Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public

Abstract

The article reports on a survey of visual preferences for suburban office buildings. The participants comprised members of the professions involved in the speculative development of these buildings and building users. The survey method used paired comparisons of photographs representing eight different design types for suburban office buildings. The data were processed using a form of conjoint analysis. Differences in the preferences of architects and users were revealed, confirming previous surveys. Analysis of the preferences showed a different weighting of design attributes. Despite these differences, a design type could be identified that would combine the preferences of both architects and users. This finding is generalized in the proposal for an “ordered preference model” to generate designs which reconcile the preferences of both architects and laypersons.

Keywords

conjoint analysis paired comparisons architectural preferences visual preferences user preferences user surveys

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bechtel, R.B. , & Korpela, K.M. (1995). Most happy and most depressing places: A Finnish-U.S. comparison. In J. L. Nasar , P. Grannis , & K. Hanyu (Eds.), EDRA 26 Conference 1995 (pp. 80-86). Oklahoma City.

Bennetts, R. (1999). Review of Design by competition [Nasar, 1999] . Architectural Research Quarterly, 3, 380.

Bock, R.D. , & Jones, L.V. (1968). The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco: Holden-Day .

Brown, G. , & Gifford, R. (2001). Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: Whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 93-99.

David, H.A. (1988). The method of paired comparisons. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Devlin, K. , & Nasar, J.L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of "high" versus "popular" residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333-344.

Dijkstra, J. , van Leeuwen, J. , & Timmermans, H. (2003). Evaluating design alternatives using conjoint experiments in virtual reality. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 357-367.

Earl, P. (1986). Lifestyle economics: Consumer behaviour in a turbulent world. Brighton, UK: Wheatsheaf Books.

Fawcett, W.H. (1992). Staff satisfaction in new offices: Findings of an interactive computer questionnaire. Property Management , 10, 338-346.

10.

Fawcett, W.H. (1998). Investigating visual preferences: A structured comparison approach. Hong Kong Papers in Design and Development , 1, 18-25.

11.

Hershberger, R.G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In J. L. Nasar , (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 175-194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Hershberger, R.G. , & Cass, R.C. (1988). Predicting user responses to buildings. In J. L. Nasar , (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 195-211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Katoshevski, R. , & Timmermans, H. (2001). Using conjoint analysis to formulate user-centred guidelines for urban design: The example of new residential development in Israel. Journal of Urban Design , 6, 37-53.

14.

Louviere, J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Nasar, J.L. (1999). Design by competition. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Purcell, A.T. , & Nasar, J.L. (1992). Experiencing other people's houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-211.

17.

Robbins, S.P. , & Langton, N. (1999). Organizational behavior. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall.

18.

Stamps, A.E., III. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference . Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115-132.

19.

Stamps, A.E., III. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175.

20.

Summerson, J. (1966). Inigo Jones. London: Penguin.

21.

Wilson, M.A. (1996). The socialisation of architectural preference . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 33-44.

22.

Wilson, M.A. , & Canter, D.V. (1990). The development of concepts during architectural education: An example of a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 431-455.

23.

Yorke, F.R.S. , & Penn, C. (1939). A key to modern architecture. Glasgow: Blackie.