Advertisement

Understanding Professional Media

Issues, Theory, and a Research Agenda
  • Donald Appleyard

Abstract

Ever since the emergence of professions and trades, when most people stopped designing and building directly by hand, media have played a pivotal role in communicating to clients proposals for future environments. Virtually all major development decisions are now made on the basis of simulations. This dependence has not been without its problems. Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “When man began to draw, architecture was lost.” His own work, a lifelong effort to reestablish a direct contact between the architect and the building, by having his students learn construction and build their own living quarters, had little effect on the inexorable trend toward dependence on simulation. Today, as communications and transportation have become cheaper, for better or worse, professionals can design buildings in one part of the globe to be constructed in another part without ever seeing the site or final product in the flesh. All can be done with simulation.

Keywords

Computer Graphic Naturalistic Model Public Communication Public Hearing Simulation Medium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman, J. S. The architecture of Michelangelo. London: A. Zwemmer, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. Acking, Carl-Axel. “Comparisons between some methods of presentation.” “ In Evaluation of Planned Environment. Stockholm: National Swedish Institute for Building Research, 1974, Document D7.Google Scholar
  3. American Falls International Board. Preservation and enhancement of the American Falls at Niagra. Appendix F: Public Involvement.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. M. A television aid to design participation. Journal of Architectural Research and Teaching. London: RIBA, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. M. Simulating architecture. Architects Journal 1972, 156, 1325–1329.Google Scholar
  6. Appleyard, D. Planning a pluralist city: Conflicting realities in Cuidad Guayana. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Appleyard, D., & Carp, F. M. The BART residential impact study: An empirical study of environmental impact. In T. Dickert & K. Domeny (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. Appleyard, D., & K. Craik. The Berkeley Environmental Simulation Laboratory: Its use in environmental impact assessment. In T. Dickert & K. Domeny (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. Appleyard, D., Gerson, S., & Lintell, M. Liveable urban streets, managing auto traffic in residential neighborhoods. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. The environmental quality of city streets: The residents” viewpoint. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 1972, 38, 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., & Myer, J. The view from the road. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  12. Arnheim, R. Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  13. Aronson, M. Visual simulation for marine and land vehicle operator training and research. AAIA Third Annual Meeting at Boston, Mass., 1966.Google Scholar
  14. Benveniste, G. The politics of expertise. Berkeley, Calif.: Glendessary Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. Caldwell, W. A. (Ed.). Choices for 76: How to save urban America. Regional Plan Association, Inc., 1973.Google Scholar
  16. Caro, R. The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. New York: Vintage Books, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. Craik, K. H. & McKechnie, G. E. Environmental simulation appraisal project: Preliminary report. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. Dawson, R. F. F. Environmental simulator: Progress report. TRRL Laboratory Report 689. Crawthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1974.Google Scholar
  19. De Wolfe, I. Civilia: The end of suburban man. London: Architectural Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  20. Dynamic Graphics. Computer graphics: An energizing tool in architecture and urban design, Berkeley, Calif.: Dynamic Graphics, 1973.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, J.J. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, J. J. The information available in pictures. Leonardo 1971, 4, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg, D. O. Computer graphics in architecture.Scientific American, May, 1974, 98–106.Google Scholar
  24. Halprin, L. Motation. Progressive Architecture, July 1965, 46(7), 126–133.Google Scholar
  25. Raise, A. O. Architectural rendering: The techniques of contemporary presentation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.Google Scholar
  26. Hoinville, G. Evaluating community preferences. Environment and Planning, 1971, 3, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooper, K. On the analysis of the visual characteristics of a new project: How we might effectively use our visual information processing skills in evaluating our future environments. DMSIDAS Journal June-March 1975, 9(1), 39–51.Google Scholar
  28. Hopkinson, R. G, The quantitative assessment of visual intrusion. Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, 1971, 7, 445–449.Google Scholar
  29. Hulbert, S. Survey and comparisons of simulation techniques for automobile driving research. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1969, New York (ASME, paper 69, WA/BHF, 11).Google Scholar
  30. Jencks, C. The rise of post modern architecture. Architectural Association Quarterly, October-December 1975, 7(4), 3–14.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, J. M. A psychology of picture perception, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, D. B., Jr. Requiem for large scale models, journal of the American Inshiuie of Planners, May 1973, 39, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levin, P. Participation: The planners vs. the public? New Society, 24 June 1971, No. 456, 1090–1091.Google Scholar
  34. Lynch, K., The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  35. Lynch, K., & Appleyard, D. Temporary Paradise? San Diego, Calif.: City Planning Department, 1974.Google Scholar
  36. McKechnie, G. E. Simulation techniques in environmental psychology. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Psychological perspectives in environment and behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Corp., 1976.Google Scholar
  37. Mellander, K., & Appleyard, D. The Berkeley Environmental Simulation Laboratory: A technical report. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, 1975.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, G. A. The magical number of seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.The Psychological Review, March 1956, 63, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mintz, N. Effects of esthetic surroundings: Prolonged and repeated experience in a “beautiful” and an “ugly” room. Journal of Psychology, 1956, 41, 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Negroponte, N. The architecture machine. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  41. Packard, V. The hidden persuaders. New York: McKay, 1957.Google Scholar
  42. Pinto, J. A. Origins and development of the ichnographic city plan. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 1 March 1976, 31, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider, J. B. Interactive graphics in transportation systems planning and design. Seattle: University of Washington, NTIS, 1974.Google Scholar
  44. Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. P., & Schmidt, E. A. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1969, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  45. Sheridan, T. B. Citizen feedback: New technology for social choice. M.I.T. Technology Review, January 1971, 73, 47–51.Google Scholar
  46. Sims, W. R. Iconic simulations: An evaluation of their effectiveness as techniques for simulating environmental experience along cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Unpublished dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1974.Google Scholar
  47. Stringer, P. A use of repertory grid measures for evaluating map formats. British Journal of Psychology 1974, 23–34.Google Scholar
  48. Thiel, P. Experiment in space notation. Architectural Review, May 1962, 131, 326–329.Google Scholar
  49. Thiel, P. Simulation and Response. Unpublished paper. University of Washington, Seattle: 1975.Google Scholar
  50. Tunnard, C., & Pushkarev, B. Man made America, chaos or control? New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  51. Turner, J. F. C., & Fichter, R. Freedom to build. New York: Macmillan, 1972.Google Scholar
  52. Tzamir, Y. Experimental methodology for environmental cognition research. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion-lsrael Institute of Technology, 1975.Google Scholar
  53. Wood, E. W., Jr., Brower, S. N., & Latimer, M. W. Planners’ people. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1966, 32, 228–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wood, W. An analysis of simulation media. Unpublished architecture thesis. University of British Columbia, School of Architecture, Vancouver, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald Appleyard
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of City and Regional Planning and LandscapeCollege of Environmental Design, University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations