Symbolic Meanings of House Styles

Abstract

For Post-Modern architects and others with an interest in architecture that communicates desirable meanings to the public, empirical study of the meaning inferred from styles can be helpful. This research examined the connotative meanings laypersons infer from various home-styles, the variability of those meanings with sociodemographic characteristics and region, and whether architects share or know public meanings. Adiverse sample of 118 adults in Columbus, Ohio, and 102 adults in Los Angeles rated six styles of homes in terms of desirability, and the friendliness and status of assumed residents. In total, 65 architects in Columbus answered the same questions and tried to guess how the Columbus public responded. Laypersons in Columbus and L.A. displayed remarkably similar patterns of response. Significant effects of style revealed that both groups rated Farm and Tudor as most desirable, Mediterranean and Saltbox and least desirable, Farm as most friendly, Colonial as unfriendly, Colonial and Tudor as highest in status, and Saltbox and Mediterranean as lowest in status. Differences in meaning emerged in relation to sociodemographic characteristics, and the architects responded differently from and misgauged the public responses.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BRUNSWIK, E. (1956) Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

CANTER, C. (1969) "An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture." Environment and Behavior 1: 37-48.

CHERULNIK, P. D. and S. K. WILDERMAN (1986) "Symbols of status in urban neighborhoods: contemporary perceptions of nineteenth-century Boston." Environment and Behavior 18: 604-622.

COOPER, C. (1976) "The house as a symbol of self," in J. Lang et al. (eds.) Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

DEVLIN, K. and J. L. NASAR (1987) Beauty and the Beast: Some Preliminary Comparisons of "Popular" vs. "High" Architecture and Public Vs. Architect Judgments of Same. Columbus: Ohio State Univ., Working Paper, Department of City and Regional Planning.

DUNCAN, J., Jr. (1973) "Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity: a Westchester County village." Geographical Rev. 63: 334-355.

FUSCH, R. and L. FORD (1986) "Architecture and the geography of the American city." Geographical Rev. 79: 324-340.

GANS, H. (1978) "Towards a human architecture: a sociologist view of the profession." J. of Architectural Education 2: 26-31.

GROAT, L. (1982) "Meaning in Post-Modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task." J. of Environmental Psychology 2: 3-22.

10.

GROAT, L. and D. CANTER (1979) "Does Post-Modernism communicate." Progressive Architecture 12: 84-87.

11.

HERSHBERGER, R. G. and R. CASS (1974) "Predicting user responses to buildings," pp. 117-143 in D. H. Carson (ed.) Man-Environment Interactions, EDRA 5. Milwaukee, WI: Environmental Design Research Association.

12.

Home Planners, Inc. (1986) Two Story Homes. Farmington Hills, MI: Author.

13.

JENCKS, C. (1977) The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.

14.

LANG, J. (1987) Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

15.

LANGDON, P. (1982) "Suburbanites rating house styles." New York Times (April 22): C12-C12.

16.

LANSING, J. B. , R. W. MARANS , and R. B. ZEHNER (1970) Planned Residential Environments. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, Survey Research Center.

17.

LEFF, H. and P. DEUTSCH (1973) "Construing the physical environment: differences between environmental professionals and lay persons," pp. 284-297 in W. Preiser (ed.) Environmental Design Research: Vol. 1 Selected Papers EDRA 4. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

18.

MICHELSON, W. (1968) "Most people don't want what architects want." Transaction 5 (8): 37-43.

19.

MICHELSON, W. (1976) Man and His Urban Environment. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

20.

NASAR, J. L. (ed.) (1988) Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

21.

NEWMAN, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. New York: Macmillan.

22.

PURCELL, A. T. (1986) "Environmental perception and affect: a schema discrepancy model." Environment and Behavior 18: 3-30.

23.

RAPOPORT, A. (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man- Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Oxford: Pergamon.

24.

RAPOPORT, A. (1982) The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

25.

ROYSE, D. C. (1969) "Social inferences via environmental cues." Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.

26.

RUSSELL, J. and L. WARD (1981) "The psychological representation of molar physical environments." J. of Experimental Psychology: General 110: 121-152.

27.

SADALLA, E. K. , B. VERSCHURE , and J. BURROUGHS (1987) "Identity symbolism in housing." Environment and Behavior 19: 599-587.

28.

SCOTT BROWN, D. (1980) "Architects' task in a pluralistic society." Harvard Architectural Rev. 1: 41-51.

29.

TUTTLE, D. P. (1983) "Suburban fantasies." Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

30.

VENTURI, R. and D. RAUCH (1977) Signs of Life: Symbols in the American City. Washington, DC: Aperture.

31.

VENTURI, R. , D. SCOTT BROWN , and S. IZENOUR (1972) Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge: MIT Press.

32.

WETHMAN, C. (1968) "The social meaning of the physical environment." Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

33.

WOHLWILL, J. F. and I. KOHN (1973) "The environment as experienced by the migrant: an adaptation-level view." Representative Research in Social Psychology 4: 35-164.