Preconstruction public evaluation of proposed interventions in the physical environment (and postoccupancy evaluations of built projects) involve the lay public to an unprecedented degree as both virtual participants in the design process and as preeminent factors in the design considerations. The implications of these developments include the necessity for more specific identification of user groups and more experientially oriented means of performance specifications, environmental representation, and user response elicitation. The consequences will significantly affect design practice, education, and research as well as provide an empirical basis fordesign theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appleyard, D. (1977). Understanding professional media. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment. New York: Plenum.
2.
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
Belinsky, G. (1991, June 3). The marvels of virtual reality. Fortune Magazine.
4.
Benedikt, M. L. (1980). On mapping the world in a mirror. Environment and Planning B, 7-7.
5.
Cline, A. , & Sanabria, S. (1984). Toward equal time for the future in architectural curricula: The case of historyand future at Miami University. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
6.
Craik, K. , & Bosselmann, P. (1987). Perceptual simulations of environment. In R. B. Betchel, R. W. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Behavioral issues in environmental design (pp. 162-190). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
7.
Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8.
Davis, G. (1982). The relationship of evaluation to facilities programming. In Proceedings of Symposium on Evaluation of Occupied Design Environments. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
9.
Frampton, K. (1991). Reflections on the autonomy of architecture: A crique of contemporary production. In D. Ghirardo (Ed.), Out of site. Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
10.
King, S. (1989). Co-design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
11.
Langer, S. (1942). Discursive and presentational forms. In Philosophy in a new key. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Laseau, P. (1975). Graphic problem solving. Boston, MA: Cahners.
13.
Pollack, A. (1989, April 10). What is artificial reality?New York Times.
14.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1980). Special issue on evaluating occupied environments. Environment and Behavior, 12(4).
15.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1985). Programming the built environment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
16.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1988). Post occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
17.
Rusch, C. , & Silverstone, S. (1967, December). The medium is not the solution. A.l.A.Journal.
18.
Stringer, P. (1975, October). The myths of architectural creativity. Architectural Digest, p. 14-14.
19.
Thiel, P. (1990). Starting off on the right foot: An incremental approach to design education for responsible public service. Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student. Santa Fe, NM.
20.
Thiel, P. (in press). Environmental design forsequential experience. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
21.
White, E. T. (1986). Space adjacencyanalysis. Tucson, AZ: Architectural Media.
22.
Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquirybydesign. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
