Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56, No.

2 (2013)
Journal homepage: http://constructii.utcluj.ro/ActaCivilEng
Special Issue: First International Conference for PhD Students in Civil Engineering, CE-PhD 2012.

Space Perception and Its Implication in Architectural Design

Dana POP* ,
1
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning 72-76 Observatorului
Str., 400500, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

(Accepted 15 November 2013; Published online 15 December 2013)

Abstract
The paper intends to analyse the common ground between the field of visual perception and
architectural design. The architectural product always addresses a user, who will react in a certain
way towards the architectural object, towards built space, towards her/his environment in general.
This relationship is bidirectional and its effects are visible both ways: we modify the environment
through the designing process (architecture, urban planning, design in general) and the (built)
environment modifies our behaviour. In this context, it is crucial that we understand the functioning
mechanisms of the perceptual processes - which will be detailed throughout the first part of the
paper. Perception is indeed a very complex process, that involves gathering information through
our senses; processing it - which implies analysing the received information and comparing it
against previously gathered knowledge, based on past experiences; and formulating particular
responses - also based on previous experiences. Perception is in essence a highly creative process:
although we relate to the same reality, we will perceive it in a different way according to what that
environment means to each of us. The second part of the paper will study several parallel theories
on perception developed by architects, urban planners and psychologists. We will also pay special
attention to several conclusions reached by Jean Piaget and Bärbel Inhelder upon the way in which
perception develops from an early age. These studies are essential in establishing a growth and
progression pattern throughout childhood, relating it to the different stages of the development
process of space perception. Finally, the third part will present two case studies focusing on the
manner in which users, with different cultural backgrounds, perceive the space they inhabit and,
another two case studies, which show how and why users change their environment - cases in
which the designer failed to produce spaces with meaning according to the users’ paradigm.

Rezumat
Articolul intenționează să analizeze teritoriul comun dintre percepția spațială și arhitectură.
Produsul de arhitectură se adresează întotdeauna unui utilizator, care va reacționa într-un anumit
fel față de obiectul de arhitectură, față de spațiul construit, fața de mediu în general. Această
relație este bidirecțională, iar efectele ei sunt vizibile în ambele direcții: noi modificăm mediul prin
procesul de proiectare (arhitectură, urbanism, proiectare în general) și mediul (construit) ne
modifică la rândul său comportamentul. În acest context este foarte important să înțelegem
mecanismele de funcționare ale procesului perceptual - detaliate în prima parte a lucrării.
Percepția este într-adevăr un proces deosebit de complex care înglobează culegerea de informații
cu ajutorul simțurilor; procesarea acestora - ceea ce înseamnă analizarea informațiilor primite și
compararea lor cu cunoștințele deja dobândite, pe baza experiențelor anterioare; și formularea

Dana POP: Tel.+40740221282/ Fax.

E-mail address: [email protected]
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

unor răspunsuri - care se bazează, de asemenea, pe experiențele anterioare. Percepția este, de fapt,
un proces deosebit de creativ: deși ne relaționăm la aceeași realitate, o vom percepe diferit, în
concordanță cu ceea ce poate însemna mediul pentru fiecare dintre noi. A doua parte a articolului
va detalia câteva puncte de vedere care teoretizează percepția, formulate de arhitecți, urbaniști și
psihologi. Vom prezenta, în mod special, concluziile la care au ajuns Jean Piaget și Bärbel
Inhelder legate de modul în care se formează și dezvoltă percepția de la o vârstă fragedă. Aceste
studii sunt esențiale pentru stabilirea unui model de creștere și progresie de-a lungul copilăriei -
relaționându-l cu diferitele etape ale procesului de dezvoltare a percepției spațiale. În final, în cea
de-a treia parte, vom prezenta două studii de caz ce se concentrează pe modul în care este perceput
spațiul de indivizi ce provin din medii culturale diferite; și încă alte două studii de caz, care
prezintă de ce și cum își modifică utilizatorii mediul - este vorba de situații în care spațiul pe care îl
locuiesc ei nu este în concordanță cu paradigma lor de locuire.

Keywords: visual perception, space perception, meaning in architecture, architectural psychology,

environmental psychology, environmental cognition.

1. Defining the Perceptual Process

Architecture, as the creator of space, is the one to give physical form to this concept. This is why
before creating it, we must, first of all, understand how we see space, how we perceive it. Thus, the
last decades can be considered to have been an effervescent period during which architects and
psychologists alike have been attempting to link architecture with the psychology of the individual,
- seen as the user of these spaces.

Perception is the first step we take when interacting with space. It is the interface, our first contact
with the surrounding environment. This is why, in a study, which is attempting to establish a
relationship between the individual and their, environment, it becomes essential to identify what
perception really is and how can this process influence our interconnection with space - as users
and as designers, as well.

When speaking about perception, probably the best term that one could use is that of concept. And
this because when trying to define what perception means, it becomes clear that there are a lot of
sides to its meaning, which sometimes overlap and other times are merely tangent. This is why
perception tends to be more than just a simple notion, therefore becoming a concept.

Defining perception is becoming increasingly difficult, precisely because it is the object of many
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies. Its definition tends to be broader or more restrictive
depending on the field of studies that defines it: for example, in experimental psychology,
perception denotes the manner in which stimuli act upon receptors. For social psychologists, it
signifies the ability to identify objects within the social environment, but it also includes the image
which the individual forms upon various events, people, objects linked to previous experiences. On
the other hand, the field of geography defines perception in a much broader sense, including the
whole range of percepts, memories, attitudes, preferences, thus comprising the entire information
we poses related to an environment, in fact aspects that can be gathered under the term of
environmental cognition. [1].

Psychologists involved mainly in the field of space psychology, are refining even further the
concept, stressing upon the differences between cognition and perception. The relationship between
cognition and perception is sometimes of inclusion and other times they are seen as two separate,
alternating processes. Cognition comprises all forms of knowledge: thought, imagination, reason,
memory and, of course, perception cannot be overlooked, therefore, in this instance, it is a form of
212
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

figurative knowledge. From this viewpoint, the knowledge of the surrounding environment can be
acquired in more than one ways and perception is just one of them. From a different perspective,
perception is being influenced by the cognitive structures of the individual. These can influence the
selective ability of perception and thus the image to be constructed is being refined and selected
through the filter of attention. Summarising, perception can just as easily be defined as a subsystem
of cognition but, just as well, as being a process of cognition, too. [2] (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. The relationship between perception and cognition.

Looking at it differently, at a lower level, we have sensations. Perception presupposes a superior

degree of complexity in gathering and processing information. The resulting image, at the end of
the perceptual process, includes information dealing with a substantial number of features regarding
the perceived elements: colours, textures, sounds, smells, information related to the moment of the
day, seasons, weather conditions etc. Sensation, on the other hand, offers unidimensional,
elementary information, depicting a single aspect, simple features. Therefore, we could say that
multiple sensations merge in order to form perceptions. [3].

In order to link the concept of perception to architectural theory, we have to extract certain aspects
of the concept, which are adequate to our purpose. This point of view tends to differ, for example,
from the artistic approach, which is more inclined to analyse just the way in which one registers the
composition of the perceived scene. In its artistic interpretation, perception tends to deal just with
colour, proportion, light and shadow; completely ignoring, for example, the quantitative aspects of
the perceived data. This is a point of view, which clearly neglects the physiological process
described above. Although accurate, this point of view is still incomplete. Thus, for a theoretical
study of architecture, the conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis, regarding the concept of
perception, must be filtered through the following sequence: creator of space → space → user of
space. Meaning that the space created by architects will become reality, and then it will be
perceived by a user. During the first stage of the perceptual process, s/he will register just its
physical aspects. Then, during a second stage, the individual will be capable of distinguishing the
three-dimensional space, while identifying and recognising its meaning, its function and / or utility
- based upon past experiences, namely previously gathered and stored information. It must be
emphasised the fact that each individual will perceive the space differently, according to their own
213
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

set of knowledge and experiences - which will differ from the one that the designer of the space
possesses - a characteristic which should be thought of throughout the entire designing process.
Thus, perceptions are very intimately linked to the cultural system to which the perceiver belongs
to, as we shall see further on - always relating to more complex concepts such as crowding, the
need of privacy, the ability of finding one’s way, the need to mark one’s territory, personalising
space or deciding how to act upon the cues provided by the environment.

2. Theories on Perception
2.1 How Perceptions Are Being Formed

If we are to fully comprehend the way this process works - where it starts from, how it develops
and what the final product is - we have to analyse how these perceptions are being formed. We shall
discuss first the perceptual process itself and, then, we shall focus on relating the development of
this process to the transformations involved in the action of maturation from childhood to
adulthood.

Thus, the point is the basic unit with which visual perception operates. All the images that we
record and which the retina transmits further on, are made of a myriad of points made visible by
light. This is a process which takes place unconsciously, therefore the final product, what we ‘see’,
is the image of what we perceive to be reality, and not an endless sequence of points (this aspect
must be stressed because we will later understand that reality and the image that we perceive, are
two rather different entities). The perceptual construct, as defined above, presupposes something
else than the sum of its parts. This statement is actually the motto of Gestalt psychology. Their
theory is based on the assumption that certain structures or features of the perceived image can be
more important and different from the sum of its parts: ‘We start with a flashing light. Then we
introduce a second light flashing in the opposite rhythm, such that whenever one light is
illuminated the other is extinguished. When looking at both lights, we see something different from
the sum of what we saw from the two lights individually: We now perceive a single, non-flashing
light moving back and forth between the two locations. (Seeing just one light with no flashing
illustrates how the whole can be less than the sum of its parts.) Here, motion is an emergent
feature, something categorically different and surprising because it is a property of neither light
individually. The whole we perceive- the configuration or gestalt - differs from the sum of its parts.’
[3]
The perceptual construct acts upon four basic principles [4]:
1. Grouping and Part-Whole Relationship is the first principle. In order to obtain the image of an
object, we must group the elements composing it, so that we are able to perceive it. This grouping
process is done based on several criteria: proximity - we tend to group elements depending upon
how close they are to each other, similarity - the more similar two elements are, the more probable
for them to belong to the same object, common circumstance - if two elements transform in a
similar way in time, we tend to group them together; continuity - contours and edges that combine
tend to be perceived as a group; closure and convexity - closed curbs or curbs connecting into
convex objects are susceptible of being seen as belonging to the same whole; common regions -
any two elements contained within a single region, tend to be grouped together; connectivity - two
physically connected elements, are often seen as part of the same object.
2. Figure - Ground Segregation, the second principle, determines the way in which we ‘see’ depth
and understand the spatial hierarchy of objects: how much of what we see represents the opaque
side of the first object and where does it begin, where does the second object start, hidden behind
the first one. This same principle can also explain the way in which we distinguish the sides
belonging to the figure from the background. This segregation is based on the following criteria:
convexity - the convex part is usually the figure and not the ground; size - the smaller region is
214
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

most often the figure; movement - usually the moving element is the figure; symmetry - the
symmetric region becomes the figure; distance - the closest object is usually perceived as the
figure.
3. Perceptual Association refers to the way in which certain components of the stimuli’s features or
characteristics are physically grouped. An example of Emmert’s Law clarifies this principle:
‘Suppose we create an afterimage by staring at a bright square and then look at a nearby brick
wall. We see the afterimage of that square on the wall, as though it were really there. If we now
look at a more distant wall, we again see the square, but now it appears larger, in that it covers
more bricks. If we look at our hand, the afterimage will appear to shrink to fit in our hand.
Similarly, if we look at a wall that is oblique to our line of sight, the square afterimage becomes
trapezoidal, demonstrating the perceptual coupling now between perceived shape and perceived
orientation.’ [3].
4. Multi-stability or Bistable Perception is a principle which describes the effect produced when
stimuli are correctly perceived with the same intensity in two different instances, sometimes the
two images, or better said the two perceived interpretations, alternate spontaneously. [3, 4, 5]
But, above all these, the principle which governs all the others is the Law of Prägnanz, which states
that we structure our percepts according to the simplest possible option. Maximum simplicity is
reached when the minimum amount of elements is being used in order to sustain the structure of the
whole.
This point of view should not be regarded as the single possible explanation of how the perceptual
process works, but the Gestalt theory is the best articulated one, and, if there are other parallel or
even divergent theories, at some point and somehow, they are all linked or based on this particular
theory.

2.2 Structuring the Percept of Space

In order to be able to recognise, identify and attribute significance to objects, people or events
surrounding us, we need to have a way of structuring the information that we receive from the
environmental stimuli. Identifying the features and conditions of the environment, helps us navigate
through it and provide adequate responses in different circumstances. The Gestaltist point of view
asserts that the features, the relationships which we attribute to space, are not characteristic of space
per se, but belong to the objects furnishing it [6]. Hypothetically, if we were to empty the space of
all its objects, we would not be capable anymore of identifying, not even the most basic
relationships of up-down, right-left, close-far because we would not have any reference objects
against which to construct such judgements. Arnheim [6] argues that space exists only when it is
being generated by the relationship between two objects. Architecture, urban planning, design in
general do not just build space, but they create it: they cut out, enclose, border by compressing or
decompressing space. In order to describe these tensions, which appear in the visual field, from a
compositional point of view, the Gestaltists introduced the notion of perceptual forces, a term
borrowed from physics [7]. Compressed or dilated space can thus be translated through perceptual
forces of rejection or attraction: ‘Chaos, order, variety or monotony result from the endless
combination of these forces’ [7].

Kevin Lynch [8] underlines the importance of structuring and identifying spaces as processes
necessary in navigating throughout the environment. In their absence, disorientation emerges,
which causes, in its turn, anxiety and, in the end, fear. His theory is based on a bidirectional
relationship between the individual and their environment: the environment provides cues which
suggest certain relationships, structures, differences; while the individual selects with the help of
attention, organises with the help of perception and attributes meaning to what s/he sees. This
bidirectional relationship is interactive, and adapts constantly based on the data and information it
receives from the environmental setting. Preoccupied especially with the urban image, Lynch
identifies five types of elements which structure it. The path - is the route along which we usually,
215
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

occasionally or potentially move, while the other elements, to which it relates to, are being
exhibited along it, physically it can present itself as a street, an alley, a channel or a railway track.
The edge - is another linear element, but which cannot be categorised nor used as a path; edges are
borders which define different areas, they are perceived as fractures: shores, walls or cuts made by
railway tracks; their presence is not as obvious as the one of paths, but they are perceived as having
an important role in organising the space, because they enclose homogeneous areas. The district - is
a medium or large two-dimensional unit of the city and it defines an area with a certain character,
which determines its identity. The node - is a strategic point, physically identifiable through
junctions, nodal transportation stations, points, which can shift the structure or character of an area;
they can become nuclei of certain districts; in such cases, they are the ones radiating the character
of the place. The landmark - is an external reference which possesses the quality of being easily
identifiable; it distinguishes itself from the background and expresses a direction; depending on the
scale of the space, landmarks can be local - for example store windows, poles, trees -, at the scale of
the city - towers, domes, hills -, or general - the sun.

Lynch’s approach is oriented mostly to urban scale environments and it surpasses the perceptual
level, plunging into that of wayfinding, namely extracting the main features of the environment and
structuring them into an abstract form of representation, which becomes a sort of a built-in map that
helps the individual orient themselves in space. Still, his theory is worth considering because, after
all, before we are able to re-structure the environment in the abstract form of mental representation,
we first have to understand and collect the main features of the environment, analyse and compare
them to previously gathered data and decide what is important and worth remembering and what is
not - or put briefly to construct the syntax of the image.

When discussing the structure of the percept of space, we are actually discussing an image, or a part
of the environment surrounding us, a fraction of our reality. There is a fundamental difference
between the image that we see and the mental representation we build afterwards. The mental
representation, unlike the perceived image, is a product of our mind, in the absence of direct stimuli
action upon our senses.[9] These representations are not random, independent images gathered in
our memory. The information is actually decomposed in its elementary components: the
atmosphere of a place, the size of a space, the colours, faces, objects, etc.; which are then placed in
different parts of our memory. [10] Each time a certain task requires the presence of the
remembered event, the information is recovered and recomposed as a spatial representation. These
memories are highly subjective. First of all, even throughout the perceptual process, the image is
not being perceived objectively. According to our interest towards a certain feature, particular areas
can be registered more or less detailed. Then, the recovery process can reproduce an erroneous
representation, based, for example, on data gathered from two separate events - if the source
memory is deficient. [10].

As a conclusion, mental representations are lacking syntax; they do not possess an objective
structure. Thus, they cannot withheld the value of truth. A physical image behaves like an object: it
can be analysed, reanalysed; its features can be deconstructed into components, and we have the
possibility of using a different classifying criterion every time. In the case of mental
representations, the deconstruction can only occur once, when the information is processed and
when it receives a certain place in the memory, after which any reconstruction depends upon this
first processing operation. Mental representations, compared to physical images, are products,
which possess a higher degree of abstraction, because they are based on information received
through the senses, differing from what could be called a purely visual image.

Each of these steps - perceiving an image, constructing a mental representation, storing the
information, reusing it - helps us establish a process, a way to interact with the environment
surrounding us. The sum of these processes is what defines us as individuals, as groups, and,
216
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

ultimately, as cultures. The way in which we act or react to the environment, to any given
situation, depends on our capacity to ‘read’ the cues provided by the environment, but mainly on
the way in which we decipher the received message, on the way we understand (or not) the
significance of what we see: ‘It is not ordinarily possible even to get into a building unless one
“recognises” that a wooden panel approximately 3 feet wide by 7 feet high with a knob at one
edge and hinges at the other is a door (an object which one can open and pass through). Use of a
3- by 7-foot panel as the door is not automatic. It depends on meaning, which in turn depends on
experience. Would an Eskimo or a South Sea Islander automatically understand its use?’ [11].
Coding, decoding and the way in which society expects us to react depends on the culture that
shaped us. Knowing to give the appropriate answer in a certain situation is just like learning a
language; knowing how to respond properly in different cultural contexts is just like speaking
more languages. [12].

Understanding how this very complex process works is the key to better designs, to better and well-
adjusted environments, which focus on the people, on their differences and common features.

2.3 Stages in the Development of Perception

In order to comprehend fully the way in which perception works, we also have to understand how it
develops and evolves. The transformations through which every organism passes from birth to the
state of adulthood, have been associated with four concepts [2]: growth - it is a more general term
which does not refer to any specific kind of transformation and which can be associated with any
type of evolution; maturation - a more specific term, which involves mainly a psychological
growth; learning - refers to the quantitative change in the way in which information is received and
stored, the individual changes as the result of accumulation of new percepts and corrects the manner
in which s/he understands and reacts to the surrounding environment; development - implies
qualitative changes in structuring the behaviour. Thus, the theories involved in the development of
perception, study qualitative changes, which occur in the structure of the perceptual process. Jean
Piaget, who conducted the most extensive study of this matter [13], distinguishes four stages in the
development of spatial structuring:
1. Sensorimotor Space - up to the age of two years, the sensorimotor space develops simultaneously
four concepts: the genesis of the image - self-explanatory. The concept of object - during the first
year any object which leaves the child’s visual field, is perceived as seizing to exist, but,
gradually, the child understands that when he no longer sees an object, it is temporarily hidden,
thus the concept of that certain object is cemented and it no longer depends strictly on visual or
tactile stimuli. The sensorimotor group of spatial displacements - the child gradually shifts from
perceiving spaces separately and from relating with them according to their needs or the body
parts involved in the process, to a unique space in which different objects are interrelated, as part
of a whole. Thus, the sensorimotor structures reach a level of independence, which allows the
child to start internalising them as thought patterns.
2. Intuitive or Pre-operational Space - this period consist of two sub periods:
2.1 from two to approximately seven years - symbolic and pre conceptual thought
2.2 from four to seven, eight years - intuitive thought
Pre-operational space is still being limited by the sensorimotor and perceptual activity. The
preschool child is capable of returning to the origin of their movement in their thought, but only
by traveling through a cyclical route and not a symmetrical one - which would be a quality of
pure reversibility; the child’s conception of space is still egocentric, meaning that it is closely
related to their own point of view.
3. The Concrete Operational Space - comprises two categories:
3.1 at about seven, eight years - the emergence of concrete operations
3.2 from nine to eleven or twelve years - organising operations into logical structures
During the early school years, spatial thought starts to break loose from the image and develops
217
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

into operations, although these are still concrete and depend upon the presence of objects. The
child manages to liberate themselves of the egocentric organisation of space and is capable to
relate to an exterior coordinate system during this period.
4. Space of Formal Operations - corresponds to adolescence, during this last phase of development
of the spatial concept, the individual is capable of completely separating spatial operations from
real space, objects or actions; abstract operations of mathematical nature allow the adolescent to
survey an infinity of spatial relations in the realm of the possible and hypothetical.

3. Implications in Architectural Design - Case Studies

3.1 How to Read Cues from the Environment

Cloths, furnishings, buildings, gardens, streets, cities - all have a particular meaning about who we
are, what we like, to which social group we belong to, towards what we aspire. However, today, in the
current context in which different cultures collide, we must be able to operate among different coding
systems. Operating in pluralistic contexts can be very difficult and confusing. Physical settings, just
like cultures, have traditionally had the role of helping people to behave in a manner appropriate to
the norms of their own group. A better understanding of this process should enable us to make greater
use of this role that the environment possesses. Most often we are not even aware of this process of
reading the cues provided by the environment, of understanding and decoding them. This is true
particularly of traditional environments. An environment that belongs to a singular, very clearly
defined culture can use much more subtle means of communicating with its dwellers. The rules of
conduct - what is and what is not appropriate - are already known, so the physical form does not need
to induce a behaviour, but rather just to support it. On the other hand, in the contemporary, multi-
cultural context, the cues have to have a high redundancy rate in order to be perceived. They even
have to be embedded into the environment in different ways, according to all the cultural systems
using the same physical space.

This is why the information we require in order to establish the type of code which is used by a specific
society, a certain culture, cannot be obtain based on interviews, but rather through direct observations
upon the way in which users behave and the way in which they react and interact with the environment.
In order to exemplify this principle, we are going to analyse two types of urban textures:
1. The European Medieval Town [14] - if we were to analyse the structure, the spatial pattern of the
medieval European town, we could understand a lot about the way in which this particular space
was being used. Many of its features were due to defensive reasons and this fact is quite apparent
when ‘reading’ the plan. Density was very high because, even though the population was
increasing, the area of the town remained the same because of its very tight perimeter imposed by
the defensive structures. The town was organised around the church and the market place, thus
stressing the important role which religion played, especially the church, in daily life. The market
place had a similar importance because it was the place in which the most important events of the
community took place. The street pattern had behind it the same defensive logic. Most streets
were narrow and winding, thus restricting the number of invaders capable of passing through at
once. At the same time, this pattern induced a feeling of confusion because you could never see
and place the crossroads points along the way. The bends also provided convenient blind spots
for the defenders to hide or plan surprise attacks. Thus, much of the behaviour can be explained
through the physical form of the environment.
2. The Traditional Arab Town [15] - is divided into mahalles, enclosed districts, based on ethnical,
religious or professional criteria. The Oriental urban texture is fundamentally different from the
European one and this is a result of the dwelling customs and patterns, the way in which people
live; their space reflects a different type of code, a different type of meaning. The most obvious
fact is that the house in the Arab world is introverted, and not extroverted as the Occidental type.
218
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

The houses are organised around an interior garden, which becomes the oasis of family life.
Everything else outside this unit can be considered residual space. The streets of the Arabic town
seem to be what was left after enclosing all residential spaces. The house is very brutally defined
from public space through almost entirely opaque walls. This fact underlines the introverted
character of the house, but it also states another important feature, namely the lack of
monumentality. The Arab house does not express the social status of its owners on the outside.
Space, beyond the perimeter of the house, is structured hierarchically from semi-public space -
blind alleys from which a limited number of houses are accessed - to the public space of the
street. The tradition states that you should pass seven bends until you enter your house. If we
were to compare this aspect with Miller’s Law [16] of 7±2 - according to which our capacity to
store and operate with information is limited to dealing with 7±2 elements - we have the
necessary information to decode the strategic significance of this information: the attacker
wouldn’t be capable of remembering their way, s/he would be disoriented, maybe even
experience anxiety, which would finally led to abandonment.

3.2 Designing without Psychology

The leap from the traditional environment to the modern world brought many changes with it.
Behaviour, in traditional environments, is just as constant as the environment itself; they actually
reinforce each other: the environment provides mnemonic cues about the expected behaviour,
while a constant, routinized and habitual behaviour reinforces the need for a traditional
environment. This type of behaviour is almost automatic, since the range of choices is greatly
restricted in traditional cultures, thus the response tends to be more automatic, consistent and
uniform. [12] Modernist architecture was seen as a rupture in this context, from a historical and a
traditional point of view. It was a rupture which tried to erase everything and to restructure the
world according to its own functionalist rules. The space of modernist architecture was
fundamentally utilitarian, a feature, which did not coincide with the behaviour or what was
expected traditionally from an architectural environment. Physical space was changing faster than
the customs, the behaviour and the coding system used by the vast majority. In order to illustrate
this gap, we will study two projects designed by Le Corbusier:
1. Villa Bensus ‘Ker-Ka-Ré’ in Vaucresson, France - was designed together with Pierre Jeaneret
for George Bensus in a Parisian suburb, in 1923. It is Le Corbusier’s first attempt to put into
practice his purist ideas: he uses just surfaces - plain facades with ribbon windows, lines - a
flag pole, two poles sustaining the canopy above the entrance and a plain handrail with
horizontal bars on top of it, counterbalancing the volume of the bow-window; and points - a
patterned surface to the right of the entrance. All of these formed a very different image from
what people would call a home during those days: a plain cube with a flat roof and brutally cut
windows. This image did not go well together with the context and the atmosphere of its
neighbourhood. The building went through successive transformations. A pitched roof and a
chimney were added, while both the front and the garden facades were altered beyond
recognition. The front garden was replaced by a new addition which hosts commercial spaces.
The garden facade received a new balcony on the top floor and the long, horizontal windows
were modified in order to accommodate exits on this balcony, while the one on the ground
floor was partly bricked up. This is a common example of the type of interventions which can
occur when the environment does not correspond to the habitual behaviour of its users.
2. ‘Quartiers Modernes Frugès’ Assembly in Pessac, France [12, 17] - the fifty one units
assembly designed in 1924 at the request of Henri Frugès, a businessman with progressive
ideas who wished to offer his workers state-of-the-art dwellings. He assigned Le Corbusier
with this commission. ‘This project allows us to see how Le Corbusier developed his composite
principle of rational housing. Looking at his prototypes, we can see that when these composite
principles are applied to housing design and production, they create both spatial variety and
unity. [...] Basing his designs on an analogy between machinery and housing, Le Corbusier
219
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

pioneered hyper-rational designs that continue to be very influential today, proving the
feasibility of his concepts.’ [17] The problems arose when these dwellings did not concur with
the image of what their dwellers thought a house should look like. The long, horizontal
windows did not match with the image of small windows with shutters from the rural landscape
of France, so they had them replaced. Pitched roofs replaced the cold, rigid lines of the flat
roofs. Other modernist details were also softened by interventions such as bricking up
balconies, reshaping the window frames and adding window boxes.
It should be noted that none of these adjustments were made out of practical or functional
reasons, they are simply decorative elements associated with a certain kind of meaning and, more
importantly, with a certain type of cultural system. As these two examples show, if there is a
contradiction between the physical form of the environment and the social and cultural pattern or
system, there can be no connection between the dweller and the space s/he lives in. Thus, either
the environment or the behaviour pattern must change.

4. Conclusions
Generally speaking designers tend to ‘read’ the environment in perceptual terms - they see the
structure of the image, its composition, its elements; while the lay public, the users, see the
environment in associative terms - what that particular information means for them. The question,
which arises, is then for whom do we design? In order to create an adequate space, an environment,
our design shouldn’t just solve functional issues, but it should create an environment with a certain
meaning, a meaning which should signify something for the one it is addressed to. The newly
created space ought to include cues on how that particular space should be used, cues which should
correspond to the specific coding system known by its users - more specifically it should be
determined by the cultural system of its user. As a conclusion, we can assert that the environment
has a system of interacting with its inhabitants, which we called an encoding-decoding system, and
through which meaning is embedded into the environment and then, later, it is read by its users who
thus know how to act or respond in that specific situation. Therefore, the physical form of the
environment is very intimately linked to the culture (or subculture or even micro-culture) it serves.
The space ought to speak the same language as the one who uses it and it should be our duty to
understand and learn that language. The clearer the messages, the cues transmitted, the more
probable it is that the space we designed is going to be used within normal parameters. Thus, we
could avoid disorientation, confusion and anxiety provoking situations. It is important that we come
to realise that the spaces we design are going to be used on a daily basis, for long periods of time,
and that these spaces are going to play a mnemonic role - which is indeed the new spatial paradigm
- reminding the users the way in which they should behave and use those spaces: who is going to do
what, when and with whom.

5. References

[1] Stea D, Blaut J M Toward a Developmental Theory of Spatial Learning. In: Downs R M, Stea D, editors.
Image and Environment - Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company; pp. 2-26, 1973

[2] Hart R A, Moore, G T The Development of Spatial Cognition: A Review. In: Downs R M, Stea D,
editors. Image and Environment - Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company; pp. 246-288, 1973

[3] Pomerantz J R, Portillo M C Perceptual Organization: Vision. In: Goldstein E B, editor. Encyclopedia of
Perception. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.; pp. 786-790, 201

[4] Lang J Theories of Perception and “Formal” Design. In: Lang J, Burnette C, Moleski W, Vachon D,

220
 Dana Pop / Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56 No 2 (2013) 211-221

editors. Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. Stroudsburg: Dowen,
Hutchinson &Ross, Inc. pp. 98-110, 1974

[5] Arnheim R. Arta și percepția vizuală - o psihologie a văzului creator (Art and Visual Perception - a
Psychology of the Creative Eye). Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1979

[6] Arnheim R. The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Berkeley& Los Angeles, London: University of
California Press, 1977

[7] Alp A V. Aesthetic Response to Geometry in Architecture. Houston: unpublished PhD thesis, 1979

[8] Lynch K. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1960

[9] Hershberg R G Predicting the Meaning of Architecture. In: Lang J, Burnette C, Moleski W, Vachon D,
editors. Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. Stroudsburg: Dowen,
Hutchinson &Ross, Inc. pp. 147-156, 1974

[10] Miclea M. Psihologie cognitivă: modele teoretico-experimentale (Cognitive Psychology: Theoretical-

Experimental Models). Iași: Polirom, 200

[11] Zeisel J., Inquiry by Design - Environment / Behavior / Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors,
landscapes and Planning. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2006

[12] Rapoport A. The Meaning of the Built Environment. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1990

[13] Piaget J, Inhelder B. The Child’s Conception of Space. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul Ltd., 1956

[14] Harouel J L. Istoria Urbanismului (The History of Urban Plannig). Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 2001

[15] Vais D. Locuire (Dwelling). Cluj-Napoca: UT Press, 1997, 1999

[16] Miller G A. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: The Limits on Our Capacity for
Processing. The Psychological Review, vol 63, pp. 81-97, 1956

[17] Hsu C C, Shih C M A Typological Housing Design: The Case Study of Quartier Fruges in Pessac by Le
Corbusier. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol 5, pp. 75-82, 2006

221