Department of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Damavand, Iran
Architects and non-
Keywords: Perception, façade aesthetics, complexity in architecture, building
Gifford, Hine, Muller-
The aesthetics visual differences in the view of architects and non-
In another study, Ghomeshi, Nikpour, & Jusan (2012) identified the valuable aspects of the building among the architects. The researchers stated that though the judgments regarding the assessments of an environment can be made consciously or unconsciously, this knowledge is usually intertwined with the visual cognition of an environment and the emotional recollection of the same environment (Nasar, 2000; Kaplan, 1982).
Understanding these differences and applying them to architect's designs will create a more pleasant façade decreasing perspective differences between architect and non-
The data in this research were gathered qualitatively using open interview techniques. 61 professional architects and 59 non-
According to O'Connor, (2008) aesthetic response to building attributes in general occur irrespective of age, gender, culture, occupation, socio-
The qualitative data in this study were analyzed using content analysis. In this method, the results were based on frequency of mention, and the cut-
The purpose of interviewing the architects and the non-
The architects were selected from the graduates and postgraduates of the universities in the city of Tehran. Non-
30 residential buildings façades were chosen from famous architectural magazines of Tehran (figure 1). It was important that the selected buildings were from well-
3.1 Findings from architects' perspective
As shown in Table 1, the influencing factors in liking a façade by an architect were as follows: vertical elements, vegetation, modern design, Proportion, uniqueness, and simplicity are the most important factors that the architects take into account based on their aesthetic judgments. In this judgment, vertical elements and vegetation were categorized in physical cues and modern design, Proportion, uniqueness, and simplicity were considered as conceptual properties. The results reveal that the most important factor was uniqueness (n=37). Also, the architects did not like the repetition of façade, roman façade style for Tehran, and inappropriate color (n=0). The curved form (n=8), low number of materials (n=6) and the number of articulation (n=2) were also mentioned, but dropped out, because their frequency of mention was lower than 9.
As shown in chart 1, for the architects, the factors influencing the complexity of a façade include repetition (n=20), number of windows (n=9), decorations (n=24), lighting (n=10), number of elements (n=11), number of materials (n=24), and the number of colors used in the façade (n=18).
Moreover, as shown in chart 2, medium complexity (n=39) was the preferred complexity level from architects' perspective, whereas low or high complexity was not approved by them. This confirms the study by Berlyne (1974) regarding the U shape of satisfaction level regarding complexity.
This research demonstrates that after medium complexity, low complexity (n=17) has more popularity. This finding contradicts other studies such as Berlyne (1974) and Imamoglo (2000) which suggest that the architects would prefer high complexity after medium complexity. The findings suggest that for architects, the most important preferred factors were uniqueness, and simplicity, while they did not prefer Roman façade style, and repetition. They consider medium complexity as the favorable emotional response for the building's façade.
3.2 Findings from Non-
As shown in Table 2, the influencing factors from non-
The most important factor turned out to be uniqueness (n=46). Thus, the non-
Considering the chart 3, it has showed that repetition, color, number of windows, decoration are the factors which are affected complexity by non-
Also, as shown in chart 4, medium complexity created the highest satisfaction among non-
As it is seen, for non-
According to the findings of this research, proper understanding of complexity in both concepts of simple and complex architecture leads to a better understanding of preferences of the lay persons in order to improve the design perception.
It could be concluded that though simplicity is a common factor influencing façade's aesthetics for both architects and non-
This study actually confirms studies by Gifford (2000) and Ghomeshi et al (2012) whom suggested that uniqueness, innovativeness, and originality greatly influence the non-
This paper also confirms the study by Imamoglo (2000) who concludes that for both architects and non-
For the future studies, an examination of the accurate definition of medium and low complexity among architects and non-
Other recommendations are as follow:
" It is recommended that architecture should understand the non-
" Connecting the conceptual properties of the buildings to the physical building attributes could help the architects to understand the non-
" Architects should not see the building as an opportunity to show their design capabilities without taking into consideration the non-
Berlyne, Daniel E, 1974, Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere.
Carlson A, 2000, Aesthetics and the Environment: The appreciation of nature. Art and Architecture. London, New York, NY, Routledge.
Ghomeshi, Mohammad, and Mahmud Mohd Jusan. 2013, Investigating different aesthetic preferences between architects and non-
Ghomeshi, Mohammad, Mansour Nikpour, and Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusan. 2012, Identifying the different aesthetic quality of building attributes from architects' perspective.
Gifford, Robert, et al. 2000, "Decoding modern architecture a lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons." Environment and Behavior 32.2: 163-
Gifford, R., D. Hine, W. Muller-
Groat, L., 1982. Meaning in post-
Hershberger, Robert Glen. A, 1969. study of meaning and architecture. Diss. University of Pennsylvania.
Imamoglu, Çagri, 2000. Complexity, liking and familiarity: architecture and non-
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R, 1982. Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. Chapter 4.
Mehrabian, Albert, and James A. Russell, 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. the MIT Press.
Nasar J, 1992. Connotative meanings of house styles. In E. Arias (Ed.). The meaning and use of housing. London, Gower
Nasar, J., 2000. "The evaluative image of places." Person-
O'Connor, Z., 2008. Facade Colour and Aesthetic Response: Examining Patterns of Response within the Context of Urban Design and Planning Policy in Sydney. Doctoral dissertation, Australia, University of Sydney.
Venturi, Robert, 1977. Complexity and contradiction in architecture. Vol. 1. The Museum of modern art.
Journal of Buildings and Sustainability -
INSIGHTCORE ® -