The Shape of Urban Experience: A Reevaluation of Lynch's Five Elements

Abstract

In this paper I attempt to develop a comprehensive, robust model of urban morphology from a phenomenological and behavioral perspective. I do so by comparing the findings of two extensive empirical studies of users' experiences of urban public space: one primarily examining people's perceptions in relation to the practical task of wayfinding, and the other my own research into people's playful behavior in Melbourne, London, Berlin, and New York. Lynch himself called attention to “our delight … in ambiguity, mystery … surprise and disorder”, but little is known about what role specific spatial conditions might have in framing such experiences, or indeed about the diversity of impractical activities people actually pursue in urban spaces. With this paper I seek to fill these gaps. Three elements common to both studies (paths, nodes, and edges) describe the fundamental topological structure of space in relation to movement and visibility. I focus on the four spatial elements which differ between the two models (landmarks, districts, thresholds, and props). Field observations illustrate ways in which the latter two spatial elements frame particular noninstrumental, ‘playful’ experiences which are characteristic of the urban condition: spontaneous encounters with strangers; unfamiliar and risky bodily experiences; distraction, and interpreting new meanings in the urban fabric.

On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation

“…This subjective selection of spatial references implies that the cognitive abilities of the observer play an important role in selecting appropriate features for reference (Presson and Montello 1988;Stevens 2006), that is, our knowledge, thoughts and preconceptions shape what we perceive and finally select as reference for making decisions. The cognitive processes involved in understanding and reasoning about a spatial scene include knowing, thinking, learning, judging, and problem solving (Montello and Freundschuh 2005).…”

What Makes Inner City High Density Liveable? Insight from Residents in Brisbane, Australia

“…While the study reports on the experiences of a small number of high density residents living in one city in Australia thereby precluding generalisability of its findings, it captures the local knowledge and place-based cultures of everyday use for this group of ICHD residents providing insight into their lived experience. Such results tend to be more relevant and are more likely to be actioned than abstract generalities about liveability requirements (Myers, 1987;National Research Council, 2002;Stevens, 2006). Their experiences are also likely to have relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere without having to discount for local differences.…”

Kajian Citra Kota Dalam Branding City Beautiful Malang

“…Tulisan ini didukung riset sederhana dengan menggunakan data hasil observasi terhadap sejumlah elemen kota di Kota Malang menurut kinerja Lynch (Hu & Chen, 2018;Stevens, 2006). Penelitian dilakukan dengan metode dan analisis deskriptif kualitatif.…”