Comparing Semantic and Semiotic Indices in Visual System Focusing on Identity Formation (Case Study: Fahadan and Posht-e Bagh Comparison)
Keywords:
Semantic Indices; Semiotics; Visual System; Identity FormationAbstract
City as a combination of natural and social factors and environments recognized by human in which a resident population has been centralized has a special identity. An identity has distinguished city from other cities and gives meaning to the population residing in it, identity in the appearance of environments built by humans is always taken from the parameters of human and behavioral sciences that this identity is more valuable in neighborhoods with historical oldness and historical context due to more application of semantic and identity signs attributed to culture. The semantic and semiotic indices have been different from each other considering neighborhoods and their types but it seems that indices with high coefficient have been used to design the centers of these neighborhoods. This study aims at extracting variables with high coefficient in all neighborhoods to be used in the flagship development of other neighborhoods. Concurrent nested mixed research method has been used in this study that variables and indices extracted in qualitative part and compared in quantitative part, semi-structured interview used in qualitative part to explore and scrutinize variables and in order to facilitate this, Atlas. ti has been used to reduce data. The results compared in qualitative part using ORIGINPRO, sample size achieved using snowball system with theoretical saturation in qualitative part and Morgan Table used in quantitative part. The results show that all spaces are axial and central (1.000), specifying, explaining and defining each path (0.958) and inner value (0.921) have the highest coefficient of determination and effectiveness in Posht-e Bagh neighborhood and the least effectiveness is related to conceptual richness (0.246) but all spaces are axial and central (1.000), inner value (0.978) and special arrangement and order (0.920) have the highest coefficient of determination in Fahadan neighborhood and the least one is related to motifs taken from nature (0.254).
References
Ameri Siahuei, H. R., Ahmadi Sarkhuni, F., & Saybani, B. (2017). Investigating the performance of urban signs on the perception of people of urban environment (case study: Bandar Abbas). Conference on Architecture and Islamic and Iranian Urbanism of Iran, Shiraz.
Amiri Khoshkar Vandadi, S. (2016). Investigating the cognitive concept of sign and code in architecture and urbanism focusing on Islamic architecture and city. Urban management, (43), 423-444.
Appleyard, D. (2002). Streets Can Kill Cities: Third World Beware (Tavalayi, N. Trans). Abadi, 39, 73-83.
Caduff, D., & Timpf, S. (2008). On the Assessment of Landmark Salience for Human Navigation. Cognitive Processing, 9, 249-267.
Chandler, D. (2015). Semiotics basics (Parsa, M. Trans.). Sureh Mehr Publications, Tehran.
Coulomb, G. (2011). Selections of urban landscape (Tabibian, M. Trans.). University of Tehran publications, Tehran.
Dulabi, P. Shaeri., Z. & Hajebzadeh, A. (2015). Rereading the arrays of visual system in the historical context of Bushehr focusing on a mental approach. Urban landscape studies, 4, 35-47.
Frank, E. A. (2006). Many Pathways from Land use to Health. Journal of the American Planning Association, 7.
Ghashghaei, R., Movahhed, Kh., & Moztarzadeh, H. (2018). Preparing criteria of urban landscape design to motivate sense of belonging to place. Urban management, 50, 435-460.
Hamdjani, Y., Bayazidi, Gh., & Sohabi, J. (2017). Qualitative study of semantic implications of Uraman Takht architecture in semiotic point of view. Bagh Nazar, 57, 45-63.
Izadpanahi, P. (2016). The ideological comparison and investigation of urban signs of Bushehr before and after the advent of modernism in the cit. Art and architecture studies, 5 and 4(serial 11 and 12), 40-52.
Kalali, P., & Modiri, A. (2012). Explaining the role of meaning component in the process of sense of place formation. Fine Arts, 50, 43-52.
Kalin, A., & Yilmaz, D. (2012). A Study on Visibility Analysis of Urban Landmarks. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 29, 241-271.
Kamour Shalmani, A., & Hanachi, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of visual factors of urban spaces on the behavioral models of citizens. City identity, 24, 65-78.
Kouhifard, A. (2018). Identity in Iranian architecture. Negah-e Bustan publications, Tehran.
Kumer, R. (2009). Walkability of Neighborhoods: A Critical Analysis of Zoning Codes. Master of Community Planning. University of Cinunnati.
Kazemi, A., & Behzadfar, M. (2013). Recognizing environmental semantic system in historical environments focusing on social transformations of audiences (case study: Seyghalan neighborhood of Rasht). Urban Studies, 6, 75-87.
Laripour, N., & Dadvar, A. (2019). Semiotic analysis on face and meaning in Vakil Mosque of Shiraz. Islamic art studies, 32, 70-97.
Lynch, K. (2016). The theory of God face of city (Bahreini, H. Trans.). University of Tehran publications, Tehran.
Majedi, H., & Saeedeh Zarabadi, Z. (2010). An essay on urban semiotics. Utopia, 4, 49-56.
Mohammad Hassani, A., Toghraei, A., & Mirgholami, M. (2016). Typological analysis of affective factors on urban signs readability (case study: Valiasr Street; Tehran, Vanak Square to Tajrish Square). City Identity, 25, 61-74.
Musavi Sarvineh Baghi, A., & Sadeghi, A. (2016). Representing the process of urban walls design to improve visual aesthetic qualities of urban landscape (case study: Ahmadabad Street, Mashhad). Urban management, 43, 99-114.
Nasr, T. (2016). City physical identity; concepts and theories (case study: Shiraz, Isfahan, Yazd and Bushehr). Tehran: Islamic Azad university publications, science and research unit.
Nordberg Schulz, K. (2014). A selection of architecture: meaning and place (Norouz Borazjani, V. Trans.). Parham Naghsh publications, Tehran.
Poujafar, M. R., & Montazerolhojjat, M. (2010). Urban signs, definitions, typology, programming and deign location. Tahan/ Heleh publications, Tehran.
Rapoport, A. (2013). The meaning of built environment (an approach in non-verbal communication) (Habib, F. Trans.). Processing and urban planning company publications, Tehran.
Rezvani, A. (2016). Soul city a redefinition of city, urban space and determining the inspiring indices. Green architecture, 4, 55-79.
Shahabian, P., & Golipour, M. (2017). Visual management of city focusing on building facades. The fifth international conference on civil engineering. urban architecture and development, Tehran.
Shahbazi, M., Bemanian, M., & Saremi, H. (2017). Analysis of Effective Key Factors in Adaptability of a Building in the Future with an Emphasis on Flexibility in Historical Buildings (Case Study: Bu-Ali of Hamadan). Space Ontology International Journal, 6(1), 69-78.
Vahdat, S., & Rezaeizadeh, H. (2017). The improvement of visual values in urban view corridors with QSAM (case study: Enghelab Square, Zanjan). Space geographical planning, 23, 69-86.
Van Lenthe, F. J. (2016). Mackenbush in Physicalinactivity: The Role of Neighborhood Attractiveness. Proximity to Local Facilities and Safety in the Netherlands. Soc. Med, 60, 763-75.
Zalnejad, K., Daliri, A., & Irani, Sh. (2013). From urban symbols to urban views (an analysis on the role and position of urban symbols in city identity). Quarterly of Ben, 1, 42-54.
Zohurian, M. (2016). Investigating symbolic patterns and visual signs in Iran distinguished architecture (from Elam to the end of Sasanian Empire) with a semantic approach. PhD thesis of archology, faculty of humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
