Characteristics of port cities are significantly different than inland cities since they have a spatial relation with water. Waterfronts, main urban squares, and major streets are specified as the predominant components affecting socio-spatial configurations.
The research assumes that the imageability of port cities, which refers to “port city identity” in this research, is associated with the visibility of these key public spaces. The port cities of Famagusta and Limassol—the current major port cities of divided Cyprus—were selected to be evaluated on the specified public spaces to reveal this association.
The specified spaces are scrutinized through both the space syntax methodology and land-use and movement patterns in relation to visibility parameters. The results show that Limassol is more successful than Famagusta in terms of imageability, as it presents higher spatial and social visibility of public spaces, which also strengthens its port city identity.
AymesM. (2009). The port-city in the fields: Investigating an improper urbanity in mid-nineteenth-century Cyprus. Mediterranean Historical Review, 24(2), 133–149.
2.
BenediktM. L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovists fields. Environment and Planning B, 6, 47–65.
3.
CharalambousN.GeddesI. (2015). Urbanities, spatial memory and shifting centrality. In VaughanL. (Ed.), Suburban urbanities: Suburbs and the life of the high street (pp. 77–103). UCL Press.
4.
DaltonR. C.BafnaS. (2003). The syntactical image of the city: A reciprocal definition of spatial elements and spatial syntaxes [Paper presentation; pp. 59.1–59.22]. 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, UCL, London.
5.
DoratlıN. (2011). The fortified city of Famagusta, then and now. In PerbelliniG. (Ed.), Famagusta in Cyprus (pp. 60–93). Marko Polo System.
6.
EdgüE.TaluğM.ÖzgeceN. (2015). Divided shopping: A syntactic approach to consumer behaviour. A|Z ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 12(3), 175–188.
7.
FuhrmannM.KechriotisV. (2009). The late Ottoman port-cities and their inhabitants: Subjectivity, urbanity, and conflicting orders. Mediterranean Historical Review, 24(2), 71–78.
8.
GeddesI. (2017). Limassol as a social assemblage: A diachronic analysis of its urban form (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cyprus.
9.
GerasimouS.GeorgoudisM. (2011). Sustainable mobility in Cyprus: The city of Limassol. In PratelliA.BrebbiaC. A. (Eds.), Urban transport XVII: Urban transport and the environment in the 21st century (pp. 109–116). WIT Press.
10.
HatukaT.TochE. (2016). Being visible in public space: The normalisation of assymetrical visibility. Urban Studies, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015624384
11.
HillierB. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press.
12.
HillierB. (1999). Self-generated neighbourhoods [Paper presentation; pp. 01.01–01.24]. 1st International Space Syntax Symposium, UCL, London.
13.
HillierB.HansonJ. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.
14.
HillierB.PennA.HansonJ.GrajewskiT.XuJ. (1993). Natural movement: Or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design, 20, 29–66.
15.
HollandC.ClarkA.KatzJ.PeaceS. (2007). Social interactions in urban public places. Policy Press.
16.
HoyleB. S. (1998). Cities and ports: Concepts and issues. Vegueta, 3, 263–278.
17.
KolluoğluB.ToksözM. (2010). Mapping out the Eastern Mediterranean: Toward a cartography of cities of commerce. In KolluoğluB.ToksözM. (Eds.), Cities of the Mediterranean: From the Ottomans to the present day (pp. 1–13). I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd.
18.
LynchK. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
19.
PennA.HillierB.BannisterD.XuJ. (1998). Configuratinal modelling of urban movement networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(1), 59–84.
20.
RelphE. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion Limited.
21.
SezerC. (2018). Public life, immigrant amenities and socio-cultural inclusion: The presence and changes of Turkish amenities in Amsterdam. Journal of Urban Design, 23(6), 823–842.
22.
SezerC.MaldonadoA. M. (2017). Cultural visibility and urban justice in immigrant neighbourhoods of Amsterdam. Built Environment, 43(2), 193–213.
23.
ShpuzaE. (2007). Urban shapes and urban grids: A comparative study of Adriatic and Ionian coastal cities [Paper presentation; pp. 009:01–009:22]. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Faculty of Architecture, ITU, London.
24.
SteinitzC. (1968). Meaning and the congruence of urban form and activity. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34(4), 233–248.
25.
ThibaudJ.-P. (2001). Frames of visibility in public places. Places, 14(1), 42–47.
26.
TurnerA. (2007). From axial to road-centre lines: A new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transport network analysis. Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 34(3), 539–555.
27.
TurnerA.PennA. (1999). Making isovists syntactic: Isovist integration analysis [Paper presentation]. 2nd International Symposium on Space Syntax. Universidad de Brasilia, Brazil.
28.
TurnerA.DoxaM.O’SullivanD.PennA. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 103–121.
