You are on page 1of 12

Journal of Environmental Psychology (1996) 16, 3344 1996 Academic Press Limited

0272-4944/96/010033+12$18.00/0

ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE
MARGARET A. WILSON Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, U.K.

Journalof

Abstract The apparent difference in the appreciation of architecture between architects and lay people has been the focus of much research. If architects truly have different standards of appreciation from nonarchitects, it is then most likely that these standards of judgement are acquired within the schools of architecture during the period of architectural education. The paper describes a cross-sectional study of the architectural preferences of students at two schools of architecture at five different stages of their education. Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) of the students evaluations of 26 examples of contemporary architecture suggests a process of socialization within the schools of architecture whereby students develop standards of judgement that are both characteristic of the profession as a whole and shaped by the specific school of training. Analysis of the underlying structure of the students evaluations of the buildings allows a model of architectural preference to be proposed. Although the students give a variety of explanations of why they appreciate the buildings they do, analysis of the associations between the buildings shows that the underlying structure of the evaluations is clearly based on architectural style. The implications are discussed.
1996 Academic Press Limited

Introduction Since the late 1960s, environmental psychologists have addressed and re-addressed the question of whether design professionals think differently to the public. Methodological developments have taken researchers from semantic differential studies (e.g. Canter, 1969; Hershberger, 1969), through repertory grids (e.g. Leff & Deutsch, 1974; Stringer, 1977), to less-constrained techniques such as the Multiple Sorting Task (e.g. Groat, 1982; Devlin, 1990). Researchers have shown that architects solve both experimental and applied problems differently from nonarchitects (Edwards, 1974; Lawson, 1980). One way or another, it is now well established that design professionals in general, and architects in particular, hold a different system of constructs through which they understand and evaluate the environment. Although the issues are frequently confused in the literature, there are two distinctly different systems of construct under consideration: conceptualization and evaluation. The first is a system of concepts with which to organize and understand
33

architecture that is essentially descriptive, objective and nonevaluative, while the second guides subjective evaluative judgements. Groat (1982) has shown that architects use different concepts from nonarchitects. It has been the assumption that these concepts are developed during the period of training, and Wilson and Canter (1990a) have made visible the conceptual transformation that occurs across each year of professional training. During the course of architectural education, students develop increasingly abstract and more differentiated concepts to organize their knowledge. The most central concept used to organize their understanding is architectural style, a concept that becomes more complex in its definition with increasing length of education. Research to date has demonstrated that architects both conceptualize and evaluate differently from nonarchitects. The difference in evaluative judgements between architects and nonarchitects has received both academic and popular coverage, and it has often been suggested that rather than designing for users, architects design for the critical acclaim of their peers. However, studies of the

34

M. Wilson

architectural value system, notably by Lipman (1970) and Blau (1980), have suggested that the most important orientation in architecture is a humanist one, with architects reporting concern for both client and user. Nevertheless, there still appears to be something of a gap between architectural and public opinion, an issue that has been fuelled by royal interest in the U.K. Much of the focus for this discrepancy in taste seems to have been placed on Modernism, and over the last 15 years new stylistic movements have developed, along with critical discussion of why they will succeed where Modernism failed. Charles Jencks has been the greatest proponent of Post Modern architecture, and his books did much to launch the movement. Jencks (1977) claimed that Post Modern architecture is accessible to lay and professional people alike owing to what he calls dual coding. That is, while the code of Modern architecture is a language that can only be read by the architecturally trained, Post Modern architecture is a language that can be understood, and thus appreciated, by all. Groat and Canter (1979) set out to test empirically these claims for Post Modernism. Comparing a matched sample of architects and accountants, they found that reactions to Post Modernism were mixed for both samples. However, overall it was still the architects rather than the accountants who showed the greatest appreciation for Post Modern architecture. Since it is likely that socialization during professional education is responsible for any differences between architects and nonarchitects, the present research focuses on the time spent in architectural education. The purpose of this study is to examine the changing system of evaluation in architectural students at two schools of architecture to understand the way in which preference is socialized within professional training. The first aim of the study is to test the hypothesis that architectural education systematically instills an evaluative system that is characteristic of the architectural profession in general. While education is likely to have a general effect, it is clearly na ve to assume that all members of a professional group think as one. Previous research has shown that there are a number of different orientations in architectural beliefs and values (Lipman, 1970; Blau, 1980; Wilson & Canter, 1990b), and there is no doubt that variation exists within the profession as well as between architects and other groups. However, a great deal of the previous research comparing lay and architectural evaluation has treated designers as a homogeneous

group, comparing the mean response of professional and nonprofessional samples. There are a number of possible reasons for these differences in orientation and evaluation within the profession, including all those suggested to influence nonprofessionals, for example personality (e.g. Henschen & Hershenson, 1975), gender (e.g. Nasar, 1989) and environmental experience (e.g. Mackintosh, 1982). However, the period of intensive socialization characteristic of any form of education must certainly be considered as a potential determinant of professional orientation. It can therefore be hypothesized that not only do the schools of architecture socialize architects into the values of the profession as a whole, but also that this same process instills a set of values associated with the specific institution. Thus, the second aim of the present study is to identify any variations in the architectural evaluative system that could be attributable to the specific school of architecture where training occurs. In terms of Facet Theory, the study tests two possible facets that might account for differences in evaluation: Stage of Education and School of Training. The facet Stage of Education consists of six elements corresponding to the six year groups sampled, and School of Training consists of two elements corresponding to the two schools of architecture studied. Finally, the third aim of the study is to identify the underlying structure of subjective evaluation in architecture in order to understand the basis for evaluative judgements. Through understanding the basis of architectural evaluative judgements, it may be possible to provide some tentative guidelines for environmental education for nonarchitects so that they can appreciate the built environment as much as its creators do.

Method Participants One hundred and fifty British architectural students took part in the study from two schools of architecture, one based in Scotland (referred to as the Northern School) and one based in Southern England (referred to as the Southern School). The two schools were of similar size and claimed to have a similar technologically based orientation. A crosssectional sample of 15 students from each of six years of training took part in the study. The fourthyear students at the Southern School and the fifth-

Socialization of Architecture Preference

35

year students at the Northern School were not represented as they were on their year out in practice. Procedure Each student was interviewed separately. They were asked to consider 26 colour photographs of contemporary architecture and to classify them according to their own personal preferences, from those they liked the least to those they liked the most. The categories formed were calibrated against a scale from 0 to 12, where 0 indicated the most preferred buildings and 12 indicated the least preferred buildings. After they had indicated their preferences for all of the buildings, they were also asked to explain why they liked the buildings in the most preferred group. The photographs The 26 photographs were selected with the help of a leading architectural educator from his own collection of slides in order to represent as many of the recent developments in architecture as possible. The buildings shown in the photographs were mainly designed by well-known architects and represent a variety of building types. Previous research has shown that the buildings represent a range of stylistic trends in contemporary architecture that fall broadly within four main movements: Modernism, Post Modernism, High Tech and Neo-Vernacular (Wilson & Canter, 1990). Full details of the buildings can be found in Appendix 1.

between the points is inversely proportional to the rank order of the associations between the variables. Thus, the closer together two points are, the more highly associated are the variables that they represent. The goodness of fit for the representation is measured by the coefficient of alienation. While researchers differ in their opinion of what constitutes an acceptable level of fit, Donald (1994) suggests 0.2 as an acceptable level, while Donald and Canter (1990) and Shye et al. (1994) discuss the issue of discretion in using the measure at all. In the current analysis, SSA is used to represent the relationship between each of the 10 variables in the analysis, i.e. the 10 groups of students. The associations used were Pearson productmoment correlations. The closer together two points are, the more similar were the evaluations of the buildings made by the two groups of students. By considering the relationship between the year groups in terms of the similarity of their preferences for the buildings, it is possible to infer how the length of time spent in architectural education at each of the schools has influenced the students evaluative judgements. According to the principles of Facet Theory, the proposed background facets are shown to be valid in terms of their influence on architectural preference if the plot can be partitioned into clear regions defined by the facet elements. The results of the SSA are shown in Fig. 1. The

* Northern
Year 6

Results The socialization of architectural preference For each group of 15 students in the same year of training at each school of architecture, the average preference score for each building was calculated. The resulting data matrix has 26 rows of data, each corresponding to one of the buildings. The 10 variables in the analysis represented by 10 columns of data correspond to the 10 groups of students. The cells of the matrix contain the mean preference score for each group for each building. In order to examine the differences in architectural preference between the student samples, the data were analysed using Smallest Space Analysis (SSA-I). Smallest Space Analysis is a nonmetric MDS technique that represents a number of variables as points in geometric space. The distance
Northern Year 1 Southern Year 1 Northern Year 4

* *

Northern Year 3 Northern Year 2 Southern Year 2

*
Southern * Year 3 Southern Year 5

Southern

* Year 6
FIGURE 1. SSA plot of year groups with respect to the students evaluations of the buildings.

36

M. Wilson

coefficient of alienation is 0.1 in three dimensions. Vectors 1 by 2 are shown. On the left-hand side of the plot are the points that represent the two groups of first-year students. The close proximity of these points shows that the two first-year samples made very similar evaluations of the buildings, despite the fact that they were studying at different schools (r=0.83). Indeed, these two groups of students are more similar to each other than they are to the second-year students at their respective schools. For the first- and second-year students at the Southern School, r=0.77; for the first- and second-year students at the Northern School, r= 0.58. This shows how quickly the students are socialized into the values of the profession. First-year architectural students are likely to be rather different from a lay sample because of their interest in and, albeit brief, training in architecture. Nevertheless, in this study they represent those with the least experience of architectural training and as such are the closest to lay opinion. Following each pair of year groups across the plot, it is possible to chart the differences in architectural evaluation that result from the increasing length of time spent studying at each school. The systematic and parallel change in the students views in each year of training shows quite clearly that architectural education socializes the students in a similar way at both schools of architecture.

This supports the first hypothesis of the study, that professional training in general plays a role in developing a system of evaluative concepts that are applied to architecture. The development of this system of judgement is comparable in two different schools of architecture. In the first 3 years of training, the students in each year have remarkably similar views of architecture. However, the points representing the students in the fourth year at the Southern Schools and the fifth year at the Northern School diverge. The analysis shows that, while maintaining a similar change in their evaluation in general, with each successive year of training there also develop more differences that can be associated with the specific school of architecture at which they are training. The points representing the students in the final year of their training at each school are the furthest apart, indicating that it is these students who show the most school-specific differences. This supports the second hypothesis of the study. The same process that socializes evaluative concepts that are common to the profession as a whole is likely also to socialize a specific orientation in architecture that reflects the ethos of the particular school of training. It is interesting that the point representing the final-year students at the Southern School doubles back across the plot. This means that the final-year students are in some ways more similar to the first-year students than

* Northern
Year 6

Northern Year 4

Northern Year 1 Southern Year 1

* *

Northern Year 3 Northern Year 2 Southern Year 2

*
Southern * Year 3 Southern Year 5

Southern

* Year 6
FIGURE 2. SSA plot of year groups with respect to the students evaluations of the buildings, partitioned according to school and year of training.

Socialization of Architecture Preference

37

the students in the middle years of training. The partitionings of the plot for the two facets being tested are shown in Fig. 2. The results of the first analysis have supported the two hypotheses of the study, that the evaluations made by architectural students systematically change as a result of architectural education in general, and that each particular school of architecture is likely to have an influence on the particular orientation of the students evaluative judgements. A model of architectural preference The third aim of the study was to examine what underlies architects evaluations of the buildings. Content analysis of the students explanations for appreciating the buildings they did revealed a number of criteria for their evaluations. The principal criteria cited were the construction or the materials used, the way in which the building addresses its function, the theoretical ideas behind the design, the form or scale of the building, contextual fit and the account the building takes of the user. Thus it can be seen that there are many different reasons given for why a building is appreciated. However, the use of SSA allows an empirical analysis of what underlies preference judgements without reliance on verbal feedback. By visually rep-

Post Modern

High Tech Neo-Vernacular

Modern

resenting the similarities and differences between the buildings with respect to the students evaluations, it is possible to reveal the structure underlying the students judgements of the buildings. To examine the relationship between the buildings with respect to the evaluations made of them, full data for the 150 students judgements were used. The 26 buildings were used as variables for SSA and are therefore represented as the points in the SSA plot. The closer together two buildings are, the more similarly they are likely to have been judged across the whole student sample, whether that is positively or negatively. Pearson productmoment correlations were used to generate the association matrix. This visual representation of the structure of judgements allows the researcher to discover whether there are any similarities or differences between the buildings that might account for the similarity in the judgements made about them. If the students were using the many and varied criteria that they reported in order to base their evaluations of the buildings, it might be expected that the buildings would be distributed randomly in the space. However, the resulting SSA plot, shown in Fig. 3, shows a very clear stylistic structure underlying architectural preference. The twodimensional solution has a coefficient of alienation of 0.2. Figure 3 below shows that the buildings can be partitioned according to the four main styles of architecture: Modernism, Post Modernism, NeoVernacular and High Tech. The model suggests, for architectural students, preferences are likely to be very predictable within the four stylistic movements. If a student likes one particular Post Modern building in the set, for example, it is likely that he or she will also like the other examples. The model also predicts that if the majority of buildings liked are within one stylistic region of the plot, there may also be preferred buildings from an adjacent region, but it is most unlikely that there will be buildings from the opposite region. Thus if a student is an admirer of Neo-Vernacular architecture, there may also be certain Post Modern buildings and/or certain Modern buildings that also appeal, but it is very unlikely that he or she will appreciate High Tech architecture as well. Style and education

FIGURE 3. SSA plot of buildings with respect to 150 students evaluative judgements, partitioned according to architectural style.

The results have shown that changes do occur in the students evaluative judgements as a result of the length of time spent in architectural education, and

38

M. Wilson

that the students judgements are structured according to architectural style. The final section of the results considers the differences in judgement between the students at each school with respect to the specific buildings used in the study. Examination of the mean preference score for each building across the years of study shows which buildings become more or less well thought of by the students at each school. The results show that the difference between the two schools can be accounted for by the students views of Modern and Post Modern architecture. Figures 4 and 5 show contrasting changes in the students evaluation of the work of the British Post

Modern architect Terry Farrell. With each successive year at the Northern School, the mean preference score for these buildings decreases, indicating increasing preference for each group of students. At the Southern School, the opposite is true, with each successive year liking these buildings less. With respect to Modern architecture, Figs 6 and 7 show the students average preference score for the Rational style of Eisenman and Rossi. These buildings are not appreciated by the students at the Northern School, represented by high average preference scores across all the years. In contrast, the students in the later years at the Southern School rate these architects work quite highly.

8 7
Average preference score

6 5 4 3 2

3 Year of training

4/5

FIGURE 4. Average preference scores for TVAM for each year group at both schools. () Northern School; (N) Southern School.

9 8
Average preference score

7 6 5 4 3

3 Year of training

4/5

FIGURE 5. Average preference score for Clifton Nurseries for each year group at both schools. () Northern School; (N) Southern School.

Socialization of Architecture Preference

39

Evidence from case studies suggests that these preferences are reflected in the students designs. An interesting example was provided by one of the final-year students at the Southern School. This student had completed her undergraduate training at a different school and had transferred to the Southern School to complete the post-graduate diploma. One of the elevations from the first design she did during the fifth year at the Southern School is shown in Fig. 8. At the time of the interviews for this study, the student was nearing completion of the sixth and final year of her training. During the time she spent at the Southern School, her views on design had changed a great deal and she was so dis-

contented with the original design that she had redone the project. The same elevation of the new design is shown in Fig. 9. This particular student provided an opportunity to illustrate how the specific orientation of the school of architecture can influence the students architectural preferences and subsequently the way in which they design. Finally, the results of the first SSA showed that the final-year students at both schools of architecture were similar in some way in their evaluations to the first-year students. Examination of the mean preference scores for specific buildings reveals an interesting pattern. At both schools of architecture, the buildings that the first- and final-year students

12 11
Average preference score

10 9 8 7 6 5

3 Year of training

4/5

FIGURE 6. Average preference score for House VI for each year group at both schools. () Northern School; (N) Southern School.

12 11
Average preference score

10 9 8 7 6 5

3 Year of training

4/5

FIGURE 7. Average preference score for Galleratese 2 Apartment Complex for each year group at both schools. () Northern School; (N) Southern School.

40

M. Wilson

FIGURE 8. Elevation from the original design.

both rate highly are the same, i.e. the Neo-Vernacular buildings Butterworth House and Wivenhoe Park (Figs 10 and 11). These buildings gained approval from the first-year students, were rejected by the students in the middle of their training and were re-discovered by the final-year students.

Discussion The results of SSA support the hypothesis that the period of training in schools of architecture systematically instills an evaluative system characteristic of the profession. The students at both schools have comparable views of the buildings dependent on the length of time spent in education. Furthermore, specific differences exist between the students evaluative judgements that are associated with the particular school they attend, and these differences are more pronounced for students who are in the last 2 years of training. Therefore it appears that architects are taught what to like. It would be of interest to future research to consider whether the school-specific influence comes from one or two dominant viewpoints within a school, or whether the orientation is

more global within a department, for example through selection or self-selection of the staff. The results have shown that, for architectural students, the underlying structure of architectural preference is based on architectural style. Despite the variety of other seemingly objective concepts used by the students to explain their choice of preferred buildings, the results show a very predictable pattern to architectural preferences based on the four main stylistic movements currently in vogue. This structure is virtually identical to that established to underlie the conceptualization of architecture based on nonevaluative concepts (Wilson & Canter, 1990). Not only do architects use stylistic classifications to organize their understanding of architecture, but these results indicate that this same conceptual structure is also used to make subjective judgements in terms of personal preference. Content analysis of the students rationales for preference revealed many possible explanations of why a building should be judged good or bad. The concept that was most rarely applied to their judgements was architectural style, although this is clearly the basis for their judgements. This suggests that the students are either unaware that, or unwilling to state that, architectural style deter-

Socialization of Architecture Preference

41

West elevation
FIGURE 9. Elevation from the new design.

9 8
Average preference score

7 6 5 4 3 2

3 Year of training

4/5

FIGURE 10. Average preference score for Wivenhoe Park for each year group at both schools. () Northern School; (N) Southern School.

mines their evaluate judgements. It is possible that the rationale given for their preferences are those concepts that actually define the styles. However, the same rationales are often presented in defence of, or to disparage, quite opposite stylistic movements. For example, while one student might believe that a concrete Modern building is made of honest materials and will stand the test of time,

another student may say the exact same of a wooden Neo-Vernacular building. Examination of the content of the evaluative judgements shows that for these two schools of architecture, the school-specific differences between the students center on their opinions of Modern and Post Modern architecture. The results also showed that, with respect to Neo-Vernacular architecture,

42
9 8
Average preference score

M. Wilson

7 6 5 4 3

3 Year of training

4/5

FIGURE 11. Average preference score for Butterworth House for each year group at both schools. () Northern School; (N) Southern School.

there is some agreement between students at the outset of their training and those nearing completion. If students in their first year of training are considered to be the most similar to nonarchitects in their judgements, this suggests that it is Neo-Vernacular architecture, rather than Post Modernism, as Jencks (1977) suggests, that has the potential to appeal to architects and nonarchitects alike. It has often been suggested that the role of architectural psychologists is to establish what architects should design in order to please their users. Once the appropriate style has been identified, architects would then be trained to design in that way. This suggestion has not met with approval from the architectural profession. As long as different schools train architects who appreciate and design different styles of architecture, the richness and diversity in the environment will be maintained. Rather than restricting designers to styles that the users already understand, environmental education for nonarchitects could result in greater appreciation of other styles. Once people understand the styles of architecture that make up their cities, there would be a variety of different tastes to be catered for by a variety of different architects.

References
Blau, J. (1980). A framework of meaning in architecture. In G. Broadbent, R. Brunt & C. Jencks, Eds, Signs, Symbols and Architecture. London: John Wiley & Sons. Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment and Behaviour, 1, 3748. Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural interpretation: architects vs non architects. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7, 235243. Donald, I. (1994). The structure of office workers experience of organizational environments. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 241258. Donald, I. & Canter, D. (1990). Temporal and trait facets of personnel assessment. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 39, 413429. Edwards, M. (1974). Comparison of some expectations of a sample of housing architects with known data. In D. Canter & T. Lee, Eds, Pscyhology and the Built Environment. London: Architectural Press. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post Modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 222. Groat, L. & Canter, D. (1979). Does Post Modernism communicate? Progressive Architecture, December, 8487. Henschen, T. & Hershenson, D. B. (1975). Values, interests and architectural preferences. ManEnvironment Systems, 5, 239244. Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohen, Eds, EDRA 1. Radleigh: North Carolina State University, pp. 86100. Jencks, C. (1977). The Language of Post Modern Architecture. London: Academy Editions. Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. London: Architectural Press. Leff, H. S. & Deutch, P. S. (1974). Construing the physical environment: differences between environmental professionals and lay persons. In W. Preiser, Ed.,

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Geoffrey Broadbent for his help in selecting the photographs, the students and staff at both schools of architecture, and Nicky in particular for providing copies of her designs.

Socialization of Architecture Preference Environmental Design Research, Vol. I, Selected Papers, EDRA 4. University of Maryland: EDRA, pp. 284297. Lipman, A. (1970). Architectural education and the social commitment of contemporary British architecture. The Sociological Review, 18, 527. Mackintosh, E. (1982). High in the city. In P. Bart, A. Chen & G. Francescato, Eds, Knowledge for Design, EDRA 13. University of Maryland: EDRA, pp. 424434. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house style. Environment and Behaviour, 21, 235257. Shye, S., Elizur, D. & Hoffman, M. (1994). Introducing Facet Theory: Content Design and Intrinsic Data Analysis in Behavioural Research. London: Sage. Stringer, P. (1977). Participating in personal construct theory. In D. Bannister, Ed., New Perspective in Personal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press. Wilson, M. A. & Canter, D. (1990a). The development of professional concepts. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 431455. Wilson, M. & Canter, D. (1990b). Whos who in architecture: a study of architectural heroes. In H. Pamir, V. Imamoglu & N. Teymur, Eds, Culture, Space, History, Volume 5. Ankara: METU, pp. 4354.

43

(14) Aldo Rossi. Galleratese 2 Apartment Complex, Milan, Italy. 196970. (15) James Stirling. Neue Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, West Germany. 1985. (16) Charles Moore and William Turnbull. Kresge College, University of California at Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A. 196574. (17) Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. Pompidou Centre, Paris, France. 197177.

(7).

Appendix 1: Building Details (1) Foster Associates, Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, U.K. 197578. (2) Philip Johnson/Burgee Architects. AT&T Building, New York City, U.S.A. 1978. (3) Richard Meier. Museum fu r Kunsthandwerk, Frankfurt, West Germany. (4) Michael Graves. Public Service Building, Portland, Oregan, U.S.A. 1980. (5) Taft Architects. Municipal Control Building, Quail Valley Utility District, Missouri City, Texas, U.S.A. 197880. (6) Robert Venturi. Addition to Carol M. Newman Library, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 1970. (7) Terry Farrell. Clifton Nurseries, Covent Garden, London, U.K. 1981. (8) Terry Farrell. TVAM, Camden, London, U.K. (9) Richardo Bofil. Le Theatre, Ville Nouvelle of Marne-la-Vallee, France. 197983. (10) Mario Botta. House, Viganello. 198081. (11) Quinlan Terry. Wivenhoe Park, Essex, U.K. 1962. (12) Franc ois Spoerry. Port Grimaud, France, 196569. (13) Mies Van der Rohe. School of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, U.S.A. 1962.

(8).

(11).

44

M. Wilson

(24).

(14).

(23).

(18) Claude Megson. Wood Street Townhouses, Freemans Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. 197475. (19) Claude Megson. Todd House, Rama Rama, Auckland, New Zealand. 1969. (20) Le Corbusier. Notre-Dame-du-Haut, Ronchamp, France. 195054. (21) Mies van der Rohe. Seagram Building, New York, U.S.A. 1958. (22) Moore, Perez Associates, Inc., UIG and Ron Filson. Piazza dItalia, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A. 197580. (23) Peter Eisenman. House VI, Connecticut, U.S.A. 1977. (24) Turner Brooks. Butterworth House, Starksboro, Vermont, U.S.A. 1973. (25) Alvar Aalto. Church of Vuoksenniska, Imatra, Finland. 195759. (26) Ricardo Bofil and Taller de Arquitectura. La Muralla Roja, Calpe, Spain. 196983.

You might also like