Abstract
Different styles of facades can have a satisfying or dissatisfying psychological effect on people. According to the literature on façade evaluation, perceptual dimensions are effective in façade aesthetics. In this research the effect of perceptual dimensions of familiarity, complexity, originality and excitement on the aesthetics of postmodern, neoclassic and late modern style façades have been investigated. Two groups of architects and non-architects assessed 15 images of the three-façade styles in the city of Tehran. The partial least squares structural equation modelling approach was used to test the model obtained from the research literature. A questionnaire was adopted to measure the perceptual dimensions effective in the aesthetics of fifteen façade images. 340 non-architects and 143 architects filled out the questionnaire. The results show that the structural model can be a valid framework upon which to evaluate the aesthetics of the facades by two groups of architects and non-architects. For both groups of architects and non-architects, the originality of the façade design has the greatest impact on the beauty evaluation of the facade. The originality and excitement perceptual dimensions mediate the relation between the complexity and beauty perceptual dimensions. The presented structural model can assist architects and policymakers on the perceptual dimensions significant to facade aesthetics. Furthermore, the empirical findings and the discussion presented on the perceptual dimension expand the theoretical background on facade aesthetics. The presented structural model can be used to evaluate the aesthetics of other façade types or apartment facades in other locations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Figshare repository (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21975086).
References
Abu-Obeid, N. (2006). The effect of consistency between type and style in church and nonreligious buildings on the semantic responses of Jordanians. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5010
Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-007-9082-9
Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. H., & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity, and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.005
Baker, J., & Oppewal, H. (2022). The effects of floor plan representations on preferences for apartments. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 38(2), 727–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-022-09966-w
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton Century Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere.
Brown, G., & Gifford, R. (2001). Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: Whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0176
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13035
Crozier, J. B. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics (pp. 27–90). Halsted.
Cubukcu, E., & Kahraman, I. (2008). Hue, saturation, lightness, and building exterior preference: An empirical study in Turkey comparing architects’ and nonarchitects’ evaluative and cognitive judgments. Color Research and Application, 33(5), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/col.20436
Cubukcu, E., & Diktas, E. O. (2013). Turkish modern and postmodern houses: Evaluative differences between design and non-design students. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 7(1), 37–51.
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(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80013-1
Erdogan, E., Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., & Erdogan, H. A. (2010). Aesthetic differences between freshmen and Pre-architects. Gazi University Journal of Science, 23(4), 501–509.
Erdogan, E., & Akalin, A. (2012). A cross-sectional study of the architectural preferences of students at two Schools of architecture. Journal of Selcuk University Natural and Applied Science, 1(3), 1–27.
Erdogan, E., Binici, S., Akalin, A., & Yildirim, K. (2013). Urban Codes: Familiarity, impressiveness, complexity, and liking in façades of houses. Gazi University Journal of Science, 26(2), 319–330.
Ghobadian, V. (2014). Sabkshenasi va mabani nazari dar memari moaser Iran [Theories and styles in contemporary Iranian architecture]. Institute of Architectural Science.
Ghomeshi, M., & Jusan, M. M. (2013). Investigating different aesthetic preferences between architects and nonarchitects in residential façade designs. Indoor and Built Environment, 22(6), 952–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X12458513
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D. J., & Shaw, K. T. (2000). Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972487
Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., & Shaw, K. T. (2002). Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: Cognitive properties and physical bases. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(2), 131–148.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
HashemiKashani, S. M., & Pazhouhanfar, M. (2023). Role of physical attributes of preferred building facades on perceived visual complexity: A discrete choice experiment. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-02980-0
Herzog, T. R., Gray, L. E., Dunville, A. M., Hicks, A. M., & Gilson, E. A. (2013). Preference and tranquility for houses of worship. Environment and Behavior, 45(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511410422
Ibrahim, A. F., Abu-Obeid, N., & Al-Simadi, F. (2002). The effect of personality traits on architectural aesthetics’ evaluation: Familiar and non-familiar environments as evaluated by architectural and non-architectural students. Architectural Science Review, 45(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2002.9697511
Ilbeigi, M., Kohneroudposht, A. M., Ghomeishi, M., & Behrouzifard, E. (2019). Cognitive differences in residential facades from the aesthetic perspectives of architects and nonarchitects: A case study of Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, 101760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101760
Imamoglu, C. (2000). Complexity, liking, and familiarity: Architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0155
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 334–356. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207221
Mastandrea, S., Bartoli, G., & Carrus, G. (2011). The automatic aesthetic evaluation of different art and architectural styles. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 5(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021126
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589213001
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600305
Nasar, J. L., & Devlin, A. S. (2000). Regional variation in preferences for vernacular houses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02304.x
Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916586181001
Purcell, T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people’s houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80135-5
Purcell, T. (1995). Experiencing American and Australian high- and popular-style houses. Environment and Behavior, 27, 771–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276003
Russell, J. A., & Lanius, U. F. (1984). Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80029-8
Ruta, N., Mastandrea, S., Penacchio, O., Lamaddalena, S., & Bove, G. (2018). A comparison between preference judgments of curvature and sharpness in architectural façades. Architectural Science Review, 62(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1558393
Sadeghifar, M., Pazhouhanfar, M., & Farrokhzad, M. (2018). An exploration of the relationships between urban building façade visual elements and people’s preferences in the city of Gorgan. Iran. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 15(6), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1548340
Smets, G. (1973). Aesthetic judgement and arousal: An experimental contribution to psycho aesthetics. Leuven University Press.
Stamps, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0036
Stamps, A. E. (1999). Physical determinants of preferences for residential facades. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 723–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972326
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581135001
Wegener, B., & Schmidt, P. (2023). Wellbeing at home: A mediation analysis of residential satisfaction, comfort, and home attachment. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10068-4
Wickelgren, W. A. (1979). Cognitive psychology. Prentice Hall.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4(5), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210521
Wohlwill, J. F. (1974). Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 2(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01558117
Wohlwill, J. F. (1975). Children’s responses to meaningful pictures varying in diversity: Exploration time vs. preference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(2), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(75)90108-3
Zeki, S. (2019). Beauty in Architecture: Not a Luxury - Only a Necessity. Architectural Design, 89(5), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2473
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Principal author Mahboubeh Sadat Mortazavi based on the outcome of PhD thesis under the supervision of second and third authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Consent to participate
All participants gave informed consent to participate in the study. The study commenced with an explanatory statement to participants. It outlined the purpose of the research, possible benefits, what the research involves, the time their participation will take, confidentiality,
storage of data, use of data for other purposes, results, and complaints.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is based on the PhD dissertation completed by Mortazavi (2022).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mortazavi, M.S., Mehdizadeh Saradj, F. & Faizi, M. Perceptual dimensions effective in the aesthetics of façade styles, comparison of architects and non-architects. J Hous and the Built Environ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-024-10123-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-024-10123-8