Urban Design Aesthetics: The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 377-401

  Nasar, Jack L ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973820696     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: 1552390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001391659402600305     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Anderson, L. M., Mulligan, B. E., Goodman, L. S., & Regen, H. Z. (1983). Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior, 15, 539-566.
2. Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Appleyard, D. (1982). Three kinds of urban design practice. In A. Ferebee (Ed.), Education for urban design. Purchase, NY: Institute for Urban Design.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and pyschobiology. New York: Meredith.
5. Blake, P. (1974). Form follows fiasco. Boston, MA: Atlantic Monthly Press.
6. Cooper, C. (1972). Resident dissatisfaction in multifamily housing. In W. M. Smith (Ed.), Behavior, design and policy aspects of human habitats (pp. 119-146). Green Bay: University of Wisconsin.
7. Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparsons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333-344.
8. Espe, H. (1981). Differences in perception of national socialist and classicist architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 33-42.
9. Gans, H. (1974). Popular culture and high culture: An analysis and evaluation of taste. New York: Basic Books.
10. Garling, T. (1976). Multidimensional scaling and semantic differential technique study of the perception of environmental settings. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 323-332.
11. Gaver, W. W., & Mandler, G. (1987). Play it again Sam. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 259-282.
12. Geller, D. M., Cook, J. B., O'Connor, M. A., & Low, S. K. (1982). Perceptions of urban scenes by small town and urban residents: A multidimensional scaling analysis. In P. Bart, A. Chen, & G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design: Proceedings of the 13th Intemational Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association(pp. 128-141). College Park, MD: EDRA.
13. Gifford, R. (1980). Environmental dispositions and the evaluation of architectural interiors. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 386-399.
14. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modem architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 3-22.
15. Groat, L. (1984). Public opinions of a contextual fit. Architecture, 73, 72-74.
16. Groat, L. (1988). Contextual compatibility in architecture: An issue of personal taste? In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory; research, and applications (pp. 228-253). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Groat, L., & Despres, C. (1990). The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design: Vol. 4 (pp. 3-53). New York: Plenum.
18. Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohn (Eds.), EDRA 1: Proceedings of the First Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 86-100). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
19. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 627-645.
20. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5, 43-59.
21. Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10, 555-584.
22. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature:A psychologicalperspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kaplan, S. (1988). Where cognition and affect meet: Atheoretical analysis of preference. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory research, and applications (pp. 56-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Coping in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
25. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J.S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354-356.
26. Lang, J. (1988). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Toward a research agenda. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 11-26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Langdon, P. (1982, April 22). Suburbanites pick favorite home styles. New York Times, p. C12-C12.
28. Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124-129.
29. Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scrpts, and scenes:Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Marans, R. W. (1976). Perceived quality of residential environments: Some methodological issues. In K. H. Craik & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications (pp. 123-147). New York: Plenum.
31. Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
32. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers' preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.
33. Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preference in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 79-93.
34. Nasar, J. L. (1987). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the Amercan Planning Association, 53, 499-509.
35. Nasar, J. L. (1988a). Perception and evaluation of street scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory research, and applications (pp. 275-289). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Nasar, J. L. (1988b). Editor's introduction. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmentalaesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 257-259). New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Nasar, J. L. (1989a). Perception, cognition, and evaluation of urban places. In I. Altman & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public places and spaces: Human behavior and environment Vol. 10 (pp. 31-56). New York: Plenum.
38. Nasar, J. L. (1989b). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235-257.
39. Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56, 41-53.
40. Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1988). Symbolic meanings of building style in small suburban offices. In G. Hardie, R. Moore, & H. Sanoff (Eds.), Changing paradigms: EDRA 20 (pp. 165-172). Oklahoma City, OK: EDRA.
41. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.
42. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1965). Intentions in architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
43. Oostendorp, A. (1978). The identification and interpretation of dimensions underlying aesthetic behaviour in the daily urban environment (University of Toronto). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 2, B990-B990.
44. Oostendorp, A., & Berlyne, D. E. (1978a). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 73-82.
45. Oostendorp, A., & Berlyne, D. E. (1978b). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Measures of exploratory behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 83-89.
46. Pearlman, K. T. (1988). Aesthetic regulation and the courts. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory research, and applications (pp. 476-492). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Purcell, A. T. (1984). Multivariate models and the attributes of the experience of the built environment. Environment and Planning B, 11, 173-192.
48. Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: Aschema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18, 3-30.
49. Purcell, A. T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people's houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-212.
50. Rapoport, A. (1990). History and precedent in environmental design. New York: Plenum.
51. Russell, J. (1988). Affective appraisals of scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, andapplications (pp. 120-129). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Shirvani, H. (1985). The urban design process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
53. Simonton, D. (1984). Genius, creativity and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. Snodgrass, J., Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1988). Planning, mood and place-liking. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 209-222.
55. Sonnenfeld, J. (1966). Variable values in the space and landscape: An inquiry into the nature of environmental necessity. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 71-82.
56. Thayer, R. L., Jr., & Atwood, B. G. (1978). Plant complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 67-76.
57. Tuttle, D.R. (1983). Suburban fantasies. Unpublished master's thesis, School of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
58. Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1983). Categories of environmental scenes. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 121-149.
59. Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window influences recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421.
60. Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In l.Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. (Eds.), Behaviorand the natural environment: Human behaviorand environment Advances in theory and research: Vol. 6 (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum.
61. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
62. Vining, J., & Orland, B. (1989). The video advantage: Acomparson of two environmental representation techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 275-283.
63. Ward, L. M., & Russell, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 121-152.
64. Whiffield, T.W.A. (1983). Predicting preference for everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221-237.
65. Wilson, M. A., & Canter, D. V. (1990). The development of central concepts during professional education: An example of a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style. Applied Psychology: An Intemational Review, 39, 431-455.
66. Winkel, G., Malek, R., & Thiel, P. (1970). Astudy of human response to selected roadside environments. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohn (Eds.), EDRA 1: Proceedings of the First Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 224-240). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
67. Wohlwill, J. F. (1974, July). The place of aesthetics in studies of the environment. Paper presented at the Symposium on Experimental Aesthetics and Psychology of the Environment at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Montreal.
68. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behaviorand the environment Advances in theory and research: Vol. 1 (pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum.
69. Wohlwill, J. F. (1982). The visual impact of development in coastal zone areas. Coastal Zone Management Joumal, 9, 225-248.
70. Wohlwill, J. F., & Kohn, I. (1973). The environment as experienced by the migrant: An adaptation-level view. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 4, 135-164.
71. Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.
72. Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquirybydesign: Tools forenvironment-behaviorresearch. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
73. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Evans, G. W. (1983). A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115-128.