What Makes Buildings Beautiful (And Why Beauty Does Matter)
Summary
TLDRThe video script from 'The Aesthetic City' explores the significance of beauty in architecture and urban design. It challenges the modern trend of prioritizing functionality over aesthetics, arguing that beautiful environments enhance emotional well-being and community satisfaction. The script delves into the philosophical debate on beauty's subjectivity and objectivity, suggesting that certain universally appealing elements like symmetry, natural patterns, and ornamentation can be identified. It calls for an evidence-based design approach that considers human preferences and evolutionary responses to create buildings and cities that are not only functional but also emotionally resonant.
Takeaways
- 🏙️ The attractiveness of buildings and urban environments is not solely due to their fame but also because of an inherent quality that compels people to seek them out: beauty.
- 🌆 Modern cities have seen a rise in unattractive structures, leading to a yearning for beauty, which is why people flock to aesthetically pleasing cities like Amsterdam and Barcelona.
- 🎨 The concept of beauty in architecture has shifted over time, with contemporary focus on personal expression and innovation, often overlooking the importance of beauty.
- 🤔 The belief that 'beauty is subjective' is a common refrain, yet studies show there are commonalities in how people perceive beauty, suggesting a degree of objectivity.
- 📊 Research indicates a strong correlation between the physical beauty of a place and people's satisfaction, emotional attachment, and even health.
- 🏛️ Philosophical debates on beauty range from objective qualities inherent in objects to subjective experiences in the mind, with some arguing that beauty can be recognized and learned.
- 🔍 The 'design disconnect' reveals a gap between what architects prefer and what the general public finds appealing, suggesting a mismatch in aesthetic values.
- 🌿 Our innate preferences for certain shapes and features in our environment, such as fractals, symmetry, and nature, are linked to our evolutionary history and the biophilia hypothesis.
- 🧠 The brain's response to visual stimuli, particularly the role of the thalamus and amygdala, influences our perception of beauty and can lead to feelings of safety or stress.
- 🏗️ Evidence-based design, which considers what is naturally appealing to humans, can lead to the creation of buildings and environments that are more likely to be appreciated and have lasting value.
Q & A
Why do some buildings and places attract more visitors than others?
-Some buildings and places attract more visitors because they possess a certain quality that makes them attractive, which is often beauty. This quality compels people to travel great distances to experience these places.
What is the significance of beauty in architecture and urban environments according to the video?
-Beauty in architecture and urban environments is significant because it can lead to an emotional attachment to places, contribute to people's happiness and health, and is a factor in attracting skilled workers to an area.
Why do modern cities sometimes appear to be increasingly ugly?
-Modern cities may appear increasingly ugly due to the construction of unattractive structures such as giant concrete overpasses, outdated business parks, and depressing housing complexes, which lack aesthetic consideration in their design.
What is the common argument against prioritizing beauty in architecture?
-The common argument against prioritizing beauty in architecture is that beauty is subjective, and thus it is not considered a useful criterion for further discussion or design.
How has the perception of beauty in architecture evolved over time?
-In older works of architecture and urbanism, beauty was considered an essential element and a goal for buildings and urban areas. However, in contemporary times, it is often overlooked in favor of personal expression, innovation, and the concept in architectural education.
What does the video suggest about the relationship between beauty and people's emotional attachment to places?
-The video suggests that there is a measurable emotional attachment to places that are beautiful, with studies showing a strong correlation between a place's physical beauty and people's satisfaction.
What is the 'design disconnect' mentioned in the video?
-The 'design disconnect' refers to the phenomenon where architects and the public have different preferences for building designs. This was discovered through a study where architecture students and non-architecture students had contrasting views on the attractiveness of buildings.
How does the video explain the preference for certain architectural features?
-The video explains that people's preferences for architectural features are linked to our evolutionary history and our innate attraction to natural forms and patterns, which are associated with survival and well-being.
What are some of the features that people are hardwired to like in buildings and environments?
-Some features that people are hardwired to like include fractals, symmetry, ornament, organized complexity, curves, and nature. These features are often found in natural environments and evoke positive responses in humans.
What is the role of evidence-based design in creating beautiful and functional buildings?
-Evidence-based design plays a crucial role in creating buildings that are both beautiful and functional by using scientific evidence to inform design decisions, which can lead to environments that people naturally find attractive and comfortable.
Why might some contemporary architects' personal living preferences differ from the architectural styles they design?
-Some contemporary architects might prefer to live or work in traditionally designed buildings because they find them more attractive, despite designing modernist buildings professionally. This could be due to a deeper, instinctual preference for traditional aesthetics that align with our evolutionary history.
Outlines
🏙️ The Aesthetic City: Why Beauty Matters
The video script begins by posing questions about why certain buildings and places are more beloved than others. It suggests that while some may attribute this to fame, there is a deeper quality at play: beauty. The script introduces the concept of 'The Aesthetic City' and sets the stage for an exploration of why beauty in architecture and urban environments is significant. It critiques modern cities for their ugliness, contrasting them with the allure of historically beautiful cities like Amsterdam and Barcelona. The script challenges the notion that beauty is too subjective to be a design goal, arguing that there is a commonality in human appreciation for beauty, supported by studies showing a correlation between physical beauty of a place and people's satisfaction.
🎨 The Philosophical and Psychological Aspects of Beauty
This section delves into the philosophical debate over whether beauty is objective or subjective. It references historical thinkers and their evolving views on beauty, from the belief that beauty resides in the object itself to the 18th-century shift towards subjectivity. The video introduces the concept of 'design disconnect', where architects and the public have differing preferences for building styles. It discusses the impact of architectural education on taste and the paradox of architects preferring traditional designs in their personal lives despite promoting modernist styles professionally. The script also touches on evolutionary psychology, suggesting that our brains are hardwired to respond to certain natural forms and patterns, which influence our perception of beauty in built environments.
🌿 Biophilic Design and the Elements of Beauty
The final paragraph discusses biophilic design principles and the specific elements that humans are naturally drawn to in architecture. It covers concepts like fractals, symmetry, ornamentation, organized complexity, curves, and the inclusion of nature in design. The script argues that these elements are not just aesthetically pleasing but are also linked to our evolutionary history and psychological well-being. It uses the Louvre in Paris as a case study to illustrate these principles. The video concludes by advocating for evidence-based design that incorporates these elements to create environments that are not only beautiful but also contribute to the happiness and health of city dwellers. It calls for a collective effort to prioritize beauty in urban planning and architecture for the well-being of millions.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Beauty
💡Subjective
💡Aesthetic City
💡Evolutionary
💡Fractals
💡Symmetry
💡Ornament
💡Organized Complexity
💡Biophilia
💡Evidence-Based Design
Highlights
The allure of certain buildings and places is not solely due to their fame but also an inherent quality that compels people to seek them out, which is identified as beauty.
Despite the subjective nature of beauty, there is a measurable emotional attachment to beautiful places, as indicated by various studies.
Modern cities have seen a decline in aesthetic appeal, with examples like concrete overpasses and outdated business parks being cited.
Tourists prefer historical inner-cities with beautiful architecture over modern, unattractive areas, demonstrating a clear preference for beauty.
Architects often argue that beauty is too subjective to be a design goal, which contrasts with the historical importance of beauty in architecture.
Current architectural education prioritizes creative expression and innovation over beauty, leading to a disconnect with public preferences.
Studies show that people have striking similarities in their reactions to certain environmental qualities, suggesting a commonality in what is perceived as beautiful.
Aesthetic attraction to a city is ranked highly in surveys, even above factors like education, safety, and basic services.
There is a strong correlation between the scenicness of an area and health, indicating that beauty has tangible benefits.
Philosophers have debated whether beauty is objective or subjective, with modern thought leaning towards subjectivity.
Roger Scruton argues that beauty has recognizable properties and is the subject matter of taste, which can be learned.
The 'design disconnect' phenomenon shows that architects and the public have different preferences for building styles.
Some architects, despite designing modernist buildings, choose to live in traditional environments, suggesting a personal preference for traditional aesthetics.
Our brains are hardwired to respond to certain shapes and features in our environment, such as fractals, symmetry, and curves.
Biophilia, the innate human preference for nature, influences our attraction to buildings and environments that mimic natural forms.
Ornament and organized complexity in architecture can stimulate the brain and provide a connection to nature.
Evidence-based design, which considers what is naturally attractive to humans, can lead to buildings that are more likely to be appreciated and have lasting value.
The call to value beauty in architecture and urban design is essential for the well-being of city dwellers and the sustainability of the built environment.
Transcripts
Why are some buildings more loved than others?
And why do some places attract enormous crowds, while others are ignored?
Some would say: “It is because these popular places and
…buildings are well known, and the others or not."
But the places that do attract these massive amounts of
…visitors, or which are always photographed, must have some other
…quality that makes them attractive. This quality makes people climb mountains,
…traverse jungles, or travel all over the world to
…see them, showing how badly people crave it.
Which quality is it? Well, you might have guessed it: Beauty!
Welcome, this is The Aesthetic City and in this video we're
…going to investigate why we find some buildings and urban environments
beautiful, and others less so. And: why the beauty of our buildings and our
cities is indeed more important than you might think.
So let's get started!
[THE PROBLEM]
It seems that are modern cities have become increasingly ugly over the years.
Giant concrete overpasses, outdated business parks, strip malls and depressing concrete housing complexes
so much has been built that makes you wonder: “Who
on earth thought that that was a good idea? Did
anyone even consider the beauty of the design of this
building or place?" Because everybody still yearns for some beauty in
their lives. That's why millions of people visit beautiful
cities like Amsterdam or Barcelona each year. These tourists don't
go to the rundown business park at the edge of
the city. They don't walk around underneath concrete overpasses to
take pictures, and they certainly don't go for a picnic
next to a stinky random pond somewhere. No, they go
to the historical inner-city, with its beautiful buildings, its parks and boulevards.
And it’s obvious why! Those are beautiful places. So, adding
1 + 1 together, what we should be doing is
obvious right? Just build more beautiful places! Well that's where
Well, that’s where things get a bit difficult.
Because when talking to an architect,
the person who designs the buildings you will see around you, he or she will give you
all sorts of reasons why building beautiful is too limited or problematic because
of some philosophical reason. The thing you will hear most
often is that “Beauty is subjective”. Let’s dive
a bit deeper into the concept of beauty. The idea that
'beauty is subjective' and it's therefore not useful to discuss any further
it's quite common. It didn’t use to be that way.
In older works in architecture and urbanism, beauty was always
named as one of the essential elements. One of the goals
of a building or an urban area. But today it doesn't
seem to be important. In architecture schools, creative personal expression
and innovation, and of course: ‘The Concept' are most important.
Complete artistic freedom and a future oriented mind is necessary
to push the art of architecture forward. We see this
in the architecture today, that sometimes gets quite crazy!
In our increasingly technocratic world, many civil servants, decision-makers and
politicians but also developers don't consider beauty. They have bought into
the other way of thinking, namely that architecture should always
strive forward - for progression's own sake. Beauty is too difficult
to translate into numbers, too much a subject to debate. So
why bother? It's easier to build a glass box anyway!
Although it might be true that the ultimate interpretation of
what you see and hear is a mental process, and that
the resulting opinion is slightly different for every person, studies
show that there are striking similarities in how people react
to certain qualities of things they see in their surroundings.
In other words, people tend to like the same kind of
things. We’ll dive a bit deeper into that later.
If there is consensus about what is beautiful, then still:
why should decision-makers and developers care? Well, according to multiple
studies, there is a measurable emotional attachment to places that
are beautiful. For instance. A 2011 survey in the
United States found the strongest correlation between a place’s physical
beauty, and peoples satisfaction out of any other attributes!
That's quite remarkable. But listen to this: in a Gallup survey of
43.000 people in 26 U.S. cities, the same
result came out. Aesthetic attraction to the city was the
third most important, even scoring above education, safety and basic
services! Finally, in another study in the UK,
using an online crowd sourced database of pictures that were judged for
their scenicness, a strong correlation was found between health and
scenicness of the area. So not only the presence of
nature turned out to be important to people's health, but
also how scenic the nature looks like in an area!
In other words, it's beauty! So if you are a decision maker
and you want a happy, healthy community, if you want
to bind skilled workers to your area, you better start
caring about beauty as well. But how then do we build
beautifully? What are the features and buildings and environments that
people like? And why does the majority of people prefer
a very different type of architecture, compared to what contemporary
architects design, according to many polls and studies?
Before we go into practical matters, let's (shortly) dive into the philosophical side
of beauty. Philosophers have had great trouble with the concept
of beauty, and if it is objective or subjective. Earlier thinkers
believed beauty lay the object itself. But in the 18th
century, this started to change. Thinkers like like Hume
and Kant argued that beauty was subjective, as the feelings connected to
the experience of beauty were always created in the mind
of the beholder. What do more recent thinkers say of this?
Well, according to a British philosopher, Roger Scruton, beauty does
have properties which you can recognise. He
talks about how beauty pleases us, how one thing can
be more beautiful than another thing, and that we give
attention to things because they are beautiful. He also states
that beauty is the subject matter of a judgement, which
is the judgement of taste. One of the interesting things
about taste is that it can be learned. This is
often visible among architecture students. Over time, their taste for
buildings changes. This leads us to an interesting phenomenon which
is called is the 'design disconnect’. Architects and the public each
seem to like different kinds of buildings. This effect
was discovered by psychologist David Halpern. He did a study
in 1987 with students in the UK.
A group of volunteer students were shown photographs of unfamiliar
people and buildings, and asked to rate them in terms of
attractiveness. Some of the volunteers were architects, some weren’t.
All the students had similar views of which people were attractive.
But, this changed when they were rating buildings. The architecture
students' favourite building was the least favourite building of the
other students, and vice versa. One of the most interesting things
was, the longer the architecture students had been studying,
the stronger this effect was. These outcomes are shocking, because
it is the architecture students that are supposed to later
design buildings for a population that has exactly the opposite views
on what is beautiful in a building. But this study
does not give the full picture. There's something even stranger
going on. What architects like professionally and what they like
in private might be different as well! Even some of
the most avant-garde architects seem to prefer living or
working in traditionally designed buildings. Instead of modernist buildings,
like they design. Take Rem Koolhaas, for example.
He is the founder of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, which
has designed buildings looking like this. You would expect that
he lives in something like a minimalist apartment himself, right?
Well, no: he lives in a Victorian townhouse in London
that is quite different from what he designs himself. Apparently,
he finds London town houses so attractive that when
he got a means to live in one, he paid the premium
to live there. But he would probably not agree that
something looking like a Victorian town house got built today, in
our time. There are many other examples of Modernist architects
living or working in traditional environments. Norman Foster for example
Or the headquarters of Herzog & De Meuron. Or Jean Nouvel
in Paris, or Zaha Hadid.
I think we can safely say that there is something going on here that goes beyond
taste and ideology of architects. We must look deeper. Is
what we find beautiful in our surroundings perhaps linked to
our human nature? Every day we look at our surroundings
since humans started living in cities, buildings are an important
part of those surroundings. However, our brains evolved to
survive in nature. Long before buildings existed. In those days
we were always looking for safety, shelter, food or things
like fertility cues. From an evolutionary point of view, happiness
comes from the natural forms and patterns that we as
humans associated with a higher chance of survival. We are
basically still Stone Age beings. Agriculture and modern cities are only
a blip on the timeline of our species, Homo Sapiens that
goes back at least 200,000 years, and according to
recent findings, maybe even more. Denis Dutton, an American
philosopher who give an excellent Ted talk on beauty, he states that
we experience beauty because beauty is nature's way of
acting at a distance. It can magnetise certain things by giving
us pleasure looking at it. According to Denis Dutton, all
things that we find beautiful have three things in common:
Firstly: they have a shape or characteristics we inherently like.
Secondly, they are fit for their purpose. And thirdly, they are well-made
and display skill in their making. But, why is that?
What happens in our brains when we see something? And, what
happens if we see something we don't like? Our brain
has a part called the thalamus, which is a part of
the limbic system or our 'emotional brain'. The thalamus transfers
visual data to the amygdala, which also processes fear and
takes us into a fight or flight reaction - sometimes even
without us knowing what is in front of us!
This way, our brain keeps us safe and alive. Some features of
the built environment, like sharp angles, evoke exactly that
fight-or-flight response, and cause stress. We need to be
aware that everything we design will lead to some form
of interaction with our deeper brain structures. We can choose
to design things that make us feel safe and pleasant
or stressed and anxious. So, now it's finally time to
take a look at shapes that we as humans are
hardwired to like. According to some intriguing research by, among
others, Ann Sussman and Dr Justin B Hollander. In the
book Cognitive Architecture, they describe how our hardwired behaviour
relates to what buildings and environments we like.
They even used eye tracking technology to see exactly what
our eyes focus on. You will probably not be surprised
to hear that the shapes and the features we like most
are those we have been surrounded with in nature for
many thousands of years. Animals, plants, faces and humans - all
these things draw our eyes. There is a word for this
love of nature: biophilia. We cannot get rid of these
preferences. They were pre- installed in our hardware.
We simply have to deal with them. So, let's finally look at the
features which I keep referring to.
Here we go!
Fractals.
These are nested structures, self-similar on multiple levels of scale
you'll find them everywhere nature. But, buildings can have fractal
qualities in their facades as well. Symmetry. Symmetry is
also a very important biophilic element. There are various kinds
of symmetry, like bilateral, rotational, and translational symmetry. Symmetry makes a
building feel balanced and it is often used to invoke
the feeling of power, spiritual might, or wealth. Humans seem to
strongly prefer symmetry above asymmetry, which is according to
biologists a preference that this embedded within our DNA.
Ornament. According to Professor Nikos Salingaros, details and ornament
allow human beings to connect to geometrical structures like buildings!
Our brains have evolved to quickly recognise areas of high
contrast and patterns. The right amount of ornament stimulates our brain.
And, as studies show, humans need a certain amount of
informational load from our environment to function in a normal
way. Finally, ornament can give a surface the fractal and symmetrical
qualities we enjoy from nature, in form of plants, animals
and human bodies and faces.
Organised complexity. As humans, we
seem to need some complexity or diversity of form but
not too much. Only order is boring, but only complexity
is chaos. We seem to like things that are somewhere
in the middle. A plain facade too ordered, so we
ignore it. A facade like this on the other hand is too chaotic.
This facade gives the clear structure the brain prefers
Curves. Many psychology research papers have shown that people find
curves more beautiful than straight lines. In architecture, arches are
a beautiful example of curves. Domes and spirals as well.
Nature. Finally, and this should speak for itself, we find nature
attractive. According to studies it makes people feel calmer, heal
faster and even increases happiness! Plants and trees, in the
right amount, always add to the beauty of a place. No wonder people
love parks and fountains! Architects know this all too well.
they often use it in the architectural renders as a sort
of trick to hide an otherwise boring or ugly design proposal.
Now we have a better grip on what we
naturally find attractive, let's put this theory to the test,
by analysing a building: the Louvre, in Paris. So, what
do we see? We see symmetry, curves and ornament.
The facade has a lot of detail, but it is structured, so we get
organised complexity as well. So far for the features of
inherently like. But what about Denis Dutton’s two other requirements
for beauty? Well, the building looks fit for purpose, the
building look strong and solid, but also displays a lot of
skill in its making.
All in all, we could predict that this building will pass the test.
Now let’s look at some other buildings. Almost all
of them lack one or multiple elements which we have
discussed. These buildings will probably not be widely judged as
being beautiful. Sure, many modern buildings do have some feature
or quality that looks ‘cool' or 'iconic’, but will this still be
valued in 50 years? Because gimmicks, like fashion, get outdated
at some point. Many buildings built in the last 50
years already need to be torn down, as they did
not have the qualities that made people connect to them.
All this renovating and rebuilding requires massive amounts of new
concrete, glass and steel. All at a huge cost for
society. And, of course, for the environment. The good news
The good news is that
any designer can use the qualities we described
…and create buildings that will predictably comfort and delight us.
We need to design and build using this evidence to create
environments people really like. This is called evidence based design.
Many architects actually dislike evidence based design as it is
a limit on creative expression and design freedom. But I
But it could really help as it would prevent designers from making
obvious errors such as creating huge blank walls, uncanny
dark spaces or monotonous grey slabs. Let’s at least collectively aim
for beauty again, as it might be essential for the
well-being of millions of people living in cities all over the world.
You have made it this far into the video,
which means you must be somewhat interested in this
topic or also value beauty in our buildings and our cities.
I wonder what your thoughts are!
Put them in the comments below. Also if you liked this you want
me to make more of this type of content, please
help me by liking this video and subscribing to this channel.
It really matters a lot! Also check out the podcast
and the Patreon link if you really want to support
this initiative. That's all for now, thank you and cheerio!
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)