This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Nasar, J. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Urban Design Aesthetics

The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors

Ohio State University in Columbus.

Design reviewers make judgments based on their opinion of how physical features influence the evaluative quality of the building and its surroundings. What features evoke favorable evaluative responses? Although some people may view aesthetics as qualitative and idiosyncratic, researchers have continued in their search for general principles. This article reviews that research, with particular attention to building exteriors. The article defines and examines three kinds of aesthetic variables-formal, symbolic, and schemas. It highlights the importance of enclosure, complexity, and order as formal variables, of style as a symbolic variable, and of atypicality in relation to schemas. It discusses the relationship of these variables to evaluative response. As different kinds of evaluative responses may be appropriate and desirable for different kinds of places, this article considers the dimensions of evaluative response. The analysis suggests that design review seeking pleasantness should encourage order, moderate complexity, and elements of "popular" styles; design review seeking excitement should encourage high complexity, atypicality, and low order; and design review seeking calmness should encourage high order and naturalness. Acknowledging potential variability across contexts, this article offers aesthetic programming and evaluation as alternate ways to develop and refine guidelines for design review.

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3, 377-401 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/001391659402600305


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Vilnai-Yavetz and A. Rafaeli Aesthetics and Professionalism of Virtual Servicescapes Journal of Service Research, February 1, 2006; 8(3): 245 - 259. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. Vilnai-Yavetz, A. Rafaeli, and C. S. Yaacov Instrumentality, Aesthetics, and Symbolism of Office Design Environment and Behavior, July 1, 2005; 37(4): 533 - 551. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Heft and J. L. Nasar Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic Versus Static Displays Environment and Behavior, May 1, 2000; 32(3): 301 - 322. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Gifford, D. W. Hine, W. Muller-Clemm, D. J. Reynolds JR., and K. T. Shaw Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons Environment and Behavior, March 1, 2000; 32(2): 163 - 187. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. L. Nasar and X. Hong Visual Preferences in Urban Signscapes Environment and Behavior, September 1, 1999; 31(5): 671 - 691. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. W.-c. Yeung and V. R. Savage Urban Imagery and the Main Street of the Nation: The Legibility of Orchard Road in the Eyes of Singaporeans Urban Stud, April 1, 1996; 33(3): 473 - 494. [Abstract] [PDF]