SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning / 2018 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Investigation of Architect and Non-Architect Participants’ Perceptual Evaluations on Different Period Mosque Facades

Kemal YILDIRIM
H. Derya ARSLAN
Esin GÜLŞEKER
Pages
358–370
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the other hand, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the participants' evaluations ofpreference and impressiveness variables (at p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In architecture, perception based studies about building facades havebecome more popular.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, in the study, a total of 16 mosqueswere used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the participants' evaluations ofpreference and impressiveness variables (at p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In architecture, perception based studies about building facades havebecome more popular. In recent studies, mostly residential buildings andbusiness center type of buildings had been selected as target buildings.The lack of study of the perception of the facades of religious structureshas created the basic motivation for this work. In the current study, thefacade features of (Seljuk period, Ottoman period and Republic period)some important mosques from different periods were evaluatedaccording to the adjective pairs of complexity, preference andimpressiveness variables. Also, whether or not the general views of themosques represent Islamic religion and their level of arousing curiositywere questioned. For this purpose, in the study, a total of 16 mosqueswere used. The results obtained from the participants as architect andnon-architect are given. It is seen that the participant architects show astatistically more negative approach compared to those who are nonarchitectsin the perceptual evaluations of the facades of the mosques forcomplexity variable. On the other hand, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the participants' evaluations ofpreference and impressiveness variables (at p

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, K., ARSLAN, H. D., GÜLŞEKER, E. (2022). Investigation of Architect and Non-Architect Participants’ Perceptual Evaluations on Different Period Mosque Facades. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 358–370. https://ajindex.com/articles/538318

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Akalin-Baskaya, A., & Yildirim, K. (2007). Design of circulation axes in densely-used polyclinic waiting halls. Building and Environment, 42, 1743–175.
  2. Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house facades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 124-132.
  3. Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. & Saylan, A. (2010). Users’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Open House International, 35(1), 57-65. Arslan H.D. and Yıldırım K., (2017). "Perceptual Evaluations of Different Period Mosque Facades: Preference, Complexity, Impressiveness and Simulative” Megaron Journal, 12,4,511- 523. Arslan, H.D., Ceylan M., (2012). “Judging Primary School Classroom Spaces Via ANN Model” Gazi University Journal of Science, 25, 1, Baytin, Ç. (1994). “ An Approach to the Case of New Buildings in Historical Environments, An Applied Model for Istanbul, İstanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, PhD Thesis, İstanbul.
  4. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Wiley. Brown, G., Gifford, R. (2001). Architects Predict Lay Evaluations Of Large Contemporary Buildings: Whose Conceptual Properties?, Journal of Environmental Psychology,. 21, 93- 99. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16 (3): 297-334.
  5. Crozier, J.B. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level Devlin, K. & Nasar, J.L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(4), 333-344.
  6. Dunn, J. V., Hayes, M. V. (2000).
  7. Social Inequality, Population Health, and Housing: A Study of two Vancouver Neighborhoods”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 563-587.
  8. Evans, G. W. (2003). The Built Environment and Mental Health, Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy Medicine, 80, 4, 536-555.
  9. Füeg, F. (1981). “Mimarinin Temelleri”, Çev: Kazmaoğlu, M., Yapı, No. 39, sf. 28-32,
  10. YEM Yayınları,
  11. İstanbul.
  12. Gifford, R., Hine D. W., Müler-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D. J. and Shaw, K. T. (2000). Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 168-