تبیین رابطه انسان - محیط با استفاده از نقد مبانی نظری نحو فضا
محورهای موضوعی :
معماری و شهرسازی
سید تاج الدین منصوری
1
(
دانشجوی دکترای معماری، دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی تهران.
)
اسماعیل ضرغامی
2
(
استاد دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی تهران. *(مسئول مکاتبات)
)
تاریخ دریافت : 1400/08/16
تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/02/21
تاریخ انتشار : 1401/01/01
کلید واژه:
نحو فضا,
انسان - محیط,
معماری,
شهر,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: پیچیدگی موضوع طراحی فضای معماری و شهری به سبب ابعاد ناشناخته و وجود الگوهای رفتاری متنوع انسان، به حدی است که نمی‌توان بر اساس مبانی یک نظریه به طراحی محیط پرداخت. هدف از انجام این پژوهش بررسی و نقد مبانی نظریه نحو فضا، به‌عنوان یکی از ابزارهای اصلی طراحی فضا، در تبیین مطلوب الگوهای رفتاری انسان محیط می‌باشد.روش بررسی: درروش پژوهش حاضر، راهبرد ترکیبی مورداستفاده قرارگرفته است. داده‌های اولیه با نگرشی کیفی، بر اساس مطالعات کتابخانه‌ای جمع‌آوری‌شده‌اند. برای دسته‌بندی داده‌ها، راهبرد طبقه‌بندی بکار رفته است. این راهبرد به‌وسیله مرتب کردن و ساختار دادن به داده در یک سامانه مبتنی بر مشخصه‌های کلی، الگوها، رفتارها و مضمون‌ها، دانش جدیدی را به وجود می‌آورد و می‌تواند با سایر راهبردهای پژوهش ترکیب شود. برای دستیابی به نتایج، داده‌های به‌دست‌آمده با راهبرد تفسیری مبتنی بر استنتاج تبیین گردیده‌اند. در دستیابی و تبیین نتایج، نگرشی انتقادی مدنظر بوده است تا بتوان نقاط قوت و ضعف نظریه نحو فضا و راه‌حل‌های نظری و عملی برای رفع ضعف‌های این نظریه ارائه گردد.یافته‌ها: پس از بررسی توانایی‌های تحلیل نظریه نحو فضا در ادراک فضا، یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند که این نظریه در تبیین رابطه انسان محیط دارای نقاط ضعفی است که می‌توان این کاستی‌های را در چهار عامل بصری، ساختاری (هندسی)، رفتاری و محیطی دسته‌بندی نمود.بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان دادند که در حوزه عوامل بصری، خوانایی؛ در حوزه عوامل ساختاری (هندسی)، خوانایی و پیکربندی؛ در حوزه رفتاری و محیطی، تبیین قرارگاه‌های رفتاری؛ و در حوزه عوامل محیطی، عوامل اقلیمی، تأثیرگذارترین کاستی‌های نظریه نحو فضا در تبیین رابطه انسان محیط می‌باشند. بنابراین در طراحی مطلوب محیط و کاستن ضعف‌های نظریه نحو فضا، می‌بایست از مبانی نظریه‌های پوششی در حوزه‌های بیان‌شده، استفاده نمود.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Background and Aim: The complexity of the subject of architectural and urban space design due to unknown dimensions and the existence of various human behavioral patterns, is such that it is not possible to design the environment based on the principles of a theory. The purpose of this study is to review and critique the foundations of space syntax theory, as one of the main tools of space design, in the optimal explanation of human-environment behavioral patterns.Methods: In the present research method, a hybrid strategy has been used. The initial data were collected with a qualitative approach, based on library studies. To classify the data, a classification strategy is used. This strategy creates new knowledge by arranging and structuring data in a system based on general characteristics, patterns, behaviors, and themes, and can be combined with other research strategies. To achieve the results, the obtained data are explained with an interpretive strategy based on inference. In achieving and explaining the results, a critical approach has been considered in order to provide the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of space syntax and theoretical and practical solutions to address the weaknesses of this theory.Findings: After examining the capabilities of space syntax theory analysis in space perception, the findings show that this theory has weaknesses in explaining the human-environment relationship that can be addressed in four factors: visual, structural (geometric), behavioral and Categorized environment.Discussion and Conclusion: The results showed that in the field of visual factors, readability; In the field of structural (geometric) factors, readability and configuration; In the field of behavior and environment, explanation of behavioral camps; And in the field of environmental factors, climatic factors are the most influential shortcomings of neophyte theory in explaining the human-environmental relationship. Therefore, in the optimal design of the environment and reducing the weaknesses of neohospatial theory, the basics of cover theories in the expressed areas should be used.
منابع و مأخذ:
1- Hamdani Golshan, Hamed & Behzadfar, Mostafa & Melabi, Qasim. 2019. Explaining the relationship between spatial configuration and social interactions using the interaction of space syntax and ecological psychology. Safa Quarterly. Year 30th. Number 88. Pp 59-76. (In Persian)
2- Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. 1984. The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3- Heydari, Aliakbar & Ghasemian, Isa Asl & Kayani, Maryam. 2016. Analysis of the spatial structure of traditional Iranian houses using the space syntax method; Case study: Comparison of houses in Yazd, Kashan and Isfahan. Iranian Islamic City Studies Quarterly. Year 7th. Number 28. Pp 21-33. (In Persian)
4- Racu, Mihai. 2016. Limitation, critiques and inconsistencies of the space syntax methodology. 41st iahs world, congress sustainability and Innovation for the Future13-16th September. Albufeira, Algarve, Portuga.
5- Bahraini, Seyed Hossein & Taqaban, Sodeh. 2019. The test of the application of the space layout method in the design of traditional urban spaces, a case example: the design of the pedestrian axis of Imamzadeh Qasim (AS). Architecture and Urban Development Journal. Number 48. Pp 18- 5. (In Persian)
6- Marcus, L. 2015. Interaction rituals and co-presence – linking humans to humans in space syntax theory. In K. Karimi, L. Vaughan, K. Sailer, G. Palaiologou, & T. Bolton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tentth International Space Syntax Symposium. London, England: University College London. Pp 109: 1-10.
7- Asadpour, Ali & Faizi, Mohsen & Mozafar, Farhang & Behzadfar, Mostafa. 2014. Typology of models and comparative study of methods of recording mental images and cognitive maps of the environment. Bagh Nazar Quarterly. Number 33. Year 12 th. Pp 13-22 . (In Persian)
8- Bartlett Faculty (Built Environment) UCL University London. 2020. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett.
9- Deming, M. E., & Swaffield, S. 2011. Landscape Architecture Research; Inquiry, Strategy, Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10- Memarian, Maleeha & Zamani, Bahadur. 2017. Compilation of urban design framework for Qom city center with the approach of increasing readability and imaginability. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Planning Quarterly. Number 25. Pp 317-301. (In Persian)
11- Kim, G. & A. Kim & Y. Kim. 2018. A New 3D Space Syntax Metric Based on 3D Isovist Capture in Urban Space Using Remote Sensing Technology. in Computer Environment Urban Systems.
12- Long, Y., Baran, P., & Moore, R. 2007. The Role of Space Syntax In Spatial Cognition. 6th International Space. Syntax Symposium, İstanbul. Evidence for Urban China. s129. Pp 1-6.
13- Kim, Y. 2001. The Role of Spatial Configuration in Spatial Cognition. 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium Atlanta.
14- Kim, Y. 1999. SPATIAL CONFIGURATION, SPATIAL COGNITION AND SPATIAL BEHAVIOUR: The Role of Architectural Intelligibility in Shaping Spatial Experience. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture at the University of London The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies Bartlett School of Architecture, Building, Environmental Design and Planning University College London.
15- Shojaei Vand, Bahman & Raushi, Shahrivar & Asghari Zamani, Akbar. 2017. Spatial Representation and Production and Reproduction of Mental Image: An Approach from Lefebvre's Trialectic. Geographical Studies of Arid Regions. Volume 9. Number 33. Pp 1-19. (In Persian)
16- Khadiga M & Mamoun SulimanArch. 2017. The Space Syntax Methodology: Fits and Misfits. Arch & Behav. Vol. 10. no 2. pp 189 – 204.
17- Schroder, C. & W. Mackaness & F. Reitsma. 2007. Quantifying Urban Visibility Using 3D Space Syntax, in Proceedings of the Geographical Information Science Research UK Conference, NUI Maynooth, Ireland, 11–13 April 2007. pp 359-366.
18- Morais, F. Depth Space 3D: A New Digital Tool for 3D Space Syntax Analysis”, in Formal Methods in Architecture and Urbanism, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp 91-112.
19- Costa, Laura & Cláudia Fernandes & Franklim Morais & Catarina Ruivo & António Ascensão. 2019. 3D Space Syntax Analysis: Attributes to be Applied in Landscape Architecture Projects. in Urban Science. 3(20).
20- Ratti, Carlo. 2004. Urban texture and space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2004. volume 31.
21- Pafka, Elek & Kim Dovey & Gideon Aschwanden. 2020. Limits of space syntax for urban design: Axiality, scale and sinuosity. Environment & Planning B .47(3). pp 508-522.
22- Memarian, Gholamhossein. 2017. A journey through the theoretical foundations of architecture. Soroush Danesh publishing house in collaboration with Memar publishing house. (In Persian)
23- Golrokh, Shamin. 2013. Behavioral Camp: A Basic Unit for Environmental Analysis. Armanshahr Publishing.
24- Durrani Arab, Atanaz & Ghalenoui, Mahmoud & Zamani, Bahadur & Mehzedi Mehr Tehran, Amir Mohammad. 2015. Reviewing the Common Bases of Interaction Rituals and Syntax of Space. Bimonthly Journal of Research in Art and Human Sciences. Year 1th .Number 1. Pp 8-1. (In Persian)
25- Hillier, B. & Honson, J. & Peponis, J. 1984. What do we mean by building Function?, (E. J. Powell, Ed.) Designing for Building Utilisation.
26- Liebst, L. S. 2014. Staged, yet Unstaged: Sociological Inquiries into Space and Micro-Interaction. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Department of Sociology,University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
_||_
1- Hamdani Golshan, Hamed & Behzadfar, Mostafa & Melabi, Qasim. 2019. Explaining the relationship between spatial configuration and social interactions using the interaction of space syntax and ecological psychology. Safa Quarterly. Year 30th. Number 88. Pp 59-76. (In Persian)
2- Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. 1984. The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3- Heydari, Aliakbar & Ghasemian, Isa Asl & Kayani, Maryam. 2016. Analysis of the spatial structure of traditional Iranian houses using the space syntax method; Case study: Comparison of houses in Yazd, Kashan and Isfahan. Iranian Islamic City Studies Quarterly. Year 7th. Number 28. Pp 21-33. (In Persian)
4- Racu, Mihai. 2016. Limitation, critiques and inconsistencies of the space syntax methodology. 41st iahs world, congress sustainability and Innovation for the Future13-16th September. Albufeira, Algarve, Portuga.
5- Bahraini, Seyed Hossein & Taqaban, Sodeh. 2019. The test of the application of the space layout method in the design of traditional urban spaces, a case example: the design of the pedestrian axis of Imamzadeh Qasim (AS). Architecture and Urban Development Journal. Number 48. Pp 18- 5. (In Persian)
6- Marcus, L. 2015. Interaction rituals and co-presence – linking humans to humans in space syntax theory. In K. Karimi, L. Vaughan, K. Sailer, G. Palaiologou, & T. Bolton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tentth International Space Syntax Symposium. London, England: University College London. Pp 109: 1-10.
7- Asadpour, Ali & Faizi, Mohsen & Mozafar, Farhang & Behzadfar, Mostafa. 2014. Typology of models and comparative study of methods of recording mental images and cognitive maps of the environment. Bagh Nazar Quarterly. Number 33. Year 12 th. Pp 13-22 . (In Persian)
8- Bartlett Faculty (Built Environment) UCL University London. 2020. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett.
9- Deming, M. E., & Swaffield, S. 2011. Landscape Architecture Research; Inquiry, Strategy, Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10- Memarian, Maleeha & Zamani, Bahadur. 2017. Compilation of urban design framework for Qom city center with the approach of increasing readability and imaginability. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Planning Quarterly. Number 25. Pp 317-301. (In Persian)
11- Kim, G. & A. Kim & Y. Kim. 2018. A New 3D Space Syntax Metric Based on 3D Isovist Capture in Urban Space Using Remote Sensing Technology. in Computer Environment Urban Systems.
12- Long, Y., Baran, P., & Moore, R. 2007. The Role of Space Syntax In Spatial Cognition. 6th International Space. Syntax Symposium, İstanbul. Evidence for Urban China. s129. Pp 1-6.
13- Kim, Y. 2001. The Role of Spatial Configuration in Spatial Cognition. 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium Atlanta.
14- Kim, Y. 1999. SPATIAL CONFIGURATION, SPATIAL COGNITION AND SPATIAL BEHAVIOUR: The Role of Architectural Intelligibility in Shaping Spatial Experience. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture at the University of London The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies Bartlett School of Architecture, Building, Environmental Design and Planning University College London.
15- Shojaei Vand, Bahman & Raushi, Shahrivar & Asghari Zamani, Akbar. 2017. Spatial Representation and Production and Reproduction of Mental Image: An Approach from Lefebvre's Trialectic. Geographical Studies of Arid Regions. Volume 9. Number 33. Pp 1-19. (In Persian)
16- Khadiga M & Mamoun SulimanArch. 2017. The Space Syntax Methodology: Fits and Misfits. Arch & Behav. Vol. 10. no 2. pp 189 – 204.
17- Schroder, C. & W. Mackaness & F. Reitsma. 2007. Quantifying Urban Visibility Using 3D Space Syntax, in Proceedings of the Geographical Information Science Research UK Conference, NUI Maynooth, Ireland, 11–13 April 2007. pp 359-366.
18- Morais, F. Depth Space 3D: A New Digital Tool for 3D Space Syntax Analysis”, in Formal Methods in Architecture and Urbanism, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp 91-112.
19- Costa, Laura & Cláudia Fernandes & Franklim Morais & Catarina Ruivo & António Ascensão. 2019. 3D Space Syntax Analysis: Attributes to be Applied in Landscape Architecture Projects. in Urban Science. 3(20).
20- Ratti, Carlo. 2004. Urban texture and space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2004. volume 31.
21- Pafka, Elek & Kim Dovey & Gideon Aschwanden. 2020. Limits of space syntax for urban design: Axiality, scale and sinuosity. Environment & Planning B .47(3). pp 508-522.
22- Memarian, Gholamhossein. 2017. A journey through the theoretical foundations of architecture. Soroush Danesh publishing house in collaboration with Memar publishing house. (In Persian)
23- Golrokh, Shamin. 2013. Behavioral Camp: A Basic Unit for Environmental Analysis. Armanshahr Publishing.
24- Durrani Arab, Atanaz & Ghalenoui, Mahmoud & Zamani, Bahadur & Mehzedi Mehr Tehran, Amir Mohammad. 2015. Reviewing the Common Bases of Interaction Rituals and Syntax of Space. Bimonthly Journal of Research in Art and Human Sciences. Year 1th .Number 1. Pp 8-1. (In Persian)
25- Hillier, B. & Honson, J. & Peponis, J. 1984. What do we mean by building Function?, (E. J. Powell, Ed.) Designing for Building Utilisation.
26- Liebst, L. S. 2014. Staged, yet Unstaged: Sociological Inquiries into Space and Micro-Interaction. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Department of Sociology,University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
