عنوان مقاله [English]
Urban space is an objective, derived from the integration of social relations, in the physical context, in a semantic setting and in the direction of the collective human needs. In fact, the urban space is created not for being looked at, but for being there, which brings us to its depths and creates an experience in which all the people moving there can share. Cultural activities, due to the presence of informal spaces and programs, together with other functions, provide a good basis for establishing social interactions. As a result, paying attention to the social dimension of space in the design of cultural buildings and finding a link between spatial qualities and social concepts, including sociability, is very important in the success of these spaces. Sociability is one of the concepts used in the field of environmental psychology, which is referred to spaces that are multipurpose and provide many of the daily and user-friendly activities. The aim of this paper is to investigate the spatial arrangement and spatial relationships existing in contemporary cultural complexes of the country and its relationship with quality and social concepts such as sociability in these complexes. In this paper, the research method was combined in a case study analysis. Thus descriptive-analytic methods and logical reasoning and ultimately correlation were used. Also, on descriptions of these stages and processes of research, observing instruments, library and documentary studies and simulation in descriptive samples (Dezful and Niavaran Cultural Center) were used. In the process of simulation, the space syntax software is used to examine the indices such as communication, interconnection, and depth, in order to achieve a comprehensive and accurate analysis. Using the results of the spaces graphs and studying the parameters of interconnection, communication and depth, as well as recording the observations and analyzing the components of the community in the focal points of the case studies, the factors influencing the success of these spaces in the formation of social interactions were extracted. The results of research indicate that proper arrangement of space in cultural complexes can affect the sociability of these spaces. Studies have shown that the sociability of cultural spaces is related to the appropriate spatial arrangement and related activities. In fact, the quality and quantity of sociability increases with the coordination and compatibility between the space framework and the user’s behaviors. Analysis of the findings revealed that:
Integrations Indicator: Observations have shown that sociability in these spaces is cross-sectional and occurs at a specific time. In fact, if we want to divide the space into two active and semi-active regions, the courtyard is located in the active space and Theaters and galleries are located in semi-active spaces. Of the other spaces that are more interconnected than other spaces, is ground floor corridor of Dezful Cultural Center, which is considered as a sociable spaces due to its communicative role between the library, markets and restaurant. One of the physical factors of sociability enhancement in these courtyards is the presence of natural elements in the environment, the symbolically movement of water inside the building in Niavaran Cultural Center and using water pond and vegetation and fixed sculptures in Niavaran Cultural Center, improve the quality of physical space for the formation of social interactions.
Connectivity Indicator: Communication is defined as the number of points that a point is directly related to. According to this definition, the courtyards in these two complexes have a higher numerical indicator than the rest of the spaces due to the centrality and division role they have, which this centrality cause the interaction of users and the creation of social interactions and, consequently, sociability in these spaces. Most of the other spaces in these two complexes have a roughly equal association indicators. The lowest communication indicator is related to Art workshops in Dezful Cultural Center, which seems it is due to the creation of a more private space than other spaces for conducting educational classes.
Depth indicator: The yard as the main element of these complexes is placed after the entry at the next depth level and has the lowest depth. This leads to a greater involvement of this space with the surrounding urban environment and provides the basis for community-based connectivity between the urban space and the complexes. On the other hand, the serving and welfare areas and recreational and other functions are immediately followed up to the depth of space. These spaces, along with the main functions and activities of the space, are added to the variety of activities in the complex and increase the attendance of different people, and this affects the space sociability in the case of being properly controlled.
Abbaszadegan, M. (2002). The Method of Space Syntax in the Urban Design Process with a Look at Yazd City.Intenational Journal of Urban and Rural Management, 9, 64-1.
Archea, J. (1999). The Place of Architectural Factors in Behavioral Theories of Privacy. Journal of Social, 33(3),116 - 137
Barker, R.G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Staford. Stanford University Press.
Carmona, M. Heath, T., Tiesdell, S., & Taner, Oc. (2012). Public Places Urban Spaces the Dimensions of Urban Design. (M. Shokouhi., I. Salehi., & Z, Ahari, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Honar University Publications.
Daneshgarmoghaddam, G., Bahrainy, S.H., & Einifar, A. (2011). An Investigation on Sociability of the Spaces Based on Perception of Nature in the Built Environment. HONAR-HAYE-ZIBA Journal, 3(45), 27-38.
Daneshpour, A., & charkhchyan, M. (2007). Public Spaces and Factors Affecting Collective Life. BAGHE-NAZAR Journal, 4(7), 19-28.
Dursun, P. (2007). Space Syntax in Architectural Design. in: 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, 12-15 june: Istanbul, 056/01-056/12.
Efroymson, D., & Thi Kieu Thanh Ha, T., & Thu Ha, Ph. (2009). Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities. Dhaka:
Forgas, J. (1994). Interpersonal Behaviour: The Psychology of Social Interaction. (B. Beygi., & M. Firoozbakht, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Abjad Publications.
Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating Sense of Community: The Role of Public Space. Journal of Environment Psychology, (32), 401-409.
Haq, S., & Zimring, G. (2003). Just Down the Road a Piece: The Development of Topological Knowlwdge of Building Layouts. Environment and Behavior, (35), 132-160.
HealthBridge - WBB Trust.
Hillier, B. (1985). The Nature of the Artificials, Geoforum Special Issue on the Link between the Nature and Human Scieces. Geoforum, (16), 163-178.
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B. (1999). The Hidden Geometry of Deformed Grids: or, why Space Syntax Work, when it Looks as though it shouldn’t. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, (26), 169-191.
Hillier, B. (2003). The Architectures of Seeing and Going: or, are Cities Shaped by Bodies or Minds? And is there a Syntax of Spatial Cognition? Proceeding. In: 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, 17-19 june: London, 06/01-06/34.
Hillier, B. (2005). The Art of Place and the Science of Space. World Architecture, (185), 96-102
Hillier, B., Honson, J., & Graham, H. (1986). Ideas are in things: An Application of Space Syntax Metod to Discovring House Genotype. Environment and Planing B: Planning and Design, (14), 363-385.
Hillier, B., Honson, J., & Peponis, J. (1984). What do we Mean by Buildin Function? (E.J. Powell, Ed.) 147-185.
Honson, J. (1998). Decoding Homes and Houses. U.K: Cambrige University Press.
Jeong, S.H., & Ban,Y.U. (2011). Computational Algorithms to Evaluate Design Solution Using Space Syntax. Computer-aided Design, (43), 664-676.
Kamlipour, H., Memarian, G.H., Faizi, F., & Mousavian, S.M.F. (2012). Formal Classification & Spatial Configuration in Vernacular Housing: A Comparative Study on the Zoning of the Reception Area in Traditional Houses of Kerman Province. Jornal of Housing and Rural Environment, 31(138), 3-16.
Kurniawati,W. (2012). Public Space for Marginal People. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, (36), 476-484.
Lang, J. (2002). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. (A. Einifar, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran Publications.
Lenard, S., & Lenard, H. (1998). Urban Space Design and Social Life. (M. Pour Rasool, Trans.). MEMARI VA SHARSAZI Journal, 3(44 & 45), 21-28.
Memarian, G.H. (2015). Theoretical Foundations of Architecture. Tehran: Soroush Danesh Publications.
Memarian, G.H., & Sadoughi, A. (2011). Application of Access Graphs and Home Culture: Examining Factors Relative to Climate and Privacy in Iranian Houses. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(30), 6350-6363.
Memarian, GH. (2002). Syntax of Architectural Space. Sofhe Journal, 12(35), 75-83.
Mohammadi, M., & Ayatollah, M. (2015). Effective Factors in Promoting Sociability of Cultural Buildings; Case Study: Farshchian Cultural Academy in Isfahan. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planing, 8(15), 79-96.
Moleski, W., & Lang, J. (1986). Organizational Goals and Human Needs in Office Planning, in Jean D. Wineman (Ed), Behavioral Issues in Office Design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Mollazadeh, A., Barani-Pesyan, V., & Khosrowzadeh, M. (2011). The Application of the Space Syntax of the Valiasr St Basht City. Journal of Urban Management, 29, 81-90
Montello, D. (2007). The Contribution of Space Syntax to a Comprehensive Therory of Environment Psychology. In: 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, 12-15 June: Istanbul, 1-12.
Osmand, H. (1957). Function as the basis of Psychiatric Ward Design. New York: Holt Rinehrrt and Winston.
Pasalar, C. (2003). The Effects of Spatial Layout on Student Intraction in Middle Scholl: Multiple Case Analysis.Unpublished Thesis for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of North Carolina State University.
Peponis, J., & Wineman, J. (2002). Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology Eds R Bechtel, A Churchman (John Wiley and Sons, New York) 271-291.
Poll, E. (2002). The Theoretical Backgrond of the City Identity- sustainability Network. Environment and Behavior, (34), 8-25.
Rismanchian, O., & Bell, S. (2010). The Application of Space Syntax in Studying the Structure of the Cities.HONAR-YE-ZIBA MEMARI-VA-SHAHRSAZI Journal, 2(43), 49-56.
Sanders, D. (1990). Behavioral Convention and Archeology: Methods for the Analysis of Ancient Architecture. From Kent, S.(Ed), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Crosscultural Study, 42-72, England, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steadman, J.P. (1983). Architectural Morphology: An Introduction to the Geometry of Building Plans. London: Pion.
Steadman, J.P. (2004). Development in Space Syntax. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. Science, (31), 483-486.
Whyte, W. (1980). Social Life of Small Space: Conservation Foundation. Washington DC: Published by Project for Public Space in 2001.
Wineman, J., Peponis, J., & Conreoy Dalton, R. (2006). Exploring, Engaging, Understanding in Museums. In: Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition Workshop: Spatial Cognition ‘06. Monograph Series of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center (2). Universität Bremen, Bremen, 33 - 51.
Yazdanfar, A., Mousavi, M., & Zargar, H. (2009). Spatial Analysis of Tabriz City in Load Range and Using Spatialteks Technique. International Journal of Road and Building, 7(67), 58-67.