Transactional Perspective, Design, and “Architectural Planning Research” in Japan

  • Kunio Funahashi

Abstract

People in Western cultures may have some curiosity about the phrase “architectural planning,” since the concept of “architecture” has not generally been associated with that of “planning.” However, the term “architectural planning” is the literal equivalent ofkenchiku keikaku, which has been a strong research field in Japanese architecture for some time now. Unlike in Western society, the concept of architecture and its studies in Japan have technological characteristics because kenchiku (architecture) belongs to the field of engineering rather than to art and design.1 The “Architectural Planning Research” (APR) organization has mainly been developed in the academic circles of the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ, established in 1886), and has the same attributes. The term “planning” was preferred to “design” because of the former’s scholarly sound. By the terminology of the Western architectural society, the concept of keikaku (planning) in Japan seems to be rather similar to “programming.”2

Keywords

Environmental Design Building Type Academic Circle Architectural Institute Architectural Planning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adachi, T. (1959). A study on extension of “function” in design/planning.Dissertation for Degree of Engineering, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
  2. Alunan, I. (1992). A transactional perspective on transition to new environments. Environment and Behavior, 24(2), 269–280.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, I. (1990). Toward a transactional perspective: A personal journey. In I. Altman & K. Christensen (Eds.), Environment and behavior studies: Emergence of intellectual traditions (pp. 225–255). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altman, I., & Rogoff B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait, interactional, organismic and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 7–40). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Altman, I., Werner, C. M., Oxley, D., & Haggard, L. M. (1987). “Christmas Street” as an example of transactionally oriented research. Environment and Behavior, 19(4), 501–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farbstein J., & Kantrowitz, M. (1991). Design research in the swamp: Toward a new paradigm. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design,Vol. 3 (pp. 297–318). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gee, M. (1994). Questioning the concept of the ‘user.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology. 14, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ittelson, W. H. (1989). Notes on theory in environment and behavior research. In E. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design,Vol.2, (pp. 71–83). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaplan, R. (1987). Validity in environment/behavior research: Some cross-paradigm concerns. Environment and Behavior, 19(4), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein, A. (1927). Neues Verfahren zur Untersuchung von Kleinwohnungs-grundrissen. Stadtbau, 23, 16–21.Google Scholar
  11. Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Min, B. (1988). Research utilization in environment-behavior studies: A case study analysis of the interaction of utilization models, content, and success.Dissertation for Ph.D., The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  13. Nishiyama, U. (1946).Astudy on commoners’ house.Dissertation for Degree of Engineering, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
  14. Rapoport, A. (1990). History and precedent in environmental design.New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saegert, S. (1993). Charged context: Difference, emotion and power in environmental design research. Architecture & Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour, 9(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  16. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. H. (1990). Environmental psychology. In Annual review of psychology (pp. 441–477). Polo Alto, CA: Annual Review.Google Scholar
  17. Stokols, D. (1988). Instrumental and spiritual views of people-environment relations. In H. V. Hoogdam, N. L. Prak, T. J. M. Voordt, & H. B. R. Wegen (Eds.), Looking back to the future, The Proceedings of IAPS 10 (pp. 29-43).Google Scholar
  18. Wapner, S. (1987). A holistic, developmental, systems-oriented environmental psychology: Some beginnings. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 1433–1465). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Winkel., G. H. (1993). Environmental design evaluation as a change oriented research process. Architecture & Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour, 9(1), 85–98.Google Scholar
  20. Yoshitake, Y. (1956). A study on tsukaware-kata [what space is used for]. Dissertation for Degree of Engineering, Univesity of Tokyo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kunio Funahashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Architectural Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringOsaka UniversityYamadaoka, SuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations