Introduction
Facades in Iranian cities are at once aesthetic mediators, environmental interfaces, cultural signifiers, and policy targets. Yet Persian-language academic discourse about facades remains dispersed across design, technology, heritage, and governance literatures. This extended abstract reports a systematic, interpretive review of Persian-language scholarship on “facade” over roughly the past two decades, synthesizing patterns of concern, evidence, and argument across 121 peer-reviewed articles retrieved from national databases (SID and MagIran). We coded and organized the corpus into five analytic dimensions—(1) aesthetics and form, (2) performance and environment, (3) meaning and identity, (4) experience and society, and (5) law and policy—to answer four guiding questions: What topics dominate facade research in Persian-language scholarship? How have conceptualizations of facade evolved over time? Which methods and metrics are most frequently employed, and with what limitations? What design and policy implications emerge for a more integrated, human-centered and evidence-based facade practice? A concise version of this scope appears in the journal template and is expanded here.

Methodology
We conducted an interpretive systematic review in three phases. First, we compiled records from SID and MagIran using controlled Persian keywords and Boolean strings covering facade, envelope, elevation, double-skin, kinetic, identity, urban image, regulation, and committee. Second, we screened titles/abstracts and full texts against inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed Persian-language research articles with explicit focus on facade at the scale of the building or street wall) and exclusion criteria (purely structural studies without facade implications; non-scholarly reports). Third, we applied directed qualitative content analysis using a codebook derived from canonical facade functions and Iranian urban design debates. Each article was coded into one or more of the five dimensions. Cross-checking among coders resolved disagreements and ensured consistency. Descriptive mapping tracked topical salience; interpretive memos captured recurring arguments, implicit assumptions, and contributions. The synthesis below aligns with the extended-abstract format required by the journal.

Results and discussion
Aesthetics and form emerged as the dominant strand. Many articles foreground compositional order, proportion, rhythm, material expression (especially brick), and visual coherence at building and street scales. Historical–comparative papers document transformation of ornament and tectonic expression from Qajar to Pahlavi to contemporary contexts, often reading facade as a legible surface within an urban “elevation” sequence. A recurrent concern is “visual clutter” (aghteshash-e basari) from ad-hoc mixtures of forms, colors, and appendages; several contributions propose operational indices for evaluating facade readability and streetscape consistency. Performance and environment are addressed less frequently but with growing depth in later works. Studies on double-skin, kinetic, bio-integrated, and photovoltaic facades report reductions in solar gains, daylight control, and opportunities for natural ventilation, noting climate-sensitive trade-offs in Tehran, Bushehr, Rasht, and other Iranian climates. Even where visual focus dominates, several papers tie brick screens, recessed openings, balconies, and semi-open thresholds (eyvans) to shading, view control, and privacy—hybridizing aesthetic judgment with microclimatic performance. Simulation-based investigations exist, yet systematic life-cycle evaluation and cost–benefit analyses remain rare.

Meaning and identity form a second major cluster. Facades oscillate between vernacular continuity (material, geometry, proportion, privacy) and globalized, prestige styles. Many authors treat facade as a bearer of cultural symbols and a public signal of social status. Post-revolution debates critique eclectic “journalistic” or neo-classical veneers as symptomatic of identity crisis, while others argue for reinterpretations of local archetypes (e.g., brick lattices, screened balconies, courtyard frontage) compatible with contemporary techniques. Experience and society studies position the facade as an interface shaping perception, comfort, and sense of place. Comparative studies show architects parse composition while citizens link facade to daily quality of life—light, views, privacy, legibility, and calm. Classed taste (zelā’egh-e tabaghati) and conspicuous expenditure drive ornate imagery, while user studies highlight how facade legibility and material warmth support attachment to place and social cohesion. These findings underscore the value of user-centered metrics—visual comfort, privacy, wayfinding, and perceived order—in facade assessment.

Law and policy contributions analyze municipal facade committees, regulatory texts, and implementation. Committees raise awareness and improve minimum quality, yet qualitative criteria, discretionary judgments, weak legal standing, and limited enforcement blunt impact and sometimes suppress creativity. Authors call for participatory, transparent, evidence-based decision-making integrating user feedback and environmental performance. Temporal reading suggests an arc from historically anchored, norm-seeking analyses toward more techno-environmental and user-centric framings. Newer studies (including kinetic/bio-facades and data-driven evaluation) treat the facade as a multifunctional system rather than a stylistic mask, linking aesthetics to comfort, energy, ecology, and experience. This trajectory strengthens the case for a convergent research–practice agenda where beauty, performance, and identity are pursued as coupled objectives rather than trade-offs. Four actionable implications emerge: (1) adopt multi-criteria facade scorecards weighting form/identity, environmental performance, safety, and user perception equally; (2) institutionalize “perceptual requirements” in approvals (user testing for legibility/visual calm; daylight–glare checks); (3) privilege climate-appropriate solutions—shading, controllable double skins, optimized local materials—evaluated over full life cycles and costs; and (4) redesign committee processes for transparency, participation, and neighborhood-specific design guides in historic and identity-sensitive areas.

Conclusion
This review maps, for the first time in English, the scope and character of Persian-language facade research over two decades. While aesthetics and form dominate, substantive strands in performance/environment, meaning/identity, experience/society, and law/policy are gaining coherence. The trend is a gradual shift from historical and prescriptive discourses to participatory policy-making and data-informed design—aligning facade scholarship with Iranian cities’ multi-scalar demands. Practically, our synthesis argues for a facade agenda that (i) measures what matters to users (comfort, calm, privacy, legibility), (ii) couples environmental and cultural performance (climate-fit envelopes that read locally), and (iii) modernizes governance (clearer, evidence-based criteria; open committee procedures; neighborhood guides). Future work should extend the corpus with quantitative meta-analyses, longitudinal studies, and comparative regional research across Iran’s diverse climates and cultures. By connecting beauty, utility, and identity, facade practice can move from ad hoc taste and piecemeal regulation to a civic project that is human-centered, climate-responsible, and culturally resonant.