One of the premises of this research is that museums are among the most complex building types in the architectural landscape today. Museum buildings contain a wide variety of functions (conservation, research, exhibition, education, etc.), they symbolise a wide variety of meanings (history, culture, art, community, science etc.), and their functioning is evaluated by a wide variety of stakeholders (the intelligentsia, policy makers, politicians, local visitors, tourists, etc.). As no other, the museum building must represent the complexity and diversity of our society. The study of the recent and current transformations of museum buildings can show both students and professionals what significant current social changes will mean for the field of architecture. This contribution presents the conclusions of the research, visualized in the data sheets containing the analysis of the museums. An answer to the following question will be given: […]

What shall we teach our future architects? We know and feel that times are changing. Harm Tilman, editor of the Dutch magazine De Architect, reflects on the fact that the pace of change and consequently the disruptions within the field of architecture, town planning and interior design have never been as extreme as they are now.3 According to Tilman, the broader shared opinion is that architecture can no longer be explained with reference to the Modern Movement. A new paradigm is needed. A search for (new) meaning in contemporary architecture is desired. It is no longer only studying history that will facilitate the future. As a matter of fact, it has become hard to maintain the image of the architect as the consummate visionary. Instead, architecture should focus more and more on what already exists instead of merely exploring the possible. Tilman further refers to broader contexts and argues that architectural approaches or methodologies are no longer fixed. (One could ask if they really ever were?) This has a great diversity as a consequence, but demands real and caring attention in order to discover appropriate architectural solutions in the future.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the conceptualisation of the Smart Sustainable City (SSC) with new concepts of resilience thinking in relation to urgent societal challenges facing the built environment. The paper aims to identify novel methodologies for smart reuse of heritage sites with a pluralist past as integral to inclusive urban development.

Design/methodology/approach – SSC concepts in the global literature are studied to define a new reference framework for integrated urban planning strategies in which cultural resilience and co-creation matter. This framework, augmented by UNESCO’s holistic recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), was tested in two investigative projects: the historic centre of South Africa’s capital Tshwane and the proximate former Westfort leprosy colony.

Findings – The research confirms that SSC concepts need enlargement to become more inclusive in acknowledging “cultural diversity” of communities and engaging “chrono-diversity” of extant fabric. A paradigm shift in the discourse on integrated urban (re)development and adaptive reuse of built heritage is identified, influenced by resilience and sustainability thinking. Both projects show that different architectural intervention strategies are required to modulate built fabric and its emergent qualities and to unlock embedded cultural energy.

Originality/value – Together with a critical review of SSC concepts and the HUL in relation to urban (re) development, this paper provides innovative methodologies on creative adaptation of urban heritage, reconciling “hard” and “soft” issues, tested in the highly resilient systems of Tshwane.