Space- Behavior System Explanation in Proportion of Program Necessity and Freedom (Case study: National Library and Library of the University of Tehran In Between Spaces)

Subject Areas : architecture

Leila Aram ¹ ( Architecture, Architecture and Urban Studies, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran )
Kaveh Bazrafkan ² ( Assistant Professor )

Received: 1970-01-01 Accepted : 1970-01-01 Published : 1970-01-01

Keywords: space-behavior system, pleasure, functional program, National Library, Library of Tehran University,

Abstract :

Designing seems to be based on acceptance of minimal programs and proportion of functional levels or as the common discourse calls it »physical plan«, serves as the focal point of its for-mation, and the quantitative proportion of level to individual plays an important role in its de-sign and evaluation. Meanwhile, interpretations of the quality of the space, experience and event concerning the conventional and standard quantities can not be seen, something which seems to be a result of reductive and simplistic outlooks in line with modernist currents and incomplete education of the concepts of this current and dissemination of the tendency toward an international style. The present article intends to develop a post-modern framework for an outlook toward func-tion in designing and show that a transition has occurred from functionalism to programming which accepts a fuzzy spectrum of necessity, freedom and pleasure. In this situation the de-signer comes across a problem whereby he (she) has to prepare a lot of options and make some decisions in order to meet a variety range of the needs of his (her) audience, however, the de-signer’s technical know-how is not often sufficient for analyzing the reality and future predic-tion and eventually organization of the human systems. In order to change the program into the design, the designer has to make some orientation and options in programming. The de-signer is faced with the variables of the problem, their significance as well as acceptance of the changing situation and growing variables on one hand, and human’s behavior, quality and life style on the other. This complication aggravates when the audience or user of the space plays an active role against the author of the space or the architect, hence a confrontation and chal-lenge take place. Explanation of the term »environmental design« which contains the behav-ior- space system refers to the inseparable aspects of biological and non-biological human sys-tems. The objective is to prepare the ground for the synergy of these two systems toward a proper system of correlated variables in the designed space. Taking advantage of indirect measurement and using the model of ideal type of design, this article tries to study the situation of in between space syntax so that users would take more freedom and pleasure in the space through categorization, registration and mapping of the proportion of optional and necessary activities in the spaces of National Library and Library of the University of Tehran. According to the studies and analysis of the data extracted from ob-servations, the results of the research reveal that the proposed mechanism of designing the in between spaces at libraries toward rendering a better function includes: 1. Prediction of the open in between spaces at a place with most adjacency to other functions, since the more con-tradictory or indifferent the relations between functions are, the more effective they would be. 2. Design of the closed in between space so that it enjoys a high visibility along with a high spatial scale. 3. Provision of subsidiary function to in between spaces.

References:

1. اسلامی، سید‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ غلامرضا؛ اعتصام، ایرج؛ و بلیلان اصل، لید‌‌‌‌‌‌ا. (1390). نقش فضای بینابین ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر هویت بخشی به گسترۀ فضایی بافت‌های تاریخی ایران. هویت شهر، 5 (8)، 59-71.
2. بارت، رولان. (1382). لذت متن. (پیام یزد‌‌‌‌‌‌انجو، مترجم). تهران: چاپ نیکاچاپ. (نشر اثر اصلی 1973).
3. بذرافکن، کاوه. (1395). [علیه] فرمالیسم؛ خیلی د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ور خیلی نزد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌یک. معمار، (101)، 64-69.
4. د‌‌‌‌‌‌انشگر مقد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌م، گلرخ؛ و اسلامپور، مرمر. (1391). تحلیل نظریه قابلیت محیط از د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ید‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌گاه گیبسون و بازخورد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ آن ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر مطالعات انسان و محیط انسان‌ساخت. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان‌شهر، (9)، 73-86.
5. شهسوار، آزیتا؛ و بذرافکن، کاوه. (1396). بررسی بازتعریف فضایی راهرو ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر طراحی محیطی نمایشگاه. کنگره بین‌المللی عمران، معماری و توسعه شهری. د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ی 5-7، تهران: د‌‌‌‌‌‌انشگاه شهید‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ بهشتی.
6. شیخ ‌رضایی، حسین؛ و کرباسی ‌زاد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ه، امیر احسان. (1391). آشنایی با فلسفه علم. تهران: هرمس.
7. صاحبی، علی. (1392). ویلیام گلسر: بنیانگذار تئوری انتخاب و واقعیت ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌رمانی. تهران: د‌‌‌‌‌‌انژه.
8. طبیبی، سید‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ جمال‌الد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ین؛ ملکی، محم‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌رضا؛ و د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌لگشایی، بهرام. (1388). تد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌وین پایان‌نامه، رساله، طرح پژوهشی و مقاله علمی. تهران: فرد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌وس.
9. غریب پور، افرا. (1392). اصطلاح‌شناسی عملکرد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ معماری. معماری و شهرسازی هنرهای زیبا، 18(1)، 57-68.
10. کالینز، پیتر. (1375). د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌گرگونی آرمان‌ها ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر معماری مد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌رن. (حسین
حسن‌پور، مترجم). تهران: قطره. (نشر اثر اصلی 1965).
11. گل، یان؛ و سوار، برجیت. (1394). چگونه زند‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌گی همگانی را مطالعه کنیم. (مصطفی بهزاد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌فر، محمد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ رضایی ند‌‌‌‌‌‌‌وشن و احمد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ رضایی ند‌‌‌‌‌‌‌وشن، مترجمان). تهران: علم معمار رویال. (نشر اثر اصلی 2013).
12. لنگ، جان. (1388). آفرینش نظریۀ معماری: نقش علوم رفتاری ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر طراحی محیط. (علی‌رضا عینی فر، مترجم). تهران: د‌‌‌‌‌‌انشگاه تهران، موسسه انتشارات. (نشر اثر اصلی 1987).
13. مطلبی، قاسم. (1380). روان‌شناسی محیطی: د‌‌‌‌‌‌انشی نو ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر خد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌مت معماری و طراحی شهری. معماری و شهرسازی هنرهای زیبا، (10)، 52-67.
14. نسبیت، کیت. (1386). نظریه‌های پسامد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌رن ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ر معماری. (محم‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌رضا شیرازی، مترجم). تهران: نی. (نشر اثر اصلی 1966).
15. نقد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌بیشی، رضا؛ برق جلوه، شهیند‌‌‌‌‌‌‌خت؛ اسلامی، سید‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ غلامرضا؛ و کامل نیا، حامد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌. (1395). الگوی آموزش معماری بر اساس نظریۀ قابلیت‌های محیطی گیبسون. هویت شهر، (26)، 75-84.
16. وبر، ماکس. (1382). روش‌شناسی علوم اجتماعی. (حسن چاوشیان، مترجم). تهران: نشر مرکز. (نشر اثر اصلی 1904).
17. یورماکا، کاری؛ شرر، اولیور؛ و کوهلمن، ‌‌د‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌رت. (1391). مقد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ماتی بر روش‌های طراحی معماری. (کاوه بذرافکن، مترجم). تهران: د‌‌‌‌‌‌انشگاه آزاد‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ اسلامی، تهران مرکزی. (نشر اثر اصلی 2007).

18. Alfano, Jr. M., Hale, J., Huffman, C., Lewis, B., Mikellides, B., Orlandoni, A., & Porter, T. (2011). Decoding Theoryspeak: An illus‌trated guide to architectural theory. London and New yok: Routledge.
19. Bottger, T. (2014). Threshold Spaces: Transition in Architecture, Analysis and Design Tools. Basel: Birkhäuser.
20. Brunec, I., Moscovitch, M., & Barense, M. (2018). Boundaries Shape Cognitive Representations of Spaces and Events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22 (7), 637-650.
21. Can, I. (2012). In-between Space and Social Interaction: A case s‌tudy of three neighbourhoods in Izmir. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
22. Capon, D. S. (1999a). Architectural Theory: The Vitruvian Fallacy. (Vol. 1). London: John Wiley & Sons.
23. Capon, D. S. (1999b). Architectural Theory: Le Corbusier’s Legacy. (Vol. 2). London: John Wiley & Sons.
24. Dursun, P. (2007). Space Syntax in Architectural Design
In A. S. Kubat, O. Ertekin, Y. I. Guney & E. Eyuboglu (Ed).
Space Syntax. Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. June 12-15, (pp. 056-001 - 056-012). İs‌tanbul: ITU Faculty of Architecture.
25. Hays, K. M. (Ed). (1998). Architecture Theory since 1968. London: MIT Press.
26. Johnson, P. A. (1994). The Theory of Architecture. New Yourk: Van Nos‌trand Reinholds.
27. Kabo, F. (2005). Syntactic Transformation of the Design Program/Brief In A. Van Nes (Ed). Space Syntax. Proceedings of 5th International Space Syntax Symposium Volume II. June 13-17, (pp. 601-615). Ams‌terdam: Techne Press.
28. Koolhaas, R., & Tschumi, B. (2006). 2 Architects, 10 Ques‌tions on Program. (A. Miljacki, A. R. Lawrence, & A. Schafer, Interviewers), Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.praxisjournal.net/issues/08.htm.
29. Lampugnani, V. M. (Ed). (1986). Encyclopedia of 20th -Century Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
30. Nesbitt, K. (1996). Theorizing A New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
31. Netto, V. M. (2016). What is Space Syntax not? Reflections on space syntax as sociospatial theory. Urban Design International, 21(1), 25-40.
32. Nooraddin, H. (1998). Al-fina, In-between Spaces as an Urban Design Concept: Making public and private places along s‌treets in Islamic cities of the Middle Eas‌t. Urban design international, 3(1), 65-77.
33. Oxford dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perform.
34. Salama, A. M. (2008). A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 100-128.
35. Sharmin, S., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Meta-analysis of the Relationships Between Space Syntax Measures and Pedes‌trian Movement. Transport Reviews, 38(4), 524-550.
36. Stevens, Q. (2007). Betwixt and Between: Building  Thresholds, Liminality and Public Space In K. Franck, & Q. Stevens (Ed), Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban  Life (pp. 73-92). New York: Routledge.
37. Studer, R. G., & Stea, D. (1966). Architectural Programming, Environmental Design, and Human Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 22(4), 127-136.
38. Tschumi, B. (1977). The Pleasure of Architecture. Architectural Design, 47(3), 214-218.
39. Tschumi, B. (1987). Abs‌tract Mediation and Strategy In B. Tschumi, Architecture and Disjunction (pp. 190-231).London: MIT Press.

40. Turner, v. (1982). Liminal to Liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: An essay in comparative symbology In v. Turner, From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play (pp. 20-60). New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
41. Veatch, L. (1987). Toward the Environmental Design of Library Buildings. Library Trends, 36(2), 361–376.
42. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by Design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York: WW Norton & Company.