Architectural mass is widely discussed and regulated but there have been few experimental studies on just which design features influence impressions of architectural mass. I investigated the effect of four design features (visual area, partitioning, fenestration, and facade articulation) on comparative choices made on the basis of the criterion of mass. Results suggest a large effect for visual area, a moderate effect for fenestration, and very small effects for facade articulation and partitioning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BirnbaumM H, 1998Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making (Academic Press, New York)
2.
BockR DJonesL V, 1968The Measurement and Prediction of Judgment and Choice (Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA)
3.
BurdenE, 1995Elements of Architecture (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
4.
ChingF D, 1996Form, Space and Order (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
5.
ClarkR HPauseM, 1985Precedents in Architecture (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
6.
CohenJ, 1988Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ)
7.
CoombsC H, 1964A Theory of Data (John Wiley, New York)
8.
FletcherB, 1963A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York)
9.
GroatL N, 1988, “Contextual compatibility in architecture: An issue of personal taste?”, in Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications Ed. NasarJ L (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 228–253
10.
HedmanRJaszewskiA, 1984Fundamentals of Urban Design (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
11.
HindshawM L, 1995, “Design review” Planning Advisory Service report number 454 (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
12.
LightnerB C, 1993Survey of Design Review Practices (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
13.
McGuireD PDavisonM L, 1991, “Testing group differences in paired comparison data”Psychological Bulletin110(1) 171–182
14.
MontgomeryD C, 1997Design and Analysis of Experiments (John Wiley, New York)
15.
O'RourkeJ, 1993Computational Geometry in C (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
16.
PreiserW FRohaneK P, 1988, “A survey of aesthetic controls in English-speaking countries”, in Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications Ed. NasarJ L (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 422–433
17.
SmallC G, 1996Statistical Analysis of Shape (Springer, New York)
18.
Stamps III A E, 1992, “Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for environmental preference”Perceptual and Motor Skills75220–222
19.
Stamps III A E, 1993a, “Postconstruction validation of photomontage simulations”Perceptual and Motor Skills761335–1338
20.
Stamps III A E, 1993b, “Public preferences for residences: Precode, code minimum, and avant-garde architectural styles”Perceptual and Motor Skills7799–103
21.
Stamps III A E, 1993c, “Simulation effects on environmental preference”Journal of Environmental Management38115–132
22.
Stamps III A E, 1993d, “Validating contextual urban design photoprotocols: Replication and generalization from single residences to block faces”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20693–707
23.
Stamps III A E, 1997a, “Meta-analysis in environmental research”, in Space Design and Management for Place Making: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research AssociationEnvironmental Design Research Association, PO Box 7146, Edmond, OK 73083–7146, pp 114–124
24.
Stamps III A E, 1997b, “A paradigm for distinguishing significant from non-significant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories”Environmental Impact Assessment Review17249–293
25.
Stamps III A E, 1998, “Effect sizes of mountains and molehills”Perceptual and Motor Skills86913–914
26.
WinerB JBrownD RMichelsK M, 1991Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (McGraw-Hill, New York)
