Researching for Methods in Visual Analyses of Urban Skylines

Abstract

Urban skylines are important components of a city’s morphology and are an area of interest for urban design. There are various research areas on urban skylines like protection of historical urban skylines, facade analyses, future models on urban three-dimensional appearances, high building policies and view management. Urban skylines also provide the best visual representations to observe the phenomenon of urban transformation and change. The aim of this study is to form a basis for a multi-component urban skyline assessment model that includes formal and socio-psychological dimensions by grouping the methodologies of studies on urban skylines. Among the methods to be covered, there are approaches such as GIS techniques, aesthetic evaluation with information entropy, fractal geometry, and cognitive studies for urban skylines. The research approach includes the examination and evaluation of applied studies of this area based on literature.

Keywords

• Urban design
• urban skylines
• urban aesthetics
• skyline evaluation
• research methods

References

1. Akdağ, S.G. (2011). Yüksek Binaların Kent Silüetine Etkisinin Değerlendirlimesi İçin Cbs Tabanlı Bir Yöntem: Zincirlikuyu-Maslak Hattı Örneği, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
2. Akdağ, S.G., & Bostanci, S.H. (2013). The Impacts of Prestige Projects on the Skyline of Istanbul. ArchNet-IJAR, 7(2), 269-281.
3. Altuntaş, Z.B., & Önder, D.E. (2016). Changes in Urban Skylines and Perception of the Citizens: A Study of Istanbul. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(4), 258-268.
4. Arnheim, R. (1974). Entropy and Art: An Essay On Disorder and Order, University of California.
5. Asami, Y., Kubat, A.S., Kitagawa, K., & Iida, S.I. (2003, January). Introducing the third dimension on Space Syntax: Application on the historical Istanbul. In Proc. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 48-1). ITU Faculty of Architecture.
6. Aydınlı, S., 1986. Mekansal Değerlendirmede Algısal Yargılara Dayalı Bir Model, Doktora Tezi, İ.T.Ü. Mimarlık Fakültesi, İstanbul.
7. Balram, S., & Dragićević, S. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and urban planning, 71(2-4), 147-162.
8. Bafna, S. (2003). Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environment and behavior, 35(1), 17-29.

9. Bostancı, S.H., Ocakçı M., & Şeker, S., (2006). Kent Estetiğinin Değerlendirmesinde Nesnel Yaklaşımlar, Türkiye Estetik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, ODTÜ-SANART, Ankara, 243-253.
10. Bostancı, S.H. (2008). Evaluation of the Urban Skylines by the Entropy Approach, Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
11. Bostanci, S.H. & Ocakçi, M. (2011). Innovative approach to aesthetic evaluation based on entropy. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 705-723.
12. Bostanci, S.H., & Oral, M. (2017). Experimental Approach on the Cognitive Perception of Historical Urban Skyline. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 5(Özel Sayı), 45-59.
13. Bostanci, S.H. (2019). Critical thinking about urban studies linked with thermodynamic terms. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 618, No. 1, IOP Publishing.
14. Bostancı, S., & Akdağ, S. G. (2020). Understanding Aesthetic Experiences of Architectural Students in Vertical and Horizontal Campuses: A Comprehensive Approach. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 4(2), 13-26.
15. Bovill, C. (1996). Fractal Concepts Applied to Design. In Fractal Geometry in Architecture and Design (pp. 157-188). Birkhäuser, Boston, MA.
16. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. HarperCollins.
17. Choo, H., Nasar, J.L., Nikrahei, B. & Walther, D.B. (2017). Neural codes of seeing architectural styles, Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-8.
18. Guney, C., Girginkaya, S.A., Cagdas, G., & Yavuz, S. (2012). Tailoring a geomodel for analyzing an urban skyline. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(1-2), 160-173.
19. Heise, D. R. (1969). Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychological Bulletin, 72(6), 406.
20. Hiller, B. & Hanson, J., (1984). The Social Logic of Space, Combridge University Press, Cambridge.
21. Jiang, B., & Claramunt, C. (2002). Integration of space syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology. Transactions in GIS, 6(3), 295-309.
22. Katona, V. (2021). Relief Method: The Analysis of Architectonic Façades by Fractal Geometry. Buildings, 11(1), 16.
23. Krampen, M. (1979). Meaning in the Urban Environment. London, Pion Limited.
24. Li, B. L. (2000). Fractal geometry applications in description and analysis of patch patterns and patch dynamics. Ecological Modelling, 132(1-2), 33-50.
25. Lim, B., & Heath, T. (1994). What is a skyline: A quantitative approach. Architectural Science Review, 37(4), 163-170.
26. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature (Vol. 1). New York: WH Freeman.
27. Moles, A. (1970). Information Theory and Esthetic Perception, translated by Joel S. Cohen, Urbana: University of Illions Press.
28. Naghibi Rad, P., Shahroudi, A.A., Shabani, H., Ajami, S., & Lashgari, R. (2019). Encoding Pleasant and Unpleasant Expression of the Architectural Window Shapes: An ERP Study. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 13, 186.
29. Nasar, J.L., & Terzano, K. (2010). The desirability of views of city skylines after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 215-225.
30. Pearce, M.T., Zaidel, D.W., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., & Nadal, M. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on psychological science, 11(2), 265-279.
31. Penn, A., (2003). Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition or Why the Axial Line?, Environment and Behavior, 35, 1, 30-65.
32. Ranzinger, M., & Gleixner, G. (1997). GIS datasets for 3D urban planning. Computers, environment and urban systems, 21(2), 159-173.
33. Ratti, C. (2004). Space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(4), 487-499.
34. Salingaros, N.A. (2000). Complexity and urban coherence. Journal of Urban Design, 5(3), 291-316.
35. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
36. Shannon, C.E. (1956). The bandwagon. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(1), 3.
37. Sharmin, S., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationships between space syntax measures and pedestrian movement. Transport Reviews, 38(4), 524-550.
38. Stamps III, A., Nasar, J.L., & Hanyu, K. (2005). Using pre-construction validation to regulate urban skylines. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(1), 73-91.
39. Stamps III, A.E. (2003). Advances in visual diversity and entropy, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(3), 449-463.
40. URL-1. https://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/documentary/stephen-wiltshires-istanbul-panorama/7153 Stephen Wiltshire's Istanbul Panorama, , (last access on: 17.3.2021).
41. Taylor, R.P. (2006). Reduction of physiological stress using fractal art and architecture. Leonardo, 39(3), 245-251.
42. Valipour, E., Tayyebisoudkolaei, S., & Mobaraki, A. (2017). Establishment of space syntax to read urban road network; the case of Sari, Iran. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 1(2), 69–75.
43. Yamashita, S. (2002). Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(1), 3-17.
44. Yeh, A. G. (1999). Urban planning and GIS. Geographical information systems, 2, 877-888.