Environmental Psychology in Building Design
Workability: (Bloom 1977). An observation of working environment of a psychotherapist. Two settings, one is an informal layout with posters on the wall. The second is typically more professional, formal layout and diplomas displayed on the wall. Interestingly, a female was considered more credible in the formal setting and males more so in the informal setting.
There is a glance at the history of mental illness and its treatment. Firstly, mentioning righteous cleansing of evil spirits to ensure access to heaven. Then high walls, cells to confine the patient and misunderstanding of the mind and body which causes a misguided reaction toward the illness. Finally, modern advances in medicines and therapy, aiding the recovery of patients, providing refuge rather than confinement.
“A building’s nature can be determined by society’s attitude to what its function should be.” John Brebner
This is an interesting point which could be researched into depending on the circumstance of the build. Finding a general consensus of a particular part of society i.e. hospitals – a place for medical attention, rest and recuperation. I have noticed that depending on the severity of illness or circumstance people’s attitudes change in relation to being there or even having to go there.
Osmond (1957) Sociopetal and Sociofugal Spaces: Sociopetal space is one that attracts promotes its interaction while sociofugal space isolates people from one another. Sharing space is a situation which involves these two properties. In a space such as a waiting room, the primary form of contact is reduced with people sitting side by side – sociofugal. This further halts any more development of communication. Hall’s observation: Behavioural variables include eye contact, non verbal communication and expressive gesture. Spatial variables include orientation, distance and relative height. Intuition can be applied without knowing Hall’s Observation.
“I would not like to see buildings designed with personal space as some kind of standard or unit of measurement.” Somner
“Generally” crowding with the exception of leisure pursuits reduces social activity. More rapid social development happens within smaller spaces and less people per unit. Family living satisfaction will be greater in dwellings with a density of no more than one unit.
Baldasare’s observation of residential density: 14-story apartment block discouraged secondary interaction i.e. relative strangers, those living close by and meeting new people. In comparison to three stories apartment blocks where sociopetal attributes are evident. Observation of this principal can greatly affect factors of group sociology – social and cultural to age and interest.
Flexibility: Maximises sociopetal characteristics, a flexible space increases its group use in social circumstances.
A person’s capacities to work can be determined by their association with a particular environment.
Szokolay’s approach to ergonomics in the design process of buildings – space, light, sound, resources, and some human ecology.
Space and interaction of people: i) the physical effects of the user.
ii) The control of those effects exerted by the design of the building.
iii) The control of those effects through spatial installations which can be brought into use if needed.
Liveable Cities?
Chapter 3
Collective action towards a sustainable city by Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao and Hwa-Jen Lin
Ching Cheng, middle class community fighting against construction of department store ‘Taipower’. Kang-Le, slum community previously a cemetery under Japanese colonial control. The slum was surrounded by five star hotel building, later bulldozed to create an “international” park” hosting foreign celebrations.
Contradictions in urban environmentalism in Taipei. Class bias – middle classes immediately have more ability to defend ideals. The urban poor are primarily uneducated and cannot fight against regulations and powers with a financial bias.
3.1 Urbanisation and environmental crisis in Taipei
A city beginning its “developmental career” is one that faces an environmental degradation. Taipei was free from industrialisation avoiding pollution however, faced a population jump from 800 000 to 6.1 million. This caused a huge demand for urban infrastructure.
Expansion to the mountains put people who moved there at risk. Many reports of collapsing buildings during wet season.
An interesting point – this expansion caused many geographical disruptions: soil erosion, deforestation, flooding and air pollution. “Paid for by the suffering of ordinary citizens.”
This relationship should be observed. Immediately, you can see how one affects the other. Our involvement in the surrounding environment should be almost be as if none at all. Over compensation for one aspect of urban development must work as efficiently and unobtrusively as possible or both will suffer.
Excessive construction changed the appearance of the city; cultural heritage sites were “illegally damaged” and if not became “strange juxtapositions” beside highways etc. I see cities in general as “juxtapositions” with the landscape. They are the visual element of human presence on the landscape, utility and cost, even perspective causes this. Bringing utility, ergonomics and cost together within a city for the benefit of people and environment will then continue to help the two.
3.2 Local resistance of Taipei the profile of Taipei’s environmental movement
Prominent issues for the poorer communities include low incomes, inadequate housing and locally unwanted land usage (LULUs). Even for the affluent there is always the possibility of wet season landslides.
Air pollution disregards wealth causing respiratory disease to all generations of all backgrounds. Recreational space is then minimised to make way for the demand for office space. Here I see priorities changing in order to cope with the near future of business rather than a more wholesome development of the infrastructure. His extreme example shows office space is above the needs of the citizens. Disregarding these people’s poverty you see a disregard for people’s livelihood. However it is difficult not to think that this gives more reason to evict in the name of development.
Protesters demand a “city for citizens”
3.5 Community interest, sustainability and social justice
How do protests relate to long term sustainability? Middle classes oppose a highway construction near a residential area to ease congestion yet personal transport use continues to intensify.
Are local communities using environmental concern to aid their own interests at the expense of others? Ultimately failing to uphold their concern.
One of the agreed points of sustainability is that it protects the future generations from an exhausted planet.
Conclusion
The two parts I have chosen to study reveal areas of social and spatial interaction and environmental concern parallel to liveability. I have discovered several interesting points from each view. Zooming into the working environment, the ergonomic and social elements of the individual or smaller groups. Then, the international aims of a city in its crucial stages of development, yet at the disregard and cost of its poor. How do we cope with the need to be connected globally and build up those still living substandard lives?
Even when we become concerned about sustainability and strongly opposed to the obvious problems facing the environment, we must look into our own situation much more. As seen in the opposition to the highway in Ching-Cheng part of the solution is our responsibility. Designing to heighten awareness on a home scale for instance could give the power of knowledge needed. And in some ways those who need this knowledge the most are those in the poorest areas. How do you make this knowledge freely available and accessible? Is there a way to admonish and improve slum areas until they become an accepted and functional part of society?
Just as eating well proves to help you in the long run over self indulgence, constant use and even reliance on personal transport seems not only to affect the user but everyone around them. Rather than the rebellion against a highway that will temporarily accommodate the need for personal transport, why not remove the need? One issue with this is that a whole community must change their ways rather than individuals. As in the example of the 14 stories vs. three you can see a potential solution. The very way in which our homes are designed could influence our tendencies towards individualism at an unsustainable rate. Learning to subconsciously connect people may allow for the social barriers to be broken and co operation to commence at a less selfish level.
Bibliography
Brebner John, 1982, Environmental Psychology in Building Design, Applied Science Publishers LTD
Levens Peter, 2002, Liveable Cities? : Urban struggles for livelihood and sustainability, University of California Press
