Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings towards a Resilient Heritage

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the development of the global principles of historic building reuse and the theories of fundamental intervention, starting from the end of the eighteenth century down to the related principles’ integration into comprehensive sustainable development agendas at the beginning of this century. The chapter raised some research questions and presented three historic churches from the Syrian coast that need reuse and activation. Then, it attempted to answer the questions through a literature review and a case study of international examples of the adaptive reuse of historic churches from America and Europe in an assortment of functions. The presented case studies focused on the abandoned historic churches’ original structure and materials and incorporating them into the design for the new usage, era needs and techniques, where their conservation and adaptive reuse emphasize the aging of original surfaces, walls and other components as a form of respect for the place’s memory in some cases, as well as using the creative design in other cases to provide the needs of the new functions. The chapter concluded with some guidelines and essential points to be considered in the process of historic building/church’ adaptive reuse in Syria and worldwide.

1. Introduction

Architecture is the art of meeting human needs, which started with the early man who used rocks and caves as a refuge and shelter from the natural factors and predators that threatened his life. Since prehistoric periods, the processes of using what exists, modifying and preparing it to serve its daily needs began. The early man used a kind of architectural treatment for his cave in line with his discoveries and his desire for survival and continuity. He made a cave door to be closed and an opening to let the smoke out when he discovered the fire. The requirements and developments of human life prompted the use of a kind of functional division of his shelters, such as sleeping and residence zones. Thousands of years later, given the values of social, cultural and historical archaeological sites and buildings and their importance in shaping the identity of the country and the culture of current and future generations, it stresses the need to reuse them in preserving them and striving for sustainable development. They are preserved for a “social purpose” with the possibility of handing over a special richness to future generations. Currently, heritage assets are referred to the inherited resources, activities or goods of the past. They are the resources for which each country has a regulatory framework designed to protect them as exemplary public goods. They contribute to giving their country vision, increasing the attractiveness and cultural tourism, which will surely generate a treasure for the nation [1]. From an economic point of view, the value of cultural heritage assets lies in the benefits that can be derived from their direct and indirect use and even from their non-use. Valorisation means benefiting more from the investment of countries, regions and municipalities in cultural heritage in several ways, thus enhancing social and economic returns. Their mere existence can contribute to business activities, employment as well as regional and urban renewal, skills development, and cultural participation of citizens. At the same time, their reuse in a suitable and non-destructive usage can provide added value [2]. Adaptive reuse is the process of modifying old or monumental buildings to make them suitable for new and non-destructive uses to allow structures to maintain their historical integrity while meeting the needs of their contemporary occupants. It continuously updates building structures that have aged beyond their original functions to meet modern requirements and changes in technology and lifestyle [3, 4]. Many research and case studies examined the effects generated by the adaptive reuse of historic buildings onto their adjacent neighbourhood and demonstrated the increase of their property prices and bringing substantial social and economic benefits as a result of heritage adaptive reuse side by side with maintaining the authenticity of the cultural heritage [5]. Several historic buildings are currently a thing of the past and need preservation. Several historic churches/buildings are demolished and abandoned as ghost buildings, and some are ineffectively reused. Our main question is: Couldn’t we rethink the historic churches/buildings’ design, structure, function and physical situation to be socially responsible, warm and vibrant structures in balance with their authenticity in the current era and the building material and digital revolution? The research used documentation and data collection methods based on historical and academic documents about adaptive reuse for historic buildings and churches in the first section of the research, while the second section included a case presentation and analysis of historic churches that have been reused with other functions, leading to general principles and a guiding framework for our churches adaptive reuse.

1.1 An overview of the global evolution of reuse and adaptive reuse’ principles and approaches

Definitions of heritage conservation began in Europe (Italy-France-England) and later in the Americas. The most important theories of conservation and restoration appeared with the early approaches in the Italian Renaissance and during the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century to be embodied in international policy trends after World War II. Authenticity, original condition and materials were the main issues in the Restoration discussions. Several historic buildings were converted during the Renaissance for new uses, and in later times during the French Revolution, the use of these buildings was converted for industrial functions or military uses. The more predominant traditional approach has been to preserve the old structures as long as they continue their previous use or their function through the new use. The driving force behind “reuse” was essentially functional and financial for two reasons: firstly, the stability of these structures, so there was no reason to destroy them, and secondly, the construction of new structures required a long time and significant financial resources. The task was not easy, and the revolution and Napoleonic rule led to a shortage of craftsmen with the skill to restore medieval buildings. Besides, the lack of sufficient documentation for these pre-war buildings and the lack of experienced architects caused the restoration; sections were renovated and remodelled rather than restored [6]. The basic intervention movements in the historical conservation of the built heritage since the mid-nineteenth century have been framed in the dualism of the Restoration and the Anti-restoration movements. Although the objectives of these two approaches are partially identical, as both are directed towards the protection of historical buildings and works of art, their methods often conflict, sometimes leading to significant conflicts. Restoration movement pioneers include Violett-le-Duc in France, Schinkel in Germany and Scott in England. The method used by the early restoration engineers was to dismantle the buildings and replace the damaged parts, leading to virtual renovations [7]. There were major modifications to the cathedrals and parts of them disappeared, which gave the restoration process the impression of destruction. The growing opposition to the prevailing practice of architectural restoration led to the emergence of the Anti-restoration movement headed by John Ruskin and William Morris calling for conservation and maintenance, and later to the opening of the Society for the protection of ancient building’s Manifesto in 1877. In the Lamp of Memory, Ruskin emphasized that architecture provides memory for a nation, and the architecture of the past is an engineering inheritance of modern man that must be preserved as a living memory of the past [8]. The posterior Modern conservation movement came to bring the two trends together and to emphasize the historical, aesthetic and use values and respecting the original material based on a critical historical restoration of the artwork, which was later reflected on the international level and the Venice Charter later in 1964. Luis Regal, one of its pioneers, discussed the opposing views of the two previous movements and attributed the conflict in their theory to the different values ​​of historical buildings. He divided these values ​​into two categories: commemorative values ​​and present values and suggested that the reuse of historical buildings is the most important part of the modern preservation process of architecture based on the value of architecture use.

Madrid Conference of 1904 classified the monuments into two groups: dead monuments of earlier civilizations and living monuments still in use, and recommended minimal intervention and restoration. In the 1931 Athens Charter, conservative principles rather than stylistic restoration gained international support [9, 10]. During the period of urban restoration after World War II, architects thought about preserving and reusing historic buildings. “Adaptive reuse of old buildings” became an essential topic of academic research in the second half of the twentieth century, and cultural heritage preservation grew as a global goal. They were followed by the emergence of international committees and institutions of cultural heritage concerned with the affairs of heritage and preservation (1945 UNESCO, 1946 ICOM, 1946 ICCROM). The conservation of cultural heritage grew as a global goal, and many charters were published for specific types of built heritage and museum utilization. The principles of the Venice and Bora Charters were applied, which laid the general foundations and procedures for any heritage site and building, regardless of location, culture or society. Venice Charter of 1964 established guidelines for intervention levels in conservation and restoration work. It has 16 articles for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites based on authenticity, integrity, and original materials and documents (Articles 9,11,12,13,15,16). This charter is still being implemented in evaluating UNESCO projects to preserve monuments and historic buildings inscribed on the World Heritage List. Venice Charter in the conservation Articles (5 and 6) concerns the monuments’ reuse for socially beneficial objectives as a kind of their conservation. The modifications demanded by a change of function should not be out of the building layout or decoration, and the surrounding site and the relations of mass and colour must be preserved. It also emphasizes in Articles (2 and 10) the necessity of using sciences and technologies in conservation and restoration operations, provided that the techniques have proof of effectiveness and are tested and guaranteed by expertise [11]. The Australian ICOMOS Burra Charter (1979) encouraged an assessment of heritage property importance based on a values-based approach. The values change over time depending on the factor of the social variable itself and align with shifts in environmental, cultural, spiritual values and other use values. It defines three types of actions of built heritage conservation into Preservation, Restoration, and Reconstruction [12].

During the 1960s and 1970s, adaptive reuse was popularized in the dominant architectural language. The decline of heavy industry during the early and mid-twentieth century has left a legacy of abandoned and underutilized idle sites across the global landscape. Industrial Revolution buildings were particularly suited to adaptive reuse due to their large, open spaces and the emergence of the need for environmental treatments [13]. Due to a growing concern for the environment, increasing fuel and building materials costs and the difficulties associated with securing them, historic preservation and adaptive use become viable alternatives to new construction and building removal for urban renewal [14]. After the global energy crisis, the lack of resources and the pieces of evidence of the impact of changing climatic conditions on cultural heritage, simultaneously with the emergence of green principles, sustainability and classification systems, conservation principles and approaches began to change and the use of available technologies to adapt to the needs of this age and reduce current and future pressure on cultural and natural heritage. The integration of heritage preservation into comprehensive sustainable development agendas appeared in the Budapest Declaration of 2002 under the explicit title “the effective and sustainable conservation of the World Heritage properties” [6, 15]. Then, it was followed by other calls of UNESCO in 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012 to integrate sustainability principles into heritage and authenticity preservation and develop strategies for built heritage as important assets for sustainable social and economic development, which was officially adopted at the twentieth session of the General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention in 2015 to harness the potential of World Heritage properties and heritage, in general, to contribute to sustainable development [16]. Since 2019, with the outbreak of the Coronavirus epidemic, the increase in office vacancy rates in many urban centres around the world and the spread of quarantine, work and remote communication, some trends have emerged to transform the use of office space into livable residential units, especially in capitals and major cities, which reinforces the need to think about transforming Usage down to a flexible heritage and adapted to the conditions of this era [17].

1.2 Adaptive reuse of historic churches

From the end of the nineteenth century, churches from all around the United States started adaptively reusing for a community development outcome due to the churches’ deteriorating and the declining number of their parishioners [18]. The historic religious buildings were known as “white elephant buildings” in the preservation and real estate industries due to the high cost of basic repairs and maintenance of this kind of property. They are well-known landmarks, have a significant community location configuration, and are strongly linked with their neighbourhood and its physical and social situation, well-being and health, and structure deterioration [19]. The study of Simons and Choi explained the existence of a total of 210 successful adaptive reuse cases of America’s religious buildings and schools by 2010. The mentioned buildings were classified into the following categories: 52 Residential Condo’ buildings, 22 apartment buildings, 43 Retail buildings, 26 Office buildings, 42 Cultural buildings, 24 Schools and one Industrial building [20]. This phenomenon is widely distributed in the USA and Europe. A survey conducted in the Netherlands by Benjamin Garstka about the suitable function for the churches’ adaptation demonstrated the significance of place identity and using caution in reusing buildings of social and emotional significance. The cafés, kindergartens and private apartments were the most acceptable functions, and clubs, mosques and supermarkets were the least desirable. More than two-thirds of responders demonstrated the harm of the external changes of the churches to the local landscape, while they did not mind the internal modifications of the churches in this study [21, 22].

Towards the second half of the 1980s, new cultural orientations led to new designs or even interventions of modernization or enlargement and certain measures towards an intervention not limited to restoration and installation, but to creative intervention from the present, either by neutralizing the original space by recreating it, or by inserting elements of contrast with the building, which in any case establishes a dialogue between architectures of the past and current [23]. A sample of 100 churches along the Italian peninsula recognised four usage groups and six strategies for functional conversion of the churches. The four usage groups in this study cover non-Christian religious uses, non-cultural functions mainly in the minor buildings (official, residential, retail, entertaining functions, etc.), light cultural functions especially in the edifices (museums, auditorium, open theatres, multiple use spaces, artists’ workshops, etc.) and heavy cultural functions (theatres, cinemas, multimedia centres and libraries). The strategies were reorganizing the furniture; creating temporary adaptations; conservation work escorted by new furniture; installing technological utilities and elements; inserting new functional architectural shapes; and the deep transformation of the buildings [24]. Where the adaptive reuse of churches is perhaps the most difficult type of adaptive reuse that exists, therefore, creativity plays an essential role in reusing and choosing the proper function. It is internationally recognized that historic buildings should be used for their original historic purpose with a minimal change to their architecture, site and environment for a new use. Reusing the churches first faces design obstacles due to the specific plan type, the original interior and exterior architectural features, ceiling, wall thickness, windows, materials and techniques, etc. In addition to the stringent preservation requirements of the listed historic buildings, the cost of rehabilitating, lack of funding and interest, evoking the regulations, developer challenges and declining neighbourhood economies and social fabric in many cases [25]. The enormous stock of abandoned historical churches in Western countries enabled reuse to promote their historical continuity, sustainability, and socio-cultural connectivity. It provides learned lessons and successful experiences.

1.3 An overview of the case study buildings

The three targeted historic churches for this study were headquarters of the Knights Templar on the Syrian coast in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The main purpose of building them was military, defensive and religious purposes. They served a twelfth-century pilgrimage route. In the 1990s, they are registered as a national heritage with the decision of the Ministry of Culture. These ancient structures currently do not exist individually but within the framework of a city with a distinct texture and a great diversity in the styles of its buildings. The loss of active and functional communication between the building and the surrounding environment characterizes them. They suffer from the lack of restoration funding as most Syrian historic buildings. Although the economic objective of the building is considered one of the partial objectives and not one of the main objectives for employing the building, the non-destructive investment of these historic buildings and making them of economic benefit provides an appropriate return that covers the costs of restoring these buildings and helps to raise the level of maintenance. Revitalizing these buildings also achieves social goals by creating a kind of public sympathy between the building and the local people and users and achieving a kind of archaeological awareness of the antiquities and preserving them. The three selected buildings are as follows:

1.3.1 Chastel Blanc in Safita in Syria

The first building is located in Safita city in Tartous governorate in Syria. It is a tower at Chastel Blanc (Burg Safita), a small mountain crusader fort. The tower is located at the higher central point of the walled castle, where the adjacent houses cover a large part of the features of its defensive walls, as shown in Figure 1, [27, 28]. The tower served as both a chapel and a fortress. It is built of white limestone with 3 metres thick. It has a rectangular shape (31 m x18m, and 27 m height). Its structure base dates back to the Phoenician period; it consists of an underground floor with a semi-circular vaulted ceiling with gates leading to catacombs and a covered water cistern carved into the rock, where the water cistern and a former weapons cache were essential elements in case of siege. The cistern was filled in when the residents began building their homes. The tower chapel on the ground floor is still used today as a church for Christians. It has a barrel-vaulted roof and has been called the Church of St. Michael since 1652, in which religious rites are currently being practiced in Safita. The first floor is reached by a staircase within the thickness of the massive walls (3 meters) and leads to an open hall with windows called the Great Hall (possibly the knights’ dormitory) [29, 30]. It was built on three pillars of huge protruding columns, on which are strongly curved cross-shaped stone arches. The gothic hall is currently open for visitors but not used. The flat roof is reached by a staircase and edged with simple merlons with arrow slits overlooking the distant horizon. The castle had restored in 1170 and 1202 AD after the big damage from the earthquakes. The tower remained in good condition until the end of the nineteenth century. Efforts were made to restore the tower during the French Mandate, and intensive repairs were undertaken in 1946 to protect the castle from collapse. The tower still needs restoration, and the underground and first floor need to reuse.

Figure 1.

Chastel Blanc in Safita in Syria: (a) The fort site plan, (b) The tower plan and section, (c) Site view, (d) The church on the ground floor and the west façade, (e) fort gate remains and photos of the templer hall and the roof. Source: Author, (a, b): [26].

1.3.2 The churches of the old city of Tartous in Syria (The Crusader Tortosa churches)

Tortosa, currently called the old city of Tartous, was used by the Knights Templar as a military headquarters and a keep from 1105 (the capture by Raymond of Saint-Gilles) until it fell in1291. During that period, they built the castle with its facilities, such as a chapel, great hall and fortification surrounded by thick double concentric walls, as shown in Figure 2, a. Tortosa was the last outpost of the Templars on the Syrian mainland. Tortosa bishopric consisted of the castle and the Cathedral of Our Lady of Tortosa within the third historic wall, as shown in Figure 2,c. [26, 29]. In contrast to the Chastel blanc design, the knight’s hall in Tortosa was separated from the chapel in a two-storey large rectangular building in the inner circle of the city walls. Tartous castle’s chapel (Tortosa chapel), the second selected case study, is built nearby the hall in a typically rectangular building without an apse and covered with four gothic ribbed vaults. The houses currently overlap with the chapel wall under two western vaults, and the chapel roof is mainly destructive, as shown in Figure 2, d. The abandoned chapel forms a dangerous space for the local kids because they always gather and play there, and it is always filled with rubbish and waste bags. It needs structural strengthening, a complete restoration and reusing with a function that adapts to the current surrounding fabric of the old city, where most of its occupants profess the Islamic religion.

Figure 2.

Knights chapel: (a) Tartous walled Castel, (b) the inner and outer castle’ walls in 1180 AD, (c) Tortosa bishopric within the third historic wall, (d) Tortosa knights’ chapel before and after the residents’ houses. Source: Author& [6, 26, 31]. Cathedral of Our Lady of Tortosa. Knights Chapel.

The third selected building is the semi-fortified Cathedral of Our Lady of Tortosa. It was built in 1123 by Crusaders over a Byzantine church that was popular with pilgrims. According to legend, it was an early Christian monastery dedicated to Saint Mary and consecrated by the holy apostle Peter himself. The Cathedral was used as a mosque after the Muslim reconquest of the city, where the minaret on the west facade still bears witness until today. In Ottoman times, it became a horse stable and a barracks. The building was renovated under the French and is now the National Museum of Tartous, containing antiquities recovered from Amrit and many other sites in the region [32]. The cathedral plan is a typical basilica (41 m x 34.5 m x15m) related to the Romanesque style with the Gothic influence in the western facade presented by the five-pointed arched windows set in recessed shape in the wall, as shown in Figure 3. The museum was closed during the Syrian war from 2013 to 2018, and the relics were protected in a safe place. Since 2018, the museum has alternated between opening and closing for visitors due to COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 and the later interior restoration and maintenance of the capitals of the internal columns of the Cathedral. On the occasion of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in August 2022, the Al-Mahaba Choir and the artist Ghassan Saliba held a performance concert at the Tartous National Museum (the oldest Cathedral dedicated to Our Lady) organized by Akkar Archdiocese and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Tartous and sponsored by Banque Bemo Saudi Fransi and Ahli Trust Bank. This event received a positive response and admiration from the residents of Tartous. The antiquities and Museums Department in Tartous has a proposal for an alternative location to build a museum in Tartous in the next 10 years, and all the exhibits and collections will transfer to the new building. Therefore, an adaptive utilization should be prepared for the Cathedral.

Figure 3.

Cathedral of Our Lady of Tortosa: Plan, section, and photos of the exterior and interior. Source: Author & [26].

2. Global examples of adaptive reuse of historic churches

2.1 Santa Maria Church of Vilanova de la Barca in Lleida, Spain

The original church floor plan is a single-nave basilica-style church with a false transept and rectangular apse of medieval origin built of local stone. It is 22 meters long and 7 meters wide, and its interior rises up to 10 meters. The church was not built in one batch; different parts were added over time. A side nave and an entrance from the Baroque period were added to the church. The eastern part still contains side buttresses and a late Gothic cross vault from the seventeenth century at the head. The new additions to the historic church consist mainly of the completion of the damaged stone wall of white bricks and a tiled gable roof supported by thin steel trusses covering the nave. Originally, the main entrance was in the western façade of the church out to the old front square. Currently, the western entrance is replaced by a glass opening, and the building faces the east by a wooden door of the old church, and an external side door leads to the main entrance in the southern façade, as shown in Figure 4. The intervention aims to achieve consolidate the elements in ruin to restore the original space of the church, simultaneously differentiating the original and added building materials, in order to reuse it as a multipurpose space. Recovering the origin volume and avoiding the mimetic reconstructions were achieved using a mediating element to achieve the main objective. The use of openwork and painted white brick cladding together with the metal trusses of the roof contrasts with the existing original remained structure in the interior. On the other hand, the new skin promotes the exchange of air with the exterior. It ventilates the building in order to avoid humidity, in addition, to its potential as an acoustic control element. Two types of lighting were used in this building; firstly, natural light penetrates the interior through the pores of the new facings, where the light filters in, and the views are hidden for privacy. Secondly, the artificial light suspended from the ceiling covers the monumental height space at a more human height to create a sacred and collected space and an artistic installation within the primary space. The pendant lighting consists of mere wires, sockets and LEDs in a carefully thought-out arrangement of simple elements [33, 34, 35].

Figure 4.

Santa Maria Church of Vilanova: (a) The new eastern entrance, (b) The wooden door in the eastern façade after the intervention, (c) The west facade after the intervention, (D-D) View of the interior wall after the intervention, (E-E) View of the interior arches in contrast to the intervention. The rest of photos are for lighting, materials, and roof during and after the intervention. Source: [33, 34].

2.2 Selexyz Dominicanen Church of Maastricht in the Netherlands

The Selexyz Dominicanen Gothic-style Church in Maastricht was built in 1294. It was used for different functions since the Dominicans were ousted at the end of the eighteenth century started with a military depot, a school, the city depot, an exhibition space, a celebration hall, a multicultural space, a postal service, the city library, and bicycle storage. Then, it suffered poor conditions in the 1990s until 2000 when its restoration was started to be opened as a bookshop in 2006. The previous community function of the church before the restoration was one of the justifications for the proposed retail purposes use. The proposal of converting the church into a retail function was because of the new master plan for Maastricht city centre, where the church was a part of the rehabilitation project of the shopping centre Entre-Deux in 2000 [4]. The available church floor space was only half of the commercial space required, and as the church is a unique and grand monument with a strong space and vaults, it needed to be kept as open and visible as possible. Therefore, a two-storey volume of asymmetrical height was introduced into the church. A steel bookcase structure was designed on two floors to the nave side to provide extra space for books, and perforated steel sheets were used to increase the transparency. Where the volume from the ground floor emphasizes the monumental dimensions of the church while from the upper floor the visitor can see all the architectural details close up, as shown in Figure 5. The steel construction stands alongside the row of columns. It never covers the wall or touches the church, and it contains a series of stairs and one elevator inside its structure. All interventions are structurally reversible except the excavation of the cellar. The technical installations, storage and restrooms were hidden from sight in the existing basement. A proper lighting system was added. The lighting plan highlighted the books for sale, focused on the architectural beauty of the church and avoided visual pollution by integrating most of the lighting equipment and fixtures into the furniture or storage unit [4, 37]. According to a comparative and analytic study of Bie Plevoets, the Selexyz Dominicanen church is an outstanding case of retail reuse on the architectural, retail design, and conservation level and in urban regeneration. All stakeholders strived for a qualitative result and scientific restoration of the church [4].

Figure 5.

The Selexyz Dominicanen Church in Maastricht: (a) The ground floor, (b) The first floor after the interior design, (c) cross section shows the bookcase structure and some interior and exterior of the church. Source: [36].

2.3 St. Vincent de Paul Church of Brooklyn in New York in the U.S

According to Manhattan’s Department of Buildings, in 2013, half the total of permits was for conversion; therefore, adaptive reuse was speedier due to the extremely scarce land and the existence of numerous historic districts making new construction hard [38]. The developers and real estate brokers converted several unlivable buildings such as warehouses, power plants and parking garages, churches, schools, cinemas and banks. Our selected example is the St. Vincent de Paul campus in Brooklyn, New York. The original campus contains a church, a school and a rectory. The church was founded in 1860 and closed in 2004 due to its deteriorating and declining number of parishioners. In 1985, the school attached to the church was merged with Our Lady Mt. Carmel and renamed Northside Catholic, and then, this school closed in 2009 [39]. In 2011, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio issued a decree stating that the parish of Our Lady of Mount Carmel could no longer afford to maintain the church and issued the ability to sell the church could be sold for profane use except for sordid purposes such as a bar or liquor-serving restaurant [40]. The church was later sold, and the patrimony was removed in 2012. In 2011, before turning the building over to the developer, the Brooklyn Diocese removed a 130-year-old of two-ton bronze historic bell, which is blessed by Brooklyn’s first Catholic bishop, as well as other artefacts, Catholic relics, stained glass windows and an altar from the vacant St. Vincent De Paul Church. Where the religious objects will remain in the Diocese’s East New York warehouse until other parishes claim them in Brooklyn and Queens for use. The sight of removing the bell from the tower unnerved the neighbours and the emotion of the previous church visitors and its school students [41]. In 2014, the campus was converted into a residential usage called the “Spire Lofts” includes 104 Multi Family Residential Units [42].

The foundations have been strengthened. The Church and Rectory buildings have been restored, keeping their original architectural components, basic exterior elements and character, interior details, and the aesthetic of restored wooden old beams, arched windows, stained glass, and exposed brick. The church was designed to have a long nave with rows of columns supporting balconies on either side. The church is converted into a 5-storey building containing 40 housing units while maintaining the building as part of the historic design. To maximize the space and the number of units within the church’s structural shell and interior timber truss system, the apartments were designed as duplex spaces. This allowed scenic double-height volumes and extra spaces. The central aisle is repeated on each floor and connects the two separated wings. Recessed balconies, with angled floor-to-ceiling glass doors, allowed for the required natural light and air requirements while creating unique balcony spaces. Material selections and palette remain neutral, while new elements for mezzanines, bridges and balconies introduced an industrial look to its interior. The church ceiling’ exposed beams extend through some living spaces to remind the tenants of the historic character of their new living spaces. The church’s disrepair bell tower, the roof that is riddled with holes, and the missing bricks and shingles are also restored. The original two-storey school was extended vertically to contain five stories in accordance with zoning and building code to have more space for the proposed interventions, where its zoning permits residential development up to 50 feet tall (about 15 m) [42], as shown in Figure 6. Although living in a church is taboo for some people, it is a challenge for others. Several structures of old vacant churches were converted into modern houses by some architects after solving the problem of the building’s possession and ownership. The Dutch Reformed Evangelism Building in the Netherlands by Leijh Kappelhoff Seckel van den Dobbelsteen architecten, London’s Westbourne Grove Church by DOS Architects, Anglican church in Melbourne by Bagnato Architects, Luke Chapel in Bern in Switzerland by Morscher Architekten, James Spicer Memorial Church Hall School in London by Gianna Camilotti Interiors are related examples, where mostly the exterior may remain the roofs, arches and traditional shape for the facades and the openings, while the interior features are changed according to the space needs in the new design and with modern furnishings.

Figure 6.

St. Vincent de Paul campus: (a) The church back facade, (b) the church front façade with the bell tower, (c) section on the church after adaptive reuse, (d) the campus plan after conversion, (e) the mixture of the new and old materials of the internal converted spaces. Source: [42, 43].

2.4 Santa Barbara Church of Llanera in Asturias region in Spain

The church was built in 1912 for the workers’ community of the explosives company. After the Spanish Civil War and the company’s closing, the workers’ families of the old colony emigrated to other cities, leaving the place uninhabited. The old colony buildings were demolished, except for the Santa Barbara church, by a private company in the 1960s to use as an industrial estate. The church remained abandoned until 2007 and faced neglect and deterioration after years of abandonment. The church was sold to a commercial agent to build a multiservice company (Ernesto Fernández Rey), and then he decided to use the place for his skateboarding hobby. The Church Brigade collective, who was the agent belonged to, went on after his death to transform the church into a skate park called Kaos Temple with support from online fundraising and some commercial brands. The new additions were mainly the Skate ramps. They were designed and installed in the middle nave of the church, and the space was converted to serve the new usage. Okuda San Miguel was a Spanish street artist who was later commissioned to paint the church’s interior vaulted walls and ceilings, which was inaugurated in 2015, with geometric figures and colours. The rainbow colours covered the interior surfaces, and the tall windows illuminated the space to give a vibrant atmosphere, as shown in Figure 7. This church was not the only one which transformed into a skate park. Churches in the United States were also transformed into indoor skate spaces. Such as the Saint Liborius church in St. Louis, Missouri, in the Midwestern region of the United States, was founded in 1889 for a wave of German immigrants who had arrived in St. Louis. and it was closed in 1992 after the declining Catholic population alongside the population in the city in general. Then in 2012, it reopened as a skate park (Sk8 Liborius) and community centre to serve its neighbourhood and district differently. The noticeable difference was in the wall paintings treatment after changing function. The drawings of the St. Louis skate park were random, disorganized and drawn by amateurs [45], as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 7.

Santa Barbara Church, before and after, source: [44].

Figure 8.

Saint Liborius Catholic Church before and after, source: [45, 46, 47].

2.5 St. Mary’s Church of Dublin in Ireland

The St Mary’s Church in Dublin was built between 1700 and 1704. It faced a continued decay after it was closed in 1986 due to the decline of its Church of Ireland parishioners. The church was used for various purposes after deconsecration until purchased by a publican in 1997. Then, the building was refurbished as a pub and restaurant named the “John M. Keating Bar”, and the pub changed its name to be called “The Church” in 2007. Currently, it serves as a cafe, bar, restaurant, and nightclub. As shown in Figure 9, the white area (the nave) on the ground floor currently includes a large oval bar and two tiers of balconies overlooking the main floor, where the hatched area is the gallery on the first floor, and the red points are the walking route. The exterior spiral glazed stair tower built to the northeast, linked with a glass-enclosed bridge, leads to the restaurant at the upper level within the church and leads down to the burial crypts of the church [48, 50, 51, 52]. The church crypts were the only original basement of the original building, and the current Cellar, Kitchen and Tower were dug out of the foundations during the renovations. Records show that burials were in the Church Crypts. All of the contents of the crypts in this church were exhumed, and cremated and the ashes were re-interred in the Crypts of St Michan’s Church, Church Street, Dublin 7 [53]. St Mary’s Churchyard on the south side of the church was a burial place for a number of notable individuals. The graveyard had become so overcrowded by the mid-nineteenth-century that bodies were removed in order to make more room—to the outrage of the locals. The old railings have been destroyed with the modern open urban spaces works [54]. The churchyard was converted into Wolfe Tone Park by the 1940s. The old gravestones in the churchyard have been stacked up at the southern end or removed, and a number of them laid out flat in the manner of paving stones and open for walking on in a disrespectful way to the dead and affected the inscriptions and their records [48, 55].

Figure 9.

St. Mary’s Church of Dublin in Ireland the exterior, interior and the gravestones and churchyard, source: [48, 49].

Several other examples were used as a nightclub, bars, and restaurants, such as Taft’s Ale House in Cincinnati, Ohio (built-in 1850, a church until 2011, and a brewpub since 2015)- The Church Nightclub in Denver in Colorado (built-in 1889, a church until 1975, and nightclub since 1996, one of the top 3 Nightclubs in Denver)- Pitcher & Piano in Nottingham in England (built-in 1876, a church until 1982, and bar, restaurant, and piano since 1998)- Vessel Nola in New Orleans in Louisiana (built-in 1914, a church until 1977, and a restaurant and bar since 2016, and distinguished by Architectural Digest as one of the eight Gorgeous Restaurants in Former Churches Worldwide in 2018)- The Church Brew Works in Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania (was built-in 1902, a church until 1993, a brewery and for the Brew Works since 1996, and classified by the Pittsburgh Magazine as one of the best breweries in Pittsburgh in 2012) [56, 57, 58, 59, 60]. No significant changes for the outside, the churches look like any other nineteenth Century church in the same city, as an initial impression. The interior decors do not suggest that it is a former place of worship, and later some original features remind the seated visitor of the original purpose of the space, such as the churches’ porches and arches, original stonework, and preserved stained glass. Although preserving the original structure and including a number of repainted pieces of furniture, the interiors have strikingly changed due to the churches’ refurbishments. The central nave has been used as a bar or big dance stage, with seating circling over the floors with an acoustic treatment suitable for the high ceilings.

2.6 Saint Francesco Church of Santpedor in Barcelona Spain

The Sant Francesco complex was built in the eighteenth century. It was sacked in 1835, and its structure’s progressive deterioration began and ended with its demolition in 2000. Only the church remained standing, but in a destructive state. With the aim to adapt the church to reuse as a cultural facility, auditorium and historical archive on the upper floors, the rehabilitation project was started in 2005. The design is characterised by contemporary predominance by using additions and interposed contrasted volume in a juxtaposition way. Besides preserving and focusing on the original deteriorated structure without any deleting, the intervention used new elements side by side with the old fabric and the partially collapsed roof [61], as shown in Figure 10. External glazed stairs climbing the ancient walls of this church were added as an entrance leading to the central nave. A new roof overlaps with the old damaged vaulted ceiling and shelters it. The partial collapses of the roof have been filled in with glass windows, and the modern glass windows have also been used, allowing natural light to flow inside. It consolidated natural light placed the proper technical equipment, and added an exterior vertical staircase to preserve the unity of the inner church’s nave. New stairs and ramps with geometric shapes are placed in the ancient central nave leading to the two upper mezzanine levels in the wings of the church for historical archive use. Concrete supports were used to create new areas for the storage of large technical equipment [62].

Figure 10.

The church of Saint Francesco in Santpedor in Barcelona: (a) The church floor plans after intervention, (b) The church sections and façade after intervention, (c) some external and internal photos of the auditorium. Source: [61] And photos ©Jordi Surroca.

2.7 St. Peter’s Church (D Petrus) in Vught in the Netherlands

St. Peter’s Church was built between 1881 and 1884 and extended in 1935. In 2005, St Peter’s Church stopped using it for religious activities because of the need for restoration. Although the funding challenges, the church demolition was replaced with social use, and the restoration was later implemented to its exterior masonry, roof and openings in 2011–2012. It has been a library, museum and community centre (DePetrus) in Vught since 2018 [63]. According to Hauke et al., this church’s intervention is a kind of creative reuse of the old buildings as libraries. A radical renovation was done to the church to preserve the characteristic elements such as stained glass windows, vaults and confessionals [64].

The church’s original windows work in tandem with the added lighting to create a bright, well-lit space. The renovations also concerned the roof, leadworks, gutter and drain to prevent further leakage; electrical heating installations and radiators under the paintings and windows to prevent cold traps; the floor has been removed and replaced by a floor system with isolation and heating. A thin mezzanine floor surrounding the original central space connected to the first floor has been added. The added part forms interior walking paths in an organic shape as a curled ribbon along pilasters in an eye-catcher visual effect in contrast to the traditional rectilinear plan of the church and offering a panoramic view of its opened interior for events, as shown in Figure 11. The first floor has fire resistance and acoustic facilities that reduce the reverberation time and ambient noise because of the height of the building (about three-storey height) and the multiple utilizations (such as reading books, playing billiards, activities, meetings and courses) under it to 95 per cent. The mezzanine floor continues outside as the roof of four pavilions connected to the church to expand the exterior space and provide an entertainment zone. The flexible church’ floor provides room for events on all scales and functions as a library. Where the bookshelves are easily accessed and are installed on a rail system that can be moved to the aisles when ample space is needed to create private areas for events, meetings or small conferences [63, 65].

Figure 11.

St. Peter Church’s floor plans and section after intervention and photos of exterior and interior. Source: [63, 65].

3. The results and discussion

Cultural heritage is a record of the total cultural, architectural, artistic, sociological, economic and environmental aspects of the time and space, not merely an object. Therefore, the era challenges impose on us to go far from strict conservation principle and the Articles of the Venice Charter avocat the reuse of the same previous usage and prevent falsifying the artistic or historical evidence by distinguishing the new materials from the old ones. Reusing historic buildings is not a new process; it has been made throughout history to save resources, time, material, and craftsmanship, give life, and maintain the buildings whether they happened calculatedly or not. The local reclaim of historical monuments through preserving, maintaining, and adaptive reusing them gives a breath to our cultural heritage and more linkage to the local people who are partners, and their satisfaction indicates how successful reuse has been done. The increasing closure of churches has caused using them with architectural forms and functions not previously associated with religion to link their communities to the place and to provide the communities’ needs of business, culture and entertainment facilities. The second part of the research presented international examples of the adaptive reuse of historic churches from America and Europe. The selected case studies present the diversity of the function which can be chosen in the churches’ conversion and the methods of redesigning their interior spaces, and their role in local community development, such as restaurants, residences, indoor climbing gyms, libraries, concert venues, community centres, and office space for businesses and non-profits. Despite some reuse functions giving more financial input to operation and tourism and are a way to protect valuable heritage structures, they evoke society’s emotions, such as the nightclub and modern houses. With the current mania for tearing out old fabric and replacing it with tawdry modern materials, several demonstrated calls on the relevant authorities to save the historic buildings of the vandalism perpetrators and the mistreatment of the church and holy places. The above cases, Table 1, have shown the need for a wise decision to choose the proper function to meet the current and new requirements. Two main approaches to adapting intervention could be distinguished:

• The minimal intervention where the architects and designers focused on preserving as much as possible of the original structure and building materials and integrating these components into the general design for the new use, with some examples confirming the preservation of the effects of aging on the surfaces, walls and other original components as a kind of respect for the memory of the place. In addition, the use of available technologies to adapt to the needs of this age and reduce the current and future pressure on ancient buildings, their neighbourhoods and their indigenous communities, such as restoring recycling and using some of its materials, and adding what is needed for new usage in terms of non-destructive needs and structures. Where the new additions were mainly limited to the completion of the damaged structure’ components by differentiating the original and the added building materials in order to reuse it and using the light system or acoustic or heating and cooling facilities with structurally reversible furniture interventions, as it was shown in Santa Maria Church of Vilanova in Spain and Selexyz Dominicanen Church in the Netherlands.

• Creative design in adaptive reuse, where adaptive reuse projects can completely replace, repair, preserve or restore the building envelope (roof, windows, doors, and wall systems) in a specific way by building envelope design professionals. Where exteriors are not altered, the roofs, arches and traditional shape for the facades and the openings are retained. At the same time, the interiors are remodelled to adapt to the new design and needs, as in the cases of converting old vacant churches into modern houses, such as James Spicer Memorial Church Hall School in London. The intervention can use new elements and interposed contrasted volume alongside the old fabric in a contemporary predominance such as the church of Saint Francesco in Barcelona. Creative design can use innovative adding and contrasting and audacious interventions for furthering the new use as a radical renovation, such as St. Peter Church in Vught.

Case study name- Location/ Building date	Original use	Current use/ Intervention period/ Architects& conservators	Reason for previous abandonment/ later preservation & reuse	Notes/Awards
Santa Maria Church of Vilanova de la Barca- Lleida, Spain /was built in the thirteenth century	Church	Multi-purpose hall for exhibitions and concerts.; /2015–2016/; AleaOlea architecture & landscape, Spain.	Due to the damage of the Spanish civil war in 1936, then it was abandoned for more than 80 years.; In 2009, it was decided to stop the decay and to conserve it in its current condition.	Catalonia Construction Award 2017 Intervention in existing building, Fritz-Höger Award 2017 Gold Winner Renovation/Reconstruction, Brick Award 2017 Worldwide Award, Hispalyt XIV Award for Brick Architecture, RIBA Award for International Excellence 2018, Wienerberger Brick Award Special Prize 2018.
Selexyz Dominicanen Church-; Maastricht, the Netherlands /was built in 1294.	Church/ Different later functions (storage, school, multicultural space, library)	Bookshop /2006/ SATIJNplus Architecten, and Merkx+Girod Architecten	The Dominicans oust and its later multiple community functions and the poor conditions in the 1990s until being a part of the rehabilitation project of the shopping centre Entre-Deux is started in 2000.	EU Mies Award 2009
St.Vincent de Paul Church-Brooklyn, New York, the U.S /was founded in 1860.	Church	104 Multi Family Residential Units (Spire lofts); /2014/; Zambrano Architectural Design (ZAD)	It was closed in 2004 due to the church’ deteriorating and the declined number of its parishioners.; In 2014, the maintenance inability of the diocese and to get a community development outcome.	Nominated for BAQ 2020 award for category heritage architecture intervention or Heritage interest.
Santa Barbara church- Llanera, Asturias region, Spain /was built in 1912.	Church	Public skate park; /2015/; Church Brigade collective and the artist Okuda San Miguel	Abandoned until 2007 due to the dwindling attendance and their emigration after the end of the Spanish Civil War and the demolition of the area to have an industrial estate. The church was sold to a commercial agent who decided to use it for his skateboarding hobby.	Financial support from online fundraising and some commercial brands
St.Mary’s Church- Dublin, Ireland /was built between 1700 and 1704.	Church/ became a retail outlet after deconsecration	Café, bar, restaurant and nightclub called “The Church”; /2007/; DMOD Architects	It was purchased by a publican in 1997. Then, the building was refurbished and opened in 2007.	The tasteful conversion and refurbishment of this Dublin landmark was acknowledged at the Dublin City Neighbourhood Awards 2006, where it won first prize in the category of Best Old Building.
Saint Francesco Church-Santpedor, Barcelona, Spain /was built in the eighteenth century	Church/ Various purposes after deconsecration.	Cultural facility, auditorium and historical archive on the upper floors; /2005–2011/; David Closes Arquitecte	It is in destructive state with a damaged vaulted ceiling. With the aim to adapt the church to reuse the rehabilitation project was started in 2005 until 2011.	Characterized by contemporary predominance by using additions and interposed contrasted volume in a juxtaposition way.
St. Peter’s Church (D Petrus)- Vught, the Netherlands /was built between 1881 and 1884	Church	Library, museum and community centre (DePetrus); /2018/; Dutch firm Molenaar&Bol&vanDillen Architecten	The need for restoration and the demolition was replaced with social use in 2018	Classified as a kind of creative reuse of the old building.

Table 1.

Summary of the seven selected historic churches.

The Local authorities in Syria play a significant role in deciding and developing policies addressing the conservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings. Most registered heritage buildings in Syria are government properties, and a few are private properties. The government-related authorities are the only body that can support the adaptive reuse, rehabilitation and retrofit projects for historic buildings and listed and certified properties. Community involvement and the authorities acting together can make the difference between failure and success. Compared with worldwide successful Adaptive Reuse case studies, a possible solution or a new public function could be presented to the historic churches towards continued usage of the heritage buildings, providing financial support for restoration and further treatment possibilities.

3.1 General principles in the process of adaptive reuse, creative activities and intervention

Many principles must be taken into account in the process of adaptive reuse design, creative activities and intervention, which help in the success and continuity of reuse and preservation operations, and these principles are as follows:

3.1.1 Authenticity

It is known that when carrying out the reuse of inherited buildings or sites, this intervention process loses the building or place part of its originality, and the amount of this lost originality varies according to the preservation policy and the method used, but it is vital to preserve as much as possible their authenticity and deal with them as historical evidence and not as works of art only by the following:

• Preserving the greatest amount of original materials and achieving harmony between the old and the new.

• Not allowing additions to dominate the original structure in proportions and design.

• Taking into account the originality of the different techniques and styles in the building.

• Not alienating the building by using it for new purposes that harm its social, cultural or historical status or purposes that are completely far from its original use and capabilities. The usage should be acceptable for the building’s surrounding community, especially for reusing the churches and religious buildings.

3.1.2 Reversibility

The principle of reversibility had to be applied in adaptive reusing processes, both in materials and in procedures relating to removals or additions. It aims to leave the buildings open to future technologies, which may be less harmful to buildings and heritage sites and more to preserve their authenticity, with the aim of leaving the field open also for evaluation of the implemented conservation operations, the possibility of correcting errors and making future modifications, which help the restored sites keep pace with the era and its uses and keep pace with emerging conservation theories.

3.1.3 Sustainability

It is a fundamental principle in order to ensure the continuity of operation of projects and sites that are preserved and developed and to ensure that they cover their future maintenance costs. Achieving the dimensions of sustainability is done through the following:

• Adopting a complete operational program in terms of selecting the proper job that meets the community’s needs stems from its choice and is also consistent with the capabilities of the place.

• Encouraging human energies and finding income-generating sources through the use of heritage buildings and sites in the economic development of society, the possibility of establishing small projects, providing places for production, display and marketing, and encouraging the private sector, in addition to encouraging human development projects such as libraries and information network sites.

• Increase community awareness of the importance of cultural heritage and disseminate ideas related to this to achieve its continuity and permanence.

• Adopting a clear maintenance strategy by selecting materials characterized by their durability and ability to resist various factors and appropriating part of the income of preservation projects for permanent maintenance.

3.1.4 Community involvement

The tangible heritage is linked to the intangible heritage and its inhabitants who are primarily concerned with preserving it and the beneficiaries of its operation, which made the process of community participation in the management of heritage not only a driver of heritage. Community Involvement should involve local citizens in all stages of the urban heritage preservation process. It is one of the essential principles in preservation, reusing and operating processes for the following reasons:

• The right to self-determination of heritage communities is one of the rights of its citizens.

• Contribute effectively to educating people about the importance of heritage, preserving and operating it, and its benefits.

• Making heritage a part of people’s lives facilitates preserving and maintaining it, not destroying it, and feeling that it belongs to them and is not just an extraneous project.

• The community participation process also contributes to knowing the actual needs and demands of people in heritage sites and trying to meet them through conservation and reusing projects. It forms a basis for community development by educating and crafting heritage as a community resource in the economy of historical cities.

3.2 Adaptive reuse framework of the historic churches/buildings

Based on the above analysis and literature review, a framework for the adaptive reuse process of the historic building is proposed as following stages, Figure 12:

Figure 12.

Flowchart of the adaptive reuse process of the historic building. Source: Author.

3.2.1 Before decision-making

After determining the targeted building, a stepwise approach might be followed before choosing the new function taking into account the following points:

• Documenting & Definition: documenting monumental buildings is an initial step in the process of adaptive reuse because it provides all documentation and maintenance records, old plans and reports, and the history of previous repairs to the target building. It gives information about the building value, possibilities, locals and site’ needs and characters, and structure situation.

• Monitoring, measuring and investigating the building envelope are extra surveys that can help in the quality guarantee. The importance of conducting a complete assessment of the condition and the building envelope by specialists so that the assessment serves as a guide for the adaptive reuse project that helps prevent unexpected and often costly problems and determines how to adapt the elements of the building envelope accurately.

• Considering the urban environment, its functional uses and local community, and the need to consider the historic building as a component and part of an urban fabric to improve the surrounding area is a focal point in this step. The research demonstrated how the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage could act as a motivator for the transformation of the urban landscape and have a significant impact on environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. Besides, the need to know the needs of the local people and respect their habits in the reuse process emphasises the empowerment of citizens to trust their common sense and become the defenders of their place.

• The conclusion of this step provides the problem and needs’ Definition.

3.2.2 Decision-making and new function determining

• The decision-making process is a multilateral participatory based on the involvement of the property owners and local population and consideration of their basic needs without conflict with the principles of protecting cultural heritage and the aspirations of the municipality and the authorities authorized to preserve cultural heritage (governmental and non-governmental bodies) and the cultural heritage experts.

• The need to review some key factors before making a decision, such as ownership, preserving history and memory, previous restoration and using projects, original shape and techniques, usable life, the expected replacement for each component, and expected operation duration.

• This is followed by a cost-benefit analysis, budget comparisons among restoration/demolition/new construction, cost assessment and a study of the marketing value of the building.

• The conclusion of this step provides key strategies and corrections.

3.2.3 Interventions and design

Once a decision has been made to undertake adaptive reuse, the next step is to determine how it will be done in historic buildings.

• Idea and design competitions play an instigating role in selecting appropriate designs for buildings and provide a multiplicity of opinions and design options for decision-makers.

• The success of any adaptive reuse project is directly related to the quality and expertise of the team that performs it, which should include the owner, architect, restorer, and the consultation and participation of experienced technicians and historical conservators from a government conservation office such as the Old City Technical Office or Department of Antiquities and Museums.

• Defining proper design (minimal intervention, creative design) of the new use and its activities is the result of a collaborative decision-making process that takes into account the nature of the building, its heritage values, its location and accessibility, and the role of the building in the whole neighbourhood, with the possibility of creating job opportunities for its residents, especially in the old cities whose residents face poverty and unemployment.

• Adherence to the general principles of adaptive reuse and intervention that we mentioned above (Authenticity, Reversibility, Sustainability and Community Involvement) and the measures of performance improvement to ensure the quality of the new function and design.

• The structural integrity of the building is one of the essential factors that determine the success of reuse, as it requires a proactive look at the structure and the new loads it will bear, the possible strengthening techniques for it, the impact of mechanical systems and the structural modifications it requires to suit its use. In addition to a comprehensive understanding of the building envelope and what can be done to improve performance while minimizing the impact on the final aesthetic, to achieve climate-adapted buildings and to bring about an upgrade to their internal environmental conditions.

• Cover policy and regulations should be treated and prepared in all steps and at the end of the process before the implementation, management and supervision, which is the final step in this process.

4. Conclusion

This chapter started with a review of the global evolution of reuse and adaptive reuse’ principles and approaches. The research focused on historic churches as sacred buildings that are not easy to change for several spiritual, symbolic, and moral considerations and values before they are historical or aesthetic, down to describing three targeted historic churches in Syria. Seven global examples of the adaptive reuse of historic churches were presented to highlight their experience and the various functions utilized in their adaptive reuse and distinguished some socially unacceptable functions for church reuse. The decreased number of parishioners of the churches in several cities around the world, simultaneously with the growing environmental concerns and rising demolition costs, promoted the adaptive reuse of historic churches. In all presented cases, the architect’s creativity and inventiveness played a significant role in determining the financial feasibility of the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Where sometimes the costs could not be cheaper and could fall within the range of new construction. The research distinguished two main approaches to adapting interventions used in these global examples, where some examples used minimal intervention, and others preferred the creative design. General principles in the process of adaptive reuse, creative activities and intervention were summarized, and a framework for adaptive reuse of the historic churches/buildings was introduced. Due to the lack of adaptive reuse research and projects in Syria, the research framework and results could be helpful for Syrian cases. They also could be generalized in any other global cases.