Does history matter? Perceptions and attitudes toward fake historic architecture and historic preservation

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 148-159

  Levi, Daniel J ^a  

^a Psychology and Child Development Department   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; HERITAGE CONSERVATION; TOURISM DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 20444432225     PISSN: 07380895     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Beasley E (1994) Reviewing new design in historic districts. In B Scheer and W Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman and Hall, pp. 20-30.
2. Blanco H (2000) Style matters: The case of Santa Barbara. Places 13(2):56-63.
3. Boyer M (1992) Cities for sale: Merchandising history at South Street Seaport. In M Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a theme park. New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 181-204.
4. Day L (1992) Placemaking by design: Fitting a large new building into a historic district. Environment and Behavior 24:326-346.
5. Groat L (1994) Carbuncles, columns, and pyramids: Lay and expert evaluations of contextual design strategies. In B Scheer and W Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman and Hall, pp. 156-164.
6. Hammer D (2000) Learning from the past: Historic districts and the New Urbanism in the United States. Planning Perspectives 15:107-122.
7. Herzog T (2000) Complexity, age and building preference. Environment and Behavior 32(4):557-576.
8. Herzog T, Gale T (1996) Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior 28(1):44-73.
9. Huxable A (1997) The unreal America: Architecture and illusion. New York: The New York Press.
10. Inskeep E (1991) Tourism planning. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
11. Kim J (2000) Creating community: Does the Ketlands live up to its goals? Places 13(2):48-55.
12. Lightner B (1993) Survey of design review practices. Planning Advisory Service Memo, pp. 1-4.
13. Moul H (1994) Santa Fe styles and townscapes: The search for authenticity. In B Scheer and W Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman and Hall, pp. 95-110.
14. Nasar J (1983) Adult viewers' preferences for residential scenes: A study of the relationship between environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior 15:589-614.
15. Nasar J (1994) Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior 26:377-401.
16. Nasar J (1998) The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Rosenow J, Pulsipher G (1979) Tourism: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Lincoln: Century Three Press.
18. Sorkin M (1992) Introduction: Variations on a theme park. In M Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a theme park. New York: Hill and Wang, pp. xi-xv.
19. Stamps A (1994) A study in scale and character: Contextual effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management 42:223-245.
20. Stamps A (1997) A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17:249-293.
21. Stamps A (2000) Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. Stamps A, Miller S (1993) Advocacy membership, design guidelines and predicting preferences for residential infill designs. Environment and Behavior 25(3):367-409.
23. Tyler N (2000) Historic preservation. New York: Norton and Company.