Journal of Architecture and Planning , Vol. 35(1) , pp. 135-148, Riyadh ( 2023/1444H ) doi:10.33948/JAP-KSU-35-1-5 135 Beyond Architectural Forms: Towards an Understanding of the Implicit Meaning of the Placemaking Processes Mohammed Mashary Alnaim Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia moha.alnaim@gmail.com (Received 29/8/2022; accepted for publication 24/10/2022.) Abstract: This study was motivated by the changing landscape of people’s interactions and experiences with places. These interactions have a significant impact on who they are, what will become, and how they interact with others. This burgeoning field of study focuses on the experience of place and how it relates to identity formation and evolution through physical objects. Three major themes are investigated and presented in this study: (1) the meaning of place, (2) the role of the physical form, and (3) place identity. Each of these three themes are interrelated. They overlap and intersect each other to encompass the various aspects of placemaking processes. This study examines related theories and relevant literature to conclude that, while architectural form is vital to understanding the nature of places, it is only one part of the larger picture. Other relationship factors can help to clarify the complexities and richness of place and place experience. Keywords: Placemaking; architectural form; sense of place; place identity; phenomenology of place. 1. Introduction It is challenging to construct a concept with a precise and operational meaning from a word like ‘place,’ which is widely used and applied in a variety of contexts (Friedmann, 2010). The academic literature on place (and its related concepts of man-made and placemaking) is rapidly expanding across a range of human sciences and professions, including architecture, geography, social anthropology, environmental psychology, planning, to name just a few. From early cave drawings to the most recent sculptures, humans have always expressed themselves through art and form. Self- representation, as a psychological phenomenon, necessitates that people alter their physical and nonphysical contexts in order to effectively convey and define who they are. According to Christophier Williams (1981), almost every other creature on the planet has a unique place and activity without which it would perish. Mankind does not have such a constraint, so humanity must build, shape, and design in order to alter the environment and make it habitable. Thus, the physical form is among those structures and objects which were used by humans since the dawn of time as a non-verbal communication tool (Rapoport, 1982). The German perceptual psychologist Rudolf Arnheim (1975) raised a fundamental question “Are there reasons enough to focus so much attention on the appearance of the buildings?”. It is, in fact, very important nowadays to understand our buildings, as we are moving towards sculpture and artifact physical forms in our contemporary architecture. The architectural form in this study is interpreted as a product of a long process that contributed to making the form’s final image. The intention behind this image is what we will try to present, argue, and explore the changes that may appear in the making process. It is argued that, for the most part, the designing of an ‘artifact’ should have a certain logic to it, whether it is material, elemental, or functional (Hillier and Hanson, 1989).