The Evaluation of Interiority in the Identity of Public Spaces
Loading...

Date
2020
Authors
Zeynep Tuna ULTAV
Sahar Asadollahi Asl Zarkhah
GÜLNUR BALLICE
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Open Access Color
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Abstract
Purpose Public spaces in the context of everyday life in an urban environment include all places with public access and public use. Places for public interaction provide the greatest amount of human contact. In every city many interiors are considered public because they are of or pertain to the people in everyday life. As part of public spaces public interiors have an important role in creating place identity.In an urban environment place identity is defined by meanings as well as the elements of setting activities and events taking place within that environment. This paper aims to reveal the interiority attributes and elements of public interiors to determine how they influence the identity of interior places. This understanding clarifies how this differs from the more general concept of place identity in public spaces.Design/Methodology/ApproachTo do this a framework for identity was constructed with three components: physical setting activity and meaning based on the main theoretical perspectives of Relph (1976) and Montgomery (1998). To determine the relationships between the interiority indicators of public interiors and identity this case study focused on KızlarağasıInn a historic inn in İzmir and its immediate surroundings. Data concerning the components of place identity were collected through archival research observations on-site documentation questionnaires interviews behavior mapping and tracking.FindingsThe analysis of the attributes and elements of place identity in this public interior indicated that the interiority of public spaces can play a positive role in increasing place identity. Moreover the evaluations revealed the effect of internality in each component of place identity. Features like well-defined boundaries closeness to human scale volumetric properties legibility the potential of promoting a wide range of activities and promoting a different sensory context stem from the internality of place.Social/Practical ImplicationsThis study emphasized the importance of public and urban interiors as significant places that facilitate public life. Moreover it showed the extension of interior spaces outside the buildings which emphasized a new perspective for interior architects and urban designers by bringing a new understanding of the interiority.
Description
Keywords
Mimarlık
Fields of Science
Citation
Atmodiwirjo P. AndriYatmo Y. & Ujung V. A. (2015). Outside interior: traversed boundaries in a Jakarta urban neighbourhood Idea Journal 15(1) 78–101.Carr S. Stephen C. Francis M. Rivlin L. G. & Stone A. M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge University Press.Giunta E. E. (2009). Urban interiors. artificial territories. designing ‘spatial script’ for relational field Idea Journal 9(1) 52–61.Gustafson P. (2001). Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(1) 5–16.Harteveld M. (2014). Interior Public Space, on the Mazes in the Network of an Urbanist.Leveratto J. (2019). Urban interiors: a retroactive investigation Journal of Interior Design 44(3) 161–171.McCarthy C. (2005). Toward a definition of interiority Space and Culture 589Montgomery J. (1998). Making a city: urbanity vitality and urban designJournal of Urban Design 3(1) 93–116.Najafi M. & Shariff M. (2011). The concept of place and sense of place in architectural studiesInternational Journal of Human and Social Sciences 6(3) 187–193.Poot T. Van Acker M. & De Vos E. (2015). The public interior: themeeting place for the urban and the interior Idea Journal 15(1) 44–55.Relph E. (1976). Place and Placelessness (Vol. 67). Pion London.Seamon D. & Sowers J. (2008). Place and placelessness (1976): Edward Relph Key Texts in Human Geography 43–52.Shirazi M. R. (2014). Towards an Articulated Phenomenological Interpretation of Architecture: Phenomenal Phenomenology. Routledge.Taylor M. & Preston J. (2006). Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader. John Wiley & Sons Inc.Tibbalds F. (2012). Making People-friendly Towns: Improving the Public Environment in Towns and Cities. Taylor & Francis.Ujang N. & Zakariya K. (2015). The notion of place place meaning and identity in urban regenerationProcedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 170 709–717.White E. T. (1999). Path--Portal--Place: Appreciating Public Space in Urban Environments. Architectural Media.Whyte W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces [Motion picture]. Santa Monica CA: Direct Cinema Limited.
