URBAN CODES: Familiarity, Impressiveness, Complexity and Liking in Façades of Houses

Abstract

This study aims to see the local residents of Kahramanmaras who are not in the design profession, to know how they find connotative meanings in house styles concerning different cultures and to see how these meanings differ according to socio-demographic qualities. It is hypothesized that foreign examples would be preferred as a ‘social status’ indication compare to the domestic ones which might be considered as ‘warm’. Regarding this, a total o f 102 respondents, c omp o s e d o f middle- aged people (25 female, 26 male) and students (25 female, 26 male) have evaluated the façades of 12 houses through using five-point semantic differential scales under four headings: Familiarity, Impressiveness, Complexity and Liking. The results have shown that different styles with different forms, elements and materials have been evaluated differently by the respondent groups. While the most impressive foreign vernacular examples were defined as the ‘social status’ indication, the most familiar local vernacular examples were indicated as the ‘warmest’ house façades. Amongst these results, it was also noted that the students a p p r e c i a t e d the foreign vernacular examples and found them attractive than the middle age respondents.

Keywords

• Symbolic Meaning
• Familiarity
• Impressiveness
• Liking
• Complexity

References

1. Rasmussen, S.E., “Yaşanan Mimari”, Erduran, Ö., Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1-206 (1994).
2. Gibson, J.J., “The perception of visual surfaces”, American Journal of Psychology,63: 367-384 (1950).
3. Langer, S.K., “Philosophy in a New Key”, Mentor Books, New York, 1-256 (1958).
4. Lang, J., “ Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Toward a research agenda”, in J.L. Nasar (Eds.) Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, 11-26 (1988).
5. Nasar, J.L., “Symbolic meanings of house styles”, Environment and Behaviour, 21, 235-257 (1989b).
6. Nasar, J.L., “Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401 (1994).
7. building exteriors”,
8. Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D. and Izenour, S., “ Learning from Las Vegas”, MIT Press, Cambridge, (1972).

9. Imamoglu, Ç., “Complexity, preference and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern Environmental Psychology, 20, 5-16 (2000). Journal of
10. Baskaya, A., Wilson, C., Ozcan Y.Z. and Karadeniz, D.A., “Study in re-establishing the corporate identity of a post office institution with gender-related differences in perception of space”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 23 (1): 43-59 (2006).
11. Yildirim, K. and Başkaya, A., “Evaluation of main livingroom in block housing by users of different revenue groups”, Journal of The Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 1(2), 285-292 (2006).
12. Yildirim, K. and Akalin, A., “Problems related with the dimensions of curved areas in the main livingrooms of apartment housing”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26 (1), 70- 87 (2009).
13. McKinley, R. K., Manku-Scott, T., Hastings, A. M., French, D. P. and Baker, R., “Reliability and validity of a new measure of patient satisfaction with out of hours primary medical care in the United Kingdom: development of a patient questionnaire”, BMJ, 314, 193-198 (1997).
14. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y., “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94 (1988).
15. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin N., “The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing, 74, 331-352 (1998).
16. Kim, J.O. and Jin, B., “Korean customers’ patronage of discount stores: domestic vs multinational discount store shoppers’ profiles”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 236-255 (2001).
17. Berlyne, D. E., “Conflict, arousal and curiosity”, New York: McGraw Hill Book, (1960).
18. Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. and Saylan, A., “Users' evaluations of house facades: preference, complexity and complexity”, Perception and
19. Wohlwill, J. F., “Children's responses to meaningful Exploration time vs. preference”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 341-351. (1975). in diversity:
20. Berlyne, D.E., “Studies in the new experimental aesthetics”, New York: Wiley (1974).
21. Berlyne, D. E., “The new experimental aesthetics and environmental psychology”, in P. Suedfeld, J. A. Russell, L. M. Ward, F. Szigeti and G. Davis, (Eds), The Behavioral Basis of Design, Book 2, Proceedings, EDRA 7. Vancouver: McGraw Hill, 13-22 (1977).
22. Stamps, A. E., “Architectural detail, Van der Laan septaves and pixel counts”, Design Studies, 20, 83-97 (1999).
23. Fawcett, W., Ellingham, T. and Platt, S., “Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public”, Environment and Behavior, 40 (5), 599-618 (2008).
24. Rapoport, A., “Human Aspects of Urban Form”, Oxford: Pergamon, (1977).
25. Zajonc, R.B., “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure”, Journal of Personality and Social Psycology Mono Graph Supplement, 9, 2, 2 (1968).
26. Purcell, A . T ., Nasar, J.L., “ Experiencing other people’s houses: a model of smilarities and differences in environmental experience”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199- 211 (1992).