Evaluating urban shape of Tehran through differential semantics scale

Figures & data

Figure 1. Semantics space

Figure 2. Differential semantics space

Table 1. Three dimentional emotional meaning of phenomena

Examples for related adjectives	Dimension
Ugly—nice/good—bad/sweet—bitter/useful—useless/pleasant—unpleasant/kind—cruel. (Some phenomena fall into the positive pole of this dimension, such as: the doctor, the family, God, the church, happiness, peace, success, music, and some fall into the negative pole, such as: abortion, Satan, divorce, embezzlement, disease, sin, war, enemy)	Evaluative
Powerless-powerful/thin—thick/hard—soft/large—small/deep—superficial/etc … (some the phenomena that fall into the positive pole of this dimension include: war, enemy, brave, police, mountain, motors, buildings, steel, duty, science, etc. and the phenomena that fall into the negative pole include: girl, baby, wife, boy, cat, love, wife	Power
Fast-slow/active-passive/live-dead/Noisy-Silent/young-old/cold-warm. (Some of the phenomena that fall into the positive pole include: danger, anger, attack, city, engine, fire, sword, storm, war, child and party at the the phenomena that fall into the negative pole are: cold blood, snail, death, stone, sleep)	Activity

Table 2. Frequencies of pictures selected as resemblance of Tehran’s urban landscape in future

Cumulative percentage	Percentage	Frequency	Question
14.8	14.8	12	Picture 1	In your opinion, which of these pictures most closely resemble to the future of Tehran?
27.2	12.3	10	Picture 2
38.3	11.1	9	Picture 3
53.1	14.8	12	Picture 4
56.8	3.7	3	Picture 5
69.1	12.3	10	Picture 6
77.8	8.6	7	Picture 7
100	22.2	18	Picture 7
	100	81	Total

Table 3. Opposite attributes for evalustion

Romantic	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	classic
Traditional	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	modern
Short	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	tall
Irregular	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	Regular
Unidentified	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	Identified
Hetrogenous	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	homogenous
Uniform	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	Varied
Monochrome	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	polychrome
Contexual	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	Iconic
Natural	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	Artifitial

Figure 3. Differential semantics for picture 1

Figure 4. Differential semantics analysis of picture 2

Figure 5. Differential semantics Analysis of Picture 3F

Figure 6. Differential semantic analysis of picture 4

Figure 7. Differential semantic analysis of picture 5

Figure 8. Differential semantics analysis of picture 6

Figure 9. Differential semantics analysis of picture 7

Figure 10. Comparative analysis of differential semantics of pictures