This thesis aims to conduct a comprehensive study on the smartness of architectural heritage by identifying knowledge gaps in the field, proposing a novel interpretation, understanding the general features of smart heritage development, and identifying crucial considerations with a framework for implementing smart architectural heritage. This study takes Shanghai, China, as a geographical context. The conversations around built heritage under the smart discourse are dispersed over mere preservation, virtual environments, public participation, etc. This thesis chose multi-case qualitative research. Two cases based on platforms supporting two sites of architectural heritage preservation and management in Shanghai were chosen as case studies. An integrated literature review divided into two stages was carried out to identify the knowledge base and gaps. With a foundation of knowledge of urban regeneration and sustainable development, the smart heritage discourse has overlapped with other smart terms such as smart museums and smart cities. All relevant qualitative data ranging from policy documents, national and local standards, reports, images of architectural heritage, and interfaces, as well as schemas, of the two platforms to interview information, were collected. A fieldwork study was conducted for this research, during which most of the data were collected. For this research, thirty interviews were conducted online, with selected interviewees either associated with case studies or smart-heritage-relevant industries and institutions. Thematic analysis is the primary method for summarising smart heritage stages and considerations, which is also supplemented by content analysis. Urban architectural heritage smartness is inherently complex; it is a process that starts with digitalisation and continues with presentation and application. A three-axes framework has been developed for architectural heritage smartness. Its practice should have at least five stages with the engagement of a heritage expert committee. There are two-level considerations. The first is the necessary path to achieve smartness and the second level is how to take advantage of it. Smart heritage should initially support heritage preservation based on different periods, considering the benefits of different users, cultural and historical promotions, and urban renewal. Policy advice, digitalisation, platforms, applications, and contributions are all components of smartness. Continual optimisation and updates are also significant.
