WHAT IS “PLACE-IDENTITY”?
“Place-Identity” has a few implied meanings when you think of the two words together. One interpretation refers to the identity of a place — the way it is stored in peoples’ memories, its reputation, or what you think about when it is mentioned. The meaning we’re more interested in, however, comes from the fields of psychology and environmental behaviourism, and is a phrase used to understand the relationship between a place and the individuals interacting with it. In this context, “place-identity” is the identity someone creates for themselves within a place, as well as how the space defines or alters their understanding of themselves while in it. This isn’t a phrase we made up to sound smart, but a principle of design that is studied alongside human psychology, allowing us as designers to understand not only the spaces we design, but their impacts on human comfort and behaviour. Stick with us, we promise we’ll make it make sense!
So, what exactly is it?
We won’t bore you by getting too far into the science-ey and academic stuff, but there are a lot of “big names” in the field of environmental psychology who have contributed or expanded theories along the lines of “place identity”. Some of these theories come with alternate terms that help build the basis of an understanding for the theory, such as “sense of place” or “place attachment” (from Åshild Hauge).
The foundation of this idea is that a long list of social and physical factors affect the way individuals interact with and feel about a space. These factors aren’t a conscious checklist, but sensory information that is quickly processed by the brain and contributes to an overall feeling. This usually doesn’t present itself as a concrete thought. For example, in a space where your social and physical needs aren’t being met (or don’t align with the way you typically like to use a space), you may feel a general sense of unease, discomfort, or restlessness. Without an education in design or psychology, it would be very difficult to pinpoint the exact reason why.
Physical factors are easier to assess and interpret. You could think of these factors as core design choices that have immediate impact, due to the fact that physical factors relate directly to your senses. Some examples include cleanliness, pleasant aroma/smell, adequate lighting, comfortable furniture, views & sightlines, acoustic comfort, natural lighting, and aesthetic sensibility.
Social factors can be more difficult to interpret, as they relate to the sociological orpsychological responses you feel in the space. This includes how you respond to the space itself and its physical characteristics, as well as other people in the space and the interactions that happen within it. Some of these characteristics include opportunity to linger, feelings of ownership, ability to territorialize, trust & respect, anonymity, productivity, opportunity to socialize, and support.
An important note for both physical and social factors is that there isn’t a formula for “good” or “bad” design considerations in any of these categories. What forms the understanding of place-identity (and informs your overall feeling or understanding of “self” within a space) is the combination of these factors as you experience the space, as well as whether or not these factors align with your expectations of how to use it.
For example, when it comes to “pleasant aroma”, what works for a particular space will vary widely. In a coffee shop, you’d expect the smell of freshly brewed coffee — that might even be why you came to a particular coffee shop over another. If you walked in the door and smelled nothing but fresh linen/laundry, you may be a bit confused. It wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, but you would be briefly disoriented as your senses adjusted from expectation to reality.
Alternatively, in hospitals or other healthcare facilities (as well as some offices or larger communal spaces) pleasant aroma is important, but in these spaces “pleasant” or “good” is likely defined closer to a neutral (or no) aroma. Due to the nature of perfumes and scents being common allergens, healthcare or large communal spaces tend to steer clear of scents. This is because the social aspects of safety, belonging, and inclusivity outweigh some of the possible physical characteristics of the space and may inform the design choices more heavily.
To expand a little further on our coffee shop vs. hospital example, the context for “good” or “bad” social factors varies as well. Opportunities to linger, opportunities to socialize, and the ability to territorialize are important to the design of a coffee shop. Business owners want to encourage socialization within their space, and by providing seating and table options that allow socialization (or for someone to claim a little bit of space and set up shop to work remotely for the day), they retain customers and build a relationship that encourages them to come back.
On the other hand, hospitals aren’t exactly a place that people go to socialize or intentionally spend time. Privacy and anonymity become especially important, as the patients are likely dealing with something difficult, painful, or even something they could be embarrassed by. Ability to territorialize could also come into play, as someone staying at the hospital for an extended time visiting a family member may be inclined to carve out a little area of their own in the waiting room.
How does this contribute to our understanding of the space, and how do we design for it?
We rolled through a lot of hypotheticals, but what does it all boil down to?
Basically, what we want to illustrate is that physical and social factors impact individuals differently in different spaces. What works in one will not work in others. It is a (good) designer’s job not only to create a design that is aesthetically pleasing and functional, but to consider the physical and social implications of their designs. This includes considering how their decisions will affect the way people use the space, as well as how they feel about it (both while using it, as well as the lasting impression that is made).
Planning a space is one thing, but when factoring in the human experience, a whole new level of complexity is added. Good design isn’t just pretty, it responds to needs and reflects the values of who it is designed for. A well-designed space should provide the opportunity for people to envision themselves within it. Part of what place-identity comes down to is the mental image someone has of themselves while in a space. Anyone should be able to clearly see themselves within the space and how they will be using it (without instruction), otherwise, their identity (or role) within the space is unclear. This may lead to the feelings of unease or restlessness described earlier.
Because the combination of physical and social factors vary so widely from space to space, there isn’t a sure-fire way to plan a space to meet everyone’s needs. However, with the knowledge of these factors in mind, designers can use other strategies to anticipate or address these needs.
Often, designers will use furniture or seating groupings to respond to social needs, allowing variability and allowing for various options of seating to meet differing preferences. In a restaurant or coffee shop, a combination of 2-person tables, 4-person tables, booths, individual tables, high-top tables, and bar seating can be laid out to accommodate these needs. This doesn’t automatically fulfill every social or physical factor, other variables such as proximity to the door, sightlines, privacy, and much more weigh in. However, it takes a step in the right direction. With an understanding of how social and physical factors contribute to the user’s experience, designers can take these physical and social considerations step-by-step, ultimately laying the groundwork for a meaningful design.