A subjective opinion

When we talk about the opinions of individual people, we always talk about a subjective view that reflects the state of mind and personal history of the speaker. It is influenced by a person’s lifetime of experience: where he/she spent his/her childhood, what kind of home he grew up in, what his parents’ ideals were like, what his childhood environment was like physically — for example, did he live in a city or in the countryside, where did he go to school, what field did he study, in what line of business he works, what has been the influence of his circle of friends or work community, where has he traveled and what kind of cultures has he been exposed to, what knowledge and experiences he has encountered during his life, how open or closed the person’s world view has formed due to his experiences, etc.

All the knowledge and experiences accumulated during life are recorded in a person’s memory, some for a short time and some for a longer time. All these factors affect the “reference bank” of that person’s brain, to which each new experience of that person is compared. Without the knowledge accumulated during life, we could not – in the absence of comparative information – evaluate new experiences at all. We would always have to start with a clean slate, like a newborn baby.

The brain is a plastic and adaptable organ. Humans constantly absorb new information from their environment, and new information also replaces old information. Old memories on the edges of the brain’s “hard drive” fade when new information displaces them. In this way, a person’s mental landscape and the factors related to experiencing the environment also change over time. So, the same person can relate to the sensory stimuli of the environment differently at different stages of their life path.^'[1]

A large part of the information stored on the hard drive of our brain is absorbed into our mind through subconscious processes, and we may not be able to verbalize this information. It is from this personal attitude towards the surrounding world that the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” originates, which refers to an individual opinion in the interpretation of beauty.

“Contrary to common belief, perception is not an autonomous and mechanical consequence of the senses: it is defined by the meanings we unconsciously project onto the observed phenomenon, and perception merges with these imagined mental images.” – Juhani Pallasmaa, 2012

Tangible and intangible values

Tangible materialistic values and variables related to the built environment, such as construction costs, square footage, apartment area, number of parking spaces, traffic effects, noise values, block efficiency, green area, etc. can often be presented as clear mathematical calculations and tables where a larger (or smaller) number is better. They usually leave very little room for interpretation in the valuation.

Factors related to intangible values, such as the comfort, atmosphere or beauty of the environment, are much more challenging to value. The debate surrounding them involves a considerable number of conflicting interpretations and opinions. In part, this is due to the fact that the cause-and-effect relationships of things are complex and difficult to grasp.

The statements “A beautiful environment improves the municipal economy”, “Monotonous facades cause depression” or “High and dense construction weakens people’s health” may sound strange. How can beauty be converted into Euros? What does the quality of facades have to do with depression? How do the height of buildings or the compactness of cities affect people’s health? These are not at all as clear to visualize as floor squares or block efficiency, which can be presented as unequivocal statistics and numbers. New research data, however, also sheds light on the importance of intangible factors and their considerable impact on people’s wellbeing.^[1-11,18]

“We shape our buildings; afterwards they shape us.” – Winston Churchill, 1943

Laymen vs. professionals

We sense our environment mostly subconsciously, so we may not be able to consciously put our feelings into words. “It just feels that way” is a pretty common saying when asking people why a building affects them in a certain way. Architects and laymen (people outside the construction business) sometimes have different attitudes towards the interpretation of the built environment. For some architects it seems to be important to be able to put one’s feelings into words and support their opinion with sufficient expertise. In some discussions, it has been noticeable that lay people’s views are not valued in professional circles, because lay people are not able to justify their opinions scientifically or artistically in a sufficiently analytical way. From professionals, you can hear indignant contentions and statements that the discussion is too superficial, low-value or populist and that better justifications and deeper analysis are required.

However, this may be an unreasonable demand.

It would be quite unusual if the doctor required the patient to use correct medical terminology before he could seriously discuss with the patient about the issue that is bothering him, or in a restaurant you could not have a dialogue with the kitchen staff about the food until the nuances of the gastronomic vocabulary are under control.

Secondly, it is good to consider the role of the layman as a customer. In any case, most of the buildings are built for ordinary people. It would seem rather strange if a small planning and implementing group of people determined the direction of construction without having a dialogue and listening to what this huge customer group has to say.^[17]

Unlike the art of painting, for example, architecture is an essential part of our everyday living. You can always walk out of the art museum if you don’t like what’s on offer, but you can’t escape the architecture of the urban space that surrounds us.

Although not everyone is able to articulate and translate their feelings into professional language, it does not mean that they should be treated condescendingly or that they can be ignored in a conversation. All users of the built environment have the right to participate in the common discussion related to changes in the urban space on their own terms.

Whose opinion should we listen to?

When it comes to building a detached house, buying or renting an apartment, decorating your own home, buying a car, clothes or other consumer goods, the decision-making related to the purchase is mostly based on that person’s own opinion and solutions. After all, this person is the main user of the space, goods or products he or she has chosen or acquired, so no one else can define the best possible solution for the person in question (even though advertisers try to do this). When the use of space, object or matter is limited to one person, family or small community, the weight of subjective opinion is emphasized. In this case, the individual is the one who lives in that house, drives the car he chooses, wears the clothes he picks, or eats the food he buys. It’s usually pretty futile for someone else to tell him how he should live his life and what he should like.

Valuing common urban space

However, the situation changes significantly when we start valuing common urban space, which is used by a large number of people. The density and division of the built environment, massing of buildings, construction method and style, façades, shading effect, closed or created near and far views, elements that close space, changes in the area’s green structure, sound conditions or smells, etc. are factors that shape the environment on a large scale and have an impact to a considerable number of people. In this case, instead of relying on individual opinions, a more objective way of interpreting and valuing the environment should be used. Professionals in the field also have different opinions — due to the previously mentioned personal history, therefore we cannot be satisfied with the opinions and policies of a few people or interest groups. The more public a space is, and the larger group of people if affects, the more important it is to form a sufficiently broad and comprehensive opinion. So, one should strive for as objective an interpretation as possible.

ince our opinions related to the experience of the urban space can be very different due to the factors described above (see Subjective opinion), it is pointless for us to argue on an individual level about what is beautiful or ugly, cozy or dreary, safe or scary. It often becomes a dead-end debate if the parties are unable to find points of convergence in the arguments of the other side within their own views. However, it would be important to be able to find and identify those factors that would serve as many city dwellers as possible. In order to be able to form a kind of synthesis of the values of urban space, we should approach the subject from a scientific point of view.

The environment is not only seen, but experienced as a whole overwhelmingly through all senses. Our brain creates an mental image of the world around us based on the stimuli generated by the materials used, spatial relationships, scale, shapes, rhythm, sounds, smells and lighting, not to mention the feelings related to the comfort, presence, warmth and beauty of the place.

Research related to evolutionary biology and neuroscience convincingly opens up the functioning of the human brain also in terms of experiencing urban space. The scientific approach is also insightful in the sense that it helps us gain information about things that our conscious self is not necessarily able to recognize.

Evolutionary biology

Studies related to evolutionary biology increase our understanding of the development processes linked to the history of the human species. How, for example, operating models formed thousands or tens of thousands of years ago still affect our location selection criteria and our everyday activities. Our basic drives include survival and, on the other hand, the pursuit of pleasure or satisfaction. Although our external environment has changed radically from being at the mercy of nature to concrete cities, the operating models deeply encoded in our species have not disappeared anywhere.

“Connection with nature is a universal, basic need independent of culture or individual personality, which has arisen throughout our history of development.” – Edward O. Wilson

Our ancestors who lived in the African savannas developed a preference for certain environmental features, such as diverse plant and animal species that provided food and resources, high vegetation that provided shelter, and water bodies that guaranteed drinking and gave the opportunity to wash. It is no coincidence that many of these elements that we now find aesthetically beautiful were vital to the survival of our species. Feelings of safety, fear, and happiness are still affected by the same factors that affected our survival thousands of years ago.

However, the current urban environment and the majority of modern construction is very far from the frame of reference that humans as a species are used to — the environment that humans naturally feel as their own and where they feel happy.

Artificiality vs. naturalness

Walking under an unbalanced building section makes us uneasy, even though we consciously understand that it is structurally safe. On a subconscious level, however, the building may cause fear, because it seems unnatural, and in the early days of our species, walking under a similar structure might have meant crushing under a falling stone.

On the other hand, structures and dwellings that reflect the shapes and materials of nature seem approachable and homely to us. They speak to our primal instincts and appear to us as safe and natural shelters. In terms of scale, human objects are comparable to the dimensions of our own body and are easier to grasp with common sense.

Monotony vs. diversity

Monotonous and detail-free facades are often perceived as faceless, emotionless and cold places. Our subconscious may also consider them as environments that do not offer favorable opportunities for obtaining food. We interpret flat, plate-like and sharp-edged facades as unnatural environments, and they affect our entire physical being negatively. An environment that is too unilateral makes us passive. It does not arouse our interest and does not motivate us to walk or explore the surroundings.^[5]

Buildings that offer a richer visual appearance naturally interest us. They are multidimensional in scale and new features always open up when approaching them. The diversity of the design language and the elements imitating nature attract our attention in a positive sense.

Street level and atmosphere

The importance of the facades of the building’s first floor, i.e. street level, cannot be overemphasized. The street-level facades of the buildings, which have nothing to say, are closed and dull, are perceived as repulsive, boring and emotionless, and people often rush past them or avoid the place altogether.^[4,14]

The lowest three meters of the building have a dramatic effect on experiencing and using the urban space. Not only do people prefer to walk in areas where buildings have open and lively facades at street level, but also the things they do in the place are changing. People stop, look around, and absorb the atmosphere of the environment and feel happier. An interesting and stimulating environment also has a positive effect on the human nervous system.

Fear and security

People do not like to go to places where there are no potential escape routes. We avoid shady and remote places where there may be a danger that someone will threaten our lives. We also don’t want to go to places where it’s hard to see a threat coming from around the corner or to places where there are no other people.

We long for an environment with diverse and natural elements that feeds our nervous system. Natural materials, shapes, colors, sounds and smells caress our innermost being. The vegetation placed in the premises, the water ripple and other things inspired by nature also make us feel more comfortable in the place.

Sensory stimuli and stress

The artificial environments of dense cities and the flood of sensory stimuli in busy urban areas make our brains constantly work in overdrive. Flashing advertising lights, traffic sounds and subconscious feelings of danger put our minds in a constant state of fear, which increases our stress levels, increases our heart rate and leads to feelings of discomfort such as headaches and other physical symptoms.^[5]

People often feel good in small-scale, natural and lively walking environments that offer people suitable eye candy, places to stop and a sufficient sense of security. Positive feelings increase the amount of pleasure hormones in the body, which in turn reduce stress, lower blood pressure and make a person relate more sympathetically to other people.

The aforementioned – subconscious – feelings of danger, boredom or unpleasantness activate the human immune system through the stress experienced by our body. The effect is mental at first, but becomes physical with longer exposure.^[15] From the point of view of evolutionary biology, we still long for natural environments that would have improved the conditions for our survival thousands of years ago.

Neurosciences

In terms of experiencing the urban space, another interesting field of research is cognitive neurology and related research branches. How do external sensory stimuli affect our brain? How are they registered and processed in the brain and how do our bodies react to them? How do sensory stimuli affect our mood and behavior? How do they make us feel happiness, security, fear or well-being? Neuroarchitecture is a discipline that studies how the environment shapes our brain chemistry, emotions, thoughts and behavior. With the help of neuroarchitecture research, we aim to understand how our brain interprets and analyzes the state of the environment, which is why it gives us valuable information to support urban planning.^[1]

Eye tracking studies

One of the research methods related to neuroarchitecture is eye tracking, which examines the movements of a person’s eyes when they see different objects. In the study, eye alignment and gaze retention can be measured when the subject is presented with different landscapes, buildings or other objects. Tests can be performed via a computer screen, but also in the real world in cities, where the device can also registers the environment in which one moves.^[14]

Eye trackers can also be equipped with techniques that follow human physiology, such as galvanic skin response (GSR) and heart rate monitors, to understand how the body reacts to (visual) stimuli.^[13]

In tests, it has been found that the eye intuitively seeks interesting details, such as various contrasts, arches, projections, vegetation, patterns, murals, porches, decorations or things that resemble human faces. On the other hand, large, monotonous, self repeating, glass or concrete surfaces, empty areas or plate-like surfaces do not offer points of interest for the eye, and do not attract the eye. According to the test subjects, destinations that offer more eye candy also turned out to be more comfortable and atmospheric places.

Virtual environments

Today, it is possible to create realistic virtual environments to support planning and to present plans to people using, for example, virtual glasses. This has also created an opportunity to test the effect of different environments on people in a completely new way. The test subject can be placed in a planned virtual environment and asked to familiarize him- or herself within the space. At the same time, functions related to the person’s physiology can be measured, such as the electroencephalogram (EEG), heart rate (ECG), sweating, stress levels, etc. In virtual environment, it has been possible to monitor the person’s sensations related to different places, orientation and also those related to stress, relaxation or other things caused by the environment. Through this, concrete information has been obtained about how different solutions in the environment affect the experience.^{[1, 4, 5, 14, 16]}

Studies related to evolutionary biology and neuroscience give us valuable information about how different structures, places and environments are experienced. In general, it can be said that nature is the starting point for all experiences and unnatural sensory stimuli such as sharp corners, loud sounds, flashing lights increase our stress level significantly.

“The special sense of reality in an attractive architecture or urban landscape stems from the way in which these experiential situations involve and activate the mechanisms of our perception and psychology.” – Juhani Pallasmaa, 2011

Traditional research methods

The behavior of people in different environments has of course been studied before, and not everything requires the latest technology. I will briefly introduce four different, more traditional research methods: People counting, mapping, tracking and tracing.^[3]

Counting

You’ve probably seen a young summer worker somewhere on a street corner with a counter in his hand. He may have registered the traffic volume and clicked the counter for each car that drove by. Human flows can also be studied in a similar way. For example, you can count how many people travel along a certain route in a certain time.

Mapping

In mapping, the person doing the mapping goes around a predetermined area and marks the places where there are people on the map base. People who are moving, people who are sitting, people who are standing, etc. are marked separately on the map. In this way, it is possible to create a good picture of “activity pockets”, i.e. places that attract people.

Tracking

In tracking, the researcher can become a “secret agent” and follow a person to find out which routes the person in question uses to move from place A to place B. The route is drawn on the map. The modern version of this is the signal tracking of GSM phones, which can be used to quickly track the movements of large groups of people. Information about cell phone movement is available from telephone operators.

Tracing

The term related to hunting describes finding the traces people make in their environment. In the summer, you can easily see the shortcuts appearing on the grass fields of the parks, and in the winter, the tracks passing through a layer of snow on the marketplace. You can also look for other traces of unplanned activity in the environment, such as traces of skateboarding on stairs or railings, shortcuts through hedges, etc. These tell about people’s choices, which were not necessarily taken into account in the planning.

With the help of the aforementioned studies, we can discover the busiest routes, shortcuts and active places that attract people. When other characteristics of the environment are added to the research, such as the quality and nature of the built environment, materials, views, etc., a fairly good picture can be compiled of what kind of environment people naturally like, where they want to go, where they want to gather, etc. It is worth noting that in these studies, the people who are the subject of the research do not know that they are being studied, which makes people’s behavior more natural, and choices are guided not only by conscious and voluntary decisions, but also by subconscious signals generated by various sensory stimuli.

“While we live in cities, the city lives in us.” – Juhani Pallasmaa, 2012

Including science in planning and decision-making

Today, thanks to scientific research, we have a much better picture of how the built environment affects us and what kind of urban environments people generally find beautiful, comfortable and stimulating. The good thing of the research is that it is not dependent on subjective opinion, but objective information obtained through practical observation, which can be used to support urban planning. We have a huge data bank at our disposal, which can be used in planning and decision-making.

Therefore, it’s not just about your or my opinion, but about a bigger picture, about the things we all have in common with regards to experiencing the environment. Studies show that the beauty and comfort of the built environment have a significant impact on people’s mental and physical health, so it has also significant consequences related to well-being and thus the economy.

Information is available if we just want to use it.