FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W110057725> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W110057725 abstract "This licentiate thesis on architecture addresses how the state and municipalities use programs that deal with the design process in town planning projects. The author describes the process of creating an aesthetic design program and also studies a completed aesthetic design program. Furthermore, the author combines different findings and presents how programs develop during the planning process. The background of the work with architectural policy programs by the state agencies can be tracked in the program Shape of the Future – Program of Action, Design and Creative Design, 1997. Municipalities have also been influenced by architectural policy programs in their work. Changes in the Plan and Built Act, 1998/1999 that concern aesthetic values have also had effect on their work. The thesis presents four studies that comprise concept analysis, a case study of a municipal planning process, a road movie test and finally a comparison of different methods for evaluation of aesthetic design programs in road design projects. The first study presents a survey of the linguistic usage for programs that concern the design process. Examples from Sweden from the period 1999-2005 have been studied. Also, differences in the usage of the programs between the property developers and the town planning departments have been studied. The study showed that four types of programs were more commonly used: achitectural programs, aesthetic design programs, architectural quality programs and urban design programs. The distinctions in the programs can be used as foundation for more clear and uniform language use among the property developers and town planning departments. The second study follows the planning process of creating an aesthetic design program for the area Kvibergs ang in Gothenburg. An example of city development, the planning process contains both house planning and traffic planning. By the study the author search to increase the comprehension of developing aesthetic design programs and the knowledge of the distribution of power in town planning projects. The case relies on multiple sources of evidence, participant observations have been a main source. The case study consists of two kinds of analysis, a process analysis account of planning process and a discourse analytic interpretation of work of the planning group. The work with the aesthetic design program and the city plan stopped before it was completed. The planning group did not succeed in creating consensus among key actors. The differences in objectives among the architectural discourse, traffic planning discourse and the property developer discourse are some of the reasons why the aesthetic design program has not been completed. There were differences in interests and goals among the participants in the project of city development. The claim made throughout the study is that a common goal for the planning work is significant and it is essential to create consensus among the participants. In addition, the municipalities need guidance for aesthetic design programs to be able to guarantee the architectural quality. The third study describes a full scale experiment “road movie”. A film and a questionnaire were tried to evaluate the aesthetic design program for the detour past Solleftea. The question was: Are film and questionnaire more easily available in comparison to traditional evaluation methods? Film was chosen as medium, since while driving on the road the experience is dynamic and similar to watching the movie. The film was shown to three independent groups. A total of 25 persons participated in the test. The informants were all professionals, either students or persons that worked with design tasks. The informants were asked to answer questions that concerned three kinds of evaluation criteria: research criteria, professional criteria and criteria specific for the program. The experiment showed that the informants had a positive attitude to use film for showing completed aesthetic design and evaluating road architecture. Film was a medium that showed critical viewpoints on the aesthetic design program and on completed design measures. In the beginning the method was expensive and took a lot of time, which was compensated by the fact that it was possible to conduct anywhere and anytime. The film also gave a good general impression of the road. The method was good at putting together measures and result when appraising the aesthetic design program. The fourth study shows a comparison of methods for evaluations that were used for completed aesthetic design programs at the Swedish Road Administration. A rich material was available to investigate the difference between film and other methods for evaluation. The evaluations carried out were: Tuning at place with the aesthetic design program, Evaluation at place with criteria and Qualitative evaluation. The issue investigated was: Which one of the methods of evaluation gave the best basis for assessment of the aesthetic design program and the result of the completed design measures. The study showed that used methods were suited in different situations. Tuning at place with the aesthetic design program was the fastest and cheapest method, it was only a local evaluation. With Evaluation at place with criteria more resources were needed, a discussion with informants was added. The method Qualitative evaluation was the only one of the methods that had users in the role as informants. The users provided new information through local knowledge. Film and questionnaire was the only one of the methods that gave critical comments to the aesthetic design program. The method put together program, measures and result. The method Film and questionnaire is based on criteria of research. Method and result become comparable with other evaluations that are built on theory." @default.
• W110057725 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W110057725 creator A5082048262 @default.
• W110057725 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W110057725 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W110057725 title "Gestaltningsprogram i stadsutvecklingsprojekt" @default.
• W110057725 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W110057725 type Work @default.
• W110057725 sameAs 110057725 @default.
• W110057725 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W110057725 countsByYear W1100577252016 @default.
• W110057725 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W110057725 hasAuthorship W110057725A5082048262 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C123657996 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C170154142 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C184603391 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C195094911 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C205300905 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C2776505523 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C4792198 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C49545453 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W110057725 hasConcept C98940541 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C111919701 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C121332964 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C123657996 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C127413603 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C142362112 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C147176958 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C153349607 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C166957645 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C170154142 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C184603391 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C18762648 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C195094911 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C205300905 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C2776505523 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C2780791683 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C41008148 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C4792198 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C49545453 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C62520636 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C78519656 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C95457728 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C98045186 @default.
• W110057725 hasConceptScore W110057725C98940541 @default.
• W110057725 hasLocation W1100577251 @default.
• W110057725 hasOpenAccess W110057725 @default.
• W110057725 hasPrimaryLocation W1100577251 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W1600388698 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2105779190 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2118531151 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W22399925 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2375793985 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2387326170 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2408185392 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2413256923 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2518676039 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2535758594 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2555147645 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2588284199 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2594367384 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W290002475 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2909731405 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2972094114 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2978620857 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W2981204974 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W3209870525 @default.
• W110057725 hasRelatedWork W602599832 @default.
• W110057725 isParatext "false" @default.
• W110057725 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W110057725 magId "110057725" @default.
• W110057725 workType "article" @default.