Abstract
Urban space organization associates with specific characteristics in the transformation of society’s behavior and views; it is composed of principles of dichotomy that work as a system of signs to transfer meaning with conventional interpretation. The urban fabric as a context is full of signifiers that tend to convey a meaning implicitly carved in its space organization system. Therefore, it is not just a simple physical configuration. Instead, it is a translation of human experiences with the different synchronic architectural characteristics that needs a critical examination to segregate discrete layers of structural elements. The association is so prevailing that each portion has a significant role in creating a combination of mental prototypes of interpretation between the different factors that give the urban space its final form. The study aims to find the internal signs system within urban space organization that is a combination of signs that represents the aesthetic values of space. The study aimed to explore implicit space organization to make out what is internally powerful to work as aesthetic signs of urban space organization. We conclude that there is a difference as a result of intervening new concepts in the urban space organization without taking in account the existing sign system. This difference could be a source of misunderstanding and confusion in the space organization system and needs understanding and restructuring through the development of procedures.
References
Adorno, T. W. 2002. Aesthetic theory. London & New York: Continuum Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ballantyne, A. 2004. Architectures: Modernism and after. Malden: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470774229Search in Google Scholar
Benevolo, L. 1977. History of modern architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Carmona, M., T. Heath, T. Oc & S. Tiesdell. 2003. Public places, urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.Search in Google Scholar
Castello, L. 2010. Rethinking the meaning: Conceiving place in architecture-urbanism. Surrey: Ashgate press.Search in Google Scholar
Chandler, D. 2007. Semiotics: The basics. Oxon: Rutledge.10.4324/9780203014936Search in Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1990. Postscript on the societies of control. In S. Thornham, C. Bassett & P. Marris (eds.), Media studies: A reader, 89–84. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Flanagan, W. G. 2010. Urban sociology: Images and structure. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar
Heynen, H. 1999. Architecture and modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hillier, B & J. Hanson. 2009. The social logic of space. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hvattum, M. & C. Hermansen (eds.). 2004. Tracing modernity. London: Rutledge.10.4324/9780203634745Search in Google Scholar
Innis, R. E. 1985. Semiotics: An introductory anthology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Karl, F. R. 1985. Modern and modernism: The sovereignty of the artist 1885–1925. New York: Athenum Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lawson, B. 2001. The language of space. Oxford: Architectural Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lefaivre, L. & A. Tzonis. 2004. The emergence of modern architecture: a documentary history from 1000 to 1810. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203380512Search in Google Scholar
Maciocco, G. 2009. People and space. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9879-6Search in Google Scholar
Mallgrave, H. F. 2005. Modern architectural theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511497728Search in Google Scholar
Martin, B. & F. Ringham. 2000. Dictionary of semiotics. London: Cassell.Search in Google Scholar
Merrell, F. 1997. Peirce, signs, and meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442678330Search in Google Scholar
Metro-Roland, M. M. 2011. Tourists, signs, and the city: New directions in tourism analysis. Farnham: Ashgate Press.Search in Google Scholar
Outman, J. L. & E. M. Outman. 2003. Industrial revolution: The primary source. London: Thomson Press.Search in Google Scholar
Parmentier, R. J. 1994. Signs in society: Studies in semiotic anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pevsner, N. 1968. The sources of modern architecture and design. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Press.Search in Google Scholar
Panerai, P., J. Castex & J. J. Depaule. 2004. Urban forms: The death and life of the urban block. Oxford: Architectural Press.Search in Google Scholar
Preucel, R. W. 2006. Archaeological semiotics. Malden: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754962Search in Google Scholar
Rodwin, L. 1981. Cities and city planning. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4684-1089-1Search in Google Scholar
Stanilov, K. 2007. The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in central and eastern Europe after socialism. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3Search in Google Scholar
Tyson, L. 2006. Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Waldrep, S. 2003. The dissolution of place architecture, identity, and the body. Surrey: Ashgate Press.Search in Google Scholar
Winters, E. 2007. Aesthetics and architecture. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
