Raising awareness of seating furniture design in landscape architecture education: physical, activity-use and meaning dimensions

  • Elif Merve AlpakEmail author
  • Tuğba Düzenli
  • Sema Mumcu


The aim of an urban space design is creating successful open spaces that can provide a high level of pleasure and contribute to urban life by meeting human needs and expectations. Successful open spaces are closely related to existence of seating furniture discussed in multiple dimensions and designed in order to provide affordances for various occupation and activity types. Therefore, in this study a design approach for teaching landscape architecture students, who are future urban designers, how to design seating equipment’s in order to create successful open spaces was developed. With this design approach, acquiring students the ability of designing useful, functional, aesthetic and creative seating furniture was also aimed. The design approach that was aimed to introduced to students adopts that seating furniture design is not a single dimensional process and consists three different dimensions such as physical, activity-occupation and meaning. It is assumed that for students thinking about these dimensions contributes to both producing more realistic-practical, functional-useful, creative-aesthetic and solution centered designs, and creating successful spaces that are used frequently and support social interaction on a higher level. The study that was conducted in order to support these assumptions consists of two phases. The first phase includes students evaluations of the course that was carried out with the awareness of being multi-dimensional, and experts evaluations of the designs produced with this awareness. By both experts’ and students’ evaluations, it was revealed that the design process carried out with multi-dimensional thinking awareness contributes significantly to students’ designing functional-useful, realistic-practical and creative products. In the second phase the users of the urban space had evaluated the simulations that was composed by seating furniture designed by the students. As a result of conducted analyses it was determined that there is a congruence between evaluations of experts and users. The seating furniture designed with dealing physical, activity-use and meaning dimensions all together had affected the preference, using frequency and period significantly in other words had a fundamental effect on creating successful urban open spaces. The findings of this research reveals the importance of multi-dimensional thinking in designing seating furniture in terms of its contributions to both design education and urban life.


Design of seating furniture Multi-dimensional thinking Successful open spaces Simulation 



  1. Abdulkarim, D., & Nasar, J. L. (2014). Do seats, food vendors, and sculptures improve plaza visitability? Environment and Behaviour, 46, 805–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksu, Ö. V. (2012). Kent mobilyaları tasarımında özgün yaklaşımlar. Inonu University Journal of Art and Design, 2(6), 373–386.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allahdadi, M. (2017). Explaining the criteria of designing urban furniture and landscape, with a cultural-social design approach. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(4), 165–175. Scholar
  5. Alpak, E. M., & Düzenli, T. (2018). Kentsel tasarimda esneklik ve adaptasyon: kentsel meydan senaryolari üretimi. Journal Of Social & Humanities Sciences Research, 5(16), 16–22.Google Scholar
  6. Alpak, E. M., Düzenli, T., & Yılmaz, S. (2018). Quality of public open space and effects on social interaction. Journal of History Culture And Art Research, 7(2), 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Altiparmakogullari, Y. (2009). Oturma ögesi tasarımında basınç diyagramı modelinin kullanılmasıyla oturma profilinin tasarım kriterlerinin ortaya konması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.Google Scholar
  8. Başal, M., Memlük, Y., Yılmaz, O., & Kurum, E. (1997). Peyzaj Konstrüksiyonu, Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları: 1484, Ders Kitabı: 445, 160 s., Ankara.Google Scholar
  9. Bayraktar, N., Tekel, A., & Ercoşkun, Ö. Y. (2008). Ankara atatürk bulvari üzerinde yer alan kentsel donati elemanlarinin siniflandirilmasi, değerlendirilmesi ve kent kimliği ilişkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 105–118.Google Scholar
  10. Bulut, Y., Atabeyoğlu, Ö., & Yeşil, P. (2008). Erzurum kent merkezi donati elemanlarinin ergonomik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(2), 131–138.Google Scholar
  11. Canter, V.D. (1983). Studies of Human Behavior in Fire: Empirical Results and Their Implications for Education and Design University of SurreyGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Casakin, H. P. (2007). Factors of metaphors in design problem-solving: Implications for design creativity. International Journal of Design, 1, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casakin, H. (2012). An empirical assessment of metaphor use in the design studio: Analysis, reflection and restructuring of architectural design. International Journal of Technolgy & Design Education, 22, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang, H.Y. (2002). Human Behavior Patterns in Office Building Plaza: Three Case Studies in Downtown Dallas. Master Thesis, the University of Texas Arlington.Google Scholar
  16. Clarkson, P. J., Buckle, P., Coleman, R., Stubbs, D., Ward, J., Jarrett, J., et al. (2004). Design for patient safety: A review of the effectiveness of design in the uk health service. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(2), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crankshaw, N. (2009). Creating vibrant public spaces: streetscape design in commercial and historic districts (p. 240). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cubukcu, E., & Dundar, S. G. (2007). Can creativity be taught an empirical study on benefits of visual analogy in basic design education. ITU A|Z Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 4(2), 67–80.Google Scholar
  19. Dascalu, D. M. (2011). Landscape effects of urban furniture textures. Bulletin UASVM Horticulture, 68(1), 324–331.Google Scholar
  20. Demirkan, H., & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio. Design Studies, 33, 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Düzenli, T., Alpak, E. M., Çiğdem, A., & Eren, T. E. (2018). The effect of studios on learning in design education. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(2), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Düzenli, T., Yılmaz, S., & Alpak, E. M. (2017). The effects of model making on design and learning in landscape architecture education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 70, 121–134.Google Scholar
  23. Eren, T. E., & Var, M. (2017). Education process and development of environmental design project. International Journal of Educational Science, 19(2–3), 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frick, D. (2006). Public space as an element of local identity: On the notion of quality in urban design. Ekistics, 73(436/441), 84–92. (Globalization and local identity).Google Scholar
  25. Gazvoda, D. (2002). Characteristics of modern landscape architecture and its education. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.Google Scholar
  27. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gupta, N., & Bhatti, V. (2015). Importance of street furniture in urban landscape. International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJLTET), 5(3), 174–179.Google Scholar
  29. Hacıhasanoğlu, İ. (1995). Mimari ve kentsel kimlik, Yapı Dergisi 46-50Google Scholar
  30. Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., Dowland, C., & Nold, I. (1999). Streets as living space: Helping public spaces play their proper role. London: ETP/Landor.Google Scholar
  31. John, N., & Reis, A. T. (2010). Percepção, estética e uso do mobiliário urbano/perception, aesthetics and use of urban furniture. Gestão & Tecnologia de Projetos, 5(2), 180–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ketizmen, G. (2002). Mimari tasarım stüdyosunun biçimlenmesinde yöntemsel ve mekânsal etkilerin incelenmesi: anadolu üniversitesi mimarlık bölümü mimari tasarım stüdyosu örneği. Eskişehir: Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı.Google Scholar
  33. Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. Washington: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Google Scholar
  34. Madanipour, A. (1999). Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City, USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space, Second Edition, (pp. 384). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Marcus, C., & Francis, C. (1998b). People Places: Design Guide- lines for Urban Open Space. New Yok: Willey.Google Scholar
  38. Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets: Determining environmental characteristics to support social behaviour. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mehta, V. (2009). Look closely and you will see, listen carefully and you will hear: Urban design and social interaction on streets. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mehta, V. (2013). The street: A quintessential social public space. Stoodleigh: Florence Production Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mehta, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2018). Revisiting lively streets: Social interactions in public space. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Scholar
  43. Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., & Özbilen, A. (2010). Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas. Scıentıfıc Research And Essays, 5, 1223–1233.Google Scholar
  45. Mumcu, S., Yılmaz, S., & Düzenli, T. (2017). Açık mekânlardaki oturma donatilarinin ve yerlerinin tasarimina ilişkin faktörler. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat Ve Tasarım Dergisi, 7(15), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Changing architectural education. London: Taylor and Francis Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Niu, J., Liu, J., Lee, T., Lin, Z., Mak, C., Tse, K.-T., et al. (2015). A new method to assess spatial variations of outdoor thermal comfort: Onsite monitoring results and implications for precinct planning. Building and Environment, 91, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Özçelik, Ö., & Kaprol, T. (2017). İç mekân örgütlenmesinde esneklik ve fonksiyonellik kavrami bağlaminda mekânin değerlendirilmesi ve düzenlenmesi. Journal of Advanced Technology Sciences, 6(3), 301–312.Google Scholar
  49. Öztürk, K. (1991). Kent mobilyalari tasariminda bilgi-iletişim estetiği (pp. 69–73). İstanbul: Kamu Mekânları Tasarımı ve Kent Mobilyaları Sempozyumu, Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  50. Postell, J. (2012). Furniture Design. Canada: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. PPS-Project for Public Spaces. (2000). How to turn a place around: A handbook for creating successful public places (p. 125). New York: Project for Public Spaces Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Project for Public Spaces. (2011). About PPS: Placemaking for Communities. Retrieved from
  53. Proshansky, H., Fabian, A., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-ıdentity physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prudhomme, G., Zwolinshi, P., & Brissaud, D. (2003). Integrating into the design process the needs of those involved in the product life-cycle. Journal of Engineering Design, 13(3), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Punter, J. (1991). Participation in the design of urban space. Landscape Design, 20, 24–27.Google Scholar
  56. Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment. Tucson: University Of Arizona Press. (revised edition). Google Scholar
  57. Rapoport, A. (1991) Pedestrian Street Use: Culture & Perception. Public Streets for Public Use, edited by A. V.Moudon, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NYGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodiek, J., & Steiner, F. (1998). Landscape architecture research and education. Landscape and Urban Planning Special Issue (pp. 73–74).Google Scholar
  59. Sağlık, A., Sağlık, E., & Kelkit, A. (2014). Kentsel Donatı Elemanlarının Peyzaj Mimarlığı Açısından İrdelenmesi: Çanakkale Kent Merkezi Örneği, 1. Uluslararası Kentsel Planlama-Mimarlık-Tasarım Kongresi, Kocaeli, Türkiye, (pp. 8–11).Google Scholar
  60. Siu, K. W. M. (2004). Street furniture design. In T. P. Leung (Ed.), Hong Kong: Better by design (pp. 77–86). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Google Scholar
  61. Siu, K. W. M. (2005). Pleasurable products: public space furniture with userfitness. Journal of Engineering Design, 16(6), 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Siu, K. W. M., & Wong, K. S. L. (2015). Flexible design principles: street furniture design for transforming environments, diverse users, Changing Needs And Dynamic İnteractions. Facilities, 33(9/10), 588–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spooner, D. (2014). Enhancing campus sustainability through sites and socially equitable design. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 42(4), 30–45.Google Scholar
  64. Stamps, I. I. I. A. E. (2010). Use of static and dynamic media to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 111, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tekle, A. M. (2015). Rectifying these mean street: Percent-for-art ordinances. Street Furniture, and the New Streetscape, 104, 409–448.Google Scholar
  66. Uludağ, K. (1990). Kent Mobilyalarında Seramiğin Yeri. Ankara: Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.Google Scholar
  67. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington: The Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  68. Yılmaz, S., Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., & Özbilen, A. (2016). Analyzing the unity concept in design on student works: a case study of architectural design course. Inonu University Journal of Art and Design, 6, 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Landscape Architecture Department, Faculty of ForestryKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations