Adaptive reuse compatibility profiling
HARP v1.1 is an internally examined early-stage architectural-spatial compatibility profiling prototype. Development drew on 43 core and 15 supplementary cases, a six-case coding pilot and iterative case-based refinement. Post-lock examination included implementation-conformance checks, exact replay and local sensitivity analysis in the Pirot case. The application uses existing-condition and documented contextual evidence; proposed reuse designs are not used as inputs. It applies Hospital Layout Form (HLF), ranks six development-informed reuse directions and reports two exploratory healthcare extensions, and includes an optional structure for prospective external evaluation after institutional deployment.
It is intended for early-stage comparison only. It does not replace conservation, structural, economic, planning or market studies.
Output
- Coded profile: OHF, HLF, UP, HS, AS, DR
- Profile indices and indicators: LVI, SPI, MFI, HVI, FOI, RPI, CPS, MUC, CAP, HCI
- Eight reuse directions ranked from 0 to 100: culture, hotel/tourism, housing/residential, university/education, office/public administration, medical research/training, health/social care/rehabilitation and mixed use.
- Output separates primary reuse direction, reuse-direction / strategy anchor, implementation mode and secondary compatible directions.
- Existing-condition evidence register, explicit input checks, optional feasibility review, printable report, complete assessment input-and-output JSON export and optional external-evaluation submission
Protocol and data handling
Research prototype and external-evaluation mode
HARP — Hospital Adaptive Reuse Profiler is a research prototype for early-stage screening of adaptive reuse compatibility in historic hospital buildings and complexes.
The tool does not replace architectural design, conservation assessment, structural diagnostics, economic feasibility analysis or planning procedures. It supports preliminary comparison based on existing-condition and documented contextual evidence; proposed reuse designs are not used as assessment inputs.
Development, internal examination and weighting
Developmental evidence comprised the 43-case comparative corpus and 15 supplementary cases. Archived structural diagnostics operated on four shared HLF templates. Post-lock examination of HARP v1.1 included implementation-conformance checks, exact replay and local sensitivity analysis in the Pirot case. Scores use transparent author-defined rules informed by literature, comparative case evidence and architectural and programme reasoning; they were not statistically estimated or optimised.
Use mode
Documentary basis
Existing-condition evidence
Purpose: this application profiles preliminary architectural-spatial reuse compatibility from documented existing conditions. Do not enter a proposed reuse design as an input for the initial assessment.
Use GIS images, existing site plans, existing floor plans, elevations/sections and photographs only as evidence for scoring. Reuse directions are generated as model outputs.
A. Site and complex-level evidence
Files are previewed locally in the browser and are not uploaded. Use existing-condition documentation only. For a partial campus assessment, the assessment boundary must distinguish the analysed zone from the remainder of the complex.
B. General building-level evidence
Use these fields for a single-building assessment or for drawings and photographs that describe the assessed building group as a whole. For a complex with different buildings or evidence coverage, also complete the building/zone records in section C.
C. Complex, building and zone evidence coverage
Use this section for HLF1 hospital village, HLF4 campus, a group of buildings or a selected sub-zone. The location, GIS, site plan and assessment boundary entered in section A remain the shared evidence for the entire complex; the records below identify which individual buildings or zones are supported by plans, sections and photographs.
Evidence basis for scoring
How to score evidence quality on this screen — select 0–3
| Evidence group | 0 — not available / unknown | 1 — weak / indirect | 2 — partial / useful | 3 — strong / documented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location / site | No reliable map, GIS source, site plan or verified assessment boundary. | Approximate or unverified location information only; access, parcel limits or assessment boundary remain uncertain. | Reliable GIS/map or site plan supports most location and site judgements, but one important source, boundary, access issue or part of the assessed complex remains unclear. | Multiple consistent and reliable sources clearly document the location, parcel or site organisation, assessment boundary, access and relevant surroundings for the full assessed scope. |
| Layout / plan | No existing-condition plans or other reliable spatial documentation. | Only schematic, incomplete, unverified or proposed plans; photographs provide only indirect layout evidence. | Usable existing plans document relevant parts of the assessed building(s), but floors, sections, dimensions or some buildings/zones are missing. | Reliable existing plans, measured surveys and/or sections document all spatial components needed for scoring across the assessed scope. |
| Heritage / visual character | No reliable historical, conservation or visual material. | Isolated web photographs or indirect/unverified historical information; original character, alterations or significance cannot be assessed consistently. | Reliable historical or professional sources and clear photographs support a preliminary assessment, but interior views, details, conservation records or complete building coverage are missing. | Official conservation and/or archival documentation, reliable historical sources and comprehensive current visual records document the heritage character of the full assessed scope. |
| Technical / condition | No reliable evidence of structure, installations, fire safety, energy performance or physical condition. | Visual impressions, web photographs or unverified statements only; technical conclusions remain highly uncertain. | Site inspection, photographs, plans or partial technical information support preliminary scoring, but one or more major systems or buildings remain unverified. | Recent and reliable structural, MEP, fire-safety and/or condition surveys adequately document the technical issues relevant to the full assessed scope. |
Complexes and groups of buildings: score only the evidence available for the declared assessment scope. When key buildings or zones are undocumented, the corresponding evidence group should normally not exceed 2 unless the omitted elements are explicitly excluded and do not affect that evidence domain.
Attachments entered by building/zone: they are included in the aggregate evidence report, but the user must still assign the evidence-quality score and explain important gaps in the notes field.
Case identification
Basic data
DR describes the reliability of the case metadata and typological coding. The evidence-quality scores in Section 01 describe how well the specific site, plans and heritage/visual evidence support the 1–3 assessment. DR is reported separately and does not change Evidence Adequacy or compatibility scores.
General scoring principles and case-definition guide
Define the assessment scope before scoring. Every building count, evidence record, HLF choice and 1–3 score must refer to the same declared assessment unit.
| Item | How to select it |
|---|---|
| Individual building | One physically and functionally identifiable building or connected block is assessed. The number of buildings/zones in the assessed unit must be 1. |
| Group of buildings | Two or more named buildings are assessed together. Add one detailed evidence record for each documented building or explicitly state which are excluded. |
| Selected sub-zone | A bounded part of a larger hospital estate is assessed. Upload or mark the assessment boundary and report only the buildings/zones inside that boundary. |
| Whole hospital complex | All relevant buildings, open spaces and zones of the former hospital estate are included. Total complex count and assessed-unit count should normally match. |
| DR1 — High metadata reliability | Case identity, date, original function, HLF, urban position and heritage status are confirmed by official or multiple consistent traceable sources. |
| DR2 — Medium metadata reliability | Most metadata are supported, but one or more items depend on incomplete, secondary or partly conflicting sources. |
| DR3 — Low metadata reliability | Key metadata are indirect, unverified, conflicting or based mainly on unsourced web information. |
Values and intervention sensitivity
Heritage and architecture
How to score heritage and architectural parameters
Score the value or characteristic of the declared assessment unit. The separate heritage/visual evidence-quality score indicates how confidently these judgements are supported.
| Parameter | 1 — low | 2 — medium | 3 — high |
|---|---|---|---|
| Historical significance | Limited documented historical importance. | Recognisable local or institutional importance. | Major local, regional or wider historical importance supported by reliable sources. |
| Preservation of original elements | Original form, fabric or details are largely lost or heavily altered. | Important elements survive, but alteration or loss is substantial. | Original spatial structure, fabric and characteristic details are substantially preserved. |
| Public memory / symbolic value | Little documented public recognition or collective association. | Recognised by a limited community or through local memory. | Strong and documented symbolic, memorial or collective identity. |
| Representative / monumental spaces | No clearly distinctive or publicly significant spaces. | Some characteristic halls, wards, courtyards or ceremonial elements. | Prominent spaces strongly support identity, public use or interpretation. |
| Narrative / interpretation potential | Weak material or documentary basis for interpretation. | A coherent story can be presented with additional research. | Rich spatial, historical and material evidence supports museum, memorial or public-history interpretation. |
| Intervention sensitivity | Low sensitivity; substantial change may be possible. | Selective protection and careful adaptation are required. | High sensitivity; intervention must be minimal, reversible or conservation-led. |
Position, access and surroundings
Urban context
How to score urban-context parameters
Use the existing urban situation and the immediate surroundings of the assessed parcel. Do not score a future transport, tourism or regeneration proposal unless it is formally adopted.
| Parameter | 1 — low / weak | 2 — medium | 3 — high / strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visibility in urban fabric | Hidden, inaccessible or visually disconnected. | Locally visible but not a major landmark. | Prominent frontage, landmark position or strong public recognisability. |
| Public transport accessibility | No practical nearby service or difficult pedestrian connection. | Usable service within reasonable walking distance. | Frequent nearby service, transport node or multiple public-transport options. |
| Car accessibility | Difficult access, severe restrictions or no realistic servicing/parking approach. | Access is possible but constrained. | Clear road access, servicing and realistic arrival/parking potential. |
| Relation to cultural/tourist routes | No relevant route, destination cluster or visitor flow. | Indirect or emerging connection. | Direct inclusion in, or close functional relation to, established cultural/tourist routes or destinations. |
| Regeneration context | Stable area with little strategic regeneration relevance. | Some underuse or local regeneration opportunity. | Priority regeneration area, degraded/underused zone or strong catalyst potential documented by context or policy. |
| Public use potential | Public access/use is spatially or institutionally difficult. | Public use is possible with adaptation or management constraints. | Site position, access and open-space structure strongly support public use. |
Surrounding functions near the assessed parcel
Select all functions present in the immediate surroundings.
Spatial organisation and adaptability
Site and morphology
How to score access, continuity and morphological adaptability
Base these scores on the existing site and buildings within the declared assessment boundary. A proposed reuse design must not be used as evidence of existing adaptability.
| Parameter | 1 — low / constraint | 2 — medium / partial | 3 — high / favourable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent access | No separate public approach; access depends on controlled or shared routes. | A separate approach is possible with moderate intervention or management. | Existing clear independent access from a public street or public area. |
| Public access without clinical regime | Public movement would cross controlled healthcare routes or restricted zones. | Separation is possible but requires reorganisation. | Public access can operate independently of clinical/security regimes. For inactive sites, assess whether such separation is spatially clear. |
| Healthcare/educational continuity value | Only the former hospital use is known; no current institutional, strategic or documented continuity basis. | Historical identity or a plausible institutional link exists, but no formal commitment is confirmed. | Continuity is supported by an active health/education cluster, official strategy, institutional requirement or documented public need. |
| Open space / courtyards | Little usable open space or severely constrained external areas. | Some usable open space, but fragmented or limited. | Clear courtyards, park or open areas support access, public use, landscape and phasing. |
| Phased development | One inseparable unit or systems that make staged reuse unrealistic. | Phasing is possible with access, service or operational constraints. | Buildings/zones can be reused in clear independent stages. |
| Subdivision potential | Difficult to create independent units, zones or tenancies. | Possible with substantial circulation, service or construction intervention. | Easy division by pavilions, wings, floors, courtyards or separate access points. |
| Ward / room-layout adaptability | Room/corridor pattern is unsuitable for alternative programme units. | Standard hospital layout can adapt with moderate intervention. | Clear rooms, wards and corridors readily convert to rooms, offices, teaching or public spaces. |
| Daylight and tract adaptability | Deep, poorly lit, irregular or obstructed tract. | Most spaces have workable daylight, but important zones require verification. | Shallow/daylit or clearly organised tract with good façade access. |
| Structural flexibility | Known rigid system, short restrictive spans or structural constraints. | Mixed or standard flexibility supported by partial evidence. | Known adaptable grid/spans and structural system support spatial change. |
| Ensemble / campus adaptability | No coherent relationship between buildings/zones for coordinated reuse. | Some zoning potential, but the ensemble is fragmented or constrained. | Buildings, courtyards and routes clearly support programme combination and staged reuse. |
| Combining several functions | Small, isolated or spatially monofunctional assessment unit. | Two or more functions are possible with coordination constraints. | Scale, access and spatial separation readily support several complementary functions. |
| Landscape / park value | Little usable landscape value or heavily degraded open space. | Some valuable greenery/open space with limited continuity. | Strong park, mature vegetation, courtyards or landscape identity support reuse. |
| Possibility of new construction | No realistic space or known planning/heritage constraints strongly limit additions. | Limited infill/addition may be possible but requires planning and conservation verification. | Clear developable capacity supported by site structure and available planning/heritage information. |
Visual HLF typology selector
Select the diagram that best represents the inherited hospital layout. Variants A–C illustrate common arrangements within the same type.
How to choose HLF
HLF is not the current use. It describes the inherited hospital layout form used for compatibility assessment. Base the choice on the existing site plan, GIS image, historic plan and documented assessment scope.
| HLF | Use when the assessed unit is mainly... | Typical evidence | Do not confuse with... |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLF1 Hospital village | A historically layered ensemble of several buildings, wings, courtyards, passages or internal streets. Often organically developed and heritage-sensitive. | Historic site plan, courtyard system, multiple phases, monastery/hospital ensemble, old institutional cluster. | A planned modern campus. If the main value is estate capacity and planned zoning, consider HLF4. |
| HLF2 Pavilion | One or more ward pavilions organised as separate or repeated patient blocks, usually shaped by light, air, hygiene and corridor/ward logic. | Detached ward blocks, parallel pavilions, single/double-loaded corridors, park-like spacing. | A whole multi-programme campus. If many specialised buildings and internal roads dominate, consider HLF4. |
| HLF3 Block | A compact hospital block, monoblock, courtyard block or strongly connected building mass. The analysis mainly concerns one dominant building or connected block. | One main mass, deep or compact plan, internal courtyards/atria, connected wings acting as one building. | A hospital village merely because it has a courtyard. Courtyard blocks can still be HLF3 if they function as one compact building. |
| HLF4 Campus | A large planned hospital estate with several specialised buildings, internal circulation, open land and strong potential for phasing or zoning. | GIS/site plan, multiple departments/buildings, internal roads, large parcel, service/access hierarchy. | An historic village-like ensemble. If heritage layering and courtyard fabric dominate, consider HLF1. |
Borderline rule: define the assessment scope first. Whole hospital estate → usually HLF4 or HLF1. Selected pavilion group → HLF2. One compact building or connected block inside a campus → HLF3. If uncertain, mark evidence coverage as partial and explain the choice in source notes.
Programme demand and optional feasibility
Local demand and feasibility review
Local demand — required for compatibility assessment
Select every demand score explicitly. Use official plans, strategies, statistics or documented expert judgement where available; explain uncertain judgements in Notes.
How to score local programme demand
Local demand is not the evaluator's personal preference. Use the best available local or regional evidence and record its source in Notes.
| Score | Demand criterion | Typical evidence basis |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — low need | No documented shortage, priority or plausible near-term demand for the programme. | Existing supply, demographic/market context, official plans or a reasoned expert assessment indicate low need. |
| 2 — moderate need | Plausible or moderate need, but evidence is partial, mixed or not a major strategic priority. | Partial statistics, stakeholder information, local planning context or documented professional judgement. |
| 3 — high need | Clear shortage, strategic priority, confirmed institutional requirement or strong documented demand. | Official strategy/plan, statistics, market or needs study, institutional programme, owner/public-authority requirement. |
Optional preliminary feasibility and risk review
How to score optional feasibility parameters
Not assessed is the correct choice when evidence is insufficient. These values describe preliminary risk and do not change the core compatibility ranking.
| Parameter | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural condition | Poor or serious defects suspected/documented. | Fair, mixed or repairable condition. | Good condition supported by inspection or report. |
| Installations condition | Obsolete, missing or replacement is likely. | Partial reuse/upgrade may be possible. | Good or recently upgraded systems supported by evidence. |
| Fire-safety adaptability | Major egress, compartmentation or access constraints. | Adaptation appears possible but requires substantial verification/work. | Existing organisation readily supports compliant adaptation. |
| Energy performance | Poor envelope/systems or high upgrade need. | Moderate performance or partial upgrade potential. | Good documented performance or readily adaptable envelope/systems. |
| Level of intervention required | Low intervention. | Medium intervention. | High/extensive intervention. |
| Contemporary hospital suitability | Poor fit with current clinical standards. | Partial fit requiring major adaptation. | Good fit supported by current planning/technical evidence. |
HARP v1.1 — Internally Examined Research Prototype: Preliminary Architectural-Spatial Reuse Profiling Report
Decision-support output
Results and recommendation
External research evaluation submission
This optional function supports prospective external evaluation after institutional deployment. The submitted research record contains the Assessment ID, case identification/code, assessment scope, HLF, parameter scores, evidence quality, Evidence Adequacy status and reuse ranking, and may also include case location, source/archive references, attachment filenames and user-entered free text. Attachment contents are not uploaded. A submitted record is research material for subsequent analysis of the accumulated external dataset.