Advertisement

The Significance of Architectural Theory for Environmental Design Research

  • Linda N. Groat
  • Carole Després
Part of the Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design book series (AEBD, volume 3)

Abstract

The main thesis of this chapter is that the environment—behavior research must, if it is to be seen as relevant to architectural design, incorporate not only empirically based theory derived from the social sciences but architectural theory as well. The intention of the chapter is to explore the nature of architectural theory and how it can be usefully integrated in environment—behavior research.1 This thesis is supported by a sequence of three interrelated arguments.

Keywords

Building Type Architectural Style Cultural Milieu City Hall bUIlt envIronment 
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. Alberti, L. B. (1988). On the art of building in ten books. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. (1988, November). Some themes for a symposium on Ph.D. education in architecture. Paper presented at the Symposium on Doctoral Education in Architecture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. Bonta, J. P. (1979). Architecture and its interpretation: A study of expression systems in architec ture. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
  5. Broadbent, G. (1977). A plain man’s guide to the theory of signs in architecture. Architectural Design, 7-8 ,474–482.Google Scholar
  6. Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., & Jencks, C. (1980). Signs, symbols and architecture. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Brolin, B. (1976). The failure of modern architecture. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  8. Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: Architectural press.Google Scholar
  9. Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: A facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15 ,659–698.Google Scholar
  10. Canter, D., & Wools, R. (1970). A technique for the subjective appraisal of buildings. Building Science, 5 ,187–198.Google Scholar
  11. Cherulnik, P. D., & Wilderman, S. K. (1986). Symbols of status in urban neighborhoods. Environment and Behavior, 18 ,604–622.Google Scholar
  12. Colquhoun, A. (1981). Essays in architectural criticism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Colquhoun, A. (1988, February). Postmodernism and structuralism: A retrospective glance. Assemblage, 5 ,7–15.Google Scholar
  14. Crook, J. M. (1987). The dilemma of style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crozier, W., & Chapman, A. (Eds.). (1984). Cognitive processes in the perception of art. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, D. (1978, November 6). Designs for Living. Newsweek ,pp. 82–91.Google Scholar
  17. Després, C. (1987). Symbolic representations of the suburban house: The case of the neo-Québecois house. Public environments. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  18. Després, C. (in press). The meaning and experience of home in the context of non-family house holds living in shared housing. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  19. Donald, I. (1985). The cynlindrex of place evaluation. In D. Canter (Ed.), Facet theory: Approaches to social research (pp. 173–204). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Dovey, K. (1988). Place, ideology, and postmodernism. In H. van Hoogdalem, N. Prak, T. van der Voordt, & H. van Wegen (Eds.), Looking back to the future (pp. 275–285). Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dunham-Jones, E. (1988). Architectural theory: Prescription or proposal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  22. Eco, U. (1984). Postscript to The name of the rose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  23. Espe, H. (1981). Differences in the perception of national socialist and classicist architecture. Journal of Environment Psychology, 1 ,33–42.Google Scholar
  24. Foster, H. (1984). (Post) modern polemics. Perspecta: The Yale Architectural Journal, 21 ,144–153.Google Scholar
  25. Geist, J. F. (1983). Arcades: The history of a building type. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Geller, D. M., Cook, J. B., O’Connor, M. A., & Low, S. K. (1982). Perceptions of urban scenes by small town and urban residents. In D. Bart, A. Chen, & G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design (pp. 128–141). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  27. Gergen, K. (1988, August). Understanding as literary achievement. Presidential address to division 10, psychology and the arts, annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  28. Giovannini, J. (1988, June 12). Breaking all the rules. New York Times Magazine ,pp. 40–43, 126, 130.Google Scholar
  29. Goodsell, C. T. (1986). The social meaning of civic space. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes, & C. Zimring (Eds.), The cost of not knowing. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  30. Groat, L. (1981). Meaning in architecture: New directions and sources. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1 ,73–85.Google Scholar
  31. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 ,3–22.Google Scholar
  32. Groat, L. (1983). The past and future of research on meaning in architecture. In D. Amedeo, T. B. Griffin, & J. J. Potter (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Lincoln, NB (pp. 29–35). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  33. Groat, L. (1984). Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture: The AIA Journal, 73 (11), 72–75.Google Scholar
  34. Groat, L. (1987a). Recent developments in architectural theory: Implications for empirical research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7, 65–76.Google Scholar
  35. Groat, L. (1987b). Contextual compatibility: An issue of composition, not replication. In T. Beeby & A. Plattus (Eds.), Architecture and urbanism (pp. 317–322). Washington, DC: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.Google Scholar
  36. Groat, L. (1987c). Typology: A basis for enhancing the domain of architectural research. In R. Shibley, W. Mitchell, W. Pulgram, & R. McCommons (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual research conference of the AIA/ACSA Council on Architectural Research. Washington, DC: AIA/ACS A Council on architectural Research.Google Scholar
  37. Hassan, I. (1987). The post-modern turn. Columbus: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Herdeg, K. (1983). The decorated diagram. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hersey, G. (1988). The lost meaning of classical architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Honour, H. (1968). Neo-classicism. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Horn, M. (1988, July 18). A new twist on architecture. U.S. News & World Report ,pp. 40–42.Google Scholar
  43. Ittelson, W. H. (1989). Notes on theory in environment and behavior research. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 2, pp. 71–83). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  44. Jencks, C. (1977). The language of post-modern architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  45. Jencks, C. (1986). What is post-modernism London: Academy Editions.Google Scholar
  46. Kantrowitz, M., Farbstein, J., & Schermer, B. (1986). The image of post office buüdings. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes, & C. Zimring (Eds.), The cost of not knowing. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  47. Kaufmann, E. (1955). Architecture in the age of reason. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  48. Kostof, S. (1985). A history of architecture: settings and rituals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Krampen, M. (1979). Meaning in the urban environment. London: Pion Limited.Google Scholar
  50. Krier, R. (1979). Urban space. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  51. Krier, R. (1983). Elements of architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  52. Lang, J. (1987). Crating architectural theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  53. Laugier, M. (1977). An essay on architecture. Los Angeles: Hernessey & Ingalls.Google Scholar
  54. Lawrence, R. (1986). L’espace domestique et la régulation de la vie quotidienne. Recherches Sociologiques, 17 (1), 147–169.Google Scholar
  55. Lawrence, R. (1989). Structuralist theories in environment-behavior research. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 2, pp. 37–70). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  56. Le Corbusier (1960). Towards a new architecture. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  57. Lee, L. -S. (1982). The image of city hall. In P. Bart, A. Chen, & G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design (pp. 310–316). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  58. Lesnikowski, W. (1987). On the changing nature of theories in architecture. Inland Architect, 31 (5), 28–39.Google Scholar
  59. Macrae-Gibson, G. (1985). The secret life of buildings: An american mythology for modern architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Moneo, R. (1978). On typology. Oppositions, 13 ,23–45.Google Scholar
  61. Moore, C. (1979). The place of houses. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  62. Moore, G. T. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of environment-behavior and design theories of the middle range. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the International Association for the Study of People and their Physical Surroundings, Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  63. Murray, P. (1978). Renaissance architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  64. Nasar, J. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes. Environment and Behavior, 15 ,589–614.Google Scholar
  65. Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1989). Symbolic meanings of building style in small suburban offices. In G. Hardy, R. Moore & H. Sanoff (Eds.), Changing paradigms (pp. 165–172). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  66. Newman, O. (1980). Whose failure is modern architecture In B. Mikellides (Ed.), Architecture for people (pp. 45–58). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  67. Norberg-Shultz, C. (1971). Baroque architecture. New York: Abrams.Google Scholar
  68. Norberg-Shultz, C. (1980a). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  69. Norberg-Shultz, C. (1980b). Late baroque and rococo architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  70. Norberg-Shultz, C. (1980c). Meaning in Western architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  71. Perez-Gomez, A. (1983). Architecture and the crisis of modern science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Perianez, M. (1984). L’image de l’architecture. Recherche & Architecture ,No. 59, 11–41.Google Scholar
  73. Popper, K. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  74. Prak, N. (1977). The visual perception of the built environment. Delft: Delft University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Purcell, A. T. (1984a). The aesthetic experience and mundane reality. In W. Crozier & A. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  76. Purcell, A. T. (1984b). The organization of the experience of the built environment. Environment and Planning B, 11 ,173–192.Google Scholar
  77. Purcell, A. T. (1984c). Multivariate models and the attributes of the experience of the built environment. Environment and Planning B, 11 ,193–212.Google Scholar
  78. Quatremere de Quincy, A. (1832). Dictionnaire historique d’architecture. Paris: Librairie d’Adrien Le Clere.Google Scholar
  79. Rapoport, A., & Kantor, R. E. (1967). Complexity and ambiquity in environmental design. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33 ,210–222.Google Scholar
  80. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  81. Robinson, J. (1986). Architecture as cultural artifact: Conception, perception, (deception). In J. W. Carswell & D. G. Saile (Eds.), Purposes in built form and culture research: Proceedings of the 1986 International Conference on Built Form & Culture Research (pp. 98–102). Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  82. Robinson, J. (in press). Premises, premises: Architecture as cultural medium. Midgaard, 1, 2.Google Scholar
  83. Robinson, J. (1988). Institution and home: Linking physical characteristics to perceived qualities of housing. In H. van Hoogdalem, N. Prak, T. J. M. van der Voordt, & HB. R. van Wegen (Eds.), Looking back to the future (pp. 431–440). Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Rochberg-Halton, E. (1986). Meaning and modernity: Social theory in the pragmatic attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rossi, A. (1982). Architecture of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  86. Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1978). Collage city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sadalla, E. K., & Oxley, D. (1984). The perception of room size. Environment and Behavior, 16 (3), 394–405.Google Scholar
  88. Schermer, B. (1987). User involvement in aesthetic design decisions. In J. Harvey & D. Henning (Eds.), Public environments (pp. 103–108). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  89. Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 ,119–140.Google Scholar
  90. Senkevitch, A. (1983). Aspects of spatial form and perceptual psychology in the doctrine of the rationalist movement in soviet architecture in the 1920s. Via, 6 ,78–115.Google Scholar
  91. Sime, J. (1986). Creating places or designing spaces Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6 ,49–63.Google Scholar
  92. Sixsmith, J. (1983). Comment on The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychology, D. Seamon. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3 ,109–111.Google Scholar
  93. Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: An exploratory study of environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6 ,281–298Google Scholar
  94. Stokols, D. (Ed.). (1977). Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory, research, and applica tions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  95. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  96. Tzonis, A., & Lefaivre, L. (1986). Classical architecture: The poetics of order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art.Google Scholar
  98. Verderber, S., & Moore, G. T. (1977). Building imagery: A comparative study of environmental cognition. Man-Environment Systems, 7 ,332–341.Google Scholar
  99. Vernez-Moudon, A. (1986). Built for change: Neighborhood architecture in San Francisco. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. Vernez-Moudon, A. (1987). The research component or typomorphological studies. In R. Shibley, W. Mitchell, W. Pulgram, & R. McCommons (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual research conference of the AIA/ACSA Council on Architectural Research. Washington, DC: AIA/ACSA Council on Architectural Research.Google Scholar
  101. Vidler, A. (1977). The idea of type: The transformation of the academic ideal, 1975-1830. Oppositions 8 ,Spring, 95–113.Google Scholar
  102. Vidler, A. (1987). The writings on the wall. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Wohlwill, J. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  104. Young, D. (1979). The interpretation of form: Meanings and ambiguities in contemporary architec ture. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Surrey, Guüdford, England.Google Scholar
  105. Zevi, B. (1978). The modern language of architecture. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda N. Groat
    • 1
  • Carole Després
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Architecture and Urban PlanningUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of ArchitectureLaval UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations