Canter, D (2008) Do we need a metatheory of the built environment? Building Research & Information, 36(6), pp. 663-667. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The special issue of Building Research and Information, guest edited by L. Koskela (36(3) 2008), that explores developing theories of the built environment reveals just how complicated it is to articulate any one theory that covers all aspects of the built environment. Drawing on early work, it is suggested that this difficulty has its roots in the belief that there can be one model that will amalgamate the many different perspectives that make up the use and experience of the built environment. It is shown that treating building users as either subjects or objects both have their problems and that some concept of a 'place', which combines both perspectives, is needed to make sense of what it is that the built environment is creating. This allows the combination of the building as 'filter', 'social facilitator', and 'symbol' to be integrated into the broader challenges of sustainability and social-ecological systems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | comfort; models; place; power; space syntax |
| Index terms: | building research, space syntax, drawing, social-ecological system, comfort, facilitator, built environment |
| Subjects: | research management, technical documentation, urban design, environmental science, infrastructure and transport systems, occupational health and safety management, practitioner |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here