Mendeley  

Zotero  

Moazezi Mehr-e-Tehran A M, Yeylaghbeigi A M. (2026). Heritage Buffer Zone and its Contribution to Managing Changes in Rasht Municipality Square. Athar. 48(1), 195-222. doi:10.61882/Athar.2027.2609.6
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-2027-en.html

Abstract
Since the enactment of the first law directly related to heritage protection, the National Heritage Preservation Act of 1930, emphasis has been placed on the importance of buffer zones in preserving and enhancing the spatial-functional character and constructed meaning of heritage sites. However, changes in the vicinity of registered heritage sites often occur without due regard for heritage requirements and buffer zone regulations. This issue is evident in the case of Rasht Municipality Square, a nationally registered heritage site. Can this situation be regarded as a result of the ineffectiveness of heritage buffer zones in managing change adjacent to valuable heritage sites? To address this question, this study adopts a qualitative approach to examine the changes that have occurred within the property and buffer zone of Rasht Municipality Square in relation to the approved laws and regulations governing buffer zones. The findings indicate that the approved buffer zones have played a significant role in preserving the historical value of the square and in managing change. Nevertheless, substantive and procedural deficiencies remain in the concept and implementation of buffer zones, ranging from inadequate definitions to the absence of executive guidelines for broader categories beyond individual buildings, as well as the insufficiency and ambiguity of the regulations themselves. These challenges have hindered the full realization of the protective objectives of this legal instrument. In addition, institutional weaknesses within the heritage management system in the areas of monitoring and oversight, together with the neglect of existing buffer zone regulations by urban management authorities, have further exacerbated the problem. Based on this diagnostic analysis, the study proposes a qualitative model for the determination and definition of buffer zones, comprising four dimensions at a general (thematic) level, and offers recommendations for managing future change at a specific (case-study) level, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and contribution of heritage buffer zones in the protection of heritage sites.
Keywords: Buffer Zone, Municipality Square, Rasht, Prototype, Heritage.

Introduction
The most important legal instrument for preventing this trend and preserving the cultural and historical assets under government protection is the registration of heritage sites on the national monuments list, together with the legal protections this status entails (Abbasi, 2020), followed by the designation of buffer zones and the formulation of their regulations, which, according to the law, fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage (The Parliament Research Center, 1988). Registration and buffer zone designation, as two complementary measures for protecting cultural heritage and historically valuable areas of the country (Spanji & Shafia, 2023), can effectively control and direct the alarming pace of change in the valuable urban areas of cities and villages across the country.
Nevertheless, numerous examples demonstrate that, despite national registration and the existence of approved protective buffer zones, changes have occurred that are inconsistent with heritage regulations and have caused damage to heritage properties. Rasht Municipality Square is one such example. Over the years, interventions in the square and its adjacent buildings have altered the historical authenticity of this heritage area. These interventions include the construction of the telecommunications building behind the municipality building; the construction of the Fatehi and Amirkabir shopping centers on the western side of the square; the construction of shopping centers on the southeastern side, such as the Heidari shopping center; the demolition of Enghelab Cinema; and the ongoing construction of a cinema complex in its place. As noted above, these changes have occurred, and continue to occur, within the registered area and buffer zone and in the vicinity of the area’s valuable historical and cultural monuments, many of which have also been individually registered at the national level.
This raises an important question: how can such changes occur in a square with a registered area and buffer zone, and in the vicinity of its valuable historic buildings? Have these changes been carried out in compliance with approved heritage regulations, or have they violated them? Where does the problem lie? Investigating the reasons for these apparent violations and seeking answers to the above questions makes it possible to formulate the causes of such events and conditions more precisely. Through this inquiry, it becomes possible to assess whether the currently approved buffer zones are sufficient to manage change in the vicinity of valuable heritage monuments.

Discussion
Changes affecting the core area and buffer zone of Rasht Municipality Square are not confined to a specific period, nor are they limited to the years following the square’s registration or the formal definition of its buffer zone. A brief review of several projects and programs that have shaped the current condition of the square shows that the changes that have taken place over time have, on the whole, not produced favorable outcomes from a heritage and conservation perspective. Although some of these changes occurred at a time when registration and heritage buffer zones did not yet have legal standing, a disregard for the heritage value of the area is nevertheless evident in the approach taken toward it. Other changes, despite the existence of approved documents and legal restrictions, have taken place without regard for heritage regulations, resulting in a decline in the values of the place.
The substantive and procedural causes of these actions and their consequences can be attributed to the following: the inadequate definition of the buffer zone in legal documents in general and in the present research context in particular; the secondary status accorded to heritage buffer zones, and their violation in urban plans and projects; disregard for modern heritage that contributes to the meaning of the place, leading to its destruction; insufficient attention to, and emphasis on, the principles of incremental development in heritage documents and regulations; and institutional weakness in managing change in accordance with heritage regulations.
In its current form, heritage zoning suffers from both substantive and procedural problems that have, in many cases, undermined the effectiveness of this legal instrument. One such problem is the inefficiency of the process of determining and defining zones, which results from the simplification of scale and hierarchy in zoning and its reduction to a quantitative category within the logic of existing laws and guidelines. It should be noted that physical criteria—especially height, which is in some ways the most important criterion in relation to changes within buffer zones and in defining measures for protecting the values of heritage and its setting—are not, by themselves, sufficient to guide change in a place effectively.
This inadequacy becomes even more apparent when the issue of buffer zone designation is raised at a scale larger than that of an individual building, such as hills, courtyards, urban complexes, and public spaces. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider other dimensions of place—namely function and meaning—alongside the physical dimension in the designation of buffer zones, and to adopt a more appropriate system of valuation and a more comprehensive framework for their definition. In this regard, any formula applied without qualitative knowledge of the place disrupts its proper functional capacities and undermines its semantic context. Therefore, in the case of urban spaces and historic squares such as Rasht Municipality Square, there is a need to define a mechanism for buffer zone designation that treats the square as a place and as an integrated whole.

Conclusion
Municipality Square, located in central Rasht, has undergone fundamental changes over the years. Most of these changes occurred after the square was registered as a national monument in 1977/78, despite restrictive regulations concerning the registered area and its protective and scenic buffer zones. Some of these cases also relate to the present period, following the approval and notification of the revised regulations for the square’s area and buffer zone in 2012/13. In broad terms, the reason for this clear violation must be understood in relation to the dominance of a development-oriented perspective within the long-standing tension between development and conservation in the history of the square. Although buffer zone laws and regulations are intended to prevent such changes and guide them in a principled manner, in practice they have been overridden by the pressure of development and have merely witnessed unprincipled interventions. However, this issue should not be interpreted as evidence of the inefficiency of the buffer zone itself, nor should this legal instrument alone be expected to manage changes around a monument. This is because change is influenced not only by legal tools, but also by numerous other factors, such as institutions, executive bodies, urban stakeholders, and similar actors. These factors become even more complex at scales larger than individual heritage buildings.
The legal authority of the country’s heritage institution needs to be strengthened. This would help ensure that other executive bodies, especially urban and rural management authorities, comply with its decisions. In this way, they could function more effectively as the executive arm of the Ministry of Heritage in protecting the country’s cultural assets.
The employment of conservation experts within urban management bodies is strongly recommended. Construction projects should be evaluated from the perspective of both conservation and development. It should be noted that the physical context contains capacities with which proposed designs may interfere, which they may damage, reinforce, or transform. The art of design lies in interpreting needs and relating them to the capacities embedded within the context.
Finally, it is essential that urban managers review and study global examples of buffer zone violations that have led to a decline in the heritage value of monuments and, in some cases, to the loss of their outstanding value and integrity before designing, approving, and implementing development projects in the vicinity of valuable monuments. Doing so can provide important lessons and help prevent the repetition of unsuccessful experiences.