Historical Cultural Layers and Sustainable Design Art Models for Architectural Engineering—Took Public Art Proposal for the Tainan Bus Station Construction Project as an Example

Abstract

The concept of “historic buildings” is cultural with evolutionary characteristics, mainly constructed in the category of historical culture and people’s living settlements. “Public art” is an artistic asset with aesthetic attributes in urban living spaces. It contains two connotations, “cultural landscape” and “cultural route”, which form an artistic symbol of urban architectural space at the same time. Along with the progress of an urban renewal plan, a local culture characterized the urban landscape, making architecture a tool used to convey cultural identity spatially. Two coexisting issues can be seen through the accumulated structure and long-term changes of historic buildings, a region’s appearance, and the content of the traditional architectural styles—cultural value preservation and modern urban renewal—which ferment and generate decision-making discussion of design subtly in every corner of a city. This study examines the extant literature and the design model of public art landscape setting to construct a design model that balances the cultural value of historic buildings, and the landscape of public art has been proposed as a result of this study.

1. Introduction

Little attention has been paid to small and tight spaces in urban systems, which are often fragmented and unorganized (e.g., small open spaces, green spaces, art deco building facades, and streetscapes); however, nowadays, they are formed by the influence of aesthetics and ecology and have gained a new dynamism driven by society and publicity. The dynamism is influenced by civic activity, referred to as a social ecosystem. This civic activity promotes sustainable design for public art, historical building renewal and demolition programs.

According to J. Becker (2004): “Public art is a multifaceted field of inquiry; it encompasses a wide variety of creative expressions in the public realm” [1].

Compared to current urban living spaces, the architectural styles left behind by his-tory show a strong and more profound sense of belonging. In other words, their distinctive features and historical traces exist as the “local power” and urban public art, which is a display of architectural culture layers. Implementing public art can connect the characteristics of local culture and show the characteristics of urban blocks.

The common sustainability features of public art include public accessibility, public realm placement, community participation, and public process (including public funding); however, these works can be permanent or temporary. M.J. Jacob (1992) said, “Public art brings art closer to daily life” [2]. In 1992 and 1998, the Taiwan R.O.C. government promulgated the “Culture and the Arts Reward and Promotion Act” [3] (Taiwan version of Percent-for-art Program) and “Regulations Governing the Installation of Public Artwork” [4]. Since then, public art has become an important cultural and artistic indicator for Taiwan’s urban public construction space. The design characteristic of sustainable public art determines how best to activate the images in the surroundings. The concept of “sustainability” arises in response to the perceived environmental deficiencies of a city. For example, A. Zittel’s public art: “Indy Island”, proposes issues of sustainability and sustainable living space that participants can actively participate in, which can be considered sustainable public art facing the challenge of public open space needs [5].

The “Cultural layer” refers to a layer of earth formed by the accumulation of human traces or remains of man’s activities in the past. The historical and cultural patterns can be examined with this concept of time evolution and stacking of the older and newer cultural layers. Furthermore, through the interpretation of modern architectural design and public art, traditional buildings’ value of historical and cultural sustainability can also be transmitted and preserved [6].

On the other hand, historical streets are the spatial pattern of historical buildings, which carry the historical information of the city and the memory of residents and a form of stacked expression of cultural layers. The designs of these stacked cultural layers in historical buildings are presented in the field of modern urban architecture through time, symbolizing the cultural assets of a living block. Making historic blocks follows the same nature as public art: “cultural landscape” [7], “cultural route” [8], and “intangible cultural heritage” [9]. These factors simultaneously form a design symbol of the image of a city.

The United Nations has promoted sustainable development programs in various economic, social, and ecological genres since the 1980s. In 2016, F. Ceschin proposed the “4 Innovation Levels” [10] of sustainable design, one of which is known as the “Spatio–Social innovation levels”; the context of this innovation is about the spatial and social conditions of human settlements and their communities. This can be addressed at different scales, from communities to cities. Therefore, through the forms of public art, the design style guided by the cultural layer of traditional buildings can be used as a wonderful method of sustainable urban design.

The most special requirement of the design characteristics for public art is the construction of interactivity. The setting environment of public art is the living space where citizens experience it with their five senses, and public art plays an important role in creating a community [1]; Figure 1 presents the statistical data of public art installations in Taiwan from 2018 to 2020 [11]. As shown, public art installations are mainly distributed in urban blocks with significant populations. This agglomeration phenomenon suggests that the number of urban construction and public art installation projects is proportional to the trend, and it also shows the coordinate phenomenon of public art for urban planning and artistic landscape. The form of public art has been transformed into a design concept in the space field, creative thinking that involves the historical building space, and an artistic landscape combined with the planning and resources of urban public building construction.

Public art refers to artwork installed in an open space. The primary considerations in evaluation have four design features: “Artistic expression in environmental space”, “Locality”, “Civilian interaction”, and “Feasibility of safety structure”. These four characteristics are related to the current reconstructed architectural styles in historic districts with the same essence and needs. Through evaluating traditional architectural design styles and using public art as a reconstruction method, the design elements of traditional buildings and the aesthetic needs of current urban planning can be obtained, which are the current selection focus of the urban public art landscape design and the decision-making for transforming traditional architectural space.

Artwork can be a feature of urban environmental education, especially when installed in the public domain [12]. Public art is an artistic asset with aesthetic attributes; it is the architectural space’s image facade, representing the fashionable beauty of the design at the time, which simultaneously forms an artistic symbol. Historic building facades represent a style of stacking with the time of the cultural layer; with its unique style and function, it simultaneously shows the value of historical culture and the beauty of the public art landscape’s design.

Therefore, this study analyzes the design elements of traditional historic buildings through the characteristics and proposes a design-involved method for the historical building space through public art. This study uses a design decision-making application model, matching sustainable design to provide artistic landscape planning of the future architectural environment.

In the 1970s, American cognitive psychologist J.J. Gibson proposed the “Environment affordance” theory, arguing that:

“Human beings must be able to perceive the space environment; the space environment it-self is perceived by people in the movement of the space environment, and the affordance of the environment is composed of elements provided by the environment to the users [13]. Architectural engineering design is a cultural activity of human society not only covering aesthetics but also exposing the inner essence and hierarchical structure of culture.”

Public art shows the artistic characteristics of modern architectural public space and the affordability of space environment design; it then creates the cultural place color of urban architecture.

Based on the above needs for the public space reconstruction of historical buildings and public art landscapes, the design evaluation involves quite a variety of levels. Comparative analysis needs to be carried out through an evaluation tool that can take into account the existing spatial elements and non-substantial design characteristics and can objectively analyze the characteristics of the overall elements. The research takes the historical building facade of Shennong Street, Tainan City, Taiwan, as the research object, through its facade design patterns, design elements, and the perception level of representative models, to conduct a questionnaire survey on the design characteristics of relevant research objects. In the end, the following results are proposed:

• An evaluation and extraction method for the design elements of historical buildings in the public environment space.

• A design model that shows the sustainable cultural value of modern buildings through the creation and design methods of public art.

2. Literature Review and Research Process

2.1. Literature Review

Historical streets are composed of residents living construction activities, which are different from the street traffic planning formulated by modern cities. The current development strategies of historic streets include preserving and maintaining historical build-ings, the development of artistic and cultural spaces, and public art combined with public works (such as art streets). Each issue is deeply challenging and developmental because of the difference in each city’s historical development and the needs of each area. Still, it is essential to preserve historic streets; the purpose of development and pursuit of a beautiful living environment is consistent. Shennong Street (Figure 2) is a historic street that remains the most complete architectural style and street form in all of Tainan’s historical districts since the Qing Dynasty [14]. During the Japanese colonial rule period, the “urban area correction” plan was carried out; most of the buildings on Shennong Street were rebuilt and adapted for residential use. The 1st and 2nd floors of the buildings contain rich facades from different periods that forms one of the main features of this historic district [15].

The architectural facade style of a historical street (Figure 3 and Figure 4) contains the life experience and beliefs of the residents and shows the overlapping characteristics of modern life culture and the economic pattern at the time. In this research, a case study was carried out through the design style of the traditional building facade. It used the facade’s design style as a reference to propose a design method for the co-construction plan of the historical building space and architectural art engineering.

2.2. Research, Investigation and Process

This research and investigation take the historical streets of Shennong Street as the scope. Through field interviews, document surveys, building facade drawings, and style models, Figure 5 summarizes the definition and classification of facade building types as the basis for the perceptual evaluation of facade building design styles.

A questionnaire survey was conducted on the facade design styles and components to obtain facade design styles data and historic buildings’ spatial planning and public art design styles. The focus of the investigation is as follows:

• Investigation of main design elements of street building facade:

A total of 47 buildings were on-site, and the field survey time was June 2017. The primary collection of facade styles includes the facade material, window design, and entrance design of the first floor (Floor A), and the facade material, window design, handrail design, and entrance design of the second floor (Floor B), as shown in Figure 6.

• 2.. Interview:

Residents were used as the interview objects and conducted in-depth interviews on the current usage of the street, including the problems of community construction, the impact on the usage of the space change, and the historical memory of the buildings. The questions were used to integrate traditional districts’ past and present lifestyles and the expectations for current and future use of the space.

• 3.. Questionnaire:

The main evaluation items of the questionnaire were obtained by inviting experts and scholars to conduct interviews and discussions through the aggregated classification and definition data. In this study, experts and scholars screened the items and compared the items of building facades of Floors A and B. The decision-makers selected each paired element with the Likert scale to obtain the pairwise comparison values for each item. The subjects of the questionnaire are experts and scholars with professional backgrounds in architecture and public art to gain the weight value of the design style features of the facade. The research process is shown in Figure 7.

2.3. Classification and Definition of Research Objects

The building facade styles are drawn based on the north and south side buildings (Figure 8). The facade design styles are classified and selected through the Delphic hierarchy process (hereinafter referred to as DHP).

In order to distinguish the design styles, techniques, and materials of the facades of historical buildings from Figure 8, they were compared by the DHP method to delete similar design styles. The results concluded that the following building facades are the most important design features, as shown in Figure 9.

• The Floor As’ facade design features:

  • Multi-format window style (No. 65).

  • Wooden partition-windowless style (No. 49).

  • 2:1 multi-grid wooden structure window style. (No. 53, 57, 59).

  • Open windows on both sides with a middle door and washed stone finish wall style (No. 61, 64, 66, 88, 90).

  • Long facade wooden door style (No. 70).

  • Open windows on both sides with wooden facade style (No. 72).

• The design features of the Floor Bs’ facade:

  • The facade design’s axis is divided into three equal parts vertical facade by vertical and horizontal.

  • 2F’s window and door correspond with 1F’s design.

  • The design lines of the balcony are mainly vertical lines, crossing lines, squares, and rhombus.

From Figure 9, the following design rules were concluded:

• Multi-format window.

• Open windows on both sides with a middle door.

• The facade design’s axis is divided into three equal parts vertical facade by vertical and horizontal.

These design rules form the overall architectural construction planning of Shennong Street; its unified architectural style suited the living and industrial model at that time. These design rules contain important design elements that can be used in future architectural projects and public art landscape planning.

3. Research Method

3.1. Research Method

Architectural projects and public art landscapes have the characteristics of modern urban space fashion and aesthetics. According to space requirements and shape design, different art forms and design forms are produced, and there is a visual evaluation and functional affordability hidden in the spatial aesthetics. This functional affordability makes the overall construction project have diverse characteristics in the interaction of environmental behavior and forms visual characteristics.

Although the above-mentioned methods have a clear theoretical context and high practicability, they cannot take into account the subjective factors of human qualitative thinking and those factors with high uncertainty; for example, when facing the evaluation of various arts, culture, and creative thinking on the decision-making of public art installations, proposing a simple objective evaluation and decision-making method can provide a result that is in line with the needs of people. Therefore, this article proposes a combination of the DHP and AHP that uses the eigenvalues comparison matrix to analyze and calculate the optimal design features.

This study uses AHP as the primary research method. It provides objective mathematics to address the inevitable subjectivity and personal preferences of individuals or groups of decisions, empowering models with group decision-making capabilities [19]. Furthermore, it can construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices for each element at the upper level to compare elements in the lower level [20].

Conversely, the DHP will be used to centralize and delete opinions to achieve the effectiveness of evaluation indicators. Due to the method contained in AHP, there are three advantages: (a) It will be more effective and simpler to use the DHP with the AHP(EM) to acquire the specific or abstract facade style of the historical building. (b) The analysis of the first and second items in the weight order can concentrate more on the decision-making focus of artworks. (c) Using the DHP for decision-making inspection of art-works can avoid unnecessary pairwise comparisons, which can evaluate the decision-making of setting projects more accurately.

This study examined the extant literature research data and survey analysis, then formed a structured questionnaire. The study then performed a DHP expert evaluation to obtain the classification design characteristics of each facade. AHP(EM) was used to perform a pairwise matrix comparison operation; the weights of each pair of indicators were obtained using MATLAB, a compiling software. A paired matrix comparison of each element was conducted, along with the consistency check and sorting.

The facade design style of historic buildings and public art attributes have a complex design structure, covering the needs of historical culture, urban function, and urban planning. There exist tangible structures, intangible space aesthetics and other factors; therefore, it is essential to evaluate decisions through a method that establishes decision-making principles that can have implications and simplifies the design problem. According to the data obtained from the above evaluation questionnaire, the higher the weight value (ω), the higher the evaluation degree.

Take the matrix diagram in Formula (1) as an example; through a 7 × 7 matrix, to obtain Lambda max (λ_max) and the value of CI/CR is ≤0.1, which means it is consistent. When the matrix converted into a ω matrix, the weight value of this item can be obtained.

(1)$CR=\frac{CI}{RI}CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{\max }-n}{n-1}$

3.2. Result of Analysis on Design Evaluation

The building facade is the unity of architecture function, structure, and design aesthetics. It is composed of color, material, scale, proportion, direction, shape, and combination. This study processes perception-level evaluations based on aesthetic elements of the historic building facades, to obtain representative design styles. Through the overall analysis results, the weighted items of artistic features obtained by the weighted eigenvalue method are used to pair with the application method of the existing building facade styles. These can be used as design elements in the current historical street reconstruction, cultural management, and community construction and as an evaluation application method.

The weighted items and the current status of building facades are compared and tested by experts on the analysis and calculation results. After the examination, they all reached the evaluation consistency and obtained the following design evaluation rules for building facades. According to the top two weighted values, the representative styles are as follows (for exact weighted values please refers to Appendix A and Appendix B):

• The window design is mainly based on unity, geometry, order, and balance (Figure 10).

• Handrail design styles are the most diverse in patterns and materials. The design styles are mainly based on continuity, rhythm, symbols, proportion, and order (Figure 11).

• The design styles of the entrance are relatively unified, mainly based on proportional order, balance, and stability (Figure 12).

4. Sustainable Design Patterns for Architectural Engineering and Public Art Landscapes

According to the results of traditional architectural design elements (the public space needs, civilian interaction, and the aesthetic engineering concept), an innovative design plan was proposed and won the silver award in a competition of a public art installation project.

The research object in this article is based on the public art proposal: “OPEN—The Folder of Time” for the Tainan Bus Station public art project. Since the Tainan Bus Station public art project is a percent-for-art program and must achieve the requirements for the open competition, it must be related to the architectural design of the Tainan Bus Station itself.

The architects put historical factors and meanings into the architectural design. It carried the function of transportation just like Shennong Street, the most well-preserved historical district in Tainan, which was also used as an important transportation road in the early days (historical and cultural roles overlapped); therefore, by translating Shennong Street during the Qing Dynasty into “Street of Tainan” in buildings, the architects take this as the core concept of the architectural design of the Tainan Bus Station.

The public art proposal “OPEN—The Folder of Time”, its design and planning combine with the design concept of the Tainan Bus Station; the representative facade design styles are used as the design elements for public art installations, which deeply describe the geographical connotation, and historical context and continue the historical memory of the “cultural layer” of the installation location.

Tainan Bus Station is located upon the relics of the town office during the Qing Dynasty. In order to avoid deep excavation and damage to the historical relics that were preserved on-site, the design leans toward the shallow foundation and lightweight green building materials, recyclable steel structures and containers as the main structure. As a temporary, non-permanent building, the operation period is expected to be 10 to 15 years. After that, according to the committee of the Tainan Bus Station, it will be demolished for other uses, such as museums.

Therefore, in the public art installation plan, through the steel structure, the building facades are transformed into the structural order of the building space, which is formed by the facade steel structure like a container, performing the concept of a “cultural layer”, the time delay, and space division. At the same time, the core concept of this public artwork is consistent with the reuse plan of the Tainan Bus Station, which considered the possible direction of sustainable development in line with the reuse of the structure of the Tainan Bus Station shown as following Figure 13.

4.1. Fusion of Public Art and Architectural Engineering

The fusion of the public art planning and architectural engineering is completed by designing it with the most representative eight groups of facades of historical buildings as a unit (Figure 14). A theme of “OPEN—The Folder of Time” illustrates the significance of the historical architecture, overall cultural atmosphere, and the separated meaning by the cultural layer content of spatial stacking and time deposition on the construction base used.

“Overall” refers to the “historical building facade” and the corresponding setting location, “Tainan Bus Station” (Figure 15), as an overall of the same cultural layer. The separated overall can refer to the “individuality of different facades of the same historic district”, corresponding to “one station after another, each station has integrity; however, different transport vehicles have their individuality”.

4.2. Same Time but Different Individually

Different cultural layers have continuous characteristics in the process of linking history, with both time delay and spatial distinction; history as an event is the “Perfect tense” of the time. Past, present, and future are the three tenses identical in continuous time but different individually from the space point of view. Therefore, this study proposes the public artwork method that expresses the “is form and content” to present the art form in the cultural layer and the multi-layered meaning of diachronic time and synchronic space.

4.3. The Construct of Public Art Landscape and Architectural Engineering

4.3.1. Creation Interpretation

Since the 1990s, the design concept of public art has gone far beyond the simple form of sculpture and a monument sitting alone in the open square [22]. Therefore, this interpretation uses the form of public art to express the unique historical background and location conditions of the “Bus station” and “Street of Tainan” in multiple cultural layers. It also implies the distinguishable characteristics of time, which symbolizes the combination of the three temporal sequences of past, present, and future and the continuous nature of the cultural layer space in the overall architectural space. The location of public art shown as Figure 16.

4.3.2. Design Method

“Public art been increasingly advocated on the basis of contributions to urban regeneration since the 1980s. Most decision-makers argue that public art can help develop a sense of identity, develop the sense of place, promote citizens’ identity, address community needs, and social exclusion; has its educational value and the function of foster social change” [23].

Considering the historical background and location conditions of the multiple cultural layers, the representative building facade style (as Figure 17) is present in the way of public art through the following three features: (a) Takes the rhombus patterns that appear in large numbers on the facades of historical buildings as the design elements for the three-dimensional design. (b) With quadrilateral rhombus to interpret the bus station as the heart of urban traffic. (c) The overall meaning of the public art is to present the “ex-tending in all directions” functions of the bus station; this not only transforms the cultural layer design elements of historic buildings but also the historic value of the past is represented in the beautification of modern architectural engineering, which is the fusion of art and architectural engineering that re-deploys meaningful historical documents in the modern urban living space, showing the beneficial result of architectural beauty and cultural experience at the same time.

4.3.3. Color Scheme

One can integrate the color scheme of the building and analyze the cultural layer’s time, distance, and space at different nodes to distinguish the difference in hue, saturation, and vibrance. With this color scheme, the public art can also coincide with the architectural design of “Tainan Bus Station”, shown as Figure 18 and Figure 19.

5. Conclusions

The 19th-century Austrian architect C. Sitte analyzed the spatial characteristics of European cities from the late classical antiquity to the post-industrial revolution in his book “City Planning According to Artistic Principles” (Der Städtebaunach seinen kün-stlerschen Grundsätzen) (1889). He discovered that the urban space loved by residents was not those large-scale squares or palaces but those well-proportioned, well-interacted, and beautiful urban landscapes; he emphasizes that, with a design sense of free life, the coordination between buildings and the encompassed squares and streets are the elements to achieve the purpose of the aesthetic planning of a city [24]. He believes urban architecture is a comprehensive work of art that must be planned and constructed based on artistic principles. As for urban architecture, he believes that urban architecture is a comprehensive work of art that must be planned and constructed based on artistic principles. D. J. Curtis (2010) also argues that “the arts have an ability to communicate environmental information… and to normalize concern for the environment, taking it from the realm of ‘problem’ to the realm of general conversation or even entertainment” [25]. The public space of Shennong Street has the artistic characteristics of the public space mentioned. The facade of the historical building on Shennong Street is an arrangement of artistic images and the space between the building facades on both sides; the historical street buildings and the artistic features of the facades constitute the historical value of urban development.

Heritage buildings are a cultural concept with evolutionary characteristics, mainly constructed in the category of historic culture and people’s living settlements. The construction space of modern projects makes people’s living space and the buildings group a certain correlation and produces unique architectural forms and living needs. Public art is an artistic asset with aesthetic attributes in the architectural field and also forms an artistic symbol of urban architectural space. Through describing the boundaries of public artworks, combined artworks, urban architecture, and public spaces are formed into a structure with perceptual entities that residents have a common impression of, which itself becomes an “image” [26]. This means that the public art is a space that creates memory; relatively speaking, the appearance of the cultural layer of a region can be seen from these heritage buildings. In the process of research and practice conducted for this this study, the following discoveries have been made:

• Applying the design that retains the historical and cultural context of the heritage buildings to the current city is an important method to show the sustainable cultural value of modern buildings.

• A design model found the balance between the cultural value of historic buildings and public art.

As an implementation case, the purpose of this research is to propose a field of innovation and a direction for sustainable design. Make the preservation of historical buildings not limited to widely discussed issues and methods such as: the maintenance of historical sites, the preservation of cultural relics, spatial activation, reconstruction and reuse. For the public art proposal “OPEN—The Folder of Time”, its design and planning combine with the design concept of the Tainan Bus Station to translate history and culture into a sustainable design. By using “public art” as a medium, through the fusion of architectural engineering and art, history and culture are translated into a sustainable design art model. In the face of the rapid development of the city and the current state of continuous renewal and planning of modern urban architecture, through public art combined with sustainable design art solutions, whether it is preservation or construction planning, historical buildings and new construction will form an organic topology line of shaping the urban landscape and urban development.

Therefore, the result and contribution of this article is a practical solution that uses public art combined with cross-domain design, to open up another train of thought for the preservation, activation and reuse of traditional buildings. The authors sincerely hope that the opinions and discoveries in this study can become an innovative design and feasible method that benefit future urban architectural engineering, cultural preservation, and urban renewal projects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.-F.L.; methodology, C.-T.T.; validation, W.-C.K.; formal analysis, W.-C.K.; investigation, W.-F.L.; resources, C.-T.T.; data curation, W.-C.K.; writing—original draft preparation, W.-F.L.; writing—review and editing, W.-C.K.; visualization, W.-F.L.; project administration, W.-F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Figure 1. Amount of public art installations in Taiwan in the past 3 years (2018–2020).

Figure 2. Map comparison of current Shennong Street with an old map drawn by N. Nakagami, Sketch map of inside and outside Tainan city, 1900 [16]. Map on left: Tainan City Government [17].

Figure 3. Landscape of Bei-Shi Street.

Figure 4. Outlook of a historical building, which is the original spot of well-known Yong chuan palanquin workshop.

Figure 5. Elevation view of historical buildings on Shennong Street. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 6. Facade design analysis diagram of historical buildings. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 7. Diagram of the research process. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 8. The facade styles of buildings on north and south side. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 8. The facade styles of buildings on north and south side. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 9. Main design styles of the building facade on Shennong Street. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 9. Main design styles of the building facade on Shennong Street. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 10. Diagram of representative window designs. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 11. Diagram of representative handrail designs. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 12. Diagram of representative entrance designs. (Adapted from [18]).

Figure 13. Diagram of the reuse plan. (Upper diagram: Committee of public art installation project on Tainan Bus Station) [21].

Figure 14. Diagram of the design concept, for fusing public art and architectural engineering. (Upper right structure diagram: Committee of public art installation project on Tainan Bus Station) [21].

Figure 15. Comparison diagram of the living time stacking between the transit station and the cultural layer. (Picture: Committee of public art installation project on Tainan Bus Station) [21].

Figure 16. The pedestrian traffic flow of the Tainan Bus Station. (Picture: Committee of public art installation project on Tainan Bus Station) [21].

Figure 17. Elevation view of the public art design with historical building facade.

Figure 18. The color scheme of public art and architectural engineering. (Left color scheme: Committee of public art installation project on Tainan Bus Station) [21].

Figure 19. Dimensions of the public artwork (unit: mm) [21].

Appendix A. Calculation Result of Questionnaire

A and B layer Aa–Ac items CI/CR verification value ≤ 0.1, expert weight numerical analysis results.

Table A1

Sorting of Floor A, Aa/Ab/Ac in the expert questionnaire. (Adapted from [18]).

ω Sort	Q/Aa	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 1	a4	7 × 7	7.0819	0.0103	0.3416
	expert 4	a3	7 × 7	7.0819	0.0103	0.2975
	expert 5	a4	7 × 7	7.3159	0.0398	0.3705
2	expert 1	a1	7 × 7	7.0819	0.0103	0.3215
	expert 4	a4	7 × 7	7.0819	0.0103	0.2469
	expert 5	a1	7 × 7	7.3159	0.0398	0.1898
ω Sort	Q/Ab	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 1	a3	7 × 7	7.4891	0.0617	0.3276
	expert 4	a1	7 × 7	7.6825	0.0861	0.3234
	expert 5	a1	7 × 7	7.6163	0.0778	0.2857
2	expert 1	a1	7 × 7	7.4891	0.0617	0.2875
	expert 4	a3	7 × 7	7.6825	0.0861	0.2291
	expert 5	a3	7 × 7	7.6163	0.0778	0.2242
ω Sort	Q/Ac	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 2	a3	7 × 7	7.5755	0.0072	0.3679
	expert 4	a3	7 × 7	7.7934	0.1000	0.2976
	expert 5	a4	7 × 7	7.5749	0.0725	0.2212
2	expert 2	a6	7 × 7	7.5755	0.0072	0.2271
	expert 4	a5	7 × 7	7.7934	0.1000	0.1892
	expert 5	a5	7 × 7	7.5749	0.0725	0.2059

Table A2

Sorting of Floor B, Bd/Be/Bf/Bg in the expert questionnaire. (Adapted from [18]).

ω Sort	Q/Bd	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 1	b9	14 × 14	15.3698	0.0671	0.1815
	expert 2	b12	14 × 14	15.6372	0.0802	0.1316
	expert 4	b12	14 × 14	15.2014	0.0500	0.1433
2	expert 1	b6	14 × 14	15.3698	0.0671	0.1491
	expert 2	b6	14 × 14	15.3698	0.0671	0.1157
	expert 4	b9	14 × 14	15.6372	0.0802	0.1020
ω Sort	Q/Be	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 1	b5	14 × 14	15.6815	0.0823	0.2714
	expert 2	b5	14 × 14	15.0989	0.0538	0.2650
	expert 4	b3	14 × 14	15.1943	0.0585	0.2547
2	expert 1	b8	14 × 14	15.6815	0.0823	0.1624
	expert 2	b8	14 × 14	15.0989	0.0538	0.1803
	expert 4	b6	14 × 14	15.1943	0.0585	0.1483
ω Sort	Q/Bf	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 1	b9	14 × 14	15.4979	0.0734	0.2217
	expert 2	b9	14 × 14	15.4636	0.0717	0.1578
	expert 4	b9	14 × 14	15.4070	0.0689	0.1619
2	expert 1	b13	14 × 14	15.4979	0.0734	0.1365
	expert 2	b13	14 × 14	15.4636	0.0717	0.1434
	expert 4	b6	14 × 14	15.4070	0.0689	0.1401
ω Sort	Q/Bg	Item	Pairwise Matrices	λ max	$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$	ω
1	expert 1	b6	14 × 14	15.4576	0.0714	0.1318
	expert 2	b10	14 × 14	15.5980	0.0782	0.1625
	expert 4	b13	14 × 14	15.2188	0.0597	0.1464
2	expert 1	b13	14 × 14	15.4576	0.0714	0.1213
	expert 2	b13/14	14 × 14	15.5980	0.0782	0.1492
	expert 4	b14	14 × 14	15.2188	0.0597	0.1345

According to the above eigenvalue matrix, to calculate the first and second items’ weight value, the following sorting sequence is required:

• Floor A: Aa-a4, Aa-a3, Aa-a1/Ab-a1, Ab-a3/Ac-a3, Ac-a5, Ac-a6, Ac-a4.

• Floor B: Bd-b12, Bd-b6, Bd-b9/Be-a5, Be-b3, Be-b8, Be-b6/Bf-b9, Bf-b13, Bf-b6/Bg-b13, Bg-b14, Bg-b10, Bg-b6.

These items are the best representative facade design of Shennong Street. (as the following Table A3).

Table A3

Comparison of the most representative design style on Floor A and Floor B of Shennong Street. (Adapted from [18]).

A		B
Sort	ω Project	Appraise Project	ω Sort
Aa	a4/a3/a1	Bd	b12/b6/b9
Ab	a1/a4	Be	b5/b3/b8/b6
Ac	a3/a5/a6/a4	Bf	b9/b13/b6
		Bg	b13/b14/b10/b6

Appendix B

Table A4

Floor A Aa-Ac items’ CI/CR verification value ≤ 0.1, expert weighted matrix.

Floor A, item Aa, expert 1, λmax 7.5268, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0665									Floor A, item Aa, expert 4, λmax 7.0819, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0103
Aa	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω	Aa	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω
a1	1	5	3	1	7	7	7	0.3215	a1	1	5	1/3	1/3	7	7	7	0.2306
a2	1/5	1	1/5	1/7	1	1/3	3	0.0444	a2	1/5	1	1/3	1/5	1	1	3	0.061
a3	1/3	5	1	1/5	5	1	5	0.1277	a3	3	3	1	3	3	3	3	0.2975
a4	1	7	5	1	7	5	7	0.3416	a4	3	5	1/3	1	5	3	5	0.2469
a5	1/7	1	1/5	1/7	1	1/3	3	0.042	a5	1/7	1	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	1	0.0434
a6	1/7	3	1	1/5	3	1	5	0.0966	a6	1/7	1	1/3	1/3	3	1	5	0.0834
a7	1/7	1/3	1/5	1/7	1/3	1/5	1	0.0258	a7	1/7	1/3	1/3	1/5	1	1/5	1	0.0369
Floor A, item Aa, expert 5, λmax 7.3159, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0398									Floor A, item Ab, expert 1, λmax 7.4891 $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0617
Aa	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω	Ab	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω
a1	1	5	1/3	1/5	5	5	5	0.1898	a1	1	5	1	5	3	3	5	0.2875
a2	1/5	1	1/5	1/5	1/3	1	5	0.0601	a2	1/5	1	1/3	3	1	3	3	0.1157
a3	3	5	1	1/3	3	1	3	0.1891	a3	1	3	1	5	7	3	7	0.3276
a4	5	5	3	1	3	5	7	0.3705	a4	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	1/5	1/5	1/3	0.033
a5	1/5	3	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	0.0643	a5	1/3	1	1/7	5	1	1	5	0.1111
a6	1/5	1	1	1/5	3	1	3	0.0903	a6	1/3	1/3	1/3	5	1	1	1/5	0.0814
a7	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/7	1	1/3	1	0.0355	a7	1/5	1/3	1/7	3	1/5	1/5	1	0.0432
Floor A, item Ab, expert 4, λmax 7.6825 $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0861									Floor A, item Ab, expert 5, λmax 7.6163, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0778
Ab	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω	Ab	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω
a1	1	5	3	5	1	5	3	0.3234	a1	1	5	1	5	1	5	3	0.2857
a2	1/5	1	1	3	1	1/3	1	0.0898	a2	1/5	1	1	3	1	1/3	1	0.0945
a3	1/3	1	1	5	5	3	3	0.2291	a3	1	1	1	3	5	1	3	0.2242
a4	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	1/5	1/5	1/3	0.0307	a4	1/5	1/3	1/3	1	1/5	1/3	1/3	0.0381
a5	1	1	1/5	5	1	1	3	0.1339	a5	1	1	1/5	5	1	1	3	0.1402
a6	1/5	3	1/3	5	1	1	3	0.1279	a6	1/5	3	1	3	1	1	3	0.1483
a7	1/3	1	1/3	3	1/3	1/3	1	0.0649	a7	1/3	1	1/3	3	1/3	1/3	1	0.0687
Floor A, item Ac, expert 2, λmax 7.5755, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0072									Floor A, item Ac, expert 4, λmax 7.7934, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.1000
Ab	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω	Ac	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω
a1	1	3	1/7	1/7	1/3	1/5	1	0.0483	a1	1	5	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/3	1	0.0722
a2	1/3	1	1/7	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	0.0357	a2	1/5	1	1/3	1/5	1/3	1/4	1	0.045
a3	7	7	1	5	5	1	5	0.3679	a3	5	3	1	3	3	1	5	0.2976
a4	7	5	1/5	1	1	1/3	3	0.1432	a4	5	5	1/3	1	1	1	3	0.1764
a5	3	3	1/5	1	1	1	3	0.1283	a5	3	3	1/3	1	1	3	3	0.1892
a6	5	5	1	3	1	1	3	0.2271	a6	3	5	1	1	1/3	1	3	0.1671
a7	1	1	5	3	3	3	1	0.2043	a7	1	1	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	0.0521
Floor A, item Ac, expert 5, λmax 7.5749, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0725
Ac	a1	a2	a3	a4	a5	a6	a7	ω
a1	1	5	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	1	0.0973
a2	1/5	1	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	0.0408
a3	3	5	1	1	1	1	3	0.1955
a4	5	5	1	1	1	1	3	0.2212
a5	1	3	1	1	1	3	3	0.2059
a6	3	5	1	1	1/3	1	3	0.1774
a7	1	1	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	0.0615

Table A5

Floor B Bd-Bg items’ CI/CR verification value ≤ 0.1, expert weighted matrix.

Floor B, item Bd, expert 1, λmax 15.3698, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0671
Bd	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1	1	1	1/3	1/3	3	1/3	1/7	3	1/3	1/5	1	1	0.0414
b2	1	1	1	1	1	1/5	3	1/3	1/7	5	1/3	1/3	3	1	0.0535
b3	1/5	1	1	1	1	1/5	5	1/3	1/7	3	1/3	1/3	1	1/5	0.0373
b4	1	1	1	1	1	1/5	3	1	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/5	1	1/5	0.0293
b5	3	1	1	1	1	1/5	3	1	1/7	1/3	1/3	1/5	1	1/5	0.0338
b6	3	5	5	5	5	1	7	3	1	5	3	1	5	1	0.1491
b7	1/3	1/3	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/7	1	1/3	1/7	1/5	1/7	1/7	1/5	1/5	0.0127
b8	3	3	3	1	1	1/3	3	1	1/5	1	1/3	1	3	1/3	0.0591
b9	7	7	7	5	7	1	7	5	1	1	1	1	7	5	0.1815
b10	1/3	1/5	1/3	3	3	1/5	5	1	1	1	3	1/3	3	1/3	0.0645
b11	3	3	3	3	3	1/3	7	3	1	1/3	1	1	5	1	0.0943
b12	5	3	3	5	5	1	7	1	1	3	1	1	7	1	0.1195
b13	1	1/3	1	1	1	1/5	5	1/3	1/7	1/3	1/5	1/7	1	1/3	0.0253
b14	1	1	5	5	5	1	5	3	1/5	3	1	1	3	1	0.098
Floor B, item Bd, expert 2, λmax 15.6372, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0802
Bd	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1/3	5	1	1	1/5	5	1/7	1/3	5	1	1/5	5	5	0.0751
b2	3	1	5	1	1	1/3	5	1/3	1/5	7	3	1	5	1	0.0992
b3	1/5	1/5	1	1	1	1/5	7	1/3	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/5	1	1/7	0.0236
b4	1	1	1	1	1/3	1/3	5	1	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/3	1	1/3	0.0334
b5	1	1	1	3	1	1	5	1	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	0.0422
b6	5	3	5	3	1	1	5	1/3	1	1	1	3	7	3	0.1157
b7	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/5	1/5	1/5	1	1	1/7	1/7	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	0.0174
b8	7	3	3	1	1	3	1	1	3	1	1	1/3	3	1	0.113
b9	3	5	5	5	5	1	7	1/3	1	1	1	1/3	5	3	0.1116
b10	1/5	1/7	3	5	5	1	7	1	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.0917
b11	1	1/3	5	5	3	1	3	1	1	1/3	1	1/3	3	3	0.0689
b12	5	1	5	3	5	1/3	5	3	3	1/3	3	1	5	5	0.1316
b13	1/5	1/5	1	1	1	1/7	1	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	0.0219
b14	1/5	1	7	3	3	1/3	3	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/5	3	1	0.0541
Floor B, item Bd, expert 4, λmax 15.2014, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0500
Bd	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1	1	1/3	1	1/3	3	1/5	1/3	3	1/3	1/3	3	1	0.0554
b2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1/3	1/3	3	1	1	3	3	0.0757
b3	1/3	1	1	1	1	1/5	3	1	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	1/5	0.0343
b4	3	1	1	1	1	1/3	3	1	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	0.0433
b5	1	1	1	1	1	1	5	1	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	0.0423
b6	3	1	5	3	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	1	3	3	0.0964
b7	1/3	1	1/3	1/3	1/5	1/5	1	1	1/7	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	1/3	0.024
b8	5	3	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	1	1/3	1/3	1	1	0.0827
b9	3	3	3	5	5	1	7	1/3	1	1	1	1/3	3	1	0.102
b10	1/3	1/3	3	3	3	1	5	1	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.0993
b11	3	1	3	3	3	1	3	3	1	1/3	1	1/3	3	1	0.0866
b12	3	1	3	3	5	1	5	3	3	1/3	3	1	5	5	0.1433
b13	1/3	1/3	1	1	1	1/3	1	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/5	1	3	0.0435
b14	1	1/3	5	3	3	1/3	3	1	1	1	1	1/5	3	1	0.0706
Floor B, item Be, expert 1, λmax 15.6815, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0823
Be	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	3	5	1	1/7	5	5	1	1	5	1	5	7	3	0.0954
b2	1/3	1	3	1	1/9	3	5	1/7	1/3	3	1/3	3	5	3	0.0533
b3	1/5	1/3	1	1/3	1/9	1/3	1/3	1/7	1/5	1/3	1/7	1	3	1/3	0.0161
b4	1	1	3	1	1/7	3	5	1/5	3	5	1	5	7	3	0.0815
b5	7	9	9	7	1	7	9	1	5	7	5	7	9	7	0.2714
b6	1/5	1/3	3	1/3	1/7	1	5	1/5	1	3	1/3	5	7	1	0.0441
b7	1/5	1/5	3	1/5	1/9	1/5	1	1/7	1/5	1/3	1/7	1	1	1/3	0.016
b8	1	7	7	5	1	5	7	1	3	5	1	5	7	5	0.1624
b9	1	3	5	1/3	1/5	1	5	1/3	1	3	1	3	7	3	0.0691
b10	1/5	1/3	3	1/5	1/7	1/3	3	1/5	1/3	1	1/5	1	7	1/3	0.0261
b11	1	3	7	1	1/5	3	7	1	1	5	1	7	7	3	0.0973
b12	1/5	1/3	1	1/5	1/7	1/5	1	1/5	1/3	1	1/7	1	3	1/3	0.0185
b13	1/7	1/5	1/3	1/7	1/9	1/7	1	1/7	1/7	1/7	1/7	1/3	1	1/7	0.0106
b14	1/3	1/3	3	1/3	1/7	1	3	1/5	1/3	3	1/3	3	7	1	0.0376
Floor B, item Be, expert 2, λmax 15.0989, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0538
Be	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	5	1	5	1/7	7	1	1/3	1	5	1	7	7	1	0.0858
b2	1/5	1	1/5	1	1/9	1	3	1/7	1/3	3	1/5	1	5	1	0.0329
b3	1	5	1	3	1/7	1/3	1	1/5	1/3	1	1/5	3	7	1	0.0439
b4	1/5	1	1/3	1	1/7	1	3	1/7	1	1	1/5	3	5	1	0.0326
b5	7	9	7	7	1	9	9	1	9	7	5	9	9	9	0.265
b6	1/7	1	3	1	1/9	1	1	1/7	3	1	1/5	3	5	1	0.0399
b7	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/9	1	1	1/7	1/3	1/3	1/7	1	5	5	0.0361
b8	3	7	5	7	1	7	7	1	7	5	1	7	9	7	0.1803
b9	1	3	3	1	1/9	1/3	3	1/7	1	1/3	1/5	5	7	1	0.0466
b10	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/7	1	3	1/5	3	1	1/3	3	7	1	0.0411
b11	1	5	5	5	1/5	5	7	1	5	3	1	7	9	3	0.1245
b12	1/7	1	1/3	1/3	1/9	1/3	1	1/7	1/5	1/3	1/7	1	5	1/5	0.0165
b13	1/7	1/5	1/7	1/5	1/9	1/5	1/5	1/9	1/7	1/7	1/9	1/5	1	1/7	0.0082
b14	1	1	1	1	1/9	1	5	1/7	1	1	1/3	5	7	1	0.046
Floor B, item Be, expert 4, λmax 15.1943, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0585
Be	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	3	1	5	1/7	5	1	1	1	1	1	5	5	1	0.044
b2	1/3	1	1/5	1	1/9	1	3	1/7	1/3	3	1/3	1	3	3	0.0357
b3	1	5	1	3	1/7	1/3	1	1/5	1/3	1	1/5	1	3	1	0.2547
b4	1/5	1	1/3	1	1/7	1	3	1/5	1	1	1/5	3	3	1	0.0412
b5	7	9	7	7	1	7	9	1	5	7	5	7	9	7	0.0342
b6	1/5	1	3	1	1/7	1	1	1/5	1	1	1/3	3	5	1	0.1483
b7	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/9	1	1	1/7	1/3	1/3	1/7	1	1	5	0.064
b8	1	7	5	5	1	5	7	1	3	5	1	3	5	5	0.0499
b9	1	3	3	1	1/5	1	3	1/3	1	3	1/5	3	3	3	0.1263
b10	1	1/3	1	1	1/7	1	3	1/5	1/3	1	1/3	3	5	5	0.0239
b11	1	3	5	5	1/5	3	7	1	5	3	1	5	5	5	0.0138
b12	1/5	1	1	1/3	1/7	1/3	1	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/5	1	5	1/5	0.0446
b13	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/9	1/5	1	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1	1/7	0.044
b14	1	1/3	1	1	1/7	1	5	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/5	5	7	1	0.0357
Floor B, item Bf, expert 1, λmax 15.4979, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0734
Bf	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1	3	1	7	1/3	5	3	1/7	1	1/3	1/5	1/5	1	0.0471
b2	1	1	3	1/3	3	1/5	5	1	1/7	1/7	1	1	1/5	1/7	0.0337
b3	1/3	1/3	1	3	5	1/5	3	1	1/7	1/3	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/7	0.0263
b4	1	3	1/3	1	3	1/5	3	1	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/5	0.0282
b5	1/7	1/3	1/5	1/3	1	1/7	1	1/3	1/7	1/5	1/7	1/5	1/7	1/5	0.0121
b6	3	5	5	5	7	1	5	5	1/3	3	1	3	1	1/3	0.1072
b7	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/3	1	1/5	1	1/3	1/5	1/3	1/7	1/3	1/5	1/5	0.015
b8	1/3	1	1	1	3	1/5	3	1	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0301
b9	7	7	7	5	7	3	5	5	1	7	3	5	3	3	0.2217
b10	1	7	3	5	5	1/3	3	3	1/7	1	1/3	3	1	3	0.0925
b11	3	1	5	5	7	1	7	1	1/3	3	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0815
b12	5	1	3	3	5	1/3	3	1	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/3	0.0533
b13	5	5	5	5	7	1	5	5	1/3	1	3	5	1	3	0.1365
b14	1	7	7	5	5	3	5	5	1/3	1/3	3	3	1/3	1	0.1143
Floor B, item Bf, expert 2, λmax 15.4636, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0717
Bf	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1/3	5	1	3	1/5	1	1	1/7	1	1/5	1/3	1/5	1	0.0386
b2	3	1	3	1/5	1	1	5	1	1/5	1/7	1/3	1/5	1/7	1/9	0.0349
b3	1/5	1/3	1	5	3	1/7	1	1	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/7	1/7	1/7	0.0242
b4	1	5	1/5	1	1	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/7	1	1	1/7	1/7	0.0313
b5	1/3	1	1/3	1	1	1/7	1	1/3	1/9	1/7	1/7	1/7	1/7	1/5	0.0143
b6	5	1	7	5	7	1	9	7	1	1	1/3	3	1	1	0.109
b7	1	1/5	1	1	1	1/9	1	1	1/7	1/5	1	1	1/7	1/7	0.0221
b8	1	1	1	1	3	1/7	1	1	1/7	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/7	0.026
b9	7	5	5	5	9	1	7	7	1	3	5	5	1	1	0.1578
b10	1	7	5	7	7	1	5	5	1/3	1	7	7	1	1	0.137
b11	5	3	7	1	7	3	1	1	1/5	1/7	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0689
b12	3	5	7	1	7	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/7	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0518
b13	5	7	7	7	7	1	7	5	1	1	5	5	1	1	0.1434
b14	1	9	7	7	5	1	7	7	1	1	5	5	1	1	0.1399
Floor B, item Bf, expert 4, λmax 15.4070, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0689
Bf	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1/3	3	1	3	1/3	1	1	1/7	1	1/3	1/3	1/5	1	0.0386
b2	3	1	3	1/3	1	1/5	5	1	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.0362
b3	1/3	1/3	1	3	3	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/3	1/5	1/7	0.0258
b4	1	3	1/3	1	1	1/5	3	1	1/5	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0354
b5	1/3	1	1/3	1	1	1/7	1	1/3	1/7	1/7	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/5	0.0167
b6	3	5	5	5	7	1	3	5	1	3	1	3	1	3	0.1401
b7	1	1/5	1	1/3	1	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0274
b8	1	1	1	1	3	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0315
b9	7	5	5	5	7	1	5	5	1	3	3	3	1	3	0.1619
b10	1	5	5	5	7	1/3	3	3	1/3	1	1/3	3	1	1	0.0893
b11	3	3	5	1	5	1	1	1	1/3	3	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0738
b12	3	5	3	1	5	1/3	1	1	1/3	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/3	0.0537
b13	5	5	5	5	7	1	5	5	1	1	3	5	1	1	0.1367
b14	1	5	7	5	5	3	5	5	1/3	1	3	3	1	1	0.1323
Floor B, item Bg, expert 1, λmax 15.4576, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0714
Bg	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1	3	1	3	1/5	5	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	0.0494
b2	1	1	3	1	3	1/3	3	1	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	0.0404
b3	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	1/3	3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/3	0.0236
b4	1	1	3	1	3	1/3	3	1	1/3	1/3	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0486
b5	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	1/5	1	1/3	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.0187
b6	5	3	3	3	5	1	3	3	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.1318
b7	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/5	0.0169
b8	1	1	3	1	3	1/3	3	1	1/3	3	1	1	1/5	1/3	0.0624
b9	3	3	3	3	3	1	5	3	1	1	1	1	1	3	0.113
b10	1	3	3	3	5	1	5	1/3	1	1	1	1	1	1	0.0858
b11	3	3	5	1	5	1/3	5	1	1	1	1	1	3	3	0.1141
b12	3	3	5	1	5	1/3	5	1	1	1	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0765
b13	3	3	5	3	5	1	7	5	1	1	1/3	3	1	1	0.1213
b14	1	3	3	3	5	1	5	3	1/3	1	1/3	3	1	1	0.0967
Floor B, item Bg, expert 2, λmax 15.5980, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0782
Bg	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1	5	1	5	1	5	1	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.0397
b2	1	1	5	1	5	1/5	3	1	1/3	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0384
b3	1/5	1/5	1	1/5	1	1/5	3	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/7	0.0147
b4	1	1	5	1	5	1/3	3	1	1/3	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0395
b5	1/5	1/5	1	1/5	1	1/7	1	1/3	1/5	1/7	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/7	0.0131
b6	1	5	5	3	7	1	7	7	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.1232
b7	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	1/7	1	1/5	1/7	1/7	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/7	0.0124
b8	1	1	5	1	3	1/7	5	1	1	1/5	1	1	1/5	1/5	0.0423
b9	5	3	5	3	5	1	7	1	1	1/3	3	3	1	1	0.1035
b10	5	5	7	5	7	1	7	5	3	1	5	5	1	1	0.1625
b11	5	1	5	1	5	1/3	5	1	1/3	1/5	1	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.048
b12	5	1	5	1	5	1/3	5	1	1/3	1/5	5	1	1/5	1/5	0.0636
b13	5	5	7	5	7	1	7	5	1	1	5	5	1	1	0.1492
b14	5	5	7	5	7	1	7	5	1	1	5	5	1	1	0.1492
Floor B, item Bg, expert 4, λmax 15.2188, $\mathit{C}\mathit{R}$ 0.0597
Bg	b1	b2	b3	b4	b5	b6	b7	b8	b9	b10	b11	b12	b13	b14	ω
b1	1	1	3	1	3	1	5	1	1/3	1	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.049
b2	1	1	3	1	3	1/3	3	1	1/3	1/5	1/3	1	1/5	1/3	0.0411
b3	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	1/3	3	1/3	1/3	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.0227
b4	1	1	3	1	3	1/3	3	1	1	1/3	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0506
b5	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	1/5	1	1/3	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	0.0185
b6	1	3	3	3	5	1	3	3	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.1143
b7	1/5	1/3	1/3	1/3	1	1/3	1	1/3	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/5	1/7	1/7	0.0163
b8	1	1	3	1	3	1/3	3	1	1	1/3	1	1	1/5	1/3	0.0493
b9	3	3	3	1	3	1	5	1	1	1/3	1	1	1	1	0.0819
b10	1	5	3	3	5	1	5	3	3	1	1	3	1	1	0.1219
b11	5	3	5	1	5	1/3	5	1	1	1	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0818
b12	5	1	5	1	5	1/3	5	1	1	1/3	1	1	1/3	1/3	0.0711
b13	5	5	5	3	5	1	7	5	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.1464
b14	5	3	5	3	5	1	7	3	1	1	3	3	1	1	0.1345

References

1. Becker, J. Public Art: An Essential Component of Creating Communities; Americans for the Arts: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.

2. Jacob, M.J. Places with a Past; Rizzoli International Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1992.

3. Culture and the Arts Reward and Promotion Act. Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan). Available online: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170006 (accessed on 27 December 2021).

4. Regulations on the Installation of Public Art. Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan). Available online: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0170012 (accessed on 27 December 2021).

5. Blackwell, M.; Blake, E.L. 100 Acres. The Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park/IMA; Indianapolis Museum of Art: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2010.

6. Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz: DNK. Available online: https://www.dnk.de/ (accessed on 17 January 2022).

7. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2012; 14.

8. UNESCO. Routes as Part of Our Cultural Heritage; UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 1994.

9. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention (accessed on 22 December 2021).

10. Ceschin, F. Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Des. Stud.; 2016; 47, pp. 118-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002]

11. Liang, C.C.; Hsiung, P.C. Public Art in Taiwan Annual 2020; Ministry of Culture: New Taipei City, Taiwan, 2021.

12. Robidoix, M.; Kovacs, J.F. Public Art as a Tool for Environmental Outreach: Insights on the Challenges of Implementation. J. Arts Manag. Law Soc.; 2018; 48, pp. 159-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2018.1450315]

13. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, MA, USA, 1979; pp. 127-137.

14. Chang, S.H.; Chen, W.T.; Lin, C.K.; Li, C.W.; Wang, L. Chorography of Taiwan County; 1720.

15. Shi, C.W. A Study on Space Utilization of Traditional Street-House—A Case Study of Shen-None Street in Tainan City. Master’s Thesis; National Cheng Kung University: Tainan, Taiwan, 2002.

16. Nakagami, N. Matters of Tainan; Cheng Wen Publishing: Taipei, Taiwan, 1985.

17. Tainan by Foot. Available online: https://w3fs.tainan.gov.tw/001/Upload/135/ebook/ebook_314731/index.html (accessed on 28 June 2022).

18. Liu, W.-F.; Tseng, C.-T.; Kuo, P.-H.; Kuo, W.-C. Historical Architectural Space Design Elements of the Application Activation Decision—Taking the Building Facade on Shennong Street in Tainan as a Case Study. J. Technol.; 2018; 33, pp. 63-70.

19. Kia, A.H.Z.; Adeli, M.M. Implementing AHP Approach to Select a Proper Method to Build High-Rise Building (case Study:Tehran). Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Washington, DC, USA, 29 June–2 July 2014.

20. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Serv. Sci.; 2008; 1, pp. 83-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590]

21. Taiwan Cultural Creative Industries. Available online: https://cci.culture.tw/%E3%80%90%E5%BE%B5%E4%BB%B6%E3%80%91%E8%87%BA%E5%8D%97%E8%BD%89%E9%81%8B%E7%AB%99%EF%BC%88%E5%85%B5%E9%85%8D%E5%BB%A0%EF%BC%89%E6%96%B0%E5%BB%BA%E5%B7%A5%E7%A8%8B%E5%85%AC%E5%85%B1%E8%97%9D%E8%A1%93/ (accessed on 1 October 2020).

22. Finkelpearl, T. Dialogues in Public Art; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000.

23. Hall, T.; Robertson, I.J.M. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landsc. Res.; 2001; 26, pp. 5-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390120024457]

24. Sitte, C. The Art of Building Cities: City Building According to Its Artistic Fundamentals (Der Städtebaunach Seinen Kün-Stlerschen Grundsätzen); Martino Fine Books: Westford, CT, USA, 2013.

25. Curtis, D.J. Using the Arts to Raise Awareness and Communicate Environmental Information in the Extension Context. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.; 2011; 17, pp. 181-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.544458]

26. Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960.