The Impact of Context-Based Capabilities on the Type of Communication of Spaces
Perceiving an architectural work requires a comprehensive understanding of its context, since the context has a direct impact on both the body and the activities. This recognition can be examined from two aspects: the study of natural and geographical conditions and human-based conditions which include the symbolic, religious-cultural, historical, social, and economic values. What has been considered through this article was the effect of these factors on the type of communication between the spaces. Due to the climate and cultural characteristics across Guilan province, it seems that the spaces from their public realm- that is from the neighbourhood spaces to their most exclusive parts- include rooms and closed spaces that have such continuity which was created by the elements of the boundary between these spaces. These elements link the spaces together and lead to a hierarchy of activities. The research question is whether the relationship between spaces and spatial continuity in traditional architecture of Rasht is influenced by the capabilities of the context or not? This is a descriptive-analytical research, which used a qualitative research method. Data collection was carried out by using desk research method and field observations. The data was analysed through content analysis and independent of numerical documentation within an analogy process. With respect to the effect of filed capabilities on the traditional architecture in Rasht city, first a sample of buildings was selected and the physical elements contributing to continuity of the space have been studied. Then, the effect of the context-based capabilities on them was considered. It was found that these capabilities contributed to formation of the physical elements and behavioural patterns which itself can affect the type of relationship between space and its continuity within old urban tissues of Rasht, including the sensory continuity and the physical continuity between the spaces.
Shahamat, H. “Formal Sustainability in Traditional Architecture of Iran According To Five Principles of Traditional Architecture of Iran.” Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences 4 (January 2014): 100-110.
Sadeghipey, N. “Reflections on Traditional Architecture.” Sofeh Magazine 48 (Spring & Summer 2009): 7–16.
Khakpour, M., Ansari, M. and Tahernian, A. “The Typology of Houses in Old Urban Tissues of Rasht.” Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memari Va Shahrsazi 2(41) (Spring 2010): 29-42.
Dey, A. K. “Understanding and Using Context.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5(1) (February 2001). doi: 10.1007/s007790170019.
Abedi, S, and Iravani, H. “Analysis of the Contextual Architecture and its Effect on the Structure of the Residential Places in Dardasht Neighborhood of Isfahan.” European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 3(3) (2015):158-168.
Grutter, J. K. “Aesthetics in Architecture, Fifth Edition” (2009).
Sotoudeh, H, and Wan Abdullah, W.M. “Contextual Preferences of Experts and Residents: Issue of Replication and Differentiation for New Infill Design in Urban Historical Context.” Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences 21 (9) (March 2013): 1276-1282. doi:10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.9.160.
Lang, J. “Creation Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Design, Seventh Edition” (2013).
Low, M. “The Constitution of Space, the Structuration of Spaces through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception.” European Journal of Social Theory 11 (1) (2008): 25-49. doi: 10.1177/1368431007085286.
Zeynolabedini, Sh, and Mehrgani, A. “Contextual design solutions with an Emphasis on Humanistic context; Case study: Historical Context of Langerud.” Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences 1 (2016): 50-57. doi: http://doi-ds.org/doilink/05.2016-13212626/.
Rapoport, A. “house form and culture, Edition” (1969). doi: 10.2307/213875
Bahraini, H. “Analysis of Urban Spaces in Relation to Behavioural Patterns of Users and Design Criteria, Second Edition” (1999).
Toolaee, N. “field-oriented matter in urban planning.” Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memari Va Shahrsazi 10 (Winter 2001): 34-43.
Axsen, J, and Kurrani, K.S. “Social influence and proenvironmental behavior: the reflexive layers of influence framework.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41 (2014): 847-862. doi: 10.1068/b38101.
Giddens, A. “the anthropology, Seventh Edition” (2007).
Derby, M. “The Impact of Socio-Historical Context on Identity: An Analysis of Ngāi Tamarāwaho Identity in the Colonisation Era.” Te Kaharoa 9 (1) (February 2016): 25-53. doi: 10.24135/tekaharoa.v9i1.2.
Kasmaee, M. “Regional Architecture, Sixth Edition” (Fall 2000).
Khakpour, M. “Effective Socio-Cultural Factors on Formation of Vernacular Rural Houses of Guilan (With the Emphasis on Women’s Role).” Phd Thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran (2000).
Bromberge, K.”Housing and Architecture in Guilan Rural Community, First Edition.” (1990).
Parsaee, M, Parva, M, and Karimi, B. “Space and Place Concepts Based on Semiology Approach in Residential Architecture, the Case Study of Traditional City of Bushehr, Iran.” HBRC Journal 11 (2015): 368-383 doi: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.07
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Mojgan Khakpour, Guilda Daghighi Masoule, Mehrdad Amirnejad Mojdehi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.