Content uploaded by Mohd Yazid Mohd YUNOS
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohd Yazid Mohd YUNOS on May 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
112
RESEARCH JOURNAL OF FISHERIES AND HYDROBIOLOGY, 10(14) October 2015, Pages: 112-114
Mohd Amirul Hussain et al, 2015
RESEARCH JOURNAL OF FISHERIES AND HYDROBIOLOGY
© 2015 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved
ISSN:1816-9112
Open Access Journal
Copyright © 2015 by authors and American-Eurasian Network for Scientific
Information
.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International
License (CC
BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Interaction on Impression of Place at
Historic Waterfront
Mohd Amirul Hussain, Mohd Yazid Mohd Yunos Nangkula Utaberta, Nor
Atiah Ismail, Fazahmima Mohd Ariffin and Sumarni Ismail
ABSTRACT
Background: Impression of place is a key concept for a good historic waterfront
development, which use it as a measure of nostalgia integrity in a waterfront area. Urban
designer and master planner use the same term to promote human perceptual to historic
world. Adopting a case study at historic waterfront, these paper purposes to discover the
interaction on impression of place at historic waterfront. This paper review on literature
on how the interplay of impression of place has an impact on emotional response as one
observes and experiences the historic waterfront. This evaluation will analyzed and study
on literature review from journal, books and other resources about the function of
impression of place at historic waterfront. As a result this paper wills use as references to
other need in role enhance the visual quality at historic waterfront that influenced from
impression of place.
KEY WORDS: Interaction on impression of place, historic waterfront, human perceptual.
1
Department of Landscape
Architecture, Faculty of Design
and Architecture, 43400
University Putra Malaysia,
Malaysia
Address For Correspondence:
Mohd Amirul Hussain,
Department of Landscape
Architecture, Faculty of Design
and Architecture, 43400
University Putra Malaysia
E-mail:
mohdyazid@upm.edu.my
Received: 28 September 2015
Accepted: 15 November 2015
Available online: 24 November
2015
INTRODUCTION
According to the Ibrahim Wahab et al (2015) and support by Shuhanah Shamsuddin (1997) in order to
create pleasant environment integration, the relationships in between historical area and landscape component
are needed to develop in way to create an impression of place. Their also mentioned, to develop a good
environment integration at historic waterfront it’s have a few methods are need to be combined together to
create an astonishing perspective namely as sense of place, memory, orientation, perception and cognition, and
identity and Imageability. Most of observe would like to enjoy the pleasant visual that given deep impact to
emotional along the historic waterfront before their reach to destination. The view of the waterfront fabric can
be more meaningful and appealing when it was fully engaging and exclusive among landscape elements that
create an art of weaving and image of significant of historic waterfront. Adopting a case study at historic
waterfront, these paper purposes to discover the interaction on impression of place at historic waterfront. This
paper review on literature on how the interplay of impression of place has an impact on emotional response as
one observes and experiences the historic waterfront. This evaluation will analyzed and study on literature
review from journal, books and other resources about the function of impression of place at historic waterfront.
As a result this paper wills use as references to other need in role enhance the visual quality at historic
waterfront that influenced from impression of place.
1.1 Sense of place:
Relph (1968) explains a sense of place means the ability to familiarise diverse places and different identities
of a place. Generating a sense of place is through the collectives of past memory, event and features Zeldin, and
Mowla, (2006). The important components like orientation and sense of continuity aided to improve the identity
of a place Harvey Cox, & Relph, (1968). Conversely, Steele (1981) elucidated the sense of place shaped by the
physical and social settings where people associated with such place Ferdous and Nilufar, (2008). There are
three main attributes to configure a sense of place which are the physical setting, social (activity), meaning or
image (psychology factor) (Steele, 1981 in Ferdous and Nilufar, (2008); Jon Punter, 1991 cited from Carmona,
et al., Montgomery, (1992). Nonetheless, Lang (McKercher, B., H. Du Cros, 2002) clarifies the sense of place
interrelated with sociological and other psychological.
113
1.2 Memory:
Memory means a process to evoke realities and experiences by taking the benefits to remember(recalling),
images and identify a space through the sense of familiarity to form a sense of place Mowla, Ferdous and
Nilufar stated that the collective of memories related to time in creating the sense of place and a component to
form a cultural space that portrayed a place’s history. Likewise,Carr et al. explained people expressed the
special meanings of a space evolving the meaningful memories.Even Relp (1968) has mentioned a city
assembles people's memories because memories attached with the objects and places cited in Ferdous and
Nilufar, (2008). In sum, memory is the primary element in place making because the more activities occurred in
place meant the potential to build more memories from such place Lynch.
1.3 Orientation:
Schulz depicted that the memory exemplify as information or presumption of the orientation refer to in
Ferdous and Nilufar,(2008). Orientation indicator in a city presented by the “landmarks, buildings and spaces”
Mowla & Relph(11). Schulz (1981) specified memory was the identification of orientation. Apparently, a place
orientation integrated with memory performed as an imperative element in notifying individual physical location
Ferdous and Nilufar, (2008). The visual interpretative and other senses used to identify a space orientation via
visioning for the observer to see and seek (Porteous, 1996 and Carmon et al.,
1.4 Perception and cognition:
Rapoport (12) elucidated that perception is the key process to connect people within the surrounding
environment related to man and environment (quoted in Ferdous and Nilufar, (2008). Similarly, perception in
the urban setting strained on how people perceived the milieu and experience of a place Carmon et al.,
Whereas, cognitive defined and measured by nature and level of “people values, feelings, beliefs, and
perceptions about locations, district, and regions”. It has classified as portions of perception that emphasised by
(Ismail, N.A., 2015) and (Lang, J., 2005) cited in Carmon et al., In short, people perceive a cultural space
through by seeing or intellections of the information from the urban environment while cognition required of
thinking, planning and keeping information Carmon et al.,
1.5 Identification and Imageability:
In identifying the urban setting; memory is to record or indicate the actual circumstances. Schulz
exemplified that the necessary to understand a place is through knowing a place identity Ferdous and Nilufar,
(2005). Lawson (2005) states a place identity or place character often perceived via visual senses and feeling to
that space. As well as the legibility induced to read the image; the path, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks
guided as direction of a district. In other words, the imageability is the quality of a physical object whilst the
spatial connections possibility to evoke the strong image for movement and legibility in a city . The implications
of the physical (tangible), social attribute (intangible) and perceptual contributed to making the roles of cultural
spaces in characterising an identity of the historic town. In consequence, the determinants attributes identified as
i) site background ii) social cultural activities, iii) spatial attributes,iv) visual legibility and accessibility, v)
architecture form and historical structure This study also discusses on users opinions on cultural spaces when
they practice as their routine activities. In sum, people experience on cultural spaces in the historic town are
through the emotional feeling, reminiscent from memory, the sense of place and social activities that existence
in the cultural spaces.
2. Methodology:
As for the purpose of this study, the method of from literature review has been carried out by adopting
content analysis and cross reference by highlighting on the interaction on impression of place at historic
waterfront in roles to be a good historic waterfrontscape.
4. Conclusion:
The purpose of this literature review was to investigate the importance perceived of the good historic
waterfront according to the impression of place component. The sense of variety within uniformity is one of its
strong features that make the historic waterfront fabric are difference than its counterpart and having a stronger
sense of impression of place. On the other hand, these kinds of component will make the space more memorable
and contribute significantly to the sensory experiences of the historic ambiences, and the characteristics and
uniqueness of impression of place will attract the crowd of people to visit historic waterfront
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
114
Cannot express enough thanks to Ministry of Education for granting the fund of Trans-Research Grant
Scheme (TRGS) and my role of supervisors in the research project for their continued support and
encouragement: Dr. Mohd Yazid bin Mohd Yunos, Dr. Nangkula Utaberta and Dr. Nor Atiah Ismail, Dr Nor
Fazahmima and Dr Sumarni. I offer my sincere appreciation for the learning opportunities provided by my
committee.
REFERENCES
Carmona, M. (ed.) Globalization, Urban Form and Governance, Nr.9, Globalization and city ports. TU
Delft, 9-29.
Ferdous, F., F. Nilufar, 2008. Cultural Space - A Conceptual Deliberation and Characterization as Urban
Space. Protibesh, Journal of the Department of Architecture, BUET, ISSN: 1812-8068, 12-1(29-36).
Harvey Cox, 1968. ‘The Secular City’ : Penguin Books
Lang, J., 2005. Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. London: Architectural Press
Ismail, N.A., N. Utaberta, M. Yazid, M. Yunos, and S. Ismail, 2015. “Malaysia Going Greens: A Study on
Community Commitment towards a Greener Urban Living Environment,” Adv. Environ. Biol., 9(95): 498–503.
Ismail, N.A., N. Utaberta, M. Yazid, M. Yunos, S. Ismail and N. Ismail, 2015. “Environmental Awareness
through Garden Festival in Malaysia: A Public Perspective,” Adv. Environ. Biol., 9(5): 514–517.
Moughtin, C., 1992. Urban Design: Street and Square. Boston: International books
Yazid, M., M. Yunos, N. Kalsum, M. Isa, N. Utaberta, N.A. Ismail and S. Ismail, 2015. “The Issues of
Public Participation in Garden Design Process: An Analytical Discourse,” Adv. Environ. Biol., 9(95): 404–409.
Meyer, Han, 1999. City and Port, Rotterdam: Haasbeek Millspaugh, Martin L. (2001) “Waterfronts as
Catalysts For City Renewal”. in R. Marshall(eds.), Waterfronts in Post-industrial Cities, New York: Spon Press,
74-85
Montgomery, J., 1995 ‘Urban Vitality and Culture of Cities’, Planning Practice and Research
Relph, E., 1968. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Limited.
Rapoport, A., 1997. Human Aspect of Urban Form: Toaward a Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form
and Design. New York: Pergamon Press.
Steele, Fritz, 1981. Sense of place. Massachusetts, CBI Publishing Company, Inc.
Shuhanah Shamsuddin, 1997. “Identity of Place”. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis University of Nottingham.
McKercher, B., H. Du Cros, 2002. The Partnership Between Tourism And Cultural Heritage Management,
The Haworth Hospitality Press, London and Oxford, New York.
Zeldin, Q.A., Mowla, 2006. Memory Association in Place Making: Understanding an Urban Space.
Protibesh, 10(1): 42-51.
