Developing a Mechanism for Experience of Dwelling Based on the Affordances of Boundary spaces Around the House: Comparative Analysis of Experts' Viewpoints and Residents' Lived Experience

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate of Architecture, Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor,School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Boundary spaces, as the context of human interaction, can provide a theoretical tool for analyzing the experience of inhabitation. These spaces, which mediate between private and public realms, play a critical role in shaping everyday practices, perceptions, and social relationships. Understanding the relationship between boundary spaces and inhabitation requires, first, recognizing the spatial, social, and symbolic capacities of boundary spaces and, second, clearly defining inhabitation not merely as physical occupancy, but as a lived and experiential process. In this regard, inhabitation is understood as an ongoing interaction between residents, spatial configurations, and contextual conditions.

Situated within the naturalistic paradigm and employing a qualitative research approach, this study aims to develop a conceptual model of the mechanisms underlying the experience of inhabitation based on the shaping factors of boundary spaces surrounding the home. In this framework, inhabitation is conceptualized as a dynamic, process-oriented, and context-dependent phenomenon that evolves over time. It is formed through two key spatial mechanisms including differentiation (spatial distinction) and subdivision (personalization), through which individuals and households appropriate space according to their needs, identities, and everyday practices. Boundary spaces act as mediators of these mechanisms, enabling a discorse between individual and collective domains.

From a human-centered perspective, boundary spaces are modeled as a multi-layered system within the residential environment, structured across three analytical dimensions: physical, social, and semantic. The physical dimension addresses aspects such as spatial configuration, scale, material characteristics, permeability, visibility, and accessibility. The social dimension focuses on patterns of interaction, degrees of social control, collective behaviors, and informal regulations that emerge within boundary spaces. The semantic dimension relates to meanings, symbolic values, sense of belonging, and residents’ subjective perceptions and interpretations of space. Together, these dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for understanding how boundary spaces actively shape the experience of inhabitation.

To examine the influence of shaping factors within each dimension, a nine-point Saaty-scale questionnaire was completed by eight academic experts in architecture and urban studies. The collected data were analyzed using the Analytic Network Process (ANP), which allows for the identification of interdependencies and feedback relationships among factors. Through this process, the relative weight of each shaping factor was determined, resulting in an initial model of the inhabitation process based on expert judgment and theoretical insight.

In the subsequent phase, the same set of factors was evaluated by neighborhood residents using a Likert-scale questionnaire. The resulting weights were normalized to enable systematic comparison with the expert-based results. By examining the correlation between the weighted factors derived from expert opinions and those emerging from residents’ lived experiences—while also accounting for contextual influences such as socio-cultural and environmental conditions—the final model for analyzing the experience of inhabitation was developed.

The proposed model serves as a theoretical and analytical tool that emphasizes the interactive and relational role of boundary spaces in the inhabitation process. Rather than being treated as passive or residual zones, boundary spaces are understood as active and generative elements that mediate spatial distinction and personalization, thereby playing a central role in shaping, sustaining, and interpreting the lived experience of inhabitation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Aboualy, S., Mansour, Y., & El-Fiki, S. (2023). Transformations and appropriations of the in-between spaces in Cairo. Open House International, 48(1), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-07-2021-0135
Aghalatifi, A., & Isa, H. (2018). Impression of meaning of home from physical transformation in Contemporary Era of Tehran [Barrasi-ye ta’sir-paziri-ye mafhum-e khane az tahavvolāt-e kalbodi-ye ān dar dourān-e mo‘āser dar shahr-e Tehran]. Journal of Fine Art: Architecture and Urban Planning, 23(4), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2018.219937.671690 (in Persian)
Alexander, Ch. (2014). A City is not a Tree [Shahr derakht nist]. (2ed). Tehran: Arman shahr. (in Persian)
Ali Niyaie Motlagh, A., Shakouri, R., & Einifar, A. R. (2020). Explanation of the Liminality Concept in the Inside-Outside Dialectic of Boundaries in Architecture [Tabyin-e mafhūm-e āsānegi dar bar-ham-konsh-e dorun va birun-e mahdudeh-hā dar me‘māri]. Journal of Fine Art: Architecture and Urban Planning, 25(2), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2020.304505.672477 (in Persian)
Askarizad, R., & Safari, H. (2020). The influence of social interactions on the behavioral patterns of the people in urban spaces (case study: The pedestrian zone of Rasht Municipality Square, Iran). Cities, 101, 102687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102687
Attar Abbasi, Z., Einifar, A. R., Foroutan, M., & Soroush, M. M. (2020). Investigating the mechanism of the void's physical-semantic effect on social interactions [Barrasi-ye sāz-o-kār-e asargozāri-ye vizhegi-hā-ye kalbodi–ma‘nāyi-ye tahi bar ta‘āmelāt-e ejtemā‘i]. Haft Hesar Journal of Environmental Studies, 9(33), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.29252/hafthesar.9.33.43 (in Persian)
Badiei, N. (2002). Facades: The Border of Connection [Jeddāreh-hā, harim-e vasl]. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran]. Electronic Dissertations and Theses University of Tehran (ETDs). https://doi.org/ 10.30495/hoviatshahr.2021.17426 Bonakdar, A., & Gharai, F. (2011). Paradigm shifts in urban design principles: From physical, social, and perceptual components toward a placemaking approach [Taghir-e paradigm-ha dar osul-e tarahi-ye shahri; az mo’allefeh-ha-ye kalbodi, ejtema‘i va edraki be rahyaft-e makan-saz]. Journal of Architecture and Urban planning, (6), 51–70. https://doi.org/ 10.30480/aup.2011.172 (in Persian)
Bemanian, M. R., Dehghan, N., Zare, Z., & Yeganeh, M. (2021). Investigating the Relationship between Legibility and the Rate of Territorial Behavior in Urban Parks [Tabyin-e rabete-ye khānāyi-ye fazā bā mizān-e raftār-e qalamro-pāyi-ye shahrvandān dar pārk-hā-ye shahri]. Hoviate Shahr, 15(48), 5-20. https://doi.org/ 10.30495/hoviatshahr.2021.17426 (in Persian)
Browning, C. R., & Soller, B. (2014). Moving beyond neighborhood: Activity spaces and ecological networks as contexts for youth development, Cityscape (Washington, DC), 16(1), 165-196. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9416924 Brunec, I. K., Moscovitch, M., & Barense, M. D. (2018). Boundaries shape cognitive representations of spaces and events, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(7), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.013
Choolen,H., Meeters, J.(2012). Editorial special issue: house, home and dwelling. J Hous and the Built Environ 27,1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9247-4
Chiesi, L., & Costa, P. (2023). How Design Is Appropriated: Understanding Habitation through the Observation of Situated Behavior. Social Sciences, 12(6), 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060319
Einifar, A. R., & Aghalatifi, A. (2011). Concept of Territory in Residential Complexes: A Comparative Study of two High-rise and Low-rise Complexes in Tehran [Mafhūm-e qalamrow dar majmu‘eh-hā-ye maskuni; motāle‘eh-ye moghāyesé‘i-ye do majmu‘eh-ye maskuni dar sath va dar ertefā‘ dar Tehrān]. Journal of Fine Art: Architecture and Urban Planning, 47(3), 17-28. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22286020.1390.3.47.2.8 (in Persian)
Eslami Mojaveri, N. (2023). Study of environment-behavior in three types of the urban context of Tehran-Comparative analysis of the Chizar, Narmak, and Khazane neighborhoods’ context using survey and space syntax methods. Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/N41XLO
Gharavi Alkhansari, M. (2017). Analysis of Potentials in Architectural Flexibility [Guneh-bandi va tahlil-e ghābeliyat-hā dar anvā‘-e ruykard-hā-ye en‘etāf-paziri]. Soffeh, 27(76), 37-54. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.1683870.1396.27.1.3.3 (in Persian) Hensel, M. U. (2011). Performance-oriented Architecture and the Spatial and Material Organisation Complex. Rethinking the Definition, Role and Performative Capacity of the Spatial and Material Boundaries of the Built Environment, FORMakademisk, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.125
Gharavi Alkhansari, M. (2011). The Interaction Between Stability and Dynamism for Develping an Architectural Flexibilty, With Analysis of Some Cases of Contemporary Flexible Housings [Ta‘āmol-e pāyāyi va puyāyi dar en‘etāf paziri ye asar e me‘māri, bā tahlil e nemuneh hāyi az maskan e en‘etāf pazir e mo‘āser]. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran]. Electronic Dissertations and Theses University of Tehran (ETDs). (in Persian)
Groat, L., &Wang, D. (2011). Architectural research methods [Ravesh-hā-ye tahqiq dar me‘māri] (A. Einifar, Trans). (5ed). Tehran: University of Tehran Press. (Original work published 2002) (in Persian)
İnan, F. S. (2019). In-between spaces: The METU Faculty of Architecture building complex ]Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University (Turkey)[. Electronic Dissertations and Theses Middle East Technical University (Turkey) (ETDs).
Jalili, M., Einifar, A. R., Madani, R., & Judd, B. (2020). Gated Communities Gated Communities: Genesis, Proliferation, Types and Consequences [Mahalleh-hā-ye mahsur: peydāyesh, gostarsh, gooneh-hā va payāmad-hā]. Journal of Iran Architecture and Urbanism (JIAU), 11(1), 249-267. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2020.228678.1401 (in Persian)
Jalili, M., Einifar, A. R., Madani, R., & Judd, B. (2021). The Effects of Residential Communities’ Physical Boundaries on Residents’ Perception of Fear of Crime: A Comparison Between Gated, Perceived Gated, and Non-Gated Communities in Ekbatan Neighborhood, Tehran [Ta’sir-e mahdudeh-ye kalbodi-ye majmu‘eh-hā-ye maskuni bar tars az jorm-e sākenān: motāle‘eh-ye moredi; moghāyeseh-ye majmu‘eh-hā-ye maskuni-ye mahsur, mahsur-e nemādin va gheyr-e mahsur dar shahrak-e Ekbātān]. Journal of Iran Architecture and Urbanism (JIAU), 12(2), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2021.196767.1273 (in Persian)
Iossifova, D., & Kostenwein, D. (2024). Urban Borderlands: Difference, Inequality, and Spatio-Temporal In-Betweenness in Cities. Urban Planning, 9. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.8288
Keramati, G. (2008). Rereading the Coexistence of Soft Space and Hard Space in Iranian Architecture [Bāzkhāni-ye ham-neshini-ye narm-fazā va sakht-fazā dar me‘māri-ye irāni] [Doctoral dissertation, Islamic Azad University]. Electronic Dissertations and Theses Islamic Azad University (ETDs). (in Persian)
Kiaei, M., Soltanzadeh, H., & Heidari, A. A. (2019). Measure the flexibility of the spatial system using space syntax (Case Study: Houses in Qazvin) [Sanjesh-e en‘etāf-paziri-ye nezām-e fazāyi bā estefādeh az teknik-e chideman-e fazā (motāle‘eh-ye moredi: Khāneh-hā-ye shahr-e Qazvin)]. Bagh-e-Nazar, 16(71), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2019.86874 (in Persian)
Iturra Muñoz, L. (2015). The woven city: exploring the experience of time-space in residential habitats from a visual ethnographic approach. Man In India, 95 (1), 73-81. https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/134502
Lim, J. P. Ng, V. (2018). Tracing liminality: A multidisciplinary spatial construct. Journal of Engineering and Architecture, 6(1), 76–90. 10.15640/jea.v6n1a8
Mirshahzadeh, S., Eslami, S. G., & Einifar, A. R. (2011). The Role of the Boundary-Connecting Space in the Process of Meaning Creation: Assessing the Meaning-Making Potential of Space using a Semiotic Approach [Naghsh-e fazā-ye marzi–peyvandi dar farāyand-e āfarinesh-e ma‘nā (arzyābi-ye tavān-e ma‘nā-āfarini-ye fazā be komak-e ruykard-e neshāneh-shenāsi)]. Hoviate Shahr, 5(9), 5-16. (in Persian)
Moeini, M., & Einifar, A. (2012). Impact of In-between Spaces on Residential Environment Quality A Case Study on Public Housing in Kerman. Architecture and Urban Development, 1(3), 29-36. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22287396.2012.2.1.4.3 Mortazavi, H., Bemanian, M. R., & Ansari, M. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of Semantic Values in Liminal Spaces of Traditional Houses (Case Study: Yazd Traditional Houses). READING, 2528, 9705. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijas.2019.5964 Mousavi, S. J., Hatami, S., & Talischi, G. (2012). Boundaries, Places [Marz-hā, makān-hā]. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Developmant, 11(25), 189-199. https://sid.ir/paper/202491/fa (in Persian)
Mousavi, S. J., Einifar, A. R., Partovi, P., & Habib, F. (2019). Dialogue of Inside and Outside in a Phenomenological Approach to PlaceDialectic between the Inside and the Outside: A phenomenological Approach to Place [Goft-o-guy-e dorun va borun dar negarshi-ye padidarshenāsāneh be makān]. Hoviate Shahr, 13(39), 35-46. https://www.sid.ir/paper/154558/fa (in Persian)
Ng, V ; Lim, JP.(2018). Tracing Liminality: A Multidisciplinary Spatial Construct. Journal of Engineering and Architecture, 6(1), 79-90. 10.15640/jea.v6n1a8
Nouri, E. (2021). Interconnection spaces, a solution to architectural sustainability [Fazā-hā-ye mafṣali, rāhkāri dar pāydāri-ye me‘māri]. Journal of Architectural Thought, (9), 120-134. https://doi.org/10.52547/jria.9.2.1 (in Persian)
Nouri, E., & Einifar, A. R. (2021). Analyzing the quality of in-between spaces of mosque and city: comparative study of entrances in regional (traditional and modern) contemporary mosque in Tehran [Tahlil-e keyfiyat-e fazā-ye mābeyn-e masjed va shahr; motāle‘eh-ye moghāyese‘i-ye vorudi-ye masājed-e manteqe‘i (sonnati va modern) mo‘āser-e Tehrān]. Journal of Reasearches in Islamic Architecture, (29), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.52547/jria.9.2.1 (in Persian)
Ramzi, M., Yeganeh, M., & Bamanian, M. R. (2021). Analyzing the Effect of Spatial Distinction on the level of Common Values between Citizens (Case Study: Selected Neighborhoods of Ahvaz) [Tahlil-e ta’sir-e tamāyoz-e makāni bar mizān-e arzesh-hā-ye moshtarak beyn-e shahrvandān (motāle‘eh-ye moredi: mahalleh-hā-ye montakhab-e Ahvāz)]. Urban Design Discourse, 2(3), 59-70. https://journals.modares.ac.ir/article_23196.html (in Persian)
Rezaei, N., Mohammadzadeh, R., & Omranipour, A. (2016). Social Quality Evaluation of Open and SemiOpen Circulation Routes at the University Campuses, Case Study: Campus of the University of Kashan [Arzyābi-ye keyfiyat-e ejtemā‘i-ye masir-hā-ye ertebāti-ye bāz va niméh-bāz-e pardis-hā-ye dāneshgāhi, motāle‘eh-ye moredi: pardis-e dāneshgāh-e Kāshān]. Journal of Architecture Studies, (10), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.63616/taj.v.01.i.02.02 (in Persian)
Riahi Fard, A. (2013). Survay on the appropriate distribution of open space in order to upgrandthe quality of modern urban residential areas in Tehran [Barrasi-ye nahve-ye tozi‘-e monāseb-e fazā-ye khāli dar bālātarin keyfiyat-e fazā-hā-ye sokunatgāhi-ye shahri-ye mo‘āser-e Tehrān]. Hoviate Shahr, 7(15), 71-82. https://sid.ir/paper/154757/fa (in Persian)
Satty, T. L. (2001). The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback. Pittsburgh, PA, US: RWS Publications.
Sfintes, A. (2016). Boundary-spaces in the architectural anthropology [Doctoral dissertation, Ion Mincu University]. Electronic Dissertations and Theses Ion Mincu University (ETDs). Shehab, N., & Salama, A. M. (2018). The spatiality of segregation: Narratives from the everyday urban environment of Gothenburg and Glasgow, ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 12(1),71–90. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i1.1502
Sim, D. (2019). Soft city: building density for everyday life. Island Press.
van den Brink, M., van den Brink, A., & Bruns, D. (2022). Boundary thinking in landscape architecture and boundary-spanning roles of landscape architects. Landscape Research, 47(8),1087-1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2022.2091121
Vis, B. N. (2018). Cities made of boundaries: mapping social life in urban form, UCL Press.
Vis, B. N. (2024). Boundaries of the built environment: defining the significance of the material presence of spatial morphology in social life. Open Research Europe, 3,184. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16591.2
Vis, B. N. (2013). Mapping the inhabited urban built environment. The socio-spatial significance of the material presence of boundaries through time [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds]. Electronic Dissertations and Theses University of Leeds (ETDs).
Yaghmaeian, Sh., Habib, F. (2019). Developing P.P.P Model of Place Attachment for Evaluating Residential Environment (Cases Study: Open Space of Iranzamin and Ekbatan Apartment Buildings). International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 9(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36475.57126
Zerouati, W., & Bellal, T. (2020). Evaluating the impact of mass housings’ in-between spaces’ spatial configuration on users’ social interaction, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1),34–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.05.005 آقالطیفی، آزاده‏ و حجت، عیسی (1397). بررسی تأثیرپذیری مفهوم خانه از تحولات کالبدی آن در دوران معاصر در شهر تهران‏. نشریه‌ هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی، 23(4)، 41–54. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2018.219937.671690
الکساندر، کریستوفر (1393). شهر درخت نیست (چاپ دوم) (فرناز فرشاد و شمین گلرخ، مترجمان). انتشارات آرمانشهر.
بدیعی، ناهید (1381). جداره‌ها، حریم وصل [رساله‌ی دکتری، دانشگاه تهران]. پایان‌نامه‌ها و رساله‌های الکترونیکی دانشگاه تهران.
بمانیان، ‌محمدرضا؛ دهقان، ‌‌نگار؛ زارع، ‌زهرا؛ و یگانه، ‌‌منصور‏ (1400). تبیین رابطه خوانایی فضا با میزان رفتار قلمروپایی شهروندان در پارک‌های شهری‏. هویت شهر، 48(15)، 5–20.
https://doi.org/ 10.30495/hoviatshahr.2021.17426 بنکدار، احمد و قرائی، فریبا (1390). تغییر پارادایم‌ها در اصول طراحی شهری؛ از مؤلفه‌های کالبدی و اجتماعی و ادراکی به رهیافت مکان‌سازی. نامه‌ی معماری و شهرسازی، (6)، 51-70.
https://doi.org/ 10.30480/aup.2011.172
جلیلی، محمد؛ عینی‌فر، علیرضا؛ مدنی، رامین و جاد، بروس‏ (1399). محله‌های محصور: پیدایش، گسترش، گونه‌ها و پیامدها‏. معماری و شهرسازی ایران (JIAU)، 1۱(1)، 249–267. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2020.228678.1401
جلیلی، محمد؛ عینی‌فر، علیرضا؛ مدنی، رامین و جاد، بروس (1400). تأثیر محدوده‌ی کالبدی مجموعه‌های مسکونی بر ترس از جرم ساکنان مطالعه موردی: مقایسه‌ی مجموعه‌های مسکونی محصور، محصور نمادین و غیرمحصور در شهرک اکباتان‏. معماری و شهرسازی ایران (JIAU)، 12(2)، 189–204. https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2021.196767.1273
رامزی، منصور؛ یگانه، منصور و بمانیان، محمدرضا (1400). تحلیل تأثیر تمایز مکانی بر میزان ارزش‌های مشترک بین شهروندان (مطالعه موردی: محلات منتخب اهواز)‏. گفتمان طراحی شهری؛ مروری بر ادبیات و نظریه‌های معاصر، (3)2، 59–70. https://journals.modares.ac.ir/article_23196.html
رضایی، ناهیده؛ محمدزاده، رحمت؛ و عمرانی‌پور، علی‏ (1395). ارزیابی کیفیت اجتماعی مسیرهای ارتباطی باز و نیمه باز پردیس های دانشگاهی، مطالعه موردی: پردیس دانشگاه کاشان. مطالعات معماری ایران، 5(10)، 183–206. https://doi.org/10.63616/taj.v.01.i.02.02
ریاحی‌فرد، عباس (1392). بررسی نحوه توزیع مناسب فضای خالی در بالاترین کیفیت فضاهای سکونتگاهی شهری معاصر تهران‏. هویت شهر، 7(15)، 71-82.
https://sid.ir/paper/154757/fa
عطار عباسی، زهره؛ عینی‌فر، علیرضا؛ فروتن، منوچهر و محمدمهدی، سروش‏ (1399). بررسی سازوکار اثرگذاری ویژگی‌های کالبدی- معنایی تهی بر تعاملات اجتماعی‏. مطالعات محیطی هفت حصار، 9(33)، 43–62.
https://doi.org/10.29252/hafthesar.9.33.43
علی‌نیای مطلق، ایوب؛ شکوری، رضا و عینی‌فر، علیرضا (1399). تبیین مفهوم آستانگی در بر هم‌کنش درون و بیرون محدوده‌ها در معماری‏. نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی، 25(2)، 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2020.304505.672477
عینی‌فر، علیرضا و آقالطیفی، آزاده (1390). مفهوم قلمرو در مجموعه‌های مسکونی مطالعه‌ی مقایسه‌ای دو مجموعه‌ی مسکونی در سطح و در ارتفاع در تهران‏. نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی، 3(47)، 17–28. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22286020.1390.3.47.2.8
غروی الخوانساری، مریم‏ (1396). گونه‌بندی و تحلیل قابلیت ها در انواع رویکردهای انعطاف‌پذیری‏. صفه، 27(76)، 37–54. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.1683870.1396.27.1.3.3
غروی الخوانساری، مریم (1390). تعامل پایایی و پویایی در انعطاف‌پذیری اثر معماری، با تحلیل نمونه‌هایی از مسکن انعطاف‌پذیر معاصر [رساله‌ی دکتری، دانشگاه تهران]. پایان‌نامه‌ها و رساله‌های الکترونیکی دانشگاه تهران.
کرامتی، غزال (1387). بازخوانی هم‌نشینی نرم‌فضا و سخت‌فضا در معماری ایرانی [رساله‌ی دکتری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی]. پایان‌نامه‌ها و رساله‌های الکترونیکی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.
کیایی، مه‌دخت؛ سلطان زاده، حسین و حیدری، علی‌اکبر (1398). سنجش انعطاف پذیری نظام فضایی با استفاده از تکنیک چیدمان فضا (مطالعه موردی: خانه های شهر قزوین). باغ نظر، 16(71)، 61-76.
https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2019.86874
گروت، لیندا و وانگ، دیوید (1390). روش‌های تحقیق در معماری (چاپ پنجم) (علیرضا عینی‌فر، مترجم). انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. (چاپ اثر اصلی 2002)
موسوی، سید جلیل؛ حاتمی؛ سنبل و طلیسچی، غلامرضا‏ (1391). مرزها، مکان‌ها‏. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان شهر، 11(25)، 189–199. https://sid.ir/paper/202491/fa
موسوی، سیدجلیل؛ عینی فر، علیرضا؛ پرتوی، پروین و حبیب، فرح (1398). گفت وگوی درون و برون در نگرشی پدیدارشناسانه به مکان‏. هویت شهر، 13(39)، 35–46.
https://www.sid.ir/paper/154558/fa
میرشاهزاده، شروین؛ اسلامی، سید غلامرضا و عینی‌فر، علیرضا (1390). نقش فضای مرزی - پیوندی، در فرایند آفرینش معنا (ارزیابی توان معنا آفرینی فضا به کمک رویکرد نشانه شناسی)‏. هویت شهر، 5(9)، 5-16
. https://doi.org/10.52547/jria.9.2.1
نوری، الهام‏ (1400). فضاهای مفصلی، راهکاری در پایداری معماری‏. اندیشه معماری، 5(9)، 120–134. https://doi.org/10.30479/at.2020.12115.1388
نوری، الهام و عینی‌فر، علیرضا‏ (1400). تحلیل کیفیت فضای مابین مسجد و شهر مطالعه مقایسه‌ای ورودی مساجد منطقه‌ای (سنتی و مدرن) معاصر تهران. پژوهش های معماری اسلامی، 9(2)، 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.52547/jria.9.2.1
Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning
Volume 30, Issue 4
December 2026
Pages 23-36

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics