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 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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heft, H. and Nasar, J.L.: 2000, ‘Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic Versus Static Displays,’ Environment and Behaviour 32(3), 301–322.
Mandler, G.: 1975, Mind and Emotion, John Wiley, New York.
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.
Nasar, J.L.: 1994, ‘Urban Design Aesthetics: The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors,’ Environment and Behaviour 26(3), 377–401.
Nasar, J.L.: 1999, ‘Perception and Evaluation of Residential Street Scenes,’ in J.L. Nasar and W.F.E. Preiser (eds.), Directions in Person-Environment Research and Practice, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 229–247.
New South Wales 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.
Peron, E., Purcell, A.T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., and Lamb, R.J.: 1998, ‘Models of Preference for Outdoor Scenes: Some Experimental Evidence,’ Environment and Behaviour 30(3), 282–305.
Purcell, A.T., Peron, E., and 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.
Seidler, H.: 2003, ‘Enforcing design mediocrity,’ Architecture Bulletin 2, 6–10.
Stamps, A.E. and 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, 11–31.
Whitfield, T.W.A. and 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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bishop, A.R. Outside the square? Aesthetic response to the contemporary architecture of Federation Square, Melbourne. Environmentalist 27, 63–72 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-007-9021-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-007-9021-z