Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Representation of architecture (systematic and empirical analysis) Kanetkar, Vinaykumar Vaman 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A7_3 K36.pdf [ 17.07MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100186.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100186-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100186-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100186-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100186-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100186-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100186-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100186-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100186.ris

Full Text

9 REPRESENTATION OF ARC HITECT USE (SYSTEMATIC AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS) by VINA YKUMAR VA.MAN KANETKAH B. Arch-, Indian I n s t i t u t e of Technology, Kharagpur, India, 197 4 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE .REQUIREMENTS FOE THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Architecture) ; We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1979 (c) V inaykumar Varoan Kanetkar, 1979 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Drfpa rtmZnt- of A r-ohf-feefc'/C The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i Abstract Representation can be defined as a r e p l i c a t i o n or reconstruction of a system which e x i s t s , has existed or i s expected to e x i s t . Furthermore, r e p l i c a t i o n consists of a concept-expression derived by the selection by the observer(s) of system certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and has some stated and unstated rules about concept-expression. Concept-expression i s accomplished v i a a medium by the observer(s) using suitable instruments. / Given t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of representation, i t becomes possible to explore verbal notions about a r c h i t e c t u r a l system. Based on phenomenological and empirical work i n "meaning i n architecture", t h i s study attempts to establish 24 notions such as form, scale and proportion, texture, spaciousness, organisation, complexity, modernity, pleasure. 78 empirical studies reported i n English and conducted i n the l a s t decade gave insights into following four areas of the study. 1. To establish the information gap between the actual building and each of i t s representation on various architecture related notions. 2. To explicate the relationship between money and time required f o r representation and the information gap between environment and i t s representation. 3. To determine the extent to which observers can comprehend the representations i n terms of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions. 4. To derive a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of representation using notions related to architecture. This study used a space r e l a t i o n diagram, verbal description, plan and section, sketch drawing, isometric drawing, perspective drawing, black and white photograph, colour s l i d e , a r c h i t e c t u r a l model and the actual building to represent the study building, Gaslight Square. The survey questionnaire, rating techniques, study f i e l d s tation and representational i i i techniques were c a r e f u l l y constructed to f u l f i l the above purposes. Results based on 1400 sets of observations made by 185 respondents suggest that there can be an information gap between the actual building and i t s representation. Generally, the less abstract and more detailed the representation, the better are a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions conveyed. The value for the r e l a t i o n s h i p (measured by Kendall's Tau) between the general impression conveyed by representation of the actual building and the cost of the representations was 0.78 and for the time required to prepare for representations was 0.5683. Analysis of variance suggested that observers were able to distinguish between the amount of information conveyed by various representations and and between a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions. Furthermore, the difference between architects and non-architects were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and there were recognizable differences between t h e i r reactions to representations. Overall s i m i l a r i t y between a l l the representations, as indicated by c l u s t e r analysis was 40.6 Percent. Eye-level, overview and abstract were the three major categories derived from the 10 representations used in t h i s study. Dr. R. W. Seaton, Faculty supervisor. i v Table of Contents ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ... i v LIST OF TABLES -. v i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMEANT X 1. BACKGROUND UNDERSTANDING-OF REPRESENTATION . ,. 1 1.1. A r c h i t e c t u r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 1 1.2. From i d e a towards theory - .. - . 2 1.3. "R e p r e s e n t a t i o n " d e f i n e d ............................ 10 1.4. Components of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n - ... 13 1.5. Concept-expressions 21 1.6. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l media 24 1.7. Instruments and i n t e n t i o n s -. 26 1.8. Summary of the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n process *••- 2 8 2. DETERMINANTS OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION . .. 30 . 2. 1. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of a r c h i t e c t u r e 32 2.2. The search f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s ............ 33 2.3. Notions about a r c h i t e c t u r e 35 2.4. Notions of form ............ 37 2.5. Notions of s c a l e and p r o p o r t i o n 43 2.6. Notions of c o l o u r ( p h y s i c a l ) 46 2.7. Notion of t e x t u r e ......... 48 2.8. Notions of l i g h t , shade and shadow - . 51 2.9. Notions of f i g u r e , p r o f i l e , contour 52 V 2.10. Notions of volume, area and length .. 54 2.11. Notions of s p a t i a l excitement, s p a t i a l delight . . . 55 2.12. Notions of f r i e n d l i n e s s 57 2.13. Notions of s o l i d i t y ... . ...59 2.14. Notions of organisation , 61 2.15. Notions of siz e 63 2.16. Notions of spaciousness 65 2.17. Notions of colourfulness .........................:- 66 2.18. Notions of complexity 67 2.19. Notions of modernity .............................. 70 2.20. Notions of balance 71 2.21. Notions of cleanliness 73 2.22. Notions of venti l a t i o n and r i g i d i t y ...74 2.23. Pleasure-arousal-dominance notions - 75 3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND STUDY PURPOSES . 78 3.1. Representation and concepts ...................... * - 78 3.2. The l i t e r a t u r e review 80 3.3. Purposes of the study 112 4. THE EXPERIMENT , ... 115 4.1. Selecting an appropriate a r c h i t e c t u r a l setting .... 116 4.2. Selection of representations 119 4.3. Representations and t h e i r costs - 122 4.4. Rating technique 128 4.5. Experimental design 129 4.6. Questionnaire design . 132 4.7. The experimental station 136 v i 4.8. Demographic and ex p e r i e n t i a l correlates ........... 148 4.9. Data coding 150 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 151 5.1. The information gap indicators 152 5.2. The rel a t i o n s h i p between the time consumed and information potency of the representation ....... 177 5.3. The r e l a t i v e discrimination between the aspects ... 182 5.4- The categories of representation 186 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 189 6.1. Recommendations for the designer 190 6.2. Recommendations to the researcher 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY , 200 APPENDIX I 218 APPENDIX II 220 APPENDIX I I I 224 APPENDIX IV 231 v i i L i s t of Tables Table 3.1. Summary of studies 83 Table 3.2. Studies conducted f o r perceptual aspects of room . 94 Table 3.3. Studies conducted for perceptual aspects of inside of buildings ...97 Table 3-4. Studies conducted for perceptual aspects of building facades 98 Table 3.5. Studies conducted for perceptual aspects of landscaping 104 Table 3.6. Studies conducted for perceptual aspects of streets 106 Table 3.7. Studies conducted for perceptual aspects of large areas 107 Table 3.8. Studies conducted with combined l e v e l s of environment 109 Table 3.9. Studies conducted by sampling from j o o l of environments 110 Table 4.1. Ratings for sample environments 118 Table 4.2. Summary of costs for representations ............ 127 Table 5. 1. Relative discrimination between aspects and representation ., 182 Table 5.2. Architect and non-architect differences .- 184 L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s F i g . 1.1. Representations of theory - 4 Fig-1.2. Duke's communication continuum 15 Fig.1.3. Thiel's simulation matrix 16 F i g . 1.4. Echenique's and Broadbent's model c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 18 Fig.1.5. Concept-expressions .,. ...22 F i g . 1.6. Media for concept-expression -. 25 Fig-1.7. Instruments and intentions 27 Fig.4.1. Selected representations ........................ 121 Fig.4.2. Experimental station d e t a i l s 137 Fig. 4. 3. Space r e l a t i o n diagram - 138 Fig . 4.4. Verbal description 139 Fig.4.5. Plan and section, drawing 1 140 Fig.4.6. Plan and section, drawing 2 141 Fig.4.7. Plan and section, drawing 3 ..... . 142 F i g . 4.8. Sketch drawing .... 143 Fig.4.9. Isometric drawing 144 Fig.4.10. Perspective drawing 145 Fig.4.11. Black and white photograph 146 Fig.4.12. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model photographs ................ 147 Fig.5.1. Information gaps for texture 153 Fig.5.2. Information gaps for shade and shadow .......... 153 Fig.5.3. Information gaps for length 156 Fig.5.4. Information gaps for proportion and scale 156 Fig.5.5. Information gaps for form 158 i x Fig.5.6. Information gaps for colourfulness 158 Fig.5.7. Information gaps for figure 160 Fig.5.8. Information gaps for r i g i d i t y 160 Fig.5.9. Information gaps for s o l i d i t y 161 Fig.5.10. Information gaps for arousal ., 161 Fig.5.11. Information gaps for balance 163 Fig.5.12. Information gaps for colour - 163 Fig.5. 13. Information gaps for pleasure 165 Fig.5.14.„ Information gaps for volume 165 Fig.5.15. Information gaps for f r i e n d l i n e s s .............. 166 Fig. 5. 16. Information gaps for s i z e 166 Fig.5.17. Information gaps for general impression ........ 168 Fig.5.18. Information gaps for dominance 168 Fig.5.19. Information gaps for complexity ................ 170 Fig.5.20. Information gaps for excitement 170 Fig.5.21. Information gaps for spaciousness 172 Fig.5.22. Information gaps for v e n t i l a t i o n ......172 Fig.5.23. Information gaps for organisation 173 Fig-5.24. Information gaps for modernity 173 Fig.5.25. Information gaps for cleanliness 175 Fig.5.26. Information gaps f o r aggregate of a l l aspects .. 175 Fig.5.27. A r e l a t i o n s h i p between time and information gap 179 Fig.5.28. A rela t i o n s h i p between cost and information gap 180 Fig.5.29. The mean p r o f i l e s for user groups .............. 185 Fig.5.30. A perceived structure of representations ....... 187 X Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors. Dr. E. W. Seaton, Dr. J . B. C o l l i n s and Dr. N. G. Rolfsen for their valuable assistance i n conceptualizing t h i s study. I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. W. Gerson, the former Head of the graduate program. School of Architecture and to Prof. R. McLeod, the former Director of the school, f o r t h e i r encouragement in the pursuit of t h i s f i e l d of endeavour as well as i n the early phases of the Master's program. I f e e l obliged to the following people for t h e i r help at various stages of the research. Mr. R. Henriguez, for drawings and insights about Gaslight; Square. Mr. J. N i c o l l , for providing space and u t i l i t i e s for the f i e l d study; Dr. D. Wehrung, Prof. K. R. MacCrimmon and Dr. K. Brothers f o r providing valuable s t a t i s t i c a l experience and f i n a n c i a l support i n f i n a l phases of the study; Mrs. N. Hall, l i b r a r i a n at the school of Architecture, for encouraging l i t e r a r y explorations; Mrs. L. Forbes, for restructuring and correcting the English of t h i s document; Mrs. S. Whitson, for conducting most of the interviews; Mr. R. Gobert, for providing help i n arranging some of the interviews-Valuable assistance for the study was also provided by the following organisations. Marathon Realty, management and s t a f f of Gaslight Square; O.B.C., School of Architecture, s t a f f members and students; O.B.C., Computing centre, s t a t i s t i c a l and numerical analysis group; U.B.C, department of Computer science. Texture support group; U.B.C., Awards Committee. Thanks must be extended to my classmates (Alphonse, Carrael, Charlotte, Naoyuki and Ru-ping) for providing the i n t e l l e c t u a l environment to stimulate t h i s study. Although the encouragement provided by my family, e s p e c i a l l y my brothers Vijay and V r a j l a l and my mother, was not academic in nature, i t provided emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l s t a b i l i t y during my stay in Canada. F i n a l l y thanks are due to a l l participants and to those not mentioned above but actively or passively involved i n t h i s study. Vancouver, 13 June, 1979. 1 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND UNDERSTANDING OF REPRESENTATION. Science and God have many aspects i n common. They both are mythical, i n v i s i b l e and invented by human beings. Unfortunately t h e i r comprehension depends largely on patience, hard work and desire. Maybe they are one and represented by d i f f e r e n t names. 1.1. Architectural representation. How does one "represent architecture?" This i s a fundamental question, but science has yet to produce any d e f i n i t i v e answer. This guestion i s not unique to professional architects or environmental researchers; and i t has been asked by laymen. This chapter elaborates some es s e n t i a l concepts bearing on the question of representing architecture. Plans, p i c t o r i a l drawings, photographs, three-dimensional r e p l i c a s or even architecture i t s e l f are some of the common techniques used by architects to represent architecture. Such techniques place major emphasis on the vi s u a l character of the building. However, physical laws or theories can also be used 2 to understand and explain a building's character, p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s non-visual aspects. For example, through simulation or simulation modelling one can explain such abstract c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the building as i t s structure, acoustics or illumination. From the l i t e r a t u r e , i t appears that techniques of representation of buildings may be f a r more diverse than commonly understood. Thus representation can be broadly defined so as to accommodate these wider and more diverse meanings as related to architecture while at the same time incorporating the existing conceptual understanding. 1.2. From idea towards theory. How one represents architecture depends upon the ideas underlying the architecture. For complex phenomena, there must be an equally complex set of ideas and explaining those ideas forms a necessary task of the representation. Suppose one wanted to represent a simple idea such as Pythagoras' theorem. One may use words such as " i n a coplanar right-angled t r i a n g l e , the area of the square constructed on the hypotenuse w i l l be equal i n area to the sum of the squares constructed on the other two sides". I t i s also possible to use 3 a mathematical form such as c 2= a 2+b 2. Al t e r n a t i v e l y one might prefer a graphical display such as i s shown i n Figure 1.1. Even with this simple idea, one would notice that the degree of comprehension and e x p l i c i t n e s s of the underlying concept would d i f f e r as one changed the technique for explaining i t . Obviously, i t i s the representation that exhibits the idea and therefore i n order to understand about representation, one must f i r s t understand about ideas. There are informal and formal ideas. Informal ideas are used for day-to-day i n t e r a c t i o n a l purposes, whereas formal ideas r e l a t e to the future theory or law. Although both types of ideas can be used to explain architecture, the major emphasis here i s given on formal ideas: theories or laws. Even though theory i s a general term, i t has very s p e c i f i c meanings attached to i t . As Easer(1969) points out: [theory i s ] a set of statements about r e a l i t y , such as a past r e a l i t y , present r e a l i t y , or a predicted r e a l i t y . A theory attempts to describe the components of that r e a l i t y and to specify the nature of the relati o n s h i p among those components. (p. 6) Deutsch (1966) further elaborates the content and language of theory. Theories are not only a set of p r o p o s i t i o n s about r e a l i t y but they are also at the same time a s p e c i a l G R A P H I C A L R E P R E S E N T A T I O N c*-- a 2 4 b 2 M A T K P M A T / C A i . R e P R E S E M T A T / C W X/? " cap/oner right,-cfng}l-&f -triangl-e, -fhe crre<A cf JhQ square consr^octnzt ony%e hypo-tenus? CO/// 6e e^iKJi/ in ctreA. -h>-fh-e Sc//n ef-fa-e SfuttreJ VERBAL /^EP^BSEA-JT^TIOSI FIG. / . / . Repress? n/af-ion of Theory, 5 class of languages about r e a l i t y , with very li m i t e d vocabulary and r e l a t i v e l y stringent c r i t e r i a for relevance and v e r i f i a b i l i t y . . (P. 3) Theory, theorems or laws deal with relationships within conceptual r e a l i t i e s and with concepts that are not immediately tangible to the senses. Moreover, theory demands that basic underlying assumptions be explained and l i m i t a t i o n s for proof for i t must be given. Of course, one may not always be dealing with a simple theorem, but with a more abstract idea such as one from economics. For example, I f a greater quantity of a good i s thrown i n cn the market, then - other things being equal - i t can only be sold at a lower price. (Samuelson and Scott, 1975, p. 65) Ideas which can be proven and which possess defined l i m i t a t i o n s are c a l l e d laws. Examples presented so f a r are r e l a t i v e l y simple as compared to ideas i n architecture. However, in architecture, thinkers have put forward sets of ideas, hoping that these ideas w i l l be made into theories. For example, People need green open places to go to; when they are close they use them. But i f the grass greens are more than three minutes away, the distance overwhelms the need. (Alexander et a l . , 1976, p. 305) 6 Ideas l i k e t h i s one seem v a l i d before they are v e r i f i e d . To v e r i f y such an idea requires that concepts involved - "green space" - be c l e a r l y explained, so that they are co r r e c t l y interpreted by everyone. This means that i n order explain an idea one must understand the concepts that compose the idea. The purpose of any theory, according to Baser, i s to explain certain intangible ideas about r e a l i t y . Since r e a l i t y i s v i r t u a l l y always complex and almost impossible to comprehend and explain to any person completely, one may choose to abstract one portion of a system from complete r e a l i t y . This portion of the system thus becomes one's understanding about "truth"; i t s purpose i s to explain the underlying idea. Ackoff(1971) explains a system as a set of in t e r r e l a t e d elements. I t i s an en t i t y which i s composed of at least two elements and a r e l a t i o n that holds between each of i t s elements and at l e a s t one other element i n the set. Each of a systems' s elements i s connected to convey other elements, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y . Further more, no subset of elements i s unrelated to any other subset. (p. 662) With t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of a system, Ackoff further elaborates and defines various terms l i k e abstract system (social or psychological aspects of a building), concrete system (building materials, s t r u c t u r a l details) , environment of a system (site l o c a t i o n , p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l environment ). This implies that by abstracting the system from the r e a l i t y , one i s able to grasp 7 even complex phenomena such as a building i n an understandable whole. Moreover a system thus abstracted can be used f o r many purposes. Many times i t i s not possible to use a whole system for manipulation, so i t may be desirable to recreate only a part of the complete system. This process of abstraction i s c a l l e d simulation, modelling, representation or gaming. The conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n between the idea and system could be a matter of philosophical concern. One may note that both require abstraction and both can be recreated through representation. While elements and relationships for the system may be defined, i t may not be possible to define ideas. I f one thinks of architecture as assembly of building elements and th e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , one may consider architecture as a system. However architecture can be considered as idea since perceptual impacts generated are not defined. For subsequent discussion words the 'system' and architecture are used with both of these meanings. Just as "theory" means something very s p e c i f i c "simulation" also has a s p e c i f i c meaning. For example Baser (1969) makes an int e r e s t i n g comment about simulation. In popular usage simulation i s often a fancy term for an imitation, for something that i s f a l s e or phony, a copy of something. However simulation may mean much l i k e another i n that i t reproduces the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of something else i n ce r t a i n important respects, but i s otherwise d i f f e r e n t . But when s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s 8 speak of simulation. ... they are r e s t r i c t i n g the term to a much narrower sense than used above. .... [simulation i s ] an operating model that displays processes over time and that thus may develop dynamically. (p. 6) Raser's comment about simulation reaffirms Verba's (1964) explanation about models and simulation. A simulation i s a model of a system.. Other models. ... may attempt to represent a system through verbal means, mathematical means or p i c t o r i a l means. Like simulations, they involve the abstraction of c e r t a i n aspects of the system one i s studying and an attempt to r e p l i c a t e these aspects by other means such as words or mathematical symbols. But a simulation model d i f f e r s i n that i t i s an operating model. ... There are many forms of simulation, and where simulatin shades off into other forms cf study or model-building i s hard to specify and probably not important. (p. 491) Shannon (1975) gives a si m i l a r explanation of an operating model. He states. Model building i s a process of designing a model of a r e a l system and conducting experiments with t h i s model for the purpose either of understanding the behavior of the system or of evaluating various strategies (within the l i m i t s imposed by the c r i t e r i a ) f o r the operation of the system. Further, a model of a system i s a representation of a group of objects or ideas i n some form other than the ent i t y i t s e l f , and the term " r e a l " i s used in the sense of existence or capable of being brought into existence. (p. 2) Hence a simulation, according to these authors, expresses the dynamic nature of the system and a model i s the s t a t i c 9 ide n t i t y of the system. Shirts(1975) argues that there must be some rules governing gaming simulation. A simulation i s anything which simulates or models r e a l i t y , [and according to Suite's concept] "a game i s an a c t i v i t y i n which people agree to abide by a set of conditions (not necessarily rules) i n order to create a desired state or end". (PP» 76-77) Of course, such a precise d i s t i n c t i o n i s seldom found i n the l i t e r a t u r e and the reader i s often l e f t i n confusion. For example, Echnigues(1970) defines a model as a representation of certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the observed r e a l i t y . . . where r e a l i t y consists of the objects or systems that exist, have existed or may exist (p. 25) . On the other hand Steadman (1973) defines a model as. Any kind of representation, image or simulacrum or some object or phenomenon. (p. 29) Hawks(1973) has conveyed a s i m i l a r notion while t r y i n g to define an environmental model. He suggests that an environmental model i s some formal process structure which relates to the property of a b u i l t form to some physical quantity of heat, l i g h t or sound and some other external stimulus. (p. 35) 10 Thiel(1976) defines representation as, spe c i a l human a c t i v i t y of mentally abstracting c e r t a i n presumed structual and functional attributes of the sit u a t i o n . A l l these d e f i n i t i o n s and i l l u s t r a t i o n s suggest that simulation, models and gaming may loosely be used interchangeably. A model c l e a r l y c a r r i e s a s t a t i c notion, and simulation conveys a dynamic notion about the system. Gaming implies a acceptance of posited assumptions about the system. But one must remember that a building as a system, consists of both s t a t i c elements (doors, windows, walls) and of dynamic elements (uses over time, s o c i a l purposes, meanings attached by users). When choosing a term to convey an attempt to portray the building as a system, the only common term i s 'representation *. 1.3. "Representation" defined. Representation i s a r e p l i c a t i o n or reconstruction of a system which e x i s t s , has existed or i s expected to exist. In order to explain the underlying idea about a coplanar right-angled t r i a n g l e , verbal, mathematical and graphical 11 techniques were used. Paper was selected as the medium on which these techniques were transcribed. F i n a l l y , i t was the action of instruments (typewriter, pen and pencil) which completed the reconstruction of Pythagoras' theorem. Words, equations and graphics are examples of some of the common means of representation. These are some of the concept-expressions or languages used i n conveying ideas. S i m i l a r l y , instead og paper one may choose some medium such as glass or i l l u s t r a t i o n board; and the typewriter may be replaced by drafting equipment. A s i m i l a r choices exists while representing architecture. There may be some addit i o n a l constraints for completing the representation. F i r s t , there may be some rules governing representation. These rules may be due to the type of concept-expression or medium used. It i s obvious that even with a simple concept-expression such as verbal language there are de f i n i t e l i n g u i s t i c requirements which must be f u l f i l l e d . This suggest that each concept-expression may have i t s own grammatical rules and conventions. Next, there i s the additi o n a l requirement that the system represented has existed, e x i s t s or may e x i s t . In summary, r e p l i c a t i o n consists of a concept-expression derived by selection of certa i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c about the system by the observer (s) and has some stated and unstated rules about the concept-expression. Concept-expression i s accomplished via 12 a medium by the observer (s) using suitable instruments. Architecture systems deal with buildings, which generally have various q u a l i t i e s and aspects including form, spaciousness, and volume; these concepts are further elaborated i n Chapter 2. Since the sysstem i s an abstraction, no system can be equal to the t o t a l r e a l i t y . Suppose that I-t represents the t o t a l information about the r e a l i t y and 1^ . for the t o t a l information derived i n the system, then I g i s the t o t a l information gap between the r e a l i t y and the system. I t > Is and I t = I^+ I 3 ...(1) However loss of information from r e a l i t y occurs when the system thus abstracted i s further s i m p l i f i e d for the purpose of representation by a suitable concept-expression, medium and instrument. This means that i f the observer of the system and the mediator (representer) of the observed system are one person, then the represented information, 1^ ., must be less than or in a few instances equal to I s . However qood the observer and representer may be i t seems l i k e l y that one would not explain a l l about the system i n the representation. But i f the same representation i s seen by another person who may or may not have seen the system, there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that the information conveyed by the representation may have increased or 13 decreased with respect to information contained by the system because of the second observer's experience. L i t t l e or nothing i s known about the exact magnitude and di r e c t i o n of t i e observer reaction under such circumstances nor about the type of representation involved. I s = I r ± I * -•• (2) where I i s the difference between the abstracted system information(I ) and the represented information (I ). Equations (1) and (2) are the basic assumptions under which t h i s study was formulated. The same equations w i l l be used i n l a t e r chapters to elaborate additional concepts. 1.4. Components of representation. Words, equations and graphics are examples of some of the common means that are used for representations. I t i s possible that there may be more than three categories of concept-expression. S i m i l a r l y there are many di f f e r e n t categories of medium as well as of instrument. The o v e r a l l complexity of representation cannot be appreciated u n t i l the possible variety of a l l three components i s i l l u s t r a t e d . Concept-expression i s well i l l u s t r a t e d by Thiel(1976), Duke(1975), Echenique (1970) , and Winkel and Sasanoff (1969) , who 14 have in t e r e s t i n g ideas on c l a s s i f y i n g representational techniques. Duke(1975) suggests three major categories on what he c a l l s the communication continuum: primitive, advanced and integrated. Figure 1.2 shows the communication categories and subcategories that he used. Even though he considers his review to be less than exhaustive, the continuum appears to have a good variety of concept-expressions that are in use. He points out that primitive communication techniques require the l e a s t learning and can be learnt only i n generic order. For example, techniques such as hand signals do not require much learning e f f o r t and can be c a l l e d p r i m i t i v e . On the other hand, advanced communication techniques require s p e c i a l s k i l l s and have standard, highly structured codes and carry sophisticated messages. Highly advanced communication techniques are integrated, use extremely complex conventions for learning and clos e l y approximate the system. They can produce s p e c i a l desired effects in communication; he c i t e s job-training as an appropriate example of t h i s category. In his "simulation matrix" (see F i g . 1.3) T h i e l also has three basic categories i n t o which he c l a s s i f i e s various representations. Thiel's analytic-presentational category probably coincides with Duke's primitive category, his homomorphic with Duke's advanced category, and his i d e n t i t y category with Duke's integrated. T h i e l further groups a l l simulations according to form: presentational (information i s THE COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUUM* PRIMITIVE ADVANCED INTEGRATED \^ (Examples of Even \ Communication INFORMAL FORMAL SPOKEN WRITTEN EMOTIONAL TECHNICAL SIMUIATEO R E A L \ ^ Form! MULTI-MEDIA HYBRID EXPERIENCE REALITY Characteristics Grunts Hind-Signats Semiphore Lights Flags Conversa-tion Lecture Seminar Radio Telegraph Manuscript Books Text Acting Art Role-Playing Math Notation Musical-Notanon Schematic! Diagrams Film Telwiiion Gaming/ Simulation Apprentice Job Training (Any Shared Real Time Perception! SEQUENTIAL-GESTALT IDegiee to which the totm is constrained) Moil Constrained Because ol Sequential Nature Basic Chui.icier is Sequential but Vaiious Devices Employed to Ease Constraint Highest Geii,.i Ability Short of Reality Fully Gestalt Because Actual Reality SPECIFICITY-UNIVERSALITY IDegiee of Flexibility ol Usui Employed (or All Situations but Limited in Material Conveyed 1 Standard (universal) Modes Selectively Employed to Meet Specific Communication Need Motif Specifically Tailored to L .mmunication need Specific (It is the Reality Encountered) SPONTANEITY OF USE lUser Hesistance, Skill Hequned, "Dryness" of or rn) Natural, Easy, Convenient Special Skills Required. Sophistication Often Accompanied by Dryness. Artiliciahty of Use Inherent Very Special Effort IO Inmate; Then Spontaneous in U&tf _ Natural "Lite" Form, Skill Limits Involvement CHARACTER OF CONVENTIONS CMPLOYEO Irormjhty, Complexity) Relatively few Simple. Simple, Informal Formal and Informal. Simple and Complex. Highly Structured, Many Many, Unique ta fact Situation. Fairly Complex Many Informal Complex O l A H A C T E R OF CODING AND DtCODINC {Inherent) None Required or Simple Elfort Eli-triiial; May be Elauuiale and Highly Suecutli/i'iJ Elaborule Cuding to Initiate Simple Ellon by User None Required CHARACTER OF THE MESSAGE THAT CAN 1st CONVEYED (Complexity, Analogy, Qualitative or Quanta* l i ve thought. Sub* iility, Purmanance, decision, Intangibles, Time Constrained, Systomt Characteristics) Only Rudimentary Menage Sophisticated Messages Gestalt Substitute lur Reality Reality • i ms digram n only meant to suggest melor relit lonsnips among tne various media to Illustrate I lie character ol gaming/simulation there is no suggestion ol the comprehensive review c,t communication forms or their character. Kium: "Gamine Slmuletlon-A New Communication Form", by Ricnara D. Ouke. i.iinenlea al the Third international Conlerencs on Gaming/Simulation, Blimlngnam, England, July i'H2. I F i g . 1.2. Duke's communication continuum A c t u a l u s e r -p a r t i c i p a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l o p e r a t o r managers C o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s P u b l i c r e g u l a t i n g a g e n c i e s F i n a n c i n g c l i e n t s , p u b l i c and /o r p r i v a t e U s e r -p a r t i c i p a n t ana logues o r s u r r o g a t e s I n d i v i d u a l o r group i n n o v a t o r s Degree o f a b s t r a c t i o n S i m u l a t i o n " t ype and mode A n a l y t i c ( s y m b o l i c ) L a b o r a t o r y / S t u d i o (homomorphic) I d e n t i t y ( i s o m o r p h i c ) A n a l o g i c | I c o n i c P r e s e n t a t i o n a l topo maps, p l a n s . s k e t c h p e r s p e c t i v e , i s o m e t r i c , photo s l i d e s . D i s c u r s i v e l o g i c sys tems, ma themat i c s , v e r b a l , l anguages , n o t a t i o n s y s t e m . f l o w c h a r t s , s t r u c t u r a l maps, sys tem s i m u l a t i o n model f i l m s and t . v . computer f i l m s and CRT. f u l l s i z e mock-ups , s t u d i o s e t s . the r e a l w o r l d or a c t u a l svstera i t s e l f . Fig-1.3. T h i e l ' s simulation matrix 17 simultaneously and usefully perceived i n any order) or discursive (achieves i t s s i g n i f i c a t i o n c h i e f l y through s p e c i f i c order and rate of perception). Th i e l also includes users' categories as part of his simulation matrix. I t i s unclear from his discussion, whether a n a l y t i c and i d e n t i t y presentation techniques are non-existent or were simply omitted from the matrix. Echenique (1969) gives additional insights for categorising various representations by using a three-dimensional c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (see Fig. 1.4). The purpose of the representation constitutes a f i r s t dimension (description, prediction, exploration and planning), the time factor (dynamic, static) represented i n the technigue constitutes a second dimension, whereas materials (icons or analogues) and concepts (verbal or mathematical) constitute a t h i r d dimension i n his c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n seems complex but i t includes comprehensive information about a c t i v i t i e s that go into representation. Broadbent(1973) uses an i d e n t i c a l framework and expanded to eight purposes, four dimensions (three Euclidian dimensions as well as time), two types of materials and two types of concepts. With a l l possible combinations (using a c r o s s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) there would be at least 128 d i f f e r e n t types of models. The idea of categorizing models by three factors i s innovative but i t says nothing about which representation best approximates the system that i s represented. !. WHAT IT IS MADE Of Concipli r 77 / 11 II II U |II 1 IA IB IC 10' nor 1/ II 11 II 11 'II 2A 2B 2T 20720-if H II i i ii'ffi TA 2"B 2"C 2 _0'! 2TT II II II 1 iH 3A 38 3C 30' 130-1 ! II 11 11 / 11 jn 4A 4B 4C / 40' 1 40-1 1. DRlcnplion I 1A I IB I IC i !i ID* 110-2. Prarf)cifon I 2A 2'A 1 2'B I 2'B rc 1 2-c I jl 20- 1 ro-ll 2-0- -2-0-3. Fiplarilion 1 3A 3B 1 3C 1 Ii 30- 130-4. Plsnnini I 4A I 4B I 4C I il 40' j 40" 7 Abilities involved in constructing the model Number of dimensions (including lime) 3 Descriplive Isomorphic Homomorphic Concept structuring Oolo delming Data collecting Dalo ordering Oalo predicting Exploratory Hypothesis * testing Hypothesis generating F i g . 1- 4. Echenique's and Broadbent's model c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 19 It i s also unknown whether a l l 128 different types of models are actually used by designers, or whether there are even more 128 type, not yet indicated by anyone. Three approaches, though not exhaustive, seem to include a variety of ideas that are presented by other authors. Some, l i k e Wood (1972) and Craik(1969) have c i t e d examples of representations whereas McKechnie (1977) has i d e n t i f i e d static-dynamic and abstract-concrete categories. Cowen et al.(1968, pp. 133-141) presented the purposes of representation as augmented by Echenigue and Broadbent. Eowe(1964) has also used the analogic to r e a l continuum explained by Duke and T h i e l . S i m i l a r l y Chorley and Haggett(1967) i d e n t i f i e d the descriptive and normative, s t a t i c and dynamic categories discussed by Echenigue. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n attempts are not r e s t r i c t e d to architecture, planning, geography and management science are neighbouring f i e l d s of enquiry which also r e l y heavily on understanding through some type of representation. Given these several attempts to categorize various representations used i n practice i n various d i s c i p l i n e s , the following discussion adds further i n s i g h t s by looking at the question h o l i s t i c a l l y . . Since the representation i s composed of three features - concept-expressions, media and instrument - i t 20 may be possible to expand on them. There i s some l o s s of meaning i n using labels such as "concept-expression", "medium" and "instrument" but no better descriptors were found. Three major intentions guide the proposed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme: (1) to include any type of representation however i n s i g n i f i c a n t , (2) to allow an understanding about the relati o n s h i p between the system and i t s representation at a l l l e v e l s of abstraction, and (3) to incorporate i n the categories for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n some value of predictive effectiveness for future research as well as for a r c h i t e c t u r a l practice. To achieve these ends, a universe of representations were l i s t e d ; members were then classed according to the languages that are commonly used for them; and languages were categorised according to t h e i r degree of abstraction. These sequence of operation was ite r a t e d for media and tools or instruments. Any representation can be produced using one item from each of these three independent dimensions. To achieve a representation, one may use almost any one or more categories from each of the three dimensions. Even though i t may appear that there are numerous combinations available for representation, the f i n a l choice of a combination depends lar g e l y on the size of the building, that i s , the complexity of the idea or system. The f i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n appears to be in c l u s i v e of large number of categories and presents h o l i s t i c 21 idea underlying representation. 1.5. Concept-expressions. Concept-expressions that are commonly used can be put into three major categories: identity-isomorphic, laboratory-homomorphic and an a l y t i c s y m b o l i c . In the isomorphic category, a representation must have a one-to-cne relationship with the system represented; the hcmcmorphic type of representation must have a many-to-one reduction (Broadbent, 1973); and the symbolic type of representation must have symbolic and analogic transformations from the concept, using some specified r u l e s . Figure 1.5 presents o v e r a l l categories for concept-expression. The isomorphic category can be further divided i n t o two subcategories analogic, use of a convenient transformation from one set of properties to another set of properties i n accordance with some rules, and i c o n i c , the use of a "something-that-looks-like" transformation. Each of the 2 2 LO O I/) LU cr CL X UJ QL UJ o z o o ' — I I—I DISCURSIVE fr-y i Q_ O O co L) z O U —} PRESE NTATIONALr y x Q_ O O O y o m o ALOGI < IDISCURSVE — ] | PRESENTATIONAL j — — -J P I S C U R S I V E \ -Hi — [ PRESENTATIONAL \-&-PLANES 1 — I i— ) DISCURSIVE 1-u o id NA < —I I—| PRESENTATIONAL f-1—T r~\ DISCURSIVE I-_J I—\ PRESENTATIONALH r-^rJiscuRsvE |-u o — < —-1 PRESENTATIONAL j-A C T U A L WORLD O F R E A L E V E N T S . F U L L S I Z E M O C K - U P S , S T A G E S E T S . J O B T R A I N I N G , E D U C A T I O N R O L E P L A Y I N G , A C T I N G M O V I E S , V I D E O , C O M P U T E R G R A P H I C S " O D E L S -,-4/5-PLANES] 1 1- ,2- ,3- P O I N T P E R S P E C T I V E S ! -k-PLANES 1 1 I S O M E T R I C , O B L I Q U E P R O J E C T . ) S C E N A R I O , S C O R E S , P R O G R A M S , G A M E S P L A N S , B A R C H A R T S , M A P S , S E C T I O N S M U S I C , D A N C E HAND S I G N A L , G E S T U R E S , P I C T O G R A P H S , P A T T E R N C O M P U T E R L A N G U A G E W O R D S , N O T A T I O N A L S Y S T E M C O L O U R C O O I N G , L O G O G R A M S 2 .2 i w | W 01 x V I 4J CU y o u in e t CP •H 23 categories, analogic and i c o n i c , can be further subdivided according to how they are observed: presentational, where the whole i s perceivable simultaneously and discursive, with sequential ordering of perception. Figure 1.5 i l l u s t r a t e s the conceptual categories explained above with appropriate examples of each subcategory. Each of the above categories can be further subcategorised but f o r the sake of s i m p l i c i t y further categories are not given. S i m i l a r l y , homomorphic concept-expressions can be categorised as anlogic and i c o n i c and, i n turn, as presentational and discursive. The iconic-presentational category can be subdivided depending upon the number of planes expressed. Six-planes are i l l u s t r a t e d i n the case of models, while four- or five-planes are displayed i n perspective drawings* Isometric and oblique projections display three of the possible six planes present i n architecture. The entire homomorphic range of concept-expressions i s shown i n mid-section of Figure 1.5. There could further categories such as sectional or planometric view for each of above categories since i t i s possible to make sectional or planometric perspective and isometric drawings.the Symbolic category i s subdivided f i r s t i n t o two categories, analogic and ic o n i c , which i n turn can be divided into presentational or discursive concept-expressions. Figure 1.5 shows these four subcategories and apropriate 24 examples. Figure 1.5 shows the entire range of concept-expression represented on a continuous scale from abstract to r e a l . Furthermore each of the above categories may have varied degrees of formality, which might provide another dimension on which to c l a s s i f y concept-expressions. 1.6. Representational media. The medium i s the message. (Mcluhan, 1967) Wood(1972) l i s t s a l l media commonly used in practice as well as i n reseach. He acknowledges that testing of media f o r r e l a t i v e effectiveness i s necessary and that some t h e o r e c t i c a l understanding would be b e n e f i c i a l i n determining further applications of media i n architecture. This attempt to c l a s s i f y various media proceeded i n a s i m i l a r manner to that of the c l a s s s i f i c a t i o n of concept-expressions. There seem to be two major approaches by which most media images are projected: objective image and projective image, (see F i g . 1.6) Each objective and projective image category can be further subdivided into discrete-presentational and discrete-discursive media. While sketches and photographs are viewed i n objective-discrete-presentational; and music sheet and MEDIA OBJECTIVE P R E S E N T A T I O N A L P H O T O S , S K E T C H E S M O D E L S , S C U L P T U R E D I S C U R S I V E M U S I C S H E E T , C A R T O O N S T R I P , S E R I E S O F S K E T C H E S PROJECTIVE ] C P R E S E N T A T I O N A L T R A N S P A R E N C Y A N D O P A Q U E P R O J E C T I O N D I S C U R S I V E M O V I E , V I D E O , S L I D E S E T F i g . 1.6. Media for concept-expression 26 sketch sequences are viewed i n objective-discrete-discursive. Transparencies and opaque projections are discrete-presentational while movie, video and s l i d e set presentations are discrete-discursive. Colour of the medium, an important categorizing f a c t o r , i s not i l l u s t r a t e d i n the above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . It must be noted that although there are numerous categories of concept-expressions, the choice of medium for representation purpose i s extremely limited. 1.7. Instruments and intentions. Instruments by themselves are neutral things and are used in transcribing expressions on media. But i t seems that the instrument chosen might be d i r e c t l y related to e f f i c i e n c y (cost and time) of accomplishing the representation. Even though modern intruments such as the cal-comp plotter and the video cameras have emerged, the i r c a p i t a l cost has prevented wide spread usage. There are three major purposes to which instruments can be INSTRUMENTS COPYING U N - A I D E D P R E P A R I N G P R E S E N T A T I O N FOR E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G , R E D R A W I N G , COLOUR BOOK. A I D E D R E P R O D U C T I O N T E C H N I Q U E S S U C H A S D I A Z O , X E R O X , P H O T O C O P Y I N G , P H O T O P R I N T I N C A U T O - T Y P E , P R O G R A M M E D D I S P L A Y PRODUCING PLANNING U N - A I D E D M A K I N G OF E N V I R O N M E N T , C O N S T R U C T I O N OF F I L M S E T S I | A I D E D | | U N - A I D E D \ A I D E D M E C H A N I C A L A I D E D C O N S T R U C T I O N A T F U L L . S C A L E , C H E M I C A L A C T I V A T E D C O N S T R U C T I O N S K E T C H I N G , V I S U A L I Z I N G , A B S T R A C T I N G I D E A S . C O L O U R C O M P O S I T I O N , D R A W I N G C O M P U T E R -A I D E D D E S I G N , P H O T O G R A P H I C D E L I N E A T I O N F i g . 1. 7. Instruments and intentions 28 put: copying, production and planning. In copying, the instrument i s used for duplication while for planning purposes instruments are reguired f o r generating the o r i g i n a l source material on which subsequent operations can be done. In production, on the other hand, instruments are used to produce a concept-expression using pre-programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . Each of these intentions can be f u l f i l l e d with or without human a i d . Thus, three intentions and aided or un-aided categories would imply that there are six categories i n which to group different instruments. Figure 1.7. I l l u s t r a t e s conceptual categories discussed above with relevant examples of each category. It would be obvious that human s k i l l i s an important dimension i n the use of various instruments including drafting materials. 1.8. Summary of the representation process. In t h i s chapter, the conceptual basis for representation has been developed. Representation i s defined as a r e p l i c a t i o n or reconstruction of a system which e x i s t s , has existed or i s 29 expected to exist- Replication consists of a concept-expression derived by selection of ce r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s about the system by the observer (s) and has some stated cr unstated rules. Concept--: expression i s accomplished via a medium by the observer(s) using an instrument suitable for p a r t i c u l a r intentions. This chapter also examines various alternatives f o r concept-expression, medium and instrument and outlines conceptual categories for each dimension. Conceptual discussion i s an important step i n understanding the o v e r a l l structure of representation in architecture, and i t i s on t h i s basis representations for the study were selected. 30 CHAPTER 2 DETERMINANTS OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION. Man [or woman] need not bend to l i n g u i s t i c circumstance but may easily bend language to his £or her] needs. Joshua Whatmough. Arc h i t e c t u r a l representations must convey those particular notions relevant to a pa r t i c u l a r b u i l t environment- Since architecture can be considered as a system of objects and relationships, there must e x i s t a minimum of ideas or notions about the architecture. This chapter w i l l give the e s s e n t i a l background of and meaning attached to architecture. S i m p l i s t i c a l l y , a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s are derived from elements l i k e doors, windows, walls and f l o o r s , and these elements are resolved along three Euclidian planes. Interrelationships and combinational arrangements of these elements give a unigue character to any architecture. For example, a 7*X3' v e r t i c a l l y placed wooden piece can be c a l l e d a door, can function as an opening and can be interpreted as more fr i e n d l y i f i t i s open and less f r i e n d l y i f i t i s closed. S i m i l a r l y every such element has diverse meanings and functions 31 associated with i t . Even though a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements are v i s u a l l y observable, f i n i t e i n number and common to most buildings, t h e i r characters, t h e i r meanings and t h e i r functions depend upon the context and combinations under which they e x i s t . This implies that a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s must be derived from the context or s i t u a t i o n i n which a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements exist i n combination. Attributes such as form, texture, and scale are also derived from the manner i n which building elements are arranged. In psychological terms, such attributes are "information" about the object or stimulus. Cultural pre-conditioning, s o c i a l training or self-development may help the observers to derive d i f f e r e n t sets of meanings from the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a building. Qualities such as spaciousness, pleasantness, or r i g i d i t y are examples of observer-derived notions. Even though some authors argue that there i s a philosophical d i f f i c u l t y i n separating these two sets of a t t r i b u t e s , - d i s p o s i t i o n of elements and q u a l i t i e s they convey -, p r a c t i c a l reasons dictate that they be considered as a single part of the general phenomenon of architecture. 32 2.1. Interpretations of architecture. Architecture as an assembly of elements can be interpreted i n a wide variety of ways. I t i s true of any art that i t can be interpreted not only on aesthetic grounds but also on p o l i t i c a l , philosophical, r e l i g i o u s , s c i e n t i f i c , economic, s o c i a l , and technical grounds (Zevi, 1974, pp. 163-192). Zevi also acknowledges the importance of formal interpretation of architecture and he elaborates on q u a l i t i e s such as unity, contrast, symmetry, balance, and proportion according to which such c r i t i c i s m can be structured. Phenomenclogical attempts such as Zevi's are rare i n the l i t e r a t u r e but Kahn, Corbusier, Wright, and others have t r i e d to explain s i m i l a r q u a l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r own work. Even though the q u a l i t i e s discussed below may not be exhaustive, they seem to present the state-of-the-art of formal analysis of architecture. Q u a l i t i e s explained by architects and a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t i c s are s p e c i f i c , with a contextual meaning. By contrast environmental researchers have attempted to explain the observer's point of view with almost no conceptual reasoning about the environment. Hershberger(1972), Seaton and Collins(1972), and Bechtei(1975) are some of the researchers who seem to be interested i n developing a t h e o r e t i c a l rationale f o r 33 such q u a l i t i e s by choosing systematically environments as well as observers for t h e i r work. This strategy may lead to general statements about a r c h i t e c t u r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The l i t e r a t u r e about "meaning i n architecture" has followed two p a r a l l e l approaches: the f i r s t i s phenomenological, abstract, i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c and i s written i n contextual a r c h i t e c t u r a l language; the second approach i s empirical, based upon "the average person's" perception, with concrete numerical results but vague notions of a p p l i c a b i l i t y . Both approaches are es s e n t i a l to an understanding of the subject and each has i t s place i n s c i e n t i f i c research. 2.2. The search f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . The ground-breaking search for basic g u a l i t i e s i n architecture has been completed by Vielhauer(1965, 1970), Craik(1969, 1972), C o l l i n s (1969) , Canter {1969) , KUller ( 1972) , and Hershberger(1970). None of these researchers was looking notions related to architecture, but for uni-polar or b i - p c l a r descriptors by which observers could conceptualise and describe architecture. This approach had some i m p l i c i t advantages such 34 as lack of bias about notions and abundance of notions but i t rejected those notions which could not be described i n uni-polar or bi-polar words. For example, to measure form of architecture i n bi-polar terms one could use descriptors such as "form-formless," " c y l i n d r i c a l form-square form", "good form-bad form" but i t might not be meaningful to use such words l i k e t h i s unless one f i r s t defined the attributes of form. Secondly, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l setting studied could not include a l l q u a l i t i e s . Similarly a p a r t i c u l a r observer group might not comprehend a l l the a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions. These types of problems can be partly resolved i f studies are conducted using d i f f e r e n t buildings and and d i f f e r e n t observer groups. A number of such attempts are summarized i n Chapter 3. Third, each observer probably uses each set of words with a somewhat d i f f e r e n t interpretation. In such instances the researcher gains no clear understanding of general a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions. For example, i f the "form-formless" pair i s used to measure form, the observer might int e r p r e t i t as the quality of form or the appropriateness of the form or maybe as something else. This issue of inter-observer variations i n inter p r e t a t i o n of words i s further detailed by Bechtei (1975) , Dawes(1975), Heise(1969) and Mirron (1972) . This does not mean that words cannot be used to measure notions but i t a l e r t s one to possible problems that one may encounter. 35 Hence the f i r s t task i s to enumerate a l l the notions related to architecture and to explain the - i n t r i c a t e meanings that are attached to them. Although the researcher's bias may surface i n assembling a set of notions, every attempt i s made to express the o r i g i n a l author's opinions as e x p l i c i t l y as possible. Furthermore, certain verbal guotations or verbal descriptors might appear under an incorrect heading, but the main intent of the chapter i s to establish common notions about a q u a l i t y . The second issue, then, i s to define a l l notions with c l a r i t y for operational purposes, while at the same time giving c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s of possible differences of opinion about notions. In the following pages, the attempt i s made to grasp simple notions about a complex phenomenon, architecture. 2.3. Notions about architecture. Zevi (1974) argues that formal notions of architecture are unity, symmetry, balance, accentuation, contrast, proportion, scale, expression, t r u t h , propriety, urbanity, s t y l e , variety and s i n c e r i t y . Appleyard(1975) describes buildings by their form and imageability. He further suqgests that form consists of movement, contour, s i z e , shape, surface and qu a l i t y , and 36 imageability consists of viewpoint i n t e n s i t y , viewpoint s i g n i f i c a n c e and viewpoint immediacy. Laurie(1975) argues that inherent q u a l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c components of landscapes are proportion, scale, outline in plan, p r o f i l e i n elevation, shape or form, colour and texture or pattern. L i t t o n (1972) considered landscape i n terms of primary recognition factors: form, space and time v a r i a b i l i t y ; and secondary recognition factors: observer position, distance and sequence. He further argues that form and space are composed of l i n e s and surfaces and surfaces are composed of colour and texture. While phenomenological research has focused on above notions, the summary of empirical research documented by Seaton and C o l l i n s (1972) suggests, that architecture may consist of aesthetic evaluation (dynamic, e x c i t i n g ) , a c t i v i t y (revolutionary, l i v e l y , a c t i v e ) , organisation (tidy, neat), s i m p l i c i t y (rational, straightforward) , spaciousness and strength-boldness. Hershberger ( 1972) attempted a s i m i l a r summary and suggested meaning i n architecture consists of aesthetic evaluation, f r i e n d l i n e s s , organisation, potency (rugged, massive) spaciousness, ornateness (bright, complex), colour (lavish, gay, r i c h ) , neatness (clean, t i d y ) , size, temperature (comfort, heated) , l i g h t (airy, light) , privacy (protected, secluded, private), shape, v e n t i l a t i o n , noise, 37 r i g i d i t y , formality, texture, time and u t i l i t y . Through extensive e f f o r t s Mehrabian and Eussell(1974) proposed that a f f e c t i v e components of environment can be conceptualised i n terms of pleasure, arousal.and dominance while appropriateness of form, surprisingness, s c a l e - s i z e , continuity and outdoor-natural could be "information" about the environment. Although various notions are presented for "meaning of architecture", the following appeared more frequently: form, fi g u r e , physical-colour, texture, l i g h t , shade and shadow, scale and proportion, volume and length, s p a t i a l excitement, f r i e n d l i n e s s , s o l i d i t y , organisation, s i z e , spaciousness, colourfulness, complexity, modernity, balance, cleanliness, v e n t i l a t i o n , r i g i d i t y , pleasure, arousal and dominance appeared more frequently. Hence, this discussion w i l l focus on these notions. 2.4. Notions of form. It i s not s u r p r i s i n g that a notion such as form has received a great deal of attention from a r c h i t e c t s . Since "the f i n a l aim of the design i s form" (Alexander, 1964, p. 1) the notion of form i s i n t r i n s i c to architecture. 38 Rioux de Maillou(1895) associates form with harmony, proportion and colour Measurement, as far as form i s concerned, means harmonically expressive proportions and harmonic proportions i n colour as well. (in Benton et a l . 1975, p. 4) Adolf Loos(1908) considers form as s t y l e . A bad form - I mean, any form which does not conform to the st y l e of our time. (in Benton et a l . 1975, pp. 40-41) Kahn(1961) claims form has no shape while Johnson considers that form nothing to do with function. Form encompasses a harmony of systems, a sense of order and that which characterizes one existence from another. Form has no shape or dimension... Form i s impersonal. (Kahn, 1961, p. 146) Comfort i s not a function of beauty... Purpose i s not necessary to make a building b e a u t i f u l . ... Sooner or l a t e r we w i l l f i t our building so that they can be used... Where form comes from, I don*t know, but i t has nothing at a l l to do with the functional or s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects of architecture. (Johnson, i n Heyer, 1966, p. 278) Wright considers "form as function", while Esherick considers form as a purposive thing, only meaningful within the context of the purpose for which i t ex i s t s . He argues. 39 Form i s a composition of s a t i s f y i n g structure, with the 'wants-to-be-ideas* suggestive of some kind of purpose; what you have to do i s f i n d i t out and then design very s p e c i f i c a l l y for i t . Form should not be judged by some arbitrary standard, but only as good or bad i n r e l a t i o n to a s p e c i f i c purpose. (in Heyer, 1966, p. 112) Craig Ellwood gives a s i m i l a r notion with addi t i o n a l ideas regarding q u a l i t i e s associated with form such as rhythm, s t y l e , and harmony. Form i s v a l i d only when i t i s shaped by structure and possibly characterized by function, region, culture and climate. ... Form i s decoration - the rhythmic interplay of mass, volume and l i n e . Material i s decoration - the rhythmic emphasis of texture and colour. Depth i s decoration - the rhythmic movement of l i g h t and shadow. (in Heyer, 1966, p. 150, 151) Grillo(1960) explains form as a combination of surfaces and volumes with the additional quality of time. Architectural forms may be l i n e s , surfaces or volumes, but they must always posses the dimension of time, which s i g n i f i e s movement - and l i f e . p. 34 Norberg-Schulz(1966) considers the analysis of the form i s based upon the description of elements and r e l a t i o n s . The word 'element* denotes a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c unit which i s a part of an a r c h i t e c t u r a l form. [element] denotes both an independent whole (gestalt) and a part belonging to a more extensive context. ... The term 'relation* denotes a lawful way of d i s t r i b u t i n g 40 elements. (pp. 133-144) Hugo Haring(1925) distinguishes between man made forms and natural forms. Forms which r e s u l t from functional c r i t e r i a are created by l i f e , and are therefore of an elementary and natural kind, not originated by men [human beings]; while forms chosen f o r the sake of expression derive from laws formed by human i n t e l l e c t . Thus functionally-based forms, though they are continuously modified by external circumstance, are fundamentally eternal and universal because they are constantly regenerated by l i f e ; while forms created for the sake of expression are ephemeral and exposed to changes i n human cognition. (in Benton et a l . 1975, pp. 103-105) C a u d i l l et a l . (1978) give examples of forms. There are only three basic forms, p l a s t i c , s k e l e t a l and planar... each of the three basic forms might be r e c t i l i n e a r or c u r v i l i n e a r . . . p l a s t i c forms look sculptural... Skeletal form shows i t s bones... planar form consists of overlapping, sometimes i n t e r l o c k i n g planes - v e r t i c a l as well as horizontal. (pp. 21-29) Hesselgren (1975, p. 34) and Prak(1977, p. 18) argue that since laws of form perception are lawful, good forms are based upon Gestalt laws. They further argue that organised (regular, symmetrical, simple, coherent, similar) forms are good. They l i s t Gestalt laws as follows: The law of prflgnanz: [ I t ] indicates that, as far as possible, the v i s u a l system integrates the separate 41 v i s u a l s t i m u l i i n a (meaningful) whole. Psychological organisation of v i s u a l s t i m u l i w i l l always be as •good' as the prevailing conditions i n the outside (something wrong) world allow... good embraces such g u a l i t i e s as regular, symmetrical and simple. The law of proximity; Forms which are close to one another tend to be perceived as a coherent group. The law of equality;: Equal or s i m i l a r elements are immediately recognised as such. The law of continuity: There i s a tendency for perceptual organisation to continue a figure as i t started. (Prak, 1977, p. 18) Appleyard (1969, 1976) argues that form i s distin c t i v e n e s s and imageability and he addes the notion of v i s i b i l i t y as developed by Lynch (1961). He further argues that instead of measuring form, one could measure distinctiveness by notions such as movement, contour, s i z e , shape, surface and quality(!) while Lynch suqgests that imageability can be measured by viewpoint i n t e n s i t y , viewpoint s i g n i f i c a n c e and immediacy.. Even though t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n f o r each of the terms seems to form a separate notion, each building was rated on the above attributes and the ratings summed for a l l terms, to achieve a measure of form. Movement: Most of the movement associated with building has to do with people. Intensity of movement and estimated building users are two basic determinants. External and i n t e r n a l l e v e l of movements in public space are attributed to lew or high i n t e n s i t y . Contour: Sharpness of boundary defines a building from i t s ground making i t stand out, even i f i t i s small building. Size: Building s i z e i s measured by the apparent height and bulk of a building as seen from i t s approach view. Perception of size frequently depends upon s i n g u l a r i t y . 42 Shape: Simplicity or complexity associates character of imageability. Surface: Brightness, coarseness and complexity of surface can be s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a building. Quality: Categories under t h i s heading are; expensive material, c a r e f u l landscaping, cleanliness and good condition. Viewpoint i n t e n s i t y : The number of people (both auto and pedestrian travelers) l i k e l y to pass the most prominent viewpoint of the building during a t y p i c a l day i s an approximate measure. Viewpoint significanee: The readiness of travelers to see buildings at decision points i n the c i t y , whether at in t e r s e c t i o n s , bus stops, bends or ferry crossings. Immediacy: The immediacy of a building to the viewing or c i r c u l a t i o n system, defined by i t s closeness and c e n t r a l i t y in the case of v i s i o n . (Appleyard, 1976, pp. 74-76) To measure "form" Craik suggested using descriptors related to geometric shapes such as c y l i n d r i c a l , diagonal, and globular. Vielhauer used descriptors related to presence of form and Mehrabian and Russell (1974) considered "goodness" of form i n the bipolar terms "good form-bad form". Webster's dictionary gives about 25 sets of meanings for the notion of form, of which two appeared to be related to architecture. Form may suggest an appearance i n which both cl e a r outline and also structure and orderly dispositions of d e t a i l s are presented or suggested. The shape and structure of something as distinguished from the material of which i t i s composed. I t appears that notions of form bear several meanings. I t 43 may mean s u i t a b i l i t y of building (Loos, Kahn), and purposes of the building (Wright, Esherick). G r i l l o , and Norberg-Schulz argue that form c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are derived from surfaces and l i n e s and hence are p l a s t i c . Planar and s k e l e t a l forms can be seen i n architecture. Hesselgren and Prak argue the dichotomy of good and bad form. Since the s u i t a b i l i t y of a building i s generated by the disposition of building elements (walls, f l o o r s , windows) and building elements give surface quality, one can deduce that form means the s p e c i f i c arrangement of features l i k e walls, r a i l i n g s , skylights, windows, doors etc. which give the building i t s unique appearance. 2.5. Notions of scale and proportion. Like 'form', 'scale' has received wide attention from architects and equally confusing notions e x i s t i n explanations of the quality. For example, C a u d i l l et a l . (1978, p. 79) have already noted some uses of the word scale such as: human scale, inhuman scale, intimate scale, aesthetic scale, small scale, large scale, grand scale, super scale, s t r u c t u r a l scale, pedestrian scale, automobile scale, r e s i d e n t i a l scale, urban scale, elegant scale and f i n a l l y out-of-scale. 44 Zevi argues that scale i s the proportional r e l a t i o n between man and building and t h e i r combined e f f e c t on the observer. If man i s the measure of a l l things, i f i t i s an error to establish proportion without establishing scale, i t i s also a mistake to establish scale without proportion.... Scale means dimension with respect to man's v i s u a l apprehension, dimension with respect to man's physical s i z e . (pp. 196-197) Allen and Moore (1976) break scale into four parts. Scale i s not the same thing as s i z e ; scale i s r e l a t i v e s i z e , the size of something r e l a t i v e to something else. [ r e l a t i v e sizes have four common d i r e c t i o n s ] -r e l a t i v e to whole, . . . r e l a t i v e to other parts, . . . r e l a t i v e To usual s i z e , . . . r e l a t i v e to human s i z e . (pp. 18-19) C a u d i l l et a l . (1978, pp. 79-83) present a scheme for three types of scale: physical measurable scale, associated (past experiential) and e f f e c t u a l (contextual) scale. Proportion seems to be a s i m i l a r notion which Zevi and C a u d i l l et a l . consider to be the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t elements of architecture- Zevi argues that proportion i s . the r e l a t i o n of the parts to each other and to the whole of the b u i l d i n g p r o p o r t i o n i s the means by which a building i s divided to achieve the q u a l i t i e s of unity, balance, emphasis, contrast as well as harmony and rhythm.... proportion i s c l o s e l y t i e d to the scale of a building. (p. 196) 45 G r i l l o has combined presented scale and absolute s i z e into one notion as proportion. Human scale [ i s ] .... the notion of r e l a t i v e proportion, and a l l r a t i o s considered w i l l be expressed i n r e l a t i o n to the human size and action.... absolute proportion, which i s absolutely independent from [human] siz e and action. (p. 124) Corbusier(1957) proposed the modular measure f o r proportionality. A harmonious measure, both human and mathematical (the modular), ensures certainty i n proportioning by methods s i m i l a r to those which, i n even by the greatest epochs, have guaranteed a wealth of combinations - variables, constrasting, capable of i n f i n i t e graduation - through c r a f t secrets and tr a d i t i o n s of builders. (pp.160-161) To measure the notion of scale Mehrabian and Russell suggest considering size-scale. Wedin et a l . (1973) considered scale i n terms of i t s appropriateness and Veilhauer considered correctness of proportion and s u i t a b i l i t y i n terms of human scale. To conclude, scale and proportion have si m i l a r meanings; 'scale' tends to mean both r e l a t i v e s i z e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the observer's notion of r e l a t i v e size of the architecture whereas •proportion' means s i z e - f i t or m i s f i t . Hence scale and proportion together would mean r e l a t i v e sizes of building 46 elements within the whole building as perceived by the observer. 2-6. Notions of colour (physical). Colour i s associated with the character of the building elements and colour also generates emotional f e e l i n g s . Hesselgren (1975, pp. 39-51) makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between colour attribute (red, yellow) and colour value. He further argues that the colour attribute i s due to three primary surface q u a l i t i e s : surface colour (colour attached to the surface material), volume colour (colour of the material imposed inside another object) and f i l m colour (e- g-» sky c o l o u r ) . Colour values comprise such phenomena as hue (ratio of chromatic primary colour), colour value(lightness and darkness) and cclour intensity (chroma). Mark(1974, ch. 3) and Stevens (1975) have given thorough overviews of psychophysical dimensions related to colour, including hedonic aspects of cclour. C a u d i l l et a l . (1978, pp. 117-118) agree that colour i s an a t t r i b u t e of a l l building elements and d i f f e r e n t colours (red, yellow, blue) bear di f f e r e n t meaning within the context of t h e i r use. Gabo and Pevsner (1923) argue that colour i s a s u p e r f i c i a l 47 attribute of the surface material. In painting, we renounce colour as a p i c t o r i a l element, colour i s the i d e a l i s e d o p t i c a l surface of objects; an exterior and s u p e r f i c i a l impression of them; colour i s accidental and i t has nothing i n common with the innermost essence of a thing. (in Benton et a l . 1975, pp. 87-88)) Furthermore Cor busier and Amadee Ozenfant(in Benton, et a l . 1975, p. 90) conceives some colours to be b r u t a l and others to be sauve. Szczuk and Zarrower(1924) argue that colour i s an a t t r i b u t e that can be used for o p t i c a l balance and harmony. New architecture uses colour (not painting) , throws i t into l i g h t , displays with i t the changes of shapes and space. Without colour, we would have no play of shapes. I t i s only by means of colour that we can attain a clean o p t i c a l balance and eq u i l i b r a t e d integration of the particular parts i n the new a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e . . . . Colour (it must be made clea r to architects - enemies of colour) i s not an ornament or embellishment - i t i s an e s s e n t i a l element, organically belonging to architecture l i k e glass and i r o n . (in Benton et a l . 1975, pp. 102-103)) In measuring pure a t t r i b u t e s (hue, value, chroma) related to colour, p h y s i c i s t s and psychophysicists have made substantial advances but a such notions of colour appear to have l i t t l e d i r e c t application i n architecture. In architecture colour attributes, including mixtures of colours are present together; to add further complexity, the • phenomenon of l i g h t i s also present. 48 To measure colour i n r e l a t i o n to buildings C o l l i n s (1969) suggested using continua of colours such as brcwn - white, and blue - yellow. Craik(1969) used a ch e c k l i s t of various colours and Veilhauer (1965) attempted to measure c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of colour such as flashy, ascending, and bright. Kflller (1972) has included a c h e c k l i s t of colours and suggests that appropriateness of colour should be considered. The l i t e r a t u r e suggests that building elements - walls, f l o o r s , doors - possess numerous colours. These colours are either natural or a r t i f i c i a l . Pure colour a t t r i b u t e s are hue, chroma and value. Colour i s an at t r i b u t e of building elements and one can summarize the notion of colour; however, the qu a l i t a t i v e impact of colours in terms of t h e i r flashy, r i c h , bright character i s considered under notions of colourfulness. 2.7. Notion of texture. Texture i s an a t t r i b u t e of building elements and one of the key words i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l vocabulary. Just as colour, texture refers to a natural quality of the material as well as to an a r t i f i c i a l q u ality imposed on external surfaces. Hesselqren(1975, p. 58) presents texture as a surface 49 qua l i t y . He breaks down texture into three continua: regular-irregular, small-large, rough-smooth. He further argues that i t i s a visual a t t r i b u t e i f perceived by the visual senses, and t a c t i l e when i t i s experienced by means of touch. He prefers to c a l l the l a t t e r "grain". Maaljtfe (1976) and Hesselgren (1975) both agree that texture helps i n depth perception and suggest a d i s t i n c t i o n between pattern (surface character imposed) and texture. Maal-aTe (1976) says. texture i s neither the quivering of a single l i n e , nor the way a l l l i n e s quiver i n d i v i d u a l l y . I t i s the way they a l l quiver, which fascinates.... the r a t i o n a l change and texture f a c i l i t a t e s perception of depth and nurtures our feelings for l i v e l i n e s s while unity [within textural q u a l i t i e s ] f a c i l i t a t e s understanding and peaceful enjoyment. (p. 23) Wright f e e l s that texture enhances the guality of the form. In architecture, expressive changes of surface, emphasis of l i n e and especially texture of material, may go to make facts eloquent, forms more s i q n i f i c a n t . (in Heyer, 1966, p. 64) Ashihara(1970) argues that the texture of material should be appreciated from some optimum distance. In the design of exterior space the re l a t i o n s h i p between distance and texture i s an important design element. Knowledge of how building materials appear 50 at certain distances helps the a r c h i t e c t to choose materials best suited to be seen from c e r t a i n distances and goes a way toward improving quality of exterior space. (p. 50) G r i l l o (1960) argues. Texture, which directs the choice of tools to use, that i s i n accord with i t s i n t e r n a l function.... be rough or smooth, polished, glazed or grained. I t can be l e f t natural... [ o r ] crafted. The e f f e c t of texture i s to bring out a dramatic expression of material i t s e l f and not cover i t with pretentious doodlings. (p. 73) To measure the quality of texture, Shafer and Richards (1974) considered softness and Danford and Willems (1975) considered roughness. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) emphasised patterning character. Vielhauer considered t h i s quality in terms of coarse, s o f t , smooth and polished character. Canter (1969) and Janiskee(1970) empirically indicated the verbally expressed quality of smooth and coarse as present in buildings. Thus the l i t e r a t u r e indicates two notions related to texture: the attributes of texture and the perceptual effect generated by such attributes. It seems that the perceptual ef f e c t - dramatic character - of textural q u a l i t i e s must be kept separate from the attributes themselves. Textural a t t r i b u t e s are rouqhness or smoothness and graininess of the material. S i m i l a r l y regular-irregular i s another notion behind texture. 51 2.8. Notions of l i g h t , shade and shadow. Light energy i s the basic requirement f o r v i s u a l perception and hence i t i s not surprising to f i n d substantial e f f o r t s by psychophysicists devoted to studying q u a l i t i e s of 'white' l i g h t such as intensity and brightness. The impact of l i g h t on building surfaces has long been exploited by architects for visual delights. Such v i s u a l delights are generated by varying colour and patterning of l i g h t sources and the sharpness of i shadows. C a u d i l l et a l . (1978, p. 96) describe l i g h t as "a catalyst between space and form". Brewer (1962) also considers l i g h t to be an important ingredient i n v i s u a l i s i n g the environment. Hesselgren(1975, p. 52) considers l i g h t i n terms of brightness, warmth and monotony. Erickson (1975, p. 33) notes that " l i g h t can be hard and glaring, ineffably s o f t and luminously subtle." Enhancement of surface quality p a r t i a l l y depends upon the l i g h t source and i t s arrangements to generate shade and shadow. Just as texture improves depth perception, shade and shadows reinforce texture. Hesselgren(1975, p. 53) i d e n t i f i e s four types of shadows: large shadows due to large objects, half shadow, hard shadow and small shadow. He further argues that architects and illumination engineers use these shadows to 52 generate desired states or q u a l i t i e s on surfaces. Danford and Willems( 1975) , and Lowenthal and Eiel(1972) attempted to measure the light-dark a t t r i b u t e . Hendrick et al.(1977) attempted to measure c l a r i t y , brightness, radiance and dullness of l i g h t . Veilhauer(1965) and C o l l i n s (1969) considered bright, diffused, s o f t attributes of l i g h t and indicated that such a t t r i b u t e s are present i n i n t e r i o r s of b u i l t environments. To summarize, building elements - doors, windows, walls -are used to generate varying dispositions of surfaces and l i g h t sources which also vary in colour. Patterning displays lightness and darkness on building surfaces. By generating ordered and or balanced effects i n terms of lightness or darkness, one may generate v i s u a l delights such as softness, subtleness, c l a r i t y and brightness. Since v i s u a l delight i s a s p a t i a l experience, i t i s explained along with s p a t i a l excitement. 2.9. Notions of f i g u r e , p r o f i l e , contour. A vis u a l form i s (almost) always perceived as a figure against a background and our eyes are much more sensitive to the figure than background. (Hesselgren, 1975, p. 10) 53 Such a Gestalt notion of figure i n v i t e s i n t e r e s t i n g philosophical arguments, since both figure and background are interchangeable. There seems to be l i t t l e argument against the presence of the notion i n architecture. Appleyard(1975, p. 74) considers contour as a part of form disti n c t i v e n e s s , where he defined contour as "sharpness of boundary l i n e s " . . Hesselgren (1975, p. 13) considers figures to have either sharp or blurred contours. Prak(1977) draws an i n t r i c a t e d i s t i n c t i o n between "figure" and "ground". He considers the figure i s harder, more material and more a 'thing* than the ground; the ground i s conversely weaker, more dif f u s e , indeterminate.... I f one form i s e n t i r e l y enclosed by another, the larger i s perceived as •ground' and smaller as 'figure'.... Without enclosure, the smaller form i s s t i l l perceived as •figure' and the larger as 'ground*. 'ground' continues behind the 'figure'; the 'figure' seems therefore to l i e before or on the 'ground'; consequently the 'ground' has no contour at the edge of 'figure'. (pp. 13-14) Notions l i k e shape and configuration probably overlap with form, figure and c l a r i t y and d i s t i n c t i o n of meaning i s d i f f i c u l t to express verbally. Webster*s dictionary explains these notions as follows: Ii2HE§ i s likened to attention to outlines, to boundary enclosing circumference or outer l i n e s . Shape may sometimes suggest both outline and also 54 content, mass, body, bulk or d e t a i l . Configuration i s applicable to a detailed outline or statement of the nature and d i s p o s i t i o n or arrangement of various parts. P r o f i l e i s representation of something i n outline. The preceding discussion suggests that the notion of figure e n t a i l s boundary l i n e s (outline and prof i l e ) and surfaces of the building (geometrical shapes) . Figure can be defined as the impact of boundary l i n e s , v e r t i c a l , horizontal and sloping surfaces of walls f l o o r s and windows and so on. 2.10. Notions of volume, area and length. Volume i s the product of three quantities: length, breadth and height. Apart from objective Euclidian volume there are other subjective phenomena related to i t , such as size (largeness, bigness) and spaciousness (size adequacy, roominess). These w i l l be discussed in the following pages. The volume that i s inconcluded here i s Euclidian. Just as volume might be associated with s i z e and spaciousness, area (the product of length and breadth) might be i n t e r r e l a t e d with objective proportion, shape, p r o f i l e . S i m i l a r l y Euclidian distance between two given points i s length 55 and probably might be related with perceptual distance and perceptual d i r e c t i o n . Of course, these three notions are so p h y s i c a l i s t i c i t seems unlikely anybody would argue against t h e i r presence i n a building. 2.11. Notions of s p a t i a l excitement, s p a t i a l delight. Spatial excitement or aesthetic excitement i s commonly conceived of as a human reaction towards the b u i l t form. Even though the exact underlying p r i n c i p l e s and physiological changes within an i n d i v i d u a l are not known, there seems to be enough empirical evidence for one to believe that there i s such a notion (Berlyne, 1960; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). An interesting overlap exists between pheEcmenological and empirical work i n explaining the domain of aesthetic excitement. Phenomenologists have t r i e d to present examples as to how excitement can be achieved and suggested descriptors such as serene, graceful, and eloquent; whereas empiricists have demonstrated that there are si m i l a r descriptors i n the lay vocabulary. 56 Erickson considers. cadence, the rhythm of a building, can be monotonous or e x c i t i n g , s t a t e l y or graceful, heavy or l i g h t . Rhythm can be i n s i z e of spaces and i n patterns and textures of the surface material. (p. 14) Yamasaki and Stubbins advance much the same notion regarding s p a t i a l excitement and serenity. Spatial excitement derives from the contrast of small and large, enclosed to open, l i g h t to dark - a drama extending even to a l i v e l y silhouette. With serenity, we must have delight - the l i g h t of the i n t e r e s t i n g silhouettes, of waterplay of variety i n outdoor and indoor s p a t i a l experience. But serenity, the physical manifestation of the b e l i e f that man can l i v e i n guiet dignity, must unify the whole. (Yamasaki, in Heyer, 1966, pp. 187-189) We have f a i l e d to provide the kind of surroundings that create a f e e l i n g of delight, that banish drabness, l i g h t the voice of the s p i r i t , and make interplay of l i g h t and shadow a daily enjoyment. (Stubbins, i n Heyer, 1966, pp. 220) Hershberger (1972), while summarizing research e f f o r t s , says that almost every empirical study has indicated s p a t i a l excitement to be a general notion; descriptors f o r such notions can be: impressive, i n t e r e s t i n g , unique, dynamic, expressive. Seaton and C o l l i n s (1972) find that s p a t i a l excitement i s intermixed with a pleasing character. This intermix i s p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n Vielhauer's and Rimer's r e s u l t s . 57 Vielhauer attempted to measure excitement of the b u i l t environment as graceful, rhythmic, impressive, i n t e r e s t i n g , serene, scenic q u a l i t i e s . Craik, KUller, and C o l l i n s add dramatic, glamorous, d e l i g h t f u l notions to t h i s quality. Garling (1976) considers t h i s quality i n terms of high and low aesthetics. The general underlying notions suggest that the quality of s p a t i a l excitement can be described by words such as unigue, interesting, and expressive. There also seems to be a dramatic and dynamic notion with another overlapping quality to excitement which would be better captured by descriptors such as graceful, serene, glamorous. 2.12. Notions of f r i e n d l i n e s s . Alexander(1 966) argues. I f the c i t y i s to be a mechanism for sustaining intimate human contact, ...We s h a l l ... create new kinds of primary groups which might work i n our society.... [ o r ] Create a s o c i a l mechanism which i s able to sustain informal, d a i l y contact between people. (p. 33) If one considers buildings to be smaller elements of a c i t y , then one must interpret notions of f r i e n d l i n e s s . 58 Canter (1969) and Canter and Wools (1970) conducted a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s r e l a t e d to b u i l t environment f r i e n d l i n e s s . They c o n c e p t u a l i z e d t h i s q u a l i t y with the d e s c r i p t o r s welcoming, kind and sympathetic c h a r a c t e r . V e i l h a u e r (1965), C o l l i n s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Craik(1972), and K U l l e r (1972) seem t o c o n s i d e r t h i s q u a l i t y with words such as a p p e a l i n g , a t t r a c t i v e , f a m i l i a r , g e n t l e , p e r s o n a l , i n v i t i n g . Other r e s e a r c h e r s such as Winkel et a l . (1969), Pyron(1971, 1972), Hendrick et a l . (1977), and Wedin et a l . (1973) suggest measuring t h i s q u a l i t y i n terms of i n v i t i n g , a p p e a l i n g , and h e l p f u l c h a r a c t e r of the b u i l d i n g . Q u a l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with a f r i e n d are k i n d , sympathetic or even h e l p f u l , but t h i s does not mean t h a t one should a s s o c i a t e s i m i l a r q u a l i t i e s with the b u i l d i n g . The q u a l i t y t h a t seems to be a p p l i c a b l e t o b u i l d i n g s , can be best d e s c r i b e d by words such as welcoming, i n v i t i n g , a t t r a c t i v e , a p p e a l i n g and b e a u t i f u l . Even though " f r i e n d l y " i s a g e n e r a l term, i t c o v e r s the i n v i t i n g - a t t r a c t i v e - w e l c o m i n g q u a l i t y o f the b u i l d i n g . Hence f o r o p e r a t i o n a l purposes one should i n c l u d e a dimension c a l l e d " f r i e n d l i n e s s " . 59 2.13. Notions of s o l i d i t y . Weese argues that. Buildings are masculine and aggressive.... a building should be handsome, elegant, strong. (in Heyer, 1966, (p. 44) ) Moreover Osgood et a l . (1957) have discussed the notion of potency in The measurement of meaning and they indicate that strength, power, and masculinity underlie most notions i n a basic notion vocabulary. In architecture, the strength, massiveness, and powerful character of pyramids, c a s t l e s , prisons and ziggurats i s always interpreted as :an indicator of p o l i t i c a l power or strength. Weese considers that. Buildings are masculine and aggressive. You have to take the long view and assume they w i l l l a s t ; therefore they cannot be pretty - the adjective, I least l i k e applied to architecture. I am embarrassed when ar c h i t e c t s talk about beauty; l i k e happiness, i t i s only a by-product. A building should be handsome, elegant, strong, lean - beauty i s too vague an attribute. (in Heyer, 1966, (pp. 42-45)) Yamasaki also presents much the same notion. 60 There are a few very i n f l u e n t i a l architects who sincerely believe that a l l buildings must be 'strong*. The word 'strong' i n t h i s context seems to connote •powerful' - that i s , each building should be a monument to the v i r i l i t y of our society. These architects look with derision upon attempts to b u i l d a f r i e n d l y , more gentle kind of building.... there i s another, much l e s s desirable aspect of t h i s e f f o r t toward monumentality. There are examples of a r c h i t e c t u r a l 'muscle-flexing* that evince a desire to be stronger, more powerful, more exc i t i n g than the building of competitors. The r e s u l t of t h i s thinking inevitably end i n crudity, to the point of b r u t a l i t y -ten Heyer, 1966, (p. 186)) While summarizing empirical work i n "meaning of architecture", prior to 1971, Hershberger (1972), and Seaton and Collins(1972) found notions related to strength, boldness, ruggedness and massiveness to be present i n architecture. Kttller also derived a composite measure: masculine-feminine, fragile-powerful. Hershberger suggests using rugged-delicate to describe t h i s notion. The d e f i n i t e agreement that seems to be appearing i n the previous discussion i s that the notion of s o l i d i t y can be best enunciated by descriptors such as strong, powerful, massive. Some researchers (Canter, Hershberger) seem to relate coarseness and roughness with s o l i d i t y but such a t t r i b u t e s are already discussed under texture. Hence i t seems s o l i d i t y should be limited to massiveness, heaviness and strength. 61 2.14. Notions of o r g a n i s a t i o n . P r e v i o u s l y s c a l e and p r o p o r t i o n were shown to be i n t e r m i x e d with both s i z e and volume. S i m i l a r l y o r g a n i s a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to balance, harmony, and composition. I t i s u n c l e a r whether s p a t i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n i s achieved through rhythm, composition and so on, but i t does seems that the n o t i o n of o r g a n i s a t i o n must e x i s t i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . Zevi (1974) argues. I f u n i t y means t h a t q u a l i t y which makes every element of a work of a r t necessary and to which nothing can be added and s u b t r a c t e d . . . , every composition, both i n plan and e l e v a t i o n , must be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a connection between a l l i t s components. (p. 194) Goldberg (in Heyer, 1966, p. 50) c o n s i d e r s t h a t "the i n n e r order and the i n t e g r i t y l e a d to u n i t y " . C o r b u s i e r ' s (1957) work on modular c o o r d i n a t i o n suggests that u n i t y i s the c o o r d i n a t i o n of modules. I mean t h a t geometry denotes order and mankind expresses i t s e l f through or d e r . . . . the f i r s t t h i n g a man does i s to square up, t o arrange, put i n o r d e r , l o o k p l a i n l y a t what i s before him, he has d i s c o v e r e d the way to measure space by u s i n g c o - o r d i n a t e s of three p e r p e n d i c u l a r axes..., the standard elements w i l l p r ovide u n i t y of d e t a i l , and u n i t y of d e t a i l i s an i n d i s p e n s a b l e requirement of a r c h i t e c t u r a l beauty. 62 Le Corbusier, i n Benton et a l . 1975, pp. 132-135) Rapson, Mies, Tange, and Venturi a l l seem to focus on the common notion that order means composition, coherence or t o t a l organisation despite circumstantial confusion. There i s a need for contrast; our environments cannot be played i n a single key - richness, variety and complexity - i t should be woven into an orderly composition. (Rapson, i n Heyer, 1966, p. 58) A v a l i d order accommodates the circumstantial contradiction of a complex r e a l i t y . I t accomodates as well as imposes. I t thereby admits 'control and spontaneity', 'correctness and ease' improvision within the whole. (Venturi, 1966, p. 41) We must create order out of the desperate confusion of our time. (Mies Van der Rohe, i n Venturi, 1966, p. 41) Order i s to evolve s p a t i a l harmony and crder within d i v e r s i t y " . (Tange, in Kultermann, 1970, p. 286) And f i n a l l y , Wright (1953) considers "continuity as a part of s p a t i a l rhythm." Ashhara (1970) , Litton (197 2) and Arnheim (1977) present notions of organisation to mean unity of the whole building. A cluster of architecture i s not merely the sum t o t a l of i n d i v i d u a l buildings; i t can - and should - be an e f f i c i e t l y coordinated and in t e r n a l i z e d group of buildings. (Ashihara, 1970, p. 130) Dnity i s that q u a l i t y of wholeness i n which a l l parts cohere, not merely as an assembly but as a single harmonious unit.... I t i s organisation providing harmony (unity) among shapes, edges, l i n e s , colors and 63 textures. (Litton, 1972, p. 284) Order has come to mean a reduction to simple geometrical shape and standardization of everything for everybody, the favouring of basic physical function over expression and of r a t i o n a l i t y at the expense of spontaneous invention. (Arnheim, 1977, p. 162) Prak (1977) and Mehrabian and Russell (1974) have taken the notions of composition to mean sim i l a r , coherent, continuous. Vielhauer, Canter, C o l l i n s , B r i t t e l l , KfJller, and Hershberger using factor analysis indicated notions such as orderly, organised, e f f i c i e n t , equipped, coherent, coordinated, c l e a r . I t i s obvious that orqanisation i n a building can be order, coordination, coherence, e f f i c i e n c y , equippedness and so on. Composition and organisation seem to have s i m i l a r underlying notions. 2.15. Notions of s i z e . Notions such as form, volume, and scale i n d i r e c t l y mediate the notion of r e l a t i v e size. Moreover the notion of s i z e i s based upon the observer's preconceived and experienced notion about the "appropriate" size. I f volume i s an objective measure, then the notion of size defines a perceived measure. 64 Ca u d i l l et al.(1978) have distinguished between actual E u c l i d i a n measure of size, v i s u a l l y perceived size and s i z e of objects in r e l a t i o n to other objects and i l l u s t r a t e d i s t i n c t i o n s between the l a t t e r two types of s i z e s . A s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n i s proposed by Scott (1925). In building three[sizes] may be distinguished: the bigness which i t actually has [mechanical measurement], the bigness which i t appears to have [ v i s u a l measurement], and the fe e l i n g of bigness which i t gives [bodily measurement]. The l a s t two have often been confused, but i t i s the f e e l i n g of bigness which alone has aesthetic value. (p. 173) Appleyard (1976, p. 74) considered s i z e to be " v i s i b l e height bulk as seen from the approach to a building", - a notion which should be related to Caudill's v i s u a l l y perceived size. Zevi's and other authors' notions related to scale and s i z e were presented e a r l i e r . One would have d i f f i c u l t y separating size and scale as Heath(1965) noted. A simple description of the idea of human scale [ i s ] ... The spectator's impression of the size of a building, r e l a t i v e to his own size and position, and r e l a t i v e to these shapes with customary recognizable si z e s . (p. 70) Vielhauer(1965), Craik(1966), Collins(1969) and Hershberger(1969) have a n a l y t i c a l l y shown that notions captured by descriptors such as large, huge, big, and broad can be associated with buildings. Hershberger on the basis of previous 65 research suggests that large-small would be an appropriate descriptor for t h i s notion. To summarize, the notion of size i s related to q u a l i t i e s of largeness, bigness and broadness of the object. 2.16. Notions of spaciousness. The idea that size i s related to perceived size and to the observer's preconceived notion about s i z e has been discussed; i n contrast spaciousness deals with the s p a t i a l adequacy of volume for a given b u i l t environment and function. This means that notions such s p a t i a l adequacy, functional e f f i c i e n c y , comfort, and s p a t i a l organisation are i n t e r r e l a t e d and poses an interesting operational problem i n separating each quality under d i f f e r e n t notions. Vielhauer using factor analysis, indicated spaciousness with descriptors such as roomy, adeguate s i z e , free space and noted that size adequacy was intermixed with size (largeness, bigness). Canter discusses the notion i n r e l a t i o n to the words f l e x i b l e and spacious. Hershberger suggest the noticn be described by words such as loose, and spacious. 66 E m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e d i s c u s s e d a b o v e s u g g e s t s t h a t s p a c i o u s n e s s m i g h t d e a l w i t h o p e n n e s s a n d f r e e n e s s . I f t h i s s u g g e s t i o n i s t r u e M i e s ' " o p e n p l a n " , J o h n s o n ' s " c o m f o r t a b l e f o r m " , K a h n ' s " f r e e o r d e r " a n d C o r b u s i e r ' s " o p e n n e s s " a n d " f r e e d o m " f o r l i v i n g w o u l d e n d o r s e t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f a n a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n c e r n w i t h a n o t i o n s u c h a s s p a c i o u s n e s s . 2 . 1 7 . N o t i o n s o f c o l o u r f u l n e s s . P h y s i c a l c o l o u r i s a n a t t r i b u t e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l e l e m e n t s ; e x o t i c c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s e c o l o u r s c a n b e t e r m e d c o l o u r f u l n e s s . T h e n o t i o n o f c o l o u r f u l n e s s c a n b e t h o u g h t o f a s a p a r a l l e l n o t i o n t o s p a t i a l e x c i t e m e n t w h e r e t h e l a t t e r n o t i o n d e a l s m o r e w i t h v o l u m e t r i c i n t e r p l a y a n d s u r f a c e c o n t r a s t . V i e l h a u e r w a s a b l e t o i n d i c a t e a c o l o u r n o t i o n t h a t c a n b e e x p r e s s e d v e r b a l l y a s c o l o u r f u l , g a y , f l a s h y c o l o u r s ; a n d C o l l i n s i n d i c a t e d t h e n o t i o n b y " t e x t u r e d 1 . ' , a n d " b r i g h t c o l o u r s " . C r a i k i n d i c a t e d t h e n o t i o n w i t h w o r d s s u c h a s c o n s e r v a t i v e , c o l o u r f u l , a n d b i z z a r e , w h i l e H e r s h b e r g e r s h o w e d a l a v i s h , r i c h , a n d g e n e r o u s q u a l i t y t o r e l a t e t o t h e b u i l t e n v i r o n m e n t . F o r o p e r a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s H e r s h b e r g e r s u g g e s t s u s i n g 67 colourful-subdued as descriptors and Kliller suggests lavish-expressive as appropriate descriptors for t h i s notion. Garling (1976) and Culvin et al.(1972) suggest colourful-drab as appropriate pairs of descriptors. Danford and Willems consider v i v i d or drab as correct descriptors for t h i s notion. Thus, the l i t e r a t u r e indicates that t h i s " c o l o u r f u l " notion might well be described by words such as v i v i d , r i c h , bright, flashy, and l a v i s h . 2.18. Notions of complexity. Under the general heading of complexity there are at l e a s t two phenomena t h a t can be tr a c e d from the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e . I t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t the two concepts would be independent of each other. F i r s t , there i s numerical complexity such as the one measured i n terms of "inf o r m a t i o n r a t e " and discussed by Atteneve(1956), Shannon (1949), Garner (1960) and proponents of "info r m a t i o n theory" i n Psychology. A s i m i l a r n otion i s presented by Vitz(1966) where he demonstrated that preference f o r various shapes increases s t e a d i l y up t o a c e r t a i n l i m i t and then again preference drops subsequently as the number of sides of polygons i n c r e a s e s . The general conclusion from a l l such 68 works has been that "the preference f o r moderately ccmplex sti m u l i i s high and preference f o r high or low complex s t i m u l i i s low" (Mehrabian and Russell, p. 106). This notion of complexity i s one that has some direc t numerical measure i n physical units; objects studied are often simple. Secondly, there i s the phenomenon of complexity i n terms of c o l l a t i v e properties of an object (simple-complex, patterned-random, harmonious-jarring, homogeneous-heterogeneous, redundant-varied, similar-contrasting, consonant-dissonant and continuous-intermittent) as proposed by Berlyne (1960) and Wohlwill's(1976) aesthetic notion i n terms of certainty-uncertainty, usual--unusual, f amilar-unf amiliar, congruent-incongruent. A similar notion i s presented by Rapaport and Kantor(1968), Lozani(1975), and Rapaport and Hawkes(1973) i n t h e i r architecture-related works. The general notion i s suggested by Mehrabian and Russell(p. 77-95) that random, heterogeneous, varied, contrasting, dissonant, uncertain, incongruent objects may have higher "information", than simple, patterned, harmonious objects and hence t h i s category of complexity yields the subjective measure of the numerical complexity discussed i n the preceding paragraph. Litton(1972, p. 286) proposed subjective measure of variety by defining, "an index to how many d i f f e r e n t objects and re l a t i o n s h i p are found present." I t seems that these c o l l a t i v e properties or aesthetic notions should be c a l l e d 69 comprehensibility or understandability; and m i s f i t - f i t of the environment and numerical complexity might be related to t h i s notion. There i s a t h i r d vague notion about complexity which could be calle d paradoxicality; and Venturi(1966) seems to have taken th i s argument to impressive length. He argues, I l i k e complexity and contradiction i n architecture. I do not l i k e the incoherence or ar b i t r a r i n e s s of incompetent architecture nor the precious i n t r i c a c i e s or picturesqueness of expressionism. Indeed, I speak of a complex and contradictory architecture based on the richness and ambiguity of modern experience, including that experience which i s inherent i n a r t . . . . Calculated ambiguity of expression i s based on confusion of experience as r e f l e c t e d i n architecture and program. (1966 Arnheim (1977) further elaborates the same notion by ind i c a t i n g two types of ambiguity. Orderly ambiguity can make one and the same building look t a l l when i t i s perceived i n one context and small when perceived i n another. There i s no contradiction here, only enriching complexity. However, ambiguity becomes disturbing when the same thing under the same condition v a c i l l a t e s when, for example, i t looks curved one moment and str a i g h t another, thereby upsetting i t s pa r t i c u l a r v i s u a l function i n the design as a whole. (p. 179) The preceding discussion suggests that ccmplexity can be described by the words comprehension, i n t r i c a t e , varied, d i v e r s i f i e d ; whereas correctness of f i t would be considered 70 under balance. Patterning i s considered i n organisation and the surprising or o r i g i n a l i t y notion i s considered under modernity. 2.19. Notions of modernity. Styles i n buildings and clothing are repeated over h i s t o r i c a l time with the difference that clothing s t y l e s change more rapidly than do a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e s . Hence style i n architecture means the p a r t i c u l a r style-period while newness refers to the time when the building was b u i l t . Building modernity has three basic facets: s t y l e of the building (Gothic, International, Japanese s t y l e ) , age of the building, and building use over time. "Style decays over the age of the building" (Caudill et a l . , p. 72) and i s " c u l t u r a l l y shared" (Moore and Allen, p. 12) . Building use over time i s an exp e r i e n t i a l notion. C a u d i l l et a l . (1978) suggest modernity to be. The s p i r i t and expression of the times i n the use of materials and technology available at the time [of construction]. (p. 166) Similar notions are indicated by Emile Gall*{1900). 7 1 M o d e r n t h a t i s i n v e n t e d b y t h e l i v i n g g e n e r a t i o n , m a d e t o b e u s e d a n d d e c o r a t e d t o p l e a s e . C o n c e i v e d b y o u r c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d n o t b y m e n f r o m o t h e r a g e s w i t h o t h e r c u s t o m s , i t m u s t b e m a d e a c c o r d i n g t o o u r i d e a s , f o r o u r p l e a s u r e , t o o u r s i z e , a n d t o f i t i n w i t h p r e s e n t d a y l i f e . ( i n B e n t o n e t a l . 1 9 7 5 , ( p . 2 9 ) ) H e r s h b e r g e r s u g g e s t s t h e d e s c r i p t o r s o l d - n e w t o b e a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e n o t i o n o f m o d e r n i t y . C o l l i n s c o n s i d e r e d t h i s q u a l i t y i n t e r m s o f n e w , m o d e r n , a n d c i v i l i s e d w h e r e a s V i e l h a u e r u s e d c o n t e m p o r a r y , d a t e d , m o d e r n , n e w , s t y l i s h , a n d f a s h i o n a b l e a s d e s c r i p t o r s - T h i s n o t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d b y K t t l l e r b y u s i n g d e s c r i p t o r s s u c h a s t i m e l e s s , a g e d , m o d e r n , a n d n e w . A p p r o p r i a t e d e s c r i p t o r s f o r t h e n o t i o n a r e u p - t o - d a t e , c o n t e m p o r a r y , f a s h i o n a b l e , n e w , a n d n o v e l . 2 . 2 0 . N o t i o n s o f b a l a n c e . B e c a u s e a b u i l d i n g c o n t a i n s m a n y s o e l e m e n t s , t h e r e m u s t b e s o m e a t t e m p t t o w a r d e q u i l i b r i u m o f v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t s p r e s e n t i n t h e b u i l d i n g . T h i s i n t r i c a t e n o t i o n h a s i t s o r i g i n s i n t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f a e s t h e t i c s a n d i n g e n e r a l r e l a t e s t o a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o m p o s i t i o n . O n e m a y t h i n k t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f b a l a n c e m i g h t h a v e a n u n d e r l y i n g p h i l o s o p h y s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f o p t i m i z a t i o n . 72 Zevi (1974) considered symmetry, contrast and balance as three d i s t i n c t categories. He explains. Symmetry i s the balance of formal, a x i a l buildings.... Balance i s the symmetry of informal, non-axial architecture. For a building to be a l i v e , i t must show contrast between v e r t i c a l and horizontal l i n e s , between s o l i d s and voids, between defined and intangible forms, between volumes and between masses. (p. 194-195) A s i m i l a r notion i s put forward by A l b e r t i . I s h a l l define beauty to be a harmony of a l l the parts i n whatsoever subject appears, f i l l e d together with such proportion and connection that nothing could be added, diminished or altered but for the worse. (quoted by Eapson i n Heyer, 1966, p. 58) Unity and composition were discussed e a r l i e r under the notion of organisation. Berlyne's, and others* arguement i n terms of a harmonious, symmetrical, and consonant quality was considered under complexity. Sanoff(1974) and Shafer and Richards(1974) considered the notion of harmony and symmetry. In qeneral, i t can be seen that balance i s not only a d i f f i c u l t quality to describe verbally but also d i f f i c u l t to comprehend. But i n general, one can assume that balance refers to harmonious character, equality and proportionality i n contrast and symmetry. 73 2.21. Notions of clean l i n e s s . E a r l i e r i t was suggested that modernity i s building relevance over time (present, past, and future). In th i s context maintenance and up-keep become c r i t i c a l issues. Apart from t h i s u t i l i t a r i a n notion of cleanliness, a building through i t s faulty design often becomes defaced, vandalized and consequently d i f f i c u l t to maintain. This i s a common notion but surrounding such a notion there i s l i t t l e phenomenological discussion. Empirical work of Vielhauer (1965), and C o l l i n s (1969) indicated a notion described by words such as clean, uncluttered, neat, well kept. On the other hand Craik showed the opposite of cleanliness, on the verbal dimension with words such as dir t y and f i l t h y . Clean-dirty has also been considered by Garling (1976), Pyron(1971, 1972), Lowenthal and Riel(1972), and Brodin(1973) i n t h e i r work related to architecture. Even though Kttller presents an exhaustive l i s t of words (dusty, faded, decayed, sallow, neglected, f i l t h y , healthy, d i r t i e d , shabby, worn out, tidy, neat, trim, l i t t e r e d , slovenly, d i r t y , smutty, sober, l i t t e r e d , discoloured, mismanaged, not properly kept, well groomed, well looked a f t e r , well polished, well kept, rotten, messy) for th i s notion, he and his colleagues were unable to demonstrate the 74 empirical importance of such a notion. A l l t h i s discussion indicates that the notion of cleanliness probably can be well described by words such as well kept, well maintained and neat. 2.22. Notions of v e n t i l a t i o n and r i g i d i t y . Buildings may have one guality that decreases the t o t a l u t i l i t y of the building for other functions than those i t was supposed to support. Rigidness of building design i s an effect of the designer's s t y l e . Neither phenomenological nor empirical results exhibit the presence of t h i s notion i n buildings. However, both Vielhauer (1965) and Hershberger (1970) present the notion of r i g i d i t y by descriptors such as r i g i d - f l e x i b l e . Kflller offers fixed, immovable, immobile, and s t a t i c as descriptors f o r t h i s notion. Ventilation seems to be another seldom explored notion. Of course, a i r movement i n s i d e and outside of the building, solar radiat i o n and sun movement (Olgay and Olgay, 1957) as climatic determinants of building design (Fry and Drew, 1964) are well 75 i l l u s t r a t e d . V e n t i l a t i o n also has different meanings. Hershberger labe l l e d i t the drafty-stuff y character of the building and a similar notion seems to have been empirically demonstrated by Vielhauer. In f a c t , she was able to demonstrate the notion for a l l the buildings that she studied, with descriptors such as good temperature, comfortable temperature, drafty, warm, good ve n t i l a t i o n , fresh odour. C o l l i n s also reported a s i m i l a r notion with words such as heated, breezy, drafty, and heat. Shafer and Richards (1974) and Brodin(1973) considered st a l e - f r e s h and Lowenthal and R i e l , smelly-fresh as appropriate descriptors. Kl i l l e r gives descriptors such as cold, c h i l l y , cool, scented, windy, and stormy to describe t h i s concept. Hence v e n t i l a t i o n seem to indicate a fresh, a i r y and open character of the building. 2.23. Pleasure-arousal-dominance notions. Osgood et a l . presented a general case for The measurement of meaning and t h e i r work suggests that evaluation, potency and a c t i v i t y are major determinants of any verbal meaning. Almost the same notion i s given by Mehrabian and Russell who argue that the notions of pleasure, arousal and dominance are major 76 environmental notions. It would be convenient, at l e a s t i n operational terms, i f i t could be demonstrated that these three determinants can encapsulate the major subjective notions about the b u i l t environment. Mehrabian and Russell measured pleasure by the descriptors happy, pleased, s a t i s f i e d , contented, hopeful, relaxed; arousal by stimulating, excited, frenzied, j i t t e r y , wide-awake, aroused; and dominance by c o n t r o l l i n g , i n f l u e n t i a l , i n control, important, dominant, autonomous. After repeated studies using verbal descriptions and hundreds of colour s l i d e s of the environments, they demonstrated that these appeared to be major determinants of the perceived environment. The c l a r i t y and d e f i n i t i v e n e s s of Mehrabian's and Russell's work seems to contradict e a r l i e r pioneering wcrk of Vielhauer, C o l l i n s , Hershberger, Canter, KUller and Craik.. Most of the l a t t e r indicated that there are more than f i v e or six determinants by which experience of architecture can be verbalised. Hershberger suggests that there are about 20, and most of them have already been discussed. Moreover closer examination of Mehrabian's and Russell's descriptors reveals that the arousal notion i s c l o s e l y related to the notion of s p a t i a l excitement and balance; dominance seems to be a conglomeration of notions such as si z e , r i g i d i t y , s o c i a l status, spaciousness, organisation and privacy and, l a s t l y , their 77 pleasure notion seem t o be expressed as "happiness". Mehrabian and R u s s e l l have r a i s e d some i n t e r e s t i n g questions. They argue. One drawback of sampling from the l e x i c o n [ v o c a b u l a r y ] of a p r o f e s s i o n a l group outside psychology i s t h a t d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t are s u i t e d to the problem of t h a t group may not be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the concerns of environmental p s y c h o l o g i s t s . ... we present the r e s u l t s of the f a c t o r analyses of a set of environmental d e s c r i p t o r s proposed by Kasmer(1970) taken from a r c h i t e c t u r a l and design j o u r n a l s . The d e s c r i p t o r s were h i g h l y redundant, and most of them measured e v a l u a t i v e a t t i t u d e s . In a d d i t i o n , they r e f e r r e d mainly to v i s u a l sources of s t i m u l a t i o n and thus did not include adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s t i m u l a t i o n i n other m o d a l i t i e s . (p. 7) Even though the review presented here seems t o be about the environment and provided the concern i s about the same environment, one wonders whether e i t h e r set of research has captured the essence of the problem. Maybe i t i s n e i t h e r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l nor a r c h i t e c t u r a l problem, but simply a 1 semantic game'. 78 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND STUDY PURPOSES. What meaning, i f any, can be assigned to the probability of a hypothesis, law, theory that i s i t s e l f a pr o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n so that i t s f a l s i t y or truth i s not, i n general, an observable event on which bets can be made and paid off? (Marschak, 1975) 3.1. Representation and concepts. The analysis presented in Chapter 1 implied that the process of representation i s one of the fundamental steps for deriving most a r c h i t e c t u r a l ideas. A process i s achieved by sel e c t i o n of suitable concept-expressions, media and instruments. The sel e c t i o n of proper combinations along these dimensions defines the uniqueness of the representations. Given the open-ended nature of the representation and i t s usage i n a r c h i t e c t u r a l practice, i s i t possible tc esta b l i s h some empirical framework for a representation? How does one seek 79 such an empirical basis? Thus f a r , representation has been discussed only on an analytic basis, but i t i s also a p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t y that a professional architect must perform to s e l l h is or her ideas. What practice-related questions should one examine such that the study would be help f u l to an architect? For a professional person, time i s the most valuable commodity and i t costs money. The re l a t i o n s h i p between time spent i n preparing a representation and the impacts of each possible representation would be one such question. As indicated in Chapter 2, architecture consists of at least 24 d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s . Some of the q u a l i t i e s were i d e n t i f i e d through t h e o r e t i c a l discussion and some of them evolved through empirical j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Can one generate some general understanding of these notions sc they are less d i f f i c u l t f or lay observers to comprehend? Indeed, which ( i f any) of these notions do lay obeservers use i n making these judgements? Does that pattern of judgements d i f f e r s from judgements of trained a r c h i t e c t u r a l professionals? 80 3.2. The l i t e r a t u r e review. In Chapter 1, while presenting conceptual issues about representation, the relevant l i t e r a t u r e was reviewed. Sim i l a r l y i n Chapter 2, some phenomenological and empirical findings were examined. To arr i v e at the purposes of the study, i t may be helpful to examine some empirical studies conducted i n the area of a r c h i t e c t u r a l representation and environmental meaning i n the past 15 years. Whether one prefers to c a l l the domain of knowledge Environmental Psychology, Architectural Psychology, Environmental Assessment or A r c h i t e c t u r a l Evaluation, there seems to be o v e r a l l agreement among the researchers about the questions one must ask before beginning any study. [which 1 b uilding, urban study?] Whose comprehens By what means am I t display[building ] to the environmental display) ? the observer am I to e l i c format of judgement)? evaluate the observer's c r i t e r i a ) ? scenes, forest [should I ion am I to study (observer) ? o present the environmental observer (presentation of What behavioural reactions of i t and record (nature and By what standard might I comprehension (validational (Craik, 1968, p. 30) By answering these f i v e questions, one can summarize an empirical study i n t h i s area of research. For convenience, which building and means to display can be labelled "enviromental condition". The nature and format of judgment are 81 two conceptually d i f f e r e n t areas. Given verbal questioning as the most common approach, one may c l a s s i f y i t i n terms of "number of measures" and "rating methods". Usually i t i s on the basis of s t a t i s t i c a l c r i t e r i a that r e s u l t s are validated and hence " s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s " are needed to complete the summary. An informal bibliographic search produced 78 empirical studies written i n English after 1965 i n the United States, Canada, Sweden, England, Australia and New Zealand. The 78 studies do not include any aimed primarily towards understanding environmental cognition, such as those of Harrison and Sarre(1971), Harrison(1975), Downs and Stea(1973), Moore and Golledge (1976) and Honikman (1972, 1973). Also excluded were studies conducted for determining attitudes towards environment, such as those reported by McKechnie (1970, 1977) and Kaplan (1977) , and studies exploring socio-demographic relationships with environment such as those reported by Sewell and Little(1973) , Sewell(1971) and Groves and Kahalas (1975). Furthermore, studies reported by Garling(1969, 1970), Franklin and Heyward (1975), Miski et al.(1975) and Dainoff et a l . (1975), are related to t h i s domain of research but these studies only examined openness or enclosure perception, and were not included here. Another 5 to 10 studies,, reported i n Dissertation Abstracts International, were excluded since d e t a i l s for such studies were not available. 82 Osing C r a i k ' s modified c r i t e r i a , each study i s condensed i n Table 3.1 by c h r o n o l o g i c a l , then a l p h a b e t i c a l order. In general the bulk of the s t u d i e s , 42, were reported between 1972 and 1974. 15 of the 78 s t u d i e s focused a t the s c a l e of a room, nine focused on i n t e r i o r aspects o f the b u i l d i n g , seven stud i e d the i n s i d e of the b u i l d i n g , 23 considered facades, 14 gave a t t e n t i o n to landscaping and s c e n i c q u a l i t i e s and three s t u d i e s each approached g u a l i t i e s of the environment at s t r e e t and c i t y s c a l e s . Another 13 s t u d i e s attempted to sample from a l a r g e s e t of environments. The 78 s t u d i e s included 122 attempts t o d i s p l a y an environment. Almost one-quarter of the d i s p l a y s e n t a i l e d the a c t u a l environment; about two out of f i v e used photographic techniques and about one i n eight included conventional graphic or model techniques to d i s p l a y environments. The remaining twenty percent of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n c l u d e d techniques such as topographical maps, v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n s , imagining the environments or holography. K U l l e r (1972) and Wood (1972) were the only two researchers who attempted to study more than f i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n simultaneously. The median number of v e r b a l d e s c r i p t o r s ( v e r b a l response measure) used i n these s t u d i e s was 21. Heference Environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Veilhauer, Unpublished doctocal dissertation, 1965 interior of 1 buildings in use 66 bipolar descri ptors selected from 198 (source: interior design journals) Students, non-students, test-cetest Cor some students: 250 males, aad 250 females 7-yoint semantic diffurential scale Separate factor analysis for each building indicated 5-7 factors accounting for 72-8OX of total variance Peterson, Journal of Beqional Scignce, 1967 23 colour slides of facades and landscaped scences 10 verbal measures 140 observers 5-yoint scale Multiple regression and factor analysis revealed preference related to proximity to nature and age with H*=.79 Ackinq and Sorte, 1969 (j.n Kuller, 1972) 15 photographs describing landscaped environment 11 verbal descriptors for composite complexity, primordial- natural and unity aspects 43 high school pupils 7-point verbal scales 3 factors accounted for SOX of the variance within the means for 15 photographs' Canter, Environment and $o ha vi or. 196 9~ 2 BW slides for each of 20 students' projects 45 bipolar descriptors 30 architecture students 7-point semantic differential scales 7 factors accounted for 62S of total variance Can ter, Environaent and Behavior* 1969 Nonochroaatic line drawings of 24 interiors 50 bipolar descriptors 67 students 7-point semantic differential scale 8 factors accounted for 60S of total variance Collins, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970 Interiors of 3 library buildings during use 198 bipolar descri ptors (source: students of architecture and psychology, and architects) 228 students 9-point discrimination scale 10 factors accounted Cor 44S of total variance and predictor—criterion interaction yielded validities in .80's and cross validities in the lower . 20's Hershberger, Proceedings of EDHA I Conference. 1970 Exteriors of 25 buildings viewed through colour slides 30 bipolar descriptors 26 each of the fi n a l year architecture, pre-architecture and non-architecture students 7-j-oint semantic differential scale Separate factor analysis for each group indicated 3 factors for each group with architects differing on pleasure factor Sonnenfeld, Environment and BfiJUSiStT 1969" 55 slides depicting seasons and weather conditions 25 physical concepts High school students from Barrow (92) , Hainvright (14) , and Anaktuvuk pass, Alaska (19) and Newark, H.J. (86) S-yoiat semantic dirf erentlal scale Analysis of variance suggests that personality variables may be an important source of within group differences, and a source of behavioural variation in envirooient Bef e rence Environmental condition Number cf measures Observer types Hating methods S t a t i s t i c a l results Winkel, Halek and T h i e l , Proceedings si EDBA J Conference, 1970 10 street routes; slides retouched to show 1 alternate conditions of roadside signing 65 bipolar descriptors 4 groups formed by mala and female, students and non-students 7-point semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale Factor analysis for each experimental condition gave s i m i l a r factor structure Canter and wools. Building Science, 1970 Actual i n t e r i o r s of 6 music practice rooms, 3 house types, 31 residence bedrooms and 2 s e c r e t a r i a l o f f i c e s 10 bipolar descriptors measuring f r i e n d l i n e s s 75 housewives, 64 a u s i : students and 31 architecture students 7-j>oint semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale analysis of variance indicated that scale distinguished between different environments Canter and Wools; Buildinq Science. 1970 Exp. design with 2 types of c e i l i n g s , 2 seating conditions and 2 types of windous for i n t e r i o r of the room shown through sketch drawings 10 bipolar descriptors measuring f r i e n d l i n e s s Architecture and Psychology students, and architects 7-point semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale Analysis of variance i l l u s t r a t e d that the two student groups gave s i m i l a r responses while architects responses were more influenced by windows Garling, 1970 (in K u l l e r , 1972) Factory shop, 100ax20m and 15a high 27 bipolar descri f tors 40 architecture students and 30 factory workers 7- j> o i n t semantic d i f f e r e n t i a X sea l a Separate factor analysis for each group indicated students' major cencers with unity-function and workers' concern about pleasantness; explained variance=64% Laumann and House, Sociology and social, research. 197 0 Interior of 897 actual l i v i n g rooms 53 item c h e c k l i s t Not reported Biuary responses Guttman-Lingoes SSA analysis indicated modern and s o c i a l status dimensions with c o e f f i c i e n t of alienation=.464 tau. Proceedings 21 EDRA JI Conference. 1971 Interior of the study bedroom shown through different l i g h t i n g conditions through model Measure of pleasantness and gloominess 64 architecture students 4-^oiut L i k e r t type scale Analysis of variance and rank order c o r r e l a t i o n indicated that the two modes of representation were assessed i n a s i m i l a r manner Pyron, Environment and Behavior, 197T and 1972 4 house form and 4 spacing conditions shown through BW film 20 bipolar descriptors and information content of experimental condition 120 residents 7-point semantic d i r f e r e n t i a l scale Analysis of variance showed that v i s u a l search behaviour was function of environmental uncertainty C a l v i n , Oearinger, and C u r t i n , Environment and Behavior. 1972 15 landscape views shown through s l i d e s 21 bipolar descriptors 139 students 7-^oint semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale Factor analysis indicated 3 factors derived from means of the responses to landscape views accounted for 90* of t o t a l variance Ref e cence Environmental condition Numbet of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Canter and Thorne, Environment and ££i>4»isi. 1972~ 16 slides of facades of Scottish and Australian houses 10 friendliness-related descriptors 34 Clasgow and 58 Sydaay students 7-point semantic differential scale The differences in response to each slide was found to be closely related to the differences in recent trends in houee design in the two countries Craik, in Kcuti11J, natural environments. 1972 50 landscape scences Landscape rating scale, graphic sorting and aesthetic scale 286 observers with varying professional background 7-point scale Analysis indicated panoramic, focal and colourful views generated aesthetic appeal with correlation coefficient of .36 and .34 Howard, Hilynarski and Sauer Proceedings. o,f U>£i III Conference. 1972 U buildings (with 6 interior spaces in each) with actual spaces, colour slides and BH slides 28 of Osgood's semantic descriptors 59 students for real, and 16 students for colour and BB slides 7-point semantic differential. scale Factor analysis for each building and each exp. condition indicated slides induced affective responses otherwise general agreement between exp. Conditions Jackson and Johnston, Envi ronment and plannina. 1972 Home town (Christcburch) and 2 each of desirable and undesirable locations 38 verbal measures High school and university students 7-point scale 14 factor analytic components accounted for 61% of total variance for Christcburch but factors for other places were unstable Kaplan, Kaplan and wendt. Perception and Psvchophvsics. 1972 56 environments: 28 man-made and 28 natural categories Preference, complexity and exci teoeo t-iotrigue measu res 68 students 5-point eating scale Smallest space analysis indicated natural scenes preferred; complex natural scenes preferred over other natural scenes Kuller, national Swedish Building Besearch D12: 1972 15 photographed living rooms 78 unipolar descri ftors (selected from 1058) <4 3 high school pupils 7-point Likert type scale 8 factors explained 95% of total variance within the aeaas of interiors Kuller, National Swedish Building Besearch 0 12:1972 One actual drawing room in sixties' style, observed when not in use 78 unipclar descriptors 63 architecture students 7-point Likert type scale Factor analysis explained 28% of total variance through 3 factors Kuller, national Swedish Building Besearch D12: 1972 Residential development built in 1958,exterior of the buildings 78 unipclar descriptors 50 high school pupils 7-point Likert type scale 4 factors accounted for 48% of total variance Table 1-J <conUpa,ei}) R e f e r e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n lumber of measures observer t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s B r o d i n , Proceed i n g s of Arch i t e c t u r a l £§y.cholosi CONFEFENCE. 1973 E x t e r i o r of 25 suburban houses, f l a t s and town c e n t e r e n v i r o n m e n t s 29. v e r b a l measures i12 r e s i d e n t s o f t h e three t y p e s of e n v i r o n men t 7 - p o i n t s c a l e C o r r e l a t i o n between e n c l o s u r e and e v a l u a t i o n and w i t h i n f l a t s was .79; w i t h i n suburban houses was .29 and w i t h i n town c e n t e r was -.43 C a n t e r , Eenyan and West, Pe r c e p t u a 1 and motor s k i l l s , 1973 Model of room i n t e r i o r shown t h r o u g h s l i d e s and hol o g r a p h 10 b i p o l a r s f o r f r i e n d l i n e s s and room depth judgement 25 a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h e e f f e c t of mode of p r e s e n t a t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e seguence i n which judgements were made C a n t e r , P r o c e e d i n g s of A r c h i t e c t u r a l P s y c h o l o g y I I I CONFEBENCE. 1973 28 s c h o o l b u i l d i n g s w i t h i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r c o n d i t i o n s 5 p h y s i c a l elements u s i n g s e v e r a l c o n s t r u c t s about the s c h o o l b u i l d i n g s 510 s c h o o l t e a c h e r s from a l l l e v e l s 7 - ^ o i n t s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r each c o n s t r u c t s e p a r a t e l y i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the e l e m e n t s was more more dominant than d i f f e u t i a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t s Cunningham, C a r t e r , Beese and uebr. P r o c e e d i n g s s i EDBA IV C o n f e r e n c e , 1973 DH v i d e o o f photomontage s c a l e model, and super Ban c o l o u r and Bw v i d e o of s t c e e t s c a p e M e c h a n i c a l r e c o r d e r f o r v i s u a l a x c i t e m e n t and 12 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s Design s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y and n o n - d e s i g n e c s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e C omparisons between means i n d i c a t e s i m i l a r r e s p o n s e s t o va r i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ; d e s i g n e r s and n o n - d e s i g n e r s have d i f f e r e n t " i n t e r e s t peaks" K a p l a n , P r o c e e d i n g s of EDBA 1V~ C o n f e r e n c e . 1973 60 s l i d e s of o u t d o o r s , h a l f o f which were d r a v i n q and remaind e r p h o t o g r a p h i c M y s t e r y , p r e f e r e n c e and coherence measures 38 a r c h i t e c t u r e , 30 la n d s c a p e and 39 p s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n t s 5 - p o i n t e a t i n g s c a l e Coherence and mystery were found t o be r e l a t i v e l y i n d e p e ndent of each o t h e r and each was s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r ( r z g r e a t e r than .65) ai p r e f e r e n c e S a n o f f , P r o c e e d i n g s o f IBSA 11 C o n f e r e n c e . 1973 12 houses shown th r o u g h j h o t o g raphs S o r t i n g f o r s i m i l a r i t y , r a n k i n g and o t h e r a t t i t u d i n a l measures 153 h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s B a n k - o r d e r i n g • e t h o d C o n t e n t a n a l y s i s of the s o r t i n g t e c h n i g u e r e v e a l e d d e s c r i p t i v e and a f f e c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l as h i e r a r c h i c a l p r e f e r e n c e p a t t e r n s T o q n o l i , li!ii£2J!SSJ!l and B e h a v i o r . ~197 3 -E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n w i t h 2 c h a i r , 2 window and 2 f l o o r c o n d i t i o n s I n t e r e s t i n g r e s s , comFor t a b l e n e s s , d i s t r a c t i n g n e s s and p l e a s a n t n e s s 56 s t u d e n t s w i t h e g u a l • a l e and female 7 - p o i n t r a t i n y s c a l e 2x2x2 a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d c o m f o r t , i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s v a r i e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y with complex e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s wedin, Avant and K o l i n s , ££2£*:£dinas of A r c h i t e c t u r a l P s y c h o l o g y X ^ I CONFEJENCE, 1973 3 l i v i n g rooms each shown through f l o o r p l a n , i s o m e t r i c and photograph <4 s e t s , each of -4 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 105 h o u s i n g s t u d e n t s 9 9 - p o i n t v e r b a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e w i t h a g g r e g a t e d a t a i n d i c a t e d r e s p o n s e s t o s i z e were l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s g r a p h i c forms I*Pie 1-J JC9PtiBSSJi Reference E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number cf measures Observer t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g Besearch D12:1972 8 e x t e r i o r s and 7 i n t e r i o r s of b u i l d i n g s 66 u n i p o l a r ' d e s c r i p t o r s 56 s e l e c t e d by a d v e r t i s i n g i n newspaper 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e 8 f a c t o r s e x p l a i n e d 971 c f v a r i a n c e w i t h i n the means f o r 15 b u i l d i n g c o n d i t i o n s K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g Research 012:1972 9 l a n d s c a p e s l i d e s t u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s S t u d e n t s from a r c h , r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s from d i f f e r e n t S c a n d i n a v i a n c i t i e s (N=18 t o a l ) a m 15 housewives 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e One-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and i n t e r g r o u p c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e s i m i l a r i t y between the d i f f e r e n t groups K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish E u i l d i n g R e search D12:1972 IS s l i d e s of l a n d s c a p e d environment 8 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s t l h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s and 27 a r c h i t e c t s 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and i n t e r g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n s i n d i c a t e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s between groups with c o r r e l a t i o n between groups g r e a t e r than .6 e x c e p t f o r p l e a s a n t n e s s (r-.31) K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g R e search D12: 1972 9 underground sub-way s t a t i o n s 5 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 17 a r t s and c r a f t s s t u d e n t s and 10 s t a t i o n u s e r s per s t a t i o n 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e One-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and i n t e r g r o u p c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d the d e s i g n group agree w e l l w i t h the judgements of the g e n e r a l group K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g Besearch b!2:1972 Two a c t u a l rooms w i t h d i f f e r i n g c o m p l e x i t y and p l e a s a n t n e s s Two u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 50 v i s i t o r s , s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s v i s i t i n g rooms i n d i f f e r e n t o r d a r 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e 2-vay a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e showed r e l i a b l e and s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t group a v e r a g e s on c o m p l e x i t y and p l e a s a n t n e s s L o wenthal and B i e l , Environment and B e h a v i o r , 1972 P e r c e i v e d and imagined c i t y 25 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 100 o b s e r v e r s from B o s t e n , C a m b r i d g e , New Jork and Columbus (Ohio) a r e a s ; d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l backgroun ds 5- p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e Both e n v i r o n m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e and v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s r e v e a l mental s t r u c t u r e i n v o l v i n g c l u s t e r s of a t t r i b u t e s t h a t seem t o shape our view of the world Seaton and C o l l i n s , £l2££edings of EDRA j l l -C o n f e r e n c e . 1972 4 b u i l d i n g f a c a d e s r e p r e s e n t e d i n u ways from each o f 2 p o s i t i o n s 5 v e r b a l measures 600 v i s i t o r s o r 38 o b s e r v e r s f o r each e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n 7 - p o i a t s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the r e l a t i v e mean v a l u e s between d i f f e r e n t b u i l d i n g s wood, D n p u b l i s h e d B. A r c h i t e c t u r e t h e s i s , 1972 E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n w i t h 5 b u i l d i n g s , 6 media c o n d i t i o n s 7 v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i v e measures and napping 207 s t u d e n t s 100-point anchored s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d the b e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g i s a sequence of c o l o u r s l i d e s B e f e r e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number o f m e a s u r e s o b s e r v e r t y p e s B a t i n g m e t h o d s S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s Z u b e , L a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e , 1973 18 s l i d e s o f r e a l l a n d s c a p e a n d 9 s l i d e s o f d r a w i n g s o f l a n d s c a p e 14 b i p o l a r i d e s c r i p t o r s C o s i g n e r s , m a n a g e r s , d e s i g n s t u d e n t s , m a n a g e m e n t s t u d e n t s and e t h e r s w i t h t o t a l o f Id5 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d r e s p o n s e s t o d r a w i n g s d i f f e r e d b u t g o o d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n g r o u p s w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e t s g r e a t e r t h a n • if 9 A c k i n q , J j a i i p n a l S w e d i s h B i j i l d i n f i B e s e a r c h T D 7 : 1 9 7 4 2 h o u s i n g s p r o j e c t s i n p l a n s , s l i d e s , p e r s p e c t i v e d r a w i n g s a n d m o d e l s 8 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s G r o u p s o f 20 u s e r s , e a c h g r o u p v i e w e d d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 7 - p a i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e A n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d p l a n , p e r s p e c t i v e a n d w h i t e m o d e l d i f f e r e d ; w h i l e c o l o u r f i l m a n d c o l o u r m o d e l g a v e s i m i l a r r e s p o n s e s t o a c t u a l env i r o n ment B e t a k , B r u m m e l l and S w i n g l e , P r o c e e d i n g s o f EDBA V C o n f e r e n c e . 197H O u t s i d e a n d i n s i d e w a l k i n g t o u r o f t h e b u i l d i n g F r e e r e c a l l o v e r p l a n d r a w i n g s a n d 34 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 67 s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s g a v e 9 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t i n g f o r 6 8 X o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e a n d 60S a n a l y s i s g a v e 2 d i m e n s i o n a l s o l u t i o n C a n t e r , C e c i l i o , B o h l e s acid W a t t s , i n C a n t e r . P s y c h o l o g y a n d b u i j t e n v i r c n a e n t . 1974 19 c o l o u r s l i d e s d e s c r i b i n g u r b a n e x t e r i o r s 10 b i f c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s p h r a s e d i n d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d n o n -a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s f r o m G e r n a n y ( 4 4 , 3 3 ) , E n g l a n d ( 2 9 , 20) a n d S p a i n ( 2 3 , 20) 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e I n t e r g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n i n d i c a t e d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n g r o u p s w i t h c o r r e l a t i c n c o e f f i c i e n t s g r e a t e r t h a n .34 b u t some w o r d s t r a n s l a t i o n n a y n o t be a c c e p t a b l e C a n t e r , G i l c h r i s t , n i l l e r a n d B o b e r t s , i n C a n t e r , p s y c h o l o g y and bu i l t e n v i r o n m e n t , 1974 A l i v i n g room shown w i t h 2 p r e s e n t a t i o n s , 4 f o c u s e l e m e n t s , 3 s e a t i n g d i r e c t i o n a n d 2 s e a t i n g s p a c i n g c o n d i t i o n s 4 a c t i v i t y s u i t a b i l i t y m e a s u r e s 77? 1 0 - p o i n t L i b e r t t y p e s c a l e HAHOVA a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d f u r n i t u r e a r r a n g e m e n t a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n t e c h n i g u e a f f e c t s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l i v i n g r o o m H e r s h b e r g e r a n d C a s s , P r o c e e d i n g s °i EDRA V C o n f e r e n c e , 1974 BW f i l a , c o l o u r f i l m a n d v i d e o f o r 12 p r o t o - t y p i c a l h o u s i n g u n i t s 30 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 120 s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e S e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r e a c h s c a l e a n d e n v i r o n m e n t i n d i c a t e d g o o d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n m e d i a a n d b u i l d i n g w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t g r e a t e r t h a n . 7 2 H e r s h b e r g e r a n d C a s s . P r o c e e d i n g s o f EDRA V C o n f e r e n c e , 1974 ~ 12 e x t e r i o r s o f c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l b u i l d i n g s 30 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 27 p r e - a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i t f e r e n t i a l s c a l e 8 m a j o r f a c t o r s e m e r g e d w i t h s i m i l a r f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s f o r a l l b u i l d i n g s L e f f , G o r d o n and F e r g u s o n , E n v i r o n m e n t a n d B e h a v i o r . 1 9 7 4 " C o l o u r s l i d e s o f e x t e r i o r e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d r oom i n t e r i o r s v i e w i n g f r o m v a r i o u s a p p r o a c h e s • P l e a s a n t n e s s , c o m p l e x i t y , c o n c e n t r a t i o n , i n t e r e s t a n d 2 3 o t h e r b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s T o t a l o f 6 5 0 s u b j e c t s f o r a l l e x p e d i e n t s w i t h r a n g e o f 13 t o 2 4 1 o b s e r v e r s 7 - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e T h e s e t t o v i e w a s c e n e a s a n a b s t r a c t c o l l e c t i o n o f s h a p e s , l i n e s a n d t e x t u r e s i n c r e a s e d j u d g e d c o m p l e x i t y R e f e r e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number of measures o b s e r v e r t y p e s R a c i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s Zube, Environment and B e h a v i o r . 1971 4 l a n d s c a p e s e c t i o n s shown t h r o u g h a e r i a l p h o tographs and top o . maps 25 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 30 d e s i g n e r s , 30 r e s o u r c e managers and JO s e c r e t a r i a l w o r k e r s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s and i n t e r g r o u p comparison i n d i c a t e d t h a t the agreement between e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e s i g n e r s and and managers was h i g h C r a i k , i n ZubeJcdsJ., La ndsca pe a s s e s s a e n t s . 1975 Mar i n s i t e ( l a r g e l a n d s c a p e d area) 104 a d j e c t i v e s sample o f 1S7 d r i v e r s A d j e c t i v a c h e c k l i s t ( b i n a r y r e s p o n s e s ) C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s d e m o n s t r a t e d 4 word c l u s t e r s a c c o u n t e d f o r 62% of t o t a l v a r i a n c e Danford and M i l l e n s . Environment and Behavior."*1975~ Guided walk, i n f o r m e d w i t h v i s u a l , i n f o r m e d and n a i v e s i m u l a t i o n f o r one e n vironment 16 a f f e c t i v e and 16 d e s c r i p t i v e a d j e c t i v e s 160 s t u d e n t s f o r each e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n 5 - p o i n t e a t i n g s c a l e Comparison between e x p e r i m e n t a l groups i n d i c t e d an unprecedented degree o f agreement f o r both d e s c r i p t i v e and a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s Zube, P i t t and Anderson, i n Zube. Landscape a s s e s s a e n t s , 1975 56 views, a c t u a l s i t e s and p h o t o g r a p h s 18 b i t c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 123 f i e l d and 184 non f i e l d s t u d y samples w i t h d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l backgrounds 5 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l , l a n d s c a p e c h e c k l i s t , rank o r d e r and I n t e r group and i n t e r measure c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d g e n e r a l agreement between groups and measures B e r l y n e , £l2££§^'J!3S of IDEA VII" C o n f e r e n c e , 1976 20 s l i d e s of e x t e r i o r s of b u i l d i n g s from v a r i e t y o f c u l t u r e s 13 b i p o l a r , p a i r e d s i m i l a r i t y and p r e f e r e n c e measures 16 a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s and 30 n o n - a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r a l l r a t i n g s INDSCAL a n a l y s i s r e s u l t e d i n 3 t o 8 d i m e n s i o n s and e x p l a i n e d about 85% o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e r r i e d b e r c j and Whiddon, P r o c e e d i n q s of EDRA VII Con f e r e n c e . 1976 10 a b s t r a c t s c u l p t u r e s s e l e c t e d from p o o l o f 30 20 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s f r o : Hershberger(1972) 29 m a t h e m a t i c s , 22 c r e - d e s i g n and 18 d e s i g n s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e u a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r group and s c u l p t u r e i n d i c a t e d a high degree cf agreement between groups when e v a l u a t i n g s c u l p t u r e s G a r l i n g , Env i r o n a e n t and B e h ^ v i p r 7 1976~ 24 s l i d e s showing detached houses, f l a t s and c i t y c e n t e r a r e a s 9 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 20 f o r s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l , 12 f o r s i m i l a r i t y and 8 f o r s o r t i n g s t u d y 7 - p o i n t , s e u a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l , 1 0 - p o i n t f o r s i m i l a r i t y and r a n k i n g f o r ttor t i n g F a c t o r , m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l and c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t by d i f f e r i n g measuring t e c h n i q u e s G a r l i n g , S c a n d i n a v i a n J o u r n a l o J laJ C S h o l o q s , 1976 24 s l i d e s showing d e t a c h e d houses, f l a t s and c i t y c e n t e r a r e a s 2U b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s -12 s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l and 10 s i m i l a r i t y study 7 - p o i n t v e r b a l s c a l e and 10- p o i n t s i m i l a r i t y measure 8 v e r b a l f a c t o r s accounted f o r 94% and 2 d i m e n s i o n s i n s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g e x p l a i n e d 88% of t o t a l v a r i a n c e Reference Environmental condition Number cf measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Mehrabian and Bussell, in A D a c c r o a c h tp. £nvi co.ninenta.1 -Psychology, 1 9 7 < * 4 0 verbally described situations 2 8 bipolar descriptors relating to pleasure, arousal and dominance 1 3 4 students 9-point semantic differential scale 3 factors accounted for 6 0 % of total variance Behrabian and Bus sell, 0£. cit. , 1 9 7 4 4 0 verbally described situations 2 3 bipolar descriptors 1 6 3 students 9-point seaantic differential scale 3 factors accounted for 6 1 1 of total variance Mehrabian and ' Bussell, 0 £ . cit., 1 9 7 4 4 0 verbally described situations 1 8 bipolar descriptors 2 1 4 students 9-point semantic differential scale 3 factors (pleasure, arousal and doainance) accounted for 6 4 % of total variance Mehrabian and Bussell, op. cit. , 1 9 7 4 4 0 verbally described situations 6 6 bipolar descriptor from Vielhauer's ( 1 9 6 5 ) stud y 2 1 6 students 9-point semantic scale Factor anlysis indicated 9 first order factors accounted for 4 5 % and 2 second order factors for 6 1 % of total variance Mehrabian and B ussell, Environment and Behavior~1974 4 0 verbally described situations 2 1 bipolar descriptors referring to information content of situation 2 1 4 students 9-point semantic scale 5 factors accounted for 6 0 % of total variance, the information rate frcm a environment was correlated to arousal elicited by it Mehrabian and Kussell, Env icorment aDd P^ayior. 1 9 7 4 " 2 4 settings shown through colour slides 2 1 bipolar descriptors referring to information content of situation 5 6 students 9-poj.nt semantic differential scale Factor and regression analysis indicated "information rate" accounted far pleasure and arousal eliciting qualities of environment Sanoff, in LangJedsJ^ , Designing for human behaviour, 1 9 7 4 Exteriors of 4 housing projects displayed through photographic means 2 6 bipolar descriptors 3 0 architecture and 3 0 planning students 7-point seuantic differential scale Factor analysis indicated 4 factors and explained 6 4 % of total variance with considerable agreement between groups Shafer and Richards, in Psychology and buiIt environment. 1 9 7 4 8 scenes viewed as real and through colour photographs and slides 2 7 bipolar adjective descriptors Total of 1 0 0 students of whom 2 9 viewed actual ace nee, 4 1 viewed colour slide and 3 0 viewed cclour photos 7 - point semantic differential scale Factor analysis indicated 3 - 8 factors for each scene explained average of 7 5 % of total variance 7_aMs i - j (conuamdl Beference Environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Hall, Puccell, thotne and netcalfe, Enyi roncient and Bghavior7 1976 11 building foyers 6 descriptors 1 35 students 10- point siailarity scale BDSCAL analysis resulted in 3-dinensional solution accounting for 85} of total variance Herzog, Kaplan and Kaplan, Env ironment and Behavior, 1976 86 environments shown through slides (74) , labels(22) and verbal descri ption (25) Familarit y, preference and complexity descriptions 121 students 5-point rating scale Smallest space analysis indicated 5 dimensional solution but representational condition did not change preference pattern Nay and Basalla, Proceedings of Conference. 1976 Exterior of 14 public environments 22 bipolar descriptors and similarity measure 65 residents for finilarity and 20 for semantic differential technigue 3- point for siailarity and 4- point for semantic differential MOSCAL and factor analysis gave 4 factors and accounted S5X of total varience Hendcick, Spencer, Flyna and Martyniuk, Envi ronment and Behavior, 1977 Interior of one room with 6 different lighting conditions viewed through slides and real 34 semantic differential scales and one ovecalI similarity rating 185 students for semantic differential and 45 for siailarity 7- p oi n t semantic differential and 11-point siailarity Factor analysis indicated 5 congruent factors but NDSCAL and INDSCAL did sot replicate the real room results Palmer, Bobinson and Thomas, En vi ronment and Planning. 1977 34 countryside locations 35 verbal measures 60 street observers interviewed 7-point semantic differential scale Factor analysis in first order explained 751 of total variance and 60S cf second order Ward, Journal of Hultivariate Behavioural Besiarcji. 1977 20 colour photographs of different exterior environments Sorting three components and similarity measures 56 students Q-joct and 10-point siailarity measure I NDSCAL and BDSCAl analysis resulted in 5-dioensicna1 solution accounting for 78S of total variance Fenker, Proceedings of EDBA JX Conference. 1978 40 spaces during use 24 bipolar descri ptors 34 students 7-,>oint senantic differential scale Begression (B*-.54 and .75), factor (4 accounted for 5bi of variance), canonical and discriaicait analysis gave accessible and public dimensions Hansvik, Proceedings of S2.SA IS C_gnfe£en££/ 1978 5 Canadian cities as perceived by observers living in one of the five cities 25 bifclar descriptors 503 regular and extension students 6-point verbal scale Cluster, factor and discriminant analysis indicated images of cities differed and environmental indicators did not correspond directly to urban images ficfprence Environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Hoca yangkura, Environment and Behavior,~1978 35 exteriors of residential environment shown through BW photograph 21 verbal and sorting approach , 25 respondents for each cf verbal and sorting tasks 11-point semantic differential ratings MOSCAl and factor analysis revealed sinilar dimensions and explained about 60S of total variance Oostendor p, BcMaster, Rosen and Waind, Int. review 9l i££ligd psychology. 1978~ 12 entrances to buildings 1 similarity, 5 descriptive, 13 technical and 28 bipolar measures 10 students total for 4 separate studies 7-point scale INCSCAL and factor analysis indicated 3 similar dimensions accounting for 90S cf total variance Russell and Mehrabian, Envi ronment and jieh.avio£7~1978 90 colour slides selected from set of 320 vith 3x3x2 levels of pleasure, arousal and dominance 5 approach-avoidance and 2 affiliate measuring items 200 students 8-^ oint Likert type scale Analysis of variance indicated approach toward the setting was determined by pleasure and interaction effect of pleasure and arousal qualities of the settinq Bussell and Mehrabian, Env ironaent and fiSklliSE. 9^ 78 90 colour slides selected from set of 320 with balanced levels of pleasure, arousal and dominance 5 approach-avoidance and 2 affiliate measuring items 310 students 8-point Likert type scale Multiple regression analysis with Rz-.55 for approach and B*-.23 on affiliation measure Sims, Kcebel, Cohen and Siegall, EDRA IX-Conference. 1978 4 streets with 2 conditions of signs shown through line drawing slides 21 descriptive scales, 35 activity checklist and 6 beh. Preferences 260 students 7-point scales Analysis of variance indicated that 2 conditions of signs did not improve appearence Starr and Dan ford. Proceedings oj£ EDRA IJ~ Conference. 1978 One perceived and imagined environment 8 descriptive and 6 affective descriptors 20 students foe each exp. Con4ition 5-point unipolar and 5-point farced choice types of scale One-way analysis cf variance and comparison of means indicated one pattern of affective responses aod suggested possible vertal biases 93 The number of observers i n the 78 studies ranged between 21 and 510 with a median sample s i z e of 91. More than three quarters of the studies have used a large sample strategy; three out of four used student populations as observer. There were 19 studies whose major observer group was i d e n t i f i e d a laypersons and four studies did not i d e n t i f y the observer group. Only f i v e studies used professional designers as the observer group. Five-, seven- or nine-point r a t i n g scales appear to be most popular. Similarly most studies(78%) have used either the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l technigue or a simple modification of i t . There were very few attempts at using other psychometric techniques such as s i m i l a r i t y r ating, magnitude estimation and ranking. Of the 15 studies (see Table 3.2) reported at the room scale, two were devoted to finding differences between l i g h t i n g conditions and both concluded that differences between the actual room and i t s representation were s t a t i s t i c a l l y small. Among the 13 remaining studies, only one used more than two representations; i t found no s t a t i s t i c a l differences between di f f e r e n t representational techniques such as plans, isometric and black and white photographs. In general, the remaining 12 studies indicated that observers d i f f e r e n t i a t e between physically d i s s i m i l a r rooms but often f a i l to notice the difference between p h y s i c a l l y s i m i l a r rooms. ^ , Table 3.2 Studies conducted £o£ Ea££S£iJUll Ai i M 1993 Still Reference Environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Can ter, Envi ronment and 8ehavior"l969~ Monochromatic line drawings of 24 interiors 50 bipolar descri ptors 67 students 7-poin t semantic differential scale 8 factors accounted for 60% of total variance Canter and Hools, Building Science, 1970 Actual interiors of 6 nusic practice rooms, 3 house types, 31 residence bedrooms and 2 secretarial offices 10 bipolar descriptors measuring friendliness 75 housewives, 64 nusic students and 31 architecture students 7-point seuantic differential scale Analysis of variance indicated that scale distinguished between different environments Canter and Wools, 3uildin_g Science, 1970 Exp. design with 2 types of ceilings, 2 seating conditions and 2 types of windows for interior of the room shown through sketch drawings 10 bipolar desc ri ptors measuring friendliness Architecture and Psychology students, and architects 7-point semantic differential scale Analysis of variance illustrated that the two student groups gave siailar responses while architects responses were more influenced by windows Launann and House, Sociology and social research. 1970 Interior of 897 actual living rooms 53 item checklist Not reported Binary responses Cuttmaa-Lingoes SSA analysis indicated aodern and social status dimensions with coefficient of alienation-.464 Lau, Proceedings of EDRA II Conference, 1971 Interior of the study bedroom shown through different lighting conditions through model Measure ot pleasantness and gloominess 64 architecture students 4-point Likert type scale Analysis ot variance and rank order correlation indicated that the two modes of representation were assessed in a siailar manner Kuller, National Swedish Euilding Research D12:1972 15 photographed living rooms 78 unipolar descri ptors (selected from 1058) 43 high school pupils 7-point Likert type scale 8 factors explained 95% of total variance within the means of interiors Kuller, (National Swedish Euilding Besearch D12: 1972 One actual drawing room in sixties' style, observed when not in use 78 unipolar descriptors 63 architecture students 7-point Likert type scale Factor analysis explained 28% of total variance through 3 factors Kuller, national Swedish Cuililinj Research D12: 1972 Two actual rooms with differing complexity and pleasantness Two unipclar descriptors 50 visitors, students and teachers visiting rooms in different order 7-point Likert type scale 2-way analysis of variance showed reliable and significantly different group averages on complexity and plea san tnoss Table 3.2 Studies conducted tSi yetWttWl fteFSPtg i i tin 1*9*. SZilS (e<*.t'"u«d) ft Reference Environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Canter, Benyan and Uest, Pe rcept.ual and motor, ski Its, 1973 ~ ~ Model of room interior shown through slides and holograph 10 bipolars for I friendliness and room depth judgement 25 architecture students 7-point seuantic differential scale Analysis of variance indicated the effect of mode of presentation related to the seguence in which judgements were made Toqnoli, Jnv ij^ njnent £U£ Beha viorT l973~ Experimental design with 2 chair, 2 window and 2 floor conditions Interestingness, comfortableness, distractingness and pleasantness 56 students with equal male and female 7-point eating scale 2x2x2 analysis of variance indicated comfort, interestingness varies simultaneously with complex environmental variables Uedin, Avaot aud Nolins, Proceedinqs of Arch itectura 1 Psychology III CCNfEREJJCE, 1973 3 living rooms each shown through floor plan, isometric and photograph 4 sets, each of 4 bipolar descriptors 105 housing students 99-point verbal scale Analysis of variance with aggregate data indicated responses to size were least consistent across graphic forms Canter, Gilchrist, Biller and Roberts, in Canter. Psvcholoqy and bui11 environment , 1974 A living room shown with 2 presentations, 4 focus elements, 3 seating direction and 2 seating spacing conditions 4 activity suitability measures 7?? 10-point Linert type scale MANOVA analysis indicated furniture arrangement and presentation technique affects satisfaction with the living room Hall, Purcell, Thorne and Be teal fe, Environment and Behavior. 1976 11 building foyers 6 descriptors 35 students 10-point siuilarity scale MDSCAL analysis resulted in 3—dimensional solution accounting for 85X cf total variance Hendrick, Spencer, Flynn and Martyniuk, Env ironnent and Behavior. 1977 Interior of one room with 6 different lighting conditions viewed through slides and real 34 semantic differential scales and one overall similarity rating 185 students foe seuantic differential and 45 for similarity 7-point seuantic differential and 11-point siuilarity Factor analysis indicated 5 congruent factors but BOSCAL and INDSCAL did not replicate the real room results Fe n k e r, Proceedings af EDRA IX Conference. 1978 40 spaces during use 24 bipolar descriptors 34 students 7-point seuantic differential scale Regression (R*=.54 and .75), factor(4 accounted for 56% of variance), canonical and discriminant analysis gave accessible and public dimensions 96 I t i s perhaps surprising to find that only seven studies (see Table 3.3) considered the i n s i d e of the building; most of these were intended toward d i f f e r e n t methodological implications, rather than adequacy of representation. Three studies reported that their major concern was the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of verbal judqements about a b u i l d i n g . The findings of these studies suggest that verbal judgements can predict behavioural phenomena such as the amount of time spent inside the building and the u s a b i l i t y of the-building but the findings also indicate that verbal judgements might introduce l i n g u i s t i c biases. Two studies explored differences between v i s i t o r s ' (architecture and art students) and users* (factory workers and sub-way riders) responses to verbally described building q u a l i t i e s . They found that the important quality to the v i s i t o r s was the unity-function aspect and for the users, pleasantness. Howard et al.(197 2) indicated that responses to the actual environment and to colour s l i d e s of the environment were consistent but a f f e c t i v e responses to s l i d e s (but not to actual places) depended upon f a m i l i a r i t y with the building. Of 23 studies (see Table 3.4) which considered the facades of architecture, six were primarily devoted towards determininq differences between various representational techniques. The findings of a l l six studies indicate that the colour s l i d e s and colour photographs generally give the responses most s i m i l a r to the actual building. A multiple set of colour s l i d e s of the table 3.-3. 5tadi£a conducted l2JE peceptual aspects at ifltgliotg Ai 1&9 &9i,m",9 flSfllg Deference E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number c f measures Observer t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s V e i l h a u e r , U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , 1965 I n t e r i o r of u b u i l d i n g s i n use 66 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s s e l e c t e d from 193 ( s o u r c e : i n t e r i o r d e s i g n j o u r n a l s ) S t u d e n t s , n o n - s t u d e n t s , t e s t - r e t e s t f o r soae s t u d e n t s : 250 s a l e s , and 250 f e m a l e s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e S e p a r a t e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r each b u i l d i n g i n d i c a t e d 5-7 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t i n g f o r 72-8OX of t o t a l v a r i a n c e C o l l i n s , U n p u b l i s l e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , 1970 I n t e r i o r s of 3 l i b r a r y b u i l d i n g s d u r i n g use 198 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s ( s o u r c e : s t u d e n t s of a r c h i t e c t u r e and p s y c h o l o g y , and a r c h i t e c t s ) 228 s t u d e n t s 9 - p o i n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s c a l e 10 f a c t o r s accounted f o r U4S of t o t a l v a r i a n c e and p r e d i e t o r - c r i t e r i c n i n t e r a c t i o n y i e l d e d v a l i d i t i e s i n .80's and c r o s s v a l i d i t i e s i n the lo w e r .20 's G a r l i n g , 1970 { i n K u l l e r , 1972) F a c t o r y shop, 100sx20m and 15m h i g h 27 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s MO a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s and 30 f a c t o r y w o r k e r s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e S e p a r a t e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r each group i n d i c a t e d s t u d e n t s ' major c o n c e r n w i t h u n i t y - f u n c t i c n and w o r k e r s ' c o n c e r n about p l e a s a n t n e s s ; e x p l a i n e d variaace=6U X Howard, N i l y n a r s k i and Sauer P r o c e e d i n g s of EDRA I I I C o n f e r e n c e . 1972 u b u i l d i n g s ( w i t h 6 i n t e r i o r s p a ces i n each) w i t h a c t u a l s p a c e s , c o l o u r s l i d e s and BW s l i d e s 28 of Osgood's s e m a n t i c d e s c r i p t o r s 59 s t u d e n t s f o r r e a l , and 16 s t u d e n t s f o r c o l o u r and BU s l i d e s 7 - p o i n t senan t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r each b u i l d i n g and each e x p . c o n d i t i o n i n d i c a t e d s l i d e s i n d u c e d a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s o t h e r w i s e g e n e r a l agreement between exp. C o n d i t i o n s K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g Besearch D12-1972 9 underground sub-way s t a t i o n s 5 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 17 a r t s and c r a f t s s t u d e n t s and 30 s t a t i o n u s e r s per s t a t i o n 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e One-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and i n t e r g r o u p c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d the d e s i g n group agree w e l l w i t h t h e judgements of the g e n e r a l group C a n t e r , £t°St;edings of A r c h i t e c t u r a l P s y c h o l o g y I l l CCNPERENCE, 1973 28 s c h o o l b u i l d i n g s w i t h i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r c o n d i t i o n s 5 p h y s i c a l elements u s i n g s e v e r a l c o n s t r u c t s about the s c h c e l b u i l d i n g s 510 s c h o o l t e a c h e r s from a l l l e v e l s 7 - p o i n t s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r each c o n s t r u c t s e p a r a t e l y i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t he elements was more more dominant th a n d i f f e n t i a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t s S t a r r and Danford, Proceed i n g s o f EDRA IX C o n f e r e n c e . 1978 One p e r c e i v e d and imagined environment 8 d e s c r i p t i v e and 6 a f f e c t i v e d e s c r i p t o r s 20 s t u d e n t s f o r each exp. C o n d i t i o n 5-poin t u n i p o l a r and 5 - p o i n t f o r c e d c h o i c e t y p e s of s c a l e One-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and comparison of means i n d i c a t e d one p a t t e r n of a f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s and s u g g e s t e d p o s s i b l e v e r t a l b i a s e s Table j - i Studies conducted foe perceptual agpms fil Ju iM&JU £jk£&$a* Ref e ronce E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number c f measures Observer t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s P e t e r s o n . J o u r n a l o f R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e . 1967 23 c o l o u r s l i d e s o f f a c a d e s and l a n d s c a p e d s c e n c e s 10 v e r b a l measures 140 o b s e r v e r s 5 - p o i n t s c a l e M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i c n and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d p r e f e r e n c e r e l a t e d t o p r o x i m i t y t o n a t u r e and age w i t h B*=-79 C a n t e r , Environment and ji e h a v i g j c , 1969 2 BW s l i d e s f o r each of 20 s t u d e n t s ' p r o j e c t s 45 b i p c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 30 a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s 7 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t e d f o r 62X of t o t a l v a r i a n c e H e r s h b e r g e r , P r o c e e d i n g s of EDRA J C o n f e r e n c e . 1970 E x t e r i o r s of 25 b u i l d i n g s viewed through c o l o u r s l i d e s 30 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 26 each o f the f i n a l year a r c h i t e c t u r e , [ re-a r c h i t e c t u r e and n c n - a r c h i t e c t u r e s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e S e p a r a t e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r each group i n d i c a t e d 3 f a c t o r s f o r each grcup w i t h a r c h i t e c t s d i f f e r i n g on p l e a s u r e f a c t o r P y r c n , En vironment and B e h a v i o r , 1971 and 1972 4 house form and 4 s p a c i n g c o n d i t i o n s shown th r o u g h BH f i l m 20 b i p c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s and i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t o f e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n 120 r e s i d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e showed t h a t v i s u a l s e a r c h b e h a v i o u r was f u n c t i o n x c f e n v i r o n m e n t a l u n c e r t a i n t y C a n t e r and Thorne, E n v i ronment and Be h a v i o r T 197 2 16 s l i d e s of f a c a d e s of S c o t t i s h and A u s t r a l i a n houses 10 f r i e n d l i n e s s -r e l a t e d d e s c r i p t o r s 34 Glasgow and 58 Sydney s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e The d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s p o n s e t o each s l i d e was found t o be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c e n t t r e n d s i n house d e s i g n i n the two c o u n t r i e s K u l l e r , n a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g Besearch D12:1972 R e s i d e n t i a l development b u i l t i n 1 9 5 B , e x t e r i o r of the b u i l d i n g s 78 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 50 h i g h s c h o o l p u p i l s 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e 4 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t e d f o r 48S of. t o t a l v a r i a n c e Seaton and C o l l i n s . P r o c e e d i n g s of £DR A I I I C o n f e r e n c e . 1972 4 b u i l d i n g f a c a d e s r e p r e s e n t e d i n 4 ways from each of 2 p o s i t i o n s 5 v e r b a l measures 600 v i s i t o r s o r 38 o b s e r v e r s f o r each e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n 7 - p o i n t s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the r e l a t i v e mean v a l u e s between d i f f e r e n t b u i 1 d i n g s Wood, U n p u b l i s h e d B. A r c h i t e c t u r e t h e s i s , 1972 E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n w i t h 5 b u i l d i n g s , 6 media c o n d i t i o n s 7 v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i v e measures and s a p p i n g 207 s t u d e n t s 100-point anchored s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h e best r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g i s a sequence of c o l o u r s l i d e s Table 3-4 Studies conducted IfiX perceptual aspects fi£ >"itl4ing ( c o n t i n u e d ) Be fe cence Environmental condition Number cf measures Observer types Bating methods s t a t i s t i c a l results Brodin, rU^tili'^JiJU^ ai A rch i tec t ura 1 i s ^ s h s i s a j i III SSailBENCE, 1973 Exterior of 25 suburban houses, flats and town center environments 29 verbal measures 212 residents of the thr«e types of env iron meat 7-point scale Correlaticn between enclosure and evaluation aud within flats was .79; within suburban houses was .29 and within town center was -.43 Sanoff, Proceedings of EDBA IV~ Conference. 197 3 12 houses shown through photographs Sorting for similarity, ranking and other attitudinal measures 153 high school students Bank-order ing method Content analysis cf the sorting technique revealed descriptive and affective categories as well as hierarchical preference patterns Acking, National Swedish Building. BesearchT D7:J922 2 housings projects in plans, slides, perspective drawings and aodels 8 unipolar descriptors Groups of 20 users, each group viewed different experimental conditions 7-point Likert ty^ ie scale Analysis indicated plan, perspective and white model differed; while colour film and colour model gave similar responses to actual environ oent Canter, Ceci l io, Hohles and Watts, in Canter. Psychology and built environment, 197U 19 colour slides iescribing urban exteriors 10 bipolar descriptors phrased in different 1anguages Architecture and non-architecture students from Germany (44, 33) , England (29, 20) and Spain (23, 20) 7-point semantic dirf ecential sea le Intergroup comparison indicated agreement between groups with correlaticn coefficients greater than .34 but some words translation may not be acceptable Hershberger and Cass, froceedinqs of EDRA V Conference. 1974 DU film, colour film and video for 12 proto-typical housing units 30 bipolar descri ptors 120 students 7-point semantic differential scale Separate analysis of variance for each scale and environment indicated good agreement between media and building with correlation coefficient qreater than .72 Hershberger and Cass, Proceedings °f EDRA V Con.Ier.ence, 1974 12 exteriors of commercial and institutional buildings 30 bipolar descriptors 27 pre-architecture students 7-point semantic differential scale 8 major factors emerged with similar factor structures for a l l buildings Sanoff, in Lanii [eds) , pesigning for human behaviour, 1974~ Exteriors of 4 housing projects displayed through photographic means 26 bipolar descriptors 30 architecture and 30 planning students seuantic differential scale Factor analysis indicated 4 factors and explained 64X of total variance with considerable agreement between groups Shafer and Bichards, in Canter Jedsl, P^jchfilogjf jnd fcuili environment. 1974 8 scenes viewed as real and through colour photographs and slides 27 bipolar adjective descriptors lotal of 100 students of whom 29 viewed actual scence, 4 1 viewed colour slide and 30 viewed colour photos 7-point seuan t ic differential scale Factor analysis indicated 3-8 factors for each scene explained average of 751 of total variance o - Table 3.-9. Stodios COB d acted l9£ perceptual aspects a l building, Ccon+i nued) Beference [environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Berlyne, Proceedings of IMA 111' Conference. 1976 20 slides of exteriors }£ buildings from variety of cultures 13 bipolar, paired similarity and preference measures 16 architecture students and 30 non-architecture students 7-point scale for all ratings INDSCAL analysis resulted in 3 to 8 dimensions and explained about 85X of total variance Friedberg and Vhiddon, Proceedings of EDRA VII Conference. 1976 10 abstract sculptures selected from pool of 30 20 bipolar descriptors from Hershberger (1972) 29 mathematics, 22 pre-design and 18 design students 7-point semantic differential scale Analysis of variance for group and sculpture indicated a high degree of agreement between groups when evaluating sculptures Garling, Environment and Behavior, 1976 2i» slides showing detached houses, flats and city center areas 9 bipolar descriptors 20 for semantic differential, 12 for similarity and 8 for sorting study 7-point semantic differential, 10-point for similarity and ranking for sortinq Factor, multidimensional and cluster analysis revealed sinilar evaluation of envircnaent by differing measuring techniques Garling, Scandinav ian Jgurnal of Psvcholoqy. 1976 2t slides showing detached houses, flats and city center areas 2« bipolar descriptors 12 semantic differential and 10 siailarity study 7-point verbal scale and 10-point similarity measure 8 verbal factors accounted for 94* and 2 dimensions in siailarity rating explained 88X of total variance Uerzoq, Kaplan and Kaplan, Envi ronment and Behavior, 1976 86 environments shown through slides(7«), labels (22) and verbal descri ption (25) Familarity, preference and complexity descriptions 121 students 5-point rating scale Smallest space analysis indicated 5 dimensional solution but representational condition did not change preference pattern Horayangkura, Environment and BehaviorT 1978 35 exteriors of residential environment shown through BW photograph 21 verbal and sorting approach 25 respondents for eacn cf verbal and sorting tasks 11-point seiaan tic differential ratings MDSCAL and factor analysis revealed similar dimensions and explained about 60X of total variance Oostendorp, HcMaster, Bosen and Waind, Int. CSI-ifw o| a£pl_ier} psychology. 1970 12 entrances to buildings 1 similarity, 5 descriptive, 13 technical and 28 bipolar measures 40 students total for » separate studies 7-^oint scale III DSC AL and factor analysis indicated 3 similar dimensions accounting for 90S cf total variance 101 building has been recommended as one of the useful technigue f o r representation of the building facades (Wood, 1972 and Hershberger and Cass, 1974). Although differences between graphic techniques such as perspective drawinqs, plans and the actual buildinq e x i s t , the exact maqnitude and direction of the differences i s unclear. The findinqs of these studies indicated that observers can d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the various buildinqs; i f d i f f e r i n q representational techniques are used, observers often f a i l to discriminate between techniques. Studies reported by Wood (1972) and Seaton and C o l l i n s (1972) that there miqht be a p o s s i b i l i t y of a joint impact of representation and buildinq facades. Other studies did not report such an impact but t h e i r r e s u l t s suqqest certain representations miqht be useful for cert a i n types of environments. The remainder of the 23 studies focused mainly on differences between buildinq facades, observer differences i n terms of education or socio-demoqraphics, and differences between ratinq and ranking techniques. The findinqs of the majority which focused on differences between buildinq facades indicate that most oberver qroups can d i f f e r e n t i a t e between exteriors of the buildinqs. I f t h i s i s true, one should be able to c l a s s i f y various facades but such attempts have not been riqourous enough to give unified categories. Building purposes 102 such as c u l t u r a l , commercial and educational, appear to be one prominent notion. One might expect the existence of some rel a t i o n s h i p between these purposive aspects of the buildings and the q u a l i t i e s discussed in the previous chapter. Berlyne and Oostendorp et a l . are the only researchers who have exploited the idea of formulating relationships between facade q u a l i t i e s and physical attributes of the buildinq. The studies comparinq the differences between architects and non-architects in v i s u a l i z i n q buildinq facades qive contradictory r e s u l t s . Hershberqer indicated that ratinqs of architects and non-architects d i f f e r only i n terms of their qeneral evaluative nature and Kaplan suqqested that architects observe buildinqs i n more d e t a i l . Friedberg and Whiddon suggest that there might not be any differences between architects and non-architects. The c r o s s - c u l t u r a l p r e f e r e n t i a l differences f o r building exteriors i s another promising area of study but Canter and Thorne, Brodin, Sanoff, Horayankura and Canter et a l . have not made any definitve statements about such differences. The findings suggest two ideas: observers prefer the environments with which they are f a m i l i a r , or they prefer the environment to which a pa r t i c u l a r culture attributes higher status value. The studies which employed measuring techniques such as 103 ranking, rating and sorting, applied to the set of building facades, have given congruent r e s u l t s with each other- The verbal as well as graphic rating approaches also have given similar r e s u l t s . There were 10 studies (see Table 3.5) which p a r t i c u l a r l y focused on landscape and scenic q u a l i t i e s of the environment. Even though most studies tested 15 or more environments, methodological advances in t h i s area are r e l a t i v e l y smaller than those discussed for the facades of architecture. Scenic quality studies have used either photography or the actual environment or both. Comparisons indicate about 80% agreement between actual environments and th e i r representations. There were f i v e studies which attempted to establish i n t e r - p r o f e s s i o n a l group agreements; most studies have concluded that there i s about 60% or better agreement between d i f f e r e n t professional groups. Zube et a l . also attempted to establish inter-measure (ranking, rating, sorting) agreement and found 85% or better agreement between semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t i n g , rank ordering and Q-sorting. There were three studies which focused on q u a l i t i e s of streets (see Table 3.6) and three studies which focused a t the scale of whole c i t y (see Table 3.7). Despite the change of scale, t h e i r findings seems to be congruent with the r e s t of the studies. t a b l e j - 5 ^todies conducted £oi perceptual aspect,a, stl tlBdsca P t «,q B e f e r e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number of measures Observer t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s A c k i n q and S o c t e , 1969 ( i n K u l l e r , 1972) 15 photographs d e s c r i b i n g l a n d s c a p e d environment 11 v e r b a l d e s c r i p t c r s f o r j c o m p o s i t e c o m p l e x i t y , p r i mot d i a l - n a t u r a l and u n i t y a s p e c t s 43 h i g h s c h o o l p u p i l s 7 - p o i n t v e r b a l s c a l e s 3 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t e d f o r SOX of t h e v a r i a n c e w i t h i n t h e means f o r 15 p h o t o g r a p h s ' S o n n e n f e l d , Bei3iifl£"^969~ 55 s l i d e s d e p i c t i n g seasons and weather c o n d i t i o n s 25 p h y s i c a l c o n c e p t s H i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s from Barrow ( 9 2 ) , w a i n w r i g h t ( 14) , and Anaktuvuk p a s s , A l a s k a (19) and Newark, N.J. (86) 5 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t p e r s o n a l i t ] v a r i a b l e s say be an i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e of w i t h i n group d i f f e r e n c e s , and a s o u r c e of b e h a v i o u r a l v a r i a t i o n i n environment C a l v i n , E e a r i n g e r , and C u r t i n , Environment and B e h a v i o r . 1972 15 l a n d s c a p e views shown through s l i d e s 21 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 139 s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d 3 f a c t o r s d e r i v e d from means o f t i e r e s p o n s e s t o l a n d s c a p e views accounted f o r 90% o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e C r a i k , i n K t u t i l l a , N a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t s , 1972 50 l a n d s c a p e scaoces Landscape r a t i n g s c a l e , g r a p h i c s o r t i n g and a e s t h e t i c s c a l e 286 o b s e r v e r s w i t h v a r y i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l background 7 - p o i n t s c a l e A n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d p a n o r a m i c , f o c a l and c o l o u r f u l views g e n e r a t e d a e s t h e t i c a p p e a l w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t cf .36 and .34 K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g Besearch D12:1972 9 l a n d s c a p e s l i d e s 4 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s S t u d e n t s from a r c h , r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s from d i f f e r e n t S c a n d i n a v i a n c i t i e s (N-18 t o 43) and 15 housewives 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e One-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and i n t e r g r o u p c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e s i m i l a r i t y between the d i f f e r e n t groups K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish E u i l d i n q B e search D U : 1972 15 s l i d e s of l a n d s c a p e d environment 8 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 4 1 h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s and 27 a r c h i t e c t s 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t t y p e s c a l e A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and i n t e r g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n s i n d i c a t e d s i a i l a r r e s u l t s between groups w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n between groups g r e a t e r than .6 e x c e p t f o r p l e a s a n t n e s s (t=.34} Zube, Landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e , 197 3 18 s l i d e s of r e a l l a n d s c a p e and 9 s l i d e s of d rawings of landscape 14 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s D e s i g n e r s , managers, d e s i g n s t u d e n t s , management s t u d e n t s and o t h e r s w i t h t o t a l o f 1u5 7 - p o i n t s e a a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e A n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d r e s p o n s e s to d rawings d i f f e r e d but good agreement between groups w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e t s g r e a t e r than .49 Zube, Env iconaent and B e h a v i o r . 1974 4 l a n d s c a p e s e c t i o n s shown through a e r i a l p hotographs and t o p o . naps 25 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 30 d e s i g n e r s , 30 r e s o u r c e managers and 30 s e c r e t a r i a l w o r k e r s 7 - p o i n t s e u a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s and i n t e r g r o u p compacisoa i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e agreement between e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e s i g n e r s and and managers was h i g h 10 O f a b l e i -5 S t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d f o j ; p e r c e p t u a l a s p e c t s o J l a n d s c a p i n g CcontmiKd) flef e rence E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number c f measures O b s e r v e r t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s Zube, F i t t and Anderson, i n Zube, l a n d s c a p e 4JS£Ssmei!is , 1975 56 views, a c t u a l s i t e s and p h o t o g r a p h s IB b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 121 f i e l d and 184 non f i e l d s t u d y samples w i t h d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l backgrounds 5 - p o i n t s e u a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l , l a n d s c a p e c h e c k l i s t , rank o r d e c and Or s o r t I n t e r group and i n t e r measure c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d g e n e r a l agreement between g r o u p s and measures Palmer, Bobinson and Thomas, ES-YiEQSSeHi and p l a n n i n g . 1977 34 c o u n t r y s i d e l o c a t i o n s 35 v e r b a l measures 60 s t r e e t o b s e r v e r s i n t e r v i e w e d 7 - p o i n t s e u a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n f i r s t o r d e r e x p l a i n e d 75X o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e and 60X c f s e c c n d o r d e r Table j.£ Studies conducted fo_£ m t v r t H i iSPWifi ft* ffUgtyg B e f e r e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number o f m e a s u r e s O b s e r v e r t y p e s B a t i n g m e t h o d s S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s W i n k e l , B a l e k a n d T h i e l , P r o c e e d i n g s . 2 1 EDRA i C c n f e r e n c e . 1 9 7 0 10 s t r e e t r o u t e s ; s l i d e s r e t o u c h e d t o show <i a l t e r n a t e c o n d i t i o n s o f r o a d s i d e s i g n i n g 65 b i p c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s i U g r o u p s f o r m e d b y ma l e a n d f e m a l e , s t u d e n t s a n d n o n - s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e F a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n g a v e s i m i l a r f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e C u n n i n g h a m , C a r t e r , B e e s e a n d K e b b , P r o c e e d i n g s 2 1 EDRA I V C o n f e r e n c e , 1973 BH v i d e o o f p h o t o m o n t a g e s c a l e m o d e l , a n d s u p e r 0mm c o l o u r a n d BU v i d e o o f s t r e e t s c a p e M e c h a n i c a l r e c o r d e r f o r v i s u a l e x c i t e m e n t a n d 12 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s D e s i g n s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y a n d n o n - d e s i g a e c s 7 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e C o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n means i n d i c a t e s i m i l a r r e s p o n s e s t o v a r i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ; d e s i g n e r s a n d n o n - d e s i g n e r s h a v e d i f f e r e n t " i n t e r e s t p e a k s " S i m s , K o c b e l , C o h e o a n d S i e g a l l , P r o c e e d i n g s o f 1 D B A ~ J X C o n f e r e n c e , 1978 <t s t r e e t s w i t h 2 c o n d i t i o n s o f s i g n s s h o w n t h r o u g h l i n e d r a v i u g s l i d e s 21 d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e s , 35 a c t i v i t y c h e c k l i s t a n d 6 b e h . P r e f e r e n c e s 260 s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s c a l e s A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t 2 c o n d i t i o n s o f s i g n s d i d n o t i m p r o v e a p p e a r e o c e labia 2-1 Studies conducted i s f perceptual »SWPt§ fl£ i t i l S i Q U R e f e r e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number c f measures O b s e r v e r t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s J a c k s o n and J o h n s t o n , Envi ronment and • p l a n n i n g , 1972 Home town ( C h r i s t c h u r c h ) and 2 each o f d e s i r a b l e and u n d e s i r a b l e l o c a t i o n s 38 v e r b a l measures H i g h s c h o o l and u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s 7 - p o i n t s c a l e l u f a c t o r a n a l y t i c components a c c o u n t e d f o r 67% of t o t a l v a r i a n c e f o r C h r i s t c h u r c h b u t f a c t o r s f o r o t h e r p l a c e s were u n s t a b l e Lowenthal and B i e l , Envi£gnment and B e h a v i o r . 1972 P e r c e i v e d and imagined c i t y 25 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 300 o b s e r v e r s from B o s t e n , Cambridge, Hen York and Columbus (Ohio) a r e a s ; d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l b ackgrounds S-^point s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e Both e n v i r o n m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e and v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s r e v e a l mental s t r u c t u r e i n v o l v i n g c l u s t e r s of a t t r i b u t e s t h a t seem t o shape c u r view of the world H a n s v i k , P r o c e e d i n g s o f EDBJ IX C o n f e r e n c e . 1*>78 5 Canadian c i t i e s as p e r c e i v e d by o b s e r v e r s l i v i n g i n one of the f i v e c i t i e s 25 b i c c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 503 r e g u l a r and e x t e n s i o n s t u d e n t s 6 - p o i n t v e r b a l sea i e C l u s t e r , f a c t o r and d i s c r i a i n a n t a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d images of c i t i e s d i f f e r e d and e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n d i c a t o r s d i d not c o r r e s p o n d d i r e c t l y t o urban i i a g e s Table J.£ Studies con docked J t i i h combined, jewelfl at cnvtrgBr'Sqt Ref e renco Environmental condition Number cf measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Craik, in Zube ltds) , Landscape assessments. 1975 Marin site (large landscaped area) 101 adjectives . Sample of 187 drivers Adjective checklist (binary responses) Cluster analysis demonstrated 4 word clusters accounted for 62% of total variance Betak, Brumaell and Swinqle, Proceedings of ED HA V Conference. Outside and inside walking tour of the building Free recall over plan drawings and 34 bipolar descriptors 67 students 7-point eating scale Factor analysis gave 9 factors accounting for 6el of total variance and 80S analysis gave 2 dimensional solution Danford and Willeas, Envircnment and Behavior. 1975 Guided walk, informed with visual, informed and naive simulation for one enciLansent 16 affective and 16 descriptive adjectives 160 students for each experimental condition 5-^oint eating scale Comparison between experimental groups indicted an unprecedented degree of agreement for both descriptive and affective responses 109 There were another three studies (see Table 3.8) # which seem to overlap between the categories that were discussed above and must be mentioned separately. Craik studied a large urban area, Betak et a l - and Danford and Willems used one building and asked observers to walk inside and outside the same building. Danford and Willems have raised doubts about subjective responses, since they found that the responses to the actual environment, colour s l i d e s with verbal description, colour s l i d e s and verbal description were s i m i l a r . This suggests that representations of the enviroment might i n themselves be powerful enough to generate a complete image of the environment or that such methods convey on p a r t i c u l a r environments, but do not discriminate among data c o l l e c t i o n methods. I f these findings are true, one must use a very c a r e f u l l y designed instrument, to detect differences between the representations. Lastly, there were another 13 studies (see Table 3.9) which attempted to sample environments f o r t h e i r studies. Kaplan and co-workers used man-made and natural categories tc c l a s s i f y various environments f o r sampling purposes whereas Russell and Mehrabian have used pleasure-arousal-dominance dimensions. The remaining authors seem to have selected environments without much t h e o r e t i c a l reasoning. The findings frcm these 13 studies also appear congruent with the other studies discussed. From t h i s overview, i t i s clea r that there have been many Tat>lQ j-2 Studies sa^ 4"fftie«H 6<»PfUfH Ixflfi 9 m l SS «)»,7itMHHH Bef e rence E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n Number of measures Observer t y p e s B a t i n g methods S t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s K a p l a n , Kaplan and Wendt, P e r c e p t i o n and P s v c b o p h y s i c s , "1972 56 e n v i r o n m e n t s : 20 man-made and 28 n a t u r a l c a t e g o r i e s P r e f e r e n c e , c o m p l e x i t y and e x c i t e m e n t - i n t r i g u e measures 88 s t u d e n t s 5 - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e S m a l l e s t space a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d n a t u r a l s c e n e s p r e f e r r e d ; complex n a t u r a l s c e n e s p r e f e r r e d over o t h e c n a t u r a l s cenes K u l l e r , N a t i o n a l Swedish B u i l d i n g B e search 012:1972 8 e x t e r i o r s and 7 i n t e r i o r s of b u i l d i n g s 66 u n i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 56 s e l e c t e d by a d v e r t i s i n g i n newspaper 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t type s c a l e 8 f a c t o r s e x p l a i n e d 97% of v a r i a n c e w i t h i n t he means f o r 15 b u i l d i n g c o n d i t i o n s K a p l a n , Proceed i n g s s f £DRA IV C o n f e r e n c e . 1973 60 s l i d e s of o u t d o o r s , h a l f o f which were drawing and r e m a i n d e r p h o t o g r a p h i c M y s t e r y , p r e f e r e n c e and coherence measures 38 a r c h i t e c t u r e , 30 landscape and 39 p s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n t s 5 - p o i n t e a t i n g s c a l e Coherence and mystery were found t o be r e l a t i v e l y i n d e p e n d e n t of each o t h e r and each was s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r ( r 2 g r e a t e r than .65) of p r e f e r e n c e L e f t , Gordon and F e r g u s o n , JsSy. i r o n Be nt and Be h a v i o r T 1971 C o l o u r s l i d e s of e x t e r i o r e n v i r o n m e n t s and room i n t e r i o r s v i e w i n g from v a r i o u s approaches P l e a s a n t n e s s , c o m p l e x i t y , c o n c e n t r a t i o n , i n t e r e s t and 23 o t h e r b i p c l a r d e s c r i p t o r s T o t a l o f 650 s u b j e c t s f o r a l l e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h range of 13 t o 211 observe r s 7 - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e The s e t t o v i e * a scene as an a b s t r a c t c o l l e c t i o n o f shapes, l i n e s and t e x t u r e s i n c r e a s e d judged c o m p l e x i t y Mehrabian and B u s s e l l , j n /Jn approach t o Envi rpninenta,! P s y c h o l o g y . 197U 10 v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b e d s i t u a t i o n s 28 b i p o l a r desc r i p t o r s r e l a t i n g to p l e a s u r e , a r o u s a l and dominance 131 s t u d e n t s 9 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e 3 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t e d f o r 60S o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e Mehrabian and B u s s e l l , 9p. c i t . , 197U to v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b e d s i t u a t i o n s 23 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 163 s t u d e n t s 9 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e 3 f a c t o r s a c c o u n t e d f o r 61% o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e Mehrabian and B u s s e l l , op. c i t . , 1974 DO v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b e d s i t u a t i o n s 18 b i p o l a r d e s c r i p t o r s 211 s t u d e n t s 9 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e 3 f a c t o r s ( p l e a s u r e , a r o u s a l and dominance) a c c o u n t e d f o r 64% of t o t a l v a r i a n c e Mehrabian and B u s s e l l , o£. c i t . , 197U <I0 v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b e d s i t u a t i o n s 66 b i p c l a r d e s c r i p t o r from V i e l h a u c r ' s (1965) st u d y 216 s t u d e n t s 9 - p o i n t s e m a n t i c s c a l e F a c t o r a n l y s i s i n d i c a t e d 9 f i r s t o r d e r f a c t o r s a c c o u n t e d f o r <*5% and 2 second o r d e r f a c t o r s f o r 6 1% o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e Table J-2 Studies conducted kl §3PPU»q iiOi a ES2l Oi 8BTiEg»,fBBtg Beference Environmental condition Number of measures Observer types Bating methods Statistical results Nehrabian and Bussell, Environment and » Behavior 1974 40 verbally described situations 21 bipolar descriptors referring to information content of situation 214 students 9-point seaantic scale 5 factors accounted for 60S of total variance, the information rate from a environment was correlated to arousal elicited by i t nehrabian and Bussell, Environment and. Behavior. 1970 21 settings shown through colour slides 21 bipolar descriptors referring to information content of situation 56 students 9-poiut seaantic differential scale Factor and regression analysis indicated "information rate" accounted for pleasure and arousal eliciting qualities of environment Hay and Basal la. Proceedings of EDRA VII Conference. 1976 Exterior of It public environments 22 bipolar descriptors and siai i a r i t y measure 65 residents for sia i i a r i t y and 20 for seaantic differential technique 3-point for siaii a r i t y and it-point foe seaantic differential MDSCAL and factor analysis gave 4 factors and accounted 85% of total varience ward, Journa_l of Hult ivar iate Behavioural Besearch. 1977 20 colour photographs of different exterior environments Sorting three components and siaiiarity aeasares 56 students Q-sort and 10-point siaii a r i t y •easure INDSCAL and MDSCAL analysis resulted in 5-dimensiona1 solution accounting for 78k cf total variance Bussell and Hehrabian, Environment and Behavior. 1978 90 colour slides selected from set of 320 with 3x3x2 levels of pleasure, arousal and dominance 5 approach-avoidance and 2 af f i l i a t e measuring items 200 students 8-point Likert type scale Analysis of variance indicated approach toward the setting was determined by pleasure and interaction effect of pleasure and arousal qualities of the setting Bussell and Mehrabian, Envi ronment and Behavior .~1978 90 colouc slides selected from set of 320 with balanced levels of pleasure, arousal and dominance 5 approach-avoidance and 2 af f i l i a t e measuring items 310 students 8-point Likert type scale Multiple regression analysis with 11*=.55 for approach and B2=.23 on aff i l i a t i o n measure 112 attempts to understand representation of environments and q u a l i t i e s related to environment. The essence i s made that although the general methodological approaches i n a l l 78 studies are d i s s i m i l a r but findings bear inte r e s t i n g methodological implications. 3.3. Purposes of the study. The overriding question that t h i s study must answer i s how well each of the representations convey each of the several a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions. In other words, one must e s t a b l i s h the ia£ootation gap between the actual building and each of i t s representations. Since the ultimate aim of the representation i s to describe the environment, one must know the adequacies as well as inadequacies of each of the various types of representation. In Chapter I, the notion of the information gap between the arc h i t e c t u r a l phenomenon and i t s representation was outlined; philosophical and p r a c t i c a l arguments were presented. Some empirical evidence suggests that such a gap may not exi s t . In pa r t i c u l a r , Lowenthal and E i e l , and Danford and Willems present 113 strong evidence to suggest t h i s . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to explain t h i s finding in l i g h t of the previous discussion. However, noting that i n d i v i d u a l observers d i f f e r in t h e i r perceptions of the buildings and that a variety of verbal rating techniques were used i n the reported studies, i t i s possible that building and observer differences might conceal, compensate or be ins e n s i t i v e to the "true" differences between various representational techniques. If the information gap between a building and i t s representation i n conveying di f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s of the environment can be established, then such an information gap can either be reduced by spending more time or money or both simultaneously i n preparing representations. The assigned purpose of this study i s to explicate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mone_y and time and the information gap between environment and i t s representation i n order to provide some objective basis for selecting any p a r t i c u l a r representation. Of course, one can discuss the information gap of an ar c h i t e c t u r a l representation i f , and only i f , q u a l i t i e s such as spaciousness and pleasantness of a building can be understood by obervers and they are able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s . Hence, i t might be useful to determine the extent to which obervers can comprehend the representations i n terms of £he q u a l i t a t i v e aspects. Furthermore, i f environmental 114 designers have a better comprehension of these concepts, they should be able to make fi n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s about the concepts than the layperson. The taxonomy i n Chapter 1, established a t h e o r e t i c a l basis for representations. I f categories such as i c o n i c , analogic and photographic can be shown useful, then t h i s research i s substantiated by providing further insights i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of representation. This study has a h o l i s t i c approach to study representations in terms of defined subjective verbal c r i t e r i a . To summarize, four purposes of the study are: 1. To e s t a b l i s h the information gap between the actual building and each of i t s representations on various architecture-related notions. 2. To explicate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between money and time required for representations and the information gap between environment and i t s representation. 3. To determine the extent to which observers can comprehend the representations i n terms of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions. 4. To derive a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of representation using notions related to architecture. 1,15 CHAPTER 4 THE EXPERIMENT. It i s said that a science w i l l dehumanise people and turn them into numbers. That i s f a l s e . , . . A science i s a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always f e e l forward for what i s to be hoped. Every judgement i n a science stands on the edge of errors, and i s personal. A science i s a tribu t e to what we know although we are f a l l i b l e . (Jacob Bronowski, 1973) To f u l f i l l the purposes of the study, an experiment with both laboratory and f i e l d phases was conducted. The laboratory phase consisted of preparing several a r c h i t e c t u r a l representations and pre-testing a questionnaire. The f i e l d experimental phase involved evaluation of representations by both users of the building and a r c h i t e c t s . This chapter outlines t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l considerations of the experimental setting that generated the f i n a l form of the study's methodology. 116 4.1. Selecting an appropriate a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e t t i n g . Every a r c h i t e c t u r a l setting i s unique by i t s character, ownership and use. How then to choose an a r c h i t e c t u r a l setting appropriate to the study? Three simple c r i t e r i a aided the elimination of a r c h i t e c t u r a l settings unsuitable to experimental purposes. If a building i s constructed only for economic consideration, then the setting may substantially lack a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s ; hence such a r c h i t e c t u r a l settings as u t i l i t y sheds, warehouses, bridges were considered unsuitable. Further, even i f some houses are architect-designed, i t was assumed that i t would be d i f f i c u l t to gather a variety of experimental observers at such a l o c a t i o n . Hence houses were excluded. If a building i s 10 or more years old, users and viewers of such a building may develop imagery and ideas about a building; such ideas would then perhaps dominate the impact on the observers of representations of such a building. Moreover, as a p r a c t i c a l matter, a r c h i t e c t u r a l drawings f o r older projects are d i f f i c u l t to obtain. Hence, buildings older than 10 years were not considered. 117 P r a c t i c a l considerations demanded that the study s i t e be either i n Vancouver or a maximum of 15 to 20 miles away from the c i t y with easy and reasonably priced public transportation to the building. Twenty a r c h i t e c t u r a l settings in Vancouver were chosen which s a t i s f i e d the above three c r i t e r i a - They were then v i s i t e d and rated by the researcher on a zero^to-ten scale as on the c r i t e r i a recorded i n Table 4.1. Size optimality: Since too large or too small an a r c h i t e c t u r a l setting places constraints on the choice of representation, large and small settings were rated low. Number of r e p e t i t i v e elements: High numbers of r e p e t i t i v e element, result i n representations which are more time-consuming and boring to prepare. Hence, settings with many r e p e t i t i v e elements were rated low. A c c e s s i b i l i t y • The buildings around downtown can be e a s i l y reached by various user groups. Hence buildings located around downtown areas were rated high and buildings i n outlying areas were rated low. Building constancy; Since one of the purposes of the study was to test for the hypothesized information gap between the actual building and i t s various representations, i d e a l l y both should remain unchanged throughout the study. Movable furniture and heavily landscaped grounds would reduce building constancy and US , Table H~X- Batinqs f o r sample environments Building name and location Angus Building, t h i r d f l o o r , study area, U.B.C. Campus 1 8 1 3 8 21 B i o l o g i c a l Sciences Building, courtyard, U.B.C. Campus 6 1 1 3 5 16 Buchanan Building, courtyard, U.B.C. Campus 2 0 1 0 2 5 Burrard medical Centre, lobby, Burrard Street 2 4 7 2 3 13 Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Building, plaza 1 3 7 5 2 13 Canadian National railway s t a t i o n , lobby area 4 3 6 8 2 23 Arthur Erickson's o f f i c e , Broadway Avenue 3 6 6 2 4 26 Fishery, Capilano Canyon 0 6 5 2 2 15 Forestry Building, courtyard, U.B.C. Campus 6 4 3 8 7 23 Four Seasons Hotel, lobby 4 3 2 3 3 15 Gaslight Square, Gastown 7 7 8 5 7 37 Harbour Centre, ground f l o o r lobby 7 2 8 7 8 3 2 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Resources Centre, lobby area, U.B.C. Campus 7 2 3 7 8 27 law Building extension, foyer, U.B.C. Campus 8 2 3 4 3 20 Marine Building, lobby, Downtown 2 4 6 6 2 20 Centre f o r Mentally Retarded, courtyard, U.B.C. Campus 6 2 4 1 6 17 Museum of Man, entrance area, U.B.C. Campus 2 6 3 3 13 Office b u i l d i n g , Hornby and Davie Streets, Downtown 2 7 5 2 3 19 Queen Elizabeth Park 0 8 5 0 0 13 Students' Union Building, conversation p i t , U.B.C. Campus 6 4 4 4 7 25 — .. _ 1 119 hence, buildings with heavily landscaped grounds and moveable furniture were rated low. Boundary d e f i n i t i o n : I f the physical boundaries of the buildings are well defined, then observers can e a s i l y i d e n t i f y a portion of the architecture, thus f a c i l i t a t i n g comparisons between the architecture and i t s several representations. Hence, physically well-defined architecture was rated high. It can be seen from the column of t o t a l s (Table 4. 1) that there i s no building which served perfectly on a l l fi v e c r i t e r i a . Hence, the f i r s t four most desirable buildings (buildings with high ratings) were ranked independently f o r o v e r a l l a c c e p t i b i l i t y by three other judges who had extensive knowledge of the study. Gaslight Square, 131 Water street, emerged unequivocally as the most desirable s i t e f o r the study. 4.2.. Selection of representations. The f i n a n c i a l constraints on the study made sel e c t i o n of the representations r e l a t i v e l y easy. Although computer graphics appears to be a promising technique, i n i t s present form i t suffers from high i n i t i a l cost. Furthermore, to represent 120 simultaneously both i n t e r i o r and exterior surfaces of the building, hidden-line removal algorithms become complex and exist i n g solutions for the algorithm are far from sa t i s f a c t o r y . F i n a l l y , the type of plotter available at the University of B. C. i s r e l a t i v e l y i n f e r i o r and angular l i n e s are often drawn jagged. Display techniques such as video and movies also have pot e n t i a l but i n i t i a l cost f o r equipment made th e i r use impossible. Holography i s another technique by which to display architecture but the technique i s s t i l l i n i t s infancy. By eliminating the mechanical and some of the chemical categories of instruments, the choice of medium was also reduced to only the discontinuous category (see fi g . 4 . 1 . ) . This means that the study had a wide choice cnly i n terms of concept-expression. According to h e u r i s t i c ideas presented, differences i n meaning between a one-point perspective and a two-point perspective would be substantially less than the differences between a sequence of perspective sketches and a plan drawing. This implies that the farther the two categories are from each other, the larger t h i s p o t e n t i a l difference i n meaning would appear. Accordingly, representations were chosen from broader categories. 12.1 -z. o to LO LU QT CL X LU i a UJ o z o o u x GL O O O X _ l o CD >-• — r j — [ D I S C U R S I V E [ -— I P R E S E N T A T I O N A L } -—f i—{DISCURSIVE t-—j P R E S E N T A T I O N A L ) -. — j j—j D I S C U R S I V E r-P R E S E N T A T I O N A L u o o < I—j D I S C U R S I V E \ -— | P R E S E N T A T I O N A L r-1—1 tH P I S C U R S I V E r -z o u _l I—I P R E S E N T A T I O N A L } -(J o o < r — \ D I S C U R S I V E | -f PRESENTATIONAL {-A C T U A L WORLD O F R E A L E V E N T S . /. ACTUAL BtO/LDMG. F U L L S I Z E M O C K - U P S , S T A G E S E T S . J O B T R A I N I N G , E D U C A T I O N R O L E P L A Y I N G , A C T I N G M O V I E S , V I D E O , C O M P U T E R G R A P H I C S COLOUR SLIDES. 3' B . l / V . PUoTO&fZAPHS. 16-PLANES 3- M O D E L S ] 4- FiRCHlrECTUKAL rOODSZ -)4/5-PLANEs) 1 1 - , 2 - , 3 - P O I N T P E R S P E C T I V E S ) —13- P L A N E S " 7. I S O M E T R I C , O B L I Q U E P R O J E C T . S C E N A R I O , S C O R E R P R O G R A M S , G A M E S P L A N S , B A R C H A R T S , M A P S , S E C T I O N S M U S I C , D A N C E HAND S I G N A L , G E S T U R E S , P I C T O G R A P H S , P A T T E R N 9. SPACe KELA-riOM VIPtSKA^ C O M P U T E R L A N G U A G E , W O R D S , N O T A T I O N A L S Y S T E M 1/3 C o 4J c , a w cu u a, u -fj u 0 r H . <D W « t Or. •n (J4 /0. r>ES<=fiZIPH-IOtJ COLOUR C O D I N G , L O G O G R A M S 122 4.3. Representations and t h e i r costs. There was only one representation from the isomorphic category, informal-iconic subcategory. "The actual building" from here onwards refers to the b u i l t structure at the time an observer viewed other representations. I n i t i a l l y i t was hoped that the actual building would be viewed from four di f f e r e n t positions but p r i n c i p a l l y due to lack of observers and ether operational problems, a l l obervers were asked to view the building from a single point. With respect to cost of the actual building as a representation, i t i s hard to put an exact price tag on the building, since i t was four years old at the time of the study. According to i t s project engineer, construction cost of the building was about $1.80 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n 1974-76 and construction time was about 14 months. Seven representations were selected from the homomorphic expression category. Only the colour s l i d e s belonged to the ic o n i c - d i s c u r s i v e subcategory. 18 s l i d e s were selected f o r non-redundancy from a set of 30 s l i d e s of the building, taken over a three month period. Some 10 hours of working time (about two and half hours per v i s i t ) were needed to take the 123 photographs. Approximate dark-room working time was about five hours. Transportation cost was $3 and camera rental charges were about $40. Material cost for the colour s l i d e s came to about $43. To prepare these s l i d e s ASA 64 Ektachrome and Agfachrome fi l m s and a Cannon AEI camera were used; the films were processed by the respective photographic dealers. Five iconic-presentational type concept-expressions were selected and four were formal. Black and white photograph representations consisted of f i v e photographs, selected f o r non-redundancy from a set of 20 photographs taken at one time. These photographs were taken by a Konica fixed-lense camera using Kodak Plus-X-Pan f i l m . The processed f i l m was then exposed on Ilfobrom IB4.1P glossy, single weight photographic paper. The siz e of each photograph was approximately 8"X10" and a l l f i v e photographs were mounted together on 20"X30" grey i l l u s t r a t i o n board. Four hours were required for photographing and 3 hours for processing and pr i n t i n g the photographs. The camera rental charges were be $5, rental charges for the darkroom were $8, and the photographic paper cost $2 for t o t a l of about $15 were needed. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l model belongs to the six-plane-planometric category. This represpentation was 124 prepared from i l l u s t r a t i o n board, paper, plexiglass, and balsawood at the scale of a guarter inch to a foot. The t o t a l cost of material required for the model was about $45; construction time was logged at about 250 man-hours. The isometric drawing also belongs to the planometric category but exhibits only three-planes. This representation was prepared on textured paper, drawn i n black-drawing ink and shaded with 2B pencil for contrast. The t o t a l material cost was be $3 and working time was about 22 hours. The perspective drawing exhibiting four planes, belongs to the sectional category. The two-point perspective was prepared on tracing paper, using perspective charts. The resulting drawing was blue printed on blue-line white background paper and then coloured using chalks. The cost of paper, chalk and other materials t o t a l l e d of about $4 and took about 15 hours of working. Due to time constraints, the i n i t a l outline f o r the perspective was prepared by the researcher and i t was then modified and coloured by another graduate student i n architecture. The sketch drawing was informal and was drawn on t r a c i n g paper, using a sketch pen. Although the sketch appeared s i m i l a r to the perspective drawing, the major difference was that the former was drawn without instruments. Two dol l a r s were spent 125 fo r materials and i t took about 3 hours to produce the sketch drawing. The plan and section belong to the analogic-presentational category and were drawn with p e n c i l on tracing paper using drafting equipment. The plan and section consisted of three drawings showing the ground floor plan and four major sections at a scale of an eighth of an inch to a foot. Neither dimensions nor material s p e c i f i c a t i o n s were included on the drawings. I t a took t o t a l of about 30 hours to redraw from the architect's o r i g i n a l plan and section, at a t o t a l cost of about $5 for materials used. Two of the representations were selected from the symbolic category. The content for a verbal description was decided by the researcher and was formalized by another graduate student i n the School of Community Planning at the University of B.C. i t consisted of a two page description of the building which was type-written i n double columns on 11"X15" paper. Typing costs t o t a l l e d about $2; and compositionc required t o t a l of H hours of work. The symbolic-iconic-discursive category created problems, since representations from t h i s category have primarily research value. Sound simulations or pedestrain movement simulations can be modelled by using general purpose computer simulation 126 languages but the size of the building would have made such representation meaningless. However, a space r e l a t i o n diagram possessed suitable symbolic character; i t belongs to the modern formal category. The space r e l a t i o n diagram consisted of a t y p i c a l "pattern" description with a vague notion about building design. I t took three hours of work and about $2 f o r the materials used. To summarize, most representations belonged to the homomorphic category and iconic subcategory. Although the representations were prepared p r i n c i p a l l y by the researcher, some additional help came from other students. Generally, instruments and media f o r representation were chosen for convenience, while the concept-expressions were varied systematically. The costs figures quoted were based on actual money spent for materials used and do not include such costs as o f f i c e maintenance, organisation and overhead. S i m i l a r l y , figures for preparation time time do not includ time for such a c t i v i t i e s as coffee breaks, talking with friends, thinking and conceptualising, but includes only actual production time. Table 4.2, summarizes the costs and time spent i n preparing representations. The additional column of remarks gives the ov e r a l l time frame and fixed costs f o r each of the representation. 127 Table 4.2. Time and Cost f o r 10 r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s Representation Tine O v e r a l l Cost Renarks about c o s t Actual b u i l d i n g - 14 months $1800000 Cost i n c l u d e s labour c o s t . A r c h i t e c t u r a l aodel 250 hrs 2 oonths J45 Hodel base, work t a b l e . Colour s l i d e Black and u n i t e photograph 15 4 h r s hr s 3 1 days day $40 $15 Camera, tele-photo and wide-angle lens, commercial processing. Camera, darkroom f a c i l i t y . P e r s p e c t i v e drawing Isometric drawing 15 22 hrs hrs 3 4 days days $4 $5 Per s p e c t i v e c h a r t s , blue p r i n t machine, d r a f t i n g equipment. D r a f t i n g equipment. Plan and s e c t i o n 30 hr s 7 days $5 D r a f t i n g equipment. Sketch drawing 3 hr s 1 day $2 — Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n 4 hr s 1 day $2 Typewriter Space r e l a t i o n diagram 3 hrs 1 day $2 128 4.4. Rating technique. Stevens(1974, p. 374) has presented empirical evidence to suggest that the choice of rating methods must be an important consideration i n psychological measurement. He argues. "It makes rather l i t t l e difference whether the subjects use numbers [1, 2, 3,...] or adjectives [extremely, very, somewhat,.. ]. The forms of the two category scales are s i m i l a r , because, whenever the subject i s asked to categorize, he i s forced to divide the continuum into parts or segments i n order to make i t conform to the li m i t e d , f i n i t e set of numbers or adjectives that he i s required to use. In other words, he i s obliged to attend to differences or distances". Within the same context, Anderson (1974, p. 284) has put forward f i v e p r a c t i c a l c r i t e r i a for psychological measurement and he emphasizes that any measurement technique must s a t i s f y these c r i t e r i a . His c r i t e r i a are. 1. I t [measurement technigue] should be testable. 2. I t should have been tested with some measure of success. 3. I t should apply to psychophysical stimuli[representation] with a physical metric. [OR] 4. I t should apply to verbal and symbolic s t i m u l i without a physical metric. 5. I t should apply to the singl e subject[observer]. Given the f a c t that representations are ultimately 129 evaluated by an observer, a l l f i v e c r i t e r i a are simple and self-explanatory. Discussions about ' t e s t a b i l i t y ' ( r e l i a b i l i t y , accuracy and v a l i d i t y ) and other rating methods are discussed by Anderson (1974) and Stevens (1975) . If one follows Stevens' admonition "[not to l i m i t ] the subject to a f i n i t e set of numbers", one might satisy a l l f i v e c r i t e r i a . Using Stevens* strategy to test for an "information gap", one must allow every observer to construct his or her own indi v i d u a l i z e d continuum f o r each quality by giving a s t a r t i n g point. In other words, the question might be phrased, " I f a perspective drawing conveys 100 units of spaciousness, then how much more or less i s spaciousness conveyed by the other techniques?" An appropriate approach might introduce higher i n t e r - i n d i v i d u a l differences but such person s p e c i f i c differences can be adjusted for by the mathematical techniques commonly used and suggested by Jones(1974) , Stevens(1966, 1S71) and Anderson (1 974) . 4.5. Experimental design. In Chapter 2, architecture was related to 24 notions of form, f i g u r e , texture, colour, scale and proportion, volume, length, shade and shadow, s p a t i a l excitement, f r i e n d l i n e s s , 130 s o l i d i t y , organisation, complexity, modernity, v e n t i l a t i o n , r i g i d i t y , spaciousness, pleasure, arousal, dominance, colourfulness, size, balance, and cle a n l i n e s s . Furthermore, for experimental purposes, the actual b u i l d i n g , colour s l i d e , black and white photograph, a r c h i t e c t u r a l model, perspective drawing, isometric drawing, sketch drawing, plan and section, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram were representation of Gaslight Square. There are 10 representations that need to be evaluated on 24 q u a l i t i e s related to architecture. To ask every observer 24 questions about each of 10 representation would r e s u l t i n 240 questions. Preliminary t r i a l s suggested that, on average, to answer one question using a free numerical response procedure requires about 25 seconds. Replying to 240 questions would require at least one and a half hour. Since the study intended asking these guestions buildiag users and they probably would not spend much more than 30 minutes, some experimental strategy to reduce response time had to be developed. One approach could have been to ask every observer to view a l l 10 representations but in terms of only one out of the 24 q u a l i t i e s . Such an experimental design would yi e l d the information gap across representations but would require 131 r e l a t i v e l y large observer groups to test a l l 24 q u a l i t i e s and would also qive only weak in d i c a t i o n about i n t e r - q u a l i t y differences. A second approach would have been to ask every observer questions pertaining to a l l .24 q u a l i t i e s but only one representation. Such an approach would generate relationships between q u a l i t i e s and a s t a t i s t i c a l basis for deriving an information gap between the environment and i t s representation. But any attempt to combine these two approaches would reduce the value of r e s u l t s . Since the major emphasis of the study i s on representation of the building, hence the relationship between q u a l i t i e s i s secondary. Accordingly, the experimental design included every observer's responses to a l l representations, but sampled among the 24 q u a l i t i e s . To sample six of the 24 q u a l i t i e s required an e f f e c t i v e completing time of about 20 to 30 minutes, which seemed reasonable of request to building users and other observer groups. To help decide which six q u a l i t i e s an observer should respond to, pseudo-random numbers (one to 24) were generated such that for a given sequence of 24 no number was repeated. Since each integer number i d e n t i f i e d one g u a l i t y , the f i r s t s i x numbers assigned randomly selected q u a l i t i e s to the f i r s t observer, the next six random q u a l i t i e s were assigned to the 132 second observer and so on. This process was repeated a f t e r four observers. In the terminalogy of experimental design, t h i s procedure resembles, " p a r t i a l l y balanced (qualities) incomplete blocks (obervers) with representation appearing i n a s p l i t - p l o t type arrangement". 4.6. Questionnaire design. The questionnaire used i n the study was s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to accommodate the experimental design i n the f i e l d setting. Its format grew over a period of four months and was f i n a l i s e d a f t e r two p i l o t studies. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: (1)general i n s t r u c t i o n s about the study, (2)the s p e c i f i c questions regarding a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s of the 10 representations and (3)biographical information about the observer. The general i n s t r u c t i o n s were further divided into three parts: (1) the o v e r a l l purpose and the s p e c i f i c s of the study, (2) a t r i a l session explainnation about the scoring technigue and (3) an actual "warm-up" t r i a l using f i v e l i n e s of varying length to explain the kind of assessment that the observer was expected 133 to produce. A l l these i n s t r u c t i o n s were reinforced i n a 2.75 minute tape recording, played while the observers read through the general i n s t r u c t i o n s . These tape recorded i n s t r u c t i o n s appear as Appendix I . The f i r s t p i l o t study indicated that even though the "length of l i n e s " question was appropriate for practice, i t did not encourage observers to think about t y p i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l concepts. For t h i s purpose, an opening question was devised to allow the observer to think about architecture i n terms of the representations. There were two considerations: the question must be related to the representations actual 10 and i t should i n v i t e immediate mumerical judgement- The guestion could have related to cost of displays or to time taken to complete the displays. It appeared that "time" units for displays e l i c i t sensible responses, so a further p r e - t r i a l guestion about time taken for production of the representation was introduced. Furthermore the descriptors r e f e r r i n g to physical dispositions such as colour, texture, shade and shadow, scale and proportion, volume, length, form and figure might be more e a s i l y understood than the remaining a f f e c t i v e descriptors; hence two of the physical q u a l i t i e s , chosen randomly, were used as a t r a n s i t i o n between the question of preparation time and the a f f e c t i v e questions. The experimental desiqn was modified such that pseudo-random numbers were generated, f i r s t eight for 134 physical descriptors and then 16 for a f f e c t i v e descriptors. Thus, two physical descriptors followed by four a f f e c t i v e descriptors were grouped for each observer. The same random selection procedure ensured that eight physical descriptors and 16 a f f e c t i v e descriptors were randomly d i s t r i b u t e d among a l l observers. A f i n a l question asked every oberver to assess the "general impression" as conveyed by each of the 10 representations. Each question consisted of a description of a guality, the subjective meaning of the assignment of a numerical value (100) to the f i r s t display, the task that the observer was expected to complete and a l i s t of the displays. Only for the question of time did a l l observers use a fixed order to view the representations; on a l l other occasions the questions f i r s t displayed and the order of displays within each question were varied using pseudo-random numbers from one to 10. Although each questionnaire appeared s t r u c t u r a l l y s i m i l a r , the i n t e r n a l question content and order of displays were unique. To qenerate the unique questionnaires, FOBTBAN and the text-processing (TEXTORE) computer programs were used. The purpose of the FORTRAN program was to generate random integers within the s p e c i f i e d l i m i t s defined above and, corresponding to each numerical value, to assign an appropriate key such that the key would c a l l forth a question through the text-processing 135 program. This program assisted in maintaining the dictionary for complete descriptions of each question and display. Xt also helped to set the format of the questionnaire and to generate a printed copy of the complete guestionnaire. For convenience, the complete description of each question had to be divided into two parts and these two parts were linked by the i d e n t i t y of the f i r s t display. For example, the f i r s t part (key <P1>) was "Consider the impression of Form: the form of a building i s the s p e c i f i c arrangment of features l i k e walls, r a i l i n g s , s k y l i g h t s , columns, doors etc. which gives Gaslight Square i t s unique appearance. If the" - the l a t t e r part (key <H1>) continued with the description - " i s given 100 points for conveying e f f e c t i v e l y t h i s impression of form of the Square, then HOW MUCH more or less e f f e c t i v e l y i s the form of the Sguare conveyed by the remaining items? Give the rig h t numbers of points to each one compared to the" Si m i l a r l y , key <S8> was associated with colour s l i d e s . When <P1>+<S8>+<H1>+<S8> are added together, the verbal format of the question can be accomplished. The d e t a i l s of the dictionary and computer program are given i n Appendices II and IV. The l a s t part of the questionnaire consisted of questions about biographical d e t a i l s and the observer's experience of the building. The purposes and detail s of the questions are given i n section 4.8. Each questionnaire consisted of 6 paqes, 7 l/2" 136 by 11" inches. This odd format was necessary because the computer paper available was 15"X11". 4.7. The experimental station. The experimental station was located inside Gaslight Square i n one of the street l e v e l shops. Figure 4.2 shows d e t a i l s of the arrangement that was put together for purposes of the experiment. The s t a t i o n was open almost every day between 11 am and 5 pm from 10 February to T A p r i l , 1978. The i n i t i a l intent of the study was to get about 200 obervers for each viewing position but i t appeared d i f f i c u l t enough to get obervers f o r one viewing position. Hence with 20 5 observers, the experiment was terminated. The experimental station consisted of an i n s t r u c t i o n and a display area. The i n s t r u c t i o n area was equipped with a tape recorder with loop-type cassette tape, speaker, tables, chairs and a refreshment f a c i l i t y . In the display area, representations were arranged i n the order shown in Figure 4. 2. Det a i l s of each display area are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figures 4.2 to 4.12. The operator f o r the study was someone whose f i r s t language CONCEPTUAL 3RCE CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION GUIDING FACT0R5'. GROUND flCM O DBveLGP peoPl<6 ©mtNrso INTIMATC SPACES. O aerORATB aHopre* ANP NON- SHOPPER BV AUCADB AND «.A&» © AU. U S E R S VISUALLY PART ©• 9HOPWNO MLAZA*. © BRBAK UNIFORMITY OP S H O P » A N © FOR/AS. 0 AAAXIMIM PIKECT SHOP PROMT BXPOSUWB TO USB* 4> SHOPPe* MOVEMENT. Space r e l a t i o n diagram G A S L I G H T S Q U A R E G a s l i g h t Square, l o c a t e d on the n o r t h s i d e c f V a t e r s t r e e t i n Gastown, i s the f i r s t p a r t of a t h r e e s t a g e b l o c k - l o n g i n f i l l and r e d e v e l o p sent p l a n . The U-shnped b u i l d i n g houses 23 shops, 2 r e s t a u r a n t and o f f i c e s , i n c o r p o r a t e s two e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s a t i t 3 base and top i n t o a t h r e e l e v e l stepped s y s t e i of a r c a d e s , s p i r a l l i n g about an open c o o r t . The s e c c r d and t h i r d phases pro posed r e s t o r a t i o n of b l o c k f a c a d e s and c o r n i c e s and c o n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n q upper l e v e l warehouse space i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l and o f f i c e uses. The Square v i l l be the f o c a l p o i n t and l a r q e s t of a s e r i e s of open spaces behind the b u i l d i n g s i n Gastown. The r h y t h j and s c a l e o f a d j o i n i n g facades are r e f l e c t e d by c o n c r e t e c o l u s n s a t ground l e v e l and narrow g l a i e d bays r i s i n g t h r e e s t o r e y s . w i t h i n the s q u a r e , g l a s s bays over f r o n t shops f a c i n q n o r t h and s o u t h , echo the s t r e e t - s i d e windows. The p r i n c i p a l e n t r a n c e t o the c o u r t descends beneath a q l a z e d vedqe c a n t i l e v e r e d f r c o the western end of the f a c a d e , then c o n t i n u e s under a s e c o n d - l e v e l b r i d g e . The theae of d i a g o n a l s p r e s e n t e d by t h e wedge i s p i c k e d up by the s w a l l e r e n t r a n c e a t the e a s t end of tho f a c a d e , which snakes on a d i a g o n a l i n t o the >aln c o u r t . c o n s t r u c t i o n a a t e r l a l s have been c a r e f u l l y chosen t o r e f l e c t t h e w a r i t h and c h a r a of s u r r o u n d i n q b u i l d i n g s . l i g h t i n g and t i n t e d g l a s s c a s t an a i b e c q l o v over the c o u r t on o v e r c a s t days. The tawny b r i c k of the w a l l s a l s o paves t h e c o u r t . »n e x i s t i n q s t u c c o w a l l was washed to tcne w i t h the b r i c k and hunq with s t r i p e d awninqs, which aark the q r a d u a l descent f r o a second to qround l e v e l of a walkway t h a t has been a t t a c h e d t o the e x i s t i n q b u i l d i n q on the v e s t . D i a q o n a l l y a c r o s s the n a i n c o u r t f r o a the p r i n c i p a l e n t r a n c e , an i n t i n a t e c o u r t e n c l o s e d by shops opens f r o a the c o r n e r . Froa the c i r c u l a r p a t t e r n e d f l o o r , a f r e e s t a n d i n q s t i r c a s e s p i r a l s t o the second l e v e l . Proa the top .of the s t a i r s , a walkway r i s e s q r a d u a l l y , past s e v e r a l shops, toward the s o u t h . The second and t h i r d f l o o r s of the b u i l d i n q o a l c n q l a t e r s t r e e t s t e p back at an anqle of <is deqrees f r o a the c o u r t y a r d , behind a s k y l l q h t t h a t extends past a f u l l t h r e e f l o o r s and a l l o w s p e n e t r a t i o n of s u n l i q b t i n t o the Square. The path c o n t i n u e s v e s t v a r d beneath the s k y l i g h t , e a e r q i n q a t the b r i d q e which spans the p r i n c i p a l e n t r a n c e . f r o a the b r i d q e one l o o k s n o r t h a c r o s s the c o u r t to a r e s t a u r a n t and s n a i l s e c o n d - l e v e l p l a z a t y i n q an e x i s t i n q b u i l d i n q on the west t o the shops which U n a the n o r t h f a c e o f the Square. Here a panoraaa of n o u n t a i n s , sea and sky u n f o l d b e f o r e the v i e w e r . F r c a the end of the b r i d q e , a a i a l l s t a i r descends, t o r e q a i n the e n t r a n c e . Fig.4.4. Verbal description Fiq.U.5. Plan and section, drawing 1 148 was English and who was given a token salary. The operator's tasks were to i n v i t e participants, to operate the tape recorder, to show the display area and to offer coffee or tea to each participant. Due to the long duration of the study, i t was not possible to have the same operator throughout the study. Most of the t r i a l s , however, were operated by one woman. To attract more participants, a poster measuring 4'X9' was placed i n the i n s t r u c t i o n area which was v i s i b l e from most parts of the building. Another weatherproof sign 3*X4' was hung outside the shop and i t was v i s i b l e from the main access road to the building. The poster said "Join opinion survey about Gaslight Sguare" and the sign announced, "Free coffee f o r your opinion about Gaslight Square". 4.8. Demographic and e x p e r i e n t i a l correlates. Even though the s p e c i f i c intent of the research was evaluation of representations i n terms of g u a l i t i e s conveyed, i t was also considered appropriate to seek standard demographic information about the observers. Questions a±>out education, employment, and association with architecture and f i n e arts were asked and are included i n the sample questionnaires given i n Appendix IV. There was also a set of questions which related to 149 the observer's f a m i l i a r i t y with the building. Additional questions should have been included, dealing with the observer's f a m i l i a r i t y with the building, such as t o t a l time spent by the observer over a l l v i s i t s and the number of times shops were v i s i t e d , as well as background information such as the observer's r e s i d e n t i a l environment. However, more guestion would have meant longer response time, hence questions had to be kept to a bare minimum. Other measures unnoticed by the participant were made by the operator. These consisted of the time required to complete the questionnaire, the date and time when the subject observed the building. Rain, wind, cloud and sun conditions during the observer's p a r t i c i p a t i o n were also recorded. Observer's sex, apparent age group, and number of companions with observer were recorded. The oberver's uncertainty was recorded by an unobtrusive means: the number of times observer erased responses. 150 4.9. Data coding. Information from and about each observeration was coded on 10 80-column data cards. For ease of keypunching observers' scores had to be transferred to coding sheets. The f i r s t eight cards recorded the participant's responses for the eight q u a l i t i e s and 10 representations. Card number nine contained responses to the length of l i n e while the l a s t card contained a l l background information and a l l other observational measures described above. Although the median number of d i g i t s used by the observers for each rating was three, there were instances where eight and nine d i g i t s were used. To maintain complete accuracy and to save data storage space, responses with more than f i v e d i g i t s were coded i n FORTRAN E-type format. To code one complete questionnaire took on average 20 minutes. This unusually high coding time had to be attributed to the questionnaire design. 151 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. Perform a l l thy actions with mind concentrated on the Divine, renouncing attachment and looking upon success and f a i l u r e with an equal eye. (translated from Bhagvadgita, Chapter 2.47) The r e s u l t s described below treat the four major purposes: indicators for information gap, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between costs of representation and information gap, r e l a t i v e discrimination between a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions and categories of representation. Since the a n a l y t i c a l methodology used i n these sections i s elaborate, the r e s u l t s for each purpose are preceded by a discussion of the s t a t i s t i c s used. Furthermore, the intention of the following sections i s p r i n c i p a l l y descriptive; hence the more robust s t a t i s t i c a l techniques were used. 152 5.1. The information gap ind i c a t o r s . Each observer indicated the r e l a t i v e p osition of a representation according h i s or her own reference representation; the f i r s t representation, varying randomly, was assigned a score of 100, with respect to any one of the notions understanding. This score served as a point of reference for the scores, on that guality, assigned by the observer to the other representation. In analysis, one must f i r s t make adjustments f o r an observer's numerical behaviour pattern. The empirical evidence documented by Jones (1974, p.356) suggests that the observer tends to use a preferred range of numbers. Stevens (1966, p. 530) has argued that perceptual information i s a power function of the physical magnitude of stimulus information. Hence, every observer's scores were transformed to natural logarithms, such that the mean score for a given guality was set to 100. Arguments i n favour of si m i l a r types of transformation have been made by s t a t i s t i c i a n s working in the areas of biometrics (Snedecor and Cochran, 1957; B a r t l e t t , 1940) and psychometric research (Bock, 1975) . Using the resultant scores, the sample means and other relevant s t a t i s t i c s were computed for each representation and for each of the 24 q u a l i t i e s . =================================== a c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100X) =============== col o u r s l i d e (U25t) ======== Black and white photograph (21:4) ======= Perspective drawing (19JC) ===== I s o n e t r i c drawing (T»S) ==== Sketch drawing (10S) === a r c h i t e c t u r a l model (9S) == Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (7X) == Plan and Section (5)1) = Space r e l a t i o n diagraa (3%) rig.5.1. Iaforaation gaps for texture = ================================== a c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100X) ================ ======= Colour s l i d e (63S) ============ Black and white photqgraph (31A ) ======= Perspective drawing (ISTX) ====== A r c h i t e c t u r a l aodel (1&S) ===== I s o a e t r i c drawing (14X) ==== Sketch drawing (10X) == Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (6%) == Plan and Section (6J) = Space r e l a t i o n diagraa (4%) fig.5.2. Infornation gaps shade and shadoo 154 The means of such transformed scores, when converted to natural numerical form, yield geometric means. It i s well known that a geometric mean i s invariant, given the p o s s i b i l i t y of extreme responses. Using the representation having the highest geometric mean for a given gua l i t y , r a t i o s were computed between the mean of that high representation - i n a l l cases, the actual building - and every other mean. Those r a t i o s can be interpreted to be the percentages of information conveyed by each representation r e l a t i v e to that conveyed by the most e f f e c t i v e representation. It seems that over a l l aspects, the actual building best conveys i t s e l f ; none of the representations gives a stronger impression of a gua l i t y than the actual b u i l d i n g . In the following discussion the actual building i s always rated highest and hence conveys 100% of information over a l l aspects. This implies that the remaining representations w i l l be always be referred to i n r e l a t i o n to the actual building. The same procedure was repeated for a l l g u a l i t i e s and f o r the general impression guestion, using a l l non-zero responses. The useful number of responses for each quality varied between 45 and 50 and for the qeneral impression question was 185. The res u l t i n g percent information gap i s indicated i n Figures 5.1 to 5.26. A l l these f i g u r e s are arranged in successive order such that the guality with highest discrimination (the highest 155 difference between the f i r s t and the l a s t representations) appears f i r s t and quality with least discrimination appears l a s t . The aspect of texture (Figure 5.1) seems to be best approximated by the colour s l i d e , which conveys about 42% of what the building does. This i s not a noteworthy performance. The black and white photograph conveys about 25% and the perspective drawing about 19%. The remaining six representations convey between 14% and three percent. The data indicate that the aspect of texture was very poorly conveyed by representations that the building i s uniguely powerful with respect to t h i s aspect. The aspect of shade and shadow (see Figure 5.2) seems to be si m i l a r to texture i n terms of information gaps, with the colour s l i d e performing at about 63% of possible effectiveness and the black and white photograph about 31%. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l model seems to have a better capacity to convey t h i s aspect than texture, but generally percentages for other representations on shade and shadow and texture appear uniformly low. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l model apparently conveys 57% of the aspect of length (see Figure, 5.3); the plan and section follow the model with 44%. The colour s l i d e was s l i g h t l y i n f e r i o r for t h i s aspect whereas the perspective and isometric drawings have about equal potency i n displaying length. While the black and white photograph i s weaker than the sketch drawing, the l a t t e r ========= ===== A c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ================ A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (57%) ================ plan and Section (44%) ================ Colour s l i d e (41%) ============== Pe r s p e c t i v e drawing (35%) ============= Isometric drawing (3 3%) =========== Black and white photograph (29,i) ======== Sketch drawing (20%) === Space r e l a t i o n diagram (8%) == Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (8%) F i g . 5 . 3 - Information gaps for length ================ A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (57%) ================ Colour s l i d e (49%) =============== plan and Section (43%) ============== Black and white photograph (39%) =============== Pe r s p e c t i v e drawing (39%) ============= Isometric drawing (33%) ======== Sketch drawing (22%) === Space r e l a t i o n diagram (9%) === Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (8%) Fig-5 . 9 -.Indorsation gaps for proportion and scale 157 has about 29% of the potency of the actual building. Generally the verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram were very poor i n conveying t h i s aspect; both were rated at about eight percent of effectiveness. The aspect of scale and proportion has a similar pattern of responses to that of length; i . e . the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model, plan and section, isometric drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram have almost i d e n t i c a l percentages. The colour s l i d e has about 50% effectiveness i n describing proportion and scale while the black and white photograph and the perspective drawing show about 40% effectiveness. Even though the sketch drawing has improved i t s percentage, i t s t i l l achieves only a f i f t h of the potency of the building. The configuration for the aspect of form (see Figure 5 . 5 ) seems to be diff e r e n t from that of the previous aspects. The ar c h i t e c t u r a l model and colour s l i d e share 50% effectiveness while differences between the isometric drawing and the perspective drawing, the perspective drawing and the black and white photograph and the black and white photograph and the plan and section appear to be eight percent each. The isometric drawing conveys about one t h i r d as much as the actual building. The sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram a l l convey less than 20% of the aspect of form. ================ Act u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) :=============== A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodel (50%) ================ c o l o u r s l i d e (48%) ============= I s o o e t r i c drawing (34%) =========== Perspective drawing (32%) =========== Black and white photograph (30%) ========== Plan and Section (28%) ======= Sketch drawing (18%) ===== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (14%) === Space r e l a t i o n diagraa (9%) Fig.5.5. Information gaps for fora =================================== Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) =========================== col o u r s l i d e (73%) ================= Perspective drawing (49%) ========== A r c h i t e c t u r a l aodel (26%) ========== Black and white photograph (26%) ====== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (17%) ====== Isometric drawing (15%) ===== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (14i) ===== Sketch drawing (14%) ==== Plan and Section (10%) Fig-5-$. .Infornation gaps for colourfulness 159 For colourfulness, the colour s l i d e communicated about 73% of the actual environment, and about half of the building's colourfulness was conveyed by the perspective drawing. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l model and black and white photograph both conveyed about 26%. The differences between the verbal description, isometric drawing, space r e l a t i o n diagram and sketch drawing seem to be very small with the verbal description on the top of the l i s t . The plan and section convey t h i s aspect least well with about 10% of the potency of the actual building. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l model seems to convey the aspect of figure remarkably well, about 88% as well as the actual building (see Figure 5.4). The colour s l i d e conveys 56% while the isometric drawing and perspective drawing conveyed 46% and 43% respectively. The black and white photograph and plan and section approximate about 40% effectiveness i n conveying t h i s aspect of the figure. The sense of r i g i d i t y can be i l l u s t r a t e d by the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model with an information gap of 28%. The isometric drawing, plan and section and colour s l i d e lose about half of the information; the black and white photograph and the perspective drawing leave out about 56% and 64% respectively; while the r e l a t i v e positions of the sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram appear to be s i m i l a r for r i g i d i t y and figure. ===================== Actual b u i l d i n g (103%) ====================== A r c h i t e c t u r a l «odel (88%) ==================== Colour s l i d e (56%) ================== Isometric drawing (462) ================= Perspective drawing (43%) =============== Black and white photograph (39%) ============== plan and Section (33%) ========= s k e t c h d r a w i n g (23%) ===== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (14%) === Space r e l a t i o n diagram (11%) Fig.5 -7- Information gaps for figure ====================== i c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ===================== A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodel (72%) ===================== Isometric drawing (51%) ===================== Plan and Section (53%) ==================== col o u r s l i d e (52%) ================= Black and unite photograph (4 4%) ============= Perspective drawing (36%) ======= sketch drawing (19%) ======= Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (18%) ==== space r e l a t i o n diagram (11%) F i g . 5 . 9 . Icforaation gaps f o r r i g i d i t y a c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) Colour s l i d e (54%) A r c h i t e c t u r a l uodel (53%) Isometric drawing (48%) Black and white photograph (46%) P e r s p e c t i v e drawing (36%) Plan and Section (34%) Sketch drawing (23%) Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (17%) Space r e l a t i o n diagraa (11%) Fig.5-9- Information gaps f o r s o l i d i t y ========================= Act u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ======================== Colour s l i d e (74%) ================= A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (43%) =============== Persp e c t i v e drawing (38%) ============== Black and white photograph (35%) =========== Isometric drawing (28%) ======== Sketch drawing (23%) ====== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (15%) ===== Plan and Section (13%) ==== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (12%) Fig.5.10. Infornation gaps for aroasal 162 Again, for conveying the aspect of s o l i d i t y (see Figure 5.10) the sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram have maintained t h e i r i n f e r i o r positions while that of the plan and section has deteriorated. Even though the colour s l i d e and a r c h i t e c t u r a l model convey more than hal f of the building's s o l i d i t y , the isometric drawing and black and white photograph do almost as well. The colour s l i d e apparently conveys three fourths of the arousing aspect of the environment but the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model does not even reach the half-way mark. The perspective drawing and black and white photograph assume an intermediate position, while the isometric drawing has a s l i g h t l y weaker a b i l i t y to convey t h i s aspect. The plan and section, with the sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram, f a l l i n l a s t place; a l l of them have a potency in the 10 to 20 percent range. About 60% of the harmonious character, eguality and proportionality i n contrast and symmetry ("balance") of the building can be captured by using the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model or the colour s l i d e (see Figure 5.11). However, the perspective drawing, plan and section and black and white photograph seem to capture only about 40% and the isometric and sketch drawings can only reach 32% and 25% respectively. The space r e l a t i o n diagram and verbal description share the bottom position on this t<&3> ======================================== Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) ======================== A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (62%) ======================= Colour s l i d e (58*) ================ Persp e c t i v e drawing (4155) ============== Plan and Section (37%) ============= Black and white photograph (37%) ============ Isometric drawing (32%) ========= sketch drawing (25%) ======= Space r e l a t i o n diagram (19%) ==== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (12%) Pig.5.11. Infornation gaps for balance ================================= = ===== Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) = ========================= ====== Colour s l i d e (83%) ================= pers p e c t i v e drawing (44%) ========== A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (27%) ======= Black and white photograph (21%) ======== Isometric drawing (20%) ====== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (16%) ====== Plan and Section (15%) ====== Sketch drawing (15%) ==== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (12%) F i g - 5 . 1 2 . Infornation gaps for colour 164 continuum. One would expect the colour s l i d e to portray c c l o u r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the b u i l d i n g elements almost as w e l l as the a c t u a l b u i l d i n g but there seems t o be a gap of about 17%. Scant use of c o l o u r on the perspective drawing has made tha t gap 56%. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t the remaining seven representations are c l u s t e r e d and a l l of them have a potency between one-fourth and one-eighth of that of the a c t u a l b u i l d i n g . I t appears that the colour s l i d e conveys almost 90% of the f e e l i n g of pleasantness of the a c t u a l b u i l d i n g w h i l e the perspective drawing conveys about h a l f . The black and white photograph outweighs the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model by about two percent but both have a potency of about 40% of the a c t u a l b u i l d i n g . The sketch and i s o m e t r i c drawings convey about one-fourth and the v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n , o n e - f i f t h , of the pleasantness aspect. The plan and s e c t i o n and space r e l a t i o n diagram appear to communicate l e a s t of t h i s aspect. About t h r e e - f o u r t h s of the b u i l d i n g ' s volume (a combination of l e n g t h , breadth and height) i s captured by the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model and c o l o u r s l i d e , while the i s o m e t r i c drawing and plan and s e c t i o n convey about 45% (see Figure 5.14). The perspective drawing conveys about 37% and the black and white photograph ============================= Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) :=========================== co l o u r s l i d e (89%) ============ ===== pers p e c t i v e drawing (48%) ================ Black and white photograph (4 2,4) ================ A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (40*) ========= sketch drawing (24%) ========= is o m e t r i c drawing (23%) ======== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (21%) ===== Plan and Section (14%) ==== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (12%) Fig.5.13- Iaforaation gaps for pleasure ============================= Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) ============================= A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (74%) ================= Colour s l i d e (46%) =============== Isometric drawing (42%) =============== Plan and Section (41%) ============ Perspective drawing (37%) ============= Black and white photograph (33%) ======== Sketch drawing (22%) ====== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (16%) ==== space r e l a t i o n diagram (12%) F i g .5 . J " , . Iaforaation gaps for volane ========================== Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) =========================== Colour s l i d e (83%) ======================= Perspective drawing (67%) ================ Black and white photograph (44%) ======== = ==== A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodel (37%) =========== Sketch drawing (29%) ========== ve r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n (27%) ========== I s o n e t r i c drawing (27%) ====== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (15%) ===== plan and Section (13%) Pig.5.15. Infornation gaps for friendliness =================================== Act u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ================== c o l o u r s l i d e (48%) ================ A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodel (45%) ============== Isometric drawing (36%) ========== Black and white photograph (32%) =========== Perspective drawing (29%) =========== plan and Section (28%) ======== Sketch drawing (20%) ====== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (16%) ===== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (13%) Fig.5.16. Infornation gaps for size 167 describe about 33% as well the volume of the building. The sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram appear to be very weak technigues f o r conveying t h i s aspect. There appears to be a remarkable s i m i l a r i t y between the r e l a t i v e a b i l i t i e s of different representations to portray the aspect of f r i e n d l i n e s s and the fe e l i n g of pleasantness even though the r e l a t i v e percentages d i f f e r for a l l the representations. The d i s t r i b u t i o n for these two are somewhat paralleled by f r i e n d l i n e s s . There i s one exception, however: the space r e l a t i o n diagram and plan and section have exchanged t h e i r positions (see Figure 5.15). Results f o r the sense of s i z e and the aspect of volume should show sim i l a r configurations but instead the colour s l i d e and a r c h i t e c t u r a l model more e f f e c t i v e l y convey these q u a l i t i e s of the building while the isometric drawing, black and white photograph, perspective drawing and plan and section convey about one-third. The sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram have about o n e - f i f t h to one-eighth the potency of the building to convey th i s aspect. The question dealing with the o v e r a l l impression of the Square i s unique, since every observer i n the study responded to i t . The colour s l i d e are was judqed as 65% as powerful as the actual building i n conveying o v e r a l l environment and the model :================ Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) ================= Colour s l i d e (65%) = ============== A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (56%) ' ================ Perspective drawing (46%) ============ Black and unite photograph (36%) ============ i s o m e t r i c drawing (34%) =========== Plan and Section (31%) ========= Sketch drawing (23%) ======= Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (18%) ====== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (15%) Fig-5.17- Imfornation gaps for general iapression ======================= Act u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ====================== A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (65%) :===================== Colour s l i d e (65%) ================ Black and white photograph (41%) ================ pers p e c t i v e drawing (41%) =============== I s o a e t r i c drawing (38%) ========== Plan and Section (27%) ========= Sketch drawing (23%) ======== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (20%) ====== Space r e l a t i o n diagram (16%) Fig.5.18. Information gaps for doainance 169 was estimated to be 56% as strong (see Figure 5.17) . The perspective drawing and black and white photograph l i e 10% apart on the scale, from 46% to 36%. Both the iscmetric drawing and the plan and section convey about one-third of the impression of the building. The remaining three representations (sketch drawing, verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram) share t h e i r usual bottom po s i t i o n , demonstrating their very poor a b i l i t y to convey an o v e r a l l idea of the building. Both the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model and colour s l i d e convey about 65% of the building's dominance; the black and white photograph, the perspective and isometric drawings convey about 40% of the feeling of dominance (see Figure 5.9). The ordering of the remaining f i v e displays i s almost i d e n t i c a l to that for the general impression with minor changes i n the percentages. The idea of complexity seems to be f a i r l y well captured by the plan and section, the colour s l i d e and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model; the isometric drawing, perspective drawing and black and white photograph reach the half-way mark (see Figure 5.19). The remaining three representations (space r e l a t i o n diagram, verbal description and sketch drawing) have maintained their bottom-most position. The aspect of excitement of the building can be very well portrayed by using the colour s l i d e (see Figure 5.20). The =============================== Actual b u i l d i n g (100S) ======================= Plan and Section (62%) ====================== Colour s l i d e (60S) ===================== A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (595) ================== Isometric drawing (51%) ================= pe r s p e c t i v e drawing (45%) ================== Black and white photograph (45%) =========== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (30%) ========= Sketch drawing (27%) ======= Space r e l a t i o n diagram (18%) Pig.5.19. Information gaps for complexity ============================== Ac t u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ============================ c o l o u r s l i d e (86%) ====================== pe r s p e c t i v e drawing (57%) =================== A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (52%) =============== Black and white photograph (39%) =============== i s o m e t r i c drawing (38%) =========== Sketch drawing (31%) ======== Plan and Section (21%) ======= Space r e l a t i o n diagram (18%) ======= Verba 1 d e s c r i p t i o n (18%) Fig.5-20. Iaforaation gaps for ezcitenent 1 7 1 perspective drawing and a r c h i t e c t u r a l model convey only about half t h i s aspect. The black and white photograph and the isometric drawing show si m i l a r potencies of about 38% while the sketch drawing conveys about 31% of the s p a t i a l excitement compared to the actual building. The remaining three techniques convey about o n e - f i f t h of t h i s aspect, i f compared to the r e a l environment. About 60% of the spaciousness (see Figure 5.21) of the building can be conveyed by the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model or colour s l i d e . The black and white photographs, isometric and perspective drawings convey about half of the same aspect i n comparison with the actual environment. Among the remaining four representations, the sketch drawing and plan and section have about one-fourth of the potency of the actual building but the verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram do not show any potential f o r conveying th i s aspect. Compared to the actual building the aspect of v e n t i l a t i o n or airiness (see Figure, 5.22) i s conveyed 75% as well by the colour s l i d e . The a r c h i t e c t u r a l model, isometric drawing and black and white photograph range down to one-third of the actual building's effectiveness i n expressing t h i s q u a l i t y . The remaining representations exhibit a low range cf performance. The aspect of organisation can be conveyed by the 172 :============== a c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100*) ================ A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodal (60%) ================ Colour s l i d e (56%) ================= Black and white photograph (49%) ================= I s o a e t r i c drawing (47%) ================= Per s p e c t i v e drawing (46%) ========= Sketch drawing (29%) ========= plan and Sec t i o n (26%) ========= Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (23%) ======= Space r e l a t i o n diagram (18%) Fig.5.21. XafocsatioB gaps for spaciousness ====================================== Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) ============================ Colour s l i d e (74%) ========================= A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (63%) ==================== perspective drawing (50%) ================ Black and white photograph (42%) ============= i s o m e t r i c drawing (37%) =========== sketch drawing (29%) =========== Plan and Section (28%) ========= Space r e l a t i o n diagram (24%) ======== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (20%) Fig.5.22. Indorsation gaps for ventilation 173 ================ Actual b u i l d i n g (100%) ================= A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodel (77%) ================ Plan and Se c t i o n (60%) ============= c o l o u r s l i d e (57%) ================ Black and white photograph (40%) ============= Per s p e c t i v e drawing (38%) ============== Isometric drawing (36%) ============ Space r e l a t i o n diagram (32%) =========== Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (30%) ======= Sketch drawing (21%) ?ig-5.23- Information gaps for organisation ============================ Act u a l b u i l d i n g (100%) ============================= Colour s l i d e (77%) ========================== Perspective drawing (66%) ======================== Isometric drawing (62%) ======================= A r c h i t e c t u r a l model (61%) ==================== Black and white photograph (54%) =============== sketch drawing (42%) ============= Plan and Sec t i o n (37%) ============= Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (33%) ========= Space r e l a t i o n diagram (24%) Fig.5=24. Information gaps for noderaity 174 a r c h i t e c t u r a l model about 77% as well as by the actual building; the plan and section and colour s l i d e , about 60% as e f f e c t i v e l y (see Figure 5.23). Of the remaining six representations f i v e convey t h i s aspect i n the range of 40% to 30% while the sketch drawing conveys o n e - f i f t h of t h i s aspect as compared to the actual environment. The r e l a t i v e configuration for the guality of modernity shows that the colour s l i d e s convey about three-guarters as much as the actual environment; the perspective and isometric drawings and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model can convey about two-thirds of this aspect. The black and white photographs convey s l i g h t l y more than half while the remaining four techniques convey about two-fifths to one-quarter. F i n a l l y , the aspect of cleanliness has four d i s t i n c t groupings of representations. The space r e l a t i o n diagram, verbal description and sketch drawing convey about 30%; the plan and section, about 50% of the environment; the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model, black and white photographs, isometric and perspective drawings about 60 to 68%; and colour s l i d e about 88%. To summarize, no representation other than the actual building describes the building very well. If one sums the geometric means for a l l the aspects and each representation and computes the t o t a l information gap, then the ar c h i t e c t u r a l model ====================== a c t u a l b a i l d i a g (100%) =================== c o l o u r s l i d e (88%) ================== a r c h i t e c t u r a l aodel (68%) ===================== Black and s h i t e photograph (66*) ===================== i s o a e t r i c draoiag (6 5%) ==================== per s p e c t i v e drauing (60%) ================= piaa and Se c t i o n (49%) ========== Space r e l a t i o n diagran (32%) ========= Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n (32%) = = = = = = = Sketch drauing (29%) Fig.5.29- Information gaps f o r c l e a n l i n e s s = ============================ A c t u a l b u i l d i n g (100*) ================ A r c h i t e c t u r a l nodel (4 0%) ============== Colour s l i d e (39%) =========== Persp e c t i v e drauing (29i) ========== i s o n e t r i c drauing (25%) ========= Black and s h i t e photograph (23i) ======= Plan and S e c t i o n (21%) ===== Sketch drauing (14%) ==== v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n (12%) ==== space r e l a t i o n diagran (10%) Fig.5-26. Information gaps f o r aggregate of a l l aspects 176 and colour s l i d e share the top position; both convey about 40% of "the t r u t h " (see Figure 5.26). Furthermore, the colour s l i d e s perform well f o r describing colourfulness, arousal, colour, pleasure, f r i e n d l i n e s s , excitement and cleanliness while the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model seems to occupy the same position i n conveying figure, r i g i d i t y , volume and organisation. The aspects other than these described above demonstrate have larger gaps between the actual building and i t s c l o s e s t representation. The space r e l a t i o n diagram, verbal description, plan and section and sketch drawing do not, i t seems, have much potency to convey any of the aspects as compared to the other techniques. The remaining techniques, the isometric drawing, perspective drawing and black and white photograph maintain middle-rank positions for almost a l l aspects. The r e s u l t s described above, based on 1400 sets of observations made by 185 observers, may not be a complete description. However, c r i t i c a l examination suggests that there can be an information gap between the actual building and i t s representation; apparently the actual building i n f u l l scale most strongly represents the 25 a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions examined here. Furthermore, most representations used in t h i s study convey some aspects well but are not as useful i n conveying other aspects. Generally, the l e s s abstract the representation, and the more detailed, the more are a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions conveyed. Those representation which are most re a d i l y 177 generated, l i k e a space r e l a t i o n diagram, a sketch drawing or the verbal description, conveyed l e a s t about a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . Those that require more intense e f f o r t , l i k e a perspective drawing or an isometric drawing or plan and section were more e f f e c t i v e . Most e f f e c t i v e i n conveying building q u a l i t i e s were a model and photographs of the actual building. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that g u a l i t i e s such as v e n t i l a t i o n , organisation and modernity produced r e l a t i v e l y narrow ranges. This suggests that although observers were free to choose any range of numbers, they f a i l e d to show any discriminatory power f o r t h i s and a few other a r c h i t e c t u r a l qualties. It also suggests that these g u a l i t i e s are poorly conveyed by representations. 5.2. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the time consumed and information potency of the representation. The amount of information about q u a l i t i e s of an actual building which i s conveyed a by representation i s a p a r t i a l function of the l e v e l of eff o r t s committed to them. E f f o r t s can be time, (T) , i n terms of measured hours, or by money spent for 178 materials, (C) , measured i n d o l l a r s . One can assume that information potency, (I), w i l l be a function of these quantities. To evaluate such a functional r e l a t i o n s h i p one must f i r s t assume an underlying mathematical model and then use s t a t i s t i c a l techniques to judge the v a l i d i t y and appropriateness of the model used. Stevens (1966, p. 530) presented a general case f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the physical magnitude of s t i m u l i , measured i n terms of basic physical units of length, mass and time, and the perceptual magnitude of such s t i m u l i , measured i n terms of subjective r a t i o s . He and his followers have further argued that perceptual magnitude, (P) , i s a power function of a physical magnitude, (Q). In mathematical terms t h i s would be P=bQd (1) where a i s an exponent of the power function and b i s a proportional measurement constant. One may consider perceptual magnitude of, f o r example, cleanliness as measured i n terms of the amount of d i r t present and subjective cleanliness to be comparable notions but the present study does not permit us to treat as equivalents physical and subjective magnitudes. Time i s a physical guantity but exactly how to tranform money to time or time to money i s also unknown. Hence, a simple strategy was followed to indicate such a r e l a t i o n s h i p . The question of "general impression", to A C T U A L B U I L D I N G BOm AUIAV FROM • m i a POINT. 181 which every subject re p l i e d , i s used to i l l u s t r a t e the strategy of r e l a t i n g costs to information effectiveness. Figure 5.27 shows the re l a t i o n s h i p between time spent on each representation and the percent of the overall impression (conveyed by the actual building) conveyed by each representation. A s i m i l a r relationship for cost i s indicated in Figure 5.28. In neither figure i s the actual building i s shown on the given scale. It i s evident from both figures that there e x i s t s a relationship between time spent or cost and information potency and that t h i s r elationship i s not a simple l i n e a r or lo g - l i n e a r one. Hence Kendall's Tau (a measure of o v e r a l l agreement between two sets of ranked quantities) was computed for the 10 representations. The value for the r e l a t i o n s h i p between general impression conveyed by representation of the actual building and cost of the representation was 0.7821 (p<O.0C01) and time for the representation was 0.5683 (p<0.012). This suggests that there i s a stronger relationship between dollars spent f o r materials and information potency than between time spent preparing the representation and information potency. 182 5.3. The r e l a t i v e discrimination between the aspects. If there were discrimination across representations between various aspects of architecture, one would have found Figures 5.1 to 5.26 i l l u s t r a t i n g s i m i l a r rankings of information gaps. The evidence, however, suggests that the information gap not only varies from representation to representation but depends on which quality of a building i s being evaluated. To indicate the magnitude of such differences, an analysis of variance was computed using the information gap of 10 displays on 24 aspects. Table 5.1. r e l a t i v e discrimination between aspects and representation. Sum of Mean Source sguares Df squares F- r a t i o F- pr ob Aspects* 1. 4733 *24 0.06138 6-6875 <.00001 Displays 1 4.424 9 1.6027 174.59 <.00001 Error 1.9828 216 0. 0092 Total 17. 880 249 * Includes "general impression" The summary shown i n Table 5.1 suggests that observers were able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the various a r c h i t e c t u r a l 183 q u a l i t i e s (Eta=0.287) and they also perceived each representation d i f f e r e n t i a l l y (Eta=0.898). However, their d i s t i n c t i o n s between representations are about 20 times those of the differences between aspects. Given that observers do discriminate between representations i n terms of their information effectiveness, one would expect architects to make f i n e r discriminations than non-architects with respect to the effectiveness of diff e r e n t representations. To determine whether such i s the case, a l l the subjects were divided into three qroups: architects (professionals, architecture teachers and students of architecture) , architecture-conscious users (work i n the building industry, manaqe some other buildinq) and users. Using th e i r responses to the o v e r a l l impression guestion, the information qap for each representation was computed for each subject separately by dividing t h e i r responses to the actual building. Then using t h i s information gap to indicate a b i l i t y to discriminate between the o v e r a l l effectiveness of the dif f e r e n t representations, an analysis of variance was performed. Since the actual building was used with no information gap for a l l subjects, there are only nine representations for analysis. 184 Table 5. 2. Architect and non-architect differences. Source Sum of squares Df Mean square F-ratio F-prob Observers Observer groups Error 4925.28 137.53 4787.75 184 2 182 26.7678 68.7633 26.3063 38.7854 2.6139 <.0001 0.076 Displays Displays X observer groups 357.54 20.34 8 16 44.6924 1.2714 64.7573 1.8422 <.0001 0. 0219 Error Total 1003.48 6442. 17 r — 1454 1664 0.6801 - -The above table shows a summary of the computation and indicates that although there are differences between architects and non-architects ( r e l i a b l e at the p<0.076), there are also differences between t h e i r reactions to representations ( r e l i a b l e at the p<0. 0105) . To examine further these differences, p r o f i l e s f o r group means for each representation are drawn i n Figure 5.29. I t indicates that although a r c h i t e c t s generally attributed more ove r a l l information value about architecture to a l l the representations, they seem to consider the verbal description and space r e l a t i o n diagram as r e l a t i v e l y less useful than did the non-architects. The l a t t e r (architecture-conscious users and lay-users) gave s i m i l a r but d i s t i n c t l y lower ratings to the representations. V E R B A L D E S C R I P T I O N S P A C E R E L A T I O N D I A G R A M S K E T C H D R A W I N G I S O M E T R I C DRAWING B . « . W . P H O T O G R A P H P L A N & S E C T I O N P E R S P E C T I V E D R A W I N G A R C H I T E C T U R A L M O D E L C O L O U R S L I D E A C T U A L B U I L D I N G Pig.5.29. The mean p r o f i l e s f o r user groups 186 5.4. The categories of representation. To indicate the categories underlying the spectrum of representations, c l u s t e r analysis was used. The inverse of r e l a t i v e information scores of 10 representations on 25 q u a l i t i e s described in section 5.1 were used for data points. Product-moment correlations were computed between each pair of the representations across a l l 25 q u a l i t i e s - Then, absolute c o r r e l a t i o n beinq a measure of s i m i l a r i t y between representations, clusters were constructed such that representations showinq o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e i r q u a l i t a t i v e information effectiveness were grouped into categories. Figure 5.30 shows the observed clu s t e r structure and indicates that there i s about 40.6% o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y between a l l the representations. The strongest c l u s t e r consisted of the black and white photograph, actual building and colour s l i d e ; addition of the perspective drawing and the sketch drawing would change the s i m i l a r i t y measure s l i g h t l y . The second cluster consisted of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l model, the plan and section and the isometric drawing with s i m i l a r i t y between these techniques ranging up to 67%. F i n a l l y , the verbal description and the Space relation diagram Verbal description Plan and Section Architectural model 84.9 70.36 58-2 Isometric drawing Sketch drawing Black and white photograph 69-7 94.5 84-4 Actual building 91-S 1 Colour slide"" 84.9 Perspective drawing Fig.5.SO. A perceived structure of representations 188 space r e l a t i o n diagram do not belong t o any of the c l u s t e r s ; t h i s would suggest t h a t these representations form t h e i r own c a t e g o r i e s . Representations f o r the study were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r forms of expression. I t does not seem tha t the same cate g o r i e s could be completely v a l i d a t e d on perceptual dimensions. Although the three-plane category, having as representations the i s o m e t r i c drawing, a r c h i t e c t u r a l model and plan and s e c t i o n may be recognized, a stronger c l u s t e r can be formed with e y e - l e v e l and non e y e - l e v e l technigues. There i s a f u r t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g pre- and p o s t - c o n s t r u c t i o n technigues under separate c a t e g o r i e s . Symbolic c a t e g o r i e s , v e r b a l and modern, can be discussed using t h e o r e t i c a l as w e l l as e m p i r i c a l r a t i o n a l . 189 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS. Knowledge, the object of knowledge and the knowing subject, are the threefold incitement to action: the instrument, the action and the agent are the threefold composite of action. (translated from Bhagavadgita, Chapter 18.18) The l i t e r a t u r e about representation has been examined and some empirical findings have been added. With t h i s background, one can make p r a c t i c a l suggestions to designers as well as to environmental researchers. The emphasis i n t h i s chapter i s primarily on what-should-be-done; furthermore these, recommendations are given with qualifying general p r i n c i p l e s . To help comprehend the substantive material, each recommendation i s preceded by a question and discussion ensues either from past work or some i n t u i t i v e understanding of the question. Clearly these are not f i n a l and d e f i n i t i v e answers. 190 6.1. Recommendations f o r t h e designer. A. To convey one's design i d e a s . . . . At the design s t a g e , n e i t h e r designer nor the c l i e n t i s 100% sure of t h e i r "environmental-ideas"; hence i t i s de s i g n e r ' s t a s k t o determine the exact needs of the c l i e n t . The l o c a t i o n of v a r i o u s spaces w i t h i n the b u i l d i n g can be understood by a r c h i t e c t s i f sketch plans or sketch s e c t i o n s are drawn but the c l i e n t may f a i l t o grasp the essence of n o t i o n s from such techniques. Hence t h e designer should use simple three-plane p r o j e c t i o n a l techniques such as i s o m e t r i c , axonometric or obl i q u e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . I f time and money permit, block model photoqraphs a l s o help but the r e l a t i v e b e n e f i t s of a block model a t the e a r l y design stage are s m a l l u n l e s s the design p r o j e c t i n v o l v e s a l a r g e l a n d a r e a . Aspects r e l a t e d t o b u i l d i n g imagery cannot be conveyed by p r o j e c t i o n a l technigues. For such purposes, e y e - l e v e l views are the best techniques. Q u i c k l y drawn p e r s p e c t i v e s with some c o l o u r s are u s e f u l f o r communicating the g e n e r a l imagery of the b u i l d i n g . I f money permits, p e r s p e c t i v e drawings shown through c o l o u r or black and white s l i d e s would f u r t h e r improve the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . 191 None of these e f f o r t s help to convey the s p a t i a l excitement and pleasantness-related g u a l i t i e s of the building; hence, multiple views of several features of the building, verbal commentary and a s l i d e presentation need to be added. Even then the l a y - c l i e n t may not comprehend f u l l y and the designer should be careful to e l i c i t the c l i e n t ' s opinion and ideas about these aspects. B. To describe the completed project to fellow designers.... A designer's i n t e r e s t in the completed project often centres on the process of achieving a suitable solution; hence graphical i l l u s t r a t a t i o n s of the design process and the f i n a l product are important. Sketch plans help which show important decisions and features that lead to a f i n a l solution. Accurately drawn plans and s e c t i o n a l perspectives lead toward the f i n a l solution. I f time and money permit, colour photographs of the model or the model i t s e l f might help to focus attention on the f i n a l solution. If the building i s already completed, present a sequence of colour s l i d e s or colour photographs with short verbal captions i n d i c a t i n g the exact use of the building and communicating s p a t i a l excitement and pleasure-related q u a l i t i e s . The building t o t a l i t y cannot be f u l l y communicated by these 192 means. Major loss of ideas always occurs f o r aspects such as texture and l i g h t , shade and shadow. Ideas about the " f i t " of the building within the t o t a l environmental context are poorly communicated by most technigues known at present. C. To describe one's completed project to a l a y - c l i e n t . . . . Lay c l i e n t s place major emphasis on imagery and d e t a i l s of the building and they are interested i n finding out about appropriateness and workability of building solutions. This implies less emphasis on plans, sections, and elevations and more on p i c t o r i a l techniques: colour s l i d e s , colour photographs, movie, video. Elaborate on a l l building aspects i n prose. If photographic means are not available or time constraints e x i s t , good eye-level drawings with colour are the the best substitute. " R e a l i s t i c " presentations such as those used by Jacoby(1971) and Kemper (1973) are perhaps equivalent i n potency to those of other colour photographs. One problem, however, with such techniques i s that they impart exaggerated amounts of excitement and pleasantness to the building. On the other hand, with bird's-eye-view technigues (Rudolph, 1971), one might over-emphasize the s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , spaciousness and such s i m i l a r g u a l i t i e s which may escape the c l i e n t . F i n a l l y , although the f u l l e r information of the actual 193 building can never be conveyed by any single representation, the designer must s t i l l attempt to explain to l a y - c l i e n t s those underlying building q u a l i t i e s such as s p a t i a l excitement, balance and form. This study has shown that untrained users were able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between various i n t r i c a t e a r c h i t e c t u r a l notions and i n so doing, learned more about architecture. Such t r a i n i n g of c l i e n t s would have dual advantages to architecture: easy access to c r i t i c s and a demand by users for creative designs to challenge designers' a b i l i t i e s . D. To use only the designer's favourite techniques.... I f the designer r e s t r i c t s use of multiple technigues, building c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s come to depend upon the technique used. Evidence compiled by Lange(1976) suggests that Mies' buildings appear organised (influenced by plans and sections), Rudolph's buildings appear large, massive and big (isometric and bird's-eye-view commonly used), while Kahn's or Corbusier's architecture appears exciting (sketches commonly used). Lange's findings are corroborated by t h i s study, although the causul l i n k s are not yet proven. The history of environmental design provides further evidence that decisions about representational tools have influenced the quality of architecture. P r i o r to the invention of perspectives, buildinqs were designed with d e t a i l i n texture 194 and with symmetry and balance as major design forces. The invention of perspectives lead to more eye-level excitement; models have introduced more b r u t a l , s o l i d , massive, expansive architecture; while photographic technology has already induced more exotic, arousing, pleasing types of architecture. E. To use computer simulation or computer guided video system.... The computer graphic simulation technigues developed so f a r have the potential to display imagery very well. The advantage of computer graphics i s to allow multiple frames to be viewed and to achieve accuracy i n drawing the picture. The programming time to get good v i s u a l simulation technigues i s often four or f i v e times that reguired for simple sketch perspectives. Fortunately computational time for such simulation i s minimal and by using rendering technigues on computer plotted drawings one might achive pleasing-exciting aspects and s p a t i a l l o c a t i o n a l aspects. On the whole, graphic simulation technigues best serve to reduce the information gap at the pre-construction stage. The numerical computer simulations using discrete or continuous system models might prove useful once the parameters of behavioural as well as physical aspects of the building are known. These models may afford insights into the systematic 195 approach once t h e i r v a l i d i t i e s are better understood. With such simulation techniques, one can generate large numbers of feasib l e a l t e r n a t i v e s , for given constraint condition. Thus large amounts of time are needed to evalute the advantages of each of these alternatives (Bazjanac, 1975). Computer-guided video systems presently operate at the University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. Such systems are useful for large-scale projects (more than 100 acres) but some sort of model i s needed to accomplish t h i s . Although published reports (Appleyard and Craik, 1974; Appleyard, 1977; McKechnie, 1977) paint a glossy picture about the future of video systems, r e l a t i v e benefits of such a large investment must be weighed against the costs. F i r s t , at the scale of 1" to 40', i f a model of a large urban or r u r a l area i s made, d e t a i l i n g on the model i s d i f f i c u l t and then imagery portrayed on the video w i l l not be e f f e c t i v e . On the other hand, should one worry about imagery at such a scale since economic, organisational, geologic and other factors might have larger roles to play i n making policy decisions? Second, even i f one succeeds i n convincing oneself that the imagery i s an important f a c t o r , one might suspect that such a system w i l l not do any better job than a sequence of colour s l i d e s with audio presentation. This means that such a 1 96 sophisticated system w i l l only reduce the information gap another 10 to 15 percent above colour s l i d e s but i t might over-emphasize excitement and pleasure, and under-emphasize spaciousness, s i z e and volume. 6.2. Recommendations to the researcher. A. To r e l a t e information gap with size of environment.... Although the o v e r a l l information gap between the representation and the system w i l l not vary with the size of the system, a p a r t i c u l a r environment may posses excessive amounts of one aspect and lack some other aspect and t h i s v a r i a t i o n may affect the configuration of information gaps. If one investigates 10 to 15 environments d i f f e r i n g on aspects such as form, volume, pleasantness and complexity and displayed through 10 to 15 representations, only then can a d e f i n i t i v e r elationship can be established. Another t y p i c a l study might involve defining the environment such that the area or volume of i t i s changed and eight to 10 representations are used to display the system. Then each observer might respond to a q u a l i t y . The r e s u l t s of the research would provide a r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical area 197 or volume and information gap. With respect to complexity, measured i n terms of Berlyne's c o l l a t i v e properties or Mehrabian's and Eussell's "environmental information" and the information gap, subseguent research might exhibit some functional relationship between Mehrabian's and Eussell's pleasure-arousal-dominance dimensions and information gap. The r e s u l t s might suggest that pleasing environments have smaller information gaps while f a m i l i a r or complex environments would have larger information gaps. B. To indicate a mbination of representations for designer for minimizing information gap.... The designer's main concern often i s what technigues best communicate ideas. This can be established by f i r s t determining the appropriate time and cost required f o r various representations and finding the r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of each. Then by using either nonlinear- or linear-programming technigues to determine optimal solution based on various constraints. Although part of the question i s given i n t h i s study, due to only 10 data points, i t does not seem useful to apply programming techniques. To accomplish such research one should use about 25 representations from each pre- and post-construction technique 198 and using some sort of incomplete block designs, evaluate representations. I t would involve rather complex, non--traditional psychometric experimental research technigues but i t might give i n t r i g u i n g insights i n t o representations and cost or time constraints. C. To indicate the r e l a t i o n between time or cost and environmental aspects.... If one spends more time conceiving the building one might expect the building to have greater s p a t i a l excitement, s o l i d i t y or organisation; on the other hand i f on spends more money and uses decorative and ornamental building materials one might gain on the pleasing, c o l o u r f u l aspects of the building. Furthermore, i f such a relationship can be established, can optimum time or material costs be set, so as to maximize for given environmental (qualitative) c r i t e r i a ? One might consider establishing a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between time or money spent on representation and the amount of an aspect conveyed by such techniques. I t seems l i k e l y that aspects such as figure, volume, spaciousness and dominance might bear a stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p with time than cost while the f r i e n d l i n e s s , colour, texture, l i g h t , shade and shadow aspects might bear a stronger relationship with cost. F i n a l l y , there might be some aspects such as balance, complexity, form and 199 s p a t i a l excitement which might demonstrate a balanced simultaneous rela t i o n s h i p with cost and time. D. To complete the l i s t of ar c h i t e c t u r a l nations.... Given the 24 a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s derived i n t h i s study, can these q u a l i t i e s be used to comprehend the "true meaning" of architecture? I t seems simple to see the relevance of some of these aspects to di f f e r e n t buildings and use these g u a l i t i e s to c l a s s i f y buildings. Although most reseachers do not as yet possess a clear conceptual understanding of each aspect, i t does not seem useful to s t a r t each research project from scratch. I t i s evident from past research that a r c h i t e c t u r a l meaning i f verbalised i s a complex phenonomenon; hence the strategy i n research design should be to build on past work on a r c h i t e c t u r a l aspects. Furthermore, one must also explore missing g u a l i t i e s that were not included in th i s study. One might attempt to give some external factor v a l i d a t i o n ; a possible r e l a t i o n s h i p might indicate pleasure related to qual i t y of imagery, or s o l i d i t y related to r a t i o between po s i t i v e and negative surface area. Furthermore, size might relate to bigness while spaciousness might relate to density of s p a t i a l elements. There might aspects such as safety, functional i d e n t i t y and e f f i c i e n c y not yet discussed by other researchers. 200 Bibliography Acking, C. A. Evaluation of planned environment. D7, National Swedish Building research i n s t i t u t e , Stockholm, 1974. Ackoff, E. L. Towards a system of system concepts. Management sciences, Vol.17, No. 11, 1971. pp. 661-671. Alexander, C. Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University press,^Harvard, Boston, 1964. Alexander, C. The c i t y as a mechanism for sustaining human contact. Center for planning and development research. University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, Working paper no..50, 1966. Alexander, C. Ishikawa, S., S i l v e r s t e i n , M., Fiksdahl-King, I. And Angel, S. A pattern language: Towns buildings construction. Oxford University press, Oxford, England, 1976. Anderson, N. H. Algebraic models i n perception. In Carterette, E. C. and Friedman, M. P. (Eds) Handbook of Perception Vol. I I : Psychophysical judgement and measurement, pp. 215-291. Academic press. New York, 1974. Appleyard, D. Why buildings are known? Environment and Behavior, Vol.1, No. 2, 1969. pp. 131-156. Appleyard, D. Planning a p l u r a l i s t i c cit_y: C o n f l i c t i n g r e a l i t i e s i n Ciudad-Suayana. The MIT press, Cambridge, Mass., 1976. Arnheim, R. The dynamics of a r c h i t e c t u r a l form. University of C a l i f o r n i a press, Berkeley, C a l i f . , 1977. 201 Ashihara, Y. Exterior design in architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold co. , New York, 1970. Atteneve, F. Application of information theory to psychology: a summary of basic concepts, methods and r e s u l t s . Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, New York, 1959. B a r t l e t t , M. S. Ose of transformations. Biometrics, Vol.3, 1947. Pp. 39-52. Bazjanac, V. The promises and the disapointments of computer-aided design. In Negroponte, N.(Ed) Reflections on computer aids to design and architecture, p. P e t r o c e l l i / Charter, New York 1975, 17-27. Bechtel, R. B. The semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l and other paper-and-pencil tests. In Michelson, W.(Ed) Behavioral research methods i n environmental design, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn., 1975. Benton, T., Benton, C. and Sharp, D. (Eds) Form and function: A source book for the history of architecture and design 1890-1939. The Open University press, 1975. Berlyne, D. E. C o n f l i c t , arousal and curiosity,. McGraw-Hill publishing. New York, 1960. Berlyne, D. E. The new experimental aesthetics and environmental psychology. In Suedfeld, P., Russell," J. A., Ward, L. M. , S z i g e t i , F. and Davis, G. Book 2: Invited addresses symposia and workshops of EDRA VII, pp. 13-22. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, inc. Stroudsburg, Penn., 1976. Betak, J . F., Brummell, A. C. and Swingle, P. G. An approach to e l i c i t attributes of complex v i s u a l environments. In Carson, D. H. Man-environment int e r a c t i o n s : Evaluations and applications, v o l . 9, Proceedings of EDRA V, pp. 35-53. 202 Environmental Design Research Asso., Washington, D. C., 1974. Bock, R. D. Multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l methods i n Behavioral research. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1975. Breuer, M. Marcel Breuer: Buildings and projects, 1921-1961. Frederick A. Praeger publisher, New York, 1962. Broadbent, G. Design in architecture: Architecture and human sciences^ John Wiley and sons, London, 1973. Pp. 87-96. Brodin, C. A study of preferences for simulated outdoor environments with d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s of of fee l i n g of enclosed space. In Kuller, R. Proceedings of t h i r d A r c h i t e c t ur a l Psychology conference, pp. 310-322. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n c . Stroudsburg, Penn., 1973. Calvin, J. S., Dearinger, J. A. and Curtin, M- E. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscapes. Environment and Behavior, Vol.4, No. 4, 1972. pp. 447-470. ~ Canter, D. An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions i n architecture* Environment and Behavior, Vol.1, No. 1, 1969. pp. 27-48. Canter, D. and Wools, R. A technique for the subjective appraisal of buildings. Buildinq Science, Vol.5, 1970. Pp. 187-198. Canter, D. and Thorne, R. Attitudes to housing: A cross c u l t u r a l comparison. Environment and Behavior, Vol.4, No. 1, 1972. pp. 3-32." Canter, D. Evaluating buildings: Emerging scales and salience of building elements over constructs. In K u l l e r , R. Proceedings of t h i r d A r c h itectural Psychology conference, pp. 214-238. Dowden7 Hutchinson and Ross, inc. Stroudsburg, Penn., 203 1973. Canter, D., Benyan, M. and West, S. Comparison of an holograph and s l i d e of a rocm i n t e r i o r . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , Vol.37, 1973. pp. 635-638. Canter, D., C e c i l i o , J ., Rohles, S. and Watts, N. A scale for the cr o s s - c u l t u r a l evaluation of houses. In Canter, D. and Lee, T.(Eds) Psychology and B u i l t Environment, pp. 80-86. Ar c h i t e c t u r a l pxess, London, 1974. Canter, D., G i l c h r i s t , J . , M i l l e r , J . and Roberts, N. An empirical study of the focal point i n the l i v i n g room. In Canter, D. and Lee, T. (Eds) Psychology and B u i l t Environment, pp. 29-37. Architectural press, London, 1974. C a u d i l l , W. W., Pena, W. M. and Kennon, P. Architecture and You. Watson-Guptill publishing. New York, 1978. Chambers, A. D. Assessment of environmental quality i n r e l a t i o n to perceived density i n recr e a t i o n a l settinq. Man-environment Systems, Vol.4, No. 6, 1974. Pp. 353-360. " C o l l i n s , J . B. Perceptual dimensions of a r c h i t e c t u r a l space validated against behavioral c r i t e r i a . Doctoral Dissertation: University of Utah, Utah, 1969. Le Corbusier The modular II. The MIT press, Cambridge, Mass., 19547 Cowen, H. J., Gero, J. S., Ding, G. D., and Muncey, R. Ww Models i n architecture. E l s e v i e r publishing company, London, 1968. pp. 134-141. Craik, K. H. The comprehension of the everyday physical environment. Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, V o l . 3 4 7 No.~1,~1968. pp. 29 - 3 7 . 204 Craik, K. H. Human responsiveness to landscape: an environmental psychology perspective. In Coates, K. And Moffett, K. (Eds) Responses to environment, pp. 168-193. Student publication of the school of design, v o l . 18, North Carolina state University, Raleigh, 1969. Craik, K. H. Appraising the o b j e c t i v i t y of landscape dimensions. . In K r u t i l l a , V. J . (Ed) Natural environments, pp..292-346. John Hopkins press, Baltimore,~1972. Craik, K. H. Individual variations i n landscape description. In Zube, E. H., Brush, R. 0., and Fabos, J. G.(Eds) Landscape assessments: Values, perceptions and resources, pp. 130-150. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n c . Stroudsburg, Penn., 1975. Cunningham, M. C., Carter, J. A., Reese, 0. P. and Webb, B. C. Toward a perceptual tool in urban design: A street simulation p i l o t study. In Preiser, W. Proceedings of EDRA IV, pp. 6 2-72. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n c . Stroudsburg, Penn., 1973. Dainoff, M., Miski, D., Pempus, E., Bibbin, J . and Pinkin, T. Perception of a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e t a i l i n g : An experimental study. Man-Environment Systems, Vol.6, No. 5, 1975. pp. 121-123. Danford, G. S. and Willems, E. P. Subjective responses to arc h i t e c t u r a l displays: A question of v a l i d i t y -Environment and Behavior, Vol.7, No. 4, 1975. pp. 486-516. Dawes, R. M. Fundamental of attitude measurement. John Wiley publishing, New York,^1972. p. 53 Deutsch, K. W. On theories, taxonomies, and models as communication codes for organizing information. Behavioral Science, Vol.9, No. 1, 1966. pp.. 1-17. 205 Downs, R. and Stea, D. Image and environment: C o g n i t i v e mapping and s p a t i a l behavior. Aldine press, Chicago, 1973. Duke, R. Managing complexity: Gaming - a f u t u r e language. In Greenblat, C. and Duke, R. (Eds) Gaming s i m u l a t i o n : R a tionale, design and a p p l i c a t i o n , pp. ~29-41. Sage p u b l i s h e r , 1975. Echenigue, M. Models: A d i s c u s s i o n . A r c h i t e c t u r a l research and t e a c h i n g , Vol.1, No. 1, 1970. pp. 25-30. E r i c k s o n , A. The a r c h i t e c t u r e of Arthur E r i c k s o n . Tundra books, Montreal, 1975. Fenker, R- M. M u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l technigues: Problem s o l v i n g t o o l s f o r a r c h i t e c t s and designers. In Rogers, W. E. and I t t e l s o n , W. H. (Eds) Proceedings of EDRA IX, pp. 365-379. U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a , Tuscon, Arizona, 1978. F r a n k l i n , S. C. and Heyward, S. S. Perceived openness -enclosure of a r c h i t e c t u r a l space. Environment and Behavior, Vol.6, No. 1, 1974. pp. 37-52. F r y , M. and Drew, J. T r o p i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r e i n the dry and humid zones. Reinehold p u b l i s h i n g corp. New YorkJ 1964." G a r l i n g , T. Studies i n v i s u a l perception of a r c h i t e c t u r a l spaces and rooms, part I t o IV. In Hesselgren, S. Experimental s t u d i e s on A r c h i t e c t u r a l p e r c e p t i o n , D2, National Swedish B u i l d i n g research i n s t i t u t e , 1971. G a r l i n g , T. The s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s of environmental perception and c o g n i t i o n : a multidimensional s c a l i n g approach. Environment and Behavior, Vol.8, No. 3, 1976. pp. 385-416. G a r l i n g , T. a multidimensional s c a l i n g and semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l technique study of the perception of environmental s e t t i n g s . Scandinavian J o u r n a l 206 of Psychology, Vol.17, 1976. pp. 323-332. Garner, W. E. Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. John Wiley and sons. New York, 1962. G r i l l o , P. J. Form, function and design. Dover publication inc. New York, 1960. Groves, D. L. and Kahalas, H. Methods to determine personal values. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.4, No. 4, 1975. pp. 303-324. Haggett, P. and chorley, R. Models, paradigms and the new geography. In Chorley, E. and Haggett, P. (eds) Models i n geography, Methuen and co. l t d , London, 1966. H a l l , E., P u r c e l l , A. T., Thorne, R. and Metcalfe, J . multidimensional scaling: analysis of i n t e r i o r designed spaces. Environment and Behavior, Vol.8, No. 4, 1976. pp. 595-610. Hansvik, C. L. comparing urban images: A multivariate approach. In Rogers, W. E. and I t t e l s o n , W. H. (Eds) Proceedings of EDRA IX, pp. 109-126. University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona, 1978. Harrison, J. and Sarre, P. Personal construct theory i n measurement of environmental images - problems and methods. Environment and Behavior, Vol.3, No. 4, 1971. p. 351 Harrison, J. Personal construct theory in measurement of environmental images. Environment and Behavior, Vol.6, No. 1, 1975. pp.~3-58.~ Hawks, D. Environmental models - past, present and future. In Hawks, D. (Ed) Models and systems i n architecture and building, pp. 35-44. The construction press Ltd, London, 1975. Heath, L. A rch itec t ura1 scale. The Architectural press, London, 1965. Heise, D. Some methodological issues i n semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l research. Psychological B u l l e t i n , Vol.72, 1969. pp. 406-422. Hendrick, C., Spencer, T. J . , Flynn, J . E. and Martyniuk, 0. Procedure of investigating the e f f e c t of l i g h t on impression: simulation of r e a l spaces by s l i d e s . Environment and Behavior, Vol.9, No. 4, 1977. pp. 491-510. Hershberger, R. G. A study of meaning and architecture. In Sanoff, H. and Cohen, S. (Eds) Proceedings of EDRA I, pp. 86-100. , 1970. Hershberger, R..G. Towards a set of semantic scales to measure the meaning of a r c h i t e c t u r a l environments. In M i t c h e l l , W. J . (Ed) Proceedings of EDBA IIi/AR 8, pp. 6-4-1 -6-4-10. University of C a l i f o r n i a press, Los Angles, 1972. Hershberger, R. G. Predicting user responses to buildings. In Carson, D. H. Man-environment int e r a c t i o n s : Evaluations and applications, v o l . 9, Proceedings of EDRA V, pp. 117-134. Environmental Design Research Asso., Washington, D. C., 1974. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. The prediction of preference f o r f a m i l i a r urban places. Environment and Behavior, Vol.8, No. 4, 1976,, pp. 627-645. Hesselgren, S. Man^s perception of man-made environment: An ar c h i t e c t u r a l theory. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn., 1975. Heyer, P. Architects on architecture: New directions i n America. Walker and co., New York, 1966. 208 Honikman, B. An investigation of the relationship between construing of the environment and i t s physical form. In M i t c h e l l , W. J. Proceedings of EDRA III/AR 8, pp. 6-5-1 - 6-5-11- University of C a l i f o r n i a press, Los Angles, 1972. Honikman, B. Personal construct theory and environmental evaluation. In Preiser, W. Proceedings of EDRA ILZ» PP* 242-253. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross i n c . , Stroudsberg, Penn., 1973. Horanyangkura, V. semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior. Vol.10, No. 4, 1978. pp. 555-584. Howard, R. B., Milynarski, F. G. and Sauer, G. C. Jr. A comparative analysis of a f f e c t i v e responses to real and represented environments. In Mit c h e l l , W. J.(Ed) Proceedings of EDRA III/AR 8, pp. 6-6-1 - 6-6-7. University of C a l i f o r n i a press, Los Angles, 1972. Jackson, L. E. and Johnston, R. J. Structuring image: An investigation of the elements cf mental maps. Environment and Planning, Vol.4, 1972. pp-415-4277 Jacoby, H. New techniques of a r c h i t e c t u r a l rendering. Praeger publishers. New York, 1971. Jones, F. N. Overview of psychophysical sc a l i n g methods. In Carterette, E. C. and Friedman, M. P.(Eds) Handbook of Perception Vol. I I : Psychophysical judgement and measurement, pp. 343-358. Academic press. New York, 1974. Kahn, L. Form and design. Architectural Design, Vol.31, 1961. Pp. 145-154. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. and Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban v i s u a l material. Perception and Psychophysics. Vol.12, 1972. Pp. 334-336. . 209 Kaplan, R. Predictors of environmental preference: designers and " c l i e n t s " . In Preiser, W. Proceedings of EDRA IV, pp. 265-274. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n c . Stroudsburg, Penn., 1973. Kaplan, R. Patterns of environmental preferences. Environment and Behavior, Vol.9, No. 2, 1977. pp. 195-216. Kasmer, J. V.. The development of a usable lexicon of environmental descriptors. Environment and Behavior, Vol.2, 1970. pp. 153-169. Kemper, A. Drawing by American Architects. John Wiley and sons. New York, 1973. Kl i l l e r , R. A semantic model for describing perceived environment. D12, National Swedish i n s t i t u t e for building research, Stockholm, 1972. Kulterraann, 0. Kenzo Tange: Architecture and urban design. Praeger publishers. New York, 1970. Lange, J. H. Perception i n architecture. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania, 1976. Laumann, E. 0. and House, J. S. Living room s t y l e s and s o c i a l a t t r i b u t e s : the patterning of material a r t i f a c t s i n a modern urban community. Sociology and Social Research, Vol.54, 1970. pp. 321-342. Laurie, I. C. Aesthetic factors i n v i s u a l evaluation. In Zube, E. H., Brush, R. 0. and Fabos, J. G. (Eds) Landscape assessments: Values, perceptions and resources, pp. 102-117. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, inc. Stroudsburgh, Penn., 1975. Lau, J. J. H. Differences between f u l l size and scale model rooms i n the assessment of l i g h t i n g guality. In Archea, J. and Eastman, C. (Eds) Proceedings of EDRA I i , Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1971. 210 Le f f , H. L., Gordon, L. R. and Ferguson, J. G. Cognitive set and environmental awareness. Environment and Behavior, Vol.6, No. 4, 1974. pp. 395-447. Li t t o n , R. B. J r . Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In K r u t i l i a , J . V. Natural environments. pp. 262-291. John Hopkins press, Baltimore, 1972. Lowenthal, and R i e l , M. The nature of perceived and imagined environment. Environment and Behavior, Vol.4, No. 2, 1972. pp. T§9-207. Lozano, E. Visual needs in the urban environment, Town Planning Review, Vol.45, 1973. pp. 351-374. Lynch, K. The image of the c i t y . The MIT press, Cambridge, Mass., 1961. Maaljzfe, E. Towards a theory, of natural architecture; e f f e c t s and s o c i a l importance of order, v a r i a t i o n , texture and scale related to architecture. Architektens, Forlog, Copenhagen, 1976. Marks, L. E. The new psychophysics. Academic press, New York, 1974. May, H. B. and Basalla, T. G. Comparison of factor analysis and multidimensional scaling to analyze semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l and construct e l i c i t i n g data. In Ward, L. M., Coren, S., Gruft, A. and C o l l i n s , J. B. Book 1 : Selected papers and proceedings of EDRA VII, pp. 257-265. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n c . Stroudsburg, Penn., 1976. McKechnie, G. E. Measuring environmental disposition with environmental response inventory. In Archea, J. and Eastman, C. (Eds) Proceedings cf EDRA I I , pp. 320-326. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Penn., 1970. McKechnie, G. E. Simulation in environmental psychology. In Stokols, D.(ed) Psychological perspectives i n environment and behavior, pp. 169-188. Plenum publishing corp. New York, 1976. McKechnie, G. E. The environmental response inventory i n application. Environment and Behavior, Vol.9, No. 2, 1977. pp. 255-276. Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. An approach to Environmental Psychology. The MIT press, Cambridge, Mass., 1974. Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. A verbal measure of information rate for studies i n environmental psychology. Environment and Behavior, Vol.6, No. 2, 1974. pp. 223-252. Mirron, M. Universal semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s h e l l game-Journal of personality and s o c i a l psychology, Vol724, 1972. pp. 313-320. Miski, D., Dainoff, M., Sherman, R. and Johnston, L. Does distance perception change as the degree of enclosure change: Some psychophysical studies under r e a l and simulated conditions. Man-Environment Systems, Vol.5, No. 5, 1975. pp. 317-3207 Moore, G. and Golledge, R. (eds) Environmental knowing: Theories, research and methods. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross i n c . , Stroudsberg, Penn., 1976. Norberg-Schulz, C. Intentions i n architecture. The MIT press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965. Olgyay, A. and Olgyay, V. Solar control and shading devices. Princeton University press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1957. 2)2 Oostendorp, A., McMaster, S., Rosen, M. and Waind, P. Towards a taxonomy of responses to the b u i l t environment. International Review of Applied Psychology, Vol.27, No. 1, 1978. pp. 9-17. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. University of I l l i n o i s press, Urbana, 1957. Palmer, C. J . , Robinson, M. E. and Thomas, R. W. The country side image: An inves t i g a t i o n of structure and meaning. Environment and Planning• Vol.9, 1977. pp. 739-749. Peterson, G. L. A model of preference: quantitative analysis of perception of the v i s u a l appearance of r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods. Journal of Regional Science, Vol.7, 1967. pp. 19-30. Prak, N. L. The language of architecture. The Hague, 1968. Prak, N. L. The v i s u a l perception of the b u i l t environment. Delft University press. D e l f t , Netherland, 1977. Pyron, B. Space d i v e r s i t y i n human habitats: Perceptual responses. Environment and Behavior, Vol.3, No. 4, 1971. pp. 382-411. Pyron, B. Form and d i v e r s i t y i n human habitats: Judgemental and attitude responses. Environment and Behavior, Vol.4, No. 1, 1972. pp. 87-120. Rapoport, A., and Kantor, R. E. Complexity and ambiguity i n environmental design;. The Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, Vol.33, 1967. pp." 210-222. Rapoport, A., and Hawkes, R. The perception of urban complexity. The Journal of the American Ins t i t u t e of Planners, Vol.36, 1970. pp. 106-111. 213 Raser, R^  What and why i s a simulation? In Raser, R. S i i u l a t i o n and society.: An exploration of s c i e n t i f i c gaming, pp. 1-25.. Allyn and Bacon Inc, London, 1969. Rowe, A. J. Simulation - a decision aiding t o o l . AIIE in t e r n a t i o n a l conference proceedings, 1963. Rudolph, P. The architecture of Pual Rudolph. Praeger publishers. New York, 1971. Russell, J. and Mehrabian, A. Approach-avoidance and a f f i l i a t i o n as function of the emotion-eliciting guality of environment. Environment and Behavior, Vol.10, No. 3, 1978. p p T 355-387. Samuelson, P. and Scott, A. Economics. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. Toranto, 1975. Sanoff, H. Youth's perception and categorization of r e s i d e n t i a l cues. In Preiser, W. Proceedings of EDRA IV, pp. . 84-97. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, inc. Stroudsburg, Penn., 1973.. Sanoff, H. Measuring attributes of the v i s u a l environment. In Lang, J . , Burnette, C , Moleski, W. and Vachon, D. Designing for human behavior: architecture and behavioral sciences, pp. 244-260. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n d i Stroudsburg, Penn., 1974. Scott, G. The architecture of humanism. Charles Scribner's s o n s 7 New~York, 19257" Seaton, R. W. and C o l l i n s , J. B. V a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of ratings of simulated buildings. In M i t c h e l l , W. J. (ed) Proceedings of EDRA III/AR 8, pp. 6-10-1 - 6-10-12. University of C a l i f o r n i a press, Los Angles, 1972. Sewell, W. R. D. Environmental perception and attitudes of Engineers and public health o f f i c i a l s . Environment and Behavior, Vol.3, No. 1, 1971. Sewell, W. E. D. and L i t t l e , B. E. S p e c i a l i s t s , layman and process of environmental appraisal- Eeqional Studies, Vol.7, 1973. p. 161 Shafer, E. L. and Bichards, T. A. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scences and photographs of those scences. In Canter, D. and Lee, T. (Eds) Psychology and B u i l t Environment, pp. 71-79. Arch i t e c t u r a l press, London, 1974. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. The mathematical theory of communication. University of I l l i n o i s press, Urbana, 1949. Shannon, E. E. System simulation: The art and science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood c l i f f s , N. J . , 1975. pp. 98-146. G. Notes on defining "simulation". In Greenblat, C. and Duke, E. (Eds) Gaming simulation: Rationale, design and application, pp. 75-81- Sage publisher, 1975. W., Koebel, R., Cohen, M. and S i e g a l l , T. A methodology for assessing the effectiveness of proposed sign regulations. In Rogers, W. E. and Ittelson, W. H. (Eds) Proceedings of EDRA IX, pp. 413-427. University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona, 1978. Snedecor, 0. W. and Cochran, W. G. S t a t i s t i c a l methods. Iowa State University press, 1967. Sonnenfeld, J. Eguivalence and d i s t o r t i o n of the perceptual environment. Environment and Behavior, Vol.1, No. 1, 1969. pp. 83-100. Starr, N. and Danford, S. The i n v a l i d i t y of subjective ratings of the physical environment. In Rogers, W. E. and I t t e l s o n , W. H. (Eds) Proceedings of EDBA IX, pp. 428-443. University of Arizona! S h i r t s , Sims, 215 Tuscon, Arizona, 1978. Steadman, P. Models i n our heads, models i n the material world, and models i n the world of objective knowledge. In Hawks, D. (Ed) Models and systems in architecture and building, pp. 29-34. The construction press Ltd, London, 1975. Stevens, S. S„ A metric for the s o c i a l concensous. Science. Vol.151, 1966. pp. 530-541. Stevens, S. S. Perceptual magnitude and i t s measurement. In Carterette, E. C. and Friedman, M. P. (Eds) Handbook of Perception Vol. II: Psychophysica1 judgement and measurement, pp. 361-3 87. Academic press. New York, 1974. Stevens, S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction to i t s perceptual. neural and s o c i a l prospects. John Wiley publishing. New York. p. 1975 T h i e l , P. Towards experi e n t i a l enyirotectur§. Department of architecture, univeristy of Washington, Seattle, unpublished ms, 1976. Tognoli, J. The effect of windowless rooms and unembellished surrounding on attitudes and retention. Environment and Behavior. Vol.5, No. 2 , 1973. pp. 191-2107 Venturi, E. Complexity and contradiction i n architecture. Museum of modern art, New York, 1966. Verba, S. Simulation, r e a l i t y and theory i n in t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . World p o l i t i c s , Vol.16, No. 3, 1964. p. 491 Vielhauer, J. A. The development of a semantic scale f o r the description of the physical environment. Doctoral Dissertation: Louisiana State University, 1965. 216 V i t z , P. C. Preferences for different amounts of v i s u a l complexity. Behavioral science, Vol.11, 1966. pp. 105-114. Ward, L. M. Multidimensional scaling of molar physical environment. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 12, 1977. pp. 23-42. Wedin, C. S., Avant, L. L. and Wolins, L. Communication of r e s i d e n t i a l spaces by a r c h i t e c t u r a l graphics. In Kull e r , R. Proceedings of t h i r d A r c h itectural Psychology conference, pp. 301-309. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, i n c . Stroudsburg, Penn., 1973. Winkel, 6., Malek, R., and T h i e l , P. A study of human responses to selected roadside environments. In Sanoff, H. and Cohen, S. (Eds) Proceedings of MM I, pp. 224-240. , 1970. Winkel, G., and Sasanoff, R. An approach to an objective analysis of behavior i n architecture. In Proshansky, H. M. Ittels o n , W. H. and R i v l i n , L. G. Environmental psychology: man and his physical settings, pp. 619-631. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1974. Wohlwill, J. F. Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of a f f e c t . In Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J . F. (Eds) Human behavior and environment. Vol. 1 , pp. 37-86. Plenum press, New York, 1976. Wood, W. An analysis of simulation media. Unpublished B. of architecture thesis, school of architecture, university of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1972. Wright, F. L. The future of architecture. Bramhall house. Horizon press, New York, 1953. Zevi, B. Architecture as space. Horizon press. New York, 1974. 217 Zube, E. H. Rating everyday r u r a l landscapes of the northeastern United States. Landscape architecture, Vol.63, No. 4, 1973. pp. 371-375. Zube, E. H. Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation cf landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, Vol.6, No. 1, 1974. pp. 69-89. Zube, E. H., P i t t , D. G. and Anderson, T. perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast In Zube, E. H., Brush, R. 0., and Fabos, J. G. (Eds) Landscape assessments: Values, perceptions and resources. pp. 151-166. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, inc. Stroudsburg, Penn., 1975. 218 Appendix I How would you describe your experience of going through Gaslight Sguare to someone else? There are many ways but writing may be too much work, picture taking reguires a camera and painting reguires s p e c i a l a r t i s t i c s k i l l s . Some displays convey certain aspects of Gaslight Sguare well and other displays are better for other aspects. To f i n d which ways of describing architecture works best for you, i t w i l l take 15 minutes to look at these 10 building displays and w i l l give you chance to make some interesting comparisons among them. Of course, you are already aware of some aspects of buildings but there are ether aspects of buildings you may never have thought about before, l i k e spaciousness, f r i e n d l i n e s s , excitement or even complexity. You don't have to know anything technical about architecture because you already know what colour means to you, or f r i e n d l i n e s s or excitement. "Before you begin". Now look at the box. There are f i v e l i n e s on each face. Since length i s one aspect of a building, compare the lengths of l i n e s A and B. I f you a r b i t r a r i l y say li n e A i s 100 points long, how long i s l i n e B? Is i t shorter or longer? longer How many times? about twice. Hence l i n e B i s about 200 points long. Write that 219 down i n the proper space i n the booklet. Now try l i n e C. Is i t shorter or longer? shorter — — How much shorter? about 5%. So l i n e C i s how long? Write the number in the proper space i n your booklet. Now make the same comparison for l i n e D with l i n e A and l i n e E with l i n e A. Write t h e i r appropriate lengths in the proper spaces. Sometimes the idea of an aspect comes through more c l e a r l y than i n the f i r s t display, then you use a number more than 100 either l i t t l e b i t more or a l o t more depending cn how you f e e l and when less of that p a r t i c u l a r aspect comes through, use a number less than 100. You may use any number except zero because each display has some degree of each aspect. And remember that to say 200 means that you r e a l l y f e e l that something works twice as well as something else. To say 25 means that i t works only one-guarter as well. I f you f e e l i t works better but just l i t t l e better, then use a number just a l i t t l e larger than 100 and so on. Your booklet and signs w i l l guide you through the next part of t h i s experiment so refer back to the front page where i t says "To begin " FORTRAN IV LISTING hAIN 02:49 P.h. JULY 12, 1979 PAGB 1 (FILE=BASIN) HTS ISN 1 1 INTEGEB*4 NEhS/l6/,NPUY/8/»NSC/10/ j 2 C 3 C _ DESCRIPTION OF KEYS 5 2 REAL»4 SlhS(IO)/•<C1>',•<C2>«,'<C3>«, «<C4>»,'<C5>*,'<C6>«,><C7>', 6 ••<CU><, '<C9>' ,• <CO>V,PHYS ( e t / ^ P O ' . ' ^ ^ . ^ P S V . ' ^ v . ^ P S v , 7 <P6>«, «<P7>«, '<P8></,C0NC( 16) ,<<EX>' ,'<SO>« <OB>' ,'<CO>' , 8 •«<SP>«, '<NC>', '<SI>' , ^ C J O* ,'<hD>», "<BA>", • <V E> • , ' <YI> • , " <PL>« , 9 * ,<AB> ,, ,<DO> 1/, PHY E f d ) < I I 1 >• ,'<U2>'. •<H3>«, «<H4>', •<H5>•,«<H6>', 10 *'<1I7>', '<H8>'/.CONE( 16)/ ,<IE>* , •<CI>' , • <DI>» ,•<GA> • , •< PX> • <AC>» , 11 • ^ A T ) ' . •<2E>','<TY>' ,«<ON>« ,*<LA>>, '<»*>', ,<GI> ,, ,<EA>' r'<OU>' , 12 • • < u i > ' / . * i . e a A (10) /•«£•,«<«:•, • S D • , • S I • , • a G , . ' S A ' , ' w, • « • ? • , ' HJ1,'iu 13 *'/ 14 3 INTEGER*2 ISTO(99)/99*0/,ISIB(10)/10*0/,IPHY(8) /8*0/,IEHO(16)/16«0 15 V , I P B E ( 1 ) / ' »•/ 16 4 CALL FTNCHD ("ASSIGN 6=-FILE' , 14) 17 c — 18 c BEAD TOTAL SETS OF QUESTIONNAIRE BEQD 19 c 20 5 WHITE (6,4) 21 6 BEAD (5,IPBE) NQUES 22 7 DO 2000 IABC0=1,NQUES 23 c 24 c GEHEBATE 1-16 AND 1-8 BANDOH NUMBE3S 25 c 26 8 CALL BANUH (NEHS, ISTO.0) 27 9 DO 10 IJ=1,NENS 28 10 IEHO(IJ)=ISTO(IJ) 29 11 ISTO(IJ)=0 30 12 10 CONTINUE 31 1 3 CALL BANUN (NPHY,ISTO,0) 32 14 DO 20 IJ=1,NPHY 33 15 IPHY ( I J ) = I S T O ( I J ) 34 16 ISTO(IJ)=0 35 17 20 CONTINUE 36 c 37 c I N I T I A L I Z E INPUT PILES 38 c TEXT:BRAY AND TEXT:INCLUDE ABE LIBRARIES 39 c TKAB:STBING STOBES DICTIONARY OF KEY WORD CODES 40 c TKAB:FBONT CONTAINS THE FBONT PAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE 41. c TKAH:BAC K1 CONTAINS BACKGBOUND INFO PAGE 1 42 c TKAB:BACK2 CONTAINS BACKGROUND INFO PAGE 2 43 c 44 18 10 = 0 45 19 l h = 0 46 20 ICO=0 47 21 4 FORhAT (' <INLIB,TEXT:BBAX> <INLIB.TEIT:INCLUDB> <INCLODB,TKAB:STB 48 *ING> ") 49 22 30 IC0-1C0M ' 50 23 INVA=0 51 24 WRITE (6,5) 52 25 5 FORhAT (• -*<NEXT> <INCLUDE,TKAB:FBONT> •) 53 26 IH=IB*1 54 27 55 28 JP=1 56 C - HAIN hAIN HAIN ^ F08T8AN IV LISTING MAIN 02:49 P.M. JULY 12, 1979 PAGE 2 (FILE=BASIH> 6rs L.SH 57 C WRITE CODES FOB TWO PHYSICAL SCALES 58 c 1 59 29 DO 40 IN=IH,IIU 60 30 CALL BANUh (NSC.ISTO.INVA) 61 31 DO 35 IJ=1,N5C o2 32 I S I H (IJ) =ISTO(IJ) 63 33 isio(U)=o 3a 35 CONTINUE 65 35 ISIO ( 1 ) - I S I H (1) 66 36 INVA=1 67 37 JP = J P H 68 3d WHITE (6,8) PHtS (IPHY (IN)) , SIHS (ISIH (1) ) , PH VE (I PHY (IH) | , SINS ( I SIB ( 69 *1>) 70 39 a FORhAT (' <LI,0>',A4,'"<U>',A4,•<NOTU>"•,A4,•«<0>«,A4, 1<NOTU>".•) I F (JP. EU. 2) HBITE (6, 1000) 71 40 72 4 1 1000 FOBHAT (' <FID-TY PE> •) 73 42 IF (JP.EQ. 3) HBITE (6,1001) 74 43 1001 FOBMAT (• <SEC-TYPE>') 75 4a WRITE (6, 1003) (ALPHA(ISIH (IP) ) ,SIMS(ISI(I (IP) ) ,IP=1,NSC) 76 45 1003 FORMAT (• <LI, 10XL,2>« ,A2. A4, « < HUNXL>« , 8 (A2. '.-•», A4 , • <DOT 77 *SXL>«) ,A2,'.->' ,A4,' <DOTS>') I F (JP. EQ. 3) HBITE (6,7) 78 46 79 47 IF (JP.NE.3) WRITE (6,6) 80 as 7 FOBBAT (• <NEXT> -• <NEXT> <INCLUDE,TKAH:BACK2> •) 81 49 6 FOBMAT (• <L,2>'| 82 50 40 CONTINUE 83 51 1 FOBHAT (« <LI,0> ',A4,» "<U >• , A 4, • <HOTU>" • , A4 , • »<U>',44,•<HOTU>• at *. <LI,10> < L , 2 > A 2 , A4," <H0N> <L> ,,/,8(A2,'.->',A4,1X, 85 «"<DOTSXL> ') .A2,'.-.1 ,A4, IX,'<DOTS>») 86 52 IH=IHX 87 53 ID=ID»1 88 54 IDX=ID*3 89 C SO c WHITE CODES FOB FOUB AFFECTIVE SCALES 91 c 92 55 DO 50 IN=ID,IDX 93 56 CALL BANUh (NSC ,ISTO ,IKVA) 9a 57 DO 51 IJ=1,NSC 95 58 ISIH ( I J ) = I S T O ( I J ) 96 59 I S 1 0 ( I J ) = 0 97 60 51 CONTINUE 98 61 ISTO (1) =ISIH (1) 99 62 JP=JP*1 100 63 WBI1E (6,1) CONC (IEH0(IN)) , SIHS (ISIH(1) ) ,CONE( IEnO (IN) ) , S M S (ISIH ( 101 *1) i, (ALPHA (ISIH (IP) ) , SIHS (ISIH (IP)) ,IP=1,MSC) 102 64 IF (JP.EQ.6) tfoITE (6,3) 103 65 IF (JP.NE.6) WBITE ( 6 , 6 ) ioa 66 3 FOBHAT (' <SEXT>') 105 67 50 CONTINUE 106 68 ID=IDX 107 69 CALL BANUH (NSC, ISTO.IN VA) 108 70 DO 61 IJ=1,NSC ' 109 71 I S I h (1J) =ISTO(I J) 110 72 ISTO(IJ)=0 111 73 61 COSTINUE 112 C <N aHIN HAIN MAIM POBTBAN IV LISTING HA IN 02:«9 P.U. JUL* 12, 1979 PAGE J (PILE=HASItl) M S ISN 113 C H BITE GENERAL MPBESSION SCALE l i t C 1 115 74 WHITE (6,2) SIMS (ISIN (1) ) , (ALPHA (ISIH (IP) ) , SIHS (ISIN (I P)) ,IP=1,NSC) FOBHAT (• <LI,0> <L,1> <GEN> "<U> •,««, •<NOTU>" <I(IP> •,• 116 2 117 *<LI,10> <L,2>',-A2, A"». » <HUNXL> ',/. 8 (A2, AU, U , 118 ««<DOTSXL> 1 ,/) , A2, ,AI»,1X, »<DOTSXNEXT> <INCLODE„TKAB: BACK1>') 119 C 120 c BEPEAT QUESTIONNAIBE T I L L SET IS COMPLETE 121 c 122 76 IF (ICO. HE« 4) GO TO 30 123 77 2000 CONTINUE 124 C 125 C NHEN ALL KEY COOES ABE FINISHED LINK IT TO TSITUSE PBOC 126 c 127 78 CALL LIBKF ('OBJE ',0,0) 126 79 STOP 129 80 END ITl BANUH BANUH BANUH ^ FOBTBAN IV LISTING BANUh 02:49 P.H. JULY 12, 1979 PAGE <t (FILE=BASIM) HTS ISN 130 1 SUBROUTINE BANUh (NVA.ISTO.INVA) 131 2 INTEGEB*2 ISTO(99) 132 C — 133 .. C INITIALIZE UANOON NUH8EB GENEHATOB 134 C — 135 3 IfiAN D (B) = FBAND (0) *NV4 • 1.0 136 4 S = SCLOCK(Q.O) 137 5 Z = BANO(S) 138 6 IK = INVA 139 . 7 6 I =• IBAND(O.O) 140 8 DO 20 IKP=1,IK 141 9 IF (ISTO(IKP) .EQ. I) GO TO 6 142 10 20 CONTINUE 143 11 IK = IK • 1 144 12 ISTO(IK) = I 145 13 IF (IK .LT. NVA) GO TO 6 146 14 BETUB8 147 15 END OF F I L E : 147 LINES HAIN 1 BANUH 4 "3-' LISTING O P -PfcoNT ; ; ' tT Ii:b7t22 OM J U L 1 1 , i ? 7 e F'OE f . f , l ) T K A H TCT I < M I N - U S , 1 X M A X - W S , 2 > I ~ " " 2 < L 1 , 0 > - > < L , 3 X A U T O C A P X S E T - S E N T E N C E , . ? > ~ " " " " " " " : " 3 < C E N T E R E D X U X U P > T H I N K I N G ABOUT A R C H IT F C T U R E * ! <L> , 4 HOW 0 0 YOU D E S C R I B E WHAT Y O U S E E , H E A R , F E E L ?<L , 2>  ' 5 < N G T U X D O W N > 6 < J U S T I F I E D X A U T O C A P > 7 < S e T - S E N T E N C E > aHOW WOULD YOU D E S C R I B E YOUR E X P ^ R I F N C E OF V I S I T I N G IV * ™~ ' 8 " S G A S L l G H T 3 S Q U A P S < A U T O C AP> ( S E T - S E N T fcNC<-:> IN 3GA ST OWN TO "$nM("ciNF " " " " " " " " " ~ " ' 0 9 E L S E 7 dOF C O U R S E , T H E R E A R E MANY W A Y S * : SOME - A Y S A R E S I M F L F P , O T H E R WAYS ARE (J) 1 0 L E S S T I M E C O N S U M I N G . a,SOM€ A R E B E T T c R FCR SOME A S P T C T S HUT NOT SO GO 3D  |J) 11 F O R D E S C R I B I N G O T H E R A S P E C T S 3F A R C H I T E C T U R E . 12 < L , 4 > 3 T 0 F I N O O U T WHICH WAYS OF D E S C R I B I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E WK B E S T FOR Y O U , 1 3 Y O U W I L L E X A M I N E 10 D I F F E R E N T M i T H O D S 1* " T H A T A R C H I T E C T S C C M M C N L Y U S E TO D E S C R I B E WHAT 3 G A S L I G H T 15 a S O U A R E IS R E A L L Y L I K E . < L , 4 X U > 16 3 B E F 0 R E YOU B E G I N * ! < N C T U > a L 0 3 K AT T H E BOARD AT T H E 5 L I N E S . biYUU o - -? — X UJ K_ 2 3 9A. a w R I T L DOWN T H e - N U M B E R S I N I f S P R O P E R S P A C E . < L , 4 > < L I . 1 0 > Q 2 * <STR I M G , L E N . 3 L E N G T H OF L I N E X S T R I N G , DOTS , •_«_*_*_*_> ^ 2 5 < L E N > dA < S T R I N G , H U N i * _ " < U > , 1 0 0 " * _ < N 0 T U > ' > <HUN> - - . P O I N T S . < L X L E N > dR < D O T S > " " " " " 2 6 " " " " P O I N T S . <L> 2 7 < L EN > a C < D O T S > PO INT S . < L X L E N > dO < D C T S > POI N T S . < L X L E N > i'E < O O T S > P O I N T S . tr 2 8 < L I , 0 X L , 4 > < U > a T J BEGIN<NOTU>«: 3 I N S T E A D OF L E N G T H , YO'J W I L L G I V 5 P U N T S T O • J 2 8 . 5 O T H E R A S P E C T S W H I C H R E L A T E TO < G A S > . 0 - 2 9 3 T U R N OVER T O T H E N E X T P A G E AND R E A D THE D E S C R I P T I O N FOR £ A C H <1>>AS0ECT ^ 3 0 < N O T U > C A R E F U L L Y . 3 T H E N S T U D Y E A C H C F T H E 10 A R C H I T E C T U R A L D I S P L A Y S AND D E C I D S 3 1 H O W W E L L <U> T H E F I R S T O N c < N Q T U > C O M P ARC S W I T H E A C H u F THE" O T H E R S I I T t ' M S .'IF 32 T H A T P A R T I C U L A R A S P E C T . a T H E F I R S T O N E IS G I V E N 1 0 0 P O I N T S A S A S T A R T I N G P ' . IINT: 3 3 D E C I D E HOW MUCH B E T T E R OR WORSE E A C H C 1 S P L A Y C O N V E Y S T H A T P A R T I C U L A R  17 MIGHT WANT SOME C C M P A R I S O N S A B O U T HJW <U>LONG < N G T U > T H L SL L I N ^ S AR -. I S I N C -1 8 L E N G T H MIGHT BE O N E A S P E C T OF A B U I L D I N G ) . 1 9 3 C 0 M P A R E L I N E S 3A AND a B F I R S T . 3 I F YOU A R B I T R A R I L Y S A Y L I N E aA I S 1 0 0 P O I N T S 2 0 L C N G , THEN HOW L O N G DOES L I N c a B A P ° E AR ? a A B P U T TWIC - 11 I J*:".? . - . — ! ' T | , ; N 2 1 T H A T WOULD BE A B O U T 2 0 0 P O I N T S d W R I l E T H A T DOWN IN T H F PFC'PLF S P A C E B E L O W . 22 3N0W C O M P A R E L I N E S C W I T H L I N E a A , L I N E 3 0 W I T H L I M E 3A Al>:0 L I N E 3£ W I T H L I N 3 3 4 A S P E C T OF T H E A R C H I T E C T U R E OF «IG A S L I G H T 3 S 0 U A R E . 3 C 0 M P A R E A L L 10 3 5 D I S P L A Y S AND R E C O R D HOW Y O U P E R S O N A L L Y F C E L A B O U T E A C H OF T H F M . < L , 4 > 3 6 3 A N Y O I S P L A Y I T E M T H A T Y O U H I L L S E E C L E A R L Y H A S _ S _ 0 _ M _ C D E G R ^ r 0 * E A C H 3 7 A S P E C T , , 3 8 HOWEVER S M A L L . 3 S 0 _ N _ 0 I T E M C A N BE G I V E N Z E R O P O I N T S OR M P G M I V = P J I N T S . • _ 3 9 < N E X T > ; X 4 0 3 C C N S I O E R T H E O U E S T I O N O F < L X U P > T I M E * : <NOTU> T I Mt <00wN>FOR T H ^ S i 4 1 D I S P L A Y S R E F E R S TO T H E NUMBER OF " U N I T S " P E O ' J I R E ' 3 TO P R E P A F F T H K M IN O R D E R TO ^ 4 2 SHOW D E T A I L S A B O U T < G A S > . d I F T H E " < U X C 6 X N 0 T U > " TOOK 1 0 0 A° H I T R A R Y M A N - " ' J N I T S " £ 4 3 D F T I HE TO C O M P L E T E , T H F ' * <MUC> f I ME WOULD L A C H of H l P ITF> T A K : " 7 d £ $ T I M A T c T H ; 1U 4 4 A P P R O P R I A T E NUMBER 4 5 O F T I M E « " U N I T S « " C O M P A R E D T O T H E " < U X C 6 X N Q T U > " . Q. *" 4 6 < L X L I , 5 X L > d A . - » < C 6 > <HUN> <MHS> 3 B . - . < C 7 > < 0 O T S X M H S > 4 7 3C«-.<C2> < D O T S X M H S > d D . - . < C 3 > < D O T S X M H S > 3 E . - > < C I > < t ) O T S X M H S > 4 8 aF«-.<C8> < U O T S X M H S > i G . - < C 5 > < O 0 T S X M H S > 4 9 d H . - < C 0 > < D 0 T S X M H S > 3 I . - < C 4 > < D J T S X M H S > d J . - . < C 9 > <POT S > < » H S X t > LISTING OP BACK1 AT 14:1*8:36 ON JUL 12, 1979 FOB CCID » TKAB PAGE 1 <NAX-WS,2XLI,0XL>aNOW 11ENE ABE SOME QUESTIONS BEGAROING YOUB PERSONAL 2 BACKGROUND WHICH HELP EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE HAVE DIPPERENT IDEAS ABOUT 3 ARCHITECTURE.<L> 4 <CENTERED> <UXUP> BACKGROUND I NFOBhATION <DOWNXAUTOCAPXSET-SENTBNCE> <L,2> 5 <NOTU> <JUSTIFI£D> 7 l.--aWHAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FOBMAL <LI,«> EDUCATION YOU HAVE COHPLETED7 8 (CHECK ONE) <L> 9 <DOTS>a£LENENTABY SCHOOL. <LXOOTS>aSECONDABY SCHOOL. <LXDOTS>aHIGH SCHOOL.<L> 10 <DOTS>aS0ME COLLEGE OB UNIVERSITY. <LXD0TS>8C0LLEGE OB UNIVERSITY COMPLETED. 11 <L> <DOTS>aSOHE GRADUATE LEVEL WOBK.<L> <DOTS>SMASTERS DEGREE COMPLETED.<L> 12 < DO TS>d DOCTORAL LEVEL DEGREE COM PL ETED. <L I , O X L , 2> 21 2.-.-SPLEASE WRITE <LI,4>HOW YOU ARE PBIMABILY EMPLOYED AT PRESENT. 22 (E.-»G.-*-»3HONEMAKER, 3STUDBNT, 3CLEBK, 3MANAGER, 3DOCTOR ETC. )<L,2> 22.5 <STFING,COL-LEFT,"<SUN,<LEFT>, 5>'> <STBING,COL-BIGHT,"<DIFF,<HIGHT>,5>'> 23 <H-LINE,<LINE>,<COL-LEFT>,<COL-IiIGHT>,_> 24 <LI,0XL,3> 3.--3FOB HOB MANY <LI,4>YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE 25 WORKFORCE? (EXCLUDE 26 THOSE YEARS DURING WHICH YOU WERE PBIMABILY A STUDENT) <DOTS>YEARS.<LI,0> 27 <L,2> 28 4.-.-.3WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF YOUR PERSONAL <LI,4>INVOLVENENT WITH BUILDING 29 INDUSTRY? (iCHECK ALL THAT APPLY) <L> 30 <DOTS>d)EVEBY DAY USER OF BUILDINGS. 31 <LXU0IS> a W 0 U K HERE, USE THIS BUILDING FOB BUSINESS 32 SEASONS. <LXDOTS>aOWN A LARGE BUILDING OR MANAGE LABGE BUILDING. <L>-.-1-.--.aWOBK 33 WITH BUILDINGS*: <LI,10> S>DO YOU <LXDOTS>BCONSTRUCT OR WORK ON BUILDING 34 SITES?<LXD0TS>3STUDY ABCHITECTUHE?<LXDOTS>3WORK AS AN ARCHITECT? 35 <LXD0IS>40WN AN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE OR EQUIVALENT? 3b <D0TS>a0THE8 (PLEASE SPECIFY <DOTSXDOTSXDOTSXDOTS>) 37 <LI,OXL,2>5.-.-.aNHAT 3d INVOLVEMENT <LI,4>DO YOU HAVE IN ARTISTIC PURSUITS (dFIHE aABTS) 39 PAINTING, SCULPTURE, PHOTOGRAPHY ETC. 7 (CHECK ONE) <L> 40 <DOTS>SUOT BEALLY <L1,9>I NTERESTED, HAY TAKE OCCASIONAL SNAP SHOTS. 41 <LI,4XLXDOTS>aOFTEN 42 <LI,9>PAINT OB TAKE PHOTOGBAPHS BUT NO IN-DEPTH TRAINING IN FINE ABTS.<LI,4> 43 <LXDOTS>3PAINT, TAKE PHOTOS ACCOHD1NG TO ABT PRINCIPLES. <LXDOTS>iSTUDY 44 THE PRINCIPLES 45 OF FINE ABTS. <LXDOTS>3TKACH AND*/ OB PBACTICE 3PINE 46 3ABTS.<L> 4 7 <D0TS>4OTHEH (PLEASE SPECIFY <DOTSXDOTSXDOTSXDOTS>) 48 <NEXI> v9 CM L I S T I N G OP BACK2 AT ii»:aa:H5 ON J O I 12, 1979 POB CCI D = TKAB PAGE 1 <LI.0>6.->-.aiiloW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU <LI, <l> VISITED THIS PLAZA BEFOBB 2 TO DAY? <DUTS>iiTIhES. 3 <LXLI,0XL>7.— - . aTHE FOLLOWING I S A LIST ai,1> OK, SHOPS IN SGASLIGHT l» iSSUUABE. (dJCHECK ALL 5 THOSE SHOPS WHICH YOU HAVE VISITED TODAY, OB MILL PBOBABLY V I S I T 6 BEFOfiE YOU LEAVE THE dSQUAB E) . 7 <LXDOTS>3ALPHAOH£GA (iMETAL ENGBAVI NG) <L> 8 <D01S>dTHE ^COLLECTION (^PICTURES AND PBINTS)<L> 9 <DOTS>SDISCOVEBY tILANE (dGIPTS) <L> 10 <DOTS>dC8AZY 9SHIBTS (ST-SHIBTS)<L> 11 <DOTS>(JIIAROQIJB SUUliL ( i l l A NBC U A PTED TABLES) <L> 12 <DOTS>dLA dCOQU ETT E (3CL0THINU)<L> 13 <DOTS>dFIBBAS (SGIFTS, HANDBAGS)<L> 14 <D0TS>3PIZZA SPATIO (3BESTAUHANT) <L> 15 <DOTS>c»SAHSON'S (SCUSTOfl HADE CLOTHES)<L> lb <DOTS>iiSILVEB dSANDS (3JEWELBY) <L> 17 <DOTS>ilBIFTY*'S (tfJEANS, SHIBTS)<L> 18 <D01S>dCLASSICAL 3GLASS (iGLASS ORNAMENTS)<L> 19 <DOTS>dBEAU SJANGLES (3JEWELRY) <L> 20 <DOTS>iHIGH AS A 3KITE <3KITES)<L> 21 <DOIS>«TWEED AND STRINGS (3W0VEN GARMENTS)<L> 22 <DOTS>3SHALB (3JEHELRY) <L> 23 <D01S>dCOTTAGE 3DELI (3BESTAUBANT)<L> 21 <DOTS>3TANGS 3ABT 3GALLEBY (30IL PAINTINGS) <L> 25 <DOTS>3SHANASH 3CBEATIONS (3LADIES GABHENTS) <L> 26 <DOTS>aLE 3FLIRT (3HAIB DBESSEBS) <L> 27 <DOTS>STROPICANA (3PHILIPPIN0 GIFTS)<L> 2B <DOTS>dCLOGS BY 4INGBID (3CL0GS, SHOES)<L> 29 <DO TS>dM A YABT 3IMPOBTS (3S0UTB 3 AMERICAN IMPORTS) 30 <LI,0XL,4> 3THANK YOU FOB YOUB TINE, YOUB EPFOHT AND FOB SHARING IOUB OPINIONS. 31 SIN THE SPACE REMAINING YOU HAY WANT TO SUGGEST WOROS OR IDEAS 32 THAT YOU THINK ABE GOOD DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUILDINGS OB OF THE 33 VABIOUS ABCBITECTUBAL DISPLAYS. 30 <HEXT> LISTING OF -STRING AT 14:48:21 ON JUL 12, 1979 FOB CCIO = TKAB PAGE 1 1 < M I N - W S , 1 X H A X - W S , 2 > 2 <DEFINITION-SPACE-SI2E,60> 3 <STRING,DOTS,*_•_•_*_*_> 4 <STR1NG,HUN,*_"<U>' 100"<NOTU>'*_ > 5 <SL>1-LIT,»> 6 <NOIUND,»! ,;:?.•> 7 <STRING,MOW,«<UP>'HOW WELL " < D O W N > ' > 8 <STBINU,NUC,"<UP>'HOW MUCH "<DOWN>' HOBE OB LESS > 9 <STRING,UAS,dGASLIGHT dSQUA8E> 10 <STBING ,Cl,aSPACE RELATION DIAGBAH> 11 <STRING,C2,dVERBAL DESCBIPTION> 12 <STRING,C3,aPLAN *A*N*D aSECTION> 13 <STRING,C4,aSKETCH DRAWING) 14 <STRING,C6,JPERSPECTIVE DBAWING> 15 <STHING,C5,atSOHETRIC DB AWING > 16 <STRING.C7 ,dULACK «A*NtD WHITE PHOTOGBAPH> 17 <STRING,C8,3COLOUB SLIDE> I d <STRING,C9,SABCHITECTUBAL HODEL> 19. < S T R I N G , C 0 , a A C T U A L BUILDING) 20 < ST RING,SEC-TYPE,* (aAGAIN*, THE OBDEB IS DIFFEBENT*. *) > 21 <STRING,FIR-TYPE,*(aNOTE THAT THE ORDER IS DIFFERENT*.*) > 23 <STRING,MHS,MAN-**UNITS*" OF TIME. "<!>•> 2 3 . 5 <SET-AHGSEP . = > 24 <STRING=Pl=aCONSIDEB THE IMPRESSION O F "<UP>"'<U>" FOBS*: »<NOTU>• "<DOWN>• 25 dTHE FOBS OF A BUILDING I S THE SPECIFIC 26 ARRANGEMENT OF FEATURES LIKE WALLS*, BAILINGS*, SKYLIGHTS*. COLUMNS*, 27 DOORS ETC*. <WHICH GIVES "<GAS>< ITS UNIQUE APPEARANCE*. a i P THE > 28 <STBING=U1 = IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOB CONVEYING EFFECTIVELY THIS IMPRESSION OP 29 FO BM O F THE dSQUABE*, THEN " ( M U O * EFFECTIVELY IS FOBS OF THE SQU ABE 30 CONVEIE0 BY THE BEMAINING ITEMS*? 31 SGIVB THE BIGHT NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH ONE COMPABED TO THE > 3 2 <STRlNG=P2=aCONSIDEB THE IDEA OF "<0>'«<UP>« FIGUBE*: "<0OWN>•"<NOTU>• *THE 33 0 F < * I i 4 G 3 U d R d E OF "<GAS>< IS IMPACT 34 OF BOUNDABY LINES*, VERTICAL*, HOBIZONTAL AND SLOPING SURFACES 35 OF WALLS, FLOORS, WINDOWS ETC*. SIP THE > 36 <STHING=H2= IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOB SHOWING COBBECTLY THE IDEA OF 37 a F i l i J G a U i B a E O F "<GAS>', THEN "<MUC>' 38 CO B HECTLY I S 3FaiaGaUdB3E OF THE aSQUABE SHOWN BY THE REMAINING 3 9 ITEMS? 8GIVE THE RIGHT NUHBEB OF POINTS TO EACH ONE COMPABED TO THE > 40 <STRING=P3=«THINK ABOUT THE ASPECT OF "<U>'"<UP>« SHADE AND SHADOW*; "<DOWN>« 41 »<NOTU>« dSHADE AND SHADOW 42 REFER TO CONTBASTS OF DARK OK LIGHT ON THE SURFACES PBESENT*. a l F THE > 43 <STRING=il3= IS ALLOTTED 1 0 0 POINTS FOB DESCRIBING THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE 44 BRIGHTEST LIGHT AND THE DARKEST DABK* OF "<GAS>', THEN "<HUC>< IS THE CONTBAST 45 BETWEEN THE BRIGHTEST LIGHT AND THE DARKEST DARK OF THE 3SQ0ABE DESCRIBED BY 46 THE REMAINING ITEMS*? BALLOT THE NUHBEB OF POINTS TO EACH 47 O N E COMPARED TO THE > 48 <STfllNG=P4=dCONSIDEB THE IMPRESSION OF "<U>'"<UP>r TEXTUBE*: "<DOWN>•"<NOTU>• 49 3TEXTU8E IS COARSENESS OB GBAININESS 50 O F SURFACES * (WALLS*, FLOORS*, CEILINGS*, HOOF*)*. a l F THE > 51 <STS1NG=H4 = IS ASSIGNED 1 0 0 POINTS FOB CONVEYING A P2ECISE aTEXTUBAL IMPRESSION 52 O F "<GAS>', THEN 53 "<HUC>' EFFECTIVELY IS THE IMPRESSION OF TEXTURE O F THE dSQUABE CONVEYED BY THE 54 OTHER ITEMS*? aGIVE THE BIGHT NUMBER O F POINTS TO EACH ONE COMPARED TO THE > 55 <STBING=P5=aC0NSIDER THE IMPRESSION OF "<UP>'"<U>' COLOUB * (PHYSICAL*) *: "<NOTU> • 56 " ( D O W N ) ' aCULOURS ABE FEATURES OP WALLS*, 57 F L O O R S • , AND OTHER PARTS OF BUILDINGS*. a i F THE > 58 <STBING=Hr>= IS GIVEN 100 POINTS F O B CONVEYING A DETAILED AND COUBECT IMPBESSION to N L I S T I N G O F - S T R I N G A T I 4 : 4 H : 2 1 O N J U L 12, 1 9 7 9 F O B C C I D - T K A R P A G E CM 5 9 OF li I E COLOUKS OF "<GAS>', THEN »<hUC>' DETAILED AND COBBECT AN IMPRESSION OF 6 0 COLOUR OF THE aSQUAHE IS CONVEYED BY THE REMAINING ITEMS * 7 3GIVE THE BIGHT 6 1 NUMBERS OF POINTS TO EACH ONE COMPABED T O THE > 62 <STHING=P6=aCONSIDER THE SENSE OP " < U P > • " < D > • SCALE | ! N D PBOPOBTIOS*: *<DOVH>t 63 "<NOTU>' SSCALE 61 AND PROPORTION RELATE TO SIZES 0? HALLS*. FLOORS*, CEILINGS ETC*. a i P THE > 6 5 <STBING=H6= IS ALLOTTED 1 0 0 POINTS FOB SHOWING THE CORRECT PBOPOBTIONALITY 6 6 AMONG WALLS, FLOORS ETC*. IN »<GAS>', THEN »<aUC>' COBBECTLY A N D I N SCALE A B E 67 THESE THINGS SHOKti BY THE OTHER DISPLAYS*? 6 8 3ALL0T THE PROPER NUMBER OF POINTS T O E A C H O N E COMPARED T O T H B > 6 9 <STRING=P7=aC0NSIDEB THE ASPECT 0? " < U P > " " < U > » VOLUME*: " < N O T U > « " < D O W N > • aVOLOSE 7 0 I S THE COMBINATION OF HEIGHT*, LEiSGTH AND WIDTH OF THE 7 1 BUILDING*. aNOW, IP THE > 72 <STRING=H7= I S GIVEN 1 0 0 POINTS PCS SHOWING COBBECTLY T H E ASPECT O F PHYSICAL 73 VOLUME OF "<GAS>", THEN 71* l»<hUC>« CORRECTLY IS PHYSICAL VOLUME OF THE 3SQIJABE SHOWN BY THE 7 5 OTHER DISPLAYS*? aGIVE THE BIGHT NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH ONE COMPABED TO THE > 76 <STRING=P8 = acONSIDEB THE ASPECT CP ' ' < U > ' " < U P > ' L ENGTH*: '^DOWN)1 «<HOTU>' SLENGTH 7 7 IS THE PHYSICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO GIVEN POINTS*. aiF THE > 78 <STR1NG=H8= I S ASSIGNED 1 0 0 POINTS FOB SHOWING CORRECTLY DISTANCE B E T W E E N POINT 7 9 fiA AND aB, THEN »<MUC>« CORRECTLY I S THE SAME DISTANCE SHOWN B Y THE OTHEB 8 0 ITEMS*? 3ASSIGN BIGHT NUMERICAL SCORE TO EACH ONE COMPARED T O THE > 8 1 <STRING = FB=aTHINK ABOUT THE NOTION OF "<H>* M<UP>' PBIENDLINESS*: "<OOHN>•"<NOTU>« 82 aotiJECTS THAT ANE 83 BEAUTIFUL*, APPEALING*. ATTRACTIVE AND WELCOMING ARE FRIENDLY*. aNOW IF THE > 8 4 <STRING=IE=IS GIVEN 1 0 0 POINTS F O R EFFECTIVELY INDICATING 85 FRIENDLINESS OF "<GAS>', THEN "<HUC>' EFFECTIVELY IS 86 THE NOTION OF FRIENDLINESS OF THE 4SQUABE INDICATED BY THE OTHEB ITEMS*? 87 3GIVE THE PROPER NUMBEB OF POINTS TO EACH ONE COMPABED TO THE > 8 8 <STRING=EX=dTHINK ABOUT THE FEELING OF "< U P > • "<U> • EXCITEMENT*: "<DOWN>1 8 9 "<NOTU>' aEXCITEMENI I S THE UNIQUE*. 9 0 INTERESTING*. EXPBESSIVE AND DYNAMIC CHARACTER OF A THING*. 3 S 0 IF THE > 9 1 <STBING=CI=IS GIVEN 1 0 0 POINTS F O R CONVEYING EFFECTIVELY THE FEELING O F 9 2 EXCITEMENT IN ''<GAS>', THEN " < M U C > « EFFECTIVELY IS 93 EXCITEMENT OF THE SSQUARE CONVEYED TO YOU BY EACH OTHER DISPLAY*? aGIVE 9U THE PROPER NUNBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPARED TO THE > 95 <STRING=SO=aCONSIDEB THE IhPRESSiON OF "<UP>•"<U>•SOLIDITY*: "<DOWN> " • < N 0 T U > « 9b aSOLIDITY MEANS MASSIVENESS*, HEAVINESS A N D STRENGTH OP FEATUBES. * I F THE > 9 7 <STBING=DI=IS ASSIGNED 1 0 0 POINTS FOB DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF SOLIDITY O F 98 " < G A S > ' , T H E N awaudAaT BAaMaoauauaT O F S O L I D I T Y O F T H E S S Q U A B E I S 9 9 DISPLAYED BY EACH ITEM*? 3ASSIGN THE PROPER NUMBER 1 0 0 OP POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPARED TO THE > 1 0 1 <STRING=OR=aCONSIDER THE ASPECT O F " < U > • " < U P > • O R G A N I S A T I O N * : "<NOTU>•»<DOWN>• 102 30RGAN IS ATION IS THE ORDEB*, C O - O R D I N A T I O N * , COHERENCE AND EFFICIENCY AMONG 1 0 3 THE PARIS OF "<GAS>'. aNOW IF THE > 1 0 4 <STRING=GA= IS ALLOTTED 1 0 0 POINTS FOR SHOWING EFFECTIVELY THE ASPECT OF 105 ORGANISATION OP THE aSQUARE, THEN "<HUC>' EFFECTIVELY I S THIS ASPECT O F THE 106 SQUAB i SHOWN BY OTHER ITEMS ? BALLOT THE PROPER NUMBEB 1 0 7 OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY RELATIVE TO THE > 108 <STlUN;=CO=aCONSlDER THE IDEA OF "<UP>«"<U>«COMPLEXITY*: "<0OWN>< "<NOTO> • 1 0 9 u)A COMPLEX OBJECT SEEMS COMPLICATED*, VAiilED*, INTRICATE*. AND DIVERSIFIED 110 IN CHARACTEB*. aHOW, IF > 1 1 1 <STR1NG=PX=IS GIVEN 1 0 0 POINTS F O R DESCRIBING T H E D E G R E E OF COMPLEXITY IN 1 1 2 "CGASV, THEN olWoltiaAdT a D J E a G B R B E a E OF COMPLEXITY IN THE 3SQUARE I S DESCRIBED 113 8Y E A C H OIHER DISPLAY*? 1 1 4 aGIVE THE PBOPIB NUMBEB OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPARED TO THE > 1 1 5 <STRIN^=MD=a>CONSIDEB THE ASPEC't OF » < 0 > ' "<UP>' NODEBN£TY* : "<NOTU>' "<DOMN>« l i b a . v ) D E B N THINGS ARE LIST ING OF/ -STRING AT 14:48:21 ON JUL 12, 1979 FOB CCID « TKAB PAGE 3 117 FASHIONABLE*, NOVEL*, UP*-TO*-DATE AND CONTEMPORARY*. 3IF THE > 118 <STRING-=ON= IS ASSIGNED 100 POINTS FOR EFFECTIVELY DISPLAYING MODERNITY OF 119 "<GAS> , ( THEN "<»UC>' EFFECTIVELY I S MODERNITY OF THE SQUARE OISPLAYED BY 120 EACH OTHER DISPLAY? 3ASSIGN THE RIGHT 121 NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPABED TO THE > 122 <STRING = BA=aCONSIDEH THE SENSE OP "<U> •''<OP> • BALANCE*: "<OOWN> "'<NOTD>' 123 BFEATUBES ABE IN BALANCE IF THEY ARE HARMONIOUS*, SHOtl PROPORTIONALITY AND 121 EQUALITY OF CONTRASTS AND SYMMETRY*. 3SO I F THE > 125 <STRING=LA= IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOB CONVEYING EFFECTIVELY THE SENSE OF BALANCE 126 IN "<GAS>', THEN "<«UC>« EFFECTIVELY IS THIS SENSE OF THE 3SQUARE CONVEYED BY 127 OTHEB DISPLAYS*? aGIVE THE PBOPEfi NUMBEB OF 128 POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPARED TO THE > 129 <STRING=VE=3THINK ABOUT THE ASPECT OF "<U >"«<UP>' VENTILATION*: '^DOWNVKNOTO* 130 dA THING THAT IS 131 VENTILATED SEEMS TO BE PUESri*, AIBY AND OPEN IN CHARACTER*. aSO IF THE > 132 <STRING=NT=IS ASSIGNED 100 POINTS FOB DESCRIBING EFFECTIVELY THE ASPECT OF 133 VENTILATION OF THE "<GAS>', THEN "<HUC>» EFFECTIVELY IS THIS 134 ASPECT OF THE iSQUARE DESCRIBED BY THE OTHEB DISPLAYS*? 135 BASSIGN THE PROPER NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPARED TO THE > 136 <STRING=CY=aTHINK ABOUT THE FEELING OF "<UP>•M<U>< COLOUHFULNESS*: »<NOTU>« 137 »<DOWN>' aCOLOUBFOL THINGS ARE VIVID*, BRIGHT, LAVISH AN 0 HICH IN OUTLOOK*. 136 a i F THE > 139 <STRING=TY=IS ALLOTTED 100 POINTS FOR EFFECTIVELY EXPRESSING COLOURFULNESS OF 140 ''<GAS>', THEN "<MUC>" EFFECTIVELY IS COLOUBFULNESS OF THE 3SQUABE EXPRESSED BY 111 EACH OF THE OTHERS? BALLOT THE RIGHT 142 NUMHEB OF POINTS TO EACH ITEM RELATIVE TO THE > 143 <STHING=SP=BCONSIOEB THE ASPECT OF «<U>'"<UP>' SPACIOUSNESS*: n<HO?a>* M<DOVli>* 144 aSPACIJUS OBJECTS SEEM TO BE ROOMY*, HIDE AND FREE IN CHARACTEB*. a i F THE > 145 <STRING=AC=IS ASSIGNED 100 UNITS FOR DESCRIBING EFFECTIVELY THE ASPECT OF 146 SPACIOUSNESS IN "<GAS>', THEN "<MUC>' EFFECTIVELY I S SPACIODSUESS OF THE 147 BSQUARE DESCRIBED DI THE REMAINING DISPLAYS*? BASSIGN 148 THE PROPER NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY RELATIVE TO THE > 149 <STRI NG=NC=BCONSIDER THE ASPECT OF "<UP>•"<U>•CLEAN LIN ESS*:"<NOTU>'"<DOKN>« 150 aCLEAN THINGS ARE ELL KEPT*, HELL MAINTAINED AND NEAT IN CHARACTER*. a SO I F 151 THE > 152 <STRING=AT=IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOR SHORING EFFECTIVELY THE ASPECT OF CLEANLINESS 153 OP "<GAS>', THEN "<MUC>> EFFECTIVELY IS THIS ASPECT OF THE dSQUAHE 154 SHOWN BY OTHER DISPLAYS*. aGIVE THE 155 PROPER NUMBER OF POINTS TO OTHEB NINE COMPARED TO THE > 156 <STRING=SI=BTHINK ABOUT THE SENSE OF "<U>'"<UP>' SIZE*: "<DO«N>«"<NOTU>« 3SIZE 157 IS THE PHYSICAL LARGENESS, BROADNESS AND BIGNESS 158 EXPRESSED BY THE OBJECT*. BSO IF THE > 159 <STRING=ZE=IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOR DESCRIBING CORRECTLY THE SENSE OF SIZE OF 160 "<GAS>'( THEN "<MUC>' CORRECTLY IS SIZE OF THE aSQUABE DESCRIBED 1b1 IN OTHER NINE? 3UIVE THE 162 PROPER NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY COMPARED TO THE > 163 <STBING=YI=3CONSIDEfl THE SENSE OF "<U> • "< UP> '8IGIDITY *: "<DOWN>' "<NOT0>« BHIGID 164 OBJECTS ARE FIXED*. STIFF AND IMMOBILE IN CHARACTER*. BIF THE > 165 <STRING=GI=IS ALLOTTED 100 POINTS FOR DESCRIBING EFFECTIVELY THE SENSE OF 166 RIGIDITY OF »<GAS>', THEN "<MUC>* EFFECTIVELY IS RIGIDITY OF THE 167 3SQUAKE DESCRIBED BY EACH OF THE REMAINING DISPLAYS*? 16b BALLOT THE PROPER NUMBER OF POINTS FOR EACH ITEM COMPARED TO THE > 169 <STRING=PL=BCONSICEB THE FEELING OP "<U>«"<UP>< PLEASANTNESS*: "<OOWN>«"<N0TU>« 170 BFEATUBES WHICH / 171 APPEAR CHEERFUL*. HAPPY AND CONGENIAL ARE CALLED PLEASANT*. BNOV I F THE > 172 <STBIHG=EA=IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOR EFFECTIVELY CONVEYING PLEASANTNESS 173 IN THE BSQUARE, THEN "<hUC>" EFFECTIVELY IS THE 174 FEELING OF PLEASANTNESS IN "<GAS>« CONVEYED BY THE OTHER DISPLAYS*? o L I ST I NO OF -STBING AT 14:48:21 OH JUL 12, 1979 FOB CCID = TKAB PAGE 175 dGIVE THE POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY BELATIVE TO THE > ( 17b <STBING=AB=i*THINK ABOUT THE " <U> • *'<U P> • A BOUSING "<DONN> • "<NOTU> • ASPECT* : 177 SAEOUSING PEATUBES ABB STIMULATING*. AGITATING AND ACTIVATING IN CUABACTEB*. 178 i l F THE > 179 <STR1NJ=0U=IS ASSIGNED 100 POINTS FOB CONVEYING THE DEGBEE OF ABOUSING ASPECTS 180 OF "<GAS>', 181 THEN iKJUSAdT iZdEiGiSaZtiZ OF ABOUSING ASPECTS OF THE dSQUASE IS CONVEYED BY 182 EACH OTHER DISPLAY*? ^ASSIGN THE PBOPER NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY 183 COMPARED TO THE > 184 <STBING=DO=*THINK ABOUT THE SENSE OF "<UP>> "<U>' DOMINANCE*: "< DOHN> " "<NOT0>« 185 3 DOMINATING FEATURES SEEMS 186 CONTROLLING*. IMPOSING, INFLUENTIAL AND IMPORTANT IN CHABACTEB*. J I F THE > 187 <STRING=MI=IS GIVEN 100 POINTS FOR DESCRIBING EFFECTIVELY THE SENSE DOMINANCE OF 188 "<GAS>', THEN S l i U O ' EFFECTIVELY IS THIS SENSE OF THE 8SQUABE DESCRIBED BY 189 THE OTHEB DISPLAYS*? 190 dGIVE THE PBOPER NUMBER OF POINTS TO EACH DISPLAY RELATIVE TO THE > 191 <STRING = GEN = "<UP>'",<U>,GENEBAL IMPRESSION*: "<OGUH>' "<NOTU>' *ALL THINGS 192 CONSIDEREC •(AND 193 INCLUDING THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU PERSONALLY*), UHAT IS YOUB OVEBALL 194 ASSESSMENT OF EACH OF THESE DISPLAYS I F THE > 195 <STRING=INP= IS ASSIGNED 100 POINTS FOB DESCRIBING AM OVERALL IMPRESSION OF 196 "<GAS>«*? > 197 <SET-AflGSEP=,> 198 <DELETE-LAYOUT,STAHDABD-LAYOUI> 199 <PAGE-DEPTH,61> 200 <BLCCK, STANDABD-LEFT, 1,60, 1,6 1> 201 <BLOCK,STANDABD-BIGHT,70,130,1,61> 202 <LAYOUT,LEFT-BIGHT,STANDABD-LEFT,STANDARD-BIGHT> 203 <INVOKE,LEFT-BIGHT> 204 <BOSTATISIICS> lUINKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE: H.OW DO Y.OU DESCRiBE Wlj AT IflJJ SI E, JJE^g, I f E i ? How would you d e s c r i b e your e x p e r i e n c e o f v i s i t i n q G a s l i q h t Square i n Gastown t o someone e l s e ? Of c o u r s e , t h e r e a r e many ways: some ways a r e s i m p l e r , o t h e r ways a r e l e s s time consuming. Some a r e b e t t e r f o r some a s p e c t s b u t not so qood f o r d e s c r i b i n g o t h e r a s p e c t s o f a r c h i t e c t u r e . To f i n d out which ways of d e s c r i b i n q a r c h i t e c t u r e work best f o r you, you w i l l examine 10 d i f f e r e n t methods t h a t a r c h i t e c t s commonly use t o d e s c r i b e what G a s l i q h t Square i s r e a l l y l i k e . ££lS£ e i 2 U feS9lD' Look at t h e board a t the 5 l i n e s . You miqht want some c o m p a r i s o n s about how lon.g. t h e s e l i n e s a r e ( s i n c e l e n g t h miqht be one a s p e c t o f a b u i l d i n q ) . Compare l i n e s A and B f i r s t . I f you a r b i t r a r i l y say l i n e A i s 100 p o i n t s l o n q , then how l o n q does l i n e B appear? . . . About t w i c e as l o n q ? . . Then t h a t would be about 200 p o i n t s ! W r i t e t h a t down i n t h e p r o p e r space below. How compare l i n e C with l i n e A, l i n e D w i t h l i n e A and l i n e E w i t h l i n e A. W r i t e down the numbers i n i t s p r o p e r space. Lenqth o f l i n e A J 0 0 p o i n t s . Lenqth of l i n e B p o i n t s . Lenqth o f l i n e C p o i n t s . Lenqth o f l i n e 0 p o i n t s . L e n q t h o f l i n e E p o i n t s . 2 2 b e g i n : I n s t e a d o f l e n q t h , you w i l l q i v e p o i n t s t o o t h e r a s p e c t s which r e l a t e t o G a s l i q h t Square. Turn o v e r t o the next paqe and read the d e s c r i p t i o n f o r each a s p ^ s l c a r e f u l l y . Then st u d y each o f the 1 0 a r c h i t e c t u r a l d i s p l a y s and d e c i d e how w e l l the £irst one compares w i t h each o f the o t h e r s i n terms of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t . The f i r s t one i s q i v e n 1 0 0 p o i n t s as a s t a r t i n q p o i n t ; d e c i d e how much b e t t e r o r worse each d i s p l a y conveys t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t of the a r c h i t e c t u r e of G a s l i q h t Square, compare a l l 1 0 d i s p l a y s and r e c o r d how you p e r s o n a l l y f e e l about each of them. Any d i s p l a y i t e m t h a t you w i l l see c l e a r l y has some, deqree of each a s p e c t , however s m a l l . So no i t e m can be q i v e n z e r o p o i n t s o r n»?qative p o i n t s . C o n s i d e r the q u e s t i o n of TINE: TIME f o r these d i s p l a y s r e f e r s to the number of " u n i t s " r e q u i r e d t o prep a r e them i n o r d e r t o show d e t a i l s about G a s l i g h t Square. I f the "ESESCeEiiie dEiHina" took lOO a r h i t r a r y m a n - " u n i t s " of time t o c o m p l e t e , then HOW MUCH raoce or l e s s time would each o t h e r i t e m t a k e ? E s t i m a t e the a p p r o p r i a t e number of time " u n i t s " compared to the " P e r s p e c t i v e drawinc]". A. P e r s p e c t i v e drawing J00 man-"units" o f t i m e . B. B l a c k and wh i t e photograph man-"units" of t i m e . C. V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n man-"units" of t i m e . D. P l a n and S e c t i o n man-"units" o f t i m e . E. Space r e l a t i o n diaqram man-"units" of time. P. C c l o u r s l i d e m a n - " u n i t s " o f t i m e . G. I s o m e t r i c drawinq man-"units" of time. H. A c t u a l b u i l d i n q man-"units" of time. I . S k e t c h drawinq man-"units" of time. J. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model man-"units" of t i m e . C o n s i d e r t h e aspect of VOLUME: Volume i s the c o m b i n a t i o n of h e i g h t , l e n q t h and width o f t h e b u i l d i n q . Now, i f t h e " P-£E§E££liy.£ 'iEiiiD.3." i s q i v e n 10 0 p o i n t s f o r showinq c o r r e c t l y t h e aspect of p h y s i c a l volume o f fiasliqht Square, then HOW MUCH more or l e s s c o r r e c t l y i s p h y s i c a l volume of the Square shown by the o t h e r d i s p l a y s ? G i v e t h e r i q h t number of p o i n t s t o each one compared t o the "££rs^e£tivg d,£jSil!3M' (Note t h a t the o r d e r i s d i f f e r e n t . ) A. P e r s p e c t i v e drawing .100 G. I s o m e t r i c drawinq I . S ketch drawinq H. A c t u a l b u i l d i n q C. Verbal d e s c r i p t i o n D. P l a n and S e c t i o n B. Black and wh i t e photoqraph P. C o l o u r s l i d e P.. Space r e l a t i o n diaqram J. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model _ _ C o n s i d e r the sense o f SCALE AND fJOPOPTION: S c a l e and p r o p o r t i o n r e l a t e t o s i z e s o f w a l l s , f l o o r s , c e i l i n q s e t c . I f the "E£rf£2£tive d£a*in.g" i s a l l o t t e d 100 p o i n t s f o r showinq the c o r r e c t p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y among w a l l s , f l o o r s e t c . i n G a s l i g h t Square, then HOW MUCH more or l e s s c o r r e c t l y and i n s c a l e a r e these t h i n g s shewn by the o t h e r d i s p l a y s ? A l l o t t he p r o p e r number of p o i n t s t o each one compared t o t h e "E££5£££tj.ve d £ 3 » i n a " . ( A g a i n , t he o r d e r i s d i f f e r e n t . ) A. P e r s p e c t i v e drawing J00 C . V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n P. C o l o u r s l i d e n . P l a n and S e c t i o n U. Black and white photograph I . S k e t c h drawinq G. I s o m e t r i c drawing E. Space r e l a t i o n diagram H, A c t u a l b u i l d i n g 3. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model Think about t he n o t i o n of PH IENDJ.INESJ>: O b l e c t s t h a t are b e a u t i f u l , a p p e a l i n g , a t t r a c t i v e and welcoming a r e f r i e n d l y . Now i f t h e "Per2122Gtive drawing/' i s g i v e n 100 p o i n t s f o r e f f e c t i v e l y " i n d i c a t i n g f r i e n d l i n e s s of G a s l i g h t Square, then HOW MUCH more o r l e s s e f f e c t i v e l y i s the n o t i o n of f r i e n d l i n e s s of the Sguare i n d i c a t e d by t h e o t h e r i t e m s ? Give t h e propec number of p o i n t s t o each one compared to the " E s t S E s e i i i s drawing.". A. P e r s p e c t i v e d r a w i n q 122 F. C o l o u r s l i d e E. Space r e l a t i o n diagram C. V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n I . S k e t c h d r a w i n g G. I s o m e t r i c d r a w i n g B. B l a c k and w h i t e photoqraph D. P l a n and S e c t i o n H. A c t u a l b u i l d i n g J. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model Think about the AROUSING a s p e c t : A r o u s i n g f e a t u r e s a r e s t i m u l a t i n g , a g i t a t i n g and a c t i v a t i n q i n c h a r a c t e r . I f t h e " P e r s p e c t i v e d r a w i n g " i s a s s i g n e d 100 p o i n t s f o r c o n v e y i n q the d e q r e e o f a r o u s i n q a s p e c t s o f G a s l i q h t Square, then WHAT DEGREE of a r o u s i n q a s p e c t s o f t h e Square i s conveyed by each o t h e r d i s p l a y ? A s s i g n t h e pr o p e r number of p o i n t s t o each d i s p l a y compared t o the " E S E S E S S t i v e dta.win.ij"' A. P e r s p e c t i v e d r a w i n g 122 G. I s o m e t r i c d r a w i n g C. V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n D. P l a n and S e c t i o n E. Space r e l a t i o n d i a q r a m B. B l a c k and w h i t e photograph I . S k e t c h d r a w i n g F. C o l o u r s l i d e H. A c t u a l b u i l d i n q J. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model C o n s i d e r the i m p r e s s i o n o f SQ1IDHI: S o l i d i t y means ma s s i v e n e s s , h e a v i n e s s and s t r e n q t h of f e a t u r e s . I f the "Per.s£ective d r a w i n g " i s a s s i q n e d 100 p o i n t s f o r d i s p l a y i n g t h e amount of s o l i d i t y o f G a s l i g h t Sguare, then WHAT AMOUNT of s o l i d i t y of the Sguare i s d i s p l a y e d by each item? A s s i g n t h e p r o p e r number of p o i n t s t o each d i s p l a y compared to the " E S E S E e c i i v e 4r.4w.iaa". A. P e r s p e c t i v e d r a w i n q 122 C. V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n B. B l a c k and w h i t e p h o t o q r a p h I . S k e t c h d r a w i n g J. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model II. A c t u a l b u i l d i n q P. C o l o u r s l i d e E. Space r e l a t i o n diagram D. P l a n and S e c t i o n G. I s o m e t r i c d r a u i n g C o n s i d e r the a s p e c t of SPACIOUSNESS: S p a c i o u s o b j e c t s seen t o he roomy, wide and f r e e i n ' c h a t a c t e t . I f t h e " P e r s p e c t i v e d f i i i n a " i s a s s i g n e d 100 u n i t s f o r d e s c r i b i n g e f f e c t i v e l y t he a s p e c t of s p a c i o u s n e s s i n G a s l i q h t Square, then HOWinUCH more o r l e s s e f f e c t i v e l y i s s p a c i o u s n e s s o f the Square d e s c r i b e d by the r e m a i n i n g d i s p l a y s ? A s s i g n the proper nuaher of p o i n t s to each d i s p l a y r e l a t i v e to the n££tSEeEiiy£ d t a w i n g " . A. P e r s p e c t i v e drawing 100 J. A r c h i t e c t u r a l model D. Pl a n and S e c t i o n F. C o l o u r s l i d e H. A c t u a l b u i l d i n q C. V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n ~~ B. Black and w h i t e photograph G. I s o m e t r i c d r a w i n g ~ E. Space r e l a t i o n diagram I. Sketch drawing GEflRRAL IfiPfiESSTON: A l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d (and i n c l u d i n q t h i n g s t h a t a r e im p o r t a n t t o you p e r s o n a l l y ) , what i s your o v e r a l l assessment of each of th e s e d i s p l a y s i f the "£SIs£ective drawing/' i s a s s i q n e d 100 p o i n t 3 f o r d«scribinq aa o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n of G a s l i g h t Square? A. P e r s p e c t i v e drawing J00 r. Sketch drawing B. Black and w h i t e photograph F. C o l o u r s l i d e ~ J . A r c h i t e c t u r a l model G. I s o m e t r i c d r a w i n g C. V e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n ~_ H. A c t u a l b u i l d i n g D. Pl a n and S e c t i o n _~Z_ E. Space r e l a t i o n diagram Now here a r e some q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g your p e r s o n a l background which h e l p e x p l a i n why people have d i f f e r e n t i d e a s about a r c h i t e c t u r e . BACKGH0UN0 IlEOnM.A.lIQN. 1. What i s tho h i g h e s t l e v e l o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n you have completed? (check one) Ele m e n t a r y s c h o o l . Secondary s c h o o l . ; High s c h o o l . Some c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y . C o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y c o m p leted. Some graduate l e v e l work. M a s t e r s degree c o m p l e t e d . D o c t o r a l l e v e l degree c o m p l e t e d . 2. P l e a s e w r i t e how you are p r i m a r i l y employed at p r e s e n t , (e. g. Homemaker, S t u d e n t , c l e r k . Manager, Doct o r e t c . ) 3. For how many y e a r s have you been employed i n the w o r k f o r c e ? ( e x c l u d e t h o s e y e a r s d u r i n g which you were p r i m a r i l y a s t u d e n t ) y e a r s . 4 . What i s t h e l e v e l of yo u r p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h b u i l d i n q i n d u s t r y ? (Check a l l t h a t a p p l y ) Every day u s e r o f b u i l d i n q s . Work here, use t h i s b u i l d i n g f o r businc;;s r e a s o n s . Own a l a r g e b u i l d i n g o r manage l a r g e b u i l d i n g . Work w i t h b u i l d i n g s : Do you C o n s t r u c t o r work on b u i l d i n g s i t e s ? Study a r c h i t e c t u r e ? Work as an a r c h i t e c t ? ~ ~0wn an a r c h i t e c t u r a l p r a c t i c e or e q u i v a l e n t ? Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) 5. What i n v o l v e m e n t do you have i n a r t i s t i c p u r s u i t s ( F i n e A r t s ) p a i n t i n g , s c u l p t u r e , photography e t c . ? (check one) Not r e a l l y i n t e r e s t a d , may take o c c a s i o n a l snap s h o t s . O f t e n p a i n t o r t a k e photoqraphs but no i n - d e p t h t r a i n i n g i n f i n e a r t s . P a i n t , t a k e photos a c c o r d i n g t o a r t p r i n c i p l e s . Study t he p r i n c i p l e s of f i n e a r t s . ~ " Teach a n d / or p r a c t i c e F i n e A r t s . O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) 6. How many t i m e s have you v i s i t e d t h i s p l a z a b e f o r e t o d a y l T i n e s . 7. The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of shops i n G a s L i g h t Square. (Check a l l t h o s e shops which you have v i s i t e d t o d a y , ot w i l l p r o b a b l y v i s i t b e f o r e you l e a v e t h e S q u a r e ) , Alphaomeqa ( f l e t a l e n q r a v i n g ) ;_; The C o l l e c t i o n ( P i c t u r e s and p r i n t s ) ; D i s c o v e r y Lane ( G i f t s ) C r a zy S h i r t s ( T - s h i r t s ) Baroque B u r l ( H a n d c r a f t e d t a b l e s ) La Coquette ( C l o t h i n g ) F i t l a s ( G i f t s , handbags) P i z z a P a t i o ( R e s t a u r a n t ) _Samson's (Custom made c l o t h e s ) S i l v e r Sands (.lewelry) T r i f t y ' s ( J e a n s , s h i r t s ) C l a s s i c a l G l a s s ( G l a s s ornaments) Beau J a n g l e s ( J e w e l r y ) ~~High a s a K i t e ( K i t e s ) Tweed and T h i n g s (Woven garments) S h a l e (Jewelry) C o t t a g e D e l i ( R e s t a u r a n t ) Tangs A r t G a l l e r y ( O i l p a i n t i n g s ) Shamash C r e a t i o n s ( L a d i e s garments) Le P l i r t ( f l a i r d r e s s e r s ) T r o p i c a n a ( P h i l i p p i n o g i f t s ) C l o g s by I n g r i d ( C l o g s , shoes) Hayart Imports (South American i m p o r t s ) Thank you f o r your t i m e , your e f f o r t and f o r s h a r i n g your o p i n i o n s . In the space r e m a i n i n g you may want to suqgest words o r i d e a s t h a t you t h i n k a r e good d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e b u i l d i n g s o r of the v a r i o u s a r c h i t e c t u r a l d i s p l a y s . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100186/manifest

Comment

Related Items