Building Envelope's Effect
Wesley Kinsey
01.20.2022
Architecture is viewed through a variety of lenses providing designers a way to respond to the sociological and psychological environments of the viewer. Architecture influences human sociology and psychology providing inspiration for the development and progress of society. In turn, society responds to the current sociology and psychology of the people through design. Architecture, in many ways, has left influence in the past and responded with a lack of social functionality. Society should inform architecture in the way that architecture informs society. Similar to Winston Churchill’s compelling statement, “We shape our buildings and afterward our buildings shape us.” Buildings have lost their authenticity and their social responsibility toward the people. Human sociology and psychology will inform the vernacular of design as the design will then inform the future sociological and psychological environments through form, ethical analysis, and human experience.
The building envelope provides an opportunity to interact with the users and the public. The Envelope can influence the sociological and psychological environments of the people around it. Architecture creates different perceptions of the reality in which we all live. Perception is unique to each person and causes diverse responses to architecture. The variability of good and bad design can be restricted through appropriate examination of the sociological and psychological environments of the people. Responding to human ecology through architectural design forges a new potential for human sociological and psychological development. Each architectural design requires conscientious design to improve and respond to human ecology. Thoughtful design creates an authenticity of place and social responsibility for architecture.
The building envelope provides an opportunity to interact with the users and the public. The Envelope can influence the sociological and psychological environments of the people around it. Architecture creates different perceptions of the reality in which we all live. Perception is unique to each person and causes diverse responses to architecture. The variability of good and bad design can be restricted through appropriate examination of the sociological and psychological environments of the people. Responding to human ecology through architectural design forges a new potential for human sociological and psychological development. Each architectural design requires conscientious design to improve and respond to human ecology. Thoughtful design creates an authenticity of place and social responsibility for architecture.
Humans adjust and change according to their current environment. Buildings, in the same way, will change alongside humans as the human sociological and psychological environments change. The human sociological and psychological environments help to define the design of buildings. Then will influence the future human sociological and psychological environments. The human experience with a building’s facade can be analyzed by the experiential space, user type, and experience type.
Architecture is experienced by users on different levels. These users vary from frequent to infrequent experience with a building. Primary users are those who work, live, or consistently use a building. The primary users will have the most experience with the building on multiple levels. A primary user experiences the building envelope on a personal level where it plays an important role in their life. Secondary users are those who visit the building or benefit from its existence but do not live or work within the building. Secondary users are those who may visit the building often and experience most spaces within the building. The secondary user’s sociological or psychological environment would be affected by the design of the building envelope. Tertiary users may visit the exterior of the building several times but won’t experience the interior of the building. Tertiary users’ sociological and psychological environments are affected by the exterior of the building through the building’s form, site, and scale.
Users within architecture play an important role as they affect the experience of the building and are affected by the building. The users become the designers and the ones that are designed for. Architects respond to the current sociological and psychological environments by designing buildings and facades that will influence the next users.
Architecture is experienced by users on different levels. These users vary from frequent to infrequent experience with a building. Primary users are those who work, live, or consistently use a building. The primary users will have the most experience with the building on multiple levels. A primary user experiences the building envelope on a personal level where it plays an important role in their life. Secondary users are those who visit the building or benefit from its existence but do not live or work within the building. Secondary users are those who may visit the building often and experience most spaces within the building. The secondary user’s sociological or psychological environment would be affected by the design of the building envelope. Tertiary users may visit the exterior of the building several times but won’t experience the interior of the building. Tertiary users’ sociological and psychological environments are affected by the exterior of the building through the building’s form, site, and scale.
Users within architecture play an important role as they affect the experience of the building and are affected by the building. The users become the designers and the ones that are designed for. Architects respond to the current sociological and psychological environments by designing buildings and facades that will influence the next users.
Architecture has different effects on people depending on the space in which it is viewed. Similar to Oscar Newman’s approach to Defensible Space, experiential spaces can be defined by how far the observer is from the building. Newman defines zones of influence within complexes and subdivides them into transitional spaces. Each space in Defensible Spaces creates a different feeling from resident to intruder to welcome the resident but defend the intruder. Whereas, in experiential spaces, the observer is found within a space defined by the distance and experience of a building. Experiential space is divided into five categories.
The first experiential space is the furthest from the building. This space is used by primary users, secondary users, and tertiary users. The first experiential space exposes the building’s location, site, scale, and form. The building envelope’s scale and location will play the largest role in the sociological and psychological environment of the observers. The second experiential space is just outside of the building envelope. The second zone defines the building’s exterior envelope at its most detailed level. The second space serves as a place for the architect to reveal, in much greater detail, the building’s scale, complexity, and function. This experience with the building envelope influences the sociological and psychological environment of humans through its use of materials, complexity, and function. The third experiential space serves as the division between interior and exterior spaces. Primary and secondary users experience this space as they enter the building through an entry sequence. This space reveals to the users the scale, material, function, and building systems for both the interior and exterior of the building. The fourth experiential space reveals the interior of the building to the primary and secondary users. This space defines the interior envelope design and may allow the user to experience part of the exterior as well. This space serves as the primary interior experiential space with the building envelope. The fifth experiential space is the furthest inside the building. Primary users will find themselves furthest from the building envelope while being within the building. The experience with the building envelope within this space is minimal and reduced to experience with the building climate and interior form.
The first experiential space is the furthest from the building. This space is used by primary users, secondary users, and tertiary users. The first experiential space exposes the building’s location, site, scale, and form. The building envelope’s scale and location will play the largest role in the sociological and psychological environment of the observers. The second experiential space is just outside of the building envelope. The second zone defines the building’s exterior envelope at its most detailed level. The second space serves as a place for the architect to reveal, in much greater detail, the building’s scale, complexity, and function. This experience with the building envelope influences the sociological and psychological environment of humans through its use of materials, complexity, and function. The third experiential space serves as the division between interior and exterior spaces. Primary and secondary users experience this space as they enter the building through an entry sequence. This space reveals to the users the scale, material, function, and building systems for both the interior and exterior of the building. The fourth experiential space reveals the interior of the building to the primary and secondary users. This space defines the interior envelope design and may allow the user to experience part of the exterior as well. This space serves as the primary interior experiential space with the building envelope. The fifth experiential space is the furthest inside the building. Primary users will find themselves furthest from the building envelope while being within the building. The experience with the building envelope within this space is minimal and reduced to experience with the building climate and interior form.
The building envelope affects each user group through each experiential space. Primary, secondary, and tertiary users create experiences through the levels of experiential space that affect their behavioral psychology. The experience they create has different effects on them, from major to minimal effects. J. Robert Rossman and Matthew D. Duerden in their article “Designing Experiences” lay out levels of experiences that will create prosaic memories, mindful thinking, memorable experiences, meaningful experiences, and transformational experiences. Each of these experiences creates triggers within our brains to create sequences that allow us to remember, recognize, or resolve experiences. Each experience has a unique quality that distinguishes certain experiences from others. (Designing Experiences)
Experiences within certain architectural spaces are designed through creative analysis. Each space is analyzed through its spatial quality, materiality, lighting, use, and quality. A space that is unique unto itself creates a more memorable experience. Nilsson’s Taxonomy of creative design creates a matrix between “novelty in form” and “novelty in content.” This matrix describes how a space varies from imitation to original creation based upon the novelty of its design. Nilsson’s reaction to a replication of a previous work to the creation of something previously unrecognizable supplies designers with an analysis tool to use. The taxonomy of creative design provides a method for architectural designers to analyze their work and develop certain experiences within their spaces.
The building envelope can influence users’ sociological and psychological behavior through its design by analyzing the experiential space, user type, and experience the user(s) are exposed to. The exterior envelope can be designed to specifically align to a feeling the architect intends to develop within the building’s users. A city’s planning and design can be dramatically affected by the design of the building envelope and the experiences they create. Architectural form inspired users through its uniqueness and relativity to the culture and human sociological and psychological environments. The architectural form varies through regions, cultures, and time. “Individuals subjectively assess their environments and are therefore likely to vary across individuals depending on stable individual characteristics such as are or expertise, as well as less stable such as mood” (Conceptualizations of Human Environments) Each individual, creates an understanding of the experience they are having either cognitively or unconsciously. These short interactions lead the individual to explore a situation or avoid one.
Experiences within certain architectural spaces are designed through creative analysis. Each space is analyzed through its spatial quality, materiality, lighting, use, and quality. A space that is unique unto itself creates a more memorable experience. Nilsson’s Taxonomy of creative design creates a matrix between “novelty in form” and “novelty in content.” This matrix describes how a space varies from imitation to original creation based upon the novelty of its design. Nilsson’s reaction to a replication of a previous work to the creation of something previously unrecognizable supplies designers with an analysis tool to use. The taxonomy of creative design provides a method for architectural designers to analyze their work and develop certain experiences within their spaces.
The building envelope can influence users’ sociological and psychological behavior through its design by analyzing the experiential space, user type, and experience the user(s) are exposed to. The exterior envelope can be designed to specifically align to a feeling the architect intends to develop within the building’s users. A city’s planning and design can be dramatically affected by the design of the building envelope and the experiences they create. Architectural form inspired users through its uniqueness and relativity to the culture and human sociological and psychological environments. The architectural form varies through regions, cultures, and time. “Individuals subjectively assess their environments and are therefore likely to vary across individuals depending on stable individual characteristics such as are or expertise, as well as less stable such as mood” (Conceptualizations of Human Environments) Each individual, creates an understanding of the experience they are having either cognitively or unconsciously. These short interactions lead the individual to explore a situation or avoid one.
The sociological and psychological environment is important for the development of humans and the everyday emotional state of the users. Architecture should be used to improve these environments and the emotional state of cities around the world. “The major objective of architecture is to design an environment to facilitate the development of human potential.” (01) Architecture has been designed to influence people and their actions. To study the effects of architecture we must look to behavioral psychology, Human Ecology, and how the building envelope affects them. Behavioral psychology is to observe the observable unit of behavior. Human ecology studies how social structure adapts to the quality of natural resources and the existence of other human groups. (Britannica) To study the unit of behavior and understand how users interact with the building we investigate the three users’ groups and how they experience buildings within the experiential spaces. Each group has their own experience with the building envelope that influences their behavior throughout their day, week, or life.
User relationships with the exterior and interior envelope rely on their experiences with them. Experiences with building envelopes develop the user’s individual and group sociological and psychological environments. Colin Ellard reflects upon his research while analyzing space “Human beings share a unique and very interesting relationship with space. We have a very interesting mental connection with space... It’s a fundamental importance to the way we work, the way that we live, and especially how we build and plan.” Behavioral psychology and Human Ecology rely on the design of building envelopes and the development of building facades. The future of architecture relies on the improvement of envelope technology. Architects of the future have a much greater grasp of how the layout, design, scale, complexity, materiality, and function of the building’s envelope affect the people who experience it. The next technology in architecture must respond, in a positive manner, to the sociological and psychological environments of the users.
Building envelopes supply architects and urban environments with a chance to respond to the sociological and psychological environments of the users. The analysis of a building’s effect on people through user groups, experiential spaces, and experience type allows for architects to create beneficial environments for users to live in, work with, or view. Architects and Urban designers are thus challenged with the question, “What is good for humans?”
Designers must analyze through the current sociological and psychological environments of humans to understand what is good and how to approach the next step. How can architects and designers prescribe social and physical spaces to influence the sociological and psychological environments of people?
I conducted a survey to verify the method in which I am proposing to research further sociological and psychological developments through architectural design. The survey created captured a building in each of the five experiential spaces. The survey asked the same question for each page, “describe this building with the first 10 observations you have.” The first survey was conducted through seven individuals, each of which derive from different pasts, majors, and interests. The first survey analyzed the Donald W. Reynolds School of Architecture building at Oklahoma State University. The first experiential space recorded answers that related to the overall context of the building, the building form, use, age, style, and some materiality. The second experiential space revealed that formal analysis of the building was still a prominent source of experience. The second experiential space also allowed users to recognized materiality at a greater success rate and fenestration such as glazing. The third experiential space revealed the significance of building details to the users. The users also expressed a high understanding of materiality within the third experiential space. The fourth experiential space expressed the connection of interior and exterior elements within the building. The fourth experiential space also recognized the interior materials and the feeling those evoke. The fifth experiential space revealed the importance of materiality within the interior of the building. The fifth experiential space evoked feelings through materiality. There was no mention of form or spatial quality.
User relationships with the exterior and interior envelope rely on their experiences with them. Experiences with building envelopes develop the user’s individual and group sociological and psychological environments. Colin Ellard reflects upon his research while analyzing space “Human beings share a unique and very interesting relationship with space. We have a very interesting mental connection with space... It’s a fundamental importance to the way we work, the way that we live, and especially how we build and plan.” Behavioral psychology and Human Ecology rely on the design of building envelopes and the development of building facades. The future of architecture relies on the improvement of envelope technology. Architects of the future have a much greater grasp of how the layout, design, scale, complexity, materiality, and function of the building’s envelope affect the people who experience it. The next technology in architecture must respond, in a positive manner, to the sociological and psychological environments of the users.
Building envelopes supply architects and urban environments with a chance to respond to the sociological and psychological environments of the users. The analysis of a building’s effect on people through user groups, experiential spaces, and experience type allows for architects to create beneficial environments for users to live in, work with, or view. Architects and Urban designers are thus challenged with the question, “What is good for humans?”
Designers must analyze through the current sociological and psychological environments of humans to understand what is good and how to approach the next step. How can architects and designers prescribe social and physical spaces to influence the sociological and psychological environments of people?
I conducted a survey to verify the method in which I am proposing to research further sociological and psychological developments through architectural design. The survey created captured a building in each of the five experiential spaces. The survey asked the same question for each page, “describe this building with the first 10 observations you have.” The first survey was conducted through seven individuals, each of which derive from different pasts, majors, and interests. The first survey analyzed the Donald W. Reynolds School of Architecture building at Oklahoma State University. The first experiential space recorded answers that related to the overall context of the building, the building form, use, age, style, and some materiality. The second experiential space revealed that formal analysis of the building was still a prominent source of experience. The second experiential space also allowed users to recognized materiality at a greater success rate and fenestration such as glazing. The third experiential space revealed the significance of building details to the users. The users also expressed a high understanding of materiality within the third experiential space. The fourth experiential space expressed the connection of interior and exterior elements within the building. The fourth experiential space also recognized the interior materials and the feeling those evoke. The fifth experiential space revealed the importance of materiality within the interior of the building. The fifth experiential space evoked feelings through materiality. There was no mention of form or spatial quality.
“Architecture and Human Behavior: Toward Increased Understanding of a Functional
Relationship,” 2021, 5.
Relationship,” 2021, 5.
Clitheroe, H.C., Daniel Stokols, and Mary Zmuidzinas. “CONCEPTUALIZING
THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March1998): 103–12. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0091.
THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March1998): 103–12. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0091.
Malinin, Laura H. “Creative Practices Embodied, Embedded, and Enacted in
Architectural Settings: Toward an Ecological Model of Creativity.” Frontiers in
Psychology 6 (January 6, 2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01978.
Architectural Settings: Toward an Ecological Model of Creativity.” Frontiers in
Psychology 6 (January 6, 2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01978.
Newman, Oscar. “Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space / Oscar
Newman.,” n.d., 253.
Newman.,” n.d., 253.
Langdon, Patrick, Jonathan Lazar, Ann Heylighen, and Hua Dong, eds. Designing
for Inclusion: Inclusive Design: Looking Towards the Future. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43865-4.
for Inclusion: Inclusive Design: Looking Towards the Future. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43865-4.
Canter, David. “EDITORIAL — A NEW AWAKENING.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 18, no. 1 (March 1998): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.1998.0076.
Psychology 18, no. 1 (March 1998): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.1998.0076.
Montgomery, Charles. Happy City. First Edition. 18 West Street, New York 10011:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013.
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013.
Gärling, Tommy. “INTRODUCTION—CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF HUMAN
ENVIRONMENTS.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March
1998): 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0087.
ENVIRONMENTS.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March
1998): 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0087.
Giffor, Robert. “INTRODUCTION—SPECIAL PLACES.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 18, no. 1 (March 1998): 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.1997.0061.
Psychology 18, no. 1 (March 1998): 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.1997.0061.
Hay, R. “SENSE OF PLACE IN DEVELOPMENTAL CONTEXT,” n.d., 25.
Yu, Mayine. Skins, Envelopes, and Enclosures: Concepts for Designing Building
Exteriors. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Exteriors. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Brooks, Anthony Lewis, Sheryl Brahnam, and Lakhmi C. Jain, eds. Technologies of
Inclusive Well-Being: Serious Games, Alternative Realities, and Play Therapy.
Vol. 536. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45432-5.
Inclusive Well-Being: Serious Games, Alternative Realities, and Play Therapy.
Vol. 536. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45432-5.
Suedfeld, Peter. “WHAT CAN ABNORMAL ENVIRONMENTS TELL US
ABOUT NORMAL PEOPLE? POLAR STATIONS AS NATURAL PSYCHOLOGY
LABORATORIES.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March
1998): 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0090.
ABOUT NORMAL PEOPLE? POLAR STATIONS AS NATURAL PSYCHOLOGY
LABORATORIES.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March
1998): 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0090.
Evans, Gary W., and Janetta Mitchell McCoy. “WHEN BUILDINGS DON’T WORK:
THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN HUMAN HEALTH.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March1998): 85–94. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0089.
THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN HUMAN HEALTH.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 18, no. 1 (March1998): 85–94. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0089.