The Relationship between Imageability and Form in Architecture: Considerations for Design of Imageable Landmark Buildings in CitiesPaul Mwangi Maringa & Philip Okello OchiengJomo Kenyatta

African Journal of Design & Construction (AJDC) Vol.1 (1), 2006

1

The Relationship between Imageability and Form in Architecture: Considerations for Design of Imageable Landmark Buildings in Cities

Paul Mwangi Maringa & Philip Okello Ochieng

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, P.O. Box 62000 – 00200, Nairobi, Kenya, Email: [email protected], [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract Imageability is a recurring theme in urban and architectural design as well as in environmental behaviour research. It accords essential meaning of buildings to users. In this way it controls the success or failure of a design, as this is predicated on the meanings of the resulting edifices. More and more, buildings in Kenyan cities reflect little or no imageability. They progressively are becoming unsympathetic to the life experiences of the users, giving no sense of place. It seems imageability that emanates from nature and society is not well understood. The city of Nairobi was probed through a case study, environmental behaviour, and descriptive survey research design blend. Buildings for study were selected using first cluster, and then purposive sampling. The study established strong positive association between imageability, analogy, image and form, and their surrogates. The hierarchy of implied influence on imageability placed environmental analogy first, followed by cultural analogy, then form, and at the bottom, contextual analogy. Good form and analogy then create good imageability. Further, good form derives from good analogy. There is a significant positive association between imageability and form in architecture. Good form in architecture is best obtained through analogies of the physical environment, culture, and context. Architects should abstract form from the physical environment, context, and culture, within which the edifice is to be built.

Key Words: Imageability, analogy, context, form, image.

Introduction Buildings have certain qualities that give them a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer (Lynch 1960). This is imageability that may also be termed legibility or even accentuated visibility. It is an image with clarity and harmony of form, which is well formed, distinct and remarkable (Stern 1914 -15, Lynch 1960). Imageability is an ubiquitous consideration in urban and architectural design as well as in environmental behaviour research. It is that shape, colour, or arrangement; all aspects of form, which facilitate the making of vividly, identified, powerfully structured, and highly useful and therefore meaningful mental images of the environment (Lynch 1960). These aspects of form accord meaning and a sense of place to the user (Alexander 1977, Salingaros 1995, 2003). The meaning of buildings to users is important to the extent of determining the success or failure of a design. The failure of Prit Igoe and the reduction of crime in other public housing for instance were ascribed by Newman (1972), to the meanings of these schemes to the users. The Problem In present day Kenya, there is a perceptible trend where buildings in cities are increasingly becoming indifferent to the life experiences of the society and therefore users. They draw out little empathy from the great majority of the urban dweller. As a result, buildings that are landmarks in these urban settings fail to identify with, let alone evoke any meaning from the local context. Landmark buildings are ones with singularity. They are unique or memorable in context, are easily identifiable, and are significant,

with clear form, contrasting with background, and occupying prominent locations (Lynch 1960). The simple solution of a framed structure and extensive glazing that has tended to dominate the major building forms designed in Kenyan cities in the last decade, does little to produce landmarks and engender imageability. Such a pattern of form making runs in the face of the local tropical climatic conditions. It ignores the abundant diversity of playful bright colours that naturally characterises the tropics. The rich mix of an entire range of freely intermingling and tolerant cultures is also largely set aside. Imageability as a natural consequence and expression of its social and physical environment is either then ill understood, or insensitively disregarded. Aims & Objectives This study takes up the challenge to provide suggestions that could reverse the present local trends where building forms are generally evolved in an environment of a dearth of any didactic direction for a local constitution of contextual imageability. The study aspires to convincingly demonstrate that imageability, as a concept in design can be locally contextualised into distinct measurable and ranked constituents. Further, that it can be used locally to develop landmark buildings that are sympathetic to the public, while remaining technologically sound and also modern - keeping abreast with fashion. The study also critically examines competing design approaches, in order to identify their respective merits and shortcomings, while articulating the concepts and variables of imageability, analogy,


2

image, and form lucidly. It sets out to probe the interaction of Imageability and its seminal concepts, analogy (from where meaning emanates), and image (that give structure and identity), in a dependent – independent variable relationship. Here then, associations are investigated at the level of the recognisable and therefore measurable external surrogates of these three internal variables. The following three specific objectives and hypotheses are adopted to guide this inquiry:

To determine the influence of analogy on form in architectural design

To establish the influence of analogy on imageability, in architectural design

To establish the relationship between imageability and form in architectural design

These are translated into one relational hypothesis, which is represented here below as null (Ho) and alternate (HA) hypotheses: Ho: There is no relationship between imageability and form in architectural design HA: There is a relationship between imageability and form in architectural design. Conceptual Framework The relationships that this study set out to investigate are rendered into a suggested conceptual framework that assembles analogy, image, form, and imageability together, along with their surrogates (Figure I).

Methodology The study represents and measures analogy externally as context (circumstance and

surroundings), physical environment, culture, and technology. It perceives and measures imageability

Figure I: Conceptual Framework Source: Author

IMAGEABILITY

ANALOGY

IDENTITY

IMAGE

MEANING STRUCTURE

CULTURE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

TECHNOLOGYCONTEXT

COLOUR TEXTURE ARRANGEMENT

SHAPE POSITION ORIENTATION

VISUAL INERTIA

SIZE

VISUAL PROPERTIES OF FORM

VOID SURFACE TREATMENT

SOLID

FORM


3

as identity (distinctiveness, individuality), meaning (empathy, association with), and structure (order, the spatial or pattern relation to the user and surroundings) (lynch 1960). Image on its part is characterised by shape, colour, texture, arrangement, size, position, orientation, and visibility (Archeim 1969, Ching 1979, Schulz 1984, Webb 1990). Form is recognised through its basic visual properties of solids, voids, and surface treatment (Jencks 1980) The city of Nairobi is probed through a case study, environmental behaviour, and descriptive survey research design blend (Maringa 2005, Kothari 1996, Mugenda & Mugenda 1996, Zeisel, 1991). Buildings for study are selected using first cluster and then purposive sampling. Three sets of landmark building types (public, private, community) are adopted as the typology that in this study constitute the basic clusters of optimised homogeneity. These clusters embody units with increased representativeness of sampling that scales down sampling bias in the selection of buildings for case study. The three respectively are: Kenyatta International Conference Centre (KICC), Lillian Towers (housing the Nairobi Safari Club Hotel), and the Shrine of Mary Hep of Christians. The interview method is utilised to investigate buildings on the basis of the opinions and perceptions of their user respondents. Information is obtained in structured interviews using opinionnaires of the form of interview schedules. These assemble sensitively designed Likert-type summative scalograms. In them, the differential scale (SD) of, Charles E. Osgood and P. H. Tennenbaum (1957), is adapted, to measure psychological meanings of objects to individuals. This is done using a number of bi-polar adjectives that produce ranked data in the ordinal measurement scale. The literature review method on its part provides data on the various design approaches. These same buildings are probed further as case studies using naturalistic observation, observation of environmental behaviour, and visual methods. Drawings and sketches, photographs, and pre-coded checklists are grafted into this inquiry in order to generate data in the ranked form, and therefore the ordinal data measurement scale. From each of the three case studies, elaborate data is obtained with which to develop rigorous descriptions of these situses. Data is analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, ranging from the median measure of central tendency or location through the standard deviation measure of

dispersion, to the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient measure of association and its requisite test of significance or alpha error levels. Discussion Discussion here focuses on the patterns and trends that are discerned from basic descriptive analysis. The discussion is structured to address in sequence the set objectives and hypothesis. Influence of Environmental Analogy on Form From the case studies that are selected as representing conspicuously imageable public, community, and recreational buildings in the city, and adjudged as so by experts through guided interview, the elements or aspects of analogy and form are confirmed to wield positive influence on building character. 51% of the respondents strongly agree, while 31% just plainly agree that the buildings exude an aura of welcome to the users and the public at large. Overall this positive rating amounts to an 82% endorsement. 10% of the respondents are unsure either way, whether the buildings were welcoming, repelling or hostile, while a mere 8% considered them not welcoming at all. The buildings are found to be well adapted to nature, receiving a resounding 88.1% positive rating. This comprises of 36.9% strong agreement, and 51.2% agreement. Strong disagreement with this point of view and plain disagreement with this status is minimal scoring a mere 1.2 % and 3.6%%, with 7.1% uncertainty regarding their adaptation to nature or the lack of it. The buildings are regarded to be considerably people friendly being handed out an overall 88% positive rating. This arises from, the 37% agreement and 51% strong agreement with this perspective. Uncertainty over the friendly nature of these buildings is rated at 7%, disagreement at 3% or 4%, and strong disagreement at 1%. The buildings also portray a natural feel in the appearance of building exteriors but with a much lower positive overall rating of 52.3%. This derives from the scores of 16% for strong agreement, 33% agreement that they are natural in their look. Disagreement with this point of view is low at 17.9% while strong disagreement drops even lower to the level of 1.0%. A conspicuous ambiguity of opinion is noted here with a 17.9% rating. There is also a general positive complementation of buildings by modern materials with a high aggregate rating of 74%. The buildings are effective at replicating features in their locality (68%). These patterns are represented visually in figure II.


4

Figure II: Relative Translation of Environmental Analogy onto Building form

Source: Research Data

Influence of Cultural Analogy on Form The aspect of analogy from culture was considered and accorded the following levels of positive ratings with regard to the elements of, shapes from traditional buildings (55%), shapes similar to cultural artefacts (60%), colours common in traditional settings (48%), decorations that are emotive of users’ cultural background (47%), plan layouts that conform with traditional homesteads (61%), materials that agree with these used in traditional

buildings (31%), roofs that agree with those used in traditional buildings (45%), Texture that harmonises with that found in traditional buildings (53%), exterior and interior surfaces that conform to those of traditional buildings (43%), and evocation of a natural context in history and traditions (55%). Figures III, illustrate these profiles graphically.

Figure III: Relative Expression of Cultural Analogy on Building Form

Source: Research data

Influence of Contextual Analogy on Form The aspect of analogy from context was considered (Figure III) and accorded the following levels of positive ratings with regard to the elements of, harmony with natural landscapes (63% - A),

uniqueness of form in relationship to other buildings in the surroundings (76% - B), a scale that dominates other buildings in the locality (64% - C), a superior and appealing texture relative to other

18% A

20% B

19% C

12% D

16% E

15% F

Welcome - A

Adaptation to Nature - B

People Friendly - C

Natural Exteriors - D

Effective use ofModern Materials - E

Effective Replication ofLocal Features - F

Traditional

Building Forms – A - 55%

Cultural Artefacts – B – 60%

Traditional Colours – C – 48%

Cultural Decorations – D – 47%

Traditional Building Layouts – E – 61%

Traditional Materials – F – 31%

Traditional Roofs – G – 45%

Traditional Textures – H – 53%

Traditional Interiors & Exteriors – I – 43%

Natural Context in History & Traditions – J – 55%


5

edifices in the area (77% - D), an appropriate positioning (73% - E), colour shades that harmonise with the natural colours of the landscape (64%% - F), successful use of building elements as analogies of familiar forms in the landscape (61% - G), forms whose response to views is apposite (59% - H), building materials that merge into the landscape in the area (51% - I), roofs which respond well to the

need to drain off rainfall (52% - J), sunshades that respond to the need to shield the building from hot sun (63% - K), and materials that on the whole respond to the overall climatic conditions of the environment (66% - L).

Figure IV: Relative Rendition of Contextual Analogy of Building Form Source: Research Data

Influence of Form on Imageability Form and image was looked at and accorded the following levels of positive ratings for, buildings whose shape of the elements fit well into the building (79%), striking form (76%), choice of colours for the different parts of the building form that relate well (76%), texture that is rough (57%), and a profile that catches the attention of the users when passing by at all times (79%) (Figure V). The

landmark buildings were selected on the basis of good imageability in respect of its three constituent elements of identity, structure, and meaning. As the buildings are rated well on imageability, low ratings on form or on any of the aspects of analogy, singled out the specific variable as failing to be a credible and effective prop for imageability in the landmark building.

Figure V: Relative Rendition of Contextual Analogy of Building Form


A B C

D

E

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Good fit of

Shapes on

Building - A

Striking Form - B

Well Related

Choice of

Colours - C

Rough - C

Texture - D

Eye Catching Profile

63%76%

64%77% 73%

64% 61% 59% 51% 52%63% 66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F G H I J K L


6

Findings Here, attention is directed to the recognition of relationships, as set out in the objectives and hypothesis. These relationships form a firmer basis for subsequent c conclusions as they are founded on inferential statistical methods. Environmental analogy is rated the most successful influence with a mean ranking score of 4.03. It is followed by analogy from context at 3.95, and then analogy from culture at 3.50. On the whole form outdoes analogy, scoring 4.29, to dominant as the best handled aspect in these landmark buildings. Approximately 10% of the user respondents surveyed, perceive the landmark buildings as borrowing little analogy from the physical environment. Cultural analogy is rated poorly by about 29% of the user respondents, while that from context fares better with only about 17% of the user respondents rating it poorly. The ranking of effective application of these variables on landmark buildings then is, first environmental analogy followed by contextual analogy, with cultural analogy coming last. Form on its part returns a much more superior showing being spurned by a small proportion of the user respondents at 9%. It is

once more confirmed to be the best handled variable in the landmark buildings that are studied here. The study establishes strong positive association between imageability, analogy, form, and their surrogates. Environmental analogy has the strongest positive and highly significant association and therefore influence on imageability, followed by that from cultural analogy, and then contextual (circumstances and surroundings) analogy. They have medium positive and extremely significant association with imageability respectively. In a positive association that is decidedly significant and therefore an influence over form, cultural analogy leads, followed by contextual analogy and finally environmental analogy. Put together, the hierarchy of positive association and therefore implied influence on imageability places the environmental analogy t first, followed by cultural analogy, then form, and at the bottom, contextual analogy. This study also qualifies analogical design approaches as being superior in the attainment of imageability, to pragmatic, iconic, and canonical design methods.

Table I: Responses for Analogy from the Physical Environment Source: Research Data (3 missing cases; 82 valid cases)

From table I, 39% of the people interviewed agree that environmental analogy is successful in the cases considered and another 37% agree strongly on the same. Therefore 77.7% of all the respondents are positive that the use of environmental analogy is successful in the samples considered. Environmental analogy therefore is a

strong concept of imageability that designers should consider in order to have built forms that respond well to the users. The next natural consideration is that of cultural analogy, as a surrogate of imageability, the result of which is tabulated in table II.

Group: analogy from culture Pct of Category label Code Count Responses Strongly disagree 1 63 7.9 Disagree 2 172 21.5 Indifferent 3 122 15.3 Agree 4 230 28.8 Strongly agree 5 213 26.6 Total responses 800 100.0

Table II: Responses for Analogy from Culture Source: Research Data (5 missing cases; 80 valid cases)

Group: analogy from physical environment Pct of Category label Code Count Responses Strongly disagree 1 8 1.4 Disagree 2 50 8.7 Indifferent 3 70 12.2 Agree 4 229 39.9 Strongly agree 5 217 37.8 Total responses 574 100.0


7

From this table, 28.8% of the people interviewed agree that cultural analogy is successful in the cases considered and a further 26.6% agree strongly on the same. Therefore 55.4% of all the respondents are positive that the use of cultural analogy is successful in the samples considered. Cultural analogy therefore is a strong concept of imageability though not as strong as environmental

analogy. This is widely because one of the buildings examined had unique aspects of analogy that is not derived from culture. It is also material that the city has a dynamic culture, which is not the same to every observer. A look at contextual analogy however reveals that users appreciate contextual analogy more clearly than cultural analogy as shown in the table III.

Group: Analogy from context Pct of Category label Code Count Responses

Strongly disagree 1 28 2.8 Indifferent 3 139 14.0 Agree 4 413 41.5 Strongly agree 5 331 33.2 Total responses 996 100.0

Table III; Responses for Analogy from Context Source: Research Data (2 missing cases; 83 valid cases)

From this table, 41.5% of the people interviewed agree that contextual analogy is successful in the cases considered and a further 33.2% agree strongly on the same consideration. Therefore 74.7% of all the respondents are positive that the use of contextual analogy is successful in the samples considered. Contextual analogy therefore is a strong concept of imageability that designers should consider in order to have built forms that respond well to the users. People are always aware of their surrounding and circumstances. When these are expressed as built forms people relate with them in diverse ways. This solicits responses that in the end give meaning to the various metaphors

expressed as analogy in the built form. When the cues or analogy explains people’s history and their way of doing things the resulting form gives people an identity as is in the case of the Kenyatta International Conference Centre (K.I.C.C). Since imageability derives from analogy (as articulated in form of its three surrogates, physical environment, culture, and context) and ultimately form, it is important to analyse responses on form as the resultant expressions of analogy in architecture leading to imageable forms. This is shown in table IV.

Group: Form Pct of Category label Code Count Responses

Strongly disagree 1 17 4.1 Disagree 2 19 4.6 Indifferent 3 17 4.1 Agree 4 136 32.8 Strongly agree 5 226 54.5 Total responses 415 100.0

Table IV; Responses for Form Source: Research Data (2 missing cases; 83 valid cases)

From this table 32.8% of the people interviewed agree that cultural analogy is successful in the cases considered and a farther 54.5% agree strongly on the same. Therefore 87.3% of all the respondents are positive that the buildings examined have good forms and provoke pleasant images. Having examined the aspects of analogy in the buildings, this analysis attempts to explain the

relationship that good analogy gives good forms as well. A run of spearman’s rho correlation test reveals that there is correlation between all the aspects of analogy and form (Table V). It is therefore reasonable to deduce that there is a relationship between analogy and form; that analogy influences form. This is as evidenced in the cases sampled.


8

Correlations

Analogy from physical

environment

Analogy from culture

Analogy from context

Form

Spearman's rho

Analogy from physical environment

Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .606(**) .480(**) .511(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000

N 85 85 85 85

Analogy from culture

Correlation Coefficient

.606(**) 1.000 .437(**) .660(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000

N 85 85 85 85

Analogy from context

Correlation Coefficient .480(**) .437(**) 1.000 .592(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 . .000

N 85 85 85 85

Form and Image

Correlation Coefficient .511(**) .660(**) .592(**) 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .

N 85 85 85 85

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table V: Spearman’s Rho Correlation Table


Conclusions & Recommendations Good form and analogy then create good imageability. Further, good form derives from good analogy. There is a significant and positive association between imageability and form in architecture. Good form in architecture is best obtained through analogies of the physical environment, culture, and context. These are most effectively fashioned through the analogical design approach. Analogy that is derived from the natural environment and also a people’s context, when

expressed as architectural form creates memorable images to the users. These built forms relate well with the users and are therefore considered to be imageable. Considering that imageability is the aspect of a built form that makes a built form striking, and given the preceding relationships, it is plausible that this unique aspect comprises of analogy and image. When good analogy is expressed in form it provokes good images, which then make the building and the resulting form imageable. This relationship is described in the figure IV.


9

Figure VI: Conceptual Relationships of Analogy, Form and Imageability

Source: Author

The role of the architect in this case goes beyond solving the functional aspects of a design programme, which otherwise tends to universalise architectural solutions. It is important for the architect to consider abstracting form from the physical environment, context, and culture, within which the built form is to be sited. This is done while also considering the functional requirements of the space so created in the buildings. Doing so promotes responsive architecture that does not alienate the users, but rather invites and catches their attention, each time they use the buildings. The Ministry of Environment and Cultural Heritage, together with the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) should be involved in formulating local authority and municipal by-laws that will ensure that every architect designs in accordance with some set guidelines that will promote imageability. These guidelines underscore the need for every landmark building to be true to its context and physical environment within which it is located. Of importance are: material specifications, texture, colour, and proportions. Further, buildings should be true to their context and physical environment, in terms of their shapes, and finally the image they provoke. Such buildings enjoy a considerable ability to express imageability to the full expectation of the users. Future research in these respects should consider larger samples of buildings in order to find a firmer basis for generalisation beyond the three clusters that were involved in this study. A wider region also should be covered, which would possibly include the cities of Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu as representative cities in Kenya. This will ensure a generalisation of results across the nation. Another area for possible further research is to investigate the prevailing urban contemporary culture of the cities and how they affect the perception of analogy among the city dwellers. This is because the culture in the cities is so dynamic and therefore different age groups have different interpretation of the prevailing contemporary culture. This study

should give rise to the factors one needs to consider while abstracting analogy from culture in an urban setting. References Alexander, Christopher et.al., 1974, “A Pattern Language” Oxford University Press, New York. Arnheim, R; The dynamics of architectural form; London: University of California press; 1975. Caravan; Architecture and its image; New York: Manchester; University press; 1987. Ching, Francis D. K., 1979, “Form, Space and Order”, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Jencks Baird; Meaning in Architecture; New York: George Brazzilier mc; 1970. Kothari C. R., 2005, “Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques”, 2nd Edition, New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi, India. Maringa, P.M., 2005, “The Influence of Social Cohesion on the Quality of the Urban Environment: A case of the City of Nairobi, Kenya”, Unpublished PhD Thesis (JKUAT, Nairobi, Kenya). Mugenda, Olive M., & Mugenda, Abel G., 1999, “Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches”, Acts Press, Nairobi, Kenya. Newman, O., 1972, “Defensible Space”, Macmillan. Salingaros, A. Nikos, 2003, “The Post and Courier”, Charleston, 6th April. Schulz, Norberg C; Genius Loci; New York: Rizzoli international publications; 1980. Schulz, Norberg C; Meaning in Western Architecture New York: Rizzoli International publications; 1980. Stern, Paul, 1914-15, “On the Problem of Artistic Form”, Logos, vol. V. Lynch, Kevin, 1985, “The Image of the City”, The M.I.T. Press. Zeisel, John, 1997, “Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment – Behaviour Research”, The Press Syndicate, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. http://www.tesugen.com/archives/04/05/imageability-mapmaking-architecture - 11k http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262620014?v=glance - 69k http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_2_43/ai_n7069275 - 29k http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_2_43/a http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2004/04/imageability.html http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/ma_urbandesign/student_info.pdf http://www.sfia.net/conference2003.asp - 27k - 27 Oct 2005 http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/guides/theses/na9999.html http://www.ngu.ac.in/academic/CEPT/bachelor_of_architecure/SA_5_year.htm http://www.posttypography.com/alphabet/gallery.html http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/3bognar.pdf http://www.socialfiction.org/diy_urbanism.html

Documents

The Relationship between Imageability and Form in Architecture: Considerations for Design of Imageable Landmark Buildings in CitiesPaul Mwangi Maringa & Philip Okello OchiengJomo Kenyatta