Architectural Design Principles of Public Spaces Based

on Social Sustainability Approach: A Case Study in

Ardabil, Iran
Iman Raeisi, Islamic Azad University of Qazvin, Qazvin, Iran (Islamic
Republic of)
Alireza Kharazmi Nezhad, Islamic Azad University of Qazvin, Qazvin,
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Maryam Hafezifar, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran (Islamic
Republic of)
Abstract: Considering the environmental, economic and social goals of sustainable architecture, most
of the researches that have been done in the sustainable architecture topics are developed generally
in the environmental and economic goals and even in some cases have resulted in design principles
that reflect these goals in design. But concerning social objectives, there are less established design
principles which have utilized these goals in designing. Therefore extensive studies are required to
reflect the goals as rules in design. With this background, the papers question is raised: How can
we determine the principles of architectural design in public spaces in terms of social goals of sustainable architecture? Regarding the question, this hypothesis arises that: A method of the architectural
- urban design has direct impact on non-physical stability of space. In order to prove this hypothesis,
considering that the social sustainability has different definitions in the different cultures - thanks to
diversity of behaviors, beliefs and cultures- in this article the spatial and environmental quality criteria
are reviewed to find overall optimum spatial qualities which can be effective on social sustainability
of public spaces, then these cases are studied in Ardabil (Iran) to suggest design principles based on
social sustainability in the city. The research method is field research (interviews and questionnaires),
archival research combination.
Keywords: Social Sustainability, Public Space, Human Behavior, Architectural Design, Ardabil

Introduction1

USTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS an issue that has been considered by scientific

societies since late twentieth century and nowadays, is of a special importance in
different fields of science. Architecture is one of the main fields of sustainable
development, which is known as sustainable architecture in the world. Sustainable
buildings may be defined as building, which strive for integral quality (including
economic, social and environmental performance), in a broad way (John et al,
2005). Therefore, sustainable design is a sort of interference in the environment that

This paper has been extracted from M.Arch thesis entitled: Designing Ardabil City Hall with Social Sustainability
Approach by Alireza Kharazmi Nezhad under supervision of Iman Raeisi (Ph.D.) which has been successfully
defended on March 08,2010 at the faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University of Qazvin,
Qazvin, Iran.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal
Volume 4, Number 5, 2010, http://www.Design-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1874
Common Ground, Iman Raeisi, Alireza Kharazmi Nezhad, Maryam Hafezifar, All Rights Reserved,
Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

is trying to create solutions for achieving balance with environmental, economic and social
goals in a holistic approach, to provide high life quality for the current generation and
maintain that heritage for the next generations (Ahmadi, 2003). Based on these definitions,
the triple objectives of sustainable architecture can be briefly classified in physical and
non-physical sectors: environmental and economic goals relate to the physical part and
social goals put forward the non-physical sector in sustainable architecture. Main
concentration of this research which is called social sustainability is in fact, the nonphysical part of sustainable architecture which follows social goals of sustainability. In spite of
the studies conducted in urban areas with regard to this topic (Dempsey et al, 2009; Bramley
et al, 2009; Mitlin et al, 1996; Yiftachel et al 1993) unfortunately, in architectural scale,
there has been less attention paid to the non-physical part of sustainable architecture.
Recently most researches and even accomplished projects in sustainable architecture have
focused mainly on the environmental and economic goals (physical part), whereas, long
time before announcement of sustainable architecture manifestos, researchers were
studying human social behavior in architecture (Rapaport, 1969&1989&1977; Oliver,
1969&2007; Gifford, 1981&1985&2005&2007). So, nowadays, it has been proved to all
that space and society are clearly related: it is difficult to conceive space without social
content and, similarly, to conceive society without spatial components (Carmona, 2003).
Although it was expected that such topics should gradually be highlighted in recent years,
raising sustainable architecture and its social goals, rarely motivated researchers to study
such issues in architectural theory and practice.
On this basis, in the present article, what has been focused on is defining social sustainability in architecture with regard to the efficient factors in designing public buildings as
small-scale public spaces. Considering that social sustainability in architecture could be
defined differently in each geographical region owing to socio-cultural differences, in this
research, Ardabil city in Iran has been selected for regional considerations and offering
some effective factors in architectural design of public spaces based on the theory of social
sustainability.
According to what mentioned above, this article investigates the answer to this question:
How can we determine the principles of architectural design in public spaces in terms of
social goals of sustainable architecture?; In order to answer this question, the hypothesis
raised as: it seems that a method of the architectural-urban design has direct impact on
non-physical stability of spaces, so that proving this hypothesis responses the main
question of the research.

Investigating the Concept of Social Sustainability in Architecture

Nowadays, what is known as Social Sustainability in architecture arises from sociocultural approaches in architecture. In fact, when the top styles, developed in recent decades,
subsided and when Modernism became weak, attention to the human-oriented architecture
as a production which meets human needs in different dimensions, led to the formation of
approaches in architecture that are known as social approaches (Raeisi et al, 2007). In
recent years, these kind of socio-cultural and psychological approaches in architecture,
encountered with Sustainable Development2 and caused taking into consideration such
viewpoints in architecture as sustainable architecture more than before and
comprehensively.
2

There is a comprehensive list of social aspects of sustainable development in Agenda 21 that have been approved
in 1992 in Rio conference.

100

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

As already mentioned, sustainable architecture and design contains three main

objectives: economic goals, environmental goals and social goals. According to Betel
McCarthys opinion about social goals, such goals contains: security, adaptation
capability, to engage the quality, to eliminate energetic poverty, making sound
insulation, flexible programs, healthy living, domestic cares, permanent education
(Ahmadi,2003). Thus, the social goals can be named as non-physical goals in sustainable
architecture (against the environmental and economic goals as physical one).
On the other hand, according to the existing literature in this field, it can be observed that
the problem of society and architecture has always been discussed and thus creates
socio-cultural attitudes in architecture. Since about thirty years ago, some of well-known
researchers such as Amos Rapaport and Paul Oliver studied about architecture, culture and
society, with specific socio-cultural attitudes (Memarian, 2005). However, such studies
have their roots in the fields like sociology, but architectural researchers have been
focused more on the customs, traditions, social manners, thoughts and beliefs and their
role in the architecture out of different definitions of culture (Memarian, 2005). Cultureoriented researchers classify at the first steps of importance the affects of behaviors, beliefs
and culture in architecture. According to the socio-cultural attitudes, a building is a
production that is formed in connection with the nature, society, ideology, lifestyle, social
and psychological needs, physical needs, individual and collective needs, economic
resources and available techniques (Memarian, 2005). As can be seen, environmental
psychology has also deserving influence on the studies of socio-oriented researchers and
plays an important role in such investigations. In the environmental psychology, the
customs, values and socio-cultural criteria are noticed (Mortazavi, 2001). So, it seems
reasonable to explore some parts of the history of social sustainability in the
environmental psychology. Environmental psychology is that area of psychology which
brings into conjunction and analyzes the transaction and interrelationships of human
experiences and actions with pertinent aspects of the socio- physical surroundings
(Canter et al, 1981). Environmental psychology may become more and more concerned
about helping societies to develop sustainable environments (Uzzell et al, 2009). So in this
research, that studies social sustainability at the architectural scale, results of the researches
has been done in environmental psychology, are considered as fundamental studies.
In the existing literature about those investigational approaches in architecture which human
and his or her mental and emotional comfort are important, the following cases are often
examined: Human needs; Human behaviors and activities; Human relationship with the
environment (space) and vice versa. Since the starting point of such investigations is human,
it can be an appropriate start for achieving to the meaning of social sustainability in architecture.
A) Human Needs:
On the subject of human needs in architecture and urbanism, generally, Maslows hierarchy
of human needs (1943) is popular. The classified Human Needs by the Maslow, make a
hierarchy in which the needs are organized from the strongest to the weakest and the strong
ones are prior to weaker ones. His hierarchy from strongest to weakest is as follows:
physiological needs, such as hunger and thirst; safety needs, such as security and protection
from physical harm; belonging and emotional needs, such as membership in social groups
and the receiving affection; esteem needs, those desires of an individual to be held in high
101

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

value by himself and others; self-dehiscence needs, representing the desire to fulfill ones
capacities; and cognitive and aesthetic needs, such as the thirst for knowledge and the desire
for beauty for its own sake (Lang, 1987).
B) Human Behaviors and Activities :
Human beings do something to meet their needs which is called Activity; and the way of
doing the activity is called Behavior. Indeed, behaviors are formed for satisfaction of
needs. Greatly simplified, outdoor activities in public spaces can be divided into three categories, each of which has very different demands on the physical environment: necessary
activities, optional activities, and social activities (Gehl, 1987). The circumstance of these
activities creates the behavior. Individuals behavior is a function of his or her motivations,
the affordances of the environment, and the images of the world outside direct perception
and the meanings those images have for the individual (Lang, 1987). It is claimed that human
behaviors are separate from human activities because of the special features of behavior such
as objectivity, flexibility (convertibility), crossing the psychological space of human3. Behavior is not only the product of rational, deliberative and individual evaluation, but is based
on customs and cultural tradition, emotional impulses, the influence of family and friends
and social norms as well as wider trends. Moreover, while values and attitudes are clearly
important in influencing behavior, values and attitudes are not formed in a social and cultural vacuum. They are embedded, nurtured and emerge from a social context, such as class,
gender, ethnicity, and environmental settings, resulting in specific everyday cultures (Uzzell,
2009). May be this is the main reason of various definitions of social sustainability of architecture in the different regions.
C ) Human Relationship with the Environment (Space) and Vice Versa :
Man for his or her special abilities can change or control his or her living environment. Such
environment that is made with humans direct interference is called the Built Environment;
also the built environment has some features and properties that James Gibson called them
Affordance of the environment. The concerned properties of Gibson are the physical
properties of the configuration of an object or setting that allow it to be used for some overt
activity (Lang, 1987). The concept of affordance is a simple yet powerful one. It is fundamental to environmental design theory. Different patterns of the built environment afford
different behaviors and aesthetic experiences. The affordances of the environment thus limit
or extend the behavioral and aesthetic choices of an individual depending on how the environment is configured. People have changed and continue to change the natural and the artificial environments to alter set of affordances they possess (Lang, 1987). These changes
have been made so that the terrestrial, animate, and cultural environments should better serve
an individuals or groups purposes. The changes reflect the beliefs and attitudes and resources
of a time and help provide a pattern for the future (Lang, 1987). So it can be resulted that
understanding the affordances of the environment is in touch with the human characteristics

3
The human relationship with outdoor environment is not direct and he or she used a filter between himself or
herself and outdoor space that named psychological space. This space contains different layers such as knowledge,
experience, custom, value, memory and etc. the human activity by crossing from this space converts to behavior
(Pakzad, 2007)

102

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

and stimulations, and this requires examining circumstance of individuals perception from
environment and studying the interaction of human and environment.
One of the most important factors that lead to perception of the meaning of
environment is Schemata. In fact, the schemata are the same imagery and imaginations
of person that obtain from surrounding environment based on his or her experiences and
information. There are different theories about the meaning of environment. The built
environment can convey different meanings such as symbolic meanings, unity meanings,
and even emotional and affective meanings. In this respect, empirical and experimental
research suggests that there are three primary emotional responses: pleasure, arousal, and
dominance. Pleasure has to do with feelings of liking and disliking; arousal has to do with
the interest-evoking qualities of the environment; dominance has to do with the
individuals feelings of freedom of action (Lang, 1987). In each cases, learning and past
experiences (memories), culture, beliefs and values are effective, and because of this, for
instance, variety of cultures can caused different responses by individuals and consequently
can led to change the meaning of the environment in the various cultures. This can be
particularly perceived about symbolic meanings. So, the role of learning and thus of
cultural differences is particularly important in dealing with symbolic meanings and the
development of likes or dislikes of artifacts and patterns of the world (Lang, 1987).
The environment has an important role in how the human behavior is4. This is interpreted
in the environmental psychology to the terms such as Environmental Determinism,
Physical Determinism, and Architectural Determinism. Architectural determinism or
comprehensively, physical determinism contains the meaning that the human behavior, especially in the level of social behaviors, can be altered by creating changes in architectural
elements of environment and its affordances (Motallebi, 2002). In fact, the terms [mentioned
above] all refer to the belief that changes in the layout of the environment will lead to a
change in the social behavior and (when they are considered at all) in the aesthetic values
of the persons involved (Lang, 1987). Environmental determinism should be used broadly
to reflect the belief that it is nurture within the setting of our geographical, social, and cultural
environments, rather than nature, our heredity, that shapes our values and behavior (Lang,
1987). The words fit, afford, synomorphy, and congruence have all been used to describe
the relationship between a pattern of behavior and a pattern of the physical environment.
They can all be used in a qualitative sense (Lang, 1987). Furthermore, it should not be forgotten
that the individuals have to be competent enough to perceive the environmental affordances.
If there were differences between individual competency and environmental affordances,
the psychological comfort or psychological press will be influenced5.
Thus, about the relationship between human and environment it can be resulted that: the
human and the environment has mutual affect on each other. This depends on competencies
and capabilities of both. Most of environmental affordances and personal competencies appear
due to the culture, beliefs, and social values. It can be also resulted that like the human behaviors, the built environment can be impressed by culture and social relations. Culture, by
this way, effects the built environment or behavioral setting to force the individuals to do or
not to do of their treatments. In this case, the environment may induce a behavior to the
4

Jon Lang has considered four approaches in this respect: free-will approach, possibilistic approach, probabilistic
approach, and deterministic approach (Lang, 1987)
5
See the Lowetons proposed model for competency (Lowton, 1973)

103

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

people or prevent it. In other words, the built environment controls the human behavior in
terms of the cultural rules of society. Social and socialization forces are strongly coercive
people are socialized also to carry out behaviors in particular places. They select a behavior
setting because they have the ability and the desire to conform to the standing pattern of
behavior taking place there. This occurs because the pattern has the potential to fulfill either
the instrumental or the symbolic ends of the people who choose it (Lang, 1987). Therefore,
the environment controls the behaviors.
In the study of the relationship between the environment (space) and the human behavior,
perceiving spatial qualities has an important role. The behavioral setting (built environment)
with its specific design, can lead to perform or omit some of the human behaviors and thus
encourages some particular senses in the users of a space. In this manner, all individuals in
the behavioral setting deduce a quality (e.g. security and beauty and etc.) from that environment or space. These are Spatial Qualities. Spatial qualities are topologic qualities of space,
meaning that the spatial qualities do not depend on spatial geometry (i.e. the size of the
components, quantitative distance between the components and so on), but they pertain to
some factors raised from geometrical relations such as how adjacent elements and their order,
segregation and integration (Pakzad, 2007). In fact, how the spatial elements and relations
between perceived elements in the space lead to create some qualities that lonely or together,
provokes some senses in the observer. It should be noted that these senses are not spatial
qualities but they are the effect of qualities called spatial qualities. For example, the quality
of intelligibility creates readability feeling in individuals. In this regard, researchers such
as Jane Jacobs (1961), Kevin Lynch (1981), Francis Violich (1983), Ian Bentley et al
(1990), Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard (1987) and Francis Tibbalds (1989). have
suggested various factors to promote the qualities of built environment.
According to what mentioned in this part of the article, it can be extracted some components
for the social sustainability of architecture. These components would potentially be the
main items for situating social sustainability in a building. This will be discussed in the
next section.

Main Items for Situating Social Sustainability in Architecture

Social sustainability6 at the architectural level studies the space and by examining the human
needs and behaviors, managing the project in a way that the relationship between the
human and the space can last for a long time. In other word, the space, non-physically, can
support the life for a long time.
To achieve the non-physical sustainability in a space, at the first step, the space must have
the ability of responding to the primary and fundamental human needs. As mentioned above,
the hierarchy of human needs, provided by Maslow, can be considered more than other
models in this respect. All the needs that have been suggested by Maslow, are general human
needs, although some exceptions may exist. For example, religious beliefs may cause
forbear from a need. But, generally, majority of people show their activities and behaviors
based on this hierarchy.
6

The expression social sustainability exists in the fields such as social science, sociology, urban planning and
the other related fields. The definition of the expression is not the same in all of them, and each field has its own
definition. It is also clear that in this article social sustainability defined in terms of architecture.

104

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

On the other hand, it was mentioned that the spatial qualities are defined based on the
human needs. In other word, spatial qualities may emerge somehow by reflecting these
needs in space designing. Table 1. provides a translation of Maslows hierarchy of needs
to the qualities that potentially may emerge in designing.
Table 1: Translation of the Human needs to the Design Qualities (Source: Golkar, 2001)

Human Needs

Spatial Qualities in Design

Sufficient facilities and equipments

Comfort (temperature, sun, rain, microclimate
adaption,)
Firmness and Balance based on ecology

Safety Needs

Safety of passage
Stewardship and Care
Privacy
Permeability and flexibility

Belonging Needs

Social facilities
Sense of place and Identity
Intelligibility and Visual proportions

Esteem Needs

Place attachment
Personalization and Belonging to groups

Creating opportunities for personalized space and

to participant in design
Diversity

Faade and Sight

Visual richness

Physiological Needs

Self-Actualization Needs

Beauty Needs

According to the Table 1. there are some qualitative factors for every need. It means
while a designed space possesses the mentioned qualities, it can establish a long-term
relationship with the users.
In addition to what stated, there is another component that is associated and intertwined
with such discussions and also has a big influence on social sustainability. It is the
compatibility of behavioral patterns and physical patterns in a building7.
Based on these discussions it can be resulted that the establishment of social sustainability of
architecture depends mainly on:
1.

Paying attention to the fundamental human needs in the architectural design

The latest method that argued about the compatibility of behavioral patterns and physical design patterns in architecture and urbanism, is the method of Space Syntax.

105

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

2.
3.

Promoting the quality of space and prioritized the qualities concerning the space
function (based on highest and fine human needs)
Considering the compatibility of the behavioral-biological patterns and the physical
patterns in design

Social Sustainability in Architectural Design of Public Spaces (Public

Buildings)
As seen in the mentioned components of social sustainability, the first and third items i.e.
considering the fundamental human needs and compatibility of activity systems
(behavioral patterns) and physical patterns of space, can be noticed as essential and fixed
items in either public buildings or private buildings, but the second one, spatial qualities,
are changeable; because it is mostly affected by building function and its usage and also
the region within which the building located. People have different expectations from
different spaces, so every place or space will require particular spatial quality. For
instance, in a residential building, public part is possessed high intelligibility than private
part of it and in case on ignorance this in designing, it may cause some problems for the
residents. This is also true about the public buildings. As it is clear, various spatial
qualities can be expected according to public buildings functions. For example,
qualitative expectations from an official public space are different from expectations from
a commercial public space. But it is certain that some of spatial qualities are in common
with all public spaces in a region. Exploration of these qualities, which is one of the
purposes of this research, can be effective contribution for social sustainability of public
buildings.
It is previously mentioned that there has been many argues about the environmental
qualities by different theorists. With regard to public spaces, Matthew Carmona in the
Public Places, Urban Spaces (2003) has collected them and has presented a list of spatial
qualities in various scales of Buildings, Spaces, Quarters and Settlements (Carmona, 2003).
The stated cases by Carmona, that he listed them as effective factors on sustainable
design, consist: Stewardship, Resource Efficiency, Diversity and Choice, Human Needs,
Resilience, Pollution Reduction, Concentration, Distinctiveness, Biotic Support and SelfSufficiency (Carmona, 2003). To study such indicators in addition to social sustainability
components, it is necessary to examine them within a territory of a certain culture or
region. Following section provides the case study of this paper.

A Case Study
In this article, the city of Ardabil in Iran is selected for the study. Ardabil is one of the
Azeris cities in northwest of Iran, located in the near of Azerbaijans border, and it is
counted as one of the coldest cities of Iran contains so many natural attractions. The
population of Ardabil is about 550,000 that speak in Turkish (Azeri). Also the
majority of people are Muslims. According to the urban context of Ardabil, this city is
one of the ancient and historical cities in Iran that it is about 5000 years old. The
name of the city on the muddy tablets of Summers inscribed as Aratta sets back
to more than 5000 years ago (Amiri, 2005). According to the geographical and
strategic position of the city and also Ardabils location in the passage of the Silk
Road, this city has been the capital city of governments in different historical periods
even at present remains of historical features are seen in the city so that one can admit
the city has kept its traditional texture. This point is obviously reflected in the
106

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

behavioral characteristics of the citizens. Since the modernity ideas have entered to the
public, people are experiencing the contradictions between tradition and modernity. Naturally
architectural and urban spaces have impressed by this opposition and at the present time
their social sustainability study (according to the papers definition) is of more importance.
For instance, buildings or areas can be found that had social sustainability for many years
and by the passage of time and the changing of peoples thought, they have lost their
validity; on the contrary, spaces can be found of more socially sustainability. In other
words, the citys architecture is experiencing sensitive time that happens in the passage from
tradition to modernity, and thus, appropriate principles for social sustainability of
architectural spaces are demanded. This is the main reason for choosing Ardabil city as
the case study of the paper and it could be a proper sample for examining the definition of
social sustainability in this article. So, it was necessary to collect some information about
the public behavior of the citizens and also about their relationship with the urban spaces of
the city. Therefore, at first, two types of open-ended questionnaires were designed: the
questionnaire (A) to study the social and behavioral characteristics of the residents,
according to the research aims; and questionnaire (B) to study residents relationships and
general expectations from architectural and urban spaces. Then the questionnaires were
filled out by a number of residents who were among the young and middle-aged
population as the major age-group of the city8. In fact the aim of formulating these
questionnaires, is investigating citizens requirements, in order to reach the corresponding
spatial qualities of their needs; in addition, collected answers can be helpful in the
studying of third component of social sustainability i.e. the compatibility of the
behavioral-biological patterns and the physical patterns.
According to the results form questionnaire A, a number of more important behavior
specifications of Ardabil residents are as follows:
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

The people are relatively sentimental, simple-hearted with hospitality inclinations.

The peoples living style is strongly influenced by Islam religion and their way of
thinking is moving towards modernity gradually with low speed.
Because of religious obligations in the culture and limitations on men-women relationship, women are comparatively more confined and need social security in some ways.
And it is also believed that there is a massive shortage on some special facilities for
women.
The residents are mostly introverted, however, in some issues such as their disposure
they are extrovert. But in most cases, especially on their family issues, they are rather
introverted. These characteristics are because of the traditional and religious features
of their culture.
Most of the residents have low or average income (in comparison to the standards).
However in recent years, they have tendency to accept the new topics in their life and
would like to transform the living environment by means of less cost to higher levels.
Considering the interviewees ideas, young people are the dominant age group in the
city. Due to available internet and satellite facilities, most of young people are familiar
with issues of the day. They have also tendency to future and enjoy facing new innovations in their lives.

According to the national statistics, this age-group is populous in the city; see the Headcount of the Residents of
Ardabil City, 2006

107

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

7.
8.

People are mostly interested in luxurious shopping centers and prefer to buy what they
need in such places rather than common ones.
Considering the fact that the city is located in the mountainous region and the lack of
special facilities in different seasons in the city causes immobilization, so that people
just go out for their necessary work.

According to the results from questionnaire (B), The Residents Facing the
Architectural Spaces can be listed as follows:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.

In the architecture and urban development, in this city, facades and exterior views of
buildings are of more importance to the public.
People are interested in flexible spaces which are capable of accepting new forms, furniture and diverse appearance.
In this city changing the form of known places (spaces that have became familiar for
people and have accustomed to them) is not welcomed and they think that the function
will turn these places in to unpleasant and isolated places in case of change.
The residents need a place capable of reminding their history and reminiscences. They
also need spaces creating the sense of place attachment for them.
Because of the culture, the residents like the places capable of showing off with their
opulence and wealth. The main reason, for this, problem is a type of wrong rivalry in
the current culture.
Citizens tend to come together in some places; they also need streets for walk arounds
and public relations.
Most young people in the city tend to be in touch with others in friendly atmospheres,
meanwhile, they demand social safety in this kind of places. (Especially for women).
Considering old city texture, easy access to public spaces and easy vehicle flow in the
city are important and should be noticed; meanwhile, because of their economic problems, they would like to have free parking for their vehicles.
People do not like to be watched by the dwellers of higher neighborhood buildings facing
their private living areas and even public part of their houses.

Through analyzing the given results, effective factors in the architectural designing of
public buildings and the relevant spatial qualities in Table 2 could be considered. In this
table, effective design indicators have been arranged using the collected answers form
questionnaires A and B; on the other side, each row shows the necessitating spatial
quality9. On the other hand, these factors and their corresponding qualities have been
arranged and collected based on the requirements of individuals.

The spatial qualities in Table 2. have been suggested globally because of having generalization ability.

108

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

Table 2: Compiled Spatial Qualities, for Public Buildings of Ardabil Based on

Questionnaires
Effective Factors in Architectural Design
Updating the design and using distinctive forms
rather than common forms

Spatial Qualities
Visual richness
Distinctiveness

Designing luxurious public spaces

Encourage public sector civic responsibility

Self-sufficiency

Flexibility
Diversity

Encourage public sector civic responsibility

Self-Sufficiency

Designing flexible spaces and attention to

changeability and variability of the
environment
Designing suitable, innovative and
attractive spaces for winter

Attention to buildings faade and its proportion

Visual richness

Using the familiar and memorial elements

in buildings

Place attachment
Distinctiveness

Creating sitting and walking areas

Concentration
Vivacity
Self-sufficiency

Designing parkings with maximum

capacity with safe access

Encourage public sector civic responsibility

Self-sufficiency

Neighborhoods visual security

Respect to neighboring privacy and

prevent public visibility

To examine the third component of social sustainability in architecture, compatibility of

behavioral and physical patterns, the proposed method of the authors, are the methods of
Space Syntax. As already said, how to use this method depends on type and location of
the buildings. Space syntax at the architectural scale, based on that space organization in
a building is in accord with behavioral characteristics of users, discovers and analyzes
the concealed patterns or genotypes of the buildings (Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Hillier,
1996). With space syntax techniques, we can analyze the number of considered building
types and achieve the results about spatial organization in that type of buildings which is
based on users behavioral features. Considering that describing the methods and their
applications is out of the topic of the paper, the given descriptions here seem adequate.

109

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

Conclusion
It is argued that the social sustainability in architecture, can be generally defined over
three components, the first one is paying attention to the fundamental human needs in design,
the second is to promote the spatial qualities and the third one is considerations of the
compatibility of behavioral patterns (activity systems) and the physical design patterns of
the buildings.
Paying attention to the fundamental human needs can be manifested in buildings design
through the observance of physical and architectural standards in design. But, concerning
the second and the third components, it can be concluded that human and his or her way of
perception in environment is the starting point in architectural design based on social
sustainability approach. According to the various perception theories, the process is based on
learning, former experiences and also beliefs which forms the culture and social
customs. Thus, individuals with different cultures can perceive a space differently, on
the other hand, culture and social customs determine the non-physical qualities of a
space. Therefore examining the second and third components of social sustainability of
architecture may have different results in the various regions and areas. Thus, Ardabil city
(Iran) was selected as a case study in this paper, in order to examine the components more
accurately.
Based on the papers findings, the indicators such as concentration, diversity and
choice, self-sufficiency, and flexibility, belong to the general spatial qualities in architectural
spaces as in urban spaces. Through the regional studies, a list of such spatial qualities
which may affect the social sustainability of public buildings (Ardabil), were identified and
recommended. These include qualities such as visual richness, self-sufficiency, flexibility,
place attachment, livability, distinctiveness, and visual security that were mentioned with
their design obligatory guidelines. Consequently, identifying these qualities and promoting
them in public buildings, can strongly guarantee their social sustainability.
In order to study the compatibility of behavioral patterns and physical design patterns,
which concerns with buildings typology, number of considered building types can be
analyzed in the relevant area to reveal the spatial organization and physical pattern; so by
matching them with previously gained information as behavioral patterns, the third
component will be completed.

References
Ahmadi, F. 2003. Sustainable Architecture. Abadi, No 40and 41. (In Persian)
Amiri, P. 2005. In search of urban identity Ardabil . Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
Press.Tehran.Iran. (In Persian)
Bramley G & N. Dempsey& S.Power & C.Brown & D.Watkins . 2009. Social sustainability and
urban form: evidence from five British cities. Environment and Planning A 41(9) 2125
2142
Canter, D.&K.Craik. 1981. Environmental Psychology.Journal of Environmental Psychology,1.
Carmona, M. 2003.Public Places-Urban Spaces:The Dimensions of Urban Design.Architectural
Press.UK
Dempsy. N. & G.Bramley &S.Power&C.Brown.2009. Tho Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability. Sustainable Development.
Gehl, J. 1987.Life Between Buildings.Van Nostrand Reinhold.New York.
Gifford, R. 1981. Sociability: Traits, settings, and interactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 340-347.

110

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

Gifford, R., & Gallagher, T. M. B. 1985. Sociability: Personality, social context, and physical setting.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1015-1023.
Gifford, R. 2007. Environmental psychology and sustainable development: Expansion, maturation,
and challenges. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 199-212.
Gifford, R. 2005. Applying social psychology to the environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Golkar, K. 2001. The quality maker components in urban design. Soffeh. No 32.Shahid Beheshti
University Press.Tehran (In Persian)
Headcount of the Residents of Ardabil City.2006. statistics centre of Iran
Hillier, B&J, Hanson.1984.The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B.1996. Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press.
John,G. &D. Croome & G.Jeronimidis.2005. Sustainable building solutions: a review of lessons from
the natural world. Journal of Building and Environment.NO40.
Lang, J. 1987.Creating Architectural Theory: the role of behavioral Scinces in environmental design.
Van Nostrand Reinhold.New York.
Lawton, P. 1979. Therapeutic environments for the aged. In D. Canter and S. Canter (eds).pp. 233-71.
Memarian, G.2005. A Research in the theoretical basis of architecture.Sorush-e-Danesh.Tehran (In
Persian).
Mitlin, D & D. Satterwaite.1996. Sustainable development and cities. In Sustainability. The Environment
and Urbanization. Pugh C (ed.). Earthscan.. London; 2361.
Mortazavi, Sh. 2001. Environmental psychology and its functions.Shahid Beheshti University
Press.Tehran (In Persian) .
Motallebi, G.2002. Environmental psychology as a new knowledge in architecture and urban
design.Journal of Fine Arts.No 10.university of Tehran Press.Tehran (In Persian).
Oliver, P. 1969. Shelter and Society.Barrie and Rockliff . London.
Oliver, P. 2007 new ed.Dwellings: The Vernacular House World Wide. Phaidon. London
Pakzad, J. 2007. Theoretical basis and the process of urban design . Ministry of Urban Planning and
Housing. Tehran (In Persian)
Raeisi, I & M. Abbaszadehgan & A. Habibi. 2007. A research on social sustainability in dwelling.
Abadi. No 55 (In Persian) .
Rapaport. A. 1969. House Form and Culture . Prentice Hall.
Rapaport. A & S. Low & E.Chambers . 1989 . Housing, Culture, and Design: A Comparative Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rappoport A., 1977, The Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a man-environment approach to
urban form and design, Oxford, Pergamon.
Uzzell, D. & N. Rathzel.2009. Transforming environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental
Psychology.
Yiftachel. & D. Hedgcock.1993. Urban social sustainability: the planning of an Australian city. Cities
10: 139157.

Appendix
Questionnaires
Questionnaire A: For Extraction of a Part of Residents Social
Characteristics
(Questionnaire Type: Open)
1.
2.

What do you think of people mood (spirit)?

How effective has religion been on your life and what do you think of such effect?
111

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

3.

In your opinion, are there any special limits for men and women of the society? Please
consider their relationship with together and the societies to answer.
4. Do you intend your ordinary family relationships being easily accessed by strangers?
How much?
5. Do you prefer a continually changing or non-changing lifestyle? If you choose the first,
how much cost are you ready to pay for the changes?
6. What is your idea about the dominate people in the city? Which age-group are dominate?
7. Shopping is one of the daily works. Which shopping centers do you refer?
8. According to climate, what is your outdoor hobby in the cold and snowy days?

Questionnaire B: For Extraction of the Residents Facing the

Architectural Spaces
(Questionnaire Type: Open)
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

112

In your idea, what is the important part of an architectural artifact?

To what extent are you fan of change in your living environment? Is it better to have a
changeable or unchangeable environment?
Imagine a place like or , do you want to destroy these areas for establish a beautiful
official building or like that?
Imagine a place that has some familiar parts for you and also it is a kind of memorial
for the public, in spite of the fact that this space is unfamiliar for strangers and emigrants
and such people do not feel free there. Against this space, imagine another space that
has contained public elements for all visitors. Now with this supposition, which do you
prefer?
Do you prefer to show your best belongings to others or to keep them in a private place
that only you and your family have access to? Why?
Imagine that again, if there were no such places where people come together and
walk in the cities, what would happen? Do you like it?
Do you like to take friendly times with your colleagues, classmates, or friends in other
spaces than office or schools? How do you describe such places?
How would you like to access the hobbies, ceremonies and etc. which take place in
public spaces? Do you prefer to go there on foot or by car?
Do you prefer to have so many tall buildings or ordinary buildings in the city? What is
the reason?

IMAN RAEISI, ALIREZA KHARAZMI NEZHAD, MARYAM HAFEZIFAR

About the Authors

Dr. Iman Raeisi
Iman Raeisi (Assistant Professor) is responsible person for directing the B.A and M.A theses
for architecture students while in addition to teaching architecture he works in the field of
architecture, research and critic. He has written 31 papers regarding introduction and critic
of Iranian and international current architecture, published in specialty architecture and
urbanization publications. He has also offered a paper titled The image of current architecture
of Tehran in poster format in the 22nd congress for Union of International Architects (UIA)
in 2005, Istanbul. He is among the founding members of Iranian Architects Society and
secretary for the Student Association. Raeisi has translated a summary of SMLXL in Persian
language and published it with an analysis of new Rem Koolhaass Statistics by Khak Publication in 2006.
Alireza Kharazmi Nezhad
Islamic Azad University of Qazvin, Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Maryam Hafezifar
Art University of Isfahan, Iran (Islamic Republic of)

113

EDITORS

Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Genevieve Bell Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, USA.
Michael Biggs University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.
Thomas Binder Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jeanette Blomberg IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA.
Eva Brandt Danmark Designskole, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter Burrows RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Monika Bscher Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Bill Cope University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA
Patrick Dillon Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
Kees Dorst TUe, The Netherlands; UTS, Australia.
Michael Gibson, University of North Texas, Denton, USA.
Judith Gregory IIT Institute of Design, Chicago, USA; University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Clive Holtham City of London University, London, UK.
Hiroshi Ishii MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, USA.
Gianni Jacucci University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Mary Kalantzis University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Klaus Krippendorff University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Terence Love Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Bill Lucas, MAYA Fellow, MAYA Design, Inc., Pittsburgh, USA.
Ezio Manzini Politecnico of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Mario Minichiello, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham, UK.
Julian Orr Work Practice & Technology Associates, Pescadero, USA.
Mahendra Patel Leaf Design, Mumbai, India.
Toni Robertson University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Terry Rosenberg Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.
Keith Russell University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Liz Sanders Make Tools, USA.
Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos University of So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil.
Lucy Suchman Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Ina Wagner Technical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Design-Journal.com

for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.