Cultural Preferences in Architectural Heritage Engagement: A Comparative Campus Experiment at The University of Hong Kong and Columbia University

<p>The stewardship of historic university buildings has emerged as a pressing concern for conservation professionals worldwide. As institutions of higher learning grapple with modernization pressures, their iconic campuses—physical embodiments of scholarly tradition and institutional legacy—face an existential dilemma: how to reconcile preservation imperatives with the need to accommodate contemporary educational paradigms. This preservation-adaptation dialectic grows increasingly nuanced when examined through the lens of global academic exchange, where deeply rooted cultural perspectives profoundly color stakeholder attitudes toward conservation approaches. </p><p></p><p>While foundational works by Smith (2006) and Jokilehto (2006) established heritage as a socio-cultural construct, their theoretical frameworks leave unanswered questions about how specific cultural lenses filter public perceptions of intervention methodologies—particularly in academic settings. My analysis of comparative literature reveals striking geographical divergences: East Asian contexts typically privilege architectural harmony and contextual sensitivity (as seen in the restrained restoration of Tokyo University's Yasuda Auditorium [Zhu, 2016]), whereas Western institutions frequently champion bold interventions that celebrate temporal juxtaposition (exemplified by Harvard's controversial glass atrium addition to Widener Library). </p><p></p><p>Notably, despite Hofstede's (2001) and Ermenyi's (2021) theoretical contributions regarding cultural dimensions in conservation, the field lacks robust empirical studies that systematically measure how these differences manifest in community preference patterns. This research gap becomes particularly consequential when evaluating adaptive reuse projects, where cultural assumptions about appropriate intervention scales often go unexamined. Few studies have directly examined how cultural background interacts with demographic factors such as age and gender to influence preferences for conservation interventions, particularly within university heritage environments. Furthermore, methodological approaches to capturing public attitudes often rely on abstract survey instruments rather than tangible, participatory techniques that engage users with specific spatial proposals. </p><p></p><p>This study addresses these gaps through a comparative, participatory experiment conducted at The University of Hong Kong (HKU) and Columbia University (CU). Both institutions possess architecturally analogous Gothic Revival landmarks—HKU’s Main Building and CU’s Butler Library—providing a controlled basis for comparison. Ninety-two participants (41 in Hong Kong and 51 in New York) were invited to express their preferences for twenty potential interventions using a sticker-based voting method. These options were systematically classified according to two analytical dimensions: the Spatial Openness Index (SOI) and the Intervention Intensity Scale (IIS). By mapping quantitative preference patterns alongside qualitative observations, the study seeks to uncover how cultural values, demographic variables and site-specific contexts shape attitudes toward heritage interventions. </p><p></p><p>The research makes three key contributions. First, it provides empirical evidence of cultural divergence in the evaluation of adaptive reuse strategies, offering insights that complement existing theoretical debates in heritage studies. Second, it demonstrates the value of participatory preference mapping as a methodological tool for engaging diverse publics in conservation decision-making. Finally, it proposes a framework for culturally adaptive heritage governance that can inform policy development, design practice and public engagement strategies. The following chapters set out the theoretical foundations for this research, outline the comparative experiment, present the findings and discuss their implications for the future of educational heritage conservation.</p>