Analysing the Concept of Legibility

article:
Analysing the Concept of Legibility
Authors: Emine Koseoglu, Deniz Erinsel Onder

YAPI, June 2010, Issue 343, pp.52-56.

Summary:
When the concept of spatial legibility is defined as an observation, seeing, understanding, analysis or evaluation, it becomes possible to speak of as many readings or methods as there are dimensions or directions in the space or urban space. Yet spatial legibility differs from the concept of reading. The concept of legibility occurs as one of the principles of urban design in literature on the subject.

Many researchers give a definition of legibility, and the principle source they cite is Kevin Lynch, who defines legibility as follows: "Legibility means the possibility of organising an environment within a noticeable and consistent texture." According to Lynch, the easier it is to form a mental image of an environment, the easier it is to read. Other researchers have defined ¬legibility as a concept that provides a meaning which helps to create and give direction to a mental map, and points to the characteristics of a large-scale environment. Reading an environment is a process that evolves with the obtaining of spatial information from the environment concerned, and by mentally processing that information using it in a way appropriate to its purpose. Two components play a part in the process of obtaining spatial information: the characteristics of the space and the characteristics of the observer. The observer's perception and understanding of the characteristics of a space occurs as a result of spatial-psychological processes that happen in the mind. These processes are influenced by the personal characteristics of the observer. At the same time legibility is influenced by spatial characteristics. Whether a space is legible depends on the plan layout in the second dimension and its complexity, and whether the architectural components in the third dimension are discernible.

Literature on the subject contains many concepts that define legible environments: simple, consistent, understandable, perceivable, organisable, etc. All these concepts point to characteristics deriving from the structure of the space. However, it is impossible to measure legibility by these concepts. For this reason the model discussed in this article uses two variables to devise a definition based on characteristics deriving from space: 1. the complexity of spatial layout and 2. the definability of sign elements. The complexity of spatial layout describes the two-dimensional information about a space, while the definability of sign elements describes the three-dimensional information about a space. These two variables are also the elements of spatial information used while finding direction.

Epistemological Analysis of the Concept of Order in Architecture

article:

Epistemological Analysis of the Concept of Order in Architecture
YAPI, December 2009, Issue 337, p. 56-60.


A concept is not only a name shared by a group of objects, but expresses far more than this. A name is no more than an accepted symbol for an object. Yet the value of the concept includes its meaning and scope. A concept describes objects grouped according to certain common features. In other words its source is knowledge of those objects. The concept of order in architecture is one of the main classifiers, because it cannot be explained merely by the inclusion of certain spaces or buildings seen in the environment, but includes symmetry, repetition, similarity and other sub-concepts.

In this debate, when looking at the objects that make up space, the geometric shapes that constitute a space come to mind. Geometric forms are inherently organised on account of their own structures, because they are based on mathematical principles. When we begin to speak of the characteristics of shapes created by combinations of geometric objects, that is when we begin to speak of the concept of order. So even if the concept of organization in architecture is based on forms, can they be treated like scientific concepts?

Order is often used as a synonym for simplicity, but it can encompass any degree of visual complexity. Apart from the mathematical qualities that can be understood by analysis of the order, there is another aspect based on our sensory perception.

This dual quality in the concept of order, that is, the mathematical and sensory dimensions, bring to mind another dichotomy in philosophy: Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism and Empiricism usually appear to be entirely opposed to one another. However, when viewed as ways to achieve knowledge, a person may use the Rationalist method of mathematics on the one hand and the empirical methods of the natural sciences on the other. For concepts including the concept of order there is a subjective sensory as well as mathematical aspect to analysing the qualities of objects. To say that the concept of order that is experienced subjectively in the natural or man-made environment can be found by means of mathematical analysis follows the ideas of Descartes, who was a Rationalist; while to say that it can be discovered by means of the senses follows the ideas of Empiricists like Locke or Hume.

In this respect the content of the concept of order with reference to form in architecture concerns both sensory perception and mathematical principles. In other words, when an observer is inside an architectural space, he may perceive its ordered structure based on mathematical principles through his senses alone, and does not require further experimentation or mathematical analysis.

Urban Space and the Human Factor

article:

Urban Space and the Human Factor
YAPI, November 2009, Issue 335, p. 56-59.


Many definitions of urban space have been putforward. At the same time projects relating to the city may not always aim at tackling a city and its users in all their aspects from an objective point of view. In this study the human factor in urban design is examined by means of a discussion ofthe paradigms in the works of theorists who have written on the subject of urban space.

In his book Urban Space Rob Krier clearly explains the typological and morphological components that make up the concept of urban space, by means of diagrams and tables. This is followed by a chapter criticising 20th-century urban planning, and finally by a study of the rebuilding of Stuttgart. Since Krier confines himself to historical references, it is hard to describe him as a postmodern. Nevertheless, setting aside the historical aspect, Krier establishes a close tie between the use of geometry and the achievement of human happiness and order, so that his affinity with rational thought cannot be ignored.

In his book; A Pattern Language; Alexander demonstrates the similarity between the structures of sentences and other linguistic elements, and the elements and structures of the language of form. He asserts that just as there are words in languages, so there are patterns in the languages of form. Just as sentences are formed by bringing together words based on connections established in language, so buildings and spaces are created as consequences of pattern language. Since Alexander views the city as a structure that is formed by simultaneous inner connections and can be divided into sub-units, he can be said to take a structural approach to spaces.

Amos Rapoport’s book, Culture, Architecture and Design, is a study of what kind of impact user culture can have on design. According to Rapoport, he is an observer looking on from the outside, and his own realities and those he observes are different. In this respect, when Rapoport is viewed from an ontological point of view, he seems to take a positivistic approach. In terms of epistemology, however, Rapoport asserts that reality depends on personal experiences. Clearly this reflects an interpretive approach. However, his aim is that the researcher should tackle his subject independently of value judgments, and like a positivist, Rapoport is endeavouring to attain some generalisations.

The article shows the three different approachesof three different researchers. By discussing these different studies, the views of the researchers to the urban space and users is debated. Philosophical views (paradigms) contain clues to their views on urban design and the users of spaces.