Abstract
This paper reports on a ‘visual exposure’ analysis and comparative evaluation of three case studies. The method consists of measuring visual distances relating to privacy in the urban environment, which is a major aspect influencing human environmental quality. The comparative evaluation is applied to three varied case studies that have varied design characteristics and morphological features, but in all the built density is of 10 residential units to 1000 m2: (1) Bat-Galim in Haifa, Israel, (2) Bavli in Tel Aviv, Israel and (3) Nora Humnen, Helsingbor, Sweden. The case study analysis is presented with regard to the neighbourhood and building scales. The visual distances are measured at different levels of the built volumes, from each facade opening toward all the other facade openings facing it. The case study evaluation enables us to rank the variant building morphologies with regard to their ‘visual exposure’ level. This analysis can also contribute to defining building geometry that enables low levels of ‘visual exposure’ (positive relating to privacy aspects) or high levels of visual exposure (negative relating to privacy aspects). This research may contribute to the design of future urban fabrics relating to ‘visual exposure’ in the built environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Kodmany, K. (1999) Residential visual privacy: traditional and modern architecture and urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 4 (3): 283–311.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2000) Women's visual privacy in traditional and modern neighbourhoods in Damascus, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 (4): 283–303.
Altman, I. (1975) The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Altman, I. (1977) Privacy regulation: culturally universal or culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues, 33 (3): 66–84.
Archea, J. (1977) The place of architecture factors in behavioral theories of privacy, Journal of Social Issues, 33 (3): 116–137.
Asif, S. and Malis, N. (1998) High-Density Neighbourhoods – Guidelines for Urban Design. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Housing.
Broadbent, G. (1990) Emerging Concepts in Urban Space Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold International.
Churchman, A. and Herbert, G. (1978) Privacy aspects in the dwelling: design considerations, Journal of Architectural Research, 6 (1): 19–27.
Colodny, Z. (1994) Conservation sites in Haifa The conservation unit, Haifa municipality.
Day, L.L. (2000) Choosing a house: the relationship between dwelling type, perception of privacy, and residential satisfaction, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19 (3): 265–275.
Desyllas, J., Connoly, P. and Hebbert, F. (2003) Modelling natural surveillance, Environment and Planning B – Planning & Design, 30 (5): 643–655.
Fisher-Gewirtzman, D., Burt, M. and Tzamir, Y. (2003) A 3-D visual method for comparative evaluation of dense built-up environments, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30 (4): 575–587.
Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. and Wagner, I.A. (2003) Spatial openness as a practical metric for evaluating built-up environments, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30 (1): 37–49.
Fisher-Gewirtzman, D., Shach-Pinsly, D., Wagner, A.I. and Burt, M. (2005) View oriented three dimensional visual analysis models for the urban environment, Urban Design International, 10: 23–37.
Hall, E.T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY, USA: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Merry, S. (1987) Crowding conflict and neighborhood regulation, in Altman, I. and Wandersman, A. (eds.) Neighborhood and Community Environments. New York: Plenum.
Miles, H. (2000) Helsingborg Harbourside, Architectural Review, 207 (1236): 53–57.
Mitrany, M. (2001) Subjective Housing Density and the Housing Context PhD Thesis, Department of Architecture and Town Planning, The Technion–IIT, Haifa, 2001.
Newell, P.B. (1995) Perspectives on privacy, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15: 87–104.
Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.
Newman, O. (1995) Defensible space, a new physical planning tool for urban revitalization, American Planning Association Journal, 61 (2): 149–155.
Pedersen, D.M. (1987) Sex differences in privacy preferences, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64: 1239–1242.
Rapoport, A. (1969) House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Rapoport, A. (1980) Cross-cultural aspects of environmental design, in Altman, A., Rapaport, A. and Wohlwill, J.F. (eds) Environment and Culture. New York: Springer, pp. 7–46.
Rapoport, A. (2005) Culture, Architecture, and Design. Chicago, IL, USA: Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.
Sebba, R. (1981) The Territorial Division of the Apartment as a Factor Influencing the Residents' Attitude Towards It PhD Thesis, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, The Technion–IIT, Haifa.
Shach-Pinsly, D. and Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2005). Visual exposure analysis model; Relating to privacy aspects in the urban environment, CASA, UCL, London, CUPUM05 – Computers in Urban Planning and Urban, 29 June 2005.
Shach-Pinsly, D., Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. and Burt, M. (2006) A quantitative method for visual analysis: a comparative evaluation for urban coastal environments, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 23 (4): 305–327.
Shu, S. (2000) Housing layout and crime vulnerability, Urban Design International, 5 (3/4): 177–188.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shach Pinsly, D., Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. & Burt, M. ‘Visual exposure’ analysis model: a comparative evaluation of three case studies. Urban Des Int 12, 155–168 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000199
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000199