This graduation study examined in an exploratory way how the ‘intangible’ aspects of architectural [built] heritage could be made ‘tangible’ by means of an innovative and strategic collaborative or ‘counter-mapping’-based methodology, in order to give the socio-cultural or intangible aspects of architectural heritage a more prominent place in both the evaluation and the design process. The aim of this study was to come up with an innovative and strategic mapping-based toolbox or methodology that will function as a new addition to the existing valuation guidelines. In this way, an attempt was made to contribute to the development of knowledge for a more inclusive, people-centred and participatory way of dealing with heritage (in line with the current societal shift).

This study showed a step-by-step method whereby the Plague house in Leiden (a 17th century national monument in the Netherlands) was used as a canvas. The first step of this method consisted of counter-mapping the social meaning of the past by means of a ‘newspaper counter-map’ focusing on the 20th century, and a ‘crossed-history counter-map’ combining archival information from different time layers. The next step of this method consisted of counter-mapping the social meaning of the present. This was done in four (slightly) different ways and by means of four different target groups, namely through:

•The combination of a short anonymous and analogue survey and individual counter-mapping assignment with target group 1 (fifteen residents of the nearby ‘Vondellaan’ and ‘Van Baerlestraat’ in Leiden) and target group 3 (three employees of the Naturalis museum, the former function of the Plague house).
•A low-key, interactive and participatory stand with anonymous survey questions on pin boards and two collective counter-mapping assignments with target group 2 (about twenty different visitors during the ‘De Buurt’-festival event, held in the Plague house).
•A joint and face-to-face dialogue (‘oral history’) about the survey questions and collective counter-mapping assignment with target group 4 (two residents of the Plague house complex).

The last step of this method consisted of subsequently ‘linking back’ the data obtained through the counter-mapping of the present to the spatial (physical) elements of the building. This was done on the basis of three different themes:
1. Memory / spirit of the place
2. Place attachment / spatial qualities
3. Possible changes / suggestions

The results seemed to imply that this categorisation provided not only a more visual and therefore more practical ‘tangible’ translation, but also an important structure in terms of what the participants would like to see preserved, strengthened or changed.

All in all, the results seemed to imply that each of these separate methodological steps could offer the possibility of making the ‘intangible’ aspects of architectural heritage more ‘tangible’. More importantly, however, the results also seemed to indicate that the combination of (the various concluding results from) each of these methodological steps of both the past and the present, due to the merging of these partly corresponding and partly different perspectives, can provide a more comprehensive, inclusive, and in-depth insight into the socio-cultural or ‘intangible’ aspects that can potentially be used as a design narrative or guiding theme.