Traditional Chinese gardens embody sophisticated spatial design principles often described through abstract terms like “scenic archetypes,” yet systematic methods for analyzing their visual spatial characteristics remain underdeveloped. This study establishes an analytical framework integrating phenomenological theory with AI-enabled multimodal mapping to quantify spatial visual characteristics of four scenic archetypes, including framed, obstructive, porous, and sandwiched scenery, at Hangzhou West Lake. By decomposing scenic compositions and configurations into foreground-middle-background hierarchies characterized through shape, size, position, and texture variables, the framework achieves 94.12% classification accuracy via random forest modeling while revealing each archetype. Statistical analysis identifies archetype-specific spatial strategies: framed scenery employs regular foreground geometry with smooth depth transitions; obstructive scenery utilizes systematic positioning with texture contrasts; porous scenery balances visual permeability with textural variation; sandwiched scenery creates bilateral symmetry with channeling effects. This approach provides replicable methodology for heritage conservation and contemporary landscape design informed by traditional spatial wisdom.

Heritage is a highly malleable concept that is constantly in flux and whose substance and meaning are continuously being redefined by society. From such a dynamic perspective, it is inevitable that new approaches and practices have developed for dealing with heritage in the context of planned development. While most scholars acknowledge the existence of various heritage approaches, one of the major defining features is often neglected: their distinctive outlook on spatial dynamics. In this article, the shifting role and purpose of heritage conservation in Dutch spatial planning is analysed. A conceptual framework is introduced that frames three approaches to the planning treatment of heritage; the sector, factor and vector approach, respectively. Although these approaches have developed in a historical sequence, the new did not replace the old but rather gained ground amongst different actors. Thus, three quite different ways of treating the past in the present now coexist in Dutch planning practice. Although this coexistence can raise conflict, we argue that contemporary heritage planning does not call for a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather for a mixed-mode model.