The Age of Environmental Psychology by julia.prell

The Age of Environmental Psychology A study of the development of environmental psychology within an architectural context from the 1970s through to the 21st century

Julia Mary Prell

Bachelor of Interior Architecture Final Year Dissertation

UNSW Built Environment UNSW Australia 2018

Abstract

Examining the history and development of the academic field of environmental

psychology, this dissertation explores the theories and research relating to the engagement and behaviour of people within an architectural context. Through a historical framework, the early years are explored as a foundation for understanding the development of the behavioural study into a scientific study due to need for more in-depth examination.

This dissertation explores the theories and research methodologies that were

adopted by psychologists during the late twentieth century and their desire to work alongside architects in order to create design solutions that responded to the theoretical research. Through analysis of seminal texts of this period of study, the theories are presented, and the perceived failure of these theories to be applied to the built environment is realised.

Through a study of the cognitive revolution at the turn of the century, this

dissertation addresses the contemporary context of environmental psychology and the impact of this cognitive study on design, particularly architectural interiors. Questions are raised surrounding the importance of the consideration of a humancentric design approach and the necessity of understanding an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cognitive response to the built environment in order to design enriching environments for peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health and well-being.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like thank Dr Sing Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy at the University of New South Wales for his

guidance and support through the development of this dissertation as my academic supervisor.

I would like to thank Anna Prell for her time and support with editing this dissertation.

I would like to thank my family for their support and patience during the process of

this dissertation and design studio.

Lastly I would like to thank Jack Peacock and Bee Goik for advice, support and

understanding through the process we were all involved in together.

Table of Contents Pages

Plagiarism Declaration…………………………………………………………….. i

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………. ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………. iii

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….. 1

Chapter One: Historical Background of Environmental Psychology………………… 4

1.1 Origins of environmental psychology ……………………………………… 4

1.2 Influence of David Canter…………………………………………………… 6

1.3 Architectural movements in the 1970s …………………………………….. 7

1.4 Years of collaboration ……………………………………………………….. 8 1.5 Criticism of environmental psychology ……………………………………… 9

Chapter Two: Theories and Research Methods ………………………………………….. 11

2.1 David Canter: ‘Psychology for Architects’ ………………………………….. 11

2.2 Harold Proshansky: ‘Environmental Psychology and Design Professions…. 14

2.3 Cornelius Deasy: ‘Design for Human Aﬀairs’ ……………………………….. 15

2.4 Robert Sommer: ‘Social Design’ ……………………………………………. 16

2.5 Theoretical Focus ……………………………………………………………. 17

Chapter Three:

Emergence and Impact of Cognitive Psychology ………………………. 19

3.1 Lack of practical application ………………………………………………… 19

3.2 Contemporary architectural challenges …………………………………….. 21 3.3 Re-emergence of environmental psychology through cognitive research … 22

3.4 Empathetic design ………………………………………………………….. 22

3.5 Nature in interiors ……………………………………………………………. 23

3.6 Versatile action settings ……………………………………………………… 25

3.7 Metaphoric architecture ……………………………………………………… 28

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………31

References ……………………………………………………………………….. 34

Introduction

The curation of the human experience within the built environment has been the aim

of architects throughout history, but the consideration of how these curated spaces impact an individual’s health and well-being is a relatively new consideration in the design process. This dissertation aims to explore the theories that arose from the study of of environmental psychology in the1970s and 80s and highlight the development of the research from a behavioural study of people within the built environment to a scientific study of the human cognitive response to architecture in the contemporary context. Environmental psychology explores human interaction with a surrounding environment. With a focus on the built environment, environmental psychology in the late twentieth century examined how people’s behaviour and experiences were influenced by their surroundings and correspondingly, how people could shape the environments around them. Emerging as an academic field of study in the 1960s, psychologists believed that architecture should be designed with the users as the central focus, influencing the overall function of the buildings. Through many years of research and development, the study remained based on theoretical research with little physical application. In a more contemporary context, these theories have developed with the emergence of new technologies allowing for a more specific study of the brain’s response to an environment, highlighting that a human-centric design process, can benefit people’s health and well-being. This suggests a greater need for architects to consider the interaction of individuals with the built environment in order to create spaces that will engage and enhance people’s experience of their buildings.

In Chapter one, the historical context of environmental psychology is established.

Through this chapter the historical framework is chronicled from the early 1900s with the writings of Wilhem Wundt, through the interdisciplinary development of the applied psychology in the 1960s and 70s, to the reversion of the field of research back to a theoretical study due to the lack of architectural resolution in the 1980s. From the 1900s, the field of study gradually evolved from an approach of philosophical examination to one of scientific research and it was during the 1960s that it was first recognised as a discipline of academic study (Petrovic et. al 2015:482). Introducing David Canter’s 1974 text ’Psychology for Architects’ which explores the overall premise of environmental psychology and the social and physiological eﬀects of architectural design on humans, chapter one explores the influence of the text as a promotion of a more collaborative process between psychologists and architects. In addition, the architectural context of the 1970s and 80s is discussed. The shift from modernist to post-modernist architectural design was a rejection of the modernist values of simple, functional and rational architecture which was seen by post-modernists to be ignorant of any context or cultural influence (Jencks 2002:96). With a focus on more user-

centric design from post-modern architects, their interest in environmental psychology grew and the collaborative nature of the study increased. However, with very little physical application of the theories at the time, involvement from architects was quickly abandoned as interest declined and the study moved from an applied psychology to a theoretical study.

Chapter two breaks down the research and theories that evolved from the early years

of the study of environmental psychology through textual analysis of Canter’s ‘Psychology for Architects’ (1974) and other seminal texts of the period. In this chapter ‘Psychology for Architects’ is studied in greater detail. In his book, Canter presented his theories and explored the way people behaved and interacted with the built environment. Canter aimed to educate readers on the basic concepts of environmental psychology by providing a framework that would help architects design buildings that created environments that responded directly to the needs of the users (Canter 1974:5). He presented his theories as a way to combat the assumptions he believed architects were making towards design and the built environment. The theories considered both the conscious and sub-conscious behaviour of people within these environments, which will be explored in this chapter. Along with Canter’s text, chapter two examines texts from the1970s and 1980s that also presented theories surrounding human behaviour and interactions with the built environment. These texts each promoted collaboration between architects and psychologists and suggested that these theories should be applied to architecture within the built environment. The overall study of environmental psychology had a human behavioural focus and studied the way people interacted with architecture, however, overall it lacked clear direction or suggestion on how to apply the research to the built environment (Schneekloth 1985:146). This is seen to be a major reason why architect’s involvement in the study declined and due to the observational nature of environmental psychology, the study remained a research-based system.

The last chapter explores the progress of environmental psychology from the mid

1980s to a contemporary context and the evolution of the study through a renewed focus on scientific research. Chapter three examines the reasons why the theories that developed during the early years of environmental psychology largely did not translate into the built environment. The changes experienced by environmental psychology through the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, due to the rapid development of technology and a shift to scientific cognitive study, are explored, highlighting the influence of the study within a contemporary context (Goldhagen 2017:25). Exploration of the influence of cognitive research and brain mapping on environmental psychology emphasises how the study focused on people’s cognitive response to the built environment and the eﬀects this has on their health and well-being. Through analysis of architectural examples, this chapter explores design principles that have been realised through cognitive research and the application of these principles to architecture, particularly interiors, as well as the influence of a more

empathetic approach to design. Empathetic design encourages enhancement of human capabilities through engaging and enriching environments, using cognitive studies to understand the brainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to diďŹ&#x20AC;erent stimuli in an individual's surroundings (Koppen & Meinel 2012:42). This exploration and analysis of practical examples highlights the findings of the research and development of environmental psychology into an applied science.

This dissertation aims to provide an understanding of the history and development of

environmental psychology within the built environment since its academic origins in the 1960s. Architecture is inherently a human-centric design field and therefore the consideration of an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s psyche and cognition throughout the design process is important in order to create environments that respond to the needs and well-being of the inhabitants. Studying the evolution of environmental psychology provides a deeper understanding of the ways that cognition can influence architecture and sheds light on how future designers can best utilise the findings of environmental psychology to create more enriching spaces for human-kind.

Chapter One Historical Background of Environmental Psychology

Architecture by nature is a human-centric practice but to what degree are the needs

of people and their level of comfort within spaces considered in the design process? During the mid to late twentieth century, this question was raised directly by environmental psychologists with a focus on the social and physiological behaviour of humans within the built environment. Due to major global socio-political changes including the after-math of World War Two and the political unrest of the cold war, psychologists focused on a more humanistic approach to the study because of the immense cultural upheaval at this time. Chapter One provides a contextual framework for the study of environmental psychology and its application to architecture and the built form. In this chapter, the foundations of environmental psychology from the early twentieth century are established and the development of the field through research and experimentation within an architectural context is explored. The history and pioneers that framed the behavioural science within an architectural context, reveal a broad understanding of the immediate influence and relevance of the study of environmental psychology, which provided the foundations for a more considered design approach towards human interaction with the built environment . An analysis of David Canter’s influential book ‘Psychology for Architects’ (1974) provides an understanding of the basic theories behind environmental psychology and explores how this book inspired further collaboration between architects and psychologists. In addition to examining the psychological practice, the history of architectural movements during the 1970s and 1980s is also introduced. This provides an overview of the changing architectural landscape of the time which began to focus more on human-centric design, opening up the opportunity for collaboration with the study of environmental psychology. The critics of environmental psychology are introduced as a precursor to the eventual decline in architectural participation with the study and application of the theories to the built environment.

1.1 Origins of environmental psychology

The practice of environmental psychology is a theoretical and applied social science

that studies the relationship between humans and their surrounding built and natural environments (Bonnes 1995: 1). It explores the contextual exchange in which the behaviour of people and their experiences are influenced by their surroundings and similarly the ability of humans to shape the environments around them (Bonnes 1995:38). The theoretical origins of this branch of psychology date back to the early 1900s as the turn of the century saw a

change in the study of psychology from philosophical to scientific (Pol 2007:96). The birth of this experimental psychology is often attributed to the appearance of Wilhem Wundt’s (1832-1920) handbook ‘Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie’ (Principles of Physiological Psychology:1874). Wundt was a German physician and philosopher and considered one of the founding figures of modern psychology (Petrovic 2015:481). It was his handbook that proposed the connection between the scientific study of physiology, everything that can be perceived through external senses, and psychology, the human inner observation and the workings of the psyche (Pol 2007:96). Willy Hellpach (1877-1955), a student of Wundt, became the first psychologist to explicitly refer to environmental psychology (Pol 2007:96). In his first published journal ‘Geopsyche’ (1911), Hellpach analysed the climatic and geographical eﬀects of an environment on human activity. He investigated the influence of the sun and the moon as well as extreme weather conditions on macro and micro communities (Hellpach 1911: 26). Through this study he defined his research goal in his text ‘Pyschologie der Umwelt’ (Psychology of the Environment:1924) to study “the psyche in as far as it depends on its factual environment” (Petrovic et al 2015: 482). Another line of thought forming in the early twentieth century was the study of Gestalt psychology (Pol 2007:98). The aim of Gestalt psychology was to understand an environment from a wholistic viewpoint with which to account for human behaviour (Pol 2007:98). It separated geographical environment (that which exists in the real world) from behavioural environment (the environment as perceived and experienced by a person). This line of study believed that only the behavioural environment was significant and relevant for an understanding into analysis of behaviour (Pol 2007:105). Psychologists focused purely on the behavioural nature of society and believed that the reaction of people to space could be altered by past experiences and individual perceptions. These early considerations into the surrounding environments of people were the origins for the formation of environmental psychology as its own branch of social psychology (Bonnes 1995:174).

It was during the late 1960s that environmental psychology began to develop rapidly

into its own discipline of academic study (Pol 2007:103). Due to a rise in population density, geo-political conflict and interracial tensions at this time, an emphasis on research into radical human behaviour gained popularity among psychologists and a direct focus on the human environment contextualised this study (Petrovic et al 2015:480). During this time, architecture became the main contextual emphasis for environmental psychology and was commonly referred to as architectural psychology (Petrovic et al 2015: 482). This understanding of how the human environment relates directly to built form was first reflected in 1970 in the book titled ‘Environmental Psychology’ written by Harold Proshansky (1920-1990). Proshansky was an American social psychologist, and later environmental psychologist, who pioneered the study of the human experience within architectural environments (Pol 2007:101). He and his colleagues at The City University of New York began to explore the interactions of people and

place in the late 1950s and discovered that there was a gap in the broader study of social psychology relating to these interactions (Proshansky et al 1970: 23). At this early stage of the discipline of environmental psychology, psychologists focused on the psyche of the individual and their influence on, and interaction with, existing spaces. The experiments and research that was collected in the early years of the field considered the built form as more of an external influence rather than a direct factor that could be manipulated to benefit the users of the space (Petrovic et al 2015:483).

1.2 Influence of David Canter

Inspired by the need for a focus on the architectural context of environmental

psychology, David Canter (1944) began to focus on the need to overcome architectural determinism, the doctrine that all human action is determined by architects and their designs (Steinmann 1975: 40). He encouraged a psychologically informed architectural practice that considered human needs within the built environment and the most eﬀective way to achieve this (Canter 1996: 321). David Canter, a psychologist from the UK, was a major contributor to the field of environmental psychology and published many works outlining the importance of the recognition and incorporation of environmental psychology within the field of architecture (Petrovic et al 2015:481). In his book ‘Psychology for Architects’ (1974) Canter explored the social and psychological eﬀects of architectural design by suggesting ways in which interiors and spatial design could influence mood and behaviour. ‘Psychology for Architects’ was aimed at broadening the awareness of architects, focusing on the relationships between humans and architectural space (Canter 1974: 2). Canter put forward research that challenged the assumptions he believed architects made about human behaviour during the design process and aimed to educate architects on the nature of human interaction with the built environment. Set out in ten chapters, Canter outlined psychological theories such as the laws of the gestalt theory influencing perception, and territorial behaviour dictating personal space (Canter 1974: 9). Through these theories he presents an understanding of how people interact with space due to social and physiological factors and poses questions to the reader to consider how the space can respond best to these situations (Steinmann 1975: 40). The book aimed to correlate the basic elements of environmental psychology and the ways in which they can inform the decisions of architects through form, spatial organisation and design. Canter combined both a behavioural and cognitive understanding of space beyond just the physical form (Archer 1974:890).

Canter’s research into how psychology could help shape architecture in ‘Psychology

for Architects’ influenced a shift of environmental psychology to a more inter-disciplinary study with more involvement from the field of architecture. The development of the field of

environmental psychology revealed fundamental difficulties with the distinction of a physical environment without consideration into the social and physiological factors which Canter explores in his book (Dayarante 2002:40). The investigation of how the physical environment affected individuals was not complete without research into external factors, meaning that a wholistic, integrated study was needed to explore all aspects of an experience (Dayarante 2002:42). Canter’s book influenced a growing interest in the field of environmental psychology as research had previously only focused on the study of environmental behaviour rather than the ways it could impact future architecture (Gifford 2011:442). Through more publications and the formation of societies and conferences such as the Environmental Design Research Association in the US and the International Architectural Psychology Conference in the UK (which was led by Canter), research and investigation was able to be shared and discussed between psychologists (Petrovic et al 2015: 483). This allowed for a broader understanding of the importance of environmental psychology and the consideration into ways the research could be tested and potentially applied in real projects (Gifford 2011:460). Canter began to consider the practical application of environmental psychology to the built form, suggesting that collaboration between architects and psychologists would be necessary for a more informed understanding of the built environment and how people interact with space (Canter 1974: vii).

1.3 Architectural movements in the 1970s

The late twentieth century brought about major changes in the overall architectural

landscape of the time. This was thought to demonstrate a significant shift towards a focus on the cultural context and users of the space as inspiration for architecture (Pol 2007:106). Modernist architecture dominated the architectural landscape of the early twentieth century as a reaction against the previous neo-classical style. Modernist architects believed in rational architecture that consisted of pure forms, eﬃcient materials and removal of unnecessary decoration (Jencks 2002:9). Influenced by the development of technology in building and materials especially in the use of steel, glass and reinforced concrete, architects designed using the principle that building structure and function should derive directly from the final purpose of the built form (Huyssen 1986:11). This framework emphasised that the eﬃciency and structural elements of a building were the most important element in creating a userfriendly building that was simple and clear from a functional perspective. Critics of modernist architecture accused architects of creating bland, sterile environments that were disenchanting and ignored the contextual culture and history of the cities in which the buildings were situated (Jencks 2002:2). During the 1950s, many critics of modernist architecture questioned the architectural design within cities that had been adopted partly as a result of the higher density of buildings and what they perceived as a lack of deeper

understanding into the culture and society. As a result of the rejection of this architectural movement and process, the foundations of post-modern architecture began to form with emphasis placed on the cultural identity of the inhabitants and context of the site (Jecnks 2002:53). Post-modern architects aimed to create atmospheres within their built forms that responded to the context of the site, which they believed to be lacking in the modernist buildings. Their approach to architecture was to create buildings that responded to the external influences of their surrounding environment. This shift in architecture was seen as moving away from the industrial and rational nature of modernist architecture (Huyssen 1986: 6). However, similarities between the movements lay in their attention to human focused design and performance orientated architecture (Huyssen 1986:8). Both movements sought to achieve buildings that responded to the needs of society(Huyssen 1986:8). The diďŹ&#x20AC;erences in these architectural periods originated from their treatment of this philosophy. Modernists believed that simple forms and clear spatial division resulted in spaces that functioned eďŹ&#x20AC;ectively whereas post modernists believed that a connection with culture was needed to create an environment that responded to the people in the space(Jenks 2002: 209). This shared philosophy between two distinct architectural movements was where the involvement of environmental psychology shifted to the forefront and an interdisciplinary process between psychologists and architects formed.

1.4 Years of collaboration

The beginnings of a collaboration between architects and psychologists shifted

environmental psychology from a research-based science to an applied science. In order for research to develop beyond the scientific study and be further applied to the built environment, psychologists and architects had to work together to most eďŹ&#x20AC;ectively incorporate theories and experiments into architectural forms (Canter 1996: 320). Interdisciplinary practice started with education and broadening the understanding of architects to consider more deeply the way people interact with their designs (Petrovic et al 2015:483). Popularity in the study began to grow with training programs and seminars which started in the US exploring architectural psychology and psychiatry which brought psychologists and architects together to discuss the opportunities within the existing research field (Pol 2007:3). Similarly, across the globe, a few university degrees began to form that dedicated study towards environmental psychology including the EnvironmentBehaviour Studies course at The University of Sydney and a Masters in Architectural Psychology at The City University of New York (Pol, 2007:9). The initial projects that featured collaboration between psychologists and architects involved work on hospitals and psychiatric centres. The spatial design of these buildings was considered to be high-demand typologies due to the dense population of patients with fragile mental and physical conditions

(Giﬀord 2011: 445). These environments were considered to be an important focus area for the practice of environmental psychology due to the unique needs of the people inhabiting them and the extensive research and experimentation was seen to be able to provide many benefits to spaces otherwise built with little to no consideration of the human psyche (Lawrence 1982:43).

1.5 Criticism of environmental psychology

Although the study of environmental psychology grew quickly and amassed a large

academic following, the movement experienced significant criticism from both architectural and psychological circles. Most of the criticism was focused around the amount of research that was carried out by psychologists studying environmental psychology compared to the limited practical application that was discernible from this study (Phillip 1996: 279). There was often a stark difference between research methods within the psychological field, most commonly resulting in significant differences between theoretical and empirical research (Petrovic et al 2015: 484). These differences resulted in delays in practically applying the theories because architects struggled to agree on the importance of psychological factors within architecture (Lawrence 1982: 43). Critics saw this as an inefficient form of designing and questioned the relevancy and experimental nature of the field (Lawrence 1982: 43). Another criticism made of the study of environmental psychology was the excessive focus on the individual rather than on societal behaviours. Many experiments performed in the movement were focused on the behaviours of an individual and their inhabitation of space (Phillip 1996: 281). This was an effective study for smaller scale architecture including residential and even workplace design. However there was often seen to be a lack of consideration for how groups of people behaved and the importance of these interactions between people within the spaces. Critics of environmental psychology questioned its ability to be effectively applied to built form in a way that maintained the integrity of design without becoming clinical or scientific (Pol 2007: 11).

By the mid 1980s, while environmental psychology was still developing, architecture

became a less prevalent feature within the field and the emphasis on the practical application of the theories to architecture began to decline. Inherently, throughout history, architects had always considered their work to have a deeper meaning and were interested in the semiotics of architecture (Canter 1996: 317). However, through interdisciplinary work with psychologists, architects found that through the use of such calculated processes, their buildings would be stripped back to become purely about spatial organisation and scientific research (Jencks 2002:67). At a time of architectural revolution with a focus on deeper cultural meaning, this rigidity of design highlighted the stark diﬀerences in focus between psychologists and architects, meaning that many architects began to turn away from placing

such significance on the psychological studies (Phillip 1996: 279). The psychological focus centred on observations of how an individual reacts to a space. Through study, psychologists believed that most people did not notice or grasp the semiotic meaning of complex buildings and therefore believed that this level of design detail was frivolous and unnecessary (Canter 1996: 327). Psychologists found that people would manipulate spaces to work around their inherit behaviours rather than adapting their behaviour to fit with spaces designed by architects. Psychologists believed that this proved that assumptions made by architects did not cater enough to the behaviour of people and their experiences in space (Landuyt 2012:14). Accordingly, it was thought that architecture failed to provide spaces that were designed based on their function and that the built environment generally didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a user-centric focus (Canter 1974:146). On the other hand, architects felt that they were not receiving the answers and results they desired after engaging in research with the psychologists and as a result gained a sense of disillusionment. They felt that they were being asked to compromise on design consideration by designing spaces which they maintained would have a negative impact due to the lack of creativity (Dayarante 2002:44). This clear separation of focus and understanding of built form created a divide between architects and psychologists involved in the development of environmental psychology and ultimately resulted in the abandonment of interdisciplinary work and a shift away from focusing on the practical application of the theories to the built environment (Dayarante 2002:45).

Through the historical framing of both fields of psychology and architecture leading up

to the 1970s and 1980s, chapter one provides an understanding of the contextual background of environmental psychology. Tracing the history of the academic study of psychology from its philosophical origins to its scientific transformation and a particular focus on the development within an architectural context provides a clear understanding of the theoretical basis of environmental psychology. In order to understand the pursuit of practical application of architectural psychology through the period of interdisciplinary study, this chapter has explored the nature of the architectural movements and their unique ideologies and characteristics during the 1970s and 80s. Through this understanding of the historical context of the study and application of environmental psychology, Chapter One provides a foundation for a more detailed investigation into the successes and failures of psychological research with respect to architecture, as well as the process of collaboration that will be explored in chapter two. Through this contextual understanding, and introduction to pioneers of the environmental psychology movement, chapter two will examine the theories and experimentation of the movement through textual analysis of significant books written during the 1970s and 80s.

Chapter Two Theories and Research Methods

Theoretical studies within environmental psychology during the 1970s and 80s

attempted to explain the nature of human behaviour within the built environment. Psychologists observed the way in which people interacted with space and recorded their findings to present analytical studies to a broader audience. These ideas were presented in publications and educational conferences which lead to the spread of ideas between psychologists and architects, encouraging an inter-disciplinary collaboration towards environmental psychology. In this chapter the theories and research methodologies behind environmental psychology are explored through the lens of seminal texts written during the 1970s and 80s. After gaining an understanding of the overall historical context of both the study of environmental psychology and architectural movements of the late twentieth century in chapter one, chapter two provides a closer look at particular theories and research methods used to develop the theoretical foundations of the overall movement. Through a deeper analysis of Canter’s ‘Psychology for architects’ (1974), this process of illustrating a theoretical understanding pertaining to psychology aﬀecting the built environment is explored. By comparing his book with other significant texts written during the movement, the study of behavioural observation becomes clear as well as a focus on an interdisciplinary approach towards research and the application of the theories to architecture. Similarly, analysis of Robert Sommer’s much later text ‘Social Design’ (1983) highlights the extent to which these theories and research did not result in a physical application to the built environment, due to disparities between architects and psychologists.

2.1 David Canter: ‘Psychology For Architects’

As one of the first texts in the environmental psychology movement aimed at an inter-

disciplinary approach, Canter positioned ‘Psychology for Architects’ as a book that provided a basic theoretical understanding of the psychological concepts relating to architecture. The text drew its conclusions from the science and study of psychology rather than drawing reference from existing architecture (Canter 1974:3). In this way, Canter aimed to provide a psychological framework within which to facilitate the practical application of the theories to new built forms and educate architects on the general concepts of the study. With this in mind, Canter’s research methodologies centred around his previous research projects, explaining the data and relating them to architectural forms. Due to the nature of psychology

as a scientific study, the investigation of psychological concepts followed a formula of scientific process (Archer 1974: 890). Canter broke this down into two aspects of investigation: measurement of observable phenomena which, involved basing scientific judgements on evidence observed with a high degree of reliability and validity, and control of variables which involved examining both the relationships and diﬀerences between relevant stimuli (Canter 1974:17). Through these investigative lenses Canter presented case studies and experiments relating to his theoretical categories. However, critics of his text believed that due to his vast experience, ‘Psychology for Architects’ lacked depth and analysis and believed that the target readership could end up with an inaccurate understanding and misinterpretation of Canter’s theories and emphasis on the consideration of environmental psychology within architecture (Steinmann 1975:40). This comment on the nature of collaboration within environmental psychology suggested that the uneven spread of knowledge and complexity of the theories that had been developed, would mean that an inter-disciplinary study would not work. Canter aimed to take complex theories and research data and make it accessible to a wider audience in order to encourage the consideration of these theories within a built context.

A belief commonly held by psychologists of the time in relation to the standard

architectural design process was that architects made uninformed assumptions in relation to human interaction within the built form and their use of space (Archer 1974:890). Canter believed that the consideration of psychology within the architectural design process would overcome this. Through the text he aimed to bridge the gap between architects and psychologists through education, allowing for an understanding of the basic theories of environmental psychology (Canter 1974:5). Canter stated that by undertaking the task of designing the built form, architects often made sweeping assumptions which he classified into five basic concepts as follows:

- That there are consistent mechanisms which connect physical stimuli with psychological responses (p.5)

- That there are no changes in human response to the same stimuli over time (p.5) - That reactions to physical stimuli are innate (p.6) - That people react to physical stimuli in essentially the same manner (p.6) - That people do not use space in a random way. (p.6) These concepts became the basis for the development of his theories. Each of these concepts were based on Canter’s perception that architects were making uninformed decisions regarding what were otherwise psychological choices. Assumptions were seen as a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of the field of environmental psychology

(Landuyt 2012:14). By presenting his theories as a reaction to these assumptions, Canter hoped to inform architects of the most eﬃcient ways to overcome generalised design that did not function with the end user as the focus.

Canter presented his theories in chapters that responded to his observations on the

assumptions made by architects. The theories can be seen to be categorised into two sections; the first relating more specifically to the somewhat subconscious perception and interaction with space whereas the latter theories are much more physical manifestations of the human psyche and the impact the built environment can have on psychology.

The theories relating to sub-conscious experience revolved around the exploration of

people's perception and development through the built environment. The investigation of these theories focused on perceptual judgements and learned habits. Perceptual judgements related to the early principles of Gestalt theories and that perception is not a response to one stimulus but a reaction to multiple stimuli surrounding an individual (Garner 1976:298). Canter explored the relationship with what we physically see versus what we perceive to be true due to environmental cues and past experiences (Canter 1974:37). In relation to physical space he described that the contextual significance of the environment can alter an individual’s perception due to proportion, light, colour and many other external factors. Attention plays an important part in perception as humans tend to focus their attention only on a certain number of stimuli at once and this can affect the perception of a space due to its simplicity or complexity (Canter 1974:41). One’s perception of space can go unnoticed to the individual as it is often a sub-conscious reaction to space, however strongly it affects people's behaviour and their level of comfort within an architectural space (Canter 1974: 35). Similar to perceptual judgements, Canter claimed that the learned habits of individuals were affected by their previous experiences and interactions with the built form. Common stimuli and signposting in spaces could help people navigate through them and create regular patterns of behaviour in similar environments. These habits came to form comfortable patterns for people within architecture and a change of these habits could create disruptive experiences (Garner 1976:298). Canter analysed how these habits were formed by investigating the concept of reinforcement. Through reinforcement, behavioural changes towards various stimulus were observed and quickly these changes become learned habits (Canter 1974: 49). Furthering this to an architectural context, Canter considered the transfer of learned habits between certain spaces and challenged the concept of creating spaces that allow for efficient usage (Canter 1974:54). This concept of applying people's learned habits into architectural spaces was critiqued for the high chance of creating bleak spaces

through the simple designs that would allow for clear way-finding and familiarity. This was seen to lack creativity and architectural consideration, albeit attempting to foster versatile experiences (Jencks 2002:150). This battle between psychological theory and architectural creativity was considered one of the major reasons why the practical applications of the theory was not achieved (Duncan 1996:276).

Canter also explored theories that people were much more physically aware of when

inhabiting space. Beginning with individual differences, Canter addressed the common critique of environmental psychology which argued that whilst there were some general behavioural laws, each individual behaves differently and it would therefore be impossible to identify generalised commonalities between groups of people (Canter 1974: 94). In contrast to this theory, Canter believed that if he could identify differences between people, then the trends that arose would give psychologists a greater understanding of human behaviour. It is these differences that Canter focused on and he explored personal variation due to factors such as age, race, sex and class (Canter 1974:96). Whilst he explored the many differences between individuals, Canter summarised that the contribution of individual differences to the study of environmental psychology was only one method of promoting awareness of the fact that individual people are different. This suggestion provided no possibility for architectural development, merely presenting the data and research and highlighting factors that provided little benefit to the design process (Steinmann 1975:40). The study of people's use of space is another theory presented which explores patterns in the human relationship with space as well as explaining relationships between people. By observing interiors of buildings, including waiting areas and eating environments, Canter observed people positioning themselves within the space in patterns which often centred around architectural elements such as columns and walls (Canter 1974:113). Canter theorised that these patterns were a result of two theories; the need for personal space and human territoriality. Architecturally it is believed that use of space is both determined by space and also a determiner of space (Archer 1974:890) and Canter’s analysis of the patterns of people’s movements highlights this as an important factor in the future design of human-centric spaces that allow for an even and versatile spatial organisation to accomodate for multiple uses.

2.2 Harold Proshansky: ‘Environmental Psychology and Design Professions’

Following Canters’ lead, many psychologists began to write on the practical

applications of the theories that had been developed through study and research in the mid

1970s. Through the 70s many conferences and forums were held to allow for transfer of knowledge between architecture and psychology. One such exhibit ‘Architecture for Human behaviour’ in 1971 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania brought together members from the American Institute of Architects and the Institute of Environmental Psychology (Stewart 1975:59). Essays and research papers were compiled in the book ‘Designing for Human behaviour: Architecture and behavioural sciences’ (1974) in response to the conference and focused on the topic of environmental psychology and the design process. The essays were divided into three sections:

- Emerging issues in architecture - Fundamental processes of environmental behaviour - Obtaining and using behavioural information One particular paper that addressed the theories of environmental psychology for architecture as a collaborative process, aimed largely at designers was written by leading environmental psychologist Harold Proshansky (1920-1990) fore mentioned in chapter one, and titled ‘Environmental Psychology and Design Professions’ (1974). Proshansky began by outlining his definition of environmental psychology as being concerned with the experiences and behaviours of people in relation to the built environment (Proshansky 1974:72). He then explored theories as a way of allowing the reader to understand these relationships as a body of knowledge, both conceptual and empirical. Proshansky’s theoretical focus in the paper is the use of space and territoriality of humans. He explored the idea of freedom of choice within architecture and the balance between providing facilities and a design that permits certain activities whilst also allowing the individual some control over their physical setting (Stewart 1975:60). Similarly to Canter, Proshansky contended that architects are not fully educated in the importance of thoughtful consideration of human behaviour in space, however Proshansky stated that the relationship between designers and psychologists must be a two-way street, and architects also have a wealth of knowledge that will enrich and focus much of the research being done within the movement (Proshansky, 1974, p.77).

2.3 Cornelius Deasy: ‘Design for Human Affiars’

Similarly to both Proshansky and Canter, the book ‘Design for Human Aﬀairs’ (1974)

written by Cornelius Deasy promoted the collaboration between architects and psychologists, however this text was written from the perspective of the architect. Deasy (1918-2010) was an American architect who wrote a lot about designing spaces for people and employed the use of a sociologist in his architecture firm Deasy and Bollings. Recognised as a fellow in the American Institute of Architects for his contribution to the development of behavioural studies

within the practice of architecture, Deasy felt strongly that the future of the built environment relied on an interdisciplinary approach towards design (Harrison 1975:93). In what can be seen as a positive step towards strong collaboration between psychologists and architects, the text explored ways in which designers could sort through the data and research presented by environmental psychologists and apply the theories in an effective and creative way. Deasy believed that prior to the psychological movement within architecture, the design of the built environment had been very inefficient (Deasy 1974:9). He believed that the ignorance of architects towards the way people responded and engaged with the built environment caused the architecture to suffer and was therefore unsuccessful in curating an engaging experience for the people in the space. He suggested that a set criteria for designers would be a useful tool in allowing for informed, considered spaces to be designed. However, Deasy admitted that translating abstract psychological data into three-dimensional solutions is a complicated process (Deasy 1974:91). Deasy suggested organising design criteria into groups that addressed a particular issue in relation to the psychological experience of space and identifying links between the design criteria and the psychological experience to formulate architectural solutions that resulted in enriching environments (Deasy 1974:101). This process however became complex when dealing with specific theories or when trying to incorporate multiple theories within certain spaces, and this complex addition to the design process was seen as prohibitive, given the difficulty of measuring the success of the process.

2.4 Robert Sommer: ‘Social Design’

Almost ten years after ‘Psychology for Architects’, the theories and research from the

environmental psychology movement had largely still not manifested into built forms. ‘Social Design’ by Dr. Robert Sommer (1983) was a text which emphasised that the movement of environmental psychology was not aligned with a particular architectural aesthetic but with the overall design process. Sommer (1929-) was a professor of psychology at the University of California and studied environmental psychology since its rise in popularity in the 1960s. Written around twenty years after the formation of environmental psychology as a scientific study, ‘Social Design’ evaluated the development of the environmental psychology movement over time, focusing on the relationship between designers and psychologists (Schneekloth 1985:143). Sommer reflected back on the movement and recounted how architecture and psychology came to work in tandem through a shared desire to create human-centric architecture. He stated that there was a tendency to design with an expectation that the people using the spaces would adapt to them, however this was seen

to be a very neglectful approach towards design (Sommer 1983:17). Sommer provided the historical context of the movement and presented the theories that were developed through the movement as the areas of mutual concern for both architects and psychologists. Whilst Sommerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s text explored common aspects of the relationship between architecture and psychology, the reminiscent tone of the text hinted at the end of an era, as the practical application of the years of study and research failed to come to fruition (Schneekloth 1985:145). By exploring the mutual beliefs in the benefits of this research, Sommer believed that in some respect, there was a significant lack of incentives for designers to include the research in their projects (Sommer 1983:117). The text does not reveal any new theories or present new knowledge, however provides an overview of the movement at a time when the practical application seemed to be failing. His enthusiastic attitude towards the belief in social design and design for people encouraged a continuation of eďŹ&#x20AC;ort towards developing a design process which would incorporate the research in order to create informed architecture.

2.5 Theoretical Focus

The theories that emerged through the writings of both psychologists and architects

throughout the movement of environmental psychology presented opportunities for the physical application of this research to the built environment. Inspired by Canterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to development of the movement through education, these texts all promoted a collaborative relationship towards the physical application of the theoretical principles to the built environment. Whilst the research and study of the behaviours and psyche of people within the built environment was extensive, many of the psychologists were not able to provide much guidance to potential practical applications that could manifest into a built form (Sommer 1983:59). The disparity that emerged between the two fields of study is often considered to be due to a number of factors however, a problem that was heavily focused on by critics of the movement was the lack of understanding from both professions about the respective field of study. In this way, both architecture and psychology lacked a wholistic understanding of environmental psychology and psychologists struggled to sort through data and experiments and fully apply the outcomes to architecture (Duncan 1996:279). As Sommer suggested, the answers needed for practical input were side-lined due to heavy rhetoric and endless experimentation (Schneekloth 1985:146). Due to the observational nature of scientific study, the research was continually developed, however there was still a significant lack of scientific proof of the success of implementing the theories to the design process. Accordingly, architects lacked an incentive to include scientific studies in their work.

Sommer believed that until environmental psychology became a more integrated feature of the built environment, the theoretical basis of the movement would remain a research system rather than a physical influence on the built form.

The theoretical foundations of environmental psychology explicitly considered and

investigated all aspects of people’s behaviour and their interaction with architectural spaces. Through analysis of the texts, the research process and resulting theories are clearly set out. The observation of behavioural patterns (both conscious and sub-conscious) allowed psychologists to better understand how the built environment aﬀected individuals and groups of people. The texts analysed in chapter two all focused on an inter-disciplinary approach towards environmental psychology in order to create buildings that considered the research and theories pertaining to the psychological study. However, minimal suggestion of processes to allow for application of the theories to architecture, suggest complications with the translation from theory to built form. Sommer’s later text confirmed this, showing that even with ten more years of research, the physical application of the research to architecture had not manifested due to little incentive for the architect and a variation and diﬀerence of knowledge between the two separate fields of study. This study of the theoretical foundations provides an opportunity in chapter three to further explore the reasons behind the lack of physical application of theory to architecture. The failure of this movement to move past a purely scientific research study will be assessed in the final chapter and analysis of the reemergence of cognitive behavioural research in more recent years will explore whether more recent study will achieve an expression of the early environmental psychology theories.

Chapter Three Emergence and impact of Cognitive Psychology

Environmental psychology through the twentieth century had aimed to understand

the psychological reasons behind people’s behaviour within the built environment, however, the study and research undertaken within the psychological field largely failed to be directly applied to an architectural context. In this final chapter, the main reasons why this practical failure is believed to have occurred are presented and where that research has led, in a twenty-first century context. The theoretical study of human behaviour that emerged in the 1970s and 80s, explored in chapters one and two, developed into a scientific study of human cognition due to the advancement of technology through the 1990s. The need for a more detailed understanding of the human psyche and the way the built environment could impact people, saw psychologists look more closely at the inner workings of the brain. Exploration of the development of this field of psychology highlights the re-emergence of an emphasis placed on human-centric design through a lens of cognitive research. Through the strategies set out by design professor and architecture critic Sarah Williams Goldhagen in her book ‘Welcome to your world’ (2017), chapter three explores practical examples of architectural interiors which employ design practice that has been developed through cognitive research. In the twenty-first century, the development of urban centres and rapid increase in the global population presented a need for spaces that provided enriching experiences for people and the influence of cognitive research provided information on ways to achieve more empathetic architecture. By examining the influence of cognitive study and exploring new ways that the research provided information for designers on how to create human-centric spaces, chapter three considers the importance of these principles within the design process and the implications that this could have for the future of architecture and the built environment.

3.1 Lack of practical application

The study of environmental psychology was, at its core, research that explored the

behaviours of people within space and the built environment (Giﬀord 2011:440). The theories that developed during the movement addressed human interaction with space and ways in which these spaces should be designed in order to best suit the human psyche and cater for an individuals experience. However, even with the best intentions, there was very little physical application of these theories to architecture outside of a few early examples. Critics

believed this was largely due to a disconnect between designers and psychologists. The disparity between the two fields because of an unequal share of knowledge, prevented a wholistic study that could benefit the built environment and design process(Pol 2007:5). One suggestion as to why the practical side of environmental architecture was never fully physically applied was due to the failure to integrate the study into architectural education. For user-centric design to become a main focus within architecture, it was believed that the emphasis should have been applied to the studies of students of architecture (Phillip 1996:282). Another reason for the perceived failure of applied environmental psychology can be seen to be the unmet expectations of architects in relation to the research oﬀered by the psychological field. Much of the research developed in the 1970s and 80s oﬀered advice on the organisation of space rather than overall design resolutions. Architects had hoped for environmental psychology to have more input and advice on the architectural design of spaces rather than merely building processes ( Phillip 1996:280). Many architects saw this as a flaw of environmental psychology as it stripped building design of creativity and intrigue.

By the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s a critical debate formed surrounding the

‘paradox’ of environmental psychology as a study that drew heavily from the built environment however failed to present design strategies. Similarly, as a field of study, the number of programs related to the study began to decrease and many psychologists did not accept the study in the same league as other mainstream psychological fields (Geiseking 2014:590). Whilst the architectural relevance of the study began to decline, environmental psychology continued as a theoretical study through the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. Early founding psychologists worried about the future of environmental psychology because of its struggle to continue to grow as an academic field and in 1995 leading environmental “As I look at the field of environmental psychology today, I am concerned about its future. It has not, since its emergence in the early 1960s grown to the point where it can match the fields of social, personality, learning or cognitive psychology. To be sure, it has increased in membership, in the number of journals devoted to it, and even in the amount of professional organisational support it enjoys, but not enough so that one could look at any major university and find it to be a field of specialisation in a department of psychology, or, more importantly, in an interdisciplinary centre or institute” (Proshansky 1995:28)

psychologist Harold Proshansky (1920-1990), mentioned in chapter one and two, believed; This feeling of disillusionment within the field highlighted the need for more development beyond the purely behavioural studies and observation which had evolved in the 1970s and 80s. This gap in the field allowed for a more scientific study focusing on the cognitive research of human experiences in addition to basic human spatial behaviour. The 'cognitive

revolution’ was focused on human thought processes as well as person’s sense of emotional well-being, social interactions, physical health and other factors. This accelerated as a field of study in the 1990s as technology advanced with tools that allowed for imaging and scientific analysis of the brain in action (Goldhagen 2017:xxx). Sarah Williams Goldhagen (1961-), an American writer and architecture critic who taught at Harvard School of Design for ten years, recently wrote a book titled ‘Welcome to your world’ (2017), which explores the current state of the built environment and reveals how cognitive psychology can profoundly shape architecture in order to construct a world better suited to the human experience. Her analysis of cognitive research revealed that there were many more complex ways in which people interacted with the built environment beyond the behavioural tendencies discovered in the early environmental psychology research. Cognitive studies also provided much more indepth understanding of how cognitions directly or indirectly aﬀected, or were precipitated by, architecture. Contrary to what studies had previously shown, the human brain has a plasticity that means they are constantly changing and rewiring through our experiences especially through the physical environments we inhabit (Goldhagen 2017:xxxi). These new discoveries called for a new conceptual framework based on cognitive research and a more empathetic response to design and the scientific research.

3.2 Contemporary architectural challenges

Cognitive revelations allow designers to consider how the brain functions in relation to

its physical setting, and the field of architecture has the ability to evolve in order to create environments that respond to these findings. In a period of rapid technological development alongside rapid population growth, urban centres are often in a state of renovation and expansion. Much of the urban built environment is emerging through collaboration between construction developers and real estate developers or private clients who often see the engagement of a design professional to be unnecessary to create buildings that fulfil the basic function of the typology (Goldhagen 2017:xxi). These buildings have often been critiqued because of their lack of considered design of interior spaces, and in a world where much of the population spends more then ninety percent of their life within built environments, this can have a detrimental eﬀect on peoples mental and physical health and well-being (Goldhagen 2017: xvi).The more we understand about humans and the way the brain works, the better and more creatively we can design for them (Sussman & Hollander 2014:1).

3.3 Re-emergence of environmental psychology through cognitive research

Cognitive research is a field of study that is constantly evolving with technological

advancements allowing for a deeper understanding of the brain’s response to architecture. In relation to the built environment, it stems directly from the study of environmental psychology as an attempt to further explore the theories of human behaviour within architecture by examining how the brain influences people’s perception and experience (Sussman & Hollander 2014:8). Cognition refers to the processes in which people understand and interpret sensory, social and internally generated data. Research reveals that experience is grounded in our sensory perceptions of space and that cognitions constitute the core of most physical experiences (Goldhagen 2017:48). Importantly, cognitive structures include both conscious and non-conscious experiences and impact how people remember, talk about and form emotional responses to architecture, particularly interior experiences (Montello 2014:75). The interplay between these experiences that we are conscious and not conscious of are what define an individual's interaction and response to a built environment which can be aﬀected by multiple decisions made by designers throughout the design process. Another important element of cognitive research is the relationship between mind and body. According to Goldhagen the body is not merely a receptacle for sensations from the surrounding environment but is rather intermeshed with the mind to engage actively and process the physical environments it is situated in (Goldhagen 2017:47). It is this understanding of human cognitive processes and their influence on space as well as the impact that physical environments can have on human’s cognition that has extended the reach of environmental psychology beyond a theoretical behavioural study. The more scientific approach to the study begins to provide further opportunity for applications of the theories to the built environment, through a more in-depth understanding of what directly aﬀects the conscious and non-conscious workings of the brain.

3.4 Empathetic design

One design approach which Goldhagen suggests as an eﬀective way to introduce

cognitive research into a physical architectural context is to consider the design process as empathetic. By using the results of cognitive research, designers are attempting to identify and address the user’s needs within the built environment. An empathetic approach to design follows steps of understanding, observing and synthesis which are aimed at guiding a designer iteratively from a vague understanding of an issue to creating a creative and

appropriate solution (Koppen & Meinel 2012:42). An empathetic response to design thinking and incorporation of cognitive analysis embodies consideration of social, physical, sensational and cultural factors that play into the design of architectural interiors. Designers are problem solvers and an empathetic design approach allows them to be able to place themselves in the position of the users of the space and use this information, alongside the scientific findings, in order to create environments that foster physical and mental health (Goldhagen 2017:17). However, this approach is criticised for being seen to court ‘architectural determinism’; the concept that architectural interiors solely determine human’s cognitive responses to individual’s surroundings (Montello 2014:79). This notion was the perceived design practice that early environmental psychologists sought to overcome with their studies and research and became one of the major contributing factors as to why the theories were not largely applied to physical environments (Pol 2007:25). The human experience of space is influenced by multiple external factors that shape how individuals understand and respond to architecture. The built environment does however have a large contextual influence on humans as most human interaction can be linked to a physical environment. (Goldhagen 2017:30). Due to the difference in genetic makeup, individual experiences and backgrounds of all humans, effective study and application of cognition to the built environment requires consideration of the complexity of humans and an understanding that whilst limited success in effective application may be made for improving architecture at first, even modest positive implications for some people within spaces is a step towards creating more user-centric environments (Montello 2014:79).

3.5 Nature in interiors

Through a more empathetic design approach, design principles can be drawn from

cognitive research in order to inform design practice that responds to people’s well-being, particularly within interiors. In her book, Goldhagen discusses multiple strategies for incorporating the results of cognitive research into architecture. One practice linked to cognitive benefits is the implementation of nature within interiors. Humans have evolved as a biophilic species meaning that people have an innate aﬃnity to the natural world due to a biological dependence on the beneficial qualities provided by nature (Wilson 1993:52). The benefits of exposure to the natural world is seen to be linked to stress reduction, promotion of focus and attention span and faster healing time in both psychological and physiological patients (Kaplan 1996:15). Nature’s presence, or lack there of, has even been shown to eﬀect how people remember and recall places they have been. The part of the brain that is used for cognitive mapping is also the area that autobiographical memories are processed

and through a strong connection to nature throughout an individual’s life, their sense of place and identity is often formed in relation to natural environments (Goldhagen 2017:140) One example of the inclusion of nature within an interior for health and well-being purposes is the Crown Sky Garden at the top of the Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. Finished in 2013 and designed by Mikyoung Kim Design, the Crown Sky Garden is a healing garden and sanctuary for patients, families and staﬀ at the children’s hospital. Situated on the twenty third floor of the hospital in a greenhouse-like glass box, shown in figure 3.01, the garden is made up of both private and public spaces that aim to aid in the reduction of patient recovery time through nature, play and contemplative spaces (Mikyoung Kim, 2013). The use of bamboo, natural light and moving water provides an important connection to nature for patients who may stay at the hospital for weeks at a time. Figure 3.02 shows the abundance of natural light and the groves of bamboo which frame smaller areas for contemplation and relaxation. The inclusion of nature in a hospital setting has shown to reduce cortisol levels, linked to stress and anxiety, in a human within just twenty seconds of exposure (Goldhagen 2017:142).

Figure 3.01 Exterior view of Crown Sky Garden, Mikyoung Kim Design, 2013, Chicago, George Heinrich, 2013< https://www.codaworx.com/project/crown-sky-garden-lurie-chicago-children-s-hospital> Accessed 6th June 2018

Figure 3.02 Interior view of Crown Sky Garden, Mikyoung Kim Design, 2013, Chicago, George Heinrich, 2013< https://www.codaworx.com/project/crown-sky-garden-lurie-chicago-children-shospital> Accessed 6th June 2018

3.6 Versatile action settings

Another method that Goldhagen suggests as a way to utilise the findings of cognitive

research within the built environment is through the development of versatile action settings to enhance social environments. An action setting refers to any space that shapes the way people act, think, feel or do which is composed of stimuli that aﬀord these particular actions (Goldhagen 2017:204). These settings are made up of both conscious and sub-conscious guides that influence how people understand the spaces and therefore the level of engagement and correspondence between an individual and the intended activity (Goldhagen 2017: 194). An obstacle that designers can face when creating interiors is designing surroundings that do not capture people’s attention or spaces that become dull and unchanging overtime. One way that this can be overcome is by creating versatile spaces that consider the involvement of people within action settings and the animation provided by people’s movement through spaces to create change and socialisation (Goldhagen 2017: 197). By using the inhabitants to animate environments, designers create captivating spaces that can be seen to combat under-stimulation by placing human interaction and engagement as the focal point of a design. The Oslo Opera house in Oslo, Norway designed by Snohetta in 2007, oﬀers a strong example of the consideration of people’s movement throughout a space as well as strong visual connections to interior and exterior spaces in order to provide

an engaging experience. The opera house was designed around the concept of togetherness and open access for all (Snohetta 2008). Figure 3.03 shows the horizontal sloping surface that wraps around the theatre which, during the day, becomes an articulation of a public square which stretches all the way down to the waters edge. Primarily used as a nighttime venue, this versatility gives the opera house a whole new life when the theatre itself is unused. The interior of the opera house consists wooden insertions that contrast to the harsh stone, glass and metal exterior. The main circulation shown in Figure 3.04, provides access to the main auditorium but also provides balconies that allow for visual connection to the main foyer as well as the exterior plaza. This constant visual connection with other people in the space becomes the main focus and animation in the interior creating intrigue and constant change (Goldhagen 2017: 206). The connection between the interior and exterior is best shown at night time when the interior is lit up and the wooden wall becomes the main focal interest highlighted in figure 3.5, as if the people inside are on show on a stage.

Figure 3.03 South east exterior view of the Oslo Opera House, Snohetta, 2007, Oslo, Viajero Turismo, 2009, < http://codinaarchitectural.com/blog-en/a-unique-building-dedicated-to-music/> Accessed: 6th June 2018

Figure 3.04 Interior foyer at the Oslo Opera House, Snohetta, 2007, Oslo, Justin Blomgren, 2016, < http://www.justincblomgren.com/blog/ 2017/7/23/top-5-things-to-do-in-oslo> Accessed: 6th June 2018

Figure 3.05 Exterior of the Oslo Opera House at night, Snohetta, 2007, Oslo, Snohetta, 2008, < https:// www.archdaily.com/440/oslo-opera-house-snohetta/500ebd1528ba0d0cc7000115-oslo-opera-housesnohetta-photo> Accessed: 6th June 2018

3.7 Metaphoric architecture

A more imbedded and wholistic approach to creating engaging and enriching

experiences within the built environment is the method of creating spaces imbued with character through the use of design metaphors and experiential aesthetics. Cognitive research has shown that spaces that have integrated character linked to the context of a site tend to be more emotionally engaging due to the social ethos that is linked of a site as well as the associated emotional links people have (Goldhagen 2017:260). The use of design metaphors that supports an institution’s objective functions or ideology, allow for subtle comprehension of the actions and functions of the interiors for people who engage with the spaces. Well chosen metaphors elicit overlapping associations and result in cognitive engagement through the juxtaposition of what the design alludes to versus what the function of the building actually is (Fez-Barringten 2012: 25). The use of metaphors to challenge an individual’s understanding of a place becomes encoded as part of the cognitive engagement and experience of the environment and has been linked to creating stronger connections to the architecture in people’s memory (Fez-Barringten 2012: 25). The Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh by Enric Miralles is an example of architecture that uses metaphors to represent the functions and core ideologies of the institution. Built in 2004, the building symbolises the aspirations of the Scottish government for democratic self-governance as well as independence through its large and expansive building which folds itself into the landscape (Goldhagen 2017:261). In the interior foyer of the main building, the large open space allows for a large amount oﬀ natural light with an undulating ceiling plane, altering the size of the room, oﬀering human-scale areas within the larger expanse shown in figure 3.06. The metaphors of democracy and individuality permeate the interiors through the interplay between small individual working areas contrasted with the large open spaces like the foyer as well as the the one hundred foot assembly theatre contrasted against the individual reading nooks, one of which can be seen in figure 3.07, in the same building (Goldhagen 2017: 264). The assembly theatre design promotes focused attention through the placement of large windows above eye-level to allow for maximum natural light whilst not distracting patrons with views of the exterior. The grandeur of the theatre represents the strength of the Scottish parliament and open plan, shown in figure 3.08, reinforces the ideology of prosocial, open debate and discussion. The design of the Scottish parliament represents the core ideologies and ideals of the political parties involved in the parliament through structural metaphor and interpretation (Miralles: 2004).

Figure 3.06 Internal view of the foyer in the Scottish Parliament, Enric Miralles, 2004, Edinburgh, Benedetta Tagliabue, 2009,< https://www.archdaily.com/111869/ad-classics-the-scottish-parliamentenric-miralles> Accessed: 6th June 2018

Figure 3.07 Internal view of the Assembly theatre at the Scottish Parliament, Enric Miralles, 2004, Edinburgh, Benedetta Tagliabue, 2009, < https://www.archdaily.com/111869/ad-classics-the-scottishparliament-enric-miralles> Accessed: 6th June 2018

Figure 3.08 Private reading nook at the Scottish Parliament, Enric Miralles, 2004, Edinburgh, Benedetta Tagliabue, 2009,< https:// www.archdaily.com/111869/ad-classics-the-scottish-parliament-enricmiralles> Accessed: 6th June 2018

Environmental psychology as a field of research has gradually morphed from a

behavioural study of human interaction with space, to the scientific study of people's cognitive response to the way the built environment can aďŹ&#x20AC;ect them. Through the failure of the initial theories of environmental psychology to evolve into a physical manifestation, the research was developed through the 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and turn of the twenty-first century with advancements in scientific technology and brain imaging. This new wealth of information on the way that the human brain informs peoples embodied experience of architecture and interiors allowed designers to reconsider the way the built environment was responding to the health and well-being of its inhabitants. Through an empathetic approach to the design process, architects are focusing on the way space can enhance human capabilities through enriching and engaging environments. In a world where the emphasis is focused on quick construction that fulfils the basic need of the client without considering the user, designers must use the extensive research done through cognitive science to their benefit and begin to design spaces that impact people positively now and future generations.

Conclusion

The premise of this dissertation was to explore the development of environmental

psychology as an academic field of study, focusing on its influence on the built environment and the way contemporary cognitive research has shaped the design process by placing an emphasis on a human-centric design resolution. Following the evolution of environmental psychology alongside the changing architectural movements in the formative years of the study, this dissertation highlights the main theoretical ideas formed through environmental psychology. The process of designing in a way that focuses largely on human-centric spaces has been developed slowly through psychological study. Spaces that attempt to draw from the findings of cognitive research and overall understanding of human experience aim to create ‘enriched environments’ that satisfy human needs whilst also promoting human wellbeing. (Goldhagen 2017:219). Through decades of psychological study into human interaction within the built environment, research has led to a much more complex and detailed understanding of cognitive responses to architecture. This continual development through technological advancements and targeted study has introduced designers and architects to an important way of designing that considers strategies to create an enriching human experience.

Providing a historical framework for the history of environmental psychology, chapter

one examined the historical development of environmental psychology from its origins in the early twentieth century to its formation as an academic field of study in the 1970s and 80s. Through years of psychological development, theories evolved to provide the foundations for the study of peoples behaviour within the built environment (Pol 2007: 101). Psychologists explored the way people interacted with the architecture and the influence this had on their experience of the built environment. David Canter’s seminal text ‘Psychology for Architects’ (1974) was introduced to highlight the eﬀorts of some psychologists to shift environmental psychology towards a more collaborative practice. His text presented the basic theories of environmental psychology and the impact of the built environment on humans in order to inform a broader audience of the process and significance of environmental psychology (Canter 1974:4). Canter promoted the idea that psychologists needed to work with architects in order to create environments that embodied the theories developed in his studies. Similarly, the architectural developments during this era were also explored in chapter one to highlight the changing nature of the architectural landscape. The dissatisfaction towards modernist architecture held by some architects surrounding its inability to foster

human capabilities, sparked the emergence of post-modern architecture which aimed to reconnect architecture with its context in order to provide a more integrated experience for people engaging with the architecture (Petrovic et al 2015: 483). This tendency towards a user-centric design practice, aligned with the research developing within environmental psychology and provided opportunities for the inter-disciplinary collaboration desired by Canter.

With a contextual understanding of the historical development of environmental

psychology and architecture, as well as the desire for collaboration between psychologists and architects, chapter two examined the main theories and research methodologies that were adopted during the 1970s and 80s. Referencing ‘Psychology for Architects’ as well as other influential texts from both psychologists and architects involved in the field of study, this chapter aimed to explain some theories that developed out of the research of environmental psychology. Canter’s text is explored through more in-depth analysis of his belief that architects made assumptions surrounding their understanding of how people engage with the built environment, and his eﬀorts to educate architects on the actual behaviour of these people (Archer 1974: 890). Canter breaks down each theory, using experiments and research, to highlight specific conscious and sub-conscious actions individuals make in the built environment. Each text explored in chapter two presented the belief that there was a greater need for inter-disciplinary collaboration between architects and psychologists in order to create environments that focused on human-centric spaces. The emphasis of environmental psychology on behavioural research and study of human engagement with exisiting architecture however, meant that there was a lack of consideration of the future application of the theories to the built environment (Duncan 1996: 279). A perceived lack of physical application of the principles and theories that were formulated in environmental psychology, meant that many architects lost faith in the psychological research and the interdisciplinary nature of the study decreased (Petrovic et al 2015: 484).

With the disengagement from architects, and lack of physical application of the

theories developed in the 1970s and 80s, environmental psychology was compelled to explore a more scientific approach towards studying human behaviour within architecture through cognitive research. Chapter three outlines why environmental psychology in the late twentieth century failed to produce much physical realisation of the theories that were developed and how this lack of application presented the need for a diﬀerent approach. Through rapid technological development that allowed for more in-depth study of the brain, psychologists were able to study more complex human reactions to the built environment

(Goldhagen 2017: 52). Cognitive research allowed psychologists to focus on the eďŹ&#x20AC;ect that the built environment had directly on the health and well-being of the people within spaces and how this could help shape architecture. Similarly, the impact that people can have on architecture was also explored through the discussion of the connection between mind and body and interplay between conscious and non-conscious experiences. Chapter three provides specific strategies, developed through cognitive research, that have been applied to architectural examples in an eďŹ&#x20AC;ort to create enriching and engaging environments. The design principles presented at the end of chapter three, highlight the ways cognitive research is being applied to architectural design, particularly in an interior context. Through these examples, an empathetic approach to design is seen, with which architects have considered the users of the architecture in order to create spaces that respond directly to their needs and overall well-being.

The long term study of environmental psychology since the 1970s has morphed and

changed due to collaboration, architectural movements and technological developments, however, the desire to create user-centric architecture that provides an enriching human experience has always been at the core of the research. This dissertation provides an understanding of where this idea stems from and why it is important to consider for the development of future architecture. The study of cognitive and environmental psychology is always evolving and providing new information and this study of the origins of the research provides a foundation for future study of cognitive influence on the built environment. This dissertation highlights that a focus on human-centric architecture should be considered in order to create environments that benefit the well-being and health of people through examination of the historical background and exploration of the development of cognitive research and psychology.

References Archer L, 1974, Review - Psychology for Architects by David Canter, New Scientist, vol. 64, no. 928, p. 890 Bonnes, M 1995, Environmental Psychology: A Psycho-social Introduction, Sage Publications, London Canter, D 1974, Psychology for Architects, Applied Science Publishers LTD, London Canter, D 1996, ‘In Search of Objectives: An Intellectual Autobiography’, Psychology in Action, vol.11,pp 315-338, Coffin CJ, & Young J, 2017, Making Places for People: 12 Questions every designer should ask, Routledge, New York USA Darke R, 1975, Reviewed Work: Designing for Human behaviour: Architecture and behavioural sciences, The British journal of criminology, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 309 Dayaratne R, 2002, ‘Environment- Behaviour Research and the Practice of Architecture: Paradigms and Paradoxes’, Built Environment: Sri Lanka, vol. 3, no.1, pp 38-46 Duncan P, 1996, The Practical Failure of Architectural Psychology, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 16, pp. 277-284 Deasy, C 1974, Design for Human Affairs, Schenkman Publishing Company, Massachusetts Fez-Barringten B 2012, ‘Architecture: The making of Metaphors’, Cambridge Scholars Publishing Newcastle upon Tyne UK Gifford R, Steg L, Reser J 2011, ‘Environmental Psychology’, The IAAP Handbook of Applied Psychology, edn.1, Blackwell Publishing, New Jersey Garner, J, 1976, Book Notes: Psychology for Architects by David Canter, The Town Planning Review, vol. 47, no. 3, p. 298 Gieseking, J. 2014 "Environmental Psychology." In T. Teo, M. Barnes, Z. Gao, M. Kaiser, R. Sheivari, and B. Zabinski, eds. International Encyclopaedia of Critical Psychology. New York: Springer, 587-593.

35 Goldhagen, S, 2017, Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our lives, Harper Collins Publishing, New York USA Harrison A, 1975, Book Review: Design for Human Aﬀairs, Journal of Interior Design, Vol.1, no.1, p Hellpach, W 1911, Geopsyche, Engelmann, Leipzig Hellpach, W 1924, Pyschologie der Umwelt, Urban & Schwarzenberg, Vienna Huyssen A, 1986, After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass culture, Post modernism, Indiana University Press, Indiana Jencks C, 2002, The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Post-modernism, Yale University Press, Connecticut Kaplan R & Kaplan S 1989, ‘The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective’, University of Cambridge Press Syndicate, Cambridge USA Koppen E & Meinel C, 2012, ‘Knowing people: The empathetic designer’, Design Philosophy papers, vol. 10, no.1, pp. 35-51, https://doi.org/10.2752/089279312X13968781797553 Landuyt D, 2012, On the modularity impact of Architectural assumptions, Proceedings of the 2012 workshop on Next Generation Modularity Approaches for Requirements and Architecture, pp. 13-16 Lawrence R, 1982, ‘A psychological—spatial approach for architectural design and research’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol.2, no., pp 37-5, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(82)80004-2 Mikyoung Kim Design, 2018, < http://myk-d.com/> Accessed 6th June 2018 Miralles Tagliabue EMBT, 2018 < http://www.mirallestagliabue.com/> Accessed 6th June 2018 Montello DR, 2014, ’Spatial Cognition and Architectural Space: Research Perspectives', Architectural Design, vol. 84, no.5, pp. 74-79, accessed 16 May 2018 from Wiley Online Library, https://doiorg.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/10.1002/ad.1811 Petrovic E, Vale B, Marques, B, 2015, ‘On the Rise and Apparent Fall of architectural psychology in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s’ Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand, vol.32, pp 480-487

36 Phillip D, 1996, The Practical Failure of Architectural Psychology, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 16, pp. 277-284 Pol, E 2007, ‘Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (I): From First birth to American Transition’, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, vol. 7, no.2, pp 95-113 Pol, E 2007, ‘Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II): From Architectural Psychology to the challenge of sustainability’, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, vol. 8, no.1, pp 1-28 Proshansky HM et al. 1970, Environmental Psychology: People and their physical settings, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York Proshansky HM, 1990, ‘The Pursuit of Understanding: An Intellectual History’, in Altman, I & Christensen K (eds.), Environment and Behaviour Studies: Emergence of Intellectual Traditions, Plenum Press, New York, USA ,pp. 9 - 30 Schneekloth, L 1985, Reviewed Work: Social Design: Creating Buildings with People in Mind, Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 143-146 Snohetta, 2018, <https://snohetta.com/> Accessed 6th June 2018 Sommer, R 1983, Social Design: Creating buildings with people in mind, Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey Steinmann F, 1975, Reviewed works: Psychology for Architects, Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 40-41 Stewart J, 1975, Review of Designing for Human behaviour: Architecture and behavioural sciences, Journal of Environmental planning and management, , pp. 59-60, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00320717508711497 Sussman A & Hollander JB, 2014, Cognitive Architecture: Designing for how we respond to the built environment , Routledge, New York USA Wilson EO, 1993, ‘The Biophilia Hypothesis’, Island Press, Washington DC USA Wundt W, 1874, Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie, Engelmann, Leipzig