The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same (original) (raw)

Abstract

This research examined differences between the features of 'high' and 'popular' style residential architecture and between responses to those styles by architects and nonarchitects. Forty slides (20 of each style) were scored in terms of physical properties. They were also rated by 20 architects and 20 non-architects. The research identified distinct physical features of each style. 'High' style residential architecture had fewer materials, more concrete, simpler forms, more white, and off-center entrances. They were judged as more complex, novel, and exciting. 'Popular' style residential architecture was characterized by use of more building materials, horizontal orientation, hip roofs, framed windows, centered entrances, and warm colors. Architects and nonarchitects differed in how they characterized and evaluated the two kinds of buildings, Architects rated the 'high' buildings as more clear, coherent pleasant, relaxing, and meaningful. Models of preference revealed that both groups favored novelty and coherence (or clarity), but the non-architects favored simplicity and 'popular' attributes, while the architects favored complexity and 'high' attributes. * To whom all correspondence should be sent. The authors would like to thank Dale F. Bertsch for his insightful comments on this research.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (24)

  1. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
  2. Berlyne, D. E. (1958). The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 289-298.
  3. Boulding, K. (1961). The Image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  4. Gans, H. J. (1978). Towards a human architecture: a sociologist view of the profession. Journal of Architectural Education, 2, 28-31.
  5. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: an examination using multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 22.
  6. Groat, L. & Canter, D. (1979). Does Post-modernism communicate? Progressive Architecture, 12, 84-87.
  7. Hershberger, R. (1980). A study of meaning and architecture. In EDRA 1 Proceedings of the First Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference.
  8. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition. Environment and Behavior, 19, (1) 3-30.
  9. Kaplan, R. (1973). Predictors of environmental preference: designers and clients. In W. F. E. Preiser, Ed., Environmental Design Research. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
  10. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger.
  11. Michelson, W. (1976). Man and His Urban Environment. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
  12. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers preferences in residential scenes: a study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.
  13. Nasar, J. L. (1980). On determining dimensions of environmental perception. In R. Stough & A. Wandersman, Eds., Optimizing Environments: Research, Practice and Policy. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Washington, D.C.
  14. Newman, O. (1972), Defensible Space. New York: Collier Books.
  15. Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: a schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18(1), 3-30.
  16. Rockcastle & Owens (1981). Informing Design: Architectural Concepts in Traditional Neighborhoods. Old Town Restorations, Inc: Minniapolis.
  17. Russell, W. & Ward, L. (1981). The psychological representations of molar physical environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 121-152.
  18. Shafer, E. L. & Richards, T. A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper NE-302.
  19. Venturi, R. (1977). Complexity and Contradiction. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
  20. Verderber, S. & Moore, G. T. (1977). Building imagery: a comparative study of environmental cognition. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 332-341.
  21. Wohlwill, J. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill, Eds., Human Behavior and the Environment. New York: Plenum Press.
  22. Wohlwill, J. 0968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4, 307-312.
  23. Wolfe, T, (1981). From Bauhaus To Our House. New York: Pocket Books.
  24. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. H. & Anderson, T. W. (1974). Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Amherst, Institute for Man and His Environment, University of Massachusetts. Manuscript received 17 June 1988 Revised manuscript received August 1989