In this paper I propose a clear, efficient, and accurate method for determining if a block of contiguous buildings has an overall character. The work is needed because most contemporary design reviews presuppose the existence of visual character, but existing design principles are often too vague to make the required determination, Clarity is achieved by shifting from vague notions to a definite concept for block character: a design feature will be perceived as part of the overall character of that block if the frequency of the feature is greater than a critical threshold, An experiment suggested that the critical frequency was quite high; over 80%. A case history illustrates how the new concept of visual character could greatly increase the efficiency and accuracy of actual planning decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BentleyIAlcockAMurrainPMcGlynnG, 1985Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers (Architectural Press, London)
2.
BlaesserB W, 1994, “The abuse of discretionary power”, in Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control Eds ScheerB CPreiserW F (Chapman and Hall, New York) pp 42–50
3.
BrolinB C, 1980Architecture in Context: Fitting New Buildings with Old (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
4.
CohenJ, 1988Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ)
5.
DavisK C, 1971Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry (University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL)
6.
DavisK C, 1972Administrative Law Text (West, St Paul, MN)
7.
FregeG, 1884The Foundations of Arithmetic1996 edition, translated by AustinJ L (University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL)
8.
GroatL N, 1989, “Contextual compatibility in architecture: An issue of personal taste?”Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications Ed. NasarJ L (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 228–253
9.
HedmanRJaszewskiR, 1984Fundamentals of Urban Design (American Planning Association, Washington, DC)
10.
HillmanJ, 1990Planning for Beauty (The Stationery Office, London)
11.
MinshawM L, 1995, “Design review”, Planning Advisory Service report number 454, American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Avenue Ste 1600, Chicago, IL 60603
12.
KantI, 1787Critique of Pure Reason1965 editionSt. Martin's Press, New York)
13.
KantI, 1790Critique of Judgement1978 edition, translated by MeredithJ C (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
14.
KeefeRSmithP (Eds), 1996Vagueness: A Reader (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
15.
KrampenM, 1979Meaning in the Urban Environment (Pion, London)
16.
LaiR T, 1994, “Can the process of design review withstand legal scrutiny?”, in Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control Eds ScheerB CPreiserW F (Chapman and Hall, New York) pp 31–44
17.
van der LaanH, 1983Architectonic Space: Fifteen Lessons on the Disposition of the Human Habitat translated by PadovanR (E J Brill, Leiden)
18.
LightnerB C, 1993, “Survey of design review practices”, Planning Advisory Service memo, American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Avenue Ste 1600, Chicago, IL 60603
19.
McAlesterVMcAlesterL, 1995A Field Guide to American Houses (Alfred A Knopf, New York)
20.
O'RourkeJ, 1993Computational Geometry in C (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
21.
RussellBWhiteheadA N, 1910Principia Mathematica1973 editionCambridge University Press, Cambridge)
22.
ScheerB CPreiserW F E, 1994Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control (Chapman and Hall, New York)
23.
StampsA EIII, 1993a, “Simulation effects on environmental preference”Journal of Environmental Management38115–132
24.
StampsA EIII, 1993b, “Validating contextual urban design photoprotocols: Replication and generalization from single residences to block faces”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20693–707
25.
StampsA EIII, 1994, “A study in scale and character: Contextual effects on environmental preferences”Journal of Environmental Management42223–245
26.
StampsA EIII, 1996, “Effect sizes as a lingua franca of environmental aesthetics”, in Public and Private Spaces: EDRA 27 Eds NasarJ LBrownB, Environmental Design Research Association, PO Box 7146, Edmond, OK 73083–7146, pp 151–162
27.
StampsA EIII, 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 Association Eds AmielM SVischerJ C, Environmental Design Research Association, PO Box 7146, Edmond, OK 73083–7146, pp 114–124
28.
StampsA EIII, 1997b, “Of time and preference: Temporal stability of environmental preferences”Perceptual and Motor Skills85883–896
29.
StampsA EIII, 1997c, “A paradigm for distinguishing significant from non-significant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories”Environmental Impact Assessment Review17249–293
30.
StampsA EIII, 1997d, “Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review”Science and Engineering Ethics3(1) 85–98
31.
StampsA EIII, 1998a, “Measure of architectural mass: From vague impressions to definite design features”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25825–836
32.
StampsA EIII, 1998b, “Complexity of architectural facades: From vague impressions to definite design features”Perceptual and Motor Skills871407–1417
33.
StampsA EIII, 1999a, “Architectural detail, van der Laan Septaves, and pixel counts”Design Studies2083–97
34.
StampsA EIII, 1999b, “Gender, complexity, and preferences for residential facades”Perceptual and Motor Skills forthcoming
35.
StampsA EIII, 1999c, “Demographic effects in environmental preference”Journal of Planning Literature forthcoming
36.
StampsA EIII, 1999d, “Physical determinants of preferences for residential facades”Environment and Behavior forthcoming
37.
StampsA EIIIMillerS D, 1993, “Advocacy membership, design guidelines, and predicting preferences for residential infill designs”Environment and Behavior25367–409
38.
TugnuttARobertsonM, 1987Making Townscape: A Contextual Approach to Building in an Urban Setting (Mitchell, London)
39.
US Department of Commerce, 1996, “Tables C1–C5”Construction Review41(4) 15–23
40.
UzzellD LJonesE M, 1996, “Incorporating the visual impact of building into BREEAM: A study for the Building Research Establishment”, report, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford
41.
WilliamsonT, 1994Vagueness (Routledge, London)
42.
WonnacottT HWonnacottR J, 1969Introductory Statistics (John Wiley, New York)
