Therefore, restoration requires a different way of thinking than standard architectural production processes. This paper aims to highlight common mistakes in restoration practices and to present, within a conceptual framework, why these mistakes contradict conservation principles.

1. Confusing Restoration with Renovation

The most fundamental and common mistake in restoration is treating the process as a mere "renovation" activity. Interventions carried out with the expectation of making surfaces clean, smooth, and new often lead to the irreversible destruction of the original material and historical layers.

However, restoration is not about adapting a building to today's aesthetic expectations; its aim is to preserve it within its historical context and transmit it to the future. Therefore, every wear, color difference, or irregularity seen on the surface should not be considered a defect. These traces are often important data that document the periods the building has gone through, the interventions it has undergone, and its forms of use.

A critical awareness is needed at this point, especially for students and young architects:
A surface that appears “new” doesn’t always mean the right intervention. On the contrary, excessive cleaning and interventions that remove the original layers of the surface can lead to the irreversible loss of the structure’s authenticity. The aim of restoration is not to idealize the structure, but to make its original material, traces, and character legible. This approach is one of the most fundamental principles that distinguishes restoration from a process of aesthetic renewal.

2. Use of Non-Breathable Materials

One of the most common technical errors in historical buildings is the use of materials incompatible with the original building systems. Cement-based plasters and plastic-based paints, in particular, show a significant incompatibility with traditional lime-based building systems. While this incompatibility is often not noticeable in the short term, it leads to consequences that disrupt the physical balance of the building in the long term.

In traditional buildings, lime-based plasters and mortars are highly vapor-permeable systems that regulate the building's moisture balance. In contrast, modern, non-breathable materials disrupt this natural balance, trapping moisture within the structure. This situation triggers rapid deterioration processes, especially in walls containing salt.

The use of such materials results in:
• Vapor diffusion is prevented,
• Moisture and salt accumulation increases,
• In the long term, blistering, peeling, and surface loss will occur.

Therefore, material selection in restoration is not merely an aesthetic preference; it is a technical necessity based on building physics. Choosing the wrong materials can turn even a well-intentioned intervention into a damaging practice for the structure.

One of Letoon Architecture's core areas of expertise in its restoration approach is ensuring the harmonious integration of new materials with traditional building systems. The issue in restoration practice is not to completely exclude modern materials; rather, it is to correctly design under what conditions, how, and to what extent these materials can be combined with the original building system.

In later sections of the Ecotera Restoration Guide, the question of "How and when can new materials be used in restoration?" will be addressed in detail in a separate article.

3. Starting the Intervention Without Conducting Surface Analysis

Another common mistake in restoration is proceeding with the work without conducting sufficient analysis of the surface's current condition. However, every historical surface possesses a unique character with its own material structure, environmental influences, and deterioration dynamics. Any intervention made without defining this character becomes more of a trial-and-error practice than a scientific restoration process.

Decisions made without evaluating moisture levels, salt content, existing plaster type, paint layers, and traces of previous interventions produce practices that appear "successful" in the short term but lead to recurring deterioration in the medium and long term. This situation causes faulty interventions to become continuous, and the structure to be damaged a little more with each new intervention.

Surface analysis is not merely a technical preliminary step, but a fundamental one that determines the direction and limits of restoration. In addition to on-site observations and measurements, laboratory analyses, when necessary, must clearly define the material's composition, salt types, binder structure, and degradation mechanisms. Decisions made without this data will fall short of meeting the actual needs of the surface.

The choice of materials, the extent of intervention, and which areas should be left untouched can only be determined accurately through these analyses. Therefore, restoration is a field where decisions cannot be made without measurement, definition, and understanding. Any application not based on analysis often obscures or postpones the problems of the structure instead of solving them.

4. Thinking of the Product Independently of the System

Another common mistake in restoration is focusing solely on the product. Generalizations such as "this product is good," "this brand is reliable," or "it was used in another project before" are often insufficient and misleading for restoration practice. This is because the element that determines success in restoration is not a single product, but a system that works together harmoniously.

Every restoration intervention should be a holistic process, considering the existing condition of the surface, the original material structure, environmental conditions, and expected performance criteria. The primer, base coat, intermediate coats, surface compatibility, application method, and even application time are all parts of this system. Even the highest quality product will not deliver the expected performance if any of these components are overlooked.

Product preferences independent of the system;
• Interlayer inconsistencies,
• Adhesion problems,
• Impairment of vapor permeability,
• Premature aging and surface loss
That could be the reason.

Therefore, the correct question in restoration should not be, "Which product is the best?" but rather, "Which system is right for this surface?" Product selection only makes sense within this system framework and becomes an intervention that preserves the originality of the structure. Restoration is not an application area where products are selected from catalogs; it is a holistic process where material knowledge, surface analysis, and application disciplines work together.

5. Approaching Restoration with Standard Construction Site Mentality

One of the most critical problems in restoration is that it is carried out with classic construction site reflexes. A speed-oriented production approach, interventions made out of habit, and a tendency to avoid detail directly contradict the fundamental principles of restoration. However, in historical buildings, every surface, every detail, and every intervention is unique and original.

Standard construction site practice often focuses on repeatable solutions, short implementation times, and visually appealing results. In restoration, however, the process requires slowing down, stopping, observing, and abandoning intervention when necessary. Therefore, restoration is a field of controlled progress, not speed.

In restoration projects approached with a construction site mentality;
• Details are overlooked,
• The boundaries of application become unclear,
• Irreversible interventions increase,
• The building's original character gradually fades away.

Restoration requires not only practical skills but also a conservation mindset. Teams working in this field need to possess not only knowledge of materials but also the ability to understand the historical value of the structure and to accurately determine the limits of intervention. Every application should be carried out not because it is "feasible," but because it is truly necessary. In this context, restoration is a specialized field that differs from standard on-site production; it requires interdisciplinary knowledge, patience, and ethical responsibility.

Conclusion

Most errors encountered in restoration practices stem not from intentional interventions, but from inadequate conceptual frameworks, insufficient technical evaluation, and methodological errors. This situation is fueled by the perception of restoration as merely an activity reduced to its application.

However, restoration is a discipline that necessitates the systematic execution of analysis, identification, and decision-making processes both before and during the application process. Therefore, restoration knowledge should be built not only on the question of "how to do it," but also on understanding under what conditions, within what limits, and in what situations intervention should be avoided.

For architects and architecture students, restoration is a scientific and ethical field of expertise that goes beyond aesthetic and technical decisions; it must be approached in accordance with building physics, materials science, and conservation principles. Every intervention should be evaluated with the originality and long-term preservation of the building in mind.