OUTSIDE THE SQUARE?
AESTHETIC RESPONSE TO THE CONTEMPORARY
ARCHITECTURE OF FEDERATION SQUARE, MELBOURNE
Andrew R. Bishop
Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group, Faculty of Architecture
The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Ph: 02 9817 3952, Email: bish.andrew@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Recent measures introduced by Australian governments to improve the visual-quality of the built
environment have been criticised as being too prescriptive. Two opposing models of people’s aesthetic
response to buildings have been proposed in the research literature. The preference-for-difference
model has gained more support than the preference-for-prototype model but is at odds with current
government policies. Both models are based on studies using photographs of buildings in laboratory
settings, but have not been replicated through people’s actual experience of buildings in the real-world.
This paper reports on a field study conducted to examine whether the preference-for-difference model
could explain the public’s perception and aesthetic response to a building controversial for its
contemporary architecture. Fifty people were interviewed in and immediately around Federation
Square, Melbourne and asked to make aesthetic judgements of the Square. The public collectively
found the building to be interesting, moderately unusual, and pleasing. The results supported the
preference-for-difference model of aesthetic response. It is suggested that more field studies examining
the aesthetic response to buildings should be conducted. More importantly, and perhaps surprisingly,
these findings suggest that to meet public aesthetic views, government policy should encourage
diversity and innovation in design and aesthetics.
KEY WORDS
Aesthetic preference, contemporary architecture, government policy
1. Introduction
1.1 The Debate on ‘Good’ Design
Debate concerning the aesthetic quality of the built environment has come to the fore in recent years.
Governments around Australia have increasingly been introducing measures that attempt to improve
the visual quality of the environment. The New South Wales State Government has introduced a
Design Quality Program of which the centrepiece are ‘pattern books’, such as the Residential Flat
Design Pattern Book1, which prescribe a tick-the-box method to ‘good’ design. Aesthetics are covered,
with exemplar designs and colour schemes for different environments provided. Local councils have
followed suit with their own manuals and have introduced design review panels to ensure that new
developments complement, if not enhance, the character of the surrounding suburb.
However some sections of the architectural community have spoken out in opposition to such
measures, arguing that they prevent the best design from being achieved and instead enforce
mediocrity. They assert that while it is appropriate for health and safety standards to be legislated,
architects deserve the right to have free reign over aesthetics: “Architects practice an art. The freedom
to practice our art unencumbered has been throttled in our society.”2
But what makes aesthetically ‘good’ or ‘bad’ design? Are there some features of design that influence
aesthetic preferences more than others? Do empowered individuals have any right to make aesthetic
judgements for the community? Are governments justified to legislate on aesthetics?
1.2 Approaches to Aesthetics
In recent years, people’s response to the aesthetics of the built environment has become an important
concern of environment-behaviour research. Published research on the subject generally focuses on
three main areas – the features of the environment that affect preference, the attributes of a person that
affect preference, and the cognitive mechanism by which aesthetic preference occurs.
Features of the environment such as cleanliness and ornateness3, and clarity, complexity and openness4
appear to increase aesthetic preference while features such as bulk appear to have little effect on
preference5. These features are perceived from the immediate experience of the form and structure of
buildings and have been generally termed formal attributes6. The criteria people use for making
aesthetic judgements has been found to vary between individuals 6. Similarities between the judgement
criteria of members of a group may occur due to common geographical familiarity and cultural values 8.
Nasar6 provides a detailed explanation of the cognitive mechanisms by which aesthetic response
occurs. The formal attributes perceived may be compared to an observer’s existing symbolic
representations to form an affective appraisal. Attributes of symbolic representations may be denotative
or connotative6. Denotative symbolic attributes are categorisations of building uses or typologies 6, such
as ‘café’, ‘office building’, or ‘opera house’. Connotative symbolic attributes involve qualities of
character such as naturalness, upkeep, intensity of use, and style 6. The aesthetic response to affective
appraisals may include affect such as interest or pleasure, physiological response, or behaviour.
Two different models have been developed in attempt to predict the probability of certain aesthetic
responses occurring. The first, the preference-for-prototype model8, asserts that people tend to prefer
what is most typical and familiar to them. The second, the preference-for-difference model9, asserts that
if an experience fits closely to a person’s existing mental representations, then only a small amount of
arousal and a minimal amount of positive affect will result. Arousal and positive affect will increase as
differences between the experience and one’s mental representations increase. When differences
become too large affect turns increasingly negative. Numerous experiments have been conducted to test
the two models. Peron, Purcell, Staats, Falchero and Lamb10 concluded that both models are supported
to some degree, with the ‘preference-for-difference’ model supported more so but that it is not
conclusive on its own in explaining the complete mechanism.
Very few studies have examined people’s real-life response to actual buildings. Stamps and Nasar5
draw attention to Hughes’ citation of the case of the Eiffel Tower, a controversial and atypical
structure, where initial adverse public opinion changed on completion of construction to an immediate
lasting favour. Stamps and Nasar5 conducted their own empirical analysis of preference over time of
the controversial and atypical Transamerica Building in San Francisco, however using postcards as
stimulus. Similar results to that of Eiffel Tower were apparent, with a novel and controversial building
preferred by the public over an ordinary building, and with this preference remaining stable over time.
Almost all the studies in the research discipline have been conducted under controlled conditions using
photographs of different buildings as stimulus. The research discipline lacks studies that test to see if
either aesthetic preference models or theories of contributing attributes can be replicated in the realworld. This is especially worrying in a field where the findings from research can be directly embraced
in practice and may even be legislated.
1.3 Research Objectives
The research had several objectives. It aimed to test whether the theories and models of aesthetic
response developed in laboratory settings could explain people’s response to their first-hand experience
of buildings in the real-world. It was expected that a building controversial for its contemporary design
would generate strong interest, but some would hate it while others would like it a lot. Their preference
would vary according to how unusual they thought it to be. This would support the ‘preference-fordifference’ model of aesthetic preference.
The study sought to examine in detail how aesthetic response was formed. It was hypothesised that
formal attributes such as spaciousness, ornateness, and organisation could be used to predict interest
and pleasantness. For these cases a positive correlation was expected. The research also enquired as to
what features of a building people looked at to form their formal attribute perceptions. It was predicted
that people who had similar perceptions would use similar criteria and look at similar features.
2
2. Inside the Square
This research sought to test current theories and models on the general public’s response to an actual
building (as opposed to photographs) controversial for the appearance of its contemporary architecture.
Federation Square in Melbourne was chosen as it was a building that had been controversial for its
aesthetics.
2.1 Data Collection
A total of 7 draft questionnaires were tested as pilot studies in Sydney using an actual substitute
building or photographs of Federation Square. A small pilot study was also conducted in Melbourne to
test what building type the public found it to be.
The survey sample consisted of 50 randomly selected members of the public passing by on the streets
in the vicinity of Federation Square. They included a roughly equal proportion of males to females, a
cross-section of age groups, ethnicities, and socio-economic backgrounds, and a mix of locals to
international visitors. An example of the view from a survey location is shown in Figure 1.
The questionnaire was conducted orally, aided by show-cards, with the answers recorded verbatim by
the interviewer on a paper questionnaire. The questions were designed to collect five main categories of
data. For aesthetic response and typicality, formal attributes, and symbolic attributes 7-point bi-polar
semantic differential scales were used. Arousal was measured by interestingness (boring – interesting),
positive affect by pleasantness (unpleasant – pleasant), and typicality by (commonplace – unusual). For
the formal attributes, openness was measured by spaciousness (cramped – spacious), complexity by
ornateness (plain – ornate), and clarity by organisedness (organised – disorganised). The fit of
Federation Square to the respondent’s existing mental representation of each building type – office
building, civic square, art gallery and entertainment complex (as determined by the pilot study) – was
measured by a ‘looks very little like – looks very much like’ scale. Personal attributes were measured
by ordinal and nominal scales, while building attributes were collected by asking the respondent to
explain their judgements for the formal attributes.
Figure 1. View from a survey location looking toward the piazza of
Federation Square.
Figure 2. Visual
expression of façade.
2.2 Data Analysis Methods
Raw quantitative data was entered into a computer database and analysed using the SPSS statistical
analysis program. A single-sample Student’s t-test, with deviation from a neutral stance of 4, was
conducted for each response and typicality variable, as well as for fit to building type. Pearson’s r test
of parametric correlation was used to examine the relationship between aesthetic response and formal
attribute variables. An independent samples t-test was used to compare means, with Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances carried out to ensure the groups were balanced.
Qualitative data was analysed by sorting the data into groups based on relevant formal attribute ratings.
Each group was then compared within and across rating groups for similarities and differences in
building attributes.
3
3. How Square is Square?
3.1 Quantitative Results
The external appearance of Federation Square was found to be interesting, pleasant, and unusual, all at
the highest level of significance (see Table 1). Both spaciousness and ornateness were found to be
significant formal attributes (see Table 1), while organisedness was approaching significance. People
saw Federation Square as spacious, slightly ornate, and slightly organised.
Table 1: Deviation from a neutral stance for aesthetic response, typicality, and formal attribute
variables
N
M
SD
t
p (2-tailed)
Interestingness
49
5.84
1.313
9.796
< .0005***
Pleasantness
48
5.56
1.443
7.504
< .0005***
49
5.65
1.332
8.690
< .0005***
Spaciousness
50
5.24
1.422
6.165
< .0005***
Ornateness
49
4.98
1.283
5.346
< .0005***
Organisedness
50
4.48
1.821
1.864
.068`
Aesthetic Response
Typicality
Unusualness
Formal Attribute
Note. A neutral stance = 4. `p < .10. ***p < .001.
The formal attribute of spaciousness was significantly correlated to the aesthetic response variable of
pleasantness (r = .354, p < .01, 1-tailed), and at lesser level to interestingness (r = .243, p < .05, 1tailed). Organisedness was also significantly correlated to interestingness (r = .261, p < .05, 1-tailed)
and pleasantness (r = .326, p < .05, 1-tailed). Spaciousness and organisedness both increased with
interestingness and pleasantness.
People judged that Federation Square looked like a civic square and an art gallery, and not an office
building (see Table 2). They were not conclusive as to whether it resembled an entertainment complex.
Table 2: Deviation from a neutral stance for likeness of appearance to four different building
types
N
M
SD
t
p (2-tailed)
Office building
50
2.42
1.513
-7.384
< .0005***
Civic square
50
5.08
1.576
4.846
< .0005***
Art gallery
50
5.32
Entertainment
50
4.26
complex
Note. A neutral stance = 4. `p < .10. ***p < .001.
1.421
6.571
< .0005***
1.998
0.920
.362
Building type
People who thought Federation Square looked like an art gallery found the appearance of the buildings
pleasant (n = 36, M = 5.69, SD = 1.369), while those who didn’t think it looked like an art gallery
found the appearance unpleasant (n = 3, M = 3.67, SD = 2.517). A t-test found the deviation between
the means of pleasantness for the two groups to be statistically significant at a p < .05 level (t = -2.320,
p = .026, 2-tailed). Those who saw Federation Square as resembling an entertainment complex found
the appearance more pleasant, (n = 26, M = 6.12, SD = 0.776) v (n = 16, M = 4.63, SD = 1.893), and
spacious, (n = 26, M = 5.77, SD = 0.992) v (n = 17, M = 4.59, SD = 1.698) than those who didn’t. The
t-test revealed a higher level of significance for pleasantness p < .01 (t = -3.002, p = .008, 2-tailed) than
spaciousness p < .05 (t = -2.593, p = .016, 2-tailed), equal variances not assumed for both t-tests.
4
There was no significant difference between the aesthetic response, typicality, or formal attribute
scores of those who did and those who didn’t think Federation Square looked like an office building, or
between those who did and didn’t think its appearance resembled a civic square.
3.2 Qualitative Results
Respondents were queried as to why they had given particular scores for the building attributes in order
to find out what criteria and elements of a building were influential in making aesthetic judgements.
For respondents who judged the external appearance of Federation Square as being very spacious, the
existence of a large central open space – a “courtyard” or “square in the middle all spread out” - was
the most common explanation for the spaciousness perceived. Others concentrated on the physical
context, explaining that Federation Square was “spacious in comparison with the rest of the city” and
that it “blends in with its surroundings”. The actual experience of observing and using the space was
also important, with a sense of spaciousness created by there being “a lot of room to move around”
where you “can be amongst people and still have a neutral space”. Others explained it was that “lots of
people can fit in there” such as for “concerts and stuff”. For a couple of respondents it was being able
to see “open air” and the “sky in the background”.
The few respondents who rated the external appearance of Federation Square as being cramped deemed
colour as an important determining factor. They cited the colours of the buildings as being “too busy”
and “too dark”. Others explained that the buildings were “close together”, looked “enclosed from the
outside”, and appeared “claustrophobic”.
Respondents who rated Federation Square as being most ornate initially gave abstract reasons such as it
having a “funky”, “creative”, “very individual” or “modern” appearance. When probed further they
revealed the features of the building they were looking at to make these comments. The “different
kinds of patterns” (as for example in Figure 2) that formed from shapes such as “squares and triangles”,
and the “organic and more refined materials” such as “bricks going different directions” and “the
different coloured metals” were all mentioned as creating an ornate appearance. In contrast, those who
judged the appearance as slightly ornate identified the building features first and then their abstract
qualities. The same building features were identified, along with contextual relationships such as how it
“stands out from the old building next door”, or “very carefully matches the city behind it”.
The respondents who judged the external appearance to be neutral or tending towards plain seemed to
focus primarily on colour. Some who gave a neutral stance judged colour in terms of its context – “all
the new colours blend in with the old colours of the buildings behind” while those who judged the
building to be more plain than ornate described the colours negatively as “too ordinary” or “dull”.
The respondents who reported the external appearance of Federation Square to appear organised tended
to refer to a clear layout of the buildings and functions. Some described and gestured to where the
different functions were located, such as “galleries and offices to one side, square in the middle and
then cafes and restaurants to other side”. Others referred to a general sense of cohesiveness, that
“everything seems to have a place” while a few mentioned an ease of being able to find one’s way with
it “easy to walk and move in” and that it “has a main entrance and side entrance”.
Some respondents referred to a third party as responsible for creating the sense of organisedness. It was
“the consideration of the design” and “how they set it out”. However, one complained that it “tries to
look disorganised but is too organised”, that it “should be more difficult – [you] should have to explore
it a bit more”. Many respondents referred to their first hand experience of using the square – “as you
move through it, it starts to make sense”, or that there were “plenty of places to sit and eat” and
“always things going on”. The “security walking around” made it seem organised for one person.
A common explanation for those who rated the external appearance to be neutral or disorganised, was
the “irregular” shape of the buildings with one respondent reporting that “all the different shapes and
sizes of the buildings look a mess”. The façade patterns were also described – how the “patterns look
quite crazy, disorganised and busy” with all the “different shapes and bits jutting out”. For other
respondents it was how “nothing fits to [the] surrounding buildings” such as how the “metal clashes
with the stone of the cathedral”. A couple of respondents found it hard to find their way – it “look’s
confusing – don’t know where to enter”.
5
4. Beyond the Square
4.1 Summary of Findings
The main aim of the study was to test whether the public’s response to an aesthetically controversial
building could be supported by a preference-for-difference model of aesthetic preference. The results
confirmed the hypothesis that people would find a building of contemporary architecture to be
interesting. However it was quite a surprise that the majority of people found the building to be both
pleasant and unusual. The fact the public saw it as moderately rather than extremely unusual indicates
that they were still able to relate to a part of the architecture. This is supported in that people found the
building to be slightly organised, and that pleasantness was positively correlated to organisedness. The
qualitative analysis revealed that a clear functional layout was responsible for a sense of organisation.
A way of understanding the interrelationships could be that the unusual appearance generated interest
for people, and because they were able to relate to certain aspects of the design, they found it quite
pleasant. This supports the preference-for-difference model.
Predictions that spaciousness and organisedness would correlate positively with both interestingness
and pleasantness were also confirmed. The qualitative results support these relationships with negative
descriptions such as “too dark” and “claustrophobic” given by respondents who found Federation
Square cramped and negative words such as “mess” and “confusing” used by those who found it
disorganised.
People who gave rating towards one end of the scale for formal attributes used different criteria and
looked at different building elements to those who gave ratings toward the opposite pole. This
supported the hypothesis. Context of the buildings to each other and the wider urban environment was
important in making judgements on spaciousness, ornateness, and organisedness. The experiences of
moving through and inhabiting the space were important criteria used to make all three judgements.
Colour was the most distinguishing building feature for those who saw the building as cramped or
plain.
In terms of likeness to a building type and aesthetic response, those who saw the building as an
entertainment complex found the building much more pleasant than those who didn’t think it looked
like an entertainment complex. The increased level of pleasantness for those who thought it looked like
an entertainment complex might be explained by the increased sense of spaciousness that this group
perceived – as it was reported previously that pleasantness was found to be positively correlated to
spaciousness.
4.2 Significance for Research
The results of this field study support the preference-for-difference model of aesthetic preference. This
outcome is in common with studies that used photographs of buildings7,10. This suggests that theories
of aesthetic preference may be transferable from the laboratory to the field. However, to corroborate
this, additional studies examining actual preference for buildings in real-world settings should be
conducted.
A building that during its design and construction was reported by the media to be controversial for its
aesthetics has three years after its completion become viewed by the public in this study to be pleasant,
as well as unusual and interesting. These findings corroborate that of Stamps’ study on the
Transamerica Building5, and of Hughes’ reference to the case of the Eiffel Tower (as cited in Stamps5).
For a future study it would be interesting to compare the media’s portrayed public opinion of an
unusual building to that of a statistical sample of public opinion during design, construction, and
appropriation stages. For the sake of creating news the media might well be portraying an unusual
building to be more controversial than it actually is.
This research suggests that the physical experience of space through multiple senses, rather than just
visual, may affect aesthetic response and perception. Heft and Nasar11 conducted a study that examined
the dynamic quality of perception. Another direction for further research could be to examine the role
of the different senses in the perception of space and architecture.
6
4.3 Implications for Policy
The results of this study suggest that people do prefer architecture that is moderately unusual. The
current strategy of governments to control and preserve certain aesthetics therefore seems at odds to the
approach that will deliver the most amount of pleasure to people. Governments are currently in effect
legislating for the familiar to be preserved. While this may generate some positive preference, it is only
a minimal amount compared to what could be achieved.
If governments want to make the built environment the most pleasurable for people, it appears that they
should instead be encouraging innovation in aesthetics. This means architects should be allowed freer
reign in the design of the appearance of buildings. While every person may not like every building, the
freedom to develop new aesthetics allows new and unusual experiences for people, creating the
potential for larger amounts of pleasure.
Strategies for encouraging the diversity and development of new aesthetics include design
competitions, of which Federation Square was a product. However, it is crucial that any panels
empowered to make choices for the community include innovative and creative individuals, to allow
for novel designs to be chosen. The public may not like or understand such a building when in
conceptual design stage, seemingly devoid of all pragmatics. However, even the most abstract designs
are eventually required to meet health, safety, sustainability, and functional requirements. A certain
level of order, independent of aesthetics, does end up prevailing. Once the public are able to experience
the unusual aesthetics in tandem with the underlying order, they may then come to find the building
pleasant, such as what happened in the case of Federation Square.
This study especially supports that architects should not be restricted in their art when it comes to
aesthetics, but instead encouraged to push the boundaries to develop the new and unusual.
5. Acknowledgements
This paper is based on a thesis I submitted as an Advanced Study Report as partial satisfaction for
Honours in the degree of Bachelor of Architecture at the University of Sydney. A copy of the thesis is
held in the Audio-Visual Library in the Faculty of Architecture. I would like to thank Professor Gary
Moore for his guidance and assistance as Supervisor throughout the research project.
REFERENCES:
[1] NSW Government Architect: 2001, Residential flat design pattern book: A resource of precedents
to guide better design of residential flat development, NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning,
Sydney.
[2] Seidler, H.: 1993, ‘Enforcing design mediocrity’, Architecture Bulletin, 2, 6--10.
[3] Nasar, J.L.: 1983, ‘Adult viewers’ preferences in residential street scenes: A study of the
relationship of environmental attributes to preference’, Environment and Behaviour, 15, 589-614.
[4] Nasar, J.L.: 1999, ‘Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes’, in J.L. Nasar, & W.F.E.
Preiser (Eds.), Directions in Person-Environment Research and Practice, pp. 229--247, Ashgate,
Aldershot.
[5] Stamps, A. E., & Nasar J.L.: 1997, ‘Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical
location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styes’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 17, 11-31.
[6] Nasar, J.L.: 1994, ‘Urban Design Aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors’,
Environment and Behaviour. 26(3), 377-401.
[7] Purcell, A.T., Peron, E., & Sanchez, C.: 1998, ‘Subcultural and cross-cultural effects of the
experience of detached houses: an examination of two models of affective experience of the
environment’, Environment and Behaviour. 30(3), 348-377.
[8] Whitfield, T.W.A. & Slater, P.E.: 1979, ‘The effects of categorisation and prototypicality on
aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task’, British Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 65-75.
[9] Mandler, G.: 1975, Mind and Emotion, John Wiley, New York.
[10] Peron, E., Purcell, A.T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J.: 1998, ‘Models of preference for
outdoor scenes: Some experimental evidence’, Environment and Behaviour, 30(3), 282-305.
[11] Heft, H., & Nasar, J. L.: 2000, ‘Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static
displays’, Environment and Behaviour, 32(3), 301-322.
7