Design transformations in monuments and memorials as monumental buildings: new perspectives on the place-making model

Abstract

The monument, or the memorial, as a place of memory and emotional support, has been the focus of scholarly attention. Although existing studies have explored its space’s materialization, identity, history, and memory content, the materials about its design transformation have yet to be deeply excavated. Based on the relevant theories of place and place-making, the researchers constructed a knowledge system of the place-making model, the spatial vector pattern, and the worship behaviors of monuments. On this basis, a qualitative research methodology is adopted. Through case studies and participant observation, the design transformation of the monument/memorial is interpreted in the following five dimensions: function theme, morphology style, spatial relationship, visitor experience, and symbolic meaning. The results of this study show that the monument/memorial tends to promote in-depth public reflection and critical engagement with history, reflecting changes in how society perceives historical events. This research provides new perspectives for understanding the multidimensionality of the monument/memorial but also emphasizes the need to continue exploring its interaction with the socio-cultural context.

Introduction

Monuments and memorials are unique in cultural and social contexts as monumental buildings. Monuments and memorials are unique in cultural and social contexts as monumental buildings. Unlike buildings that provide essential shelter functions, they exist as a form of physical structure and serve as a place for people’s emotions and memories. From the etymology and definitions, the English semantics of Monument and Memorial go in two general directions: monument, which implies “death, reminder/warning,” and memorial, which carries the connotation of “memory” [1, 2]. The definitions in Longman [3, 4], Oxford [5, 6], and Cambridge dictionaries [7, 8] are limited. The relevant explanations in these dictionaries identify them more as objects and work without recognizing their significance in the foreground of the landscape. As early as 1903, Riegl’s [9] seminal interpretation of the monument enriched the understanding of its manifestations. While Dimitropoulos [10] and Griswold [11] argued, respectively, that the memorial is a representative work of continuing value and “a species of pedagogy,” Wasserman [12] emphasized the importance of linking the memorial to place and landscape and noted that denying this can lead to disorientation or limit the impact of the memorial.

In contrast to their singular understanding of monument and memorial, Danto [13], Sturken [14], and Young [15] make a clear distinction between them. They note that “monument” is usually associated with triumph and positive memories, whereas “memorial” is associated with tragedy and critical recall. More recent research suggests that their distinction is becoming blurred in place-related memory studies. Modern design tends to merge the two, embodied in “mute profusion,” i.e., embedding memory traces on its surfaces [16]. As an intermediary between people and memory, they are a place that constructs a social or collective interpretation of the past by constructing a physical space of memory. They preserve traces of places and landscapes in the sense of “memory,” through which people can interpret the hidden meaning behind them and give them a particular emotional attachment. Based on this understanding, the researcher will use the single term “monument” to refer to both for simplicity in expressing the following relevant content.

By observing the different types of research conducted around the concept of the “counter-monument/anti-memorial” [17,18,19], the subject of monument-related research topics can be described as four types of inquiry: memory studies, visual objectification, narrative, and the public sphere [20, 21]. In the memory research of monuments, the relevant research mainly obtains the meaning of “memory” through monuments and, at the same time, uses it to evaluate the “cultural reproduction and dissemination” of history. For example, Habuwah [22], Connerton [23], Nora [24], Asman and his wife [25, 26], and Antonova [27] explore collective memory, social memory, and cultural memory through monuments. Visual materialization mainly involves research that considers monuments as a material basis. Scholars [28,29,30,31] consider monuments as examples of sculpture, heritage, or patronage of the arts and believe they are the material embodiment of historical memory controlled by cultural and social revisionism. Literary and historical scholars often focus on the “narrative” theme of monuments, how the meaning of monuments is condensed around their historical reception, and elucidate their historical themes—related research by Osborne, Wu Hung, Reese Lowen, Reich, and Bellentani scholars. Researchers [27, 32,33,34] in the relatively under-researched public sphere of monuments mainly understand monuments from the perspective of political aesthetics or the cultural politics of public culture.

Regarding the inquiry into the public sphere of monuments, another noteworthy aspect is their place and place-making. Scholars [18, 28, 32, 35,36,37,38] have transformed the monument from a mere sign of memory into a place of social and collective interpretation; and argue that their sense of place is the result of a continuous negotiation between the monument’s creators and visitors and is enriched in the context of the present and the past [39]. Although Zhao and Huang [40] have expanded the study of monument sites by introducing the new term “encrypted place,” current research mainly focuses on individual monument sites. Additionally, the research literature on the place-making of monuments is exceptionally scarce, with only two relevant papers found so far [41, 42]. The place-making research on related topics mainly focuses on heritage, planning, urban public space, and boundaries [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. The place-making of monuments still needs further in-depth exploration, especially regarding the place-making model [53]. Such research should go beyond traditional spatial design and provide a more comprehensive analytical framework.

In summary, rather than analyzing individual monuments only from the perspective of spatial design, it is essential to examine them holistically from the dimension of place. This approach allows a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of monumental buildings’ multidimensional role and significance. It reveals their function in constructing and maintaining social memory, identity, and values. Based on the above understanding, this paper aims to address the following two issues.

• (1) Analyse the place-making model of the monument and its elements.

• (2) To explore the design transformation mechanism of the monument in terms of the place-making model and its elements.

Materials and methods

Data collection and analysis

In this research, the researchers adopted a comprehensive data collection method to ensure a thorough understanding of the selected monument cases. First, the researchers conducted field research to observe and record the physical characteristics of the Monument, the layout of the environment, and the interaction of visitors in order to collect accurate and reliable first-hand data. In recent years, the researcher has observed more than 40 monument cases built in different periods through on-site research, such as the Sun Yat-sen Monument in Guangzhou, the Monument to the People’s Heroes in Beijing, the Wenchuan Earthquake Memorial, the Tangshan Earthquake Site Memorial, the Matteo Ricci Memorial in Nanchang, and the Victory Monument in Bangkok. These cases were selected because the figures and events they commemorate have significantly impacted society, and the design of the monuments was approved by various parties through a competition or designed by authoritative designers (institutions). In addition, scholars have published special studies on these cases in authoritative professional journals. Finally, some cases were recommended by professional design websites such as Gooood and ArchDaily, and the researchers chose them based on the abovementioned reasons. At the same time, the researchers used the keywords “monument,” “memorial,” “place,” “place-making,” “placemaking,” and “place making” to collect relevant academic literature from online databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). In addition, the researchers also collated historical data on monuments from relevant works. These documents were then classified according to memory research, visual objectification, narrative, public sphere, and place, and the main content of each category of documents was analyzed and summarized. These primary and secondary sources provided the theoretical framework and essential knowledge for this study, helping the researchers understand the historical and cultural significance of the Monument. To enhance the data’s professionalism and diversity, the researchers selected Gooood, ArchDaily, and other professional architectural design websites based on Similarweb’s traffic data to collect monument design cases and related materials. The reason for collecting cases from these professional design websites is that the monuments that appear on them are all recommended by professionals or designed by world-renowned design institutions, making them professional and authoritative.

The researchers then systematically processed the collected data, ensuring that the data analyzed directly supported the research questions by screening out data related to the research objectives. In addition, the researchers used comparative analysis to identify the commonalities and differences between different monuments and summarized the development trends and pattern content of related themes through inductive methods. In this process, the researchers paid particular attention to maintaining the research’s objectivity and systematic nature to ensure the results’ reliability.

The methodology section of this research aims to provide a clear and systematic research framework to ensure that readers can clearly understand the data collection, processing, and analysis process. Through these methods, we aim to explore in depth the characteristics of the selected monuments in terms of the place-making model, its historical context, and its socio-cultural significance in order to answer the core questions posed by the research.

Research scope

This research focuses on physical monumental architecture, i.e., physically existing monuments and memorials intended to commemorate historical events or people. The researcher explicitly excludes forms of virtual memorialization on social media or other online platforms because, while these forms are increasingly important in modern society, they involve different mechanisms of interaction, construction, and experience than physical monumental buildings and are beyond this study’s scope. Similarly, this paper does not consider buildings primarily sheltering or serving other functional purposes, even though they may have some memorial value or meaning. For example, some buildings that commemorate specific historical events or figures are also excluded from the scope of this study if their primary function is as a residence, office, or any other non-monumental use. In addition, for those historical monuments (i.e., unintentional monuments as defined by Riegl), although they are still defined as “monuments,” this understanding is unintentional rather than intentional. Their original purpose or function was not intended to commemorate or remember, but because of their historical value, later generations have given them the significance and importance of monuments. Therefore, they are also not within the scope of this article. The reason for the researcher to make the limitations above in the scope of this article is that such limitations help the research focus on the role and significance of deliberate monuments in memory, identity, and the construction of public space.

Theoretical foundations: place and place-making

As a place of phenomenology

Christian Norberg-Schulz’s [54] theory of place serves as the core of a narrowly defined phenomenology of architecture whose central concept and theme is place and its spirit (Fig. 1). The theory contributes to understanding the complex connections between people and the built environment and their significance, provides a perspective on the environmental problems of the modern world and their root causes, and explores the fundamental ways to solve these problems. For Norberg-Schulz [54], the built environment has a structure and meaning from which people can understand and experience things in the world and their meanings. Instead of the traditional notion of “spatial environment,” he uses the concept of “place” as a meaningful whole composed of natural and built environments. Not only does this place have a material architectural form, but it also carries spiritual meaning. He further pointed out that one of the essential tasks of the built environment is to visualize natural phenomena and establish a positive and meaningful connection with them. People make this connection in three ways: visualization, complementation, and symbolization. These modalities demonstrate the interaction between the artificial and natural environments and reflect the more profound understanding and respect of the human letter for these environments. Through this multidimensional interaction, Norberg-Schulz’s theory of place provides a powerful tool for understanding and evaluating the complexity and diversity of architecture and its environments.

Fig. 1

Norberg-Schulz’s place theory

The current concept of place-making states that urban places are formed through continuous social practice, and their meaning is constantly created and reshaped in daily life [55]. The urban places here are the inner-city places. Drinkwater [56] further explains that urban villages, neighborhoods, districts, parks, squares, and other types of publicly owned land are all inner-city places. It is clear that the monument space environment, as one of the monumental squares or public spaces in the city, should also be regarded as an essential part of urban places.

Tuan’s [57, 58] perspective emphasizes transforming space into place based on people’s psychological experiences, including meaning, behavior, and emotions. Therefore, analyzing the monument from the perspective of place means considering the interplay between these monumental buildings and people’s emotions and memories and how they give meaning on a cultural and social level. It goes beyond the physical attributes of the building into the realm of human experience, including emotion, memory, and identity. Monuments are not just the creation of space but the collective expression of historical events, personal experiences, and cultural values [22, 24,25,26]. Further, examining the monument through the lens of place can reveal how they are part of social narratives and influence people’s understanding of and reflection on history and current events. This analytical framework emphasizes the monument as part of the living environment, which exists not only in physical space but also in social and cultural contexts.

Place-making of the monument

“place-making,” “place making,” and “placemaking” are three spellings of the same popular concept that originated in the field of urban design [59]. The concept is based on the distinction between “space” and “place,” as opposed to “meaning of places” [60,61,62], “sense of place” [63, 64], “place creation” [65], and “place identity” are closely related [66]; some of the ideas behind them are closely related to those of Jane Jacobs and William Whyte’s 1960s proposal and exploration of the relationship between people and space, which initially focused solely on the physical transformation of places and the end product of projects, has transformed into a process of transforming the physical and social elements of places by a multitude of participants outside of the planning profession [67]. The need for more clarity in the spelling of the three may stem from the fact that bottom-up organic place-making and top-down planned placemaking are the two extremes of the philosophy, theory, methodology, and practice of place making [59]. In a broad sense, they embody how cultural groups imprint their values, perceptions, memories, and traditions on the landscape to give meaning to geographic spaces [58, 68,69,70,71,72]. On the other hand, they involve planned, often top-down, professional design efforts to influence people’s behavior and shape their perceptions of a place [73].

In academic expression, “place-making” is described as a bottom-up, spontaneous, and more unstructured approach characterized by development’s discovery and exploration stages. “Placemaking” is defined as a top-down, deliberate, and more purposeful approach whose developmental stages are characterized by consolidation. On the other hand, “place making” encompasses the first two and thus overlaps with them and cannot be applied explicitly; its developmental stages are characterized by involvement and development [73]. In this study, the researcher emphasizes the importance of monument place-making. Monument place-making transforms a monument’s spatial environment and social elements through the concerted efforts of multiple participants; throughout the process, landscape spaces and social cultures of public monumental significance are formed through the interaction between people and places. This process also reflects the evolution of historical and contemporary environments through morphological and socio-spatial changes and demonstrates bottom-up spontaneity, objective authenticity, and a sense of place. At the same time, this activity creates new functions, meanings, and narratives. It is with this understanding that the term “place-making” has been chosen for this paper.

The meaning behind monuments has changed over time, as has the consistency of their construction [74]. As a result, the meaning of memory and emotional attachment that monuments carry with them has evolved. Most physical monuments will pass and deteriorate over time, detracting from the initial emotional attachment and memory of it. However, there is no denying that their sense of place can be emotionally charged for visitors. People’s interactions and dialogues with places are at the core of the place-making significance of monuments. Therefore, based on the phenomenology of place and the theory of place-making, the researcher tries to understand the structural interaction of monuments and their spatial environment from the perspective of place-making. Monuments are phenomenological, empirical, dynamic, and evolving discourses; they coexist and actively interact with the individual, allowing the person who passes through (or gazes at) them to recognize and discover the real.

The place-making model of the monument and its elements

Drawing on the concept of “counter-monuments and anti-memorials,” Huang [75] and Stevens et al. [17] argue that contemporary monuments differ from traditional monumental works in at least one of five ways: subject, form, site, visitor experience, and meaning. These counter-monuments and anti-memorials challenge traditional monuments’ visual and conceptual framework, aiming to evoke reflection and dialogue amongst visitors rather than just solemn commemoration. Vickery [21] extends this analysis by noting the potential inversions, subversions, or restructuring of traditional monuments’ characteristics, including positioning, location, material, form, and rhetoric.

Based on these perspectives, this study proposes a place-making model for monuments that emphasizes five key elements: function theme, morphology style, spatial relationship, visitor experience, and symbolic meaning (Fig. 2). The model contrasts with existing frameworks by providing a structured approach to understanding how monuments communicate and interact with the public in a multifaceted way, based on five main reasons.

Fig. 2

The place-making model of the monument

Firstly, the monument’s function is closely related to its subject matter. Quentin Stevens and other scholars [17] have argued that traditional monuments are usually affirmative regarding the subject matter: celebrating an event or a person or celebrating an ideology; in this respect, contemporary monuments are often critical. It is important to note that this study explores the meaningful function of the monument more than its spatial function. This research mainly explores the meaning and function of the monument as a memorial rather than its spatial function. These two functions of the monument are both different and related. It is one of the theoretical foundations of this study to explore the issues involved from the perspective of place [32, 76]. If we talk about the traditional form of the monument, its primary function is memory and humanization. Contemporary monuments, however, often recognize darker events or address the more disturbing aspects of events that may have been glorified in other times; their primary function is to commemorate and internalize. In addition, the monument varies in its functional subject matter, which often determines its shape, style, and site location. Therefore, the researcher takes the functional theme as the first element of the monument’s place-making model.

Secondly, although the morphology of traditional monuments is more vertically upward, they tend to be figurative in form [17]. However, monuments that serve different functional purposes vary in their style. For example, the traditionally vertical Chinese stone pagoda monument serves a religious purpose; the stone workshop monument, which has a different form, serves a social purpose [77, 78]. In addition, monuments of the same form often have different styles of expression, or the styles of monuments in different countries or regions also differ. Therefore, the researcher takes the morphological style as the second element of the place-making model of the monument.

Thirdly, the monument’s image must be shown through a specific space. In Tan’s [79] view, “the image expressed by a monument has to be shown through a certain space.” Traditionally, monuments are often obvious, prominent, visible, and separated from everyday spaces by higher natural ground or column foundations; their location sometimes serves as an active symbolic order for the space itself [75]. The reason for exploring the spatial relationship of the monument in terms of its relationship and orientation to the surrounding urban space, rather than focusing on a specific site location, is that, on the one hand, it is a better illustration of its siting than exploring a specific site location. On the other hand, this exploration of the spatial relationship of the monument itself already includes the exploration of the specific site location.

Fourthly, the monument environment with different spatial vector patterns will stimulate specific sensory engagements and trigger certain body movements in visitors. Although their reactions are difficult to predict, the monument designers can provide the appropriate environment and settings to facilitate these behaviors. The visitor’s response experience is both sensory and behavioral.

Fifth, unlike counter-monument and anti-memorial approaches, traditional monuments draw on visually materialized symbols to achieve their humanized function. They convey a clear, unified message through explicit textual or graphic representations of people, places or events, allegorical figures, and archetypal symbolic forms. Therefore, it would be more comprehensive and accurate to explore the design transformations of the monument in terms of symbolic meaning rather than significance.

Results and discussion

With the help of the above model, the researcher has identified, inducted, and analyzed the data collected from many monument cases from the place-making model and its various elements and then discovered the following design transformations of the monument.

Design transformations of the monument in the function theme

The monument works present design transformations from the initial memory and commemoration to the traditional humanization to the contemporary internalization of the function theme.

According to some accounts, the earliest ideas of the monument and its manifestations may have been specifically marked graves: some primitive people buried their dead companions by piling up raised graves or placing stones on top of them to mark the place of burial, thus expressing the remembrance of the deceased [80]. The theme of memory and commemorative functions of such monuments emphasize the remembrance and recollection of specific events, people, or groups. Its design aims to pursue historical authenticity and objectivity and permanently inscribe past events or people in people’s memories through specific forms, thus essential in conveying historical significance and cultural values.

The essence of a monument needs to be understood through interpretation. From the day they are erected, monuments are characterized by a temporal extension that allows them to narrate the relationship between “then” and “now” [39]. On the one hand, designers and builders express a narrative of a person, event, or value through elements such as the shape, theme, location, site design, inscription, and colors and materials of the monument. On the other hand, the proper interpretation of a monument is often left to the viewer. People reinterpret a monument by deciphering its elements and experiencing its sense of place. This interpretation may contradict the designer’s original intent or present a different perspective [81]. By crystallizing a moment in time, designers give certain monuments a deliberate commemorative value from the moment they are erected so that they not only become history but live forever in the consciousness of future generations [9]. However, over time, the role and meaning of some monuments have changed, and some have even been destroyed because of their unacceptable contemporary significance.

In addition to being tangible symbols of memory and remembrance, monuments reflect the values and beliefs of the society that created them [82]. Political elites often dominate the design of monuments. These groups have been able to build and utilize monuments due to their superiority in power and resources, aiming to present their dominant worldview through these spatial icons [76]. Sometimes, political elites, seeking to promote dominant historical narratives that suit their political purposes and encourage future canonicity, deliberately erase specific histories when constructing monuments [83,84,85]. That is, on a political level, these types of monuments are purposely built to promote dominant and selective historical narratives. In addition, monuments can also convey specific moral sentiments through their association with an individual’s life [39]. In both ways, monuments embody the functions of humanizing and internalizing.

The traditional theme of humanized function emphasizes communicating specific values and moral codes through monuments. Political elites try to inspire people by demonstrating heroism, sacrifice, or social values so that they learn from historical events. This functional theme is essential in educating society and shaping citizenship. However, over time, the functional theme of internalization has begun to emerge in the case of contemporary monuments, often in the form of “counter-monument or anti-memorial.” This shift reflects how monuments are perceived, from mere viewing to a more profound experience (Stevens & Franck, 2016). These monuments are designed to focus more on the individual’s internal experience and emotional resonance, emphasizing the emotional connection between the individual and the monument site. They aim to invite visitors to experience the place in an intimate, multi-sensory way, encouraging them to explore and understand its embedded meanings actively rather than communicating them in a didactic manner. A spatial environment with a greater sense of place and emotional resonance is created through place-making. The design of monuments with this functional theme induces visitors to think deeply about the historical events, people, and objects commemorated, and at the same time, induces them to introspect their values and meanings.

Design transformations of the monument in the morphology style

Regarding morphology style, the monument’s design transformations are mainly reflected in their Spatial Vector Patterns. The researcher has observed such transformations in the works about monuments: from vertical upward, horizontal extension, horizontal lying flat and disappearing and sinking, to the latest virtual design patterns.

As the previous grounded theory suggests, the study of the monument requires the scholar or designer to focus on (or discuss) its form and the totality of its environment. In other words, the researcher or designer should pay attention to not only (or discuss) its form but also the form of its place and its structural relationship. It is assumed that the spatial vector patterns of the monument are the standard pattern of a particular orientation of a building or structure in the environmental space compared to other orientations. Different types of monuments and their environments make up the whole. These can be divided into four spatial vector patterns: vertical upward, horizontal extension, horizontal lying flat, and disappearing and sinking (Fig. 3). The spatial vector patterns for a, b, c, and d in Fig. 3 are vertical upward, horizontal extension, horizontal lying flat and disappearing and sinking. Representative examples are the Washington Monument, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial designed by Maya Ying Lin, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe designed by Peter Eisenman, and the National September 11 Memoria l (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7). In addition, monuments like Mount Rushmore National Memorial or monuments floating in the air, which have spatial vector patterns, also fall into type a (Figs. 8, 9). Many scholars believe traditional monuments are more positive and vertically upward, while contemporary monuments (or “counter-monuments or anti-memorials”) are more pessimistic and complex [17, 86, 87]. In other words, of the four types of monuments in Fig. 3, type a represents more of a traditional monument design form. The other three types represent a contemporary monument design form, which can be recognized from the many contemporary monument works built.

Fig. 3

The spatial vector patterns of the monument: a vertical upward; b horizontal extension; c horizontal lying flat; d disappearing and sinking

Fig. 4

The Washington Monument, by Robert Mills, 1884 [88]

Fig. 5

Vietnam Veterans Memorial, by Maya Lin, 1982 [97]

Fig. 6

Murdered Jews of Europe, by Peter Eisenman, 2005 [98]

Fig. 7

National September 11 Memorial, by Michael Arad and Peter Walker, 2014 [99]

Fig. 8

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, by Gutzon and Lincoln Borglum, 1941 [100]

Fig. 9

Air Ruins Monument [101]

Traditional monuments mainly adopt a vertical upward structure, highlighting the importance and sublimity of the memorial through forms such as towering monuments or towers. This design form emphasizes the verticality of the monument and attracts attention through height and three-dimensionality. The more famous examples of such examples of monuments cases are the Washington Monument in the United States and the People’s Heroes Monument in China (Fig. 10). Such monuments often serve the dual role of sign and symbol [58]. As visible landmarks, they serve as locators in urban space, influencing people’s behavior and actions. At the same time, as specific symbols, they stimulate people’s thinking and help them build collective and social memory. Their surroundings often become sites of political activity [89,90,91]. Moreover, monuments are part of public art and have an artistic function [92, 93]. They influence the physical aesthetics of urban spaces, shaping urban areas’ image space and place space [94,95,96]. From an urban marketing perspective, monuments are often made into popular tourist attractions in cities, promoting urban tourism and economic development.

Fig. 10

People’s Heroes Monument in China, by Sicheng Liang et al., 1958

In contemporary times, people’s understanding of monuments has changed, and there have also been cases of horizontal extension of the design form of monuments. In the monument of this design form, the designer extends the spatial orientation of the monument to the horizontal direction, creating a more expansive space and a more open environment [102, 103]. The monument blends in with its surroundings through horizontal extension, emphasizing the connection with nature and the community. An example of this design from the Vietnam Veteran Memorial is representative. Influenced by counter-monument and anti-memorial approaches, the design form of the monument has since diversified. Horizontal lying flat and disappearing and sinking design forms of the monument began to appear [19, 104, 105]. Representative examples are the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe and the National September 11 Memorial. The horizontal and lying flat design form places the memorial on the ground, blending with the surrounding environment and emphasizing the connection with the ground. The disappearing and sinking design form hides the memorial underground and conveys the meaning of the memorial through its connection with the underground space. The newest form of virtual design is innovative and has emerged in recent years. Instead of relying on physical structures, this design form creates the experience of the memorial through digital technology and virtual reality. Through virtual design, memorials can be presented in various forms and scenarios, enabling people to interact with them in new ways.

Design transformations of the monument in the spatial relationships

In terms of spatial relationship, the design shift of the monument shows the following changing trends: from a single, univocal space to a composite space to a rich and varied spatial relationship and a shift from an emphasis on a single center and transparent axial relationships to polycentric (or centreless) and ambiguous axial relationships.

The initial spatial relationship of a monument place in the traditional sense mainly adopts a single, meaning-defining spatial layout, which conveys the specific meaning of the monument through a precise shape and layout. This design form emphasizes the singularity and clarity of the monument so that the viewer can intuitively understand what it represents. Later, the design form of the monument site gradually changed to a composite spatial relationship. This design pattern creates a more complex and rich spatial layout by combining multiple elements or components. The composite spatial relationship can express the multiple meanings and complexity of the monument through different shapes, layers, and layouts. In addition, some of the monument cases are designed to present rich and diverse spatial relationships. This design form often creates various ways of viewing and experiencing the monument through various shapes, layouts, and spatial elements. The viewer can feel different spatial relationships in different angles and positions, thus enhancing the visual and perceptual effects of the monument.

In addition to changes in the internal spatial production of the monument places, there has also been a shift in their spatial relationship with their surroundings from a design perspective. Traditionally, the monument design emphasizes a single center and a clear axial relationship. They are often the dominant symbols of urban space, organizing space through a central point and a clear axis. However, with the evolution of design concepts, design forms with multiple centers (or no center) and ambiguous axial relationships are becoming increasingly common. This design form organizes space through multiple centroids or ambiguous axes, making the spatial relationships of monuments more flexible, diverse, and open. For example, the National Holocaust Monument in Canada, designed by Studio Libeskind, has no apparent center or axis when viewed from the periphery (Fig. 11). The monument, connected by a central gathering space, consists of six triangular spaces intersecting and presenting two meanings of physical ground composition: ascending and descending planes.

Fig. 11

The National Holocaust Monument in Canada: a the Monument is located across from the Canadian War Museum; b the lighting design threads together the architectural language with an intimate and comfortable environment; c the Monument is conceived as an experiential environment comprised of six triangular; d two physical ground planes point seperately to the future and the interiors spaces

Design transformations of the monument in the visitor experience

In terms of visitor experience, the design shift of the monument presents a shift from the worship behavior of gathering, orderly, and dispersion to the emphasis on diverse spatial experiences.

The theory of environmental behavior tells us that environment and behavior are dialectical relationships of interaction, and a particular place environment supports its specific environmental behavior [106]. Therefore, different spatial vector patterns of the monument environment will induce different worship behaviors among visitors, and different activity modes often accompany different worship behaviors (Fig. 12; Table 1). The gathering is often more suitable for collective worship activities. In contrast, the monument’s orderly and dispersed worship behavior is more suitable for individual or small group prayer, contemplation, and other behaviors.

Fig. 12

Visitor worship behavior in the monument environment: a gathering; b orderly; c dispersion; d combination of orderly and dispersion

Table 1 Morphological patterns, behaviors, activities, and spatial characteristics of the monument

Traditionally, monument sites with vertically upward spatial vector patterns, where the monument is usually at the center of the ambient space and its height contrasts with its horizontal spatial contextual base, tend to attract attention from a distance. Monument environments of this type emphasize the spatial characteristics of a single center, which can easily attract attention from a distance (while also repelling it). Visitors to the monument are apt to trigger the act of gathering for worship during commemorative activities (Fig. 12a). The monument environment of the horizontal extension type, where the monument usually lies unobtrusively above the base of the spatial environment in which it is located. Visitors have to approach or walk through it to draw attention, often touching it as they do so, thus inducing remembrance and reflection on the history of the subject it commemorates.

This type of design form of the monument’s memorial often cuts across the spatial environment based on linear spatial characteristics. The environmental behavior of visitors to memorials in such places tends to be an ordered act of worship (Fig. 12b). The monument of the horizontal lying flat type tends to occupy the entire spatial environment base; when visiting the monument, visitors tend to move around the monument locally and between areas with different atmospheres. When visiting the monument, visitors tend to walk around the monument and different atmospheric zones; while experiencing the characteristics of the place, this kind of environmental space will stimulate their contemplative behavior. This type of monument has a polycentric or apocentric spatial character. People’s commemorative behaviors tend to present themselves as decentralized worship and a combination of ordered and decentralized worship (Fig. 12c). The monument of the disappearing and sinking type is often plunged, hidden, or buried in the ground, and the place where it is located is often the place where the historical event took place; people tend to traverse a specific spatial environment based on order to get close to the monument. When people visit the monument, their acts of worship are often congregational or sequential (Fig. 12d).

As mentioned earlier, the National Holocaust Monument in Canada differs from traditional monuments that can only be viewed from a distance. Visitors can walk through and stay in various areas inside the monument. Visitors entering the monument through the main entrance on Booth Street are first presented with a triangular space, while when entering the monument from Wellington Street, the spatial sequence of the visitor’s traveling first enters a shadowy space defined by concrete, then one of the triangular spaces; and then the central gathering space and the rest of the triangular spaces, and so on. In addition, the concrete walls of each triangle are inscribed with large, monochromatic photographs of the Holocaust site, and these photographic landscape murals representing the death camps, killing fields, and forests will be evocative. At the same time, these photographic works guide the visitor through and through the different regional spaces. Throughout the tour, as the concrete walls that make up the monument vary in height and inclination, the views and scenery change as the visitor moves through and around them. The monument is designed to give visitors an excellent environment to experience; the starlike shape gives a visual impression of the Holocaust as it is remembered. In addition, the six triangular spaces within the monument function as a place of interpretation, meditation, central gathering, and orientation.

Design transformations of the monument in the symbolic meaning

In terms of overall symbolic meaning, the monument’s design shifts from emphasizing sublimity and celebrating to peaceful, critical, and introspective.

In Rapoport’s [107] view, people react to their environments holistically and emotionally before analyzing and evaluating them in specific terms. The original form of the traditional monument is related to the “vertical stone” [80]. When human beings did not understand the everchanging natural phenomena, people used to erect monuments and stones to commemorate the phenomena of lightning and thunder, mountains and seas, which were regarded as manifestations of the gods, and to express their reverence for the gods. These vertical stones reminded and warned the ancestors of their worship of the gods. Gradually, the vertical stone was given to the people to commemorate special events, which contained the function of reminder and warning objects, and evolved into what is now understood as a monument. This phenomenon confirms the etymological significance of “monument”—the English word monument is derived from the Latin word monumentum, which initially means reminder and admonition. Traditional monuments in the later development are inseparable from the form of this vertical stone. The common characteristics of these monuments are that they are unidirectional uprooted “vertical stone,” enormous, magnificent, towering, erect, durable, and solemn, towering over the earth, outstanding in the group, high above.

From the perspective of morphosemantics, semiotics, and iconography, morphology is the external manifestation of a thing’s intrinsic nature. It is comprehensible, accessible to recognize, and memorized as a kind of language and symbol of the object itself, and at the same time, it is always symbolic and metaphorical [108]. The traditional vertical upward spatial vector pattern of the monument people tend to associate with the magnificent, noble, heroic, and sublime artistic image of the mountains, obelisks, and other objects, which have a sublime, great symbolism [86]. They mainly emphasize the sublimity and solemnity of the monument and express the praise and veneration of a particular event or person through majestic architecture and solemn forms [103].

Unlike the traditional vertically upward monument, contemporary monuments tend to exhibit spatial vector patterns such as b, c, and d in Fig. 3. Visually, they are presented as “counter-monument and anti-memorial,” often appearing calmer, more peaceful, and blending in with their surroundings.

The monument with such characteristics tends to have more possibilities and diversity in its form and morphology, and it conveys to people the recognition and tolerance of differences in contemporary monument design. The symbolic meaning of their morphology is polysemous and expresses its allowance for people’s more individualized, differentiated, and even contradictory emotions. The monument, traditionally a single vertically upward type of monument, is difficult to appreciate in this respect. If the symbolism of the traditional monument is more representative of the sublime and glorification, then the contemporary “counter-monument and anti-memorial” works represent peace, inclusiveness, and criticalness [86, 103]. For example, the monument, with its horizontal extension and horizontal lying flat design, is often imagined to be associated with spaces such as the sea, the earth, and the ground plane. The monument’s space tends to be broad, calm, and peaceful, and its visual form tends to be gentler, more elegant, and more open. In essence, this is precisely the modern people’s appeal for a better image of the value of “peace.” The expression of diversified vector patterns based on horizontal space is, in fact, the world’s tolerance and promotion of more diversified, individual, and accessible cultures, consciousnesses, and emotions, and no longer imposes a centralized, monolithic, and collective consciousness on people.

Discussion

As this paper delineates, the transformations in monument and memorial designs underscore the evolving nature of societal values, historical consciousness, and cultural needs. The design of contemporary monuments is shifting from the traditional forms of signs and symbols to places that allow for more introspective and critical engagement with history and memory. They can help people remember and embellish history and become places of contemplation, reflection, and even critique of historical events. The transformation of the monument’s design not only reflects the changes in social and cultural values in different periods but also reflects how people understand and perceive history and memory and the changes in the form and content of monuments and memorials in different societies and cultures. And the changes in the form and content of monuments and memorials. At the same time, these design transformations of the monument also reflect the designer’s exploration of the layout, utilization, and expression of space, as well as their rethinking of the purpose and meaning of monuments.

Influenced by Norberg-Schulz’s place theory, this research adopts the place-making model to explore the design transformation of the monument by providing a comprehensive research framework. In this framework, the researcher analyzed the design changes of the monument in five dimensions: functional theme, morphology style, spatial relationship, visitor experience, and symbolic meaning. This research provides a clear picture of the monument and its symbolic meaning. This research not only provides new perspectives for the design transformation of the monument but also emphasizes the interaction between social value, historical understanding, and formal spatial expression. The researcher considers the place-making model an essential tool for analyzing these transformations, providing a holistic view of the multidimensionality of monumental buildings. This methodology demonstrates a higher degree of operationalization and comprehensiveness compared to studies by other scholars [17, 21, 75, 109]. The researcher encourages other scholars to expand their theoretical knowledge of the place-making model elements of the monument and its spatial vector patterns and worship behaviors.

In addition, the researcher calls on scholars to explore the monument in depth from a broader range of perspectives and levels. Future research should focus on the interactions between the monument and its socio-cultural context, exploring how the monument reflects the interactions of public engagement and social memory and how these interactions shape the form of the monument, space, and place structure. Such a study would enrich the understanding of the monument’s multifunctionality and deepen the understanding of its cultural and historical value.