by the public from the street or urban
elements [4, 6]. The tangible elements are the place's physical spaces [10, 16-19].
elements that include a group of buildings, streets, and urban
spaces such as squares, spaces between buildings and
landscapes, while the intangible elements comprise people's
activities and place meanings that are shaped by peoples’
beliefs or perception to the place components [4].
Many scholars such as Baper [7], Azmi et al. [8], Sabah and
Abdul Samad [9], Ujang [2], Shamsuddin [4], Askari and Dola
[10], Semes [11], Ismail and Shamsuddin [12] describe one of
the places that have strong urban identity is the urban historic
districts due to its cultural heritages such as the architectural
heritages, old streets pattern, heritage squares and landscape,
and street furniture. In Malaysia, there are many urban historic Figure 1. George Town urban historic district [13]

1467
 In line with the continuous civilization development, many [54], ICOMOS [55], ICOMOS [56], UNESCO
buildings are added in the urban area including within its [58]
historic districts [15, 20]. Malaysian urban historic districts The history of
also are not an exception in experiencing the new development infill
Demiri [17], Brolin [32], Davies [44], Byard development
pressure [21]. However, the conflict occurs when the new
[45] in urban
architectural intervention like the infill buildings in the urban historic
historic districts with different design convergence and districts
strikingly contrasts with their historical context in terms of Semes [11], Demiri [17], Al Ani [28],
style, scale, materials, and composition [11]. It is a result of Infill building
Alfirević & Simonović [24], Historic
the continuous changes in urban lifestyles and building façade design
Scotland [27], Riza & Doratli [31], Brolin approaches in
technologies [16, 22, 23]. Moreover, the contemporary [32], Gaber & Akcay [34], The Preservation urban historic
architectural design of infill buildings only focuses on its Alliance [38], Davies [44], Nagavi & districts
individual architectural expression and becomes Mazaherian [46]
characteristically isolated from the surrounding context. Thus, Ujang [2], Shamsuddin [4], Semes [11],
it is seen as insensitive, incompatible, and unresponsive to the Soosani [15], Demiri [17], Alfirević &
The contextual
place character which radically changes and deteriorates the Simonović [24], Brolin [32], Semes [33],
infill building
Gaber & Akcay [34], Sotoudeh & Abdullah
historic genius loci of the place [4]. Therefore, it is pivotal for façade design
[37], The Preservation Alliance [38], Zamri &
the infill building façade to contextually respond to the urban criteria in
Abdullah [40], Byard [45], Lambe & Dongre
historic districts’ place character to sustain their historical [47], Ujang & Zakariya [48], Abdel-Kader
urban historic
genius loci. What are the criteria for the contextual infill districts
[49], Al-hasany [50], Sotoudeh & Abdullah
building façade design in Malaysian urban historic districts? [51], Ismail [52], Bentley et al. [53]
Thereby, this paper aims to make a systematically review on
the studies of infill building facade design in Malaysian urban
historic districts to answer the issues. 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section covers the findings and discussion on the infill

2. METHODOLOGY building as a new architecture in the urban historic district, the
related international and local level of heritage conservation
Literature searches are conducted from the published online guidelines that advocate the contextual infill building design
databases and books to gather the secondary data for this and the practised infill architectural design approaches in
research, focusing on the infill building architectural design urban historic districts.
within urban historic districts. As shown in Table 1, the
relevant materials are identified using the keywords of infill 3.1 Infill building as a new architecture in urban historic
architecture, infill building design, new architecture design districts
and new architectural intervention in the urban historic
districts [24-58]. Using the content analysis method, the study
process is conducted in two stages First, the study identified
and reviewed the 58 relevant publications to get an overview
of the research topic and organise it according to their study
focus and research questions: infill building comprehension,
the heritage conservation guidelines on infill building design
in an urban historic district context, and the design approaches
of infill building facade in urban historic districts. Following
this, each study focus category was thoroughly scrutinised and Figure 2. An infill building within the heritage buildings row
analysed by extracting points to answer the research question [26]
and fit the research objective. The study aims to expand the
understanding and illustrate the breadth of knowledge Infill building or infill architecture is one of the urban infill
available on the architectural design criteria of infill building developments which is the new architectural interventions
façade in Malaysian urban historic districts in contextually built on infill sites within a developed area mostly in the urban
response to its context. area (Figure 2) [17, 24-27]. In addition, it is also considered
one of the urban smart growth development strategies to
Table 1. The content analysis summary control urban expansion [28, 29]. It can be a completely new
architectural development, or a replacement of an abandoned
Authors Study focus old building which has an unsafe structure to retain and has no
Shamsuddin [4], Semes [11], Soosani [15], historical significance value or an extension structure of the
Demiri [17], Alfirević & Simonović [24],
existing building [15, 24, 26, 30]. Furthermore, as highlighted
MBPP [25], MBI [26], Historic Scotland Infill building
[27], Al Ani [28], Razavian & Samadi [29], comprehension by Alfirević and Simonović [24], there are 8 infill site types
JWN [30], Riza & Doratli [31], Brolin [32], which can be simplified into 2 categories of corner sites and
Zamri & Abdullah [40] intermediate sites (Figure 3). Both categories can be physically
Semes [11], ICOMOS [14], ICOMOS [24], Heritage attached to its neighbors or detached. This classification
MBPP [25], MBI [26], JWN [30], The conservation category also is applied by many local authorities and
Preservation Alliance [38], UNESCO [39], guidelines for government bodies in Malaysia for their infill building
Abdul Azis et al. [42], Semes [43], ICOMOS infill design development guidelines in urban historic districts.

1468
 contrast features against its historic neighbor’s character. Then,
the trend of aggressive modern infill building design
movement continues to rapidly be developed and followed by
modernist architects in many urban historic districts,
especially among Starchitects including Frank Gehry, Rem
Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid and Peter Eisenman. This movement
advocates for “no fake architecture” and “true to its time” [32,
34]. Following that, modernist architects emphasize 3 main
principles in their design including function, technology and
rejecting ornamentations [35]. Similarly in Malaysia, infill
Figure 3. Infill building site types: 1) linear intermediate site, building developments also rapidly occurred in urban historic
2) corner site, 3) 3 sides intermediate site, 4) courtyard site, districts in major cities after the independence of the country
5) linear- detached intermediate site, 6) corner-detached site, with contrasting form and façade design attitudes (Figure 6).
7) detached intermediate site, and 8) multiples sides infill site It is due to the changes in the technologies and building types,
[24] the prosperity of the economy as well as the new design
thought brought by young architects who have finished their
Semes [11] highlights being a new element in historic fabric, studies abroad [4, 21, 36].
the compatibility design of infill building toward the historic
physical context always become an issue between the
architects and the preservationists as well as the layman
especially when its architectural expression is conspicuously
against the existing urban fabric character. Moreover, the alien
design expression is not just against the formal attribute, but
also the façade design attribute of the existing architectural
heritages in the place especially the adjacent neighbors which
is seen change negatively the urban character and deteriorate
its values [4, 11]. Historically, this is not a modern architecture
and urban development issue but an old endless issue since
before World War II took place in the west [11, 31]. There are
a few historical instances recorded by Brolin [32] and Semes
Figure 5. Richard Meir’s Museum of Ara Pacis, Rome [11]
[33] on this issue. In 1521s, Michelangelo proposed the New
Sacristy a century after Filippo Brunelleschi completed his
Old Sacristy in the Florentine Church of San Lorenzo with
different architectural decorative features. In the 1585s,
Vicenzo Scamozzi won a competition for Procuratie Nuovo by
separating his building from the Library of St Marks built in
1553s. In the 1545s, Andrea Palladio proposed to wrap the
Gothic style Medieval Town Hall of Vicenza with a classical
architecture style and white marble arcades. In 1835, the
Gothic style of the Houses of Parliament was built next to
Westminster Hall in London with a bigger and higher building
mass and façade (Figure 4).

Figure 6. Modern buildings in heritage shophouses district in

George Town [23]

3.2 The heritage conservation guidelines on the infill

building design in urban historic districts

Although the concern toward the contextual fitness of the

new or infill building architectural design in the historic
environment has been highlighted by Pugin in the 1836s, it
significantly came to the forefront of the public’s attention
through the emergence of the conservation movement around
the 1960s [18]. To control the aggressiveness of architects’
ideas in proposing their modernism architecture in historic
environments, many heritage conservation guidelines such as
Figure 4. House of Parliament (right) and Westminster Hall,
recommendations, declarations, and charters were established
London (left) [32]
by international advisory bodies of cultural heritage like
UNESCO and ICOMOS (Figure 7) [35, 37, 38]. The ICOMOS
Next, Semes [11] mentions after World War II; the issues
Venice Charter 1964 is considered as the founding document
became more complicated when Richard Meir proposed a
of modern heritage conservation advocacy and was set as a
modern-style museum of Ara Pacis in Rome (Figure 5). Even
milestone for the guidelines of new architectures in historic
though the design is celebrated by architecture people, it is
environments [11]. This charter advocates the sustainability of
disliked by ordinary Roman citizens due to its conspicuous

1469
the remaining architectural heritage in both urban and rural places. The new architectural design must consider the
settings that have historical significance and value. Any new existing urban fabric elements and place physical character.
architectural works in the historical fabric must be integrated Additionally, there is no vertical structure that can be built that
harmoniously into the whole historic fabric but simultaneously blocks the majestic view toward the historic monuments and
could be differentiated from the existing historic architectural domineering the architectural heritage formal attributes of the
composition as well as represent their contemporary stamp. In place. On top of that, the guidelines also highlight the
the same way, the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 also creativity of the architects to balance the “compatibility” and
gives a similar sound of recommendations where the new the “differentiation” in their infill building design in the urban
works must consider the physical character of the historic historic district.
place, not deteriorate the surrounding cultural significance of However, although the messages in those charters and other
the place, and at the same time avoid the imitation as well as international conservation guidelines for the infill building
being readily identifiable. In addition, there is the ICOMOS design in urban historic districts is to achieve the balance
Washington Charter 1987 that complements “The Venice between “compatibility” for the spirit of place and
Charter” by narrowing down the scope into the conservation “differentiation” for the spirit of times, there are some parties
of historic towns and the revised ICOMOS New Zealand that interpret the guidelines in different angle of views. Semes
Charter that has put a similar sound of advocacy but focuses [11] and Semes [43] highlight that some conservation
on the cultural heritage value of the conservation place. These authorities focus more on the “differentiation” that not only
2 charters celebrate the continuous development of social and does not prevent the extremely contrasting architectural design
economic as well as its urban setting in the historic district, but but encourages them for it which results in visually dissonant
they must consider and be integrated with the conservation interventions. The justification is based on the statements in
strategies of the historic district. The new architectural the international guidelines for the new building design to be
intervention must preserve and be in harmony with the historic differentiated from the existing historic fabric. From this
character of the place, maintaining the relationship between situation, the question arises of what will be left if everything
buildings and urban spaces, as well as harmonizing the new in urban historic districts is altered radically by the new
activities or functions with the place's historic attributes. architecture. Moreover, Semes [11] suggests the degree of
Furthermore, there are also other international heritage differentiation is enough when the new architecture is
conservation guidelines identified that advocate the contextual identifiable. On the opposite side, there is a conservation
new buildings’ design in urban historic districts which is also authority that is too conservative to the point where it can be
important to be referred to. There is the ICOMOS declaration seen as discouraging the continuous development of
of Amsterdam 1975, the ICOMOS Nairobi Recommendation architectural design in historic districts [44]. In addition,
1976, and the UNESCO Vienna Memorandum 2005. All these Semes [43], Byard [45] and Brolin [32] suggest replicating the
documents highlight the importance of the new architectural existing historical architectural features also harms the identity
interventions in urban historic districts to consider the urban of the place and its value which will lead to false
character while striving to fulfil contemporary needs. interpretations of historical evidence. However, regardless of
ICOMOS [14] and UNESCO [39] urge the new architecture their stance, the main point of all the heritage conservation
interventions either infill buildings or extension structures of guidelines is the contextual compatibility of the new
the existing buildings to harmoniously fit the urban historic architectural intervention design in urban historic districts.
fabric character in terms of urban spatial organization as well Each design intervention in a historical context must be based
as the existing architectural heritage formal attributes and on the interpretation and consideration of the place because the
façade design. In addition, ICOMOS [14] urges for the ‘new’ should not be designed in isolation but must be
contemporary architecture proposed must be in high-quality assimilated with the existing architecture [4, 17]. Hence, to
design. It is to ensure the architectural design quality and make the infill building design tend to either more in
historic value sustainability in urban historic districts [40]. “differentiation” or “compatibility”, it must look at the locality
Following this, the consideration of the character of the context as well as the conservation and contemporary needs of
historic fabric not only identifies the general character but the place.
must also analyse the dominant physical features or the shared
characteristic among the urban elements and the intangible
aspect of the place. Besides that, it is also important to balance
the “compatibility” with the “differentiation” in the new
architectural design which reflects the contemporary stamp but
does not extremely contrast with the site context [11, 41].
Following that, the international heritage conservation
guidelines are then justified and adopted in many countries
heritage conservation policies according to their needs as well
as the condition of culture and setting [34]. In the Malaysian
context, the international level guidelines are adopted in the
National Heritage Act 2005 and Historic Building
Conservation Guidelines of Malaysia and local authorities’
guidelines [25, 26, 42]. Continuing the international heritage
conservation agenda, it is highlighted that the infill building
design within the historic urban historic districts either a new Figure 7. The heritage conservation guidelines on infill
building or an extension structure of the existing heritage building design in urban historic districts summary
building to be ascertained not disrupting or deteriorating the
originality identity features and the cultural heritage of the

1470
3.3 The contextual infill building façade design approaches Demiri [17] and The Preservation Alliance [38] argue
in urban historic districts this is the least acceptable in the urban historic district
due to its individuality convergence, totally or partially
To respond to the international heritage conservation repudiating the historic context as well as its value and
guidelines, there are many infill building design approaches prioritizing differentiation at the expense of
maneuvered with various compatibility levels to the context of compatibility. Normally this infill building type
urban historic districts due to the different convergences and domineering the historic place through its height, type
considerations in the design. In the overall view, the design of roof, color, materials, and façade where it repudiates
approaches can be divided into 3 categories of infill building their relationship with the neighbors [17, 31].
of high compatibility, contextuality balance and low Generally, this design approach practitioner against
compatibility: other design approaches especially the literal
1. High compatibility infill building design. replication method that tries to reconcile the existing
The Preservation Alliance [38] explains this design historic character of the place as it has seen
approach is concerned with the place's historical unsuccessful infill designs which could not fit the
character sustainability, prioritizes the compatibility modern contemporary need and are unable to express
relationship to the place and minimizes the percentage old and new integration [24, 28]. However, Gaber &
of differentiation features. It is also known as Akçay [34] and The Preservation Alliance [38] criticize
contextual uniformity [31, 34] and mimetic design this design approach for too much contrast or diversity
approach [24, 28]. It emphasizes character continuity of architectural character in historic fabric might
by extending the existing architectural characteristics destroy its historic identity and sense of place. Thus,
but toning down the scale of replication [17, 38] Under Gaber and Akçay [34] and Riza and Doratli [31]
this category, “pastiche” or “literal replication” is the suggest the infill design can be in contrast to the context
extreme design version and “traditional method” is the if does not invade the historical core of the surrounding
modest design version. Riza and Doratli [31], Davies context, which could lead to weakening its value. Apart
[44] and Brolin [32] criticize this design approach for from that, The Preservation Alliance [38] adds
the issues of the false sense of historical development, recommendation for the contrast design approach
unwelcoming the innovative architectural design and application is limited to rectifying the place identity of
might result the historic character inelegant or poor urban historic districts that weaken or broken by other
imitation impact. This approach is permitted only to oppositional interventions.
recover the corrupted place's historical character [11].
2. Medium compatibility infill building design. As shown in Table 2, each contextual infill design approach
It is described as the contextual continuity design has their own agenda, convergences, and propensities. Urban
approach [31, 34, 46], united diversity [28], and Historic Scotland [27] and The Preservation Alliance [38]
associative design approach [24]. Semes [11] opine the selection of the design approach must consider all
highlights the design objective is to balance between related design contexts and balance the contemporary needs
“differentiation” and “compatibility” by emphasizing a and the infill building compatibility fitness to the historic
continuum of urban scape composition and fabric. The selection of extreme design approaches either
simultaneously allowing the historic environment to extremely contrast design or extremely compatible design
speak loudest. It avoids replicating the existing context would disrupt the original urban historic district character.
character at the same time interpreting the historical
cues of the place through a contemporary lens to Table 2. The summary of contextual infill building design
achieve the character continuity of the place or the approaches in urban heritage districts
sense of continuity. The existing architectural character
is explored upon the design principles and elements as Design features Implications
basic references and then articulated for the new design • Historic fabric physical
version without subverting the existing identity. On top attributes are the main • Does not
of that, The Preservation Alliance [38] and Semes [11] concern. welcome
sub-categorize it into 2 sub-design approaches of the • Less concern about the architectural
invention within the style and abstract references while contemporary design
High attributes. development.
Naghavi and Mazaherian [46] suggests three sub- compatibility • Prioritizes the • Might results
design approaches of contextual simplification, infill compatibility misunderstanding
contextual abstraction, and contextual nullification. building relationship to the place and confusion
Despite being the most universally accepted design design and minimize the between the
approach, it requires artistry and skill from the architect percentage of historic objects
to achieve the standard [38, 44]. differentiation features. and the new
3. Low compatibility infill building design. • Follows the existing intervention.
Basically, it is considered a radical intervention of new place character with
architecture in the historic environment [24]. It is also minimal replication.
known as contextual juxtaposition [31] context • Balances the • Celebrate design
pretense [46] and intentional opposition [38]. Riza and Medium “differentiation” and and technology
compatibility “compatibility” innovation and
Doratli [31] also mentions that freestyle design is the infill features. development
extreme version of infill building design where it building • Emphasizes the while conserving
completely ignores the context and prefers using design continuum urban scape the urban historic
inappropriate materials. Alfirević and Simonović [24], composition and fabric character.

1471
 historic environment argue the existing architectural heritages are the obstacle to the
character conservation. new design innovation. Then, in response to the critics and
• Avoids replication and international heritage conservation standard recommendations,
emphasizes place the new architecture juxtaposes the historic fabric by
character complementing the formal architectural attributes or called
interpretation.
volumetric “compatibility” but continues being in contrast in
• Considered as a radical
design approach for
architectural design styles which is also known as stylistic
new intervention in “differentiation”.
historic environment Therefore, Bentley et al. [53] and Semes [11] recommend
as the design is using the criteria of “appropriateness” of infill building design
intentionally provoke over “contextuality”. In other words, the infill building façade
Low the place character. design should offer identity character continuity by fitting to
• Deteriorates the
compatibility • Emphasizes the historic district rather than provoking the character,
urban historic
infill “differentiation” than contribute to consolidating the historic character rather than
fabric character
building “compatibility” to the subverting it, respond effectively to the locality of the place
and identity.
design historic fabric by
and become an exemplary to others. Thus, as the newcomer to
highlighting “the
architecture of our the place that accommodates the contemporary design needs,
time.” the infill building also must respect, contextually respond, and
• Highly disagree with appropriately intervene in the historic fabric through the
literal replication infill coordination of “compatibility” and “differentiation”. On top
design approach. of that, contextual design can be achieved when compatibility
is given greater weight to sustain the valued historic character
3.4 The criteria of contextual infill façade design in urban and the differentiation is minimized just enough to
historic districts distinguishable from the historic objects or buildings [38]. It is
to reduce the erosion of the historic character of the place and
As elaborated in many heritage conservation guidelines in is unacceptable in contemporary preservation practice. De-
Figure 7, contextuality is one of the critical design criteria for emphasizing differentiation and prioritizing compatibility
new architecture in historic environments. On top of that, it is would allow historic buildings and districts to grow and
considered the main design objective and a gauge in change organically following their historic patterns and styles,
determining the successfulness of infill building design thereby ensuring the continuity of character through time.
conciliation to its context in urban historic districts [4, 37, 38]. Furthermore, to make sure the continuum impact of infill
Generally, contextuality in architecture can be understood as façade on the urban historic fabric, Alfirević and Simonović
the ability of the architectural design to respond, adapt, and [24], Bentley et al. [53], and Brolin [32] suggest for the infill
sympathetically fit its surrounding context [34, 37, 47]. The building design to have a “bond” as a connector and transition
consideration mainly focuses on the surrounding vicinity's element to connect with the existing architectural heritages of
physical elements within the urban historic district including the place. Meanwhile, Bentley et al. [53] and Semes [11]
the architectural heritage, the streets’ pattern, and the urban recommend for the infill building be assured of sharing the
spaces [31, 37, 40]. Furthermore, the design consideration also same underlying principles of space, structure, elements,
reviews the spatial and visual attributes of the surrounding site composition, proportion, ornament, and character regardless
[15, 17, 47]. Moreover, Brolin [32] and Shamsuddin [4] of the architectural style. Both old and new designs are
suggest the necessity of learning the previous buildings or harmonious and considered to have a family resemblance
architectural heritages’ design development approaches in the when they share the same underlying principles of space,
place in terms of how they respect and interweave their structure, elements, composition, proportion, ornament, and
architectural features with the existing urban fabric character. character regardless of the architectural styles.
Other than that Ujang and Zakariya [48], Ujang [2],
Shamsuddin [4] and Semes [11] suggest also considering the
intangible aspects and their relationship to the tangibles as 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
both subjects are the elements that constitute urban identity. In
addition, as mentioned in the ICOMOS Washington charter, Infill building is a main type of new building development
safeguarding the place's character is more important than a erected in an urban historic district where the issue of façade
single heritage subject preservation [11]. On the other hand, design compatibility to the historic context has always been a
many scholars like [49, 52], Sotoudeh and Abdullah [51], major issue between architects and conservationists as well as
Semes [11], and Byard [45] argue that architectural design the public. The emergence of new architectural design
contextualization also must include the time context factors direction with individuality agenda as well as the different
into the design consideration. The design consideration design convergence and propensity seen threatening the
includes the evolution of the building model, building services identity of the urban historic district. Therefore, many
system, as well as urban social and economic development international and local heritage conservation guidelines have
[50]. This consideration is another factor that is important been established to balance the new architectural development
because technologies and urban lifestyles always evolve over and the urban historic district conservation. The infill
time and the new development should be able to fit the need buildings in the built environments are welcome as one of the
[49, 50, 52]. However, Semes [33] highlights the objectives of smart urban development strategies but need to be guided by
modernism architects proposing contrast architecture design is the outlined recommendations. Regardless of various infill
to repudiate and obliterate the old character as they prefer the architectural designs, as a new element in urban historic
new design; just focusing on the scientific principles and they districts, high consideration must be given to its historic fabric

1472
through architectural design that contextually responds to the Universiti Sains Malaysia, pp. 96-105.
surrounding area while accommodating contemporary needs. http://eprints.usm.my/id/eprint/38199
The infill building façade design must appropriately be [10] Askari, A.H., Dola, K. (2009). Influence of building
articulated by balancing “compatibility” and “differentiation” façade visual elements on its historical image: Case of
elements in its architectural design. On top of that, to Kuala Lumpur city, Malaysia. Journal of Design and
communicate with the elements in historic fabric, the “bond” Built Environment, 5(1): 49-59.
and having family resemblance with the existing architectural [11] Semes, S.W. (2009). The future of the past: A
heritages as well as other historic elements should be Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and
considered. The contextual considerations and compatible Historic Preservation. WW Norton, 2009.
infill building façade design are significantly important to [12] Ismail, W.H.W., Shamsuddin, S. (2005). The old
safeguard the remaining cultural heritage as part of the shophouses as part of Malaysian urban heritage: The
conservation afford and continuous urban development. current dilemma. The old shophouses as part of Malaysia
Therefore, these research findings demonstrate the need to urban heritage: the current dilemma. In the 8th
develop an empirical study on infill building façade design in International Conference of the Asian Planning Schools
urban historic districts. The proposed studies must be Association (APSA 2005), September, Pulau Pinang,
articulated based on the local phenomenon and issues to Malaysia, pp. 1-12.
achieve the heritage conservation goals. Furthermore, the [13] Langdon, M. (2015). George Town's Historic
results of the study also can be useful to improve the existing Commercial & Civic Precincts. George Town World
related guidelines and be one of the references for property Heritage Incorporated.
owners, architects, local authorities, and policymakers. [14] ICOMOS. (1975). The declaration of Amsterdam:
Congress on the European architectural Heritage, 21-25.
https://www.icomos.org/en/and/169-the-declaration-of-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS amsterdam, accessed on Jul. 12, 2020.
[15] Soosani, L. (2013). Questioning the compatibility of the
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the infill architecture in historic environment, case study:
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for providing facilities to carry walled city of Nicosia. Doctoral dissertation, Eastern
out the work. Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz
Üniversitesi (DAÜ). http://i-
rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11129/1346
REFERENCES [16] Baper, S.Y., Hassan, A.S. (2012). Factors affecting the
continuity of architectural identity. American
[1] Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, Transactions on Engineering & Applied Sciences, 1(3):
and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. 227-236. http://TuEngr.com/ATEAS/V01/227-236.pdf.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3): 209-231. [17] Demiri, K. (2013). New architecture as infill in historical
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001 context. Architecture and Urban Planning, 2013(7): 44-
[2] Ujang, N. (2012). Place attachment and continuity of 50. https://doi.org/10.7250/aup.2013.005
urban place identity. Procedia-Social and Behavioural [18] Hu, Y., Heath, T., Tang, Y., Zhang, Q. (2017). Using
Sciences, 49: 156-167. quantitative analysis to assess the appropriateness of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014 infill buildings in historic settings. Journal of
[3] Norberg-Schulz, C. (1979). Genius Loci: Towards A Architectural and Planning Research, 34(2): 91-113.
Phenomenology of Architecture. Rizzoli. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44987221
[4] Shamsuddin, S. (2011). Townscape Revisited: [19] Jashari-Kajtazi, T., Jakupi, A. (2017). Interpretation of
Unravelling the Character of The Historic Townscape in architectural identity through landmark architecture: The
Malaysia. Penerbit UTM Press. case of Prishtina, Kosovo from the 1970s to the 1980s.
[5] Cohen, N. (2001). Urban Planning, Conservation, and Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(4): 480-486.
Preservation. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.09.002
[6] Ziyaee, M. (2018). Assessment of urban identity through [20] Ismail, W.H.W. (2012). Sustainability of buildings in
a matrix of cultural landscapes. Cities, 74: 21-31. historic city of Malaysia. Asian Journal of Environment-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.021 Behaviour Studies, 3(10): 57-59.
[7] Baper, S.Y. (2018). The role of heritage buildings in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.069
constructing the continuity of architectural identity in [21] Chen, V.F. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Malaysia Vol 5:
Erbil city. International Transaction Journal of Architecture. Singapore, Archipelago Press: Editions
Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Didier Millet.
Technologies, 9(1): 1-12. [22] Boussaa, D. (2017). Urban regeneration and the search
https://doi.org/10.14456/ITJEMAST.2018.1 for identity in historic cities. Sustainability, 10(1): 48.
[8] Azmi, N.F., Ali, A.S., Zaini, S.F., Harumain, Y.A.S., https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010048.
Abdullah, M.F. (2017). Character-defining elements of [23] Said, S.Y., Aksah, H., Ismail, E.D. (2013). Heritage
shophouses buildings in Taiping, Perak. Journal of Conservation and Regeneration of Historic Areas in
Design and Built Environment, 2017: 139-149. Malaysia. In AicE-Bs2013London Asia Pacific
https://doi.org/10.22452/jdbe.sp2017no1.12 International Conference on Environment-Behaviour
[9] Sabah, O.A., Abdul Samad, M.H. (2016). Studies, pp. 4-6 September 2013, London.
Penang/Georgetown's Shophouse façade and visual http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.044
problems, analytic study. In 4th International Conference [24] Alfirević, Đ., Simonović-Alfirević, S. (2015). Infill
on Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 2016 (ICOLASS’16), architecture: Design approaches for in-between buildings

1473
 and 'bond' as integrative element. Architektura i Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and
urbanizam, 2015(41): 24-39. https://doi.org/10.5937/a- Contemporary Role of Historic Areas.
u0-8293 [40] Zamri, M.A.H., Abdullah, J. (2018). Evaluation of infill
[25] Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang (2022). Draf Akhir building block in heritage schools in Kuala Lumpur.
Rancangan Kawasan Khas Tapak Warisan Dunia Planning Malaysia, 16(7).
UNESCO George Town (Penggantian): Laporan Draf http://dx.doi.org/10.21837/pmjournal.v16.i7.502
Akhir Jilid 1: Strategi Pengurusan dan Tindakan. [41] Weeks, K.D., Grimmer, A.E. (2017). The Secretary of
https://jpbd.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/umum- the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
list/378-draf-rancangan-kawasan-khas-tapak-warisan- Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
dunia-unesco-george-town-penggantian. Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
[26] Ipoh, M.B. (2023). Kawalan Pembangunan Baru Dalam Government Printing Office.
Kawasan Warisan. Jabatan Perancang Bandar Majlis https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-
Bandaraya Ipoh. Retrieved on January 28, 2023, from treatment-historic-properties.htm.
http://perancangbandar.mbi.gov.my/. [42] Abdul Azis, I.A., Mohamed khaidzir, K.A., Mohd
[27] Historic Scotland. (2010). New Design in Historic Rashid, A. (2022). Identifying guidelines limitation of
Settings. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh. historic interior in adaptive re-use of heritage building in
[28] Al Ani, Mohammed. (2014). Creative infill projects in Malaysia. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and
urban environment and effect on livable city life. Environment Management, 7(27): 69-76.
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & https://doi.org/10/35631/JTHEM.727006
Research Technology, 3(9): 346-57. [43] Semes, S.W. (2018). What do international preservation
http://www.ijesrt.com. standards say about new architecture in historic places?
[29] Razavian, M., Samadi, R. (2016). Infill development: An common edge. https://commonedge.org/may-is-
approach to the optimal and intelligent development of preservation-month-what-do-international-standards-
cities—case study: Zone 8 of Tabriz. Journal of say-about-new-architecture-in-historic-places/.
Geography & Natural Disasters, 6(3): 2167-0587. [44] Davies, M. (2003). Design in the Historic Environment.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0587.1000177 https://www.building
[30] Jabatan Warisan Negara (2016). Garis Panduan conservation.com/articles/design/design.htm.
Pemuliharaan Bangunan Warisan. Jabatan Warisan [45] Byard, P.S. (1998). The Architecture of Additions:
Negara. Malaysia. Design and Regulation. W.W. Norton & Company.
[31] Riza, M., Doratli, N. (2015). The critical lacuna between [46] Naghavi, P., Mazaherian, H. (2019). Analysis of
new contextually juxtaposed and freestyle buildings in contemporary theories when encountering the context in
historic settings. Journal of Architectural and Planning architectural design. The Monthly Scientific Journal of
Research, 32(2): 234-257. Bagh-E Nazar, 16(74): 69-80.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44113112. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2019.174193.4023
[32] Brolin, B.C. (1980). Architecture in Context: Fitting [47] Lambe, N., Dongre, A. (2016) Contextualism: An
New Buildings with Old. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New approach to achieve architectural identity and continuity.
York. International Journal of Innovative Research and
[33] Semes, S.W. (2009). Differentiated and compatible: Advanced Studies (IJIRAS), 3(2): 33-42.
Conservation in the context of a recovered traditional https://issuu.com/ijiras/docs/paper_7_82600d413ed755.
architecture and urbanism. Disegnarecon, 2(4): 1-10. [48] Ujang, N., Zakariya, K. (2015). The notion of place,
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1828-5961/1792 place meaning and identity in urban regeneration.
[34] Gaber, M.A., Akçay, A.Ö. (2020). Qualitative and Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 170: 709-717.
quantitative evaluation techniques of new infill designs https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.073
in historic context. Amazonia Investiga, 9(35): 20-33. [49] Abdel-Kader, Z.F. (2019). Infill design in heritage sites
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.35.11.2 study of experts’ preferences and attitudes. Journal Of
[35] Khalaf, R. (2015). The reconciliation of heritage Engineering and Applied Science, 66(4): 451-463.
conservation and development: The success of Criteria in [50] Al Hasany, S.H.H. (2018). Urban infill processes and
guiding the design and assessment of contemporary their role in achieving the main objectives within the old
interventions in historic places. International Journal of urban fabric. Journal of Engineering and Architecture,
Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 9: 77-92. 6(2): 20-31. https://doi.org/10.15640/jns.v6n2a3
http://dx.doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v9i1.504 [51] Sotoudeh, H., Abdullah, W.M.Z.W. (2012). Affected
[36] Ismail, W.H.W. (2005). Houses in Malaysia: Fusion of variables on successful infill design in urban historic
the East and the West. Penerbit UTM Press. context. Arts and Design Studies, 3(9).
[37] Sotoudeh, H., Abdullah, W.M.Z.W. (2013). Evaluation https://www.iiste.org.
of fitness of design in urban historical context: From the [52] Ismail, A.S. (2018). Pemikiran Frank Lloyd Wright ke
perspectives of residents. Frontiers of Architectural arah pembentukan identiti seni bina kebangsaan (Edisi
Research, 2(1): 85-93. Pertama 2018). Penerbit UTM Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2012.10.007 [53] Bentley, I., McGlynn. S., Smith. G., Alcock, A. (1985).
[38] The Preservation Alliance. (2007). Sense of place: Responsive Environments. London: Routledge.
Design guidelines for new construction in historic https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080516172
districts - A Publication of the Preservation Alliance for [54] ICOMOS. (1964). International Charter for the
Greater Philadelphia. The William Penn Foundation. Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites.
[39] UNESCO. (1976). The General Conference of UNESCO Venice, Italy.
in 1976 of the Warsaw-Nairobi Recommendation, https://www.icomos.org/charters/venicee.pdf.

1474
[55] ICOMOS. (1987). Charter for the Conservation of [57] ICOMOS (2013) The Australia ICOMOS Charter for
Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter Places of Cultural Significance, 2013 (Burra Charter):
1987). Adopted by ICOMOS General Assembly in Guidelines to the Burra Charter: cultural significance and
Washington, DC, October 1987. conservation policy. Sydney, New South Wales,
https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charter Australia: ICOMOS Australia.
s/towns_e.pdf. [58] UNESCO. (2005). Vienna memorandum on world
[56] ICOMOS. (2010). ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for heritage & contemporary architecture–managing historic
the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. urban landscape. In 15th General Assembly of States
https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charter Parties to The Convention Concerning the Protection of
s/ICOMOS_NZ_Charter_2010_FINAL_11_Oct_2010.p The World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
df.

1475