New Developments in Aesthetics for Urban Design

Part of the Advances in Environment, Behavior and Design book series (AEBD, volume 4)


Imagine walking through an unfamiliar city. As you proceed, the surroundings change from what you see in Figure 1 to what you see in Figure 2. You might evaluate the change as unpleasant, feel less safe, and change your behavior, walking faster or leaving the area. In contrast, had you passed by the scene in Figure 3, you might evaluate it favorably, feel a calming change in emotion, and you might slow down or enter the area to savor the experience. In each case, environmental cues, which you may not have noticed, affected your appraisal of the scene, emotions, inferences, and behavior. This chapter is predicated on the conviction that the visual character of buildings has important impacts on human experience—aesthetic impacts.


Building Type Urban Design Content Category Connotative Meaning Aesthetic Response 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altman, I. (1981). Reflections on environmental psychology. Human Environments, 2, 5–7.Google Scholar
  2. Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Appleyard, D. (1982). Three kinds of urban design practice. In A. Ferebee (Ed.), Education for urban design (pp. 122–126 ). Purchase, NY: Institute for Urban Design.Google Scholar
  4. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith.Google Scholar
  5. Blake, P. (1974). Form follows fiasco. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, S. (undated). Index to information on individual architects in a select list of books (Vance Bibliographies, Architecture Series, A 132).Google Scholar
  7. Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment and Behavior, 1, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, J. C. (1985). Recent assessments of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 356–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carp, F. M., Zawadski, R. T., and Shokron, H. (1976). Dimensions of urban environmental quality. Environment and Behavior, 8, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson, R. (1989). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 393–414.Google Scholar
  11. Chenoweth, R. E., and Gobster, P. H. (1990). The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal, 9, 1–8.Google Scholar
  12. Cherulnik, P. D. (1991). Reading restaurant facades: Environmental inference in finding the right place to eat. Environment and Behavior, 22, 150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). (1972). 1451 (CZMA 302). Congressional hearings, and 1452 (CZMA 303) Congressional declaration of policy. Public Law 89–454 Title III, 302 and 303, as added Public Law 92–583.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, C. (1972). Resident dissatisfaction in multifamily housing. In W. M. Smith (Ed.), Behavior, design and policy aspects of human habitats (pp. 119–146 ). Green Bay: University of Wisconsin Green Bay Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, C. (1974). The house as a symbol of self. In J. Lang, C. Burnette, W. Moleski, and D. Vachon (Eds.), Designing for human behavior architecture and the behavioral sciences (pp. 130146 ). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.Google Scholar
  16. Craik, K. H. (1983). The psychology of the large scale environment. In N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 67–105 ). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. Devlin, K., and Nasar, J. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dingham, T. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Espe, H. (1981). Differences in perception of national socialist and classicist architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Asthetik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitopf and Hartel.Google Scholar
  21. Feimer, N. (1984). Environmental perception: The effect of media evaluative context and the observer sample. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher, B., and Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to the three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gans, H. (1974). Popular culture and high culture: An analysis and evaluation of taste. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books. Gaver, W. W., and Mandler, G. (1987). Play it again Sam. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 259–282.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Gifford, R. (1980). Environmental dispositions and the evaluation of architectural interiors. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 386–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groat, L. (1984, November). Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture, pp. 72–75.Google Scholar
  29. Groat, L. N., and Després, C. (1991). The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 3, pp. 3–53 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  30. Gutman, R. (1983). Architects in the home-building industry. In J. R. Blau, M. E. LaGory, and J. S. Pipkin (Eds.), Professionals and urban form (pp. 208–223 ). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hartig, T., Mang, M., and Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heise, D. R. (1970). The semantic differential and attitude research. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp. 235–253 ). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  33. Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In H. Sanoff and S. Cohn (Eds.), EDRA 1: Proceedings of the First Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 86–100 ). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  34. Hershberger, R. G., and Cass, R. C. (1974). Predicting user responses to buildings. In G. Davis (Ed.), Man environment interaction: Evaluations and applications, the state of art in environmental design research field applications (pp. 117–134 ). Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  35. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herzog, T., Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herzog, T., and Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hesselgren, S. (1975). Man’s perception of man-made environment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.Google Scholar
  39. Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10, 555–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Im, S.-B. (1984). Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior, 16, 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  42. Kang, J. (1990). Symbolic inferences and typicality in five taste cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  43. Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., and Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kasmar, J. V., Griffin, W. V., and Mauritzen, J. H. (1968). Effects of environmental surroundings on outpatients’ mood and perception of psychiatrists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 223–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krampen, M. (1989). Semiotics in architecture and industrial product design. Design Issues, 5, 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  48. Lansing, J. B., Marans, R. W., and Zehner, R. B. (1970). Planned residential environments. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  49. Lanyon, R. I. (1984). Personality assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 667–701. Lawrence, R. (1986). L’espace domestique et la regulation de la vie quotidienne. Recherches Sociologiques, 7, 147–169.Google Scholar
  50. Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leff, H. L., Gordon, L. R., and Ferguson, J. G. (1974). Cognitive set and environmental awareness. Environment and Behavior, 6, 395–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lynch, K. E., and Rivkin, M. (1959). A walk around the block. Landscape,8, 24–34. Lynes, R. (1954). The taste-makers. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  53. Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Marans, R. W. (1976). Perceived quality of residential environments: Some methodological issues. In K. H. Craik and E. H. Zube (Eds.), Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications (pp. 123–147 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  55. Martindale, C. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  56. McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpretation of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McKechnie, G. E. (1977). The Environmental Response Inventory in application. Environment and Behavior, 9, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Michelson, W. (1987). Groups, aggregates, and the environment. In E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 1, pp. 161–185 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  59. Moore, G. T. (1989). Environment and behavior research in North America: History, developments, and unresolved issues. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1359–1410 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Myers, I., and McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589–614.Google Scholar
  62. Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preference in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 79–93.Google Scholar
  63. Nasar, J. L. (1987). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 499–509.Google Scholar
  64. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nasar, J. L. (1989a). Perception, cognition, and evaluation of urban places. In I. Altman and E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public places and spaces: Human behavior and environment (Vol. 10, pp. 31–56 ). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nasar, J. L. (1989b). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nasar, J. L., and Kang, J. (1989a). A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts. Environment and Behavior, 21, 464–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nasar, J. L., and Kang, J. (1989b). Symbolic meanings of building style in small suburban offices. In G. Hardie, R. Moore, and H. Sanoff (Eds.), Changing paradigms: EDRA 20 (pp. 165–172 ). Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  70. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (1969). Public Law 91–190. Eighty-third Stat., 852856.Google Scholar
  71. Oostendorp, A. (1978). The identification and interpretation of dimensions underlying aesthetic behaviour in the daily urban environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (2), 990B.Google Scholar
  72. Oostendorp, A., and Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Measures of exploratory behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 83–89.Google Scholar
  73. Pearlman, K. T. (1988). Aesthetic regulation and the courts. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 476–492 ). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Prak, N. L. (1984). Architects: The noted and the ignored. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. Purcell, A. T. (1984). Multivariate models and the attributes of the experience of the built environment. Environment and Planning B, 11, 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Purcell, A. T., and Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other peoples houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199211.Google Scholar
  78. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A non-verbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Rapoport, A. (1990). History and precedence in environmental design. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1–49 ). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  81. Rosch, E., and Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Russell, J. A., and Snodgrass, J. (1989). Emotion and environment. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 245–280 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Sadalla, E. K., Verschure, B., and Burroughs, J. (1987). Identity symbolism in housing. Environment and Behavior, 19, 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sanoff, H. (1989). Facility programming. In E. H. Zube and G. M. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 2, pp. 239–286 ). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Seaton, R. W., and Collins, J. B. (1970). Validity and reliability of ratings of simulated buildings. In W. S. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice (pp. 6–10–1–6–10–12). Los Angeles, CA: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  86. Shafer, E. L., Jr., and Richards, T. A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Unpublished document, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Research Paper NE 302 ).Google Scholar
  87. Shirvani, H. (1985). The urban design process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  88. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Sonnenfeld, J. (1966). Variable values in the space and landscape: An inquiry into the nature of environmental necessity. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sparshot, F. E. (1972). Figuring the ground: Notes on some theoretical problems of the aesthetic environment. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 6, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Starbuck, J. C. (undated). The most depicted buildings erected in the U.S.A. between the wars. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies (Architecture Series, A34).Google Scholar
  92. Starbuck, J. C. (undated). The most depicted buildings erected in the U.S.A. since 1945. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies (Architecture Series, A34).Google Scholar
  93. Stiny, G. (1981). The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie houses. Environment and Planning B, 8, 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thayer, R. L., Jr., and Atwood, B. G. (1978). Plant complexity and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tversky, A. (1977). On the elicitation of preferences: Descriptive and prescriptive considerations. In D. E. Bell, R. L. Keeny, and H. Raiffa (Eds.), Conflicting objectives in decisions (pp. 209–222 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  96. Tversky, B., and Hemenway, K. (1983). Categories of environmental scenes. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 121–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetics and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment: Human behavior and environment, advances in theory and research (Vol. 6, pp. 85–125 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  98. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M., and Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Verderber, S., and Moore, G. T. (1979). Building imagery: A comparative study of environmental cognition. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 332–341.Google Scholar
  100. Vining, J., and Orland, B. (1989). The video advantage: A comparison of two environmental representation techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 275–283.Google Scholar
  101. Whitfield, T. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior. Journal of Environment Psychology, 3, 22 1237.Google Scholar
  102. Wilson, M. A., and Canter, D. V. (1990). The development of central concepts during professional education: An example of a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Winkel, G., Malek, R., and Thiel, P. (1970). A study of human response to selected roadside environments. In H. Sanoff and S. Cohn (Eds.), EDRA 1: Proceedings of the 1st Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 224–240 ). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.Google Scholar
  104. Wohlwill, J. F. ( 1974, July). The place of aesthetics in studies of the environment. Paper presented at the Symposium on Experimental Aesthetics and Psychology of the Environment at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  105. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and the environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  106. Wohlwill, J. F. (1982). The visual impact of development in coastal zone areas. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 9, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist’s view. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment: Human behavior and environment, advances in theory and research (Vol. 6, pp. 5–37 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  108. Wohlwill, J. F., and Kohn, I. (1973). The environment as experienced by the migrant: An adaptation-level view. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 4, 135–164.Google Scholar
  109. Wright, S. H. (1989). Sourcebook of contemporary North American architecture from postwar to postmodern. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  110. Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City and Regional Planning, Austin E. Knowlton School of ArchitectureThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations