LITERATURE REVIEW / METHODOLOGY

1.METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of gaining in depth knowledge and forming a discussion on the subject of neuroarchitecture, qualitative research will be undertaken. Using this approach, the main aim will be to observe to what extent architecture has a psychological effect on its surrounding society. Social dimensions will be observed in a chosen location based around significant architecture in order to contribute to gaining a clear understanding of the subject neuroarchitecture. So to gather relevant research, members of society which are the most effected by architecture (e.g. architects, visitors) will be questioned regarding the influence which the built environment has on them psychologically in their day to day lives. This is vital to the research of neuroarchitecture, as the gathered results will help to define its significance in modern day architecture, contributing to the outcome of this research project. This method of research was inspired by Whyte’s works (Whyte 2010) whereby he conducted films based around populated urban areas, as well as open spaces around New York City in order to observe the social behaviour of the society in these areas. However, this study fails to consider the differing categories between the particular intended functionalities of designed spaces, and how society reacts based on architectural design. This is where I find my field of interest.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The key term Neuroarchitecture refers to the neuroscience of architecture. Melissa Marsh explains how neuroarchitecture explores ‘how users experience the built environment from a neurological perspective’ (Marsh 2015). Neuroscience is a relatively new area of research which has only been recognized in the last 50 years. Previous research carried out by Oshin Vartanian (2015) suggested that ‘architecture engages multiple sensory networks, presumably visual, auditory, somatosensory, olfactory, and vestibular systems, and triggers motor responses such as approach and avoidance’ (Vartanian et al., 2015). Writers, such as Marsh, have attempted to draw fine distinctions between different topics within the general subject of neuroarchitecture into three categories; ‘Neuroscience of the design process’, ‘Neuroscience of the experience of architecture’ and ‘Neuromorphic architecture’. In contrast to this, others have highlighted the relevance of more particular areas within Neuroscience. An example of this are the works by Piotrowski (2011) which discuss his findings that ‘built forms have been instrumental in shaping thought and disseminating new ways of thinking’ (Piotrowski 2011, p.xi).

Commenting on Beauty, Neuroscience and Architecture, D.H. Ruggles (2018) writes ‘our iconic works of art and architecture are often just intuitive variations of nature’s patterns around and within us’ (Ruggles 2018), indicating that our design styles and ideas of beauty in relation to architecture are unconsciously affected by the environment in which we live. To paraphrase Winston Churchill (1941) ‘’We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’’ (Bond 2017), showing one of the first instances in which architecture had been recognized to have a psychological effect on humans. 70 years on from Churchill’s comment there have been extensive research documents which explore the way in which we are shaped by architecture, and how this effects the way we then shape it as designers. A broader perspective has been adopted by Marsh (2015) who argues that ‘by working towards a better understanding of the scientific principles underlying the design and experience of the built environment, we can improve our processes and output from a human perspective.’ Marsh (2015) considers that, through the depth of research into neuroarchitecture, we can impact our quality of design in order to have a more positive response from those experiencing the built environment.

When considering the psychological relationship between human and the built environment that we have created, Hein de Haan (2005) presents the theory that ‘people don’t just create things, they react to them’ (De Haan 2005, p.15), which concurs with Churchill’s statement (1941). Although some appear sceptical to the extent of the importance of neuroarchitecture, it is clear that what exists is ‘a belief that the relationship between people and place matters’(Donovan et al. 2013, p.14).

Whilst Marsh goes into depth concerning the need for further research into the understanding of neuroarchitecture, De Botton (2007) claims that ‘Architectural and decorative styles become, for us, emotional souvenirs of the moments and settings in which we came across them’ (De Botton 2007). This statement adds another perspective to neuroarchitecture which infers that the process of experience, which takes place with humans in the built environment, is not only a basic reaction or response, but it can be as in depth as having an emotional effect on a person. In the same vein, Tony Fretton Architects (1998) note in the book Architecture, Experience and Thought; ‘how architecture can make a complex contribution to the city and its capacity to be an emotional object of thought’ (Cousins et al. 1998, p.51). This furthers the theory that the way in which we react to our built environment is not necessarily through automatic response, but we can also be emotionally affected by architecture. Douglas J. Porteous (1977) proposes that ‘the way we look at our surroundings is influenced by the needs we call on those surroundings to meet’ (Porteous 1977). This implies that the way in which we react to our built environment emotionally can be based on the purpose for which we are using the space for, linking feeling to functionality.

One criticism of much of the literature on the psychology of architecture is that it can be problematic identifying which studies are the most accurate in their research, as it can be viewed that neuroarchitecture is subjective. Despite this, it has been well established from a variety of studies that humans are psychologically affected by the built environment, and that this is then conveyed in how we create architecture. William Whyte (2010), a sociologist who authored several texts regarding urban planning, design, and human behaviour, claims that ‘the social life in public spaces contributes fundamentally to the quality of life of individuals and society as a whole’ (Whyte 2010). This introduces into the discussion the idea that due to architecture having a psychological effect on us, it also, as a result, effects it’s surrounding and visiting societies.

Through his research, Whyte presents his sociological findings in his book ‘The social life of small urban spaces’, and suggests that architecture is built to have varying psychological effects on different members of society (Whyte 2010). Presenting the theory that built environments are a medium of communication. A broader perspective has been adopted by Christopher Day (1990), who argues that not only are humans affected psychologically by architecture, but that architecture can also be designed to potentially have physical impacts on people. In his writing he discusses how architecture ‘affects people and places’, and ‘how design and construction can be approached to bring health rather than illness’ (Day 1990, p.13). There has not been any proven physical research into this claim, however one can consider that due to the way in which we are affected psychologically by our built environment, this also then can have an impact on the physical and mental health of a person.

The studies presented thus far provide evidence that neuroarchitecture does exist to a certain extent, however it is not widely researched and a lot of the information which is available is primarily based on philosophies of those who have considered and researched the topic. This view is supported by Andrzej Piotrowski (2011) who writes that ‘phenomena remain insufficiently explored because dominant research methods, especially those used to analyse architecture, and the common understanding of what architecture is are steeped in logocentric and reductive assumptions’ (Piotrowski 2011). This view is supported by Whyte who states that architecture ‘’remains remarkably under-theorized’’(Whyte 2010). There remain several aspects of neuroarchitecture about which relatively little is known, however, taken together, these studies all support the notion that humans are psychologically affected by architecture. This research document will continue to create more depth into the extent to which humans are psychologically and socially effected by the built environment.