An experiment is reported based on 12 streetscapes and 25 participants on how five spatial/temporal factors influenced aesthetic judgments about ordinary streets. Overall, aesthetic judgments were more strongly related to the temporal variables of total time, stationary time, and decision time rather than the spatial variables of path length or number of turns made to obtain different views. It is suggested that fancy simulations or detailed scrutiny are probably not needed to evaluate streetscapes as seen by people in the street.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1993) Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
DuerksenC. J.GoebelR. M. (1999) Aesthetics, community character, and the law. Chicago: American Planning Association.
4.
HindshawM. L. (1995) Design review Planning Advisory Service. Chicago: American Planning Association.
5.
KendigL. (2005) Too big, boring, or ugly: Planning and design tools to combat monotony, the too-big-house, and teardowns. Vol. 528. Chicago: American Planning Association.
6.
LightnerB. C. (1993) Survey of design review practices. Chicago: American Planning Association.
StampsA. E. (2011) Parameters of contextual fit: Diversity, matching, individual style, responses. Journal of Urbanism, 4(1), 7–24.
16.
WilliamsN. (1974) American planning law: Land use and the police power. Chicago: Callaghan & Company.
17.
ZieglerE. H. (1986) Aesthetic controls and derivative human values: The emerging basis for regulation. In GaileyJ. B. (Ed.), 1986 zoning and planning law handbook. Vol. 1. New York: Clark Boardman. Pp. 239–253.
