In recent decades, murals have become a common phenomenon in urban landscapes. They are markers of identity and can provide benefits to individuals, communities, and cities. Some murals are created sporadically, while others are carefully promoted by the establishment. Given the adoption (or co-optation) of murals as an acceptable, and even desired, municipal tool, local governments around the world have established their own mural policies. While many scholars accept murals as an important element in urban environments, the literature has somewhat neglected the policies and practices that administer them. This paper aims to fill this gap by facilitating a better understanding of mural policies and enabling future evaluations. To do so, we introduce a conceptual framework that assists in identifying, characterizing and evaluating mural policies. We then demonstrate the applicability of the conceptual framework through a case-example of Portland, Oregon.

This paper is grounded in a rancorous debate in built-heritage studies concerning heritage policies and the disputes associated with them. Despite the seeming dominance of architectural considerations in decision-making about heritage protection, factual evidence from previous studies shows that not one, but five factors are involved, in differing doses, in the decisions made by planning bodies: architecture and design, city-planning, social considerations, economics, and property-related considerations. This paper categorizes each of these elements and frames them in a new conceptual framework. . The framework analyses the five factors from the perspectives of two prisms: support or opposition to heritage protection policies. Through a prominent case-example of Tel Aviv’s conservation plan, we then demonstrate that the new conceptual framework can be utilized to better understand the multifaceted debates – overt or covert – surrounding heritage protection. The case study and the conceptual framework suggest that although urban form and design issues are quite dominant, other non-physical considerations shape the dynamics of conflicts, practices, and policies surrounding heritage protection.