ro | en
ArgumentNo. 16/2024

Urban Microspaces: Between the Figurative and Operative. Methodological Analysis Framework

https://doi.org/10.54508/Argument.16.16

  • / “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO
  • / “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, RO

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of urban microspaces, arguing through a dedicated interdisciplinary reading, the need to define an integrate methodological framework for their analysis, given that micro-spaces are not distinctly addressed in urbanism, not recognized as a separate category. Although ubiquitous in daily life, these spaces are underestimated in recent research, often relegated to a lateral, residual perception. Starting from several well- known theories from various perspectives in the field of psychogeography, sociology (Malpas, 2018; Lefebvre, 1991; de Certeau, 1974), sensory architecture, (Pallasmaa, 2005), and drawing on revisiting concepts from the theory of the secondary (Nemoianu, 1997) as well as considerations on various categories of heterogeneous and typologically uncertain spaces (Hall, 1969; Cupers & Miessen, 2002), the work highlighting the nuanced relationship between the physical framework of the city, and the layer of (figurative) perception and (operative memory), both involved in city experience process.

The study supports the idea that urban microspaces, often neglected, and considered in negative terms are very useful in the co-participative planning processes of the city. Perceived liminally or accidentally in the city experience, microspaces become important as indispensable support and binding spaces of the urban structure, catalyzing informal social interactions, which in turn form the basis of the diversity and inclusion of urban life. Viewed as a whole, the network of urban microspaces (Morelli and Privitera, 2022) demonstrates their power to contribute to renewing residents’ sense of belonging to places and to improve the quality of urban life.

Keywords

microspaces, perception, urban, methodology, co-participation

Download

References

  1. Almazán, J., & Yoshinori, N. (2012). Urban Micro-Spatiality in Tokyo: Case Study on Six Yokochō Bar Districts. In Tech. doi:10.5772/33326 
  2. Casey, E.S. (1997). The Fate of Place – A Philosofical History, The Regents of the University of California.
  3. Certeau, M.de (1974). The practice of everyday life. (trans. 1984 by Steven Rendall).
  4. Chrisinger, B.W. & King A.C. (2018). Stress experiences in neighborhood and social environments (SENSE): a pilot study to integrate the quantified self with citizen science to improve the built environment and health. In: International Journal of Health Geographics, 17:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-018-0140-1 
  5. Cupers, K. and Miessen, M. (2002). Spaces of Uncertainty, Verlag Muller and Busmann. Degen, M.M. (2008). Perceptions from ‘down below’. In Sensing Cities, Routledge: 30-42.
  6. Donohoe, J. ( 2014). Remembering Places: A Phenomenological Study of the Relationship between Memory and Place, Lexington Books, The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
  7. Frémont, A. (1972). La région, espace vécu: Mélanges offerts à A. Meynier, Rennes, P.U.B
  8. Foucault, M. (1984). Of other spaces: Utopias and heterotopias. In J. Miskowiec (Trans.), Architecture / mouvement / continuité.
  9. Gärling, T. (1995). Urban cognition. Readings in environmental psychology, Academic Press
    Gehl, J (1987). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (J. Koch, Trans.). Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  10. Graham, A. K., & Van Der Linden, S. (2021). Measuring Physiological Responses to Environmental Stimuli Using Wearable Sensors: A Systematic Review. Environmental Research, 202, 111762.
  11. Hall, E. T. (1969). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor books Ed.
  12. Heart, R. A. & Moore, G. T. (1973). The development of spatial cognition: A review. În Downs, R. & Stea, D. (Eds.) Image and
  13. Environment, (pp. 246–288). Aldine Publishing Company.
  14. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Interpretive Communities, Strategies and Repertoires. În S. Watson (Ed.), Museums and their Communities. (pp. 76–94). Taylor & Francis e-Library.
  15. Ioniță, C. (2020). Golul ca instrument conceptual de investigare a organicității orașului postindustrial. Ed. Asociația Arta în dialog.
  16. Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10-12), 1489-1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00163-7 
  17. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford.
  18. Lynch, K. (1960, 1990). The Image of the City, MIT Press.
  19. Malpas, J. (2018). Place and experience: a philosophical topography. Routledge.
  20. Maatouk, H, Halabi, M., Mohsen, H, Youssef, M. (2021). Exploring potentials of leftover spaces using urban metamorphosis. In BAU Journal - Society, Culture and Human Behavior: Vol. 3: Iss. 1-10.
  21. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1999). Câmpeanu, I. Vătăjelu, G.(trad.). Fenomenlogia percepției. Ed. Aion
  22. Metzger, Christoph. Neuroarchitecture, JOVIS, 2018.
  23. Mihali, C. (2001). Inventarea spaţiului. Arhitecturi ale experienţei cotidiene, Paideia.
  24. Morelli, E. and Privitera F. (2022). Micro spaces of proximity. A reading of historical centre of Florence between academic research and social participation. In The new sense of place after the bio revolution: Education, Profession and Social Interaction, 19th International Conference Arquitectonics: Mind, Land and Society.
  25. Nemoianu, V. (1997). O teorie a secundarului, ed. Orizont.
  26. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, Space, Architecture. Londra: Studio Vista
  27. Pallasmaa, J. (1996) (2005). The Eyes of the Skin, Architecture and the Senses. Wiley.
  28. Piaget, J. (1970). Le Structuralism. New York: Harper & Row.
  29. Porter, S. R., & Clifton, C. (2016). Seeing and Being Seen: Eye-Tracking and Urban Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 91-100.
  30. Secchi, B. (1993). Un’urbanistica di spazi aperti. Casabella, (12).
  31. Solà-Morales Rubió, I. (1997). Differences: Topographies of contemporary architecture (S. Whiting, Ed.; G. Thompson, Trans.). MIT Press.
  32. Stan, S., (2014). Dinamica spațiilor interstițiale urbane. București 1813-1946, teza de doctorat, UAUIM.
  33. Tostoes, A., Koselj, N., (2018). Metamorphosis: The Continuity of Change, Lisboa. In Docomomo International, 15(2), Ljubljana.
  34. Whyte, W.H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Space, NY.

Related articles

Angelica Stan, Mitu-Ioan Sbîrnac
The Role of Urban Magnetism in the Balanced Development of the Danube Region (2024)

Angelica Stan, Andra Panait
Distance and Distancing in Public Urban Spaces During the Covid-19 Pandemic Period (2022)

Angelica Stan
Some observations on how danube is reflected in the minds of its inhabitants. A Romanian Case Study: Lower Danube, Giurgiu City (2019)

Angelica Stan
Urban park - from concept to project (2015)