Organizing the Urban Landscape with Emphasis on Legibility, Using Visual Preference Technique (V.P.T) (Case Study: Khayyam Street of Qazvin)

Subject Areas : Urban Design

Hossein Najafi charmini ¹ (Student of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran)
Maryam Khastou ² (Assistant Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran)

Received: 2014-03-05 Accepted : 2015-01-25 Published : 2015-04-01

Keywords: urban landscape, Legibility, Urban Street, Visual preference,

Abstract :

Urban landscapes form the main parts of the city. One of these spaces is urban streets, in whichsocial interactions and urban vitality reach its maximum quality and quantity. One of the principles and properties ofurban landscape design is its intelligibility. A viewer who takes a look at an intelligible city and knows it can attract newemotional manifestations of city without damaging its original image. Orientation is also very easy for the viewer andhe completely knows the environment he lives in. numerous characteristics influence the legibility of urban landscapes.The current research, which is a descriptive- analytic study, is designed to identify the factors influencing legibilityof urban landscape and citizen participation as the main bases of visual preference technique. First we begin withconcepts, ideas and attitudes of experts inside and outside the country about “landscape, legibility, urban streets” andidentification of visual preference technique by investigating some foreign examples is done by collecting principlesand characteristics to coordinate the components of city even more. Finally, considering the citizens (residents andnon-residents) participation based on surveys and evaluations that have always carried thoughts and ideas about theenvironment, it was clarified that in different age groups, no fear should be held for the development of this technique.However, considering the new ideas of citizens, criteria are proposed to create and reinforce legible landscapes for thestreets and urban landscapes.

References:

Alavi Tabar, A. (2000). Participation in Managing Cities' Affairs. Tehran: Publications of Organization of Country’s Municipalities.

Bentley, I., Aklk, A., Maureen, P., Galin, S., and Smith,G. (2003). Responsive Environments: A manual for Designers. (Trans. Mostafa Behzadfar). Tehran:  Iran University of Science and Technology.

Charkhchian, M., (2013). Examining the Role of Individual Features in the User Attachment to Urban Spaces (Case Study: Khayyam Street), Journal of Geography and Planning, 18 (47), 55-69.

Cullen, G. (2003). The Concise Townscape. (Trans. Manouchehr Tabibian). Tehran: Tehran University Press.

Deghati Najd, M.; Ismail, N. A.; Maulan,  S.; Mohd Yunos, M. Y.; Dabbagh Niya, M., (2015). Visual Preference Dimensions of Historic Urban Areas: The Determinants for Urban Heritage Conservation, Habitat International, (49), 115–125.

Golkar, K., (2000). Urban Design Quality Components, Journal of Account, (32), 38-65.

Ghorbani, S.; Sanaei Hamamlu, H.; Mo’arefi, M., (2015). Open Landscape Design Dastgheib Intersection of Zanjan, using Visual Preference (VPT), 2nd. National Conference in Architecture and Sustainable Urban Landscape, International Institute of Architecture, Urbanism Architect City 16-17 May. Iran, 6.

Habib, F., Khastou, M., (2014). An Analytical Approach to the Impact of Urban Physical Aspects on Culture and Behavior, International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development (IJAUD), 4 (1), 17-24.

Hernandez , J.; García, L.; Ayuga, F., (2004). Assessment of the visual impact made on the landscape by new   buildings: a methodology for site selection. Landscape and Urban Planning Journal, 68 (1), 15-28.

Kalivoda, O.; Vojar, J.; Skrivanová, Z.; Zahradník, D., (2014). Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics, Journal of Environmental Management,(137), 36-44.

Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of City. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge.

Mahmoudi, S.A. (2006). Urban Landscape. Abadi Quarterly, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, (53), 54-61.

Mouhebati, N., (2012). Analysis of Visual Impacts in Compact City’s Form (Based on Lynch’s cognition theory), International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development (IJAUD), 2 (3), 51-56.

Municipality of East Hants Planning & Development Department., (2014).  Plan East Hants, Visual Preference Survey Results Summary.(3), 5. https:// easthants.ca/content/visual-preference-survey-results. 2.10.2014

Municipality of Qazvin, (2015). http:// qazvin.ir/web/guest/106. 24.2.2014

Nelessen, A., ( 2013).City of Sanford Visual Preference Survey, 1-2-11. http:// sanfordnc.net/planning_development/ Projects/Visual%20Preference%20Survey%20Sanford.pdf. 2.10.2014

Salehi, S. (2001). Exploring the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Participation, Culture of participation Journal, (29) 1.

Saroukhani, B. (2003). The Research Method in social sciences, (4th ed.).Tehran: Institute of Humanities and Social Studies.

Transportation and Planning & Community Development Departments., (2011). East gate/Visual Preference Survey Report, USA. https:// bellevuewa.gov/pdf/PCD/VPS_Narrative_v2.pdf. 2.10.2014

Toosi, M.A. (2000). Participation and Partnership Management, Industrial Management Institute. Tehran: Tehran University Press,6.

Valtchanov , D.; Ellard, C. G. (2015). Cognitive and Affective Responses to Natural Scenes: Effects of Low Level Visual Properties on Preference, Cognitive Load and Eye-movements, Journal of Environmental Psychology, (43), 184-195.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2013a). Retrieved 2.10.2014 from http:// fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Peachtree city, Hungary.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2013b). Retrieved 2.24.2014 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_preference_survey.