Architectural Judgements and Their Causes in Finnish and
British Architects and Lay People
Kirsti Kaarina Willis, 0453056
Supervisor: Dr. Alexander Weiss
1 (44)
Abstract
Architecture has a great impact on our well-being by inducing feelings ranging from
boredom, depression, and even fear to inspiration and relaxation. This warrants research on
the topic of what makes buildings attractive. The results of previous studies are mixed, but
they indicate that architectural knowledge and cultural factors effect architectural
judgements. The present study therefore concentrates on two variables: Nationality (British
and Finnish) and professionality (architects and lay people). The experimental hypotheses
were these: Firstly, people prefer familiar building styles to unfamiliar ones. Secondly, lay
people like popular, more decorative styles more than so-called “high” styles, whereas
architects are expected to prefer more Minimalist, “high” style buildings to decorative,
popular style ones. Thirdly, the British and the Finnish participants will differ in their
architectural preferences, due to acculturation. The aesthetic preferences for 10 buildings
reflecting differing styles were compared in architects and lay people in Finland and the
United Kingdom. In addition to examining main effects, the study tested the effects of
nationality and profession interaction, and controlled for the main effects of familiarity and
liking. The results of the study did not support the first hypothesis, which stated that familiar
buildings would be liked more than unfamiliar ones. The second hypothesis, stating that
architects prefer “high” style buildings to popular style buildings and that lay people prefer
popular styles to “high” styles, was not supported either, although the data pointed in its
direction. The third hypothesis, stating that the two nationalities will differ in their
architectural judgements, was, however, supported by the results, suggesting that
acculturation is an important factor in architectural judgements.
2 (44)
Introduction
Architecture is as old as humanity, and it influences nearly all mankind. However, it is only
in the last few decades that the psychology of buildings has become as important an issue in
architectural discussions as artistic form or structural soundness. The aim of this study is to
build on earlier research (conducted under the label of “environmental psychology”), and
establish which factors of different buildings make us like or dislike them with a special
focus on familiarity and different architectural styles. The possible reasons for these
architectural preferences will also be examined together with the ways in which professional
knowledge and education affect how buildings are perceived. The general hypotheses of this
study are the following: Firstly, people prefer familiar buildings to unfamiliar ones. Secondly,
lay people like popular, more decorative styles more than so-called “high” styles (such as
Modernism), and architects, on the other hand, are expected to prefer more Minimalist,
“high” style buildings to decorative, popular style ones. Lastly, because of acculturation, the
British and the Finnish participants will differ in their judgements.
What is meant by architecture is not only the early practice of building a shelter that will
protect its inhabitants from the elements and provide a safe base to return to and rest in
comfortably, but something more profound. The essential part of architecture is the cultural
dimension which could be addressed after this basic level of safety and protection has been
achieved in a building, and the inhabitants have resources to continue improving their
housing (Ballantyne, 2002, pp. 20-21; Maslow, 1943). The cultural dimension is in the finer
details of construction and decorations added to a building. Expressing oneself in this way is
important to people, as through these personal touches in their houses they can communicate
their values and position in society to others. There is an evolutionary aspect, which can be
3 (44)
attributed to architecture as to any form of art. Arguably, the man who designs and builds the
best and most beautiful houses is displaying his fitness (creativity, intellect, health, strength,
and practical skills) to females, so that they would choose to have children with him and
spread his genes further (Miller, 2007, pp. 266-267).
Architecture, as we Western people understand it, has its roots in ancient Greece, which is
also the birthplace of democracy and philosophy. The temples of the Acropolis and various
other well-known structures built by the ancient Greeks are the “forefathers” of the buildings
we now live and work in. Gradually the focus of architectural debate has shifted from
structural and practical matters of building to the psychology, sustainable development and
aesthetics of architecture. For over a thousand years Classical architecture (the architectural
style of ancient Greece) was seen as the “perfect” way to built in the Western part of the
world. The temple fronts, columns, repeated ratios and symmetrical facades were
incorporated in new buildings, first in Rome, then all over Europe’s educated areas, and even
as far as Helsinki, Finland (De Botton, 2006, p. 21).
The Modernist movement was a reactionary attack against the elaborate designs and
ornamentation of the previous architectural styles such as Gothic, Baroque, and Art Nouveau.
The Modernist architect Adolf Loos went as far as to describe decoration as criminal,
decadent and immoral. He, like the other Modernists, favoured austerity and clarity in design.
Loos also analysed glass as a building material, claiming that its transparency offered
potential psychological, sociological, and aesthetic advantages compared to other, more
traditional, building materials. Le Corbusier, arguably the most famous Modernist architect,
was highly influenced by the new technology and machines, particularly aeroplanes, of the
early 20th century. According to him the building should be an efficient “living machine” of
4 (44)
sorts, and the houses of the future be ascetic, clean, disciplined and frugal. Despite his
practical sounding design philosophy he often sacrificed practicality for the sake of visual
impact (De Botton 2006, pp. 55-57, 65-66). This is a criticism that is valid also of many of
the other Modernist architects, as many of the Modernists lost their initial empathy and ideals
of solidarity, and became increasingly narcissistic (Pallasmaa, 2007).
The latest reaction to previous architectural styles, including Modernism, the Deconstructivist
movement, took the approach of not trying to reconcile the problems arising from
incompatible planning factors, but rather making the existential experience of the inhabitants
stronger by making them negotiate their way around the building. Because of this,
Deconstructivist houses can appear quite peculiar and chaotic to the average person. (Hearn,
2003, p. 20)
British and Finnish Architecture
Because of its central position in the history of Europe as well as other continents, Britain’s
architecture is almost synonymous with European architecture, from the architecture of
Roman settlements to the latest post-modern building styles with only a gap between the
withdrawal of the Romans in the fifth century and the Norman invasion in 1066. In addition
to the styles shared by all of Europe, there are also a few typically British building styles,
such as Tudor with its visible wood beams, Victorian with its slated roofs and bay windows,
and the simple, but elegant, Georgian townhouse (Tinniswood, 2001). Finland, however, has
always been a rural, provincial area connected to either Sweden or Russia. It has been further
isolated by its strange language and a long sea border. So, on the map of post-war
Modernism, Finland was seen to be on the very periphery of civilisation: Not European, but
5 (44)
not Communist either. The myth of innocent, honest forest-dwellers lives inside Finns even
now when technology is one of the nation’s main exports. This can be seen most clearly from
the saunas and summer villas, which are still designed in a primitive fashion. (Vesikansa,
2007).
The European architecture dictated by academics was thus never understood by the Finns,
who built out of practicality and necessity, perfectly in tune with the Finnish climate and
geography. In 1920s, after the reign of the Jugend style (similar to French Art Nouveau, and,
in Finland, a part of the art movement called “National Romanticism”), Modernism arrived in
Finland, most notably through the designs of Alvar Aalto. The public took to this new
building style, because functionalism was seen in its principles (appropriateness,
thoroughness, honesty, practicality, and social responsibility) to be similar to Finns. This is
perhaps why Modernistic building is still exercised in Finland (Dobbins et al. 1963).
How are buildings seen?
People’s mental representations of a building are based almost solely on its façade (front of
the building), because this is the part we most commonly see when we pass it on the street
(Imamoglu, 2000). Despite being a structure of e.g. bricks, roof tiles and glass windows, a
building is never “just a building”, or merely a sum of its parts. A building’s shape, size,
colour, material and its decorations draw on our past experiences, associations and sense of
general aesthetics to conjure up feelings about it. Using this information we consciously or
unconsciously choose to live in areas that reflect our ideas of who we are and how we want to
be seen. So we get to express ourselves, even if we do not build our own houses, as we used
to (Ballantyne, 2002, p. 32). There is also an evolutionary aspect to how humans choose and
6 (44)
judge their living environments. According to Kaplan (1989), this is done according to how
practical these environments are: Whether it is easy to find your way in them, and whether
there is life and life supporting elements (such as vegetation, water, and safe hiding places) in
them.
Depending on our acculturation, we perceive buildings differently. Our past experiences and
associations with buildings make us concentrate on different aspects and details in them. This
is illustrated in the finding that the inhabitants and visitors to a city experience the same
surroundings differently, and also focus on different things in it (e.g. Ballantyne, 2002, pp.
65, 83; Nasar, 1989b). Another example of the impact of acculturation on our architectural
judgements is how the large manor houses of the Southern parts of the U.S.A. are perceived.
They could either be seen as happy family homes, and beautiful, authoritative buildings or as
symbols of oppression and arrogance, depending on whether the person asked was a
descendant of the house’s owner or a descendant of the slaves who worked for the manor
(Ballantyne 2002, pp. 65).
Alain De Botton (2006, pp. 72, 98) argues that every object of design (including buildings)
gives an impression of the psychological and moral attitudes it “supports”. The liking of an
object is thus not only based on the aesthetic perception of it, but also on whether the values
it represents are compatible with ours and our desired way of life. To put it another way, we
like buildings we want to live in and visit, and buildings we think we will be happy in.
Furthermore, we give objects personalities based on the archetypal images (humans, animals)
their features remind us of. To expand on that, objects we see as beautiful could, in fact,
depict people we love or people we would like to be friend (De Botton, 2006, pp. 86-89).
There are several other examples of buildings being seen as a human, or a primordial
7 (44)
archetype - particularly the windows as eyes and the door as a mouth (reversely human eyes
are often described as the “windows to the soul”) (e.g. Pallasmaa, 2007; Bachelard, 1994, p.
xxxiii).
Modernist architects fought against the symbolic meanings of the traditional metaphoric
“body” of the house, as well as its natural symmetry and balance. Modern buildings, such as
those designed by Bauhaus legend Mies van de Rohe, can be considered “sublimely” severe.
Deconstructivists have continued the Modernists’ work to its end, by valuing chaos and
imbalance in design and bringing the traditional symbolism of a house as a romanticised
shelter to its end. Buildings do not express authentic culture any more, but rather an invented
and fabricated one. (Pallasmaa, 2007)
All through its history architecture has been used to enforce social and institutional
hierarchies, but this is not necessarily seen as negative, as it has been regarded as one of
architecture’s basic tasks. It is there to build boundaries and walls against chaos and promote
order (Pallasmaa, 2007). However, architecture can also be used to influence and manipulate
people into submission. Because of its ancient Greek origins classical architecture has
developed democratic and philosophical overtones, as well as the feeling of timeless
greatness. Albert Speer built the new state buildings for Hitler on a massive scale, pompously
displaying the force of the imperium by utilising the authoritative style of Classicism. It was
also made an advocate of centralised, totalitarian power in the Stalinist Soviet Union,
Ceaucescu’s Romania and other blood-stained tyrannical states. In these cases Classicism
takes the role of an instrument of mind-control, idealising and aesthetising the brutal use of
power (Collins, 2007, p. 173).
8 (44)
On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson used Classicism in a very benign way to symbolise
freedom, optimism and democracy (through associations with ancient Greece) in his design
of the University of Virginia in the early days of the American nation. The appeal of the
Classical style might have something to do with its designs being closely linked to the
familiar proportions of the human body (Collins, 2007, p. 173). The Gothic style with its
arches and spiky towers, on the other hand, is often seen applied in church buildings, and in
the 19th century it was actually seen by many architects as the moral and Christian building
style. Because of this, the Gothic style is still largely associated with churches (Ballantyne,
2002, p. 43).
A building’s sheer size of course also affects how we see it. The contrast between the human
and the superhuman scale of a building intrigues us for example in Gothic cathedrals. The
same aesthetic criteria do not, however, apply for all buildings. The size of a building can,
thus also create negative impressions if the building is large, but perceived as non-important.
The message of false importance sent by its size aggravates us, because the size and
importance of a building are seen as linked to each other (Krampen, 1990). Accordingly, a
museum for modern art can be aesthetically unconventional and challenging to be enjoyed
and accepted, whereas buildings used as homes need to convey a relaxing and revitalising
feeling best achieved with safe, familiar and coherent designs (Kyttä, 2004, p. 33).
Gaston Bachelard (1994, p. 7) refers to a house as a “cradle”, and although it might seem
impossible that a safe haven such as a “cradle” could be anything else than comforting,
architecture can also be destructive when a building catches fire, collapses or explodes. But
violence in architecture can more subtly arise from the design itself. Instead of providing a
framework for a good life, some buildings suffocate us and restrict our lives (Bachelard,
9 (44)
1994, p. 17). For example, the spaces inside and as well as outside of buildings can make us
feel claustrophobic or agoraphobic. We can get lost in buildings, and experience vertigo,
alienation, fear of falling, super human scale, threatening scale, paralysing repetition, sensory
deprivation, overloading of senses, control and surveillance (Pallasmaa, 2007).
Modernism’s tendency to use the colour white not only arose from aesthetic reasons, but
from the moralistic foundation of what it represents. Furthermore, the “sleek” idea of
perfection held by many architects, and Modernists in particular, is inherently inhumane and
unnatural. Technical perfectionism and the mechanisation of a Modernistic house have,
however, become means in themselves, which have replaced humane values in architecture
(Pallasmaa, 2007).
From the new building materials first used by Modernists, glass has the most potential to
evoke democracy (De Botton, 2006, p. 93), but also to intimidate. Glass buildings can seem
like giant glass eyes maliciously watching our every move (unlike traditionally built houses,
which only “see” through their windows). The glass walls both shelter us from the outside
world and expose us to it. Buildings with reflective glass, although “blinded” and “unseeing”,
have the power to mirror other buildings and disguise themselves as them (creating the threat
of the so-called “Doppelgänger”).
Architects
To understand how the personal aesthetic taste of architects is constructed, we must first
understand what it means to be an architect. Traditionally architects are seen as the shapers of
our aesthetic environment. An architect’s personal style is shaped by their personality,
10 (44)
education, ideology and architectural role models. However, architects do not have complete
freedom to express themselves, as they have to adhere to many external rules and boundaries
set by governments and councils to protect the public’s interests. Architects have a close knit
community, but this does not mean that all architects share the same ideology and sense of
what it means to be an architect (Kervanto, 1987).
Architects can see themselves either as artists, which is the traditional view, as servants of
society, or as interpreters and intermediaries. The role of the architect as an artist is to give
others aesthetic experiences using their own intuition and creativity. The role of an architect
as a social servant, on the other hand, is to provide utilities to the public using the latest
technology and a highly pragmatic viewpoint. Finally, the architect’s role as an interpreter
and intermediator refers to the task of interpreting the users’ lifestyles, values and activities,
and translating them to the language of design using their professional knowledge. The
architect’s role can also be examined using a scale of subjectivity vs. objectivity. In other
words, the extent to which an architect can empathise with and interpret the values of other
parties involved in the design process. Each architect sees their role slightly differently, and
most likely as a hybrid of the three roles described above. The role is filtered through the
current trend of professional culture, which has, at different times, emphasized either the
aesthetical or socio-ethical point of view in architecture (Kervanto,, 1987).
Is the way architects perceive buildings very different from the way lay people do? In the
case of wine tasting (also, arguably, an art form), experts organised their perceptions better,
and demonstrated a superior analysis of most of the dimensions in taste, which could be due
to the experts having verbal tags for them (Solomon, 1990). Having these tags enhances the
recognition and memory of the dimensions (Solomon 1990; Tulving & Osler 1968), and they
11 (44)
are also a possible factor in the aesthetic perception of architecture. According to Kyttä
(2004, p. 30), architects evaluate buildings from a different perspective than lay people,
concentrating on the visual and aesthetic factors instead of the social and practical factors
focused on by the lay people. Interestingly, she found tourists to be similar to architects in
perceiving buildings in a purely visual manner.
Brown and Gifford’s (2001) study confirms that buildings have different conceptual
properties for lay people and architects. This idea receives further support by Groat (1982),
who found that the accountants participating in the study sorted buildings according to their
preferences and type, whereas the architects performed the sorting according to design,
quality, style, form and possible historic significance. Architects also seem to develop
knowledge structures around different prototypical buildings than lay people (Purcell &
Nasar, 1992). This has been thought to be due to architectural training, as a lay person would
not necessarily recognise the architectural styles or historical significance of buildings etc. In
a study by Devlin and Nasar (1989) architects and other professionals were found to have
completely opposite opinions on buildings with the architects liking the buildings that the
other professionals disliked the most, and vice versa. On the other hand Nasar’s (1989a)
study indicated that the contemporary building style favoured by the architects was also
valued by well-educated young professionals like themselves.
According to Wilson’s (1996) theory on architects, they hold a system of constructs that are
used to understand and evaluate the environment, which differ from the ones used by “lay
people”. There are two types of construct: conceptualisation and evaluation. The former
refers to a system of descriptive, objective and nonevaluative concepts, which are used to
organise and understand architecture. The latter construct is instilled in the professionals
12 (44)
during their education in architecture schools. This means that architects are in a way “taught
what to like” during their education (Hubbard, 1996). It thus follows that amongst architects,
as well as non-architects, individual environmental preferences are shaped by social
regulations, rather than differences in individual cognitive competence (Hubbard, 1996). It
has also been shown that what essentially governs architecture students’ architectural
preferences, is based on architectural style. All the seemingly objective concepts used by
students to justify their preference of a building can be traced back to the stylistic movements
currently in vogue (Wilson, 1996).
Architects have different individual styles, but most often their general aesthetics are similar
to the general public’s, although they seem to prefer simple, minimalist styles more than lay
people who like more decorative buildings (Kyttä, 2004, p. 33). This is confirmed by Groat
(1982) who argues that architects prefer so-called “high” style buildings to the vernacular
styles favoured by the public. Purcell and Nasar (1992) obtained similar results, which led
them to conclude that architectural education seems to generally promote dislike of popular
styles. Further evidence emerged in Devlin and Nasar’s (1989) study, which concluded that
educated lay people described vernacular building styles as more pleasant, meaningful, clear,
and coherent than “high” styles, whereas architects, once again, had the opposite views.
Gifford, Hine, Muller-Clemm, Reynolds & Shaw (2000) found that buildings that included
more railings, fewer arches, and, most importantly, metal cladding were the most pleasurable
for architects. Architects found rounded edges and corners, as well as more triangular
elements in buildings arousing. Metal-cladding was found to be an important factor in both
arousal and pleasure, which could be due to it possibly signalling prototypicality of style and
richness of materials. The lay people, on the other hand, derived no pleasure from any of the
13 (44)
cues in the study, but they did find fancy, taller, more multicoloured buildings with reflective
and glass elements arousing. Their ratings were also significantly more heterogeneous than
the architects’, supporting the idea of the architects’ taste developing in a certain direction
because of their education.
Although architects might be aware of the public’s preferences, some architects still choose
not to design buildings that would be to its taste, but rather strive to achieve respect inside the
architecture community (Ballantyne, 2002, p. 44). Architects also try and distinguish their
trade from fashion to create designs that will pass the test of time, and not appear ridiculous
in a few decades. But this is, of course, in vain, since our impressions of beauty continually
change (De Botton, 2006, 154). Why this happens is due to which values are lacking in the
society at any particular time. A society in the midst of moral and spiritual confusion,
yearning for harmony and calmness would appreciate modern architecture, whereas societies
with high internal and external order would crave an antidote for their deadly routine and
predictability, creating an appreciation of a more decorative design. The choice of the current
building trend made by the society’s elite therefore tells us more about which values they
lack than which they possess (De Botton, 2006, pp. 155-157, 159).
The mechanism behind our perception of what is beautiful is the same for both non-architects
and architects, although architects might have trouble accepting it. The “superiority” of the
architects’ taste has been achieved through winning a social battle, and not through having a
truly superior knowledge of a universally applicable architectural model (Tuovinen, 1991). It
has always been the part of society that holds the most power and resources that has dictated
to the rest of the society what building style was the best, however in today’s democratic
world it has become increasingly important that the general public have its say. Town
14 (44)
planning and architecture are no longer purely top down processes, but rather more like
dialogues between the architects and the public. (Ballantyne, 2002, p. 51)
General Factors
The environment has a subtle yet pervasive influence on our lives. There are hundreds of
words, such as lively, boring, scary, uplifting, and annoying, that are used to describe the
affective quality of places (Russell & Pratt, 1980). What we ask our buildings to give us are
the feelings of reassurance, excitement, harmony and containment. (De Botton, 2006, p. 62).
One of the arguable fundamentals of architecture, order, instinctively appeals to humans, as it
is predictable and reassuring (De Botton, 2006, pp. 179-180). However, order can also be
tedious. Therefore the design also needs to be balanced between the complex and the simple,
the new and the old, the luxurious and the modest as well as the man-made and the natural.
We also appreciate elegance (the simplicity and ease with which a building’s structure does
its job), because we recognise the effort gone to in creating this “illusion” of daintiness, and
coherence in style (De Botton, 2006, pp. 178-215).
But are there any universal features that make people like or dislike certain buildings?
Korpela and Kyttä (1991) found that to a lay person the beauty of a building is in the
interaction between the the building and its surroundings, its decorativeness, and its state of
repair. Just the familiarity of a building does not make it beautiful, if the other criteria are not
satisfied. Therefore, if a building is not liked initially, the public will not learn to like it
either. The “stripped” style of Modernism has been around for long enough for the general
public to have learned to understand it, but research shows that the buildings considered ugly
by the public are generally simpler and less decorative than the ones that are considered
15 (44)
beautiful. The appeal in the decorative elements in a building lies at least partly in their
symbolism (Korpela & Kyttä, 1991).
In their study, Herzog and Shier (2000) found that the age of a building does not influence
aesthetic preference in well-maintained buildings of high complexity. In other words, the
simpler a modern building, the more it could compete for preference with complex old
buildings. They also found that fancy windows enhanced perceived maintenance, but that
variations of texture in a building detracted from it, which was thought to be due to the
textures being associated with neglect e.g. flaking and crumbling.
As mentioned earlier, the general public has been shown in several studies to dislike modern
and atypical architectural styles, independently from the location of buildings (Groat, 1982;
Purcell & Nasar, 1992). Sensation seeking seems to have nothing to do with these
preferences, as both high and low sensation seekers favour popular style rather than high
style houses. People seem to prefer the architectural styles that fit their knowledge structures,
which may mean that familiarity and vernacularity can make a building more attractive to the
public (Stamps & Nasar, 1997). In a study of architects and non-architects and different
house styles by Imamoglu (2000), liking and familiarity were found to be moderately
correlated. In line with these findings, a study by Herzog, Kaplan & Kaplan (1982) indicated
that identifiability made striking buildings more appreciated by the public.
However, earlier research by Herzog, Kaplan & Kaplan (1976) concluded that the
participants, contrary to prior expectations, actually preferred the contemporary buildings to
others. Although encouraging to the promoters of Modernism, this result was instructed to be
viewed with some caution, as the study also found a negative relationship between familiarity
16 (44)
and liking for contemporary buildings, meaning that the more familiar we are with
(particular) contemporary buildings the more we seem to dislike them. Furthermore, another
study by Stamps (1991) indicated that the residents of San Francisco, again, preferred new
architecturally complex buildings to older or those that were simpler or plain.
Kaplan, Kaplan & Brown (1989) constructed a four factor environment preference model
consisting of the coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery. Coherence refers to those
characteristics in an environment that assist bundling information about it into clear sectors.
Legibility is the factor that makes mapping an environment as well as moving and
functioning in it easier. Even such a seemingly insignificant thing as the surface texture of a
building can have an effect on legibility, with smooth textures increasing it. Complexity
refers to the visual richness and diversity of a scene, while mystery here means uncertainty
and the concealment of factors. It is the factor (created for example by a partly occluded
scene) that arouses our curiosity and invites us to explore the environment further. Kaplan et.
al (1989) found that as with complexity, environments with moderate levels of perceived
coherence were preferred over the extremes. Another study by Herzog et al. (1982)
concluded that to be of a visually satisfactory quality, a highly complex urban scene also
needs to be high in coherence.
Like Kaplan et al. (1989) many other researchers have also found that visual complexity is a
significant factor in the aesthetic evaluation of buildings, and that the moderate level of
complexity is the most preferred one. This suggests that the graphic representation for visual
complexity and aesthetic preference looks somewhat like an inverted “U” (e.g., Berlyne,
1971, p. 220). According to Imamoglu (2000) this preference for moderate complexity levels
is equal in architects and lay people, as well as for both modern and traditional houses. Some
17 (44)
research has, however, shown that environments of equal complexity are not evaluated
equally, as, for example, natural settings are preferred over built environments (Kaplan 1987)
to the extent that adding even just a small natural feature to a scene can make it more
attractive (Herzog et al. 1982). Furthermore, the influence of complexity does not disappear
when a scene is viewed from far away. Rather it is the complexity of the silhouette of the
scene, or the sky line, that then determines liking, and not the complexity of the façade
(Heath, Smith & Lim, 2000). The other two factors in the study by Kaplan et al. (1989),
legibility and mystery, on the other hand, and rather paradoxically, displayed linear
relationships with liking.
In an extensive study concentrating on opinions of the residents on the buildings in a
residential area in Tampere, Finland, buildings which were considered beautiful by the public
were described as having decorative elements in their façades. They also had pleasant
building materials, a clear outline, and an attention-grabbing and mysterious look. Beautiful
buildings were also described as well-maintained, balanced, harmonious, and fitting in their
environment well. Older, historical buildings that symbolise values important to locals and
individuals were also generally seen as more beautiful than new ones. Ugly buildings were
substantially more often described as simple (Korpela & Kyttä 1991). According to this
study, beautiful and ugly buildings did not differ in the dimensions of individual
experiences/associations with the building, familiarity, and closeness to nature. In both ugly
and beautiful buildings the decorativeness of the façade was linked with the experience of
mystery and a pull towards it.
Another study by Kyttä about another residential area in Helsinki (2004, p. 45-72), concluded
that the buildings seen as attractive had interesting colours while dull coloured concrete
18 (44)
buildings and buildings described as “boxy” as well as “too massive” were seen as ugly. In
this study Kyttä also found that the aesthetical attractiveness of buildings, together with
closeness to nature (or naturalness), was a factor in how attached people were to their living
area.
An interesting idea by Joye (2007) suggests that it is the underlying fractal geometry of
natural scenes that makes them aesthetically pleasing and stress-reducing. The word “fractal”
comes from the Latin word fractus meaning broken or fractured. In a fractal this “roughness”
occurs on different scales, resulting in each zoomed-in pattern being more or less similar to
the global pattern (this phenomenon is called “self-similarity”). Joye argues that
attractiveness of buildings can be increased by the usage of literal imitations of natural
patterns (such as depictions of leaves and flowers on buildings), but also by using more subtle
fractal geometry. Most commonly it occurs in Gothic architecture, which is known for its
complexity, created through repeating elements on different scales. Joye (2007) thus
concludes that fractal geometry should be employed more in the designs of buildings,
because, unlike literal depictions, these are not tied to any stylistic movement (e.g. art
nouveau, baroque) and could significantly improve people’s living and work environments.
Aesthetic experience
There are two variables in aesthetics. Formal aesthetics is the study of forms and symbolic
aesthetics studies human responses to the content of forms (Lang, 1988). According to Ulrich
(1983), the human aesthetic experience is solely determined by genetic factors, which are
linked with facial expressions and neuropsychological functions, and the ideas, concepts, and
impressions associated with the feeling are however formed by the individual and culture.
19 (44)
The aesthetic experience is a combination of the feeling and the symbolism attached to it
creating a wide range of responses between different individuals. Ulrich also argues that the
aesthetic experience is a highly spontaneous and emotional reaction.
Sepänmaa (1988) splits the experience into two parts: the feeling and the informed opinion
(based on sense and knowledge), the feeling and intuition being merely a preliminary step in
the aesthetic experience. He suggests that increased knowledge (of architecture) impacts the
experience, thus implying that architects make better aesthetic judgements than the general
public. Zajonc’s (1984) model also suggests that an aesthetic experience consists of a rapid
initial emotional response to gross environmental characteristics, which is followed by
cognition. However, cognition is also affected by emotion, and the interaction of these two
results in the psychological response and behaviour that form the overall aesthetic response.
To be considered as architecture, a building has to have a purpose or possess aesthetic
qualities, such as elegance, sublimity, beauty, grandeur, and magnificence. Gestalt
psychologists and most aestheticians agree that such aesthetic qualities emerge during the
process of aesthetic perception (Mitias, 1999). The underlying assumptions are that aesthetic
perception is a synthetic, constructive activity, that aesthetic quality inheres as a potentiality
in the artwork, and that certain perceptual conditions should be fulfilled in order for this type
of quality to be realised in aesthetic perception (Mitias, 1999).
Smith’s (1976) psychological model for aesthetic experience assumes two fundamental
characteristics in the aesthetic experience: Firstly the aesthetic experience is a subjective
matter, and beauty is not intrinsic to objects but is an interpretation imposed on them.
Secondly, the aesthetic experience is a mental response to the relationship between aspects of
20 (44)
a phenomenon. The whole aesthetic experience is, however, more than the sum of its parts.
Smith also writes about symbolic perception, stating the well-known fact that visual cues can
elicit an emotional response. A visual cue associated with an experience can become a
permanent trigger for an experience. Human evolution has led to a tendency to prefer
emphatic, simple and repetitive patterns. It might also have produced a fascination for
gigantism, as seen, for example, in the ancient megaliths and towers.
The beauty of an environment can be examined using the landscape quality-assessment
approach. The models for this assessment are: the ecological, the formal aesthetic, the
psycho-physical, the psychological, and the phenomenological (Korpela & Kyttä 1991).
According to the ecological model a beautiful environment is as natural as possible. The
formal-aesthetic model, on the other hand, uses experts to extract abstract factors (or aesthetic
universals, such as shapes, colours, textures, boundaries, etc.) from the environment, and
their relationships which each other. The harmony and contrast in these relationships forms
the aesthetical scale. The Psychophysical model strives to mathematically illustrate the
relationship between the physical attributes in the environment and the remarks made of it by
an assessor. The psychological model studies the assessors’ individual impressions formed by
an environment, and the experience that ensued, as well as their relationship. A beautiful
environment is one that not only is described as beautiful, but also elicits positive feelings.
Finally, more than any of the others, the phenomenological model focuses on the subjective
feelings of an individual (Korpela & Kyttä, 1991).
Specifically with buildings Devlin and Nasar (1994) argue that they are perceived through
mediating content variables, which relate to physical attributes. They reflect the perceiver’s
internal representation of the building and meanings associated with both the building and the
21 (44)
representation. Buildings are placed into categories according to their type (e.g. church) or
style (e.g. Gothic). Moderate atypicality in terms of style has been found to arouse interest,
and thus make a building more attractive, whereas extreme atypicality would cause the loss
of interest (and even result in dislike), as the features of the building would no longer make
sense and would make it very hard to classify them (Nasar, 1994). A building’s and its users’
characters are also judged in this process, for example some buildings can be seen as
friendlier (and occupied by friendly people) than others.
Nasar (1989a) found that colonial style houses adorned with classical style ornaments and
pillars, and Tudor style houses with large stained wood beams were both perceived to be
homes to high status residents, whereas more simple styles were perceived to be occupied by
poorer people. Nasar thought that the reasons for this might be the royal and British
associations with the colonial and Tudor styles, as well as the amount of expensive
ornamentation (thick columns and wood beams). Farm style houses (in the middle ground in
terms of the status factor) were perceived as the most friendly, which might be due to the
associations with easy-going, natural country life.
Method
Design
The aesthetic preferences for 10 buildings reflecting differing architecture styles were
compared in architects and lay people in Finland and the United Kingdom. In addition to
examining main effects, the study tested the effects of nationality and profession interaction,
and controlled for the main effects of familiarity and liking.
22 (44)
Participants
The participants were 69 Finnish architects and 45 lay people and 12 British architects and 15
lay people. The architects were either architecture graduates or architecture students in their
later years of study. The professionals and architecture students were recruited by using an
existing contact in city planning department of the City of Lahti (Finland), and contacting
Universities and architecture companies in both countries. The lay people were undergraduate
and postgraduate students of different subjects in Edinburgh University, as well as nonarchitecture professionals mostly from Edinburgh, Lahti and Helsinki.
Apparatus
The e-mail questionnaire was a three page Word-document with 10 colour photographs
of buildings (see Appendix 1). An identical version in Finnish was produced for the
Finnish participants (see Appendix 2). The first page of the questionnaire gave
information on the study, as well as stated the rights of the respondent. This was
followed by instructions on how to fill the form in: Marking the blue boxes next to, and
below, each picture with the appropriate numbers on the given scales.
The pictures of the questionnaire featured façades of buildings with as few detached items
(e.g., trees, cars, people, etc.) as possible so as to minimise their effect on the results. The
buildings were chosen to provide a good variety of responses in terms of familiarity and
liking in both professionals and non-professionals. Three typically British styles (an English
cottage, a Victorian terraced house and a Georgian town house), three typical Finnish
buildings (a farm house, a concrete element high rise building and an Jugend styled stone
23 (44)
building), and four other buildings from other countries, in distinctive architectural styles (a
Modern mirror glass tower, a Modernist house, a Gothic building and a Classical building)
were featured. Raters were asked to indicate on 10 point scales (1 standing for “not at all”,
and 10 for “a lot”) their liking and familiarity of each building. Raters were also asked to
indicate on a 5 point scale (again, with 1 standing for “not at all”, and 5 for “a lot”) to
evaluate how much a given word or statement described the building in the picture (see
Appendix 1 and 2).
So as to not influence the ratings of the buildings by previous conceptions or familiarity,
buildings chosen for the questionnaire were not famous, or from Lahti, Edinburgh or London,
which were the cities the respondents would be most likely familiar with. Furthermore, the
pictures of houses were selected so that all of them featured the buildings’ façades.
Procedure
The participants were either asked to participate in the study in person or via e-mail. If they
agreed, they were sent a questionnaire and information on the study and their rights as a
participant. They were asked to complete and return the questionnaire as soon as possible.
The participants were asked not to think too much about their answers to obtain as honest and
spontaneous answers as possible. The participants took approximately 10 minutes to
complete the questionnaire.
24 (44)
Analysis
A principal components analysis was used to find any underlying factors in the data. The two
factors found were further investigated using a repeated measures analysis to look for
interaction effects. All tests on data were conducted with SPSS.
Results
The results of the study indicated that familiarity and liking were not significantly correlated
(all results with p > .05 were considered insignificant, see Appendix 3). Liking and
familiarity was measured on a scale of 1-10. The most liked buildings, in descending order,
were the Gothic building (mean 7.49), the Classical building (7.36), and the Finnish
farmhouse (6.91), closely followed by the English cottage (6.84). This result is in line with
the expectations in decorative and vernacular buildings being the most preferred. The most
familiar buildings, on the other hand, were the Finnish concrete element built high rise (7.16),
the Finnish Jugend styled stone building (5.89), and the Finnish farm house (5.82).
Austerity, beauty, cheapness, harmony, monumentality, practicality, welcoming feeling, and
level of maintenance were measured on the scale of 1-5. The Modern mirror glass tower was
found the most austere (mean 4.10), followed by the Gothic building (3.99), and the Georgian
townhouse (3.87). The buildings judged as the most beautiful were the Gothic building
(4.12), the Classical building (3.92), and the Finnish farm house (3.56). The building seen as
the cheapest was the Finnish concrete element tower (3.62), the second and third cheapest
being the Victorian terraced house (2.96) and the English cottage (2.70). The Gothic building
(4.09), Classical building (3.98) and the Finnish Jugend style stone building (3.81) were seen
25 (44)
to be the most harmonious. The most monumental building was the Gothic one (4.83),
followed by the Classical building (4.44) and the Modern mirror glass tower (3.91). The most
practical were the mirror glass tower (3.47), the concrete element building (3.30), and the
Finnish farm house (3.28). The most welcoming buildings were the Finnish farm house
(4.27), the English cottage (4.03), and the Victorian terraced house (3.03). The Modernist
house (4.18), Georgian town house (4.12), and the mirror glass tower (3.92) were seen as the
best kept.
Principal components analysis of the ratings yielded two factors, which were extracted and
subjected to a varimax rotation. The first factor refers to buildings seen as beautiful,
harmonious, monumental and well-maintained, but not cheap. The second factor refers to
buildings that are austere and monumental, but not practical or welcoming. Absolute factor
loadings of ≥ .40 were considered salient (see Table 2).
Table 2. Principal Component Analysis.
Items
Beautiful
Harmonious
Cheap
Well-maintained
Welcoming
Austere
Monumental
Practical
Attractiveness
Gloominess
.847
.822
-.659
.646
.412
.089
.588
.063
.234
.099
.268
.113
.770
-.763
-.621
.435
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was satisfied and there was no
need for F-ratio adjustments in any of the repeated measures ANOVAs (see Appendix 3).
26 (44)
Repeated Measures Analysis for Attractiveness
The significant effect in the between-subjects test was nationality, F η2p=0.44 (1, 137) =
6.22, p < .05 (see Appendix 3). On average, Finns had higher ratings of buildings 2
(Victorian terrace), 5 (Finnish farmhouse), and 6 (Jugend stone building). The Finns rated
buildings 8 (Gothic building), 10 (Classical building), and 6 (Jugend stone building) highest
on factor 1 (Attractiveness), whereas the British rated buildings 10, 8, and 3 (Georgian
townhouse) as highest on the factor. The significant effects found in the within-subjects test
were the interaction of building and nationality, F η2p=.051 (9, 1233) = 7.36, p < .001, the
interaction of building and profession, F η2p=.018 (9, 1233) = 2.53, p < .01, and the threeway Building × Nationality × Profession interaction, F η2p=.007 (9, 1233) = 1.03, p < .05
(see Appendix 3 for more details). With regard to the significant interaction of building and
profession, the differences arose with building 5, the Finnish farm house, which the lay
people rated as higher on Attractiveness, and building 7, the Modern house, which the
professionals rated as higher on attractiveness. Both the lay people and architects rated
buildings 8 (Gothic building), 10 (Classical building), and 3 (Georgian town house) as
highest on Attractiveness (see Figure 1). After residualising attractiveness on liking and
familiarity, none of the between-subjects effects were significant (p all > .05, see Appendix
3). The only significant within-subject effect with regard to Attractiveness was nationality, F
η2p=.034 (9, 1170) = 4.61, p < .001.
27 (44)
prof
1 Professionals
2 Lay People
1.00
Attractiveness
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Building
Building
1 English cottage, 2 Victorian terrace, 3 Georgian townhouse, 4 Concrete element building, 5 Finnish
farm, 6 Jugend building, 7 Modern house, 8 Gothic building, 9 Mirror glass tower, 10 Classic building
Figure 1. The effect of building picture on Attractiveness as a function of profession.
nationality
1 British
2 Finnish
1.00
Attractiveness
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Building
Building
Figure 2. The effect of building picture on Attractiveness for British and Finnish participants.
28 (44)
Repeated Measures Analysis for Gloominess
Nationality was the only significant predictor of Gloominess, in the between-subjects test F
η2p=.083 (1,137) = 12.46, p < .001, with the British scoring buildings higher on the factor
than the Finns (see Figure 3). The within-subjects test revealed a significant Building ×
Nationality interaction, F η2p=.017 (9, 1233) = 2.35, p < .05 (see Appendix 3). The British
rated buildings 2 (Victorian terrace), 7 (Modern house), 8 (Gothic building), 9 (Modern
mirror glass building), and 10 (Classic building), as higher on factor 2 than the Finns (see
Figure 4). Both, the British and the Finns rated buildings 1 (English Cottage), 5 (Finnish
Farm), and 2 (Victorian terrace) as highest on factor 2, Gloominess. After residualising
Gloominess on familiarity and liking, none of the within-subject effects were significant.
However, there was a significant between-subjects effect of nationality F η2p=.105 (1,130) =
15.18, p < .001 (see Appendix 3). There were also small differences between professionals
and lay people: Lay people rated buildings 5 (Finnish farm), 1 (English Cottage) and 2
(Victorian terrace) highest on Gloominess. The architects rated these in a different order: 5, 1,
2, as highest on Gloominess.
29 (44)
prof
1 Professionals
2 Lay People
1.50
Gloominess
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Building
Building
1 English cottage, 2 Victorian terrace, 3 Georgian townhouse, 4 Concrete element building, 5 Finnish
farm, 6 Jugend building, 7 Modern house, 8 Gothic building, 9 Mirror glass tower, 10 Classic building
Figure 3. The effect of building picture on Ugliness as a function of profession.
nationality
1 British
2 Finnish
1.50
1.00
Gloominess
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Building
Building
Figure 4. The effect of building picture on Gloominess for British and Finnish participants.
30 (44)
Discussion
The first experimental hypothesis of familiarity and liking being closely linked in architecture
was not supported by the results of the study. They revealed no statistically significant
relationship between familiarity and liking, which is contrary to previous research findings by
e.g. Zajonc (1968) and Imamoglu (2000). One of the possible reasons for the lack of a
significant relationship is that the current study didn’t use pictures of particular buildings that
the participants might have recognised from their own living environments.
The principal component analysis produced two factors. The first of them, named
Attractiveness, stood for buildings that are beautiful, not cheap, harmonious, monumental,
and well-maintained. According to previous research this is a highly logical grouping of
adjectives. Buildings that are monumental in size and design, that are built from expensive
materials (e.g. polished stone vs. concrete elements), and have decorative features are not
cheap to build. Because of this, it is in the building’s owner’s interest for it to be wellmaintained. Maintenance is a clear issue in the attractiveness of buildings as found by e.g.
Herzog & Shier (2000) and Korpela & Kyttä (1991). The other factor, named Gloominess,
extracted in the analysis revealed the following item grouping: Austere, monumental, not
practical and not welcoming. This is grouping is also logical. Because of their sheer scale,
monumental buildings can be intimidating, as stated by Pallasmaa (2007), and in some cases
also annoying (Krampen, 1990). Also, due to their size and design monumental buildings are
inherently impractical. Practical issues and a welcoming, homely feeling are important
considerations in judging a building, especially for lay people (e.g., De Botton, 2006, p. 62;
Kyttä 2004, p. 30).
31 (44)
The Gothic building was the most liked of all of the buildings, and judged the most beautiful,
which was not a surprise. The Gothic style has been found to appeal to humans because of the
scale (Krampen, 1990) and ornateness (e.g., Joye, 2007) of the buildings, and its religious
(serenity) and historical connotations (e.g., Ballantyne, 2002, p. 32). However, the Gothic
building was also perceived to be the second most austere, which probably stems from the
associations with religion as well as the severe angles and spikes typical of the style (that
could remind us of primordial danger and power). The second most liked, the second most
beautiful, and the second most monumental building was the Classical building, which
possibly benefits from associations with ancient Greece and the style’s prominent role in the
history of architecture (De Botton, 2006, p. 21) and similarity with the human body, in terms
of familiar proportions (Collins, 2007, p. 173).
The third most liked, practical and welcoming, as well as the third most beautiful was the
Finnish farm. This is could be due to its associations with nature (e.g., Kaplan, 1987), the
rural way of life (Nasar, 1989a), and Finnish history (e.g., Ballantyne, 2002, p. 32;
Vesikansa, 2007), which, of course, only matters to the Finnish participants. The Finnish
farm house was judged the third most familiar out of the buildings, with the Jugend stone
building in second place. The concrete element high rise was the most familiar, which is
largely due it being in a popular style used to build cheap housing in the 1960’s and 70’s (it
was judged the least beautiful) (Kyttä, 2004, pp. 45-72). This further illustrates the research
findings that familiarity and liking did not have a significant relationship.
The Gothic and Classical buildings were also judged the most harmonious, while the
Modernist house climbed into third place, past the Georgian town house (4th) and Finnish
farm (5th). Furthermore, the Modernist house was seen to be the best kept, followed by the
32 (44)
Georgian townhouse and the Modern mirror glass tower. These three, especially the
Modernist house and the mirror glass tower, are plain and simple designs with “clean” lines
and textures, which positively affect the feeling of maintenance (Herzog & Shier, 2000; De
Botton, 2006, pp. 55-57, 65-66). This utilitarian simpleness, devoid of unnecessary
decorations (De Botton, 2006, pp. 55-57), might be the reason why the Modern mirror glass
tower was considered the most practical followed by the similar, but cheap, option of the
concrete element building. The mirror glass tower was also perceived to be the most austere
and least welcoming, which could be due to the its perceived monumentality (3rd), and its
material of reflecting glass, both of which can induce feelings of intimidation (De Botton,
2006, p. 92; Pallasmaa, 2007). It was also judged the second ugliest after the concrete
element high rise, which is in line with ideas of “boxy” and plain buildings being
unattractive, because their lack complexity (decorations) and mystery (e.g., Kaplan et al.,
1989; Korpela & Kyttä, 1991; Kyttä, 2004, pp. 45-72). The buildings that were judged
second and third most welcoming, the English cottage and the Victorian terraced house, were
also seen as the second and third cheapest, which shows that popular design does not need to
be expensive, and that vernacularity is appealing (e.g., Stamps & Nasar, 1997).
With regard to the effect of professionality on architectural preferences, the analysis of the
results indicated that there was only a significant within-subjects effect of the interaction of
Attractiveness and professionality. No significant effects, involving professionality, were
found with factor 2, Gloominess. These results do not support the second hypothesis of the
study, which stated that lay people would prefer more decorative, popular style buildings,
whereas architects would prefer more Minimalist, “high” style ones. The indication that
architects had fairly similar tastes to the lay people is contrary to previous research by Devlin
and Nasar (1989), Gifford et al. (2000) and others. The present study is, however, in line with
33 (44)
Nasar’s (1989a) findings that indicated that well-educated young professionals had similar
preferences to architects. This is fitting, since most of the lay people in the present study were
recruited through the University and various networks of young professional people.
Furthermore, the current social and democratic concerns in town planning and architecture
(Ballantyne, 2002, p. 51; Kervanto, 1987) mean that the architects will have these addressed
in their education, and ultimately reflected in their tastes (e.g., Hubbard, 1996; Wilson, 1996).
The statistically insignificant differences between the architecture professionals and lay
people arose with the Finnish farm house, which the lay people found more attractive than the
architects. The Modern house was rated more attractive by the architects than the lay people.
This clearly reflects the previous studies indicating that architects prefer so-called “high”
style buildings to the vernacular styles favoured by the public (Groat, 1982; Purcell and
Nasar, 1992), and that lay people like decorative buildings more than architects who prefer
more minimalist buildings (Kyttä, 2004, p. 33).
The third experimental hypothesis was supported by the results of the study, as the withinsubjects test revealed a significant interaction of building and nationality, as well as the
aforementioned Building × Nationality × Profession interaction for Attractiveness. After
residualising attractiveness on familiarity and liking, nationality was, again, found to be a
significant within-subject effect for Attractiveness. Nationality was also a significant
predictor of Gloominess, in both the between- and within-subjects tests. After residualisation,
between-subjects effect of nationality was still found to be significant. These results clearly
indicate that acculturation has a great impact on feelings and, thus, also on the judgements
people make about buildings (e.g., Ballantyne, 2002, pp. 65, 83; Nasar, 1989b). Finns rated
the Victorian terraced house, the Finnish farm and the Jugend style stone building higher in
34 (44)
Attractiveness than the British. The British judged the Victorian terraced house, the
Modernist house, the Gothic building, Modern mirror glass building, and the Classic
building, as higher in Gloominess than the Finns. The Finns rated the Gothic building,
Classical building and the Jugend style stone building highest on Attractiveness, whereas the
British rated the Classic building, the Gothic Building and the Georgian town house, as
highest on Attractiveness.
These differences show that acculturation has an impact in how buildings are seen. The
Finnish farm house probably reminds many of the Finns of their own rural upbringing or
childhood summers visiting relatives on the countryside, whereas the English cottage is not
quite as important to the British, who have a longer history of urbanisation and architecture
(Dobbins et al., 1963; Tinniswood, 2001; Vesikansa, 2007). Likewise, the Jugend style stone
building is very likely to convey “National Romanticism” to a Finn, whereas the Georgian
town house reminds the British of 10, Downing Street, one of the epicentres of political
power in Britain, not familiar to the Finns.
The British and the Finns agreed on Gloominess, rating the English Cottage, the Finnish
Farm and the Victorian terrace as highest on the factor. This is somewhat unexpected, as the
previous research suggests a positive link with closeness to nature and environmental
preferences (e.g., Herzog et al., 1982; Kaplan, 1987; Korpela & Kyttä, 1991), and
contradictory to some of the other ratings in the present study: e.g., all of the three buildings
mentioned were also rated as the most welcoming, and the two rural buildings were 3rd and
4th most liked.
35 (44)
A significant three-way Building × Nationality × Profession interaction was found with
Attractiveness, which means that the British and Finnish architects had different preferences.
Even with the current global style trends, the cultures of the two countries show in the
architects’ tastes. Due to the vastly different architectural histories of the countries, the
Finnish architects might be more used to working together with the public in a democratic
fashion. The British architects, on the other hand, might still see themselves as more of a
separate elite (Dobbins et al., 1963; Tinniswood, 2001; Vesikansa, 2007).
To fully understand what is behind architectural judgements, the participants’ ages, places of
residence (urban, rural, etc.), professions, levels of education, ethnicities, and other such
factors should be charted in any future research, as these affect the acculturation of
individuals. Another shortfall of the present study is the modest overall sample size, and
especially the small amount of British participants compared to Finnish participants, which
could be a source of error in the results. Also, the present study labelled architecture students
as architects, which might not have been the best way to proceed, since architectural
socialisation is a gradual process, which takes place all through the architects’ studies and
initiation into working life (Hubbard, 1996; Wilson, 1996).
The more philosophical points, such as that of attractive buildings being like friends (De
Botton 2006, pp. 86-89), could also be addressed by future research by, for example, asking
people to describe both their friends and buildings they like (and dislike). Personality is
another factor that could affect architectural preferences, but this interaction has not been
researched very much yet. A reason for this is probably that while personality might be
interesting to study, buildings are rarely built for just one person, and in those rare cases the
clients can simply be asked about their preferences.
36 (44)
The potential of this area of research is enormous. The environments where people live and
work significantly impact their well-being, and attractive design does not, contrary to
common belief, have to be expensive or impractical. Although, if anything in town planning
and architecture is worth investing in, it is the health and well-being of the buildings’ users.
To achieve sustainable environments that appeal to people, architects and town planners need
to focus most on the needs of the end users, and use their professional skills to realise the best
solutions possible by utilising the research findings provided by environmental psychology.
Overall word count 10,760
37 (44)
References
Bachelard, G. (1994). The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.
Ballantyne, A. (2002). Architecture – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Brown, G. & Gifford, R. (2001). Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary
buildings: Whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, p. 93-99.
Collins: Stanley, L. (Ed.) (2007). How to Read a Building? London: HarperCollins
Publishers.
De Botton, A. (2006). The Architecture of Happiness – The Secret Art of Furnishing Your
Life. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Devlin, K & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of
“high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgements of
same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, p. 333-344.
Dobbins, M., Aalto, A., Blomstedt, A., Sirén, K.; Sirén, H., Ruusuvuori, A. & Pietilä, R.
(1963). The Achievement of Finnish Architecture: Social Responsibility and Architectural
Integrity. Perspecta, 8, p. 3-36.
38 (44)
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, J. Jr. & Shaw, K. T. (2000).
Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic
Differences of Architects and Laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 32 (2) p. 163-187.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post-Modern Architecture: An examination using the multiple
sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, p. 3-22.
Hautajärvi, H. (2007). Distressing or Encouraging Architecture? The Finnish Architectural
Review, 6, p. 16-17.
Hearn, F. (2003). Ideas that Shaped Buildings. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Heath, T. F. (1987). Behavioral and Perceptual Aspects of the Aesthetics of Urban
Environments. In J. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics. Theory, Research and
Applications, p. 6-10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, T. F., Smith, S. G. & Lim, B. (2000). Tall Buildings and the Urban Skyline: The
Effect of Visual Complexity on Preferences. Environment and Behaviour, 32, p. 541 – 556.
Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1976). The Prediction of Preference for Familiar
Urban Places. Environment and Behavior, 8 (4), p. 627-645.
Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, R. & Kaplan S. (1982). The Prediction of Preference for Unfamiliar
Urban Places. Population and Environment, 5 (1), p. 43-59.
39 (44)
Herzog, T. R. & Shier, R. L. (2000). Complexity, Age, and Building Preference. Environment
and Behavior, 32, p. 557-575.
Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflict Interpretations of Architecture: An Empirical Investigation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, p. 75-92.
Imamoglu, C. (2000). Complexity, Liking and Familiarity: Architecture and NonArchitectureTurkish Students’ Assessments of Traditional and Modern House Façades.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, p. 5-16.
Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of
Biophilic Architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11 (4), p. 305-328.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, Affect and Cognition. Environmental Preference from an
Evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19 (1), p. 3-32.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental Preference. A Comparison of
Four Domains of Predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21 (5), p. 509-530.
Kervanto, A. (1987). Arkkitehtuurifilosofisia kytkentöjä. Arkkitehtien käsityksiä ympäristön
laadusta. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Architecture, Publication
A 31.
Korpela, K. & Kyttä, M. (1991). Ympäristöanalyysi Tampereella. Espoo:Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Publications, 1235, p. 105-171.
40 (44)
Kyttä, M. (2004). Ihmisystävällinen elinympäristö. Tutkimustietoa ja käytännön ideoita
rakennetun ympäristön suunnittelua varten. Helsinki: Rakennuspaino Oy.
Kyttä, M. (2004). Käyttäjänäkökulma Kivikkoon. In Centre for Urban and Regional Studies
& Helsinki University of Technology Traffic Laboratory, Kivikon Auditointi. Helsinki:
Helsinki City Planning Department.
Krampen, M. (1990). The Semiotics and Aesthetics of Surfaces and Surface Layouts. In K.
Landwehr (Ed.), Ecological Perception Research, Visual Communication, and Aesthetics, p.
91-103. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Lang, J. (1988). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Toward a research agenda. In J. L. Nasar
(Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, p. 11-26. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Maslov, H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 5, p. 70-96.
Miller, G. (2001). The Mating Mind – How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human
Nature. London: Vintage.
Mitias, M. H. (1999). The Aesthetic Experience of the Architectural Work. Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 33 (3), p. 61-77.
Nasar, J. L. (1989a). Symbolic Meanings of House Styles. Environment and Behavior, 21 (3),
p. 235-257.
41 (44)
Nasar, J. L. (1989b). Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban Places. In I. Altman &
E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public Places and Spaces. Human Behavior and Environment. Advances
in Theory and Research, 10, p. 31-56. New York: Plenum Press.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban Design Aesthetics: The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors.
Environment and Behavior, 26 (3), p. 377-401.
Paalasmaa, J. (2007). The Spaces of Anxiety and Subordination – A short history of cruelty.
The Finnish Architectural Review, 6, p. 19-31.
Purcell, A.T. & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people’s houses: A model of
similarity and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 12, p. 199-211.
Russell, J. A. & Pratt, G. (1980). A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to
Environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), p. 311-322.
Sepänmaa, Y. (1988). Ympäristön esteettisyys – paljon kysymyksiä, vähän vastauksia.
Synteesi, 3, p. 4-18.
Smith, P. F. (1976). A Psychological Model for Aesthetic Experience. Leonardo, 9 (1), p. 2531.
Solomon, G. E. A. (1990). Psychology of Novice and Expert Wine Talk. The American
Journal of Psychology, 103 (4), p. 495-517.
42 (44)
Stamps, A. E. (1991). Public preferences of high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic
effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 839-844.
Stamps, A. E. & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design Review and Public Preferences: Effects of
Geographical Location, Public Consensus, Sensation Seeking, and Architectural Styles.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, p. 11-32.
Tinniswood, A. (2001). A History of British Architecture. The BBC. Retrieved 1st of February
2008 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/architecture_01.shtml. Published 1/1/2001.
Tulving, E. & Osler, S. (1968). Effectiveness of Retrieval Cues in Memory for Words.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, p. 593-601.
Tuovinen, P. (1991). Ympäristökuvan ja siihen liittyvien merkitysten analysointimetodiikka.
Espoo: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Publications, 1235, p. 141- 171.
Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In I. Altman
& J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavioral and the Natural Environment. Human Behaviour and
Environment. Advances in Theory and Research, 6, p. 85-125. New York: Plenum Press.
Vesikansa, K. (2007). Forest Apes from Eskimo Country – Primitivism in Finnish
Modernism. The Finnish Architectural Review, 4, p. 27-35.
43 (44)
Wilson, M. A. (1996). The Socialisation of Architectural Preference. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, p. 33-44.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968) Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9 (2), p. 1-27.
Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, p. 117-123.