Journal of Environmental Psychology (1996) 16, 33–44 © 1996 Academic Press Limited


MARGARET A. WILSON Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, U.K.


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

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

and thus appreciated. Wilson architectural value system. it is clearly naı ¨ve to assume that all members of a professional group think as one. the period of intensive socialization characteristic of any form of education must certainly be considered as a potential determinant of professional orientation. In terms of Facet Theory. and there is no doubt that variation exists within the profession as well as between architects and other groups. gender (e. and his books did much to launch the movement. 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. there still appears to be something of a gap between architectural and public opinion. along with critical discussion of why they will succeed where Modernism failed. by all. 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. However. Henschen & Hershenson. The two schools were of similar size and claimed to have a similar technologically based orientation. Since it is likely that socialization during professional education is responsible for any differences between architects and nonarchitects. That is. but also that this same process instills a set of values associated with the specific institution. The facet ‘Stage of Education’ consists of six elements corresponding to the six year groups sampled. 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. Method Participants One hundred and fifty British architectural students took part in the study from two schools of architecture. Previous research has shown that there are a number of different orientations in architectural beliefs and values (Lipman. one based in Scotland (referred to as the Northern School) and one based in Southern England (referred to as the Southern School). the present research focuses on the time spent in architectural education.K. 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. Thus. A crosssectional sample of 15 students from each of six years of training took part in the study. 1970. However. Nevertheless. 1989) and environmental experience (e. including all those suggested to influence nonprofessionals. 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. However. 1990b). Nasar.g. for example personality (e. while the code of Modern architecture is a language that can only be read by the architecturally trained. comparing the mean response of professional and nonprofessional samples. Charles Jencks has been the greatest proponent of Post Modern architecture. overall it was still the architects rather than the accountants who showed the greatest appreciation for Post Modern architecture. Finally. Wilson & Canter. and ‘School of Training’ consists of two elements corresponding to the two schools of architecture studied. an issue that has been fuelled by royal interest in the U. Post Modern architecture is a language that can be understood. There are a number of possible reasons for these differences in orientation and evaluation within the profession. 1980. Through understanding the basis of architectural evaluative judgements. and over the last 15 years new stylistic movements have developed. Groat and Canter (1979) set out to test empirically these claims for Post Modernism. Comparing a matched sample of architects and accountants. the study tests two possible facets that might account for differences in evaluation: ‘Stage of Education’ and ‘School of Training’. The fourthyear students at the Southern School and the fifth- . have suggested that the most important orientation in architecture is a humanist one. Blau. 1975). with architects reporting concern for both client and user. Jencks (1977) claimed that Post Modern architecture is accessible to lay and professional people alike owing to what he calls ‘dual coding’. Mackintosh. It can therefore be hypothesized that not only do the schools of architecture socialize architects into the values of the profession as a whole.g. Much of the focus for this discrepancy in taste seems to have been placed on Modernism.34 M. they found that reactions to Post Modernism were mixed for both samples. 1982).g. While education is likely to have a general effect. notably by Lipman (1970) and Blau (1980). a great deal of the previous research comparing ‘lay’ and architectural evaluation has treated designers as a homogeneous group.

while Donald and Canter (1990) and Shye et al. According to the principles of Facet Theory. Procedure Each student was interviewed separately. The ‘goodness of fit’ for the representation is measured by the coefficient of alienation. SSA is used to represent the relationship between each of the 10 variables in the analysis. from those they liked the least to those they liked the most. Post Modernism. The buildings shown in the photographs were mainly designed by well-known architects and represent a variety of building types. 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. While researchers differ in their opinion of what constitutes an acceptable level of fit. Full details of the buildings can be found in Appendix 1. the more similar were the evaluations of the buildings made by the two groups of students. Thus. 1990). The associations used were Pearson product–moment correlations. SSA plot of year groups with respect to the students’ evaluations of the buildings. 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. 1. the data were analysed using Smallest Space Analysis (SSA-I).e. High Tech and Neo-Vernacular (Wilson & Canter. After they had indicated their preferences for all of the buildings. In the current analysis. each corresponding to one of the buildings. . By considering the relationship between the year groups in terms of the similarity of their preferences for the buildings. The results of the SSA are shown in Fig. In order to examine the differences in architectural preference between the student samples.2 as an acceptable level. 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. They were asked to consider 26 colour photographs of contemporary architecture and to classify them according to their own personal preferences. they were also asked to explain why they liked the buildings in the most preferred group. the 10 groups of students. between the points is inversely proportional to the rank order of the associations between the variables. the closer together two points are. where 0 indicated the most preferred buildings and 12 indicated the least preferred buildings. Smallest Space Analysis is a nonmetric MDS technique that represents a number of variables as points in geometric space. The cells of the matrix contain the mean preference score for each group for each building.Socialization of Architecture Preference 35 year students at the Northern School were not represented as they were on their year out in practice. i. (1994) discuss the issue of discretion in using the measure at all. The 10 variables in the analysis represented by 10 columns of data correspond to the 10 groups of students. the more highly associated are the variables that they represent. 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 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 closer together two points are. the average preference score for each building was calculated. The categories formed were calibrated against a scale from 0 to 12. The resulting data matrix has 26 rows of data. Previous research has shown that the buildings represent a range of stylistic trends in contemporary architecture that fall broadly within four main movements: Modernism. Donald (1994) suggests 0.

The close proximity of these points shows that the two first-year samples made very similar evaluations of the buildings. Indeed. the points representing the students in the fourth year at the Southern Schools and the fifth year at the Northern School diverge. SSA plot of year groups with respect to the students’ evaluations of the buildings.58.36 M. . The analysis shows that. Vectors 1 by 2 are shown. in this study they represent those with the least experience of architectural training and as such are the closest to ‘lay’ opinion. that professional training in general plays a role in developing a system of evaluative concepts that are applied to architecture.and second-year students at the Northern School. On the left-hand side of the plot are the points that represent the two groups of first-year students. In the first 3 years of training. partitioned according to school and year of training. The development of this system of judgement is comparable in two different schools of architecture. for the first. It is interesting that the point representing the final-year students at the Southern School ‘doubles back’ across the plot. Wilson coefficient of alienation is 0. However. This supports the first hypothesis of the study. indicating that it is these students who show the most school-specific differences. This shows how quickly the students are socialized into the values of the profession. Following each pair of year groups across the plot. 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.77. First-year architectural students are likely to be rather different from a ‘lay’ sample because of their interest in and. albeit brief. r=0. The points representing the students in the final year of their training at each school are the furthest apart. 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. despite the fact that they were studying at different schools (r=0. r= 0. For the first. 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. training in architecture. the students in each year have remarkably similar views of architecture.and second-year students at the Southern School. it is possible to ‘chart’ the differences in architectural evaluation that result from the increasing length of time spent studying at each school.83). 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.1 in three dimensions. while maintaining a similar change in their evaluation in general. Nevertheless. these two groups of students are more similar to each other than they are to the second-year students at their respective schools. This supports the second hypothesis of the study.

2. it is possible to reveal the structure underlying the students’ judgements of the buildings. Post Modernism. The model also predicts that if the majority of buildings liked are within one stylistic region of the plot. Style and education FIGURE 3. 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. Content analysis of the students’ explanations for appreciating the buildings they did revealed a number of criteria for their evaluations. it might be expected that the buildings would be distributed randomly in the space. NeoVernacular and High Tech. there may also be certain Post Modern buildings and/or certain Modern buildings that also appeal. If a student likes one particular Post Modern building in the set. the way in which the building addresses its function. If the students were using the many and varied criteria that they reported in order to base their evaluations of the buildings. for example. Pearson product–moment correlations were used to generate the association matrix. 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. SSA plot of buildings with respect to 150 students’ evaluative judgements. it is likely that he or she will also like the other examples. Figure 3 below shows that the buildings can be partitioned according to the four main styles of architecture: Modernism. The closer together two buildings are. the use of SSA allows an empirical analysis of what underlies preference judgements without reliance on verbal feedback. preferences are likely to be very predictable within the four stylistic movements. that the evaluations made by architectural students systematically change as a result of architectural education in general. Thus it can be seen that there are many different reasons given for why a building is appreciated. contextual fit and the account the building takes of the user. shows a very clear stylistic structure underlying architectural preference. but it is very unlikely that he or she will appreciate High Tech architecture as well. the more similarly they are likely to have been judged across the whole student sample. partitioned according to architectural style. The model suggests. whether that is positively or negatively.Socialization of Architecture Preference 37 the students in the middle years of training. However. The principal criteria cited were the construction or the materials used. the theoretical ideas behind the design. However. To examine the relationship between the buildings with respect to the evaluations made of them. A model of architectural preference The third aim of the study was to examine what underlies architects’ evaluations of the buildings. there may also be preferred buildings from an adjacent region. full data for the 150 students’ judgements were used. and that each particular school of architecture is likely to have an influence on the particular orientation of the students’ evaluative judgements. for architectural students. The 26 buildings were used as variables for SSA and are therefore represented as the points in the SSA plot. 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. The twodimensional solution has a coefficient of alienation of 0. The results of the first analysis have supported the two hypotheses of the study. shown in Fig. 2. and . 3. The partitionings of the plot for the two facets being tested are shown in Fig. the form or scale of the building. By visually rep- Post Modern High Tech Neo-Vernacular Modern resenting the similarities and differences between the buildings with respect to the students’ evaluations. the resulting SSA plot.

The results show that the difference between the two schools can be accounted for by the students’ views of Modern and Post Modern architecture. indicating increasing preference for each group of students. 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. Figures 4 and 5 show contrasting changes in the students’ evaluation of the work of the British Post Modern architect Terry Farrell. 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. 9 8 Average preference score 7 6 5 4 3 1 2 3 Year of training 4/5 6 FIGURE 5. Average preference score for Clifton Nurseries for each year group at both schools. In contrast. (–N–) Southern School. with each successive year liking these buildings less. These buildings are not appreciated by the students at the Northern School. the opposite is true. With each successive year at the Northern School. the students in the later years at the Southern School rate these architects’ work quite highly. (–N–) Southern School.38 M. (–᭿–) Northern School. the mean preference score for these buildings decreases. Figs 6 and 7 show the students’ average preference score for the Rational style of Eisenman and Rossi. . Average preference scores for TVAM for each year group at both schools. 8 7 Average preference score 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 Year of training 4/5 6 FIGURE 4. (–᭿–) Northern School. With respect to Modern architecture. represented by high average preference scores across all the years. At the Southern School. Wilson that the students’ judgements are structured according to architectural style.

and final-year students 12 11 Average preference score 10 9 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 Year of training 4/5 6 FIGURE 6. This student had completed her undergraduate training at a different school and had transferred to the Southern School to complete the post-graduate diploma. 9. During the time she spent at the Southern School. the student was nearing completion of the sixth and final year of her training. (–N–) Southern School. Average preference score for Galleratese 2 Apartment Complex for each year group at both schools. 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. At both schools of architecture. (–᭿–) Northern School. At the time of the interviews for this study. 8. the buildings that the first. An interesting example was provided by one of the final-year students at the Southern School. (–᭿–) Northern School. Finally. One of the elevations from the first design she did during the fifth year at the Southern School is shown in Fig. 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. 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. (–N–) Southern School. Examination of the mean preference scores for specific buildings reveals an interesting pattern. . 12 11 Average preference score 10 9 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 Year of training 4/5 6 FIGURE 7. The same elevation of the new design is shown in Fig. Average preference score for House VI for each year group at both schools.Socialization of Architecture Preference 39 Evidence from case studies suggests that these preferences are reflected in the students’ designs.

both rate highly are the same. The students at both schools have comparable views of the buildings dependent on the length of time spent in education. 1990). specific differences exist between the students’ evaluative judgements that are associated with the particular school they attend. for example through selection or self-selection of the staff. Content analysis of the students’ rationales for preference revealed many possible explanations of why a building should be judged good or bad. the underlying structure of architectural preference is based on architectural style. The concept that was most rarely applied to their judgements was architectural style. This suggests that the students are either unaware that. 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. the results show a very predictable pattern to architectural preferences based on the four main stylistic movements currently in vogue. Elevation from the original design. These buildings gained approval from the first-year students. Despite the variety of other seemingly ‘objective’ concepts used by the students to explain their choice of preferred buildings. Furthermore. or whether the orientation is more global within a department. the Neo-Vernacular buildings Butterworth House and Wivenhoe Park (Figs 10 and 11). for architectural students. The results have shown that. although this is clearly the basis for their judgements. Wilson FIGURE 8. This structure is virtually identical to that established to underlie the conceptualization of architecture based on nonevaluative concepts (Wilson & Canter. or unwilling to state that. 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. and these differences are more pronounced for students who are in the last 2 years of training. Not only do architects use stylistic classifications to organize their understanding of architecture. architectural style deter- .e. i. but these results indicate that this same conceptual structure is also used to make ‘subjective’ judgements in terms of personal preference.40 M. were rejected by the students in the middle of their training and were ‘re-discovered’ by the final-year students.

mines their evaluate judgements. or to disparage. quite opposite stylistic movements. The results also showed that. 9 8 Average preference score 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 Year of training 4/5 6 FIGURE 10. another student may say the exact same of a wooden Neo-Vernacular building. For example. Average preference score for Wivenhoe Park for each year group at both schools. the school-specific differences between the students center on their opinions of Modern and Post Modern architecture. while one student might believe that a concrete Modern building is made of honest materials and will ‘stand the test of time’.Socialization of Architecture Preference 41 West elevation FIGURE 9. Examination of the content of the evaluative judgements shows that for these two schools of architecture. . (–᭿–) Northern School. Elevation from the new design. the same rationales are often presented in defence of. However. with respect to Neo-Vernacular architecture. It is possible that the rationale given for their preferences are those concepts that actually define the styles. (–N–) Southern School.

Does Post Modernism communicate? Progressive Architecture. Jencks.42 9 8 Average preference score M. 84–87. 7. Brunt & C. L. S. Meaning in Post Modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task. 2. Cohen. Ed. Groat. Comparison of some expectations of a sample of housing architects with known data. D. & Deutch. (–᭿–) Northern School. (–N–) Southern School. (1990). As long as different schools train architects who appreciate and design different styles of architecture. the students and staff at both schools of architecture. B. Henschen. Eds. Once the appropriate style has been identified. Signs. 1. H. London: Academy Editions. (1975). The structure of office workers’ experience of organizational environments. G. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. L. Construing the physical environment: differences between environmental professionals and lay persons. (1980). (1982). pp. (1974). Devlin. I. 235–243. Leff. there would be a variety of different tastes to be catered for by a variety of different architects. Donald. Preiser. 86–100. 241–258. (1979). 5. London: John Wiley & Sons. Symbols and Architecture. In W. the richness and diversity in the environment will be maintained. T. (1974). R. (1980). Broadbent. Environment and Behaviour. 67. If students in their first year of training are considered to be the most similar to nonarchitects in their judgements. Canter & T. Radleigh: North Carolina State University. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. and Nicky in particular for providing copies of her designs. 413–429. R. Donald. 2–22. Temporal and trait facets of personnel assessment. EDRA 1. . interests and architectural preferences. How Designers Think. An examination of architectural interpretation: architects vs non architects. Man–Environment Systems. Applied Psychology. Values. & Canter. Average preference score for Butterworth House for each year group at both schools. Rather than restricting designers to styles that the users already understand. A framework of meaning in architecture. that has the potential to appeal to architects and nonarchitects alike. Eds. An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Groat. Hershberger. Eds. In H. Once people understand the styles of architecture that make up their cities. S.. Lawson. D. rather than Post Modernism. (1969). Lee. In D. C. In G. Wilson 7 6 5 4 3 1 2 3 Year of training 4/5 6 FIGURE 11. this suggests that it is Neo-Vernacular architecture. Edwards. An International Review. architects would then be trained to design in that way. Sanoff & S. (1994). P. 239–244. The Language of Post Modern Architecture. A study of meaning and architecture. & Canter. Canter. It has often been suggested that the role of architectural psychologists is to establish what architects should design in order to please their users. Pscyhology and the Built Environment. References Blau. London: Architectural Press. This suggestion has not met with approval from the architectural profession. & Hershenson. Journal of Environmental Psychology. (1990). London: Architectural Press. J. (1969). (1977). D. 39. D. there is some agreement between students at the outset of their training and those nearing completion. M. environmental education for nonarchitects could result in greater appreciation of other styles. December. as Jencks (1977) suggests. B. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Geoffrey Broadbent for his help in selecting the photographs. 37–48. K. I. Jencks.

U. U. London: Academic Press. Port Grimaud. Portland. I. West Germany. (1982). Oregan. D. (1970). New Perspective in Personal Construct Theory. & Canter. 1965–69. University of Maryland: EDRA.S. Addition to Carol M. 1975–78. & Canter.A. Symbolic meanings of house style. L. Norfolk. 235–257. School of Architecture. D. California. U. P. (4) Michael Graves. New York City. Ville Nouvelle of Marne-la-Vallee. Ed. Wivenhoe Park. (7). Camden. 1965–74. M. 1979–83. U. Imamoglu & N. Volume 5. E. Texas. Nasar.S. Stuttgart. 21. . Eds. Covent Garden. Clifton Nurseries. Shye. Architectural education and the social commitment of contemporary British architecture. Frankfurt. U. (11) Quinlan Terry. France. pp.. Teymur. The Sociological Review. 39. In H. (8). Illinois Institute of Technology. Elizur. 1978.S. Eds. (16) Charles Moore and William Turnbull. V. Bannister. 18. The development of professional concepts. AT&T Building. Galleratese 2 Apartment Complex. (11). House. London. A. West Germany. Public Service Building. (15) James Stirling. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. University of California at Santa Cruz. (1990b). Paris.K. Chicago. 424–434. Vol. Who’s who in architecture: a study of architectural heroes. In P. (6) Robert Venturi. Quail Valley Utility District. 1962. History. Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts. (1994). (13) Mies Van der Rohe. Missouri City. U. Bart. London. High in the city. 1971–77.. 1980–81. Neue Staatsgalerie. 1969–70. Stringer. Newman Library. (8) Terry Farrell. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1990a). Wilson. (3) Richard Meier.K. Selected Papers. Environment and Behaviour. Pamir.S. U. A. 1985.S. Viganello. (10) Mario Botta. J.A. pp. Space. S. France. Lipman. (12) Franc ¸ ois Spoerry. (7) Terry Farrell. 1981. (2) Philip Johnson/Burgee Architects.A. Knowledge for Design. Francescato.A. France. Virginia. pp.A. Introducing Facet Theory: Content Design and Intrinsic Data Analysis in Behavioural Research. Culture.S. A. Kresge College. In D. EDRA 13. Norwich. Le Theatre. Municipal Control Building. (1989). 43 (14) Aldo Rossi. U. 43–54. Museum fu ¨ r Kunsthandwerk. D. 1980. 5–27. Mackintosh. London: Sage. EDRA 4. (17) Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers.K. U. Appendix 1: Building Details (1) Foster Associates. Milan. Wilson. 284–297. Ankara: METU. Essex. Italy. (1977). Chen & G. Pompidou Centre. 1962. U. M. 1978–80. & Hoffman. University of East Anglia. Participating in personal construct theory.Socialization of Architecture Preference Environmental Design Research. 1970. TVAM.K. Blacksburg.A. University of Maryland: EDRA. (9) Richardo Bofil. 431–455. M. (5) Taft Architects.

Todd House. Piazza d’Italia. Seagram Building.S. Butterworth House. 1950–54. Spain. House VI. (21) Mies van der Rohe. Imatra. Notre-Dame-du-Haut. New Orleans. 1969–83.A. UIG and Ron Filson. Wilson (24). (23). Inc. 1958.S.A. 1973. New York. (23) Peter Eisenman. Connecticut. U. Louisiana. New Zealand. U. (14). La Muralla Roja. 1957–59. (25) Alvar Aalto.A.S. Wood Street Townhouses. (18) Claude Megson. Perez Associates. (24) Turner Brooks. Freemans Bay. Auckland. U. New Zealand.A. Rama Rama. (22) Moore. Finland. . (20) Le Corbusier. Ronchamp. Starksboro. 1974–75. 1969. U. Auckland. Calpe. (26) Ricardo Bofil and Taller de Arquitectura. France.S. Church of Vuoksenniska. (19) Claude Megson. Vermont. 1975–80..44 M. 1977.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful