Introduction
This article offers a comparative urban-architectural reading of post-war reconstruction in Khorramshahr (Iran) and Dresden (Germany). We posit that successful recovery hinges on three intertwined vectors: (i) urban-fabric continuity and legibility (Historic Urban Landscape—HUL), (ii) heritage-based governance and decision-making (HBUR), and (iii) the re-assembly of social–spatial–economic life (Assemblage Urbanism). The contribution is twofold. Conceptually, we braid these frameworks into a single evaluative lens that distinguishes “repair” from true “reanimation” of place. Methodologically, we operationalise that lens with an auditable rubric that reads beyond façades to governance routines, public-realm performance, and everyday use. Khorramshahr and Dresden are deliberately contrasted: both suffered extensive destruction and population dislocation, yet diverged in institutional capacity, financing tools, and conservation culture. By juxtaposing emblematic projects in both cities, the study clarifies why certain interventions—despite substantial construction—fail to restore sense of place, while others rebuild morphology and meaning in tandem. The argument advanced here is that reconstruction becomes regeneration only when design control, civic participation, and programmatic activation move in step with physical works; absent that synchrony, new squares and buildings remain spatially isolated and socially underperforming.

Methodology
The research is applied, descriptive–analytical, and comparative. Sources include official reconstruction reports, planning documents, archival maps, and pre/post-war aerial and street imagery. Textual data were open-coded in ATLAS.ti and aggregated into themes aligned with the three axes (HUL, HBUR, Assemblage). The coding scheme captured, among others, street-network continuity, skyline/height discipline, frontage coherence, public-space quality, existence of heritage-value maps, stakeholder participation and design review, ground-floor activity, event-readiness, and narrative/identity cues. To translate qualitative insights into comparable appraisals, six representative projects were evaluated with a transparent five-point rubric (0–4) and theoretical weights: in Dresden—Neumarkt Square, Frauenkirche, and Rampische Strasse; in Khorramshahr—Motahhari Square, the Grand Mosque, and the War Museum in Kuye-e Taleghani. For each project, axis-specific scores were combined into a weighted mean; project means were then averaged at the city level to enable cross-context comparison. This evaluative lens is deliberately conservative: it penalises good-looking but disconnected objects, rewards coherent edge-making and pedestrian connectivity, and gives explicit credit to processes (participation, design review, citizen fundraising) that build legitimacy and social capital. To mitigate bias, coding relied on converging evidence from multiple documents and time-stamped imagery; where necessary, field notes from observers familiar with Dresden’s programme added descriptive nuance. While no large-N surveys were undertaken, the method prioritises traceable criteria and portability: the rubric can be replicated in other post-conflict settings with minimal adaptation to climate and governance context.

Results and discussion
Results reveal a marked performance gap. Khorramshahr’s weighted mean across projects is 1.6/4, whereas Dresden’s reaches 3.6/4. The largest shortfall in Khorramshahr lies in HUL—fragmented street networks, irregular building lines and heights, and incomplete edge-making around key public spaces. Assemblage scores are also modest: limited ground-floor vitality, delayed population return, and weak programming of public life. HBUR deficiencies—absence of a citywide heritage-values map and inconsistent design review—further depress outcomes by allowing piecemeal decisions and façade inconsistencies. By contrast, Dresden’s Neumarkt demonstrates controlled façade reassembly, height discipline, and public-realm coherence that invite lingering and ritualised use; Frauenkirche exemplifies critical restoration anchored in archival evidence and broad civic fundraising, transforming a singular monument into a civic anchor; Rampische Strasse shows consistent grain, rhythms, and mixed uses conducive to neighbourhood life. In Khorramshahr, Motahhari Square remains an underperforming new insertion rather than a historically anchored urban knot; the Grand Mosque’s stepwise restoration has not been matched by an integrated public-space design to re-stitch the surrounding fabric; the War Museum does activate memory yet lacks fully continuous spatial connections and sustained socio-economic catalysts in its catchment. Interpreted through the tripartite lens, Dresden succeeded not merely because more money was spent or because a stronger archive existed, but because evidence-based design control, civic participation, and programmatic activation were sequenced and mutually reinforcing. Where governance created a shared script—value mapping, façade/height control, and open review—morphology and meaning re-emerged together. Where governance defaulted to delivery-focused construction without shared criteria for edges, fronts, and uses, space was produced but place remained weak.

Conclusion
The comparison indicates that moving from minimal physical reinstatement to full urban reactivation requires synchronising three agendas: fabric continuity and coherent frontage design (HUL), inclusive and heritage-literate governance with design review and citizen finance (HBUR), and social–economic programming that animates streets and squares (Assemblage). Dresden’s pathway—phased plans, evidence-based reconstruction, façade control, and public participation—reconstituted both morphology and meaning, restoring sense of place alongside cultural and visitor economies. For Khorramshahr, three priority actions follow directly from the findings: first, prepare a citywide heritage-values map and institute design-review mechanisms to align materials, heights, and fronts along identity corridors; second, deliver continuous edge-making and pedestrian connectivity around Motahhari Square and the Grand Mosque, complemented by lighting and urban furniture to enhance safety and legibility; third, deploy cultural and market-based activators—neighbourhood events, local commerce, and ground-floor incentives—around the War Museum and adjoining streets to accelerate population return and everyday use. Implemented together and monitored with the same rubric, these steps can shift Khorramshahr from patchwork rebuilding to participatory, multi-scalar regeneration, aligning physical restoration with identity recovery and socio-economic resilience while offering a replicable template for other post-conflict cities.