Multi-Disciplinary Access in Conceptual Design for Advertising of The Public Space

Main Article Content

Ivana Chaloska


This master's thesis is a qualitative empirical research for multidisciplinary conceptualization of an urban public space, with emphasis on development processes for affirmation of ecological and social sustainability, and structuring of socio-spatial relations. The research includes an inter-contextual analysis of a comprehensive theoretical context and a specific case study that highlights urban community gardens as potential initiatives for spatial and social reshaping. The findings of the research support a conceptual design of public space that popularly does not result in a tangible product, but can also be activism for rethinking what exists or a continuous process of socio-spatial relations. The research complements the theoretical framework of the design methodology with conceptual analysis of the design as a process of continuous integration of several disciplines.


Download data is not yet available.

Plum Analytics Artifact

Article Details

How to Cite
Chaloska, I. (2022). Multi-Disciplinary Access in Conceptual Design for Advertising of The Public Space. South East European Journal of Architecture and Design, 2022, 1–89.
MSc theses


Dillon D. A review of the Santa Fe Institute: Institutional and individual qualities of expert interdisciplinary work. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts. 2001.

Newell W. H. “A theory of interdisciplinary studies”. Issues in Integrative Studies. 2005: 19: pp. 1-25.

Smuts J. Holism and Evolution. Macmillan: New York. 1926.

Lévy P. Guénand A. “Including Interdisciplinary to Industrial Design”. In 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm 19-21 August, 2003.

Hatuka T. The Design of Protest: Choreographing Political Demonstrations in Public Space. University of Texas Press: Texas. 2018. DOI:

Goldschmidt G. Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process. MIT Press: Massachusetts. 2014. DOI:

Inam A. Designing Urban Transformation. Routledge: Oxfordshire. 2014. DOI:

Neuman M. “The Compact City Fallacy”. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2005: 25 (1): p. 17. DOI:

Lynch K. Good City Form. MIT Press: Massachusetts. 1984. p. 151. DOI:

Neuman M. Journal of Planning Education and Research. p. 17.

Wilson E. The Diversity of Life: With a New Preface (Questions of Scence). 2nd ed. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts. 2010.

James M. RHS The Urban Gardenerbook. Mitchell Beazley: London. 2017.

Bernstein J. “Land use considerations in urban environmental management”. Urban Мanagement Programme Policy. The World Bank: Washington D.C. 1994. p.99. DOI:

Blochover J. Vitamin Green. Phaidon Press: New York. 2012.

Francis M. “Some Different Meanings Attached to a City Park and Community Gardens”. Landscape Journal. 1987: 6 (2): pp. 101-112. DOI:

Kaplan R. Kaplan S. “The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework”. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1995: 15: pp. 169-182. DOI:

Hou J. “Urban Community Gardens as Multimodal Social Spaces”. In P. Tan, ed. Greening Cities: Forms and Functions. Springer: Singapore. 2017. pp. 113-130. DOI:

Soja E. Postmetropolis: Critical studies of cities and regions. Wiley: Hoboken NJ. 2000. p.102.

Hummon D. “Community Attachment: Local Sentiment and Sense of Place”. In I. Altman, ed. Place Attachment. Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin. 2012. p. 253. DOI: