Monitoring intelligibility changes of Kaunas interwar modernism buildings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2025.26.05Keywords:
Intelligibility, Space Syntax, Interwar Modernism Buildings, Heritage, Sociological SurveyAbstract
The research based on the project “Heritage in Depopulated European Areas” (HerInDep), started in April 2023 and examines the transformation of Interwar (the years between the end of the First World War and the beginning of the Second World War) architecture and its influence on the social and urban development of Kaunas, Lithuania. Kaunas, particularly its central region, holds a significant concentration of Interwar modernist architecture, which has endured substantial urban changes during the Soviet era and pressures from business developments post-1990. In 2023, Kaunas’ modernist architecture was nominated to the UNESCO World Heritage list under “Modernist Kaunas: Architecture of Optimism, 1919-1939,” reflecting its transformation into Lithuania’s provisional capital. Approximately 80% of these heritage properties have distinct characteristics meriting legal protection. The idea of the article is to propose and validate a methodology for assessing the legibility of immovable cultural heritage in an urban environment. Such a methodology could be used not only to understand better the importance of cultural heritage in creating urban landscape identity but also to monitor changes in legibility due to various transformations of the urban fabric, even in the absence of destroyed or otherwise physically affected heritage properties. The paper focuses on the presentation of the space syntax or mathematical graph-based intelligibility model which, because of its simulative natures offers predictive possibilities while pointing out further possibilities of its use for monitoring purposes.
References
1. Heritage Department. ‘Register of Cultural Properties of the Republic of Lithuania’. 2024. https://kvr.kpd.lt/#/static-heritage-search.
2. Kaunas County Archives. Kauno Miesto Planai XIX a. – XX a. Pirmoji Pusė. 2007.
3. UNESCO. 2023. ‘Modernist Kaunas: Architecture of Optimism, 1919-1939’. Nomination 1661. UNESCO Heritage List. UNESCO World Heritage Convention. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1661/documents/.
4. Lynch, K. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press. 1960.
5. Google. 2024. ‘Popular Times, Wait Times, and Visit Duration’. Google Business Profile Help. 2024. https://support.google.com/business/answer/6263531?hl=en.
6. BestTime.app. ‘Features - BestTime.App’. BestTime.App. 2024. https://besttime.app/#features.
7. IssueTracker. ‘Popular Times’. IssueTracker. 2024. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/35827350.
8. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Brown, T. ‘Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors’. Environment and Behavior, 21 (5): 509–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001.
9. Ode, Å., Tveit, M.S., Fry, G. ‘Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory’. Landscape Research 33 (1): 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854. 2008.
10. Cullen, G. The Concise Townscape. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 2006.
11. Peponis, J., Wineman, J. ‘Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior’. Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by Robert B. Bechtel and Arzah Ts’erts’man, 271–91. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. 2002.
12. Hillier, B. Space Is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. London: Space Syntax (UCL). 2007.
13. Kaiser, P. ‘Calculation of Visual Angle’. Web Book. The Joy of Visual Perception. 2005. https://www.yorku.ca/eye/toc-sub.htm.
14. DepthmapX Development Team. 2017. ‘DepthmapX/SpaceGroupUCL’. C++. Space Syntax Lab - UCL. https://github.com/SpaceGroupUCL/depthmapX.
15. Sevtsuk, A., Mekonnen, M. ‘Urban Network Analysis. A New Toolbox for ArcGIS’. Revue Internationale de Géomatique, 22 (2): 287–305. 2012. https://doi.org/10.3166/rig.22.287-305.
16. Sevtsuk, A. ‘Estimating Pedestrian Flows on Street Networks: Revisiting the Betweenness Index’. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87 (4): 512–26. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864758.
17. Sevtsuk, A. Urban Network Analysis for Rhinoceros 3D. Tools for Modeling Pedestrian and Bicycle Trips in Cities. City Form Lab. 2018.
18. Sevtsuk, A., Mekonnen M., Kalvo, R. Urban Network Analysis Toolbox for ArcGIS 10 / 10.1 / 10.2 HELP Version 1.01. City Form Lab. 2016.
19. Brown, B., Perkins, D.D., Brown, G. ‘Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (3): 259–71. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2.
20. Lewicka, M. ‘Ways to Make People Active: The Role of Place Attachment, Cultural Capital, and Neighborhood Ties’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (4): 381–95. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.004.
21. Hidalgo, M.C., Hernández, B. ‘Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (3): 273–81. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221.
22. Mesch, G. S., Manor, O. ‘Social Ties, Environmental Perception, and Local Attachment’. Environment and Behavior, 30 (4): 504–19. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405.
23. Schwirian, K. P., Schwirian, P. M. ‘Neighboring, Residential Satisfaction, and Psychological Well‐being in Urban Elders’. Journal of Community Psychology, 21 (4): 285–99. 1993.
24. Hay, R. ‘Sense of Place in Developmental Context’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18 (1): 5–29. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0060.
25. Relph, E. C. Place and Placelessness. Research in Planning and Design 1. London: Pion. 1980.
26. Tuan, Y. F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold. 1977.
27. Lalli, M. ‘Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement, and Empirical Findings’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4): 285–303. 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7.
28. Lewicka, M. ‘What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (1): 35–51. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004.
29. Shamai, Sh., Ilatov, Z. ‘Measuring Sense of Place: Methodological Aspects’. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 96 (5): 467–76. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00479.x.
30. Axford, J., Hockings, M. T. ‘Sense of Place: A Tool to Assist the Meaningful Engagement of Communities in Protected Area Management’. Proceedings of International Conference on Engaging Communities, edited by Dave Gardiner and Katie Scott, 1–17. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Queensland Department of Main Roads. 2005.
31. Shamai, Sh. ‘Sense of Place: An Empirical Measurement’. Geoforum, 22 (3): 347–58. 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K.
32. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., Penn, A. ‘Creating Life: Or, Does Architecture Determine Anything?’ Architecture et Comportment / Architecture and Behavior 3 (3): 233–50. 1987.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Landscape Architecture and Art

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