How architecture predicts behaviour.

“We shape our buildings. Thereafter our buildings shape us.”? Winston Churchill

In May 1940, a 65-year-old Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill is thrust into the midst of a world war during his first term in parliament. Though not the popular choice amongst his own party, his strength of character, charisma, rhetoric and inspirational leadership style quickly earn him the hearts, minds and trust of the British people. Finally, though in his now famous public address stating? “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat” he also rouses the parliament to cheers and applause.

It is against this increased support and influence during his first three years as Prime Minister that in October 1943, following the destruction of the Commons Chamber during the Blitz on 10 and 11 May 1941, that he fiercely opposes a redesign of the chambers into a semi-circular or horse-shoe shape, favoured by most legislative assemblies at the time. In an impassioned speech to the meeting in the House of Lords he requests that the exact layout be followed of the bombed House of Commons. Churchill is resolute that the opposing rectangular shape of the old Chamber should be protected at all costs, as he is convinced that this layout is entirely responsible for the two-party system which, in his mind, holds the essence of British parliamentary democracy.

?Looking at the design of the chambers, few can argue his contention. Whilst this is a great example of the impact of buildings and interiors on our behaviour, examples are all around us and most often goes unnoticed. With that said, let’s look at a few architectural examples that trigger near universal behavioural responses.

?

1.??? Ceilings and ceiling heights. Most of us feel a sense of awe and perhaps even spirituality when we enter a big grand ornate great cathedral Why? Well the short answer is because they were designed to have this effect on us and there are a few ways in which it works. According to science and our human physiology, our eyes tend to role upwards when we think of large spaces or distant times and upward roles of the eyes also accompany intense religious experiences, meditative states and hallucinatory states. So when we enter a building of vast scale and majestic ceilings, drawing our eyes upwards it triggers the part of the brain responsible for these abstract thoughts. This is also by the way why it is important to have high ceilings in creative offices and low ceilings in spaces more meant for task driven functions.

2.??? Circulation and orientation. Conversely we sometimes have feelings of risk, anxiety and fear in big open public spaces? We don’t always know why. Lets look at an example. The Seattle Central Library, designed by Dutch firm, OMA/Rem Koolhaas is has won multiple architectural awards but it has also been criticised as a notoriously disorientating building with one of the library’s users remarking that she had left the building as soon as she could figure out how to get out, hoping she wouldn’t have an anxiety attack first. Why is that? The biggest apparent cause for this discomfort in its users seems to be its circulation.? Our evolutionary hard coding dictates that we don’t like walking into places where our flight paths are not apparent or blocked. Whilst one is greeted quit obviously and generously by?the beautifully lit escalators offering a way in and up the building, there seems to be nothing obvious about the way down and out. Intuitive orientation is as vital inside buildings as they are outside of them.

3.??? Shapes and forms. Soft contours versus sharp edges: In depth research into psychology and aesthetics has established that we actually have a near universal preference for curved contours. Why is that? Again, this has to do with ancient circuits. Curves are soft safe and inviting activating areas in our brains associated with reward and pleasure whilst sharp corners, think teeth and claws,?activate fear detecting response systems signalling environmental risk. The impact of this is so severe that studies done by the university of Haifa indicated that people even behaved perceptably more aggressive when surrounded by art with sharp angled shapes as opposed to art with soft contours. An example in architecture is the 2007 extension to the Royal Ontario museum in Toronto. Designed by deconstructivist Daniel Libeskind. Long time devotees of the museum vowed to never set foot in it again and in 2009 members of Virtual tourist voted it the 8th ugliest building in the world. In the same year the Washington post voted it the ugliest building of the decade. Collectively these experiments showed that not only do the shapes and contour that surround us impact how we feel, but also affects how we treat others.

4.??? Fa?ade detail. Our preference of building facades. Colin Ellard, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Waterloo?in Canada researches the psychological impact of spaces and places on people. Measuring subjects’ physiological responses in situ, using wearable wristband devices and on the spot surveys, one of his most consistent findings is that people are strongly impacted by building facades. In short, monotonous featureless facades impact people negatively whilst conversely, complex facades impact people positively. For example, when he walked a group of subjects past the long, smoked-glass frontage of a Whole Foods store in Lower Manhattan, people’s mood states took a dive, and they quickened their pace. Conversely when they reach a stretch with restaurants and stores their readings picked up and they reported feeling more energised and engaged. He has also found that there is an optimum level of complexity. Facades that are too complex have a similar affect as facades that are too simple.

5.??? Social and anti-social spaces. Spaces that turn people toward or away from each other. The Pruitt- Igoe housing complex in St Louis designed by Minoru Yamasaki, also responsible for the World Trade Center, had a famed fanfare opening in 1954. However less than 3 decades later with its widely televised 1972 implosion it was agreed that its design had doomed it. The buildings were notorious for crime, squalor and social dysfunction. Critics claimed that the featureless facades and wide open featureless bland spaces between the buildings discouraged social connection and a sense of community. Looking at the aerial photograph below it doesn’t take a wild imagination to grasp the reasons for its failures. Conversely ?the revamped Lawrence Public Library in Kansas ?has become the hub of the local community. Why?? For one the library is a rather radical departure from a building with a public book collection to a building for public engagement. Steep departures from a traditional library include an emphasis on community gathering spaces over traditional silent spaces featuring a sound + vision room, a recording studio, various interesting reading nooks both inside and outside, and a a grassed amphitheater linking the building to the very popular local public pool.

6.?? Authenticity. Aaah Authenticity…. and truth. We seem to talk a LOT about this lately. Although 86% of people? surveyed by Social Media Today claim that authenticity is important in choosing brands, it turns out that ”authenticity” and “real” are mutually exclusive. For example, Professor Colin Ellard observed that museum displays with plastic reconstructions and augmented realty of dinosaurs were more popular than museum displays of authentic fossilised bones or actual skeletons. And in studies on our emotional response to fake or real materials? there seems to be very little to no difference. Like faux wood on the dashboards of most cars, ceramic tiles posing as wood, Astroturf as grass, gyprock masquerading as brick and biomaterials grown in labs to look like real leather. Colin Ellard observes that "it seems that authenticity has in reality now forever been traded for fidelity". In other words we are in reality more interested in whether things look real than whether they are real.

7.??? Boring versus complex spaces. In comprehensive studies with the most significant done in the UK over 30 years starting in the 70’s a very surprising and unexpected find was? that subjects suffering from excessive boredom, also suffered unhealthy levels of increased cortisol, the stress inducing hormone which in turn leads to much higher probabilities of strokes, heart disease and diabetes. This in turn supports neuroscientific argument that designers of the built environment has a responsibility to attend to factors that contribute to boredom and that the correct levels of environmental complexity might in fact positively affect our health and mortality. Whilst brief encounters with a boring interior or exterior may have little to zero effect, daily long term exposure to bland and boring living and workplace aesthetics, will arguably have a substantial effect on our health and mortality.

These examples, and ongoing findings have now become so significant, overwhelming and irrefutable, that Neuroscientists in the UK have started calling for design of the built environment to become a matter of public health with some architectural education facilities even considering the inclusion of neuroscience in its curriculum. Environmental design can no longer be a matter of whim, opinion or taste. It is a matter of fact.