TURKISH MODERN AND POSTMODERN HOUSES: Evaluative Differences Between Design and Non-Design Students

Perceived quality of building exteriors has been an important research area in the field of environmental psychology since the 1960’s. Although a voluminous number of studies have analyzed the influence of personal factors and architectural style on building exterior evaluations, previous studies have overlooked the physical environmental features. This study examined the effects of (1) participants’ major, (2) buildings’ architectural style, and (3) physical environmental factors (roof type, window size, amount of open space, and level of complexity) on aesthetic evaluations of building exteriors. Twenty planning students, twenty architecture students, and twenty students from general university population evaluated the photographs of 18 high style modern and postmodern houses. Results showed that physical environmental factors including roof type, window size, amount of open space, the level of complexity have a stronger effect compared to participant’s major. Informed by research, which objectively evaluats the effect of physical features on preference judgments of building exteriors, designers could improve the physical quality of neighborhoods and design better environments.

[1]  J. Nasar.  The Effect of Sign Complexity and Coherence on the Perceived Quality of Retail Scenes , 1987 .

[2]  T. Whitfield,et al.  The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. , 1979 .

[3]  Stimulus and Respondent Factors in Environmental Preference , 1995 .

[4]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Symbolic Meanings of House Styles , 1989 .

[5]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[6]  A. T. Purcell,et al.  Environmental Perception and Affect , 1986 .

[7]  Donald W. Hine,et al.  Decoding Modern Architecture , 2000 .

[8]  J. Nasar,et al.  DESIGN REVIEW AND PUBLIC PREFERENCES: EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, PUBLIC CONSENSUS, SENSATION SEEKING, AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLES , 1997 .

[9]  T. Whitfield,et al.  Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour , 1983 .

[10]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  People and Places: Variance Components of Environmental Preferences , 1996 .

[11]  D. Canter,et al.  The Development of Central Concepts during Professional Education: An Example of a Multivariate Model of the Concept of Architectural Style , 1990 .

[12]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  A Post-Jury Evaluation , 1989 .

[13]  J. Nasar,et al.  The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same , 1989 .

[14]  House style preference and meanings across taste cultures , 1999 .

[15]  Robert G. Hershberger.  Environmental aesthetics: A study of meaning and architecture , 1988 .

[16]  Linda N. Groat,et al.  Carbuncles, Columns, and Pyramids: Lay and Expert Evaluations of Contextual Design Strategies , 1994 .

[17]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Environmental aesthetics : theory, research, and applications , 1988 .

[18]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Experiencing other people's houses: a model of similarities and differences in environmental experience , 1992 .

[19]  J. Nasar.  Adult Viewers' Preferences in Residential Scenes , 1983 .

[20]  A. Stamps.  Use of Photographs to Simulate Environments: A Meta-Analysis , 1990 .

[21]  Arthur E. Stamps.  Comparing Preferences of Neighbors and a Neighborhood Design Review Board , 1991 .

[22]  Public Preferences for Residences: Precode, Code Minimum, and Avant-Garde Architectural Styles , 1993 .

[23]  Michael Duffy,et al.  Preferences in Nursing Home Design , 1986 .

[24]  J. Nasar.  Urban Design Aesthetics , 1994 .

[25]  Clare Cooper Marcus,et al.  Evaluating Evaluation: Analysis of a Housing Design Awards Program , 1986 .

[26]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE , 1996 .

[27]  L. Groat,et al.  Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task , 1982 .

[28]  Robert G. Hershberger,et al.  Environmental aesthetics: Predicting user responses to buildings , 1988 .

[29]  P. Hubbard.  CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION , 1996 .

[30]  T. Purcell.  Experiencing American and Australian High-and Popular-Style Houses , 1995 .

[31]  K. Devlin,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL INTERPRETATION: ARCHITECTS VERSUS NON-ARCHITECTS , 1990 .

[32]  J. Wohlwill.  Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of Affect , 1976 .

[33]  A. Purcell,et al.  Subcultural and Cross-Cultural Effects on the Experience of Detached Houses , 1998 .