Abstract
This research tackles the intermediate spaces between buildings and the street, by examining the definition and importance of spatial configuration in relation to urban morphology and social relations. It also analyses how the organisation of in-between space affects social interaction in different urban forms. To understand the complex relations and socio-spatial structure of the city, it is important to use mixed methods. This research utilises various methods to focus on three dissimilar urban morphologies in Izmir, Turkey. Two inner city quarters and one modern housing estate of middle- and high-income groups are compared using space syntax analysis and snapshot observations. These neighbourhoods are selected according to their syntax measures from more integrated to segregated neighbourhoods in the axial analysis. And for a detailed zoomed-in analysis, similar diameter areas are covered for observations. Subsequently, activity patterns are observed at different times of the day, one weekday and one Sunday in three cases. In each neighbourhood, syntactic measures of all selected streets are correlated with these recorded activities. This study reveals that connectivity of streets is important for supplying niches that trigger long-duration activities and social interaction. In modern estates, stationary activities are not correlated strong enough with movement as it is in inner city neighbourhoods. Additionally, in-between spaces increase the frequency of social interaction and co-presence of people particularly in more integrated areas. However, this is only one element in developing sense of community. Further research is needed especially in correlating space syntax with environmental issues, as well as people’s behaviour.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abu-Ghazzeh, T. (2000). Environmental messages in multiple-family housing: Territory and personalization. Landscape Research, 25(1), 97.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. USA: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. (1991). On streets: Based on a project of the Institute for architecture and urban studies (4th ed.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Awtuch, A. (2009). Spatial order and security. 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Stockholm.
Aydemir, S. E. (1989). Imar Mevzuatinin Iklimsel, Topografik, Psikolojik ve Ekonomik Acidan Irdelenmesi, Planlama Dergisi, 2-3-4, pp. 51–55.
Baran, P. K., Rodriguez, D. A., & Khattak, A. J. (2008). Space syntax and walking in a new urbanist and suburban neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 5–28.
Chiaradia, A., & Hillier, B. (2003) Configuration spatiale et mixité sociale ubraine, Final Report, Ministére de l’Équipement, des Transports, du Logement, du Tourisme et de la Mer Plan Urbanisme Construction Architecture e Ministére de la Culture Direction de l’architecture et du patrimoine, Paris, France.
Churchman, A. (2003). Is there a place for children in the city? Journal of Urban Design, 8(2), 99–111.
Cutini, V. (2003). Lines and squares: Towards a configurational approach to the morphology of open spaces. In Proceedings of 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.
Dovey, K., & Polakit, K. (2007). Urban slippage: Smooth and striated streetscapes. In K. A. Franck & Q. Stevens (Eds.), Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ercan, E. M. (2007). Kentlerimizin Icinde Bulundugu Planlama ve Yonetim Sorunlari. Planlama Dergisi, 2, 69–73.
Ferguson, P. (2007). The streets of innovation. In Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fincher, R., & Iveson, K. (2008). Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gehl, J. (1986). Soft edges in residential streets. Housing, Theory and Society, 3(2), 89–102.
Gehl, J. (1996). Life between buildings: Using public space. Arkitektens Forlag: Bogtrykkeriet.
Gehl, J. (2006). Close encounters with buildings. Urban Design International, 11(1), 29–47.
Grosz, E. (2001). Architecture from the outside: Essays on virtual and real space. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Habraken, N. (1998). The structure of the ordinary: Form and control in the built environment. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hajer, M., & Reijndorp, A. (2001). In search of new public domain. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
Hanson, J. (2000). Urban transformations: A history of design ideas. Urban Design International, 5, 97–122.
Hanson, J., & Hillier, B. (1987). The architecture of community: Some new proposals on the social consequences of architectural and planning decisions. Architecture and Behaviour, 3(3), 251–273.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Building communities of place: Habitual movement around significant places. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19(1), 49–65.
Hess, P. M. (2008). Fronts and backs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2), 196–212.
Hickman, P. (2013). “Third places” and social interaction in deprived neighbourhoods in Great Britain. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28, 221–236.
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B. (2002). A theory of the city as object: Or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Design International, 7(3/4), 153–179.
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., & Peponis, J. (1987). Syntactic analysis of settlements. Architecture & Comfort/Architecture & Behaviour, 3, 217–231.
Hillier, B., & Penn, A. (2004). Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 501–511.
Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Planning and Design: Environment and Planning B, 20, 29–66.
Huang, S. L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 193.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Jacoby, K. (2006). What is space syntax? Does the urban form of the city affect the level of burglary and crime? Séminaire de Master Architectures et villes face à la Mondialisation, Royal Institute of Architecture, Stockholm.
Kim, J. (2007). Testing the street connectivity of new urbanism projects and their surroundings in Metro Atlanta Region. In Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul, Turkey.
Lopez, T. G. (2003). Influence of the public–private border configuration on pedestrian behavior. The case of the city of Madrid. Madrid Spain: La Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid.
Macdonald, E., (2005). Street-facing dwelling units and livability: The impacts of emerging building types in Vancouver’s new high-density residential neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 10(1), 13–38.
Major, M. D., Stonor, T., Penn, A., & Hillier, B. (1997). Housing design and the virtual community. In Children and youth in the city. 19th International Making Cities Livable Conference. Charleston, South Carolina.
Montello, D. R. (2007). The contribution of space syntax to a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology. In Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul, Turkey.
Newman, O. (1996). Creating defensible space. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Institute for Community Design Analysis, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, Washington, D.C.
Nooraddin, H. (1998). ‘Al-fina’, in-between spaces as an urban design concept: Making public and private places along streets in Islamic cities of the Middle East. Urban Design International, 3, 65–77.
Nooraddin, H. (2002). In-between space: Towards establishing new methods in Street Design. Global Built Environment Review, 2, 50–57.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe.
Penn, A., Desyllas, J., & Vaughan, L. (1999). The Space of Innovation. Environment and planning B: Planning and design, 26, 193–218.
Perdikogianni, I. (2007). From space to “place”: The role of space and experience in the construction of “place”. In Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul, Turkey.
Ratti, C. (2004). Space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 487–499.
Read, S. (1997) Space syntax and the Dutch city: the supergrid. In Proceedings of 1st International Space Syntax Symposium, April 16–18, in London.
Read, S. (1999). Space syntax and the Dutch city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(2), 251–264.
Read, S. (2005) Flat city; a space syntax derived urban movement network model. In Proceedings of 5th International Space Syntax Symposium. Delft, Netherlands.
Sailer, K., & Penn, A. (2007). The performance of space-exploring social and spatial phenomena of interaction patterns in an organisation. In Architecture and Phenomenology Conference. Haifa, Israel.
Schittich, C. (2004). High-density housing: Concepts, planning, construction. Birkhäuser: München.
Seamon, D. (2007). A lived hermetic of people and place: Phenomenology and space syntax. In Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul, Turkey.
Shu, C. F. (2000). Housing layout and crime vulnerability. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London.
Skjaeveland, O., & Garling, T. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighbouring. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 181–198.
Stevens, Q. (2007). Betwixt and between: Building thresholds, liminality and public space. In K. A. Franck & Q. Stevens (Eds.), Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ünlü, T. (2006). Kentsel Mekanda Degisimin Yonetimesi. METU JFA, 2, 63–92.
Van Nes, A. (2008). Introduction to configurative methods in urban studies. Delft: Techne Press.
Van Nes, A., & Lopez, M. J. J. (2007). Micro scale spatial relationships in urban studies: The relationship between private and public space and its impact on street life. In Proceedings of 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul.
Van Nes, A. V., & Rueb, L. (2009) Spatial behaviour in Dutch dwelling areas. In Proceedings of 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.
Yang, T. (2004). Morphological transformation of the old city of Beijing after 1949. In 3rd Great Asian Streets Symposium: A public forum of urban design, 2004 Street Urban Space and Representation, Singapore, (6–7 Dec 2004), (unpublished).
Acknowledgments
This paper has been developed from a Ph.D. study pursued at the Department of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Nottingham, UK. We would like to thank to Professor Taner Oc for co-supervising this study and for his valuable contributions. Additionally, we would like to thank to the Higher Education Council of Turkey for sponsoring this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Can, I., Heath, T. In-between spaces and social interaction: a morphological analysis of Izmir using space syntax. J Hous and the Built Environ 31, 31–49 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9442-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9442-9