3 C's of Architectural Space

Gökçe Ketizmen ONAL (Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Eskisehir Osmangazi University)

Article ID: 49


Architectural space has mainly two forms: spatial and corporeal. Within this context, the main purpose of the study is re-theming and interpreting the new connections within these two forms of architectural space by the help of three concepts; Conciseness, Continuity and Compatibility, called as the 3C`s of Architectural Space. The subjects of these three are presented as an open system in order to extract transferable ideas for re-theming the meaning of space. These concepts are evaluated with their reality in built forms through on-site observation inside the selected buildings. This study approaches architectural space clarifying the relevance of design elements and providing a reference framework for them. 


Architectural space; Conciseness; Continuity; Compatibility

Full Text:



[1] Arbabiyazdi A, Pisheh M. Z. Context as Palimpsest . Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 2012 ; 2 (2): 1632-1638.

[2] Ardalan N, Bakhtiar L. The Sense of Unity: The Sufi Tradition in Persia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973.

[3] Bachelard G. The Poetics of Space . New York: Orion Press; 1964.

[4] Bafna S. The role of corporeal form in architectural thought. In H. J. (Ed.), 4th International Symposium . London.: Proceedings Space Syntax; 2003.

[5] Bafna S. Symbolic construction in non-discursive media: The design development of Kahn's Unitarian Church in Rochester. 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft 2005; p. 265-277.

[6] Bahronovich M. S. Formation of Architectural Ensembles and Complexes of Historic Towns Of Uzbekistan . International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 2015; 4 (5): 109-112.

[7] Barnstone D. A. The Transparent State Architecture and politics in postwar Germany . New York: Taylor & Francis; 2006.

[8] Buchert M. Reflexive Design. Berlin: Jovis Verlag ;2014 .

[9] Buchert M. Simply Design. Berlin: Jovis; 2013.

[10] Busquet G, Lavue U. Political Space in the Work of Henri Lefebvre: Ideology and Utopia. Justice Spatiale, Spatial Justice 2013; 5: 1-12.

[11] Eckart C. Offenheit – Vielfalt – Komplexität Eine Betrachtung ausgewählter Bauten Günter Behnischs im Spiegel der Architekturentwicklung während der Bonner Republik;2016.Retrieved 11 20,2017,from http://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de: hebis:34-2017071153016/12/DissertationCarinaEckartTextteil.pdf

[12] Forty A. Words and Buildings : A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture . Thames&Hudson ; 2000.

[13] Grobler A ,Le Roux, S. Criteria for spatial definition: architectural and urban interiors of the Constitutional Court, Johannesburg. SAJAH 2006;21 (1): 47 - 69.

[14] Hays M. K. Architecture’s Desire: Reading The Late Avant-Garde . Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.

[15] Heidegger M. Building, dwelling, thinking. ed.In M. Heidegger. Basic Writings: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded,HarperCollins;1993. p. 343-364.

[16] Lawson B.The Language of Space.Oxford: Architectural Press; 2001.

[17] Lefebvre H. The Production of Space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. ; 1998.

[18] Libeskind D. Between the Lines: Extension to the Berlin Museum, with the Jewish Museum . Assemblage 1990 ;12:18-57.

[19] Lin, C. C. Rooted in Time and Place: A housing complex in South End, Boston. [Master Thesis] . Boston, US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1989.

[20] Madani-pour A. Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process, Urban Processing and Planning Enterprises. New Jersey: Wiley. 1996.

[21] Meiss P. Elements of Architecture: From Form to Place+Tectonics. Oxford : Routledge; 2013.

[22] Merleau-Ponty M. The World of Perception. London; New York: Routledge; 2004.

[23] Pallasmaa J. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and Senses . Wiley-Academy; 2005.

[24] Parsaee, M; Parva M, Karimi B. Space and place concepts analysis based on semiology approach in residential architecture The case study of traditional city of Bushehr, Iran . Housing and Building National Research Center 2015;11: 368-383.

[25] Rapoport, A. Meaning of the Constructed Environment : Approach to Nonverbal Communication. Beverly Hills : Sage Publications; 1982.

[26] Sözmener F. An Interpretation of Simplicity in the Frame of Minimalist Approach on Traditional, Modern and Contemporary Housing.[Unpublished Master of Science in Interior Architecture].Gazimağusa, North Cyprus; 2012.

[27] Sandler D. Counterpreservation: Architectural Decay in Berlin Since 1989. USA: Cornell University Press; 2016.

[28] Stead N. The Ruins of History: allegories of destruction in Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum. Open Museum Journal 2000; 2: 1-17.

[29] Tuan Y.-F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience.University of Minnesota Press; 2001.

[30] Verheij R. Palimpsest in Architecture: Six personal observations. [Internet]. Unpublished Graduation thesis [cited 2018 May 29].Available from:https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:715e2f60-603c-4656-9acb-9428bb917c2b/datastream/OBJ/download.

[31] Vinot J.-L. Conversy S. Concept of Continuity, a “Strong Concept” to Design Graphical Architecture of Interactive Systems.IHM '15 Proceedings of the 27th Conference on l'Interaction Homme-Machine; 2015.Article No. 15

[32] Wainwright E. Transparency and Obfuscation: Politics and Architecture in the work of Foster + Partner.Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Welsh, UK;2011.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/frae.v1i2.49


  • There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2018 Gökçe Ketizmen ONAL

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.