etermining the Effects of the Components of Visual Structure Quality on the Receptibility of Sociopetal Environments (Research Subject: Isfahan’s Historical Bazaar Saria)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 phd candidate in architecture

2 Professor of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Central Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Farah Habib, Professor of Urban Development, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Art, Science and Research branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Preface and Purpose of the Study: Understanding the visual structure of historical bazaar saria, as one of the most important architectural elements of design, can be effective for contemplation of their role and latent potential in the quality of their sociopetal spaces, the extent of their receptibility, and their prosperity. This study focuses on the understanding and analysis of principles of sociopetality in the receptibility and the visual quality evaluation of bazaar sariaes.
Methodology: Firstly, through correlation and regression analysis, the presence of a students for each of the 12 investigated sariaes, and recording of the number of people and their gathering places, steps were taken to assess the criteria and answer the theories and research questions of the study. The evaluation and determination of the scope of the study were achieved through visual quality and sociopetal concepts in a structural dimension derived from the framework of the research and its conformity with visual parameters defined by space syntax software. The space syntax data was analyzed using the Depthmap software.
Findings: Based on the findings of the study, it can be argued that access points and routes to the sariaes (whether directly or at a rotating angle), dimensions and total measurement of the saria and central courtyard, number of primary spaces, and direct access to primary spaces affect the extent of sociopetality and receptibility of bazaar sariaes. Furthermore, halls that have more entry points, larger central courtyards, and lesser rotation angle for accessing their middle saria, are more inviting and receptible and are more sociopetal as a result. In some cases, such as Mirza Kuchak saria, Khansari saria, and Golshan saria, visual quality components have a reverse correlation with structural components because entry points with an indirect view of the saria have no bearings on visual qualities, having high visual quality yet lower sociopetality.
Conclusion: The findings of this study reveal that although, in most cases, visual quality components affect structural factors and induce sociopetality in the environment, in most bazaar sariaes in Iran such a correlation does not always exist. Sariaes with higher visual quality have lesser sociopetality because, in terms of structure, they do not have intelligible and inviting environments that appeal to the public. Sight and appearance, spatial complexity, practical variety, access and degree of movement, and comfort and number of available facilities affect the spatial quality and thus sociopetality.
 
 

Keywords


Abubakar, I., & Aina, Y. A. (2006). GIS and space syntax: An analysis of accessibility to urban green areas.
Archea, J. (1977).The place of architecture factors in behavioral theories of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 33 (3): 116–137.
Bafna, S. (2003). Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environment and
 Behavior, (35): 17-29.
Bentley, I. (1985).Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. New York: Routledge.
Zucker, P. (1970). Town and square, from the Agora to the Village Green, The MIT Massachusetts.
Carmona, M., De Magalhães, C. & Edwards, M. (2002). Stakeholder views on value and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 7 (2): 145–169.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Urban Spaces-Public Places: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Carr, S, Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, V. & Evans, M. (1999). Neighbourhood Images in East London. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation / York Publishing Services.
Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W. & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place, 14 (3): 544-561.
Dill, J. (2004). Measuring Network Conectivity for bicycling and walking. TRB 2004 Annual Meeting.
Dines, N., & Cattell, V. (2006). Public spaces, Social relation and well being in esast London. London: The Policy press
Eliin, N. (2006). Integral Urbanism, New York: Revised Editation.
Figueiredo, L. (2005). Mindwalk 1.0–Space Syntax Software. Brazil. Laboratório deEstudos.
Efroymson, D. & Thi Kieu Thanh Ha, T. & Thu Ha, Ph. (2009). Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities. Dhaka: HealthBridge- WBB Trust.
Gann, D. M., Salter, A. J. & Whyte, J. K. (2003). Design Quality Indicatoras: a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information, 5 (31): 318–333.
Gehl, J. & Svarre, B. (2013). How to Study Public Life. Washington DC, Covelo, London: Island Press.-
Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Greene, S. (1992).Cityshape. JAPA58 (2): 177-189.
Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City, J. Urban Planing and Development.
Halprin, L. (1972). Cities, the MIT Press, Massachusettes
Hillier , B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1994). The Social Logic of Space. London: Cambridge University Press
Hillier, B., &Iida, S. (2005) Network effects and psychological effects: A theory of urban movement. In Proceedings of the Fifth Space Syntax Symposium, Delft, The Netherlands: 13–17.
Hillier, B., Yang, T., &Turner, A. Normalising. (2013). least angle choice in Depthmap and how it opens new perspectives on the local analysis of city space new perspectives on the global and local analysis of city space. J. Sp. Syntax, 3, 155–193.
Jacobs, A., D. Appleyard. (1987). Toward an Urban Design Manifesto.JAPA53 (1): 112-120.
Jacobs, J. (1993). The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New Yourk
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
Keles, R. (2012). The quality life and the environment. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, (35): 23-32.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory. The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design.
Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding Environmental Quality Through Quality of Life Studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, (65): 73-83.
Mitcherlich, A. (1969). Die Unwirlichkeit Unserer Stadte, Anstifung zum. Unfrieden, Edition Suhrkampverlag, Frankfort.-
Osmand, H. (1957). Function as basis of psychiatric ward design. New York: Holt Rine hart & Winston. -
Pasalar, C. (2003). The Effects of Spatial Layouts on Students Interactions in Middle Schools: Multiple Case Analysis. Unpublished PhD Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Penn, A., & Turner, A. (2002). Space syntax based agent simulation, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics, Duisburg.
Toker, U., Baran, P. K., & Mull, M. (2005). Sub-urban evolution: A cross-temporal analysis of spatial configuration in an american town (1989-2002), 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft- 1.
Punter, John V., & Carmona, M. (1997). The Design Dimension of Planning: Theory, Content, and Best Practice for Design Policies. London: Spon press.
Qiang, Sh, Dongyang W & Boya Y. (2021). Effect of Space Configurational Attributes on Social Interactions in Urban Parks, Sustainability, 13, 7805.
Sheppard, D., & Town, P. (1974). Housing Flexibility? Architectural Design, 43 (11): 698-727.
The Prince of Wales. (1989). A Vision of Britain. London: Doubleday.-Southworth, M, 1989, Theory and practice of contemporary urban design, Town planning review6 (4): 364-402.
Trancik, (1989). Finding Lost Spaca: Theort of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Turner, A. (2001). “Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis”. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space Syntax, p. 9. URL: http: //www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/3sss/ papers_pdf/31_turner.pdf
Turner, A. (2003). Analyzing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (30): 49-37.
Van der Voordt, T. J. M. (2009). Quality of design and usability: a. vetruvian twin. Ambiente Construido, Porto Alegre, (9 ) 2: 17-29
Whyte, H. W. (1980). Social life in small urban spaces, New York, The municipal of art society of New York.