- 1 This article comes from our dissertation in urban studies: The urbanity of the senses – Perceptions (...)
- 2 We must specify that the subject of study designated by the term “public space” is ambiguous and co (...)
1The overall thrust of this paper concerns how we analyse our environment and construct the public space through our senses. It also factors ambiance-related aspects into this analysis of built systems.1 The core idea underlying our approach is that when the public space is seen as more than just an abstract notion or as empty space between buildings, it acquires specific sensory contours that comprise environmental and spatial data, perceptual aspects and modes of use. We should not think of the public space as being defined a priori and should instead look at the sensory configurations within which an environment takes shape and in which public practices and behaviours play out. The field analyses focus on grasping the tangible modalities of an urban “publicness” and thereby qualifying its built systems. This involves a scale of comprehension that is tied to our field of perception and which grounds our approach, the main characteristic of which is the priority given to working on location. The components of the method we propose thus concern the analysis (and ultimately the definition of criteria for architectural and urban design) of actual situations in the public space2 as they are apprehended through the immediate, sensory contact that a city dweller has with them.
2This particular analysis of built forms and sensory configurations of ambiances comprises various disciplines that consider the urban object, though often separately. While there are many customary modes of analysing urban space, they do tend to separate its various aspects according to their own particular perspective; be this spatial, functional or image-based, their findings are ultimately segmented. How can we better define the physical, aesthetic and micro-social dimensions? Can we invoke aesthetic and ordinary perception at the same time? The goal is to merge as best as possible the various aspects that help us grasp urban spaces as loci of sensory and practical experience, and to consider the challenges of designing them in a multi-disciplinary, comprehensive manner. With this goal in mind, we have sought to define the analytical registers and categories for processing the data yielded by measurements, observations and surveys, and even to guide their collection at a certain stage of empirical research. Any approach of this kind requires an extensive number of investigations, and the often numerous and complex data collected in the process are hard to organise – if they are not processed separately. Thus, we craft hypotheses by bringing the various relevant fields together around partially overlapping notions in order to construct our analysis. This in turn addresses the need for specific tools and know-how that are indispensable for understanding the urban, architectural and environmental design of this particular category of site, namely public spaces.
3Structuring our analyses into these categories also facilitates the often delicate and difficult passage between the description and analysis phase and the design phase. While one of the main goals is to systematise the merging of physical, perceptual and social data in order to analyse habitual situations, this also helps define the criteria for designing these places, criteria whose relevance depends on their capacity to envision and design forms. To this end, we will formulate the hypothesis that the observational and descriptive tools can inform the rationales and principles for designing urban public spaces and, accordingly, that the descriptors and the summary presentation of the results must also reflect this connection. We thus propose an interpretation of the sensory configurations and modes of experiencing forms and objects to identify the relevant qualitative criteria.
- 3 See Augoyard on the terms “ambiance” and “sensory environment”.
4We propose approaching urban public spaces by means of the sensory environment and phenomena of ambiance.3 In fact, architecture does more than organise spaces; it builds environments and defines “ambiances”. For however foundational this aspect is to construction, it is often forgotten in architectural theory, and it is becoming all the more significant with the evolution of techniques for construction and the production of the sensory effects with which we are becoming increasingly familiar with the passing of each day. When we say that architecture organises ambiances, this allows us to combine aspects that do not strictly pertain to the built form.
5Very simply, the term “ambiance” refers to a set of environmental factors that can be perceived through our senses (light, sound, temperature, smells and tactile materials, among others); in fact, we should instead use “ambiances” in the plural. The term is often employed because it allows us to group fragments of sensory experience within a single unified entity, which can then be discussed. In French, the word also has a social connotation that expresses the contact and climate that characterise a collectively experienced situation. In engineering, “mastering ambiances” refers to aspects of applied physics such as acoustics, thermal dynamics and lighting, which are taught in architecture schools.
6This polysemy does not confer any rigour on this catch-all term. An approach starting with the study of the sensory environment involves several aspects that are characteristic of this method. The ambiances-based approach we propose involves various design-related disciplines. Ambiances are explored physically, using objective criteria, and as phenomena, which involves a sensory observation that is also situated in the time frame of an ordinary, customary experience of a place. Time is a key dimension of ambiances, as phenomena evolve and are experienced in their evolution.
-
We begin by examining spatial systems and the shaping of the environment that they tend to generate. Whether in terms of heat, lighting or acoustics, we can characterise the architectural form in that it creates a specific environment at a given moment in time. The goal here is not to produce norms, but instead to establish references and criteria that require constant reinterpretation during a project’s life cycle. The physical assessment of the properties of an ambiance elicited by forms and systems constitutes an initial mode of description that we can use to supplement a morphological and architectural description.
-
The second step concerns the significant modes of sensory apprehension in our experience of urban spaces. It adopts a phenomenal approach. The type of question thus concerns the traits or accents that emerge when we perceive ambiances in our use of places at any given moment in time. This raises the issue of how to access and describe these sensory forms. The goal is to include those sensory dimensions that have long remained excluded from urban development (such as sound), to have customarily separate aspects interact (for example, the visual and the acoustic) and, consequently, to challenge the predominance of the visual sense in our customary analytical categories.
-
The third step looks at the processes of sociability in a sensory context. As environments also depend on the uses, actions and interactions that generate perceptible cues (relationships between individuals, the carrying out of actions), the goal is to identify how the context is perceptible precisely because it interacts with the public dimension or the publicness of the spaces through uses and behaviours. The publicness of spaces examines the qualities of the sensory relationships to others offered by configurations and situations. This occurs at both a practical and a symbolic level.
7This last step is especially important, because it assembles the previous steps around the notion of the public space. This merits further explanation.
- 4 Joseph (1990).
- 5 See the article by Heritage (1991) on Garfinkel.
- 6 We must nevertheless specify that this common sense is not the result of a normative determinism an (...)
8A particularly significant aspect of urban public space is that it welcomes the public. This fact is essential to the concept, as it entails mutual perceptions. We know that copresence in an urban public space means being constantly confronted with strangers. Many observations lead us to believe that the presence or absence of a public, especially the modes of its visual or acoustic presence, play a major role in our everyday experience. The ways in which we perceive, see and hear ourselves unfold in situations with characteristic ambiances. The common experience of the public space and the ways we are present to each other is not organised according to a logic of territorial appropriation (which by contrast is true in private spaces), but instead according to our exposure to others. The management of appearing and, more specifically, the tension between exposure and observation, constitute the fundamental vulnerability of public spaces. As a result, the city dweller’s skills consist of “managing the diversity of exposures and the implicit nature of the observable order.”4 In this respect, analyses of ordinary social activity are based on the principle that social actors are not “brutes lacking in judgement.”5 Each individual uses his/her own common sense to evaluate possible courses of action, as expressed by the term skills. In sociological terms, this common sense essentially concerns the mutual definition of a course of action, and it consists of conforming the action to the situation.6 What can we draw from these characteristics in our approach to “ambiant” environments and built systems?
9When we analyse social interactions, it becomes clear that the way in which actors understand their circumstances essentially concerns social characteristics. Empirical studies of social interactions conducted in this light focus on the procedures employed by actors to make the frameworks “observable and explicable.” Thus, spatial forms and the physical environment are not really taken into account. If we are to take an interest in how people queue up and place themselves in a particular spatial relationship, this will be in a space – and more generally an environment – that seems neutral. But aren’t the actors’ skills tested by the spatial and environmental context, that is, by their sensory context?
- 7 We are only considering these two senses, which are primary in the Western conception of space.
10We should therefore conduct a field study that correlates the situations produced (in terms of spatial organisation and environment) and the public’s mutual perceptions. Such a study specifically involves the reciprocal forms of appearing and accessibility and the public’s role in fabricating and perceiving ambiances, as certain relations of co-determination may exist between public spaces and their uses. The goal is to arrive at a nuanced understanding of the situations by observing how city dwellers configure them through sensory phenomena of light and sound.7 Consequently, this analytical framework looks at the design of forms and ambiances in terms of their ability to “welcome” the public. It leads us to consider spatial systems (a term we will explain later on) as forming ambiances that offer passers-by a variety of resources, but in a certain register. The main question guiding this approach will thus be: how do ambiant factors (the light and sound dimensions in particular) characterise public space situations?
- 8 Method tested in our research into underground public spaces as part of an urban planning strategy, (...)
11The source materials for an analysis of the environment that have been collected on site to meet the multidisciplinary requirements set out above can be grouped within three heterogeneous categories: the observations that we can make, the descriptions by the users (here in the form of “narrated itineraries”),8 and certain kinds of measurements (of sound, light or otherwise). The order of this data set’s establishment is logically as follows: preliminary observations → narrated itineraries → measurements, sound recordings, photographs → second observations → verification measurements and collection of sounds and images adapted to the identified phenomena. These data sets mutually enrich each other throughout the various phases of the analysis.
- 9 This act of cross-referencing was carried out with Augoyard (1981).
- 10 See in this regard Cosnier and Bourgain (1993).
12In terms of a multidisciplinary analysis of the sensory environment, the preliminary observations help prepare for the successive phases and formulate certain hypotheses which will be tested using more objective data and the results of surveys. Please note that the observations must be revisited in order to substantiate certain hypotheses. This is harder to do for the two other operations (surveys and measurements), because they are more cumbersome in terms of their implementation. That said, the observation conducted on site and the analysis of the interviews, two data sets that consist essentially of subjective human elements, must be guided by certain analytical instruments or tools. To this end, the three levels of analysis that will be defined later (namely the forms, formants and formalities) seek to systematise the field observations while fostering and allowing the cross-referencing of the data sets (observations, surveys, measurements)9 to specify the dimensions that we want to address. The researcher’s paradox consists of defining what one wants to observe while also wanting to insert oneself within that very context in the most natural manner possible.10 Perception in our observations is directed by initial frameworks and the hypotheses we construct.
13There are three orders of observable objects for the researcher that are within the grasp of our senses: spatial forms, a varying sensory environment (light, sound, air and heat), and uses and behaviours, visible and audible. One of the easiest elements to identify within an environment are the transitions and changes in this environment, events that have spatial and temporal dimensions. Observing the elements that constitute ambiances is on the one hand simple because the objects remain directly accessible, but also complex, because it is hard to observe everything, to structure the information, and to know what this information can be used for. That said, even though our ability to observe can grow over time, it would be a mistake to base ourselves on that alone. The observations that we can make remain insufficient and must be rounded out with more ordinary observations than the ones made by researchers and specialists, even if this means revisiting at a later date the observations made of a particularly relevant aspect.
- 11 For the precise protocol for this method, see Thibaud in this same volume.
14How can we collect basic insights expressed in everyday language using open-ended survey techniques with users and inhabitants? The “narrated itinerary” method11 with users is especially well suited to what we are trying to find out, namely how we perceive ambiances and how this sensory context shapes the public space. Even if several comments made by the individuals surveyed indicate difficulties of various kinds (that they are not used to describing things, the microphone bothers them, talking in a public place feels odd, they are afraid of stating the obvious, even our very presence are some of the hindrances that people have articulated), the narrated itinerary does help us access certain perceived phenomena. Contrary to the commonly held opinion that such exercises are steeped in stereotypes, we believe that it yields primary experiential elements that point to descriptive criteria. Two types of information emerge from these “direct” (i.e., on-site) descriptions: those concerning the framework and those concerning the perception of others.
- 12 Please note that the parallel, simultaneous description of the same itinerary or space by two resea (...)
15Obviously what has been described is never done so in full; a description is never complete. The author chooses and sifts through what he/she perceives, but it is this very sifting process that reveals the contours of the object or the author’s vision of it. Every description is in some way an opinion, or perhaps we should say a possession that depends as much on the subject as the object. This is why, even though we cannot take statements literally, as gospel truth, they nevertheless designate certain phenomena that may be described differently by other observers and thus designate an unvarying trait or categories of sensory relationships.12 The cross-referencing of different descriptions made under relatively similar conditions (which should be verifiable at least in terms of the date of the experiment) reveals common, similar or contradictory elements. Most of all, it identifies what shapes the environment as it is perceived at the moment it is being described. This identification of the elements that qualify the described situation constitutes a first step that then sends us in this or that other direction, depending on the questions one is asking and the hypotheses one is positing.
- 13 The sound transmission index (STI or RASTI, for “rapid sound transmission index”) indicates the per (...)
- 14 The time a sound takes to decrease from 60 dB after its source has been extinguished. Different cri (...)
- 15 A measurement that consists of emitting a known (aka “pink”) noise from an omnidirectional source a (...)
- 16 A simple method consists of taking instant photographs and recording the values measured on site (i (...)
16The third component of the data set is different from the two previous ones. The hypotheses regarding the physical aspects of ambiances must be verified or substantiated through metrological operations for which we will also set out several criteria and limits. First of all, we need to know what we hope to measure, as the accumulation of information is not necessarily a gauge of any relevance, and because sound, light and heat measurements are always difficult and complex to carry out. Tools for analysing sound, whether computer-assisted or not, are particularly difficult and tricky to use on location. This is also guided by a precise question to be asked when collecting such measurements in order to assess the impact of a specific setup. Some criteria help us accurately determine the intelligibility,13 the reverberation14 or the levels of sound at different times, or even the decrease of a known noise.15 In the case of relatively large spaces, however (ones that welcome the public often are), this becomes complex, and the results are limited in terms of their reliability and representativeness. As concerns light, the measurement of luminance with a luminance meter is a way to establish a certain objectivity16 to characterise specific viewing conditions. The goal is to compare human observations and physical measurements. When a particular light or sound phenomenon is perceived, the challenge lies in trying to approach its physical form, even if this is not always possible. Beyond constituting mere comments, user observations and descriptions collected during the surveys can prove highly instructive and guide our observations and metrological evaluations. Paradoxes may arise between what we perceive and what we measure.
17That said, the complexity of the technical procedures does not always produce the anticipated results. This is why the human ear, sound recording and surveys are effective tools for characterising a situation and drawing criteria for future transformations. Beyond their capacity for illustration, sound recordings and photographs also serve to accumulate material that can substantiate hypotheses, even if they deform or accentuate certain perceived effects and diminish others. Technical observational aides such as photography and sound recording are useful in certain physical analyses when they respect certain conditions (calibration and quality of the sensor and of the equipment).
18The material accumulated for a multidisciplinary analysis based on these three data sets can be considerable. If we adopt a comprehensive approach, in which the various levels interact dynamically, we need to organise the data to derive the relevant criteria. We believe that three levels of analysis suffice to structure this empirical approach and constitute both a systematic grid and a framework for presenting results that reflects their complex layering. The relationship between built form and physical environment is placed at the first level, the relationship between environment and perception on the second, and the relationship between the sensory and the social on the third. We term these three descriptive domains:
-
One of forms, which specifically concerns built structures and the fabrication of the physical environment. This register essentially refers to the data yielded by the architectural analysis and results from the measurements of the factors constituting the ambiances; this field of analysis is primarily physical.
-
One of formants, which concerns the sensory perception of the environment and specifically those traits that constitute its local and situational specificity. The data come mainly from observations and surveys/itineraries which are cross-referenced for potential overlaps with the previous physical level. The analytical scope of this level uses descriptive language and prioritises a phenomenology of perception.
-
One of formalities, which concerns human behaviours, their expressiveness and their modulations in the context described via the two previous domains. The data here also derive from observations and surveys, but a process of interpretation and extrapolation reframes them in terms of the context shared by the public. The analytical scope of this level essentially concerns observable behaviours and actions.
19These three levels cover the ways in which we specifically approach the urban space, with the awareness that they are not completely independent and that they instead mutually define each other. These three levels of description are obviously closely linked. The point of view one adopts defines the aspect being described.
Table 1.
|
forms
|
formants
|
formalities
|
|
systems
|
perception
|
action
|
|
physical
|
sensory
|
expressive
|
20The following questions summarise the general principle underlying the approach that we are proposing: how do spatial systems create specific environments? How is the perception of ambiances configured? How are city dwellers’ skills tested?
21The different registers are detailed below. The order of description presented here does not dictate the order of its performance; one may begin at any level. Nevertheless, each level must be specified and the contributions balanced in order to establish those correlations without which the analysis would cease to be relevant.
- 17 The trend of the “urban project” revives grandiose ambitions, but it implies an overall approach to (...)
- 18 We refer to the Larousse Lexis dictionary (in French).
22The register of the analysis of built forms is not as easily defined as one might expect once we consider the issue of the scale at which we grasp these forms. The architectural and urban design of urban spaces plays out at different scales, of which the urban form17 is just one, and which we believe is too broad; even though it is not indifferent or neutral, we believe that we also need to consider finer scales, particularly architectural, or rather, micro-morphological ones. This scale in particular is tied to ordinary perception; it concerns the immediately graspable environment through which public interaction becomes perceptible. The notion of a “system” aligns with the type of spatial analysis to be developed. Considering the praxiological aspect of this approach, the form is envisaged at the scale of the spatial system that defines a situation, in the awareness of course that this system forms part of a larger context (that of the building and of the urban fabric). The notion of the system is far from foreign to the domain of architectural design. It can be defined in two ways: first, as a whole made up of pieces that constitute a mechanism or a device (thus referring in architecture to an arrangement of coherent elements), and second, it is a set of measures that constitute an organisation or a plan (in this case, the system accounts for actions undertaken for a specific purpose).18 An architectural system may be characterised by several descriptive fields, but for the moment, we can say that it is basically a topographic situation that has been more or less clearly defined. The concept of the system crosses very different scales, as an ambiances-based approach can depend on elements and time frames of different scales; therefore, a system’s scale should be considered as a space-time continuum within the realm of our experience, inasmuch as it is a fragment of experience. Put more simply, a system in an architectural plan is an arrangement of built elements that form a place with a particular topography. Thus, the geometric description of the space is the first descriptive field; however, the morphological analysis must coincide with one of the ambiances. A spatial system shapes the ambiance in terms of light and sound. It directs and is directed in that it arranges agents and phenomena in relation to one another. It also houses usages and actions, and in this respect, a built system acquires meaning through the usage one makes of it or that it is supposed to provide. For example, a low barrier wall before a sheer drop can be a remarkable system; it limits, it dominates and it allows one to sit, depending on its height. This system becomes perceptible through the usage one can make of it and the relationships to the environment it offers.
23Let us illustrate this with a simple system in terms of light and sound: two parallel, offset walls separated by an empty space. From a particular viewpoint, the porousness of the light suggests the presence of an opening, but without providing any visibility of the space beyond. This spilling out of the light indicates that space continues past it, more intensely but invisibly. This luminous separation structures the visual environment by offering the possibility of an escape. The impact of this type of system on sound propagation may also be decisive. It may be possible to hear activities (without seeing them) through this system. This phenomenon helps “form” a specific environment.
24Once the spatial system has been described, the impacts on its characteristic environmental elements must be evaluated in physical terms. In the above example, the differences in luminosity and the attenuations or filtering of the sound must be assessed. But because explaining how built “systems” act on physical phenomena (in this case, light and sound) is never easy, as we have already stated, we must formulate and attempt to validate one or more hypotheses. For example, we may suppose that the above system filters the sound, and search for the way to verify that. According to this initial analytical register, we can establish a typology of architectural systems. To do so, we have to identify and classify the categories of spatial systems according to the dominant or combined usages they provide. In public spaces, we can thus distinguish between systems for transitions, locations (with a preponderance of lingering), movement, service relations, or systems that combine these various usages.
25We have found specific systems that act as sound transitions. As one moves, one can distinguish the transitions that structure an itinerary by observing the spatial systems that generate them and the types of limits that characterise them.
Chicane: Overlap of two building corners that define a space. The greater the overlap, the more the sound disjunction will be effective by heightening the effect of a sound break.
Elbow: a narrow, sharply angled passageway connecting two squares: the alleyway is very narrow, and the elbow is so sharp that it renders the two sound environments independent of one another.
26The term “system” is fairly current and prominent in architecture, and the study of ambiances can contribute specific types of knowledge to this concept. Thinking in terms of a system of ambiances requires a precise analytical process. This does not so much entail describing the systems per se as, on the contrary, identifying what constitutes the system and designing accordingly. Thus, the researcher must be able to “see” and designate the systems. It also requires an appropriate vocabulary to make the envisaged system comprehensible, by using terms that describe it to the designer. Later on, during the design phase, when we name the systems envisaged at the point of defining the project or during a quality architectural programme, the role they can or should play can be explored and their characteristic environmental criteria can be addressed.
- 19 For that matter, as part of the analysis of the existing object, in terms of its history, it is hel (...)
27The descriptive criteria of a physical system are thus topographic (spatial relations), environmental (orientation, exposure), construction-related (materials) and geometric (volume, surface).19 Thus, a system can be characterised by its impact on the sound and light environment, as well as on other physical factors. At this stage, we must cross-reference these elements of a physical analysis with the two subsequent ones, because this level of analysis or design must be completed with two other descriptive registers; this is what constitutes the specifically transversal nature of this approach, which works by correlating between these registers.
28This involves what we will call the register of the sensory formants that characterise a system as it is experienced. The overlap with the physical measurements allows the correlation of the sensory experience with the physical environment. It also involves what we will call practical formalities; these are social in nature, and any lived situation constantly activates them within a specific sensory context.
- 20 The term is not used here in the Hjelmslevian sense of a “visual formant” or an “urbeme” that divid (...)
29The term formant20 designates those phenomena that structure, define or compose the sensory experience of ambiances at a given time and place; they are the environmental elements by means of which a lived situation is configured as a perceptible form. Therefore, we posit that an environment is configured through these specific formants. Formants depend on both the physical, environmental context and, overall, on the relations (specified below) between the user and the place or situation. There are two aspects to the emergence of these formants that are central to this analytical system.
30The first aspect connects the formants to the physical dimension of the world. But we know that there is a discrepancy between the physical and perceptual levels; to give a simple example, an area that is twenty times brighter than another may appear to have the same luminosity. As the result of this law of an even perception, sensory formants follow a specific logic. As we know, the relationship between a physical phenomenon and its perception is not a simple one. Consequently, although there is a connection between the physical level of analysis and that of the formants, they also concern the process of perception through which we constantly configure the world over time; a particular accent to phenomena and events, or to their organisation, constitutes a configuration, be this in terms of light or sound. Thus, a reflection is a phenomenon tied to certain specific physical, sensory conditions. It may become a formant if it comes to characterise the aesthetic and practical relationship to a place at a given moment. Similarly, a strong sound reverberation becomes perceptible if an event reveals it and “forms” a perception of the place at a given moment.
31The second aspect concerns the perceptual orientation arising from the individual motivations or specific relationships to a place. But even though each one of us orients our attention to things, the diversity of these perceptual orientations does not mean that they do not share anything in common. At the same time, the physical framework offers certain options but not others, and so it becomes very interesting to see what it does offer. By focusing on, amplifying or minimising certain traits, the city dweller configures using formants that are in part already present. It is thus a question of seeing how formants specify a relationship to a place. We must also clarify that a perceptual orientation exists in relation to the level of the “formalities” set forth below; it is composed in accordance with the uses and behaviours we enact.
32The identification of what we mean by “formants” thus leads us to focus primarily on the most “direct” or immediate modes of perception and experience to access the active incorporation of the sensory world as best as possible. The narrated itinerary method is very appropriate in this respect. Even though it generates an abundance of discourse that may seem banal and that identifies perceptions imperfectly and subjectively, it allows for the collection of material that expresses a direct, human experience of a context at a given moment in time. User descriptions reveal both representations of objects and places, as well as the active, situated ways in which we breathe life into these relationships. We should not confuse the realm of the represented with that of sensory formants, which describes the state of what is perceived through its essential qualities. This concerns the “direct” part of the relationship between the object (the physical, the built) and the subject (who perceives and acts). This is incorporated into everyday experience, rooted in action (e.g. walking and looking), and it remains active beyond its accompanying assessments or representations. For example, the verbs that indicate movement or motion are significant or expressive in this respect, such as “dragging one’s feet” or “sliding”. They express two things that will be construed differently depending on the context in which they are said: as a form of action (formalities) or as a state of a perceptible surface that makes contact with the ground. They correspond to an action and incorporate space as a locus of action, and not just as an image.
33In what is expressed, we can identify the elements that form a perception and inform an action in turn to specify the formants. For example, upon moving through the system of the two parallel walls described before, when we pass from the shadow into the light, we notice what we may call two “formants” that merge: a luminous formant (lightening) and a kinetic formant (moving through) that give a particular configuration to the action carried out, which is one of crossing.
34Transitions are the subject of particularly extensive commentary in these terms, because an event occurs that marks a change. We may also note that in the flow of experience, the senses often mix, passing from a sound that is heard to something seen as light, to something felt as heat. A change in ambiance that at first seems to concern light and volume may turn out to involve sound and heat. Perception involves the body and the senses, especially the visual, the auditory and the sensorimotor. We can use formants to interpret built spaces and systems in a poly-sensory manner. An analysis of elementary formants explores how we define the qualities attributed to forms, but the interaction between the senses is at times hard to disentangle and the language we use must be precise. For example, to say that a heard volume is loud may derive from a visual perception as well as the acoustic reverberation that heightens this very sensation. This is why one must identify the sensory “formants” that substantiate this quality; they can be auditory, tactile, kinetic, luminous, olfactory or thermal.
35It is true that language has its limits when we base ourselves essentially on user descriptions, but this process does yield certain clues. For example, we can identify major formants of sound transitions: interruption: an abrupt attenuation of the sound level or a brusque change in its qualities; emergence: a brusque jump to a higher sound level; dissolve: a gradual, almost imperceptible change in sound quality.
- 21 For example, Goffman (1973) observes that “when two individuals are alone in a space, the desire fo (...)
36Lastly, we must also consider the variable nature of an ambiance’s characteristics to which a system may give rise over time – and this constitutes one of the difficulties of conducting an analysis in terms of ambiance. These variations are due to uses (movement, temporary modes of usage) as well as “natural” conditions (illumination, weather conditions, etc.). Time is an essential dimension of ambiance as important as the permanence of the built forms. It is thus worth identifying the various possible configurations over time and searching for invariant and variant formants. For example, we may consider the acoustic reverberation of an outdoor space as almost invariant, even though the sound sources vary in nature and number. We believe that locating formants means identifying certain aspects that may be more or less invariant and which emerge to our eyes, ears and bodies and thereby characterise our perception of the space and the objects within it. The elements that form this context may vary over time and the overall system causes them to vary within certain limits as well. For example, the presence of the public is an important contextual element in that the public acts on the light and sound conditions as well as on the relationships between its members.21
37We will use a sample excerpt of a description to illustrate the proposed categories. While it is true that changes in ambiances, thresholds and transitions have been commented on at length and allow us to identify what forms the transition, we can also qualify ambiance as a unified field, as we will show below. During an itinerary conducted with a researcher in the underground areas of the Louvre, a user remarked, when looking at the floor: “There is a luxurious quality, something clean and totally smooth, you know… that marble that you can slide on, which is much nicer” (comparison with Les Halles). The comment was followed by the person’s assessment of their own pleasure: “I love sliding over materials. I don’t like materials that are rough and that stop you… I wonder if it’s not that way on purpose…” In these comments, “that you can slide on” accounts directly for the experience of a floor that is the opposite of materials that “are rough and that stop you.” Several categories of discourse intermingle in these few words: that the floor is seen as made of marble (reference and error in judgement regarding the material), and that this fulfils an image of luxury, cleanliness and smoothness in fact refers to certain representations that we can study. That this is deemed pleasant refers to assessments, and lastly, whether this was intended by the designer represents yet another meaning attached to the sensory formant of sliding. The essential formant is that the floor is perfectly smooth and that you can slide on it (as noted by a number of other people, some of whom said, for example, that they would gladly roller-skate on it), and that this property is made perceptible by reflections of light and tactile sensations. The following table summarises the first two registers of description of the floor as a system.
Table 2.
|
Architectural form and physical properties
|
Sensory formants
|
|
The floor as a surface
Granulometry of the texture
Characteristics of the light reflections
|
Smooth visual appearance
Light reflections
Very smooth floor
Dragging footsteps (acoustic indicator)
|
38It is true that these elements are rare in most of the commentaries, which at times can seem even banal and lacking in any significant evidence. And yet, we can draw certain expressions from them and establish certain correlations between the categories of ordinary perception and the spatial specialist’s perspective, because we can refine our capacity for on-site observation and the tools we use to account for it. An analysis of formants leads to an aesthetic analysis based on the direct relationship to the objects. This enables the shift from an architectural description to a precise sensory description that highlights aspects of an “ecological” analysis of the forms, meaning one that considers the actual contextual conditions of our perceptions.
39But while the ordinary descriptions do reveal certain formants, the researcher’s expert observation, which focuses on the light and sound structure at a specific moment, can identify the significant formants in a given context. Guidelines to help orient this on-site observation in its qualification of configurations emerge as a result. The notions of “sound effect” (1990, 1995) and “framed views” (1990) may thus be classified within the category of formants. A sound effect may thus prove a decisive element at a given moment, just as a luminous effect or a framed view may give form to the visible landscape in a given situation.
40Visual and luminous formants can be classified under the following four registers:
-
Point of view: The topology of a system generates typified points of view. Photographic criteria such as a high angle (a dominant view) or a low angle (a dominated view) can help characterise a position, with the awareness that a fine gradation must allow us to qualify different situations. Similarly, frontal views (face to face), axial views and side views determine the relationship to the space and the elements of its luminous environment.
-
Direction and diffusion of the light: The second criterion concerns the diffusive or directional nature of the propagation of light. It entails the presence or absence of shadows that are more or less defined – something that helps characterise the place. The direction of the light reveals more than just the light itself; it also reveals surfaces and their texture.
-
- 22 For that matter, we speak about photopic (daytime) vision and scotopic (nighttime) vision.
- 23 Luminance should not be confused with “luminosity”, which is an attribute of the visual sensation t (...)
Luminance and contrast in surfaces: Visual perception varies according to lighting conditions,22 but the nature of surfaces that receive the light (texture, orientation and colour) is also decisive. The luminance relationships23 between lit surfaces are determinant to the human eye. The notion of contrast yielded by states of luminance plays an essential role in our sensitivity to light, as it allows us to distinguish objects (through delineation) and forms. For that matter, in phenomenological terms, the perception of light may depend on the density of the public (which has a varying level of importance in the visual field of walls and light sources). This reminds us that different densities of occupancy can significantly alter the context.
-
Mobility of visual objects: The relationship between a mobile and an immobile object represents a significant component. The visual display yielded by the built space impacts how the mobility of objects is emphasised. Thus, among the observations to describe configurations, movement is a significant indicator – and the public is hardly ever immobile.
41Sound formants essentially concern perceptions of animate objects and are tied to the coupling of emission and propagation. The notion of effect describes the relationships between sources and spaces well, but for there to be an effect, a certain number of elementary conditions must be met, and it is at this level that we find formants. Formants in the world of sound can be categorised in three registers: one of sound material (a sound object), one of sound space (propagation), and one of time (modalities of a sound’s production over time).
-
- 24 This is the listening to “sound objects”, as Schaeffer calls them (1966).
Sound material: Sound material concerns listening as such without necessarily attending to the meaning of sounds.24 This register concerns the relationship of sounds to one another within a composition, to the effects tied to the arrangements of sounds in terms of rhythm, intensity, attack and extinction, texture, distribution over time, the relationship between figure and background, etc.
-
Sound spaces: The sounds emitted in a space are filtered by the space; therefore, we are dealing with relationships between sounds and a space, as well as a listening point. The sound effects of a propagation play with the scales of near and far, as well as provenance, like the effects of absorption, reverberation, amplification, filtering, interruption, the relationship of near and far, etc.
-
Sound times: Sound is articulated in relation to an experience of time; this is a matter of the temporal modalities of sound production that give form to a sound environment: presence, absence, appearance, disappearance, diversity, repetition, permanence, variation, accident, etc.
42Insofar as we hold that perception always involves practices that entail perceptual orientations and social interactions, we must now confront the third level of analysis.
43The third phase of our analysis focuses primarily on the relationship of ambiances to practices in the public space. Put another way, it concerns mutual perceptions or accessibilities (visual and auditory) that translate into actions and behaviours. Formalities both entail codes of use and account for the public nature of a space, with the awareness that the space takes shape through customary practice and shared usages. Starting from the fact that mutual relations are regulated in situations of copresence, we will now consider the behaviours relative to the public nature of a situation in order to look at the social dimension of ambiances. We hypothesise that the spatial systems and the sensory context activate the usage codes of places. We term this stage of the analysis the study of formalities, in that it concerns the formation of micro-social relationships in the public space. The term ‘formality’ refers to the forms that must always be included in relationships in order to have a social dimension; in other words, this stage mainly concerns the symbolically expressive nature of the public space.
- 25 The author made other such observations: “passengers in trains who sit too close together sometimes (...)
44It involves looking at how city dwellers’ skills are activated by physical systems and the sensory formants that characterise them, how they examine forms and usage codes, or offer specific opportunities. There is a relative degree of conformity in public conduct, but under certain conditions, the margins of action for managing relations may vary according to spatial and environmental factors. One of Goffman’s observations about train lounge cars can serve as an illustration of this concept: “When there is a crowd, passengers maximise their ‘comfort’ by turning their chairs to the exact direction in which, when they look straight ahead, they see the fewest number of people possible.”25 The change in the direction in which one looks offered by a system such as a swivelling seat allows people not to have to observe one another.
45This issue of the ways in which we visually appear in the public space has been highlighted in particular in the approaches to interactions:
- 26 Quéré et Brezger (1992) thus asks the question: what does it mean to be observable? He recalls the (...)
“To be observable presupposes appearing, or perhaps, more precisely, appearing in the public space. This act of appearing is generally modulated depending on the control exercised over it by the person appearing, the texture of the environment of its reception, and the predominant visual orientations in this environment (because appearing is related to both producing and seeing)”.26
- 27 Arendt (1961).
- 28 All the remarks summarised above are based on a visual register. The notion of representation is in (...)
- 29 See Chelkoff and Thibaud (1992).
46Hannah Arendt underscored this public dimension of perception.27 The management of gaze and body posture, and ultimately the shared definition of a situation, are thus essential, because these are the means by which individuals manifest themselves to one another and adjust their actions to one another.28 However, the fact that these definitions and analyses (as is generally the case with respect to the public space) prioritise the visual dimension, metaphorically29 or through empirical observation, may be open to question.
- 30 See the research we have conducted, Chelkoff (1988).
47The public space is particularly invoked as a place of exposure, both visually and auditorily.30 Sound proxemics sometimes subvert customarily envisaged distances according to their essentially visual and tactile aspects. In terms of the phonic construction of the public space, the sound distances for speech intelligibility are observable by ear, as are the distances for perceiving the sources of sounds such as footsteps and distinctive objects to be identified, depending on the situation. These clues help us identify the relationships of near and far that characterise the spatial scale in terms of sound, the relationship between sight and sound, and the major masking relationships in the sonic construction of the public space.
48We must nevertheless consider the diversity of actions in the public space to take on the register of forms of use, which is very broad; this contributes to their generally indeterminate character.
49There are two categories of observations concerning the register of “formalities” in descriptions: the perception of others as an expression of the ambiant identity of a place and their active modes of use (in terms of movement as well as sound [exchanges] and vision).
-
The perception of others is indicative of certain relationships between the public and the place that include noticeable behaviours and modes of auditory or visual communication. Observations of the following type fall within this category: “It’s weird over there. When I watch the folks for a little, I’m under the impression they’re walking. They’re definitely walking… They’re very quiet over there. There were a lot of people over there a short while ago… It’s odd. Everything slowed down all of a sudden. There are fewer people. It has all slowed down. No, they’re walking. They seem rather… curious. They’re looking at the stores!” So, for example, walking (without a precise destination) or walking more decisively becomes perceptible through the public’s forms of movement. And the wandering or strolling of a visiting public does not escape the astute observer’s eye. The public seems to adopt a common approach in a certain kind of space that seems free of all constraints, meaning that people spend their free time there, free from outdoor climatic conditions, limitations to their movements, or the impact of urban noise on their communication. As a security guard at the entrance of a public building says (in the space beneath the Louvre pyramid), she finds it to be a place where “the crowd does not make any sense… the crowd doesn’t make any sense. People mingle, don’t know where they’re going, wonder, turn around, bump into one another… people go by each other and go by each other again, passing in front of and behind each other.” “Feet dragging. You can hear how tired some of the visitors are, the ones who can’t take it anymore.” These are the observations of someone who is highly familiar with the place; she works there every day and interacts with this wandering public who are a clientele for her. This observation evokes two interesting phenomena; it reveals that movements and flows apparently have to have a meaning, an order, something that is undoubtedly more perceptible in a street, for example, where flows are pushed to the sides in the presence of motorised traffic. It also shows that the “tourist” nature of the place yields a perceptible, visible wandering on the part of the public. In fact, walking in such a place means being able to cross it in all directions, as the floor area is free of all constraints compared to the urban space on the ground level. The walking formalities express this availability. As Gibson emphasises (1986), individuals constitute particular visual objects within a closed topological area who initiate their own movements, and the most radical change in the visual field is the fact of disappearing or appearing (mobility of visual objects). The moving public’s relationship to the static built space feeds a sensory, visual perception and at the same time, it characterises the capacities of a spatial system to host such events. When a person seems to disappear between two columns, this event is observable and becomes significant because it is isolated. This constitutes a formant. But in terms of public formalities, this type of spatial system specifically engages acts of motion that accentuate, defer or delete exposure on a “stage” through relations of luminous visibilities. Movement, sound and light can be considered to characterise a spatial system that modulates formalities of appearance or, conversely, of disappearance that lead to our blending into the scene.
-
With regard to the register of formalities, the active relationships to the space essentially concern mobility and the management of positions: the possibility of passing through, attraction, repulsion, avoidance and detour, as expressed in the comments. In this respect, the modes of movement are major indicators of the forms of usage for these places.
50Thus, people encountering one another is an event that accompanies an absolutely ordinary movement in a street or any other urban space in which people manage a mutual lack of attention in their face-to-face encounters. It involves possibilities of “escape” (visual, auditory or otherwise) that ensure a lack of sensory attention: looking elsewhere, acting as if one doesn’t hear, and so on. A mutual exposure can be met with the avoidance of eye contact when lateral visual opportunities present themselves: “It feels empty when no-one is here. It makes the passageway between the buildings big. Here we are in the large galleria… You can look at the store windows if you don’t feel like looking at… the people you encounter.” In such a case, we can observe the visual offerings on which people’s gazes may fall.
51The modes of remaining in a space are also indicative of formalities of usage that constitute the social environment of a place: sitting down and waiting provide significant examples of this. Sitting down in the public space requires a minimum of spatial or ambient availability (light, sound and climate exposure conditions). Staying or waiting, whether seated or standing, is not an indifferent process. There may be various reasons why someone decides to stop that lead that person to make themselves highly visible or not at all. Gehl (1987) recalls the “edge effect”: thresholds caused by certain situations in which individuals sit down in a public space. He explains that these are places with less visual exposure than a totally open space. Both visual protection and openness make these “thresholds” preferred spots for people to sit. At times, people’s poses also express the reason for their sitting down (meeting someone, resting, etc.) and its duration. In this respect we can examine a spatial system or form in terms of the type of action it offers in given ambient conditions.
52If we come back to the example of the comment about the floor in the underground spaces in the Louvre, we can add a third column for the level of formalities to which the spatial system refers, both in terms of expression and action.
Table 3.
|
Architectural form and physical properties
|
Sensory formants
|
Formalities of usage
|
|
The floor as a surface
Granulometry of the texture
Characteristics of the light reflections
|
Smooth visual appearance
Light reflections
Very smooth floor
Dragging footsteps (acoustic indicator)
|
Feet dragging (movement)
Freedom of movement (wandering)
A lingering public
|
53In terms of the definition of a spatial and environmental system, this third category of “formalities” helps specify the role played by the system in managing the public space by relating it to the engaged sensory context. The level of the analysis of “formalities” concerns the relations of co-naturality that may arise between spatial and social forms. Let us provide yet another example using a “backstage passage” type of system. Moving through a “backstage passage” takes one out of a space or onto a stage. This corridor connects places of different kinds in terms of the behaviours they demand. As such, it is an intermediate space that allows us to adapt or adjust our behaviour. A backstage passage helps formalise a category of action; it corresponds to a certain type of behaviour. But certain conditions must be met for a system to function as a backstage passage. The luminous formants include darkening and contrast of the light; the acoustic formants include interruption and muting; the narrowing refers to a spatial and kinetic formant; and the shortness of the passageway in terms of the time spent within it characterises this type of transition. We may thus identify and design a formal system in a precise and comprehensive manner.
54We have succinctly defined the three analytical categories used to process the information gleaned from user comments and our observations, and we have presented several examples of discourse in which these categories can be identified. We will now provide examples from the lighting domain to illustrate the type of convergence possible between what we have designated under the categories of forms, formants and formalities.
- 31 A notion that we developed in our thesis on urban planning titled “The urbanity of the senses – the (...)
55The criteria for analysing visual space may appear clear or accessible because these forms are more stable over time than sound phenomena. Thus, the geometric attributes of the space and the materials around us can be described in an “objective” and elementary manner (surface, axiality, direction, construction, etc.). But the ease of analysis of visual space is merely apparent, as the mobility of our gaze and of our heads introduce a wide latitude of positions or viewpoints, as does a subject’s perceptual orientation. In visual terms, these relations of visibility induce the spatial and technical systems that we can analyse in relation to their lighting conditions. We have termed certain configurations “visual displays”31 in which formants that express spatial geometry and lighting properties construct specific visibility situations. The phenomenal and social aspects of these visual displays help characterise the city. We must nevertheless underscore that they are not always reciprocal; visual relations are not systematically symmetrical in the public space.
- 32 Arnheim (1981 p. 264), citing Goethe on the Verona Arena.
- 33 Arnheim (ibid).
56The notion of visual display came to us as the result of our urban observations and comments taken from certain texts on ways of seeing the public. The following comment on the Verona Arena is revealing of both a spatial system and a way of seeing: “Through his art, the architect has yielded the simplest crater possible, within which people become its ornamentation”.32 It would appear here that the visual display of the public, which is at once distant, panoramic and massive in scale, characterises the form of the arena. A second observation of the spiral system of the Guggenheim Museum in New York is also significant: “He sees the other visitors as a distant image of people looking at images who provide him with a spectacle of part of the crowd to which he himself belongs.”33 The spiral invites us to look at the paintings hung throughout the museum, but when we look back, our gaze produces a self-reflecting view of the public.
57We can thus try to comprehend the modes of structuring mutual visibilities or how specific visual displays are modelled, be they sought out or avoided. We will provide examples of some of them and indicate their principal characteristics in terms of the built systems and their lighting, the sensory formants that constitute them on the perceptual level, and the micro-social formalities that are likely to be enacted in the process.
Table 4.
|
A. Outlines
|
|
Physical system
|
Sensory formants
|
Public formalities
|
|
Counterlight produces this type of visual situation: light illuminates an object from the opposite side from which we see it. The eye adapts to this backlighting with varying degrees of effort, depending on the overall light levels. The effect here is heightened by the photograph and should thus be relativised.
The windows and sky provide a high-key background. Likewise, when the lighting is even, light-toned surfaces (floors and walls) can accentuate the outlining. In the West, clothing is often dark.
The viewpoints overlooking a situation from above offer an almost flattened perspective of the space, in which individuals become spots that move against the brightness of the background (here, the floor). The public, seen as a mass or as single objects, becomes a surface that suggests a “painting-like view”.
|
The outlining designates a particularly contrastive relationship between figure and background that produces a clear distinction between the different visual levels or elements juxtaposed. This effect challenges our vision by removing part of the visual information. The contrast is yielded by the different levels of luminosity on the object and the background. The silhouette view emphasises the contours of the objects and individuals in relation to the elements that characterise its form. This luminous formant is the opposite of the shading or blending formant.
|
In an interpersonal relationship, the discomfort due to the uneven lighting results in an accommodating adjustment for our eyes. A dark silhouette can elicit insecurity or signify a loss of identity (when the silhouette is outlined without us being able to see a face or an expression). The backlighting creates a kind of anonymity for those who stand in counterlight and overexposure for anyone facing them.
|
|
B. Overexposure
|
|
Physical system
|
Sensory formants
|
Public formalities
|
|
Overexposure highlights one object over others. It can apply to an object, a monument, an individual or a place. The act of exposure relies on a spatial and luminous system that highlights the objects presented within its field. It also involves a light that is not even, a lack of continuity between lit and shadow areas, an alternative kind of lighting, or a difference in lighting due to the city dweller’s movements that by extension define the exposure’s duration. Some spatial systems enhance this phenomenon, depending on the direction of the lighting and the reflective surfaces.
|
This is the opposite relationship to an outline resulting from counterlight. Not only does the form stand out, but it is illuminated and fully visible. The exposed object must stand out against the background for it to be overexposed, overly lit, or unique and isolated. Lighting a specific object more than others and neutralising the perception of its surroundings emphasises what everyone can and should see.
- Overlooking viewpoint - Bright background - Projected shadow pattern - Isolated, detached, mobile object
|
Overexposure is a way to differentiate and prioritise visual objects. In the primary sense of the term, exposure is the action of showing something. When people make an appointment to meet in a public place, they will choose a place where they can best be seen, where they can “display” themselves. It refers to a mode of intervention that renders observable, that presents whatever kind of object for people to see. Sennett (1992) emphasised a fear of exposure as a feature of the modern city, which thus raises questions about the capacity for overexposure in certain spaces.
|
|
C. Filtering
|
|
Physical system
|
Sensory formants
|
Public formalities
|
|
In physical terms, this concerns the relative accentuation or attenuation of certain wavelengths in a light source. Photometric filtering is caused by a device that intercepts certain rays of light, thus causing changes in intensity, colour and the direction of the light through refraction. The filter contains the idea of “passing through.” This mechanism can be natural (atmospheric, due to fog, vegetation or foliage-related, etc.), constructed (translucent or transparent walls such as stained-glass windows, mashrabiya and Japanese screens), or optical (photographic filters or lighting gels used in theatre). Halos and colouring phenomena are examples of light being filtered.
The ability of artificial light to render colours varies depending on its source. Similarly, the reflectiveness and colour of surfaces (walls or floors) change the luminous ambiance.
|
Softening light by filtering it attenuates or eliminates shadows and produces a relative continuity or even a neutralisation that visually flattens all elements on the same plane. We say that the light is veiled, dappled or softened. We can distinguish between several types of visual filters depending on the relationship between light and shadow: we call the light veiled when it is uniform and directionless, and dappled when it is fragmented into small spots of light and dark.
|
The built system that includes filtering affects its visual accessibility, as it suppresses certain aspects of the reference signal.
For example, a filtering system allows someone to see without being seen. Visual reciprocity is not guaranteed (as with a mashrabiya or reflective glass). In this respect, wearing dark glasses offers us a significant example, as it renders our gaze in public anonymous and non-reciprocal.
In semantic terms, the filtering of individuals or information, the control of movement, and diffusion expresses this notion as a restriction or an act of censorship.
|
58One of the goals of our research is to advance our core knowledge of the relevance of a notion such as public space. It also defines the tools based on such knowledge and applies them to the contemporary urban world which is in the process of forming according to criteria that are relevant to the design of this type of place.
59In analysing public spaces, we can articulate the forms, the environment and the capacity of actions or mutual perception to which built systems may give rise. This identifies significant configurations that demonstrate that the public space is not a homogeneous entity. By defining the elementary forms on three levels (forms, formants and formalities), we believe it is possible to establish operative concepts for analysis, planning and design. The requalification of public spaces cannot be accomplished merely on the basis of images and appearances; its shaping requires tools for thinking about the various sensory qualities inherent in the cohabitation of practices in specific contexts.
60We pursue several objectives through this approach: to address and use all the senses in design, as well as define a qualitative, praxiological approach to built forms and urban spaces. The analysis we have outlined above considers forms through the processes that make them perceptible and render such a study effective. The elements we have described consider the dimensions of the environment in an attempt to articulate forms and usages. We consider them to be “operators of forms,” meaning operative elements in everyday experience and the design of forms. Do the three registers we have specified help guide this process of formation in the design process?
61First of all, they open architectural design to all the sensory domains concerned by its actions. They also suggest an approach to forms that is not strictly limited to a judgment of the beautiful; it instead concerns a living relationship to the built world. In studies proposing transformations (the management of public spaces and development projects), such studies can help define the project criteria by specifying the ambiance-related characteristics and the forms that it can strengthen or rely on by managing the potential of the public nature of spaces. Field analyses based on surveys and observations are always necessary before the start of a project in order to assess the capacities for transformation in terms of a given problem. Too often limited to functional or typological and morphological approaches, these analyses remain unsatisfactory and do not articulate all the various dimensions. Because any architectural project enacts specific systems and environments, the design process should start as soon as possible with thinking about the sensory formants and formalities that may come into play in relation to the solutions and thus work to ensure the possibility of a qualitative approach. We know that describing (a state) and designing (a future) are not the same thing, but the principles we have described can help us establish design references by defining sensory criteria that apply to existing or imaginary systems. These references (criteria and systems) can feed into architectural design by specifying the levels of qualification. This process, which is not as easy as it seems, given the large number of variables and the changing nature of situations, requires a fairly precise and complete description (that articulates the three levels) to be validated and thus to establish design references. That being said, we should not view this as an applied mechanism, rather as a dynamic representational logic that helps us to explore how we imagine space: the spatial systems must be “extracted”, or extrapolated, from reality, as well as imagined. The designation of the architectural form’s elements can be used to specify the ambiance criteria by merging an aesthetics of sensory formants with the establishment of the public space. This approach leads to the envisioning of formal elements and their definition in relation to the challenge of a design process suited to the object, which here is the public nature of the spaces that characterises most urban situations. This type of methodological tool also generates a dialogue between the various dimensions and actors of the development process who, when it comes to the question of public space, often refer more to established models than to qualitative criteria. It offers architectural programmes the possibility of engaging in a dialogue with partners and overcoming the summary definition of general “roles” by addressing in detail the purposes of the development and their characteristic sensory qualities, which cannot be detached from social practices involving spaces and time. Thus, the value of these analyses lies in drawing on situations that can serve as references both for their architectural characteristics and their qualitative criteria. These criteria can help define the main goals and challenges of the architectural project, understood both as a built form and as a process based on ambiances.