Aims: Contemporary architectural heritage constitutes an important layer of urban identity and historical memory. However, ordinary residential buildings and other less prominent architectural works have generally received less attention than major monuments in conventional heritage recognition and conservation practices. This issue has become particularly important in Tehran, where rapid urban transformation and redevelopment have resulted in the alteration or disappearance of many buildings associated with the development of modern architecture. Shemiran represents a distinctive context within this process. Its transformation from a seasonal and garden-based settlement into an integrated part of metropolitan Tehran occurred alongside changes in population, accessibility, patterns of residence, construction technologies, materials, and architectural expression. Within this context, the area surrounding Tajrish Square provides an important setting for examining the surviving characteristics of contemporary architecture and their relationships with the urban environment. The present study aimed to recognize and classify the heritage potential of contemporary architecture in the area surrounding Tajrish Square through the analysis of urban image and landscape. It particularly sought to identify recurring architectural characteristics, organize the observed examples into typological groups, and clarify the recurring relationships among façades, openings, roofs, volumes, semi-open spaces, and external edges. Heritage potential was approached as a preliminary field of recognition rather than as a definitive declaration of heritage value.
Materials & Methods: The research adopted a qualitative and descriptive-analytical approach. Its overall process consisted of three stages: documentary and library research, field observation and visual documentation, and comparative analysis and typological classification. The study area was defined as the buildings located along the streets and passages surrounding Tajrish Square, with the architectural examples primarily associated with the Contemporary periods. The 36 examples were examined through field observation and external documentation. Because access to building interiors was limited, the analysis focused mainly on characteristics identifiable from the public realm and through the visual relationship between buildings and their surroundings. Nine analytical components were considered: façade composition, openings, roof form, visible technical elements, volumetric composition, architectural details, external walls and edges, semi-open and service spaces, and entrances. The characteristics of each example were first recorded descriptively and then compared to identify recurring attributes and relationships. Façade material was used as an initial indicator for differentiation; however, the final classification was based on the combination of material with façade geometry, opening organization, roof form, volumetric composition, semi-open spaces, external edges, and the relationship between buildings and open spaces or streets. The analytical process therefore proceeded from individual observation and documentation to comparison, pattern recognition, and typological classification.
Findings: The analysis identified three principal architectural types: brick-faced, stone-faced, and cement-finished buildings. The findings demonstrated that these groups could not be explained solely by differences in façade material. The brick type was generally characterized by relatively ordered façade compositions, a balanced combination of horizontal and vertical elements, horizontal and vertical openings, sloped roofs, brick-based detailing, and a relatively strong relationship with gardens, courtyards, and other open spaces. Verandas, terraces, and balconies frequently contributed to this relationship. The stone type was characterized by more dynamic and often asymmetrical volumetric compositions, projecting and recessed masses, large terraces and projecting balconies, continuous horizontal openings accompanied by vertical stairwell elements, flat roofs, and limited applied ornamentation. In this group, terraces and balconies functioned not only as semi-open spaces but also as components of volumetric organization. The cement type was distinguished by a strong emphasis on horizontal lines, ribbon and horizontal windows, horizontal sun-shading devices, flat roofs, geometric volumes, and the integration of terraces and balconies with the overall volumetric composition. Surface texture, framing, shadow and light, and the interaction of horizontal and vertical elements also contributed to its visual expression. Comparison across the three types demonstrated that recurring relationships among architectural elements constituted a more important basis for differentiation than material alone. Façade composition, opening organization, roof form, volumetric structure, semi-open spaces, external edges, and relationships with open space and the street interacted repeatedly to produce distinct configurations. Accordingly, the three types were interpreted as sets of recurring architectural and landscape relationships rather than as simple material categories. These relationships were described at a preliminary level as elements of a design language, rather than as a fully formalized shape grammar. The findings therefore extended the classification from material-based categorization toward an integrated typological reading of architectural and landscape attributes.
Conclusion: The study demonstrated that analysis of urban image and landscape can provide a useful preliminary framework for recognizing recurring patterns in contemporary architecture and identifying its heritage potential. The three types recognized around Tajrish Square were not simply categories based on brick, stone, or cement; rather, each represented a distinctive combination of façade organization, openings, roof forms, volumes, semi-open spaces, external edges, and relationships with open space and the street. This finding suggests that contemporary architectural heritage can be approached not only through individual buildings but also through recurring architectural patterns and contextual relationships that contribute to the identity and historical memory of an urban area. At the same time, typological recognition should not be regarded as equivalent to definitive heritage valuation. Establishing the heritage significance of individual examples requires further assessment of their historical, architectural, social, environmental, authenticity, integrity, and conservation values. Accordingly, the typological framework developed in this study can serve as an initial basis for systematic documentation, preliminary heritage screening, and the development of more context-sensitive approaches to the conservation and management of contemporary architectural resources in Shemiran.