|
|
Aesthetic Objectivity:
|
|
|
Dennis W. Hudacsko, AICP
|
© & Author Info |
The soft issues of personal taste and preference involved in site aesthetics can be treated with objectivity. Planners can accomplish this by using an evaluative vocabulary derived from insights about the biological basis of aesthetic reactions. With the public's increasing desire for more attractive user-friendly environments, objective evaluations of aesthetics can be an important tool for the profession. This paper describes a methodology, derived from elements of fine art composition theory and bio-psychology theory, which meets the needs of planners who want to produce hard, fact-based judgements about site aesthetics.
New scientific insights into how the mind works can bring greater objectivity to aesthetic evaluations. Aesthetic judgement has always been considered a matter personal taste and therefore subjective. As a result it has been denied legitimacy as a true aim of zoning. Getting support for aesthetic judgement is routine only where specific tastes have widespread acceptance, like with landscape buffers and refuse screening. Otherwise, success has been rare. This is because the law places heavy reliance on rational judgement and reasoning. It relies on facts and principles which are predictable, undeviating and readily discernable. These are characteristics not usually attributed to aesthetic perceptions. But now, an understanding of the bio-chemical operations of the brain provides the basis for that rationality.
Planners have sought ways to get favorable action on aesthetic judgements since the profession began. In an effort to gain explicit legitimacy, planners have formalized their subjective approaches. Some have even incorporated pseudo-objective elements such as numerical rating systems. Unfortunately, these systems lack the persuasive power of objectivity.
To develop more objective approaches, we must unravel the dichotomy between objective reasoning and subjective feeling. The division between these two distinct mental processes has separated the soft issue of aesthetics from the harder concerns of zoning such as health, safety, overcrowding, traffic congestion and property value. Aesthetic judgement is indeed based on feeling, emotion, and not reasoning. It is because of the seemingly inscrutable nature of emotions that aesthetics is considered a subjective matter. If we always understood why people felt the way they did, emotional expressions would be part of objective reasoning.
Modern science provides the needed basis for objective understanding of emotions. New biological findings about emotions can provide a vocabulary that describes aesthetic reactions in readily discernable terms that have predictability and constancy. With this objective vocabulary, the subjective perception of aesthetics can be made to give way. The visual impact assessment methodology described in this paper relies on this vocabulary to classify and express aesthetic judgements with objectivity.
Once aesthetic reactions are expressed in objective terms, their logical connection to the public good can be directly demonstrated. Put on truly objective terms, aesthetic aims can be incorporated into zoning codes and justified as readily as the need for air and light.
The methodology described simply uses an objective vocabulary to evaluate the character of the spaces which make up a site. The resulting assessment identifies the specific features which make a positive or negative contribution to the emotions of people visiting those spaces.
The visual impact assessment can be used to guide the developer's design process or it can be used by public reviewing agencies to critique submitted plans. The assessment can help the developer and the reviewer recognize where their shared intentions coincide.
Aesthetics is a matter which prompts indefinite, often vague feelings. As unclear as the feelings may be, their intensity is often extreme. Why shouldn't regulation of such a matter be fraught with jeopardy? It can result in the adversarial clash of two unknowable forces. The courts have skillfully and wisely evaded arbiting such conflicts directly. It is a challenging endeavor. Wresting with the knotty problem of public taste prompted one judge to comment, "I know it when I see it, but defining it - that is another matter." Aesthetic regulation has always encountered difficulty with the fundamental legal barriers that arise from the logical reasoning principles of ancient Roman Law. These principles require that legally sanctioned public judgements be based on objectivity and legitimacy - two traits not fully accorded to aesthetics. The ability to view aesthetics with greater objectivity opens an avenue to overcoming this impediment.
Even ignoring regulatory considerations, to deal with aesthetics has always been difficult. Notions of artistic temperament stem from the frustrations inherent in communicating aesthetic visions. The difficulty stems from the lack of a vocabulary that can be universally comprehended. Such an ability is essential for any fair and reasonable public review. Historically, the highly personalized, emotional nature of aesthetic expression has stood in the way. The whole notion of aesthetic review has repeatedly been attacked as an unwarranted intrusion. Without a consistent basis for understanding, even those we consider to be design geniuses have found it difficult to gain support and concurrence.
Frederick Law Olmstead, the acclaimed park designer, was enraged at what he felt was the defiling of his vision for New York City's Central Park. During the civil war, when the park was taking on recognizable form, he took a leave to support the work of the forerunner of the Red Cross. He left continuation of the park's construction in the hands of others for only a few years. After the war, he returned, intent on his vision of recreating the natural beauty of the Adirondack Mountains. He was crushed to discover that the thousands of trees that he had selected and planted had been pruned into boulevard trees. Park administrators had directed the removal of all tree limbs within a dozen feet of the ground. The pastoral effect he had sought was largely lost. So much for natural beauty.
Similar frustrations were experienced by the great French impressionist Claude Monet. The painter of the famed Water Lilies murals encountered incredible resistance from local government authorities when he tried to build the elaborately landscaped garden from which he later painted his scenes. Although the construction took place in the 1890's - well before the advent of zoning - his descriptions of governmental obstruction echo the complaints of contemporary builders. Only by resorting to a total disregard of the authorities and neighbors was he able to complete construction of his famous pond.
Even America's great architect, Lloyd Wright encountered continual difficulties with conveying his visions persuasively. Fallingwater, his cantilevered residential masterpiece was the result of disappointing compromises. Set in a wooded Pennsylvania ravine, he proposed to finish the prominent concrete terrace walls with gold leaf to mirror the hue of fallen leaves. Even Wright was unable to convince his client that this wasn't an unnecessary personal extravagance.
Consider the difficulty such highly successful figures encountered. We should not wonder at the challenge of trying to succeed in the more adversarial context of a regulatory process. With development review the objective is not to transform a particular development plan into a masterpiece. Instead we try to eliminate objectionable elements - often subtle ones - from the final rendition. Despite the less demanding intent, the challenge is more difficult. An objective vocabulary is essential to the productive exchanges needed to address such concerns.
Planners, no doubt, want acceptance of and favorable action on their professional judgements. The professional planner's role is to provide objective insight and advice but with aesthetics, this role is supported only by a body of accepted subjective practices and principles. Consensus exists on the need for buffer plantings, boulevard trees, visual screening, decorative utilities and other amenities. Absent is objective guidance for judging the aesthetics of these features.
Probably the most important body of information on site design is contained in Kevin Lynch's classic work - Site Planning. This immensely influential book is comprehensive, articulate and visionary. It identifies the aims of good design and provides a sound basis for a planner to subjectively address aesthetic issues.
Lynch catalogues the criteria for adequate design but concedes that it is ". . . difficult to define what adequate is . . . ." It he says ". . . depends heavily on the interests and past experience of viewer . . .." Lynch's concession fits squarely with the notion that aesthetics is a highly subjective matter.
In our courts, subjectivity is the explicit polar antithesis of objectivity. The Latin roots of these words make this dichotomy clear. The word "ob-jective" means literally a thing that has been put before the mind. There it can be subject to reasoning. The word "sub-jective" means a thing that has been "put under", invisible to our mind. It is therefore something not subject to our reasoning.
Our legal system is rooted in a tradition of logical reasoning with knowable facts as the basis for judgement. Fairness is a matter of excluding what is not understandable or visible from consideration. Under our legal system, the power to control development is subject to the limitation that regulations not be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Consider the significance which the objective-subjective dichotomy plays in the definitions of those words:
Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by reason, or principle. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.
Capricious - Tending toward sudden, unpredictable action, change with a lack of apparent motivation.
Unreasonable - Not rational. Not governed by or being in accord with reason or sound thinking.
These terms focus on the need to support decisions with facts which can be made subject to reasoning.
Court resistance to aesthetics as a valid basis for zoning has lessened over time. The change in acceptance is visible in the tone of two decisions.
In striking down a billboard setback requirement in 1903, a New Jersey court opinion stated that,
"Aesthetic considerations are a matter of luxury and indulgence rather than of necessity, and it is necessity alone which justifies the exercise of the police power . . ." City of Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting, Advertising & Sign Painting Co., 72 NJL at 287, 62 A at 268 (1904).
By 1965, an Oregon court echoed the sentiments that now prevail, ". . .there is a growing judicial recognition of the power of the city to impose zoning restrictions which can be justified solely upon the ground that they will tend to prevent or minimize discordant and unsightly surroundings. This change in attitude is a reflection of our tastes and the growing appreciation of cultural values in a maturing society." Oregon City v. Hartke, 240 Ore 35, 400 P2d 255 (1965).
As far as the courts may have come, they seem reluctant to embrace aesthetic considerations. They do in extreme and egregious situations or in conjunction with other more tangible factors. They don't otherwise. The legal system is unlikely to depart from the need for a rational basis for decisions and acceptance of public taste as a substitute basis is likely to occur slowly. It is for this reason that we can expect control over aesthetic issues to be sanctioned only to the degree that regulations are based on knowable facts which can be subject to reason.
Attempts to look at aesthetics objectively go back to the ancient Egyptians who devised precise mathematical systems for proportioning their structures and art. More refined systems were cultivated by the classical Greeks and Romans and later revived by renaissance Europeans. Mathematical formulas have been devised for proportion, composition, color and other artistic elements. Quantification has formalized the ideal but we have little understanding about the effects of departing from such standards. In the end, aesthetics remains undeniably a matter to be sensed and expressed emotionally.
Our common perception of emotion is that of an inherently subjective essence, a quality in opposition to rationality. It is fair to say that as long as emotion remains undiscernible, it remains hidden from reason and is by definition subjective. It is also fair to say that to the degree that emotion becomes more discernable and predictable, it becomes increasingly objective.
Discerning the predictable properties of emotion has been a major scientific challenge penetrated only in the last few years. Research in genetics, bio-chemistry and other emerging scientific fields has advanced and altered our understanding immensely in a short time. The emotional system is among the latest parts of living organisms to be discovered. Man has undoubtedly been aware of the skeletal system since pre-historic times. The circulatory, digestive, reproductive and nervous systems were explored and mapped centuries ago. In more recent times, science has investigated the immune system and discovered the affect system.
The biological affect system is of specific importance to objectively understanding emotions and therefore aesthetics. The pioneering discoveries were first published in 1962 by Silvan S. Tomkins. He was the first to describe the collection of bio-chemical mechanisms that actually account for emotional reactions (Tomkins, 1962, 1963 and 1991). His work has been furthered by others and during the last decade a body of usable theories was expounded.
Affect theory explains emotion with a simple premise. Donald L. Nathanson, Executive Director of the Tomkins Institute in Philadelphia, says that "all thought is brought to consciousness by affect" and all behavior, regardless of how insignificant, is motivated by affect. This premise echoes the ancient literal meaning of emotion as "that which causes one to move."
According to affect theory, the seemingly limitless range of human emotions is accounted for by a handful of biological reactions. These reactions are triggered by the processing of stimuli. These reactions determine how we feel. What brings objectivity to understanding emotions is that these reactions are triggered without regard to thought content. Affect is universal and is classified with reference only to the rate and intensity of stimuli. This makes emotional responses discernable and predictable.
With affect theory, emotion is no longer seen as a hidden, unpredictable force. Modern science will continue to unravel the mysteries of the mind. It will bring the processes to light, making them knowable, predictable - and more objective.
Affect theory can provide the causal connection between unintended emotional effects of site design and societal problems. An understanding of this concept will give planners the legitimate objective basis for directly regulating development aesthetics. It is, however, unlikely that the affect produced by the aesthetics of any particular site feature or even of an entire site will have significant consequence. The concern is not about specifics. It is about widespread patterns. It is the cumulative nature of adverse emotional reactions to an unrelentingly adverse physical environment that is of concern. The cumulative impact can impair the public good to a degree that deserves public intervention.
Theories about affect already explain animal and human behaviors including dysfunctional and sociopathic variants. Investigators are beginning to document how intense affect levels have undesirable consequences for the individual and society.
Public health impacts are a legitimate planning concern in which environmentally induced affect may play an important role. People frequently adjust to chronic affect by disregarding it, but at higher levels problems emerge. Emotional links to physical health are suspect. Links between distress and immunity to disease are being researched. Links between chronic disillusionment and depression are under study. Simultaneously there is a growing interest in therapies based on aroma, art, music, visualization and other affect related alternative medicine.
Public safety impacts are another legitimate concern related to excessive affect. Accident proneness apparently stems from persistent affect causing a mental tunnel-vision which impairs judgement by reducing peripheral awareness and judgement. The substantial societal cost of accidents in the workplace, on public roadways and elsewhere is well documented.
Violent crime impacts are another legitimate concern. Intense anger, increasingly seen in road-rage incidents, gang activity and other violent crime stems from cumulative affect pushed to intense levels. Even the linkage between distressing, confusing physical environments and violent, criminal behavior has long been evident to urbanologists. It is not unreasonable to predict an increasing number of studies linking affect to societal problems, especially urban ones.
The legitimacy of aesthetic development regulations need no longer be undermined by a continuing perception that aesthetics is a matter of mere personal taste - a matter of individual preference with no nexus to the public good. Affect theory brings discernibility, predictability and constancy to understanding human emotion and its linkage between urban stress and urban social problems. It has the power to provide both objectivity and legitimacy to aesthetic regulation.
Affect theory coupled with other brain research offers a model for how people react emotionally to their environment. This research suggests that each person will actually have unique experiences to what they observe, but there is enough of a common reaction that these reactions can be seen objectively. More importantly, the experiences can be classified as positive or negative. It is on this basis that the aesthetics of a development plan can be objectively evaluated.
The key component of mental processing may be pattern matching. Human reactions can be seen as stemming from the ability or inability of the brain to process new information and relate it to memories of prior information.
Recognizing a familiar song triggers such a reaction. Contestants on the classic TV show Name that Tune demonstrated just how amazing this highly sensitive mechanism is. Challenged to name a tune with as few notes as possible, some musical wizards succeeded with as few as two notes.
How is this possible? The brain is constantly trying to fit the present situation into an old context. To simplify, it is when the brain makes the match that we experience a positive affect which then helps access related memories. On the other hand, when stumped, the suboptimal processing produces a different negative affect. This negative affect also triggers access to memories - memories related to that stumped feeling. Another affect is triggered when you hear the name of a tune you couldn't recall. We all can recognize that these reactions take place within ourselves and are aware of the memories so easily triggered by such simple stimuli as a couple of musical notes.
It is the fact that the brain is so driven to find a match that we can experience optical illusions, mistaken identities, deja vu and flashbacks. More importantly, emotional experiences can be seen in terms of how readily new information can be processed. It is because we can relate the emotional reaction to the ability to process information that allows us to make an objective assessment of the impact of aesthetics.
It is the nature of the processing that determines emotion and ultimately our reactions. These reactions occur in all mobile creatures and serve as the basis for their reactions. It determines whether an animal is drawn to food, is startled by something, flees in fear or fights in anger. This system is a predictable outcome of evolution for mobile creatures. Creatures without a system working in this fashion simply cannot survive as well. The reactions tend to focus conscious thought on relevant memories and therefore support repetition of successful responses to life situation. It is the nature of the processing that determines our aesthetic reactions to our physical environment.
Because these reactions are so consistently related to the ability to process information from our environment, we can predict the kinds of experiences people will have with different types of settings.
Before examining the specific kinds of experiences that are useful in judging aesthetics, it is helpful to review briefly the basic elements of a site from a design perspective. Just how the physical treatment of these site elements is related to the activity taking place on the site is what determines to a substantial degree the kind of experiences they produce.
Kevin Lynch's book, Site Planning describes a number of aspects that good design must fulfill (Lynch, 1971). Attention focused on spaces, focal points and transitions.
Spaces are simply the visually bounded three-dimensional places in which a person can experience his or her physical environment, the place where you are. Boundaries are the outer limits of visual perception. Sites are made up of a number of spaces, sometimes overlapping. Lynch sees the site experience as a sequence of spaces.
Focal points are the centers of visual interest or intense activity within a space. Viewing points are the point from which a focal point is observed and views are the visual expanse that encompasses the focal point as observed from a particular viewing point. A space may have multiple focal points, viewing points and views.
Transitions are the interconnections between individual spaces. They may be spaces themselves.
The site elements are physically shaped and decorated by features which can be categorized in many ways. One approach, taken from Art of the Olmstead Landscape, involves seven types of features (Kelly, 1981).
Circulation Systems include the paths and roadways that allow movement of people by foot or vehicle. They serve to carry people through the sequence of spaces that make up a site.
Topography includes the natural and man-made landforms. Topography may be innocuous or it can serve as the boundary for a space or as a focal point if unusual.
Water can be a static or dynamic site feature in its various forms. Water is most frequently a focal point especially in its dynamic flowing forms. It can also serve as a visual boundary where great enough expanses exist or where airborne sprays block vision.
Horticulture includes the tree, shrub, and groundcover plantings that are the living context of a site. Plantings can serve as boundaries when densely arranged in visually harmonious barriers. Plants can act as focal points when selected with sufficient contrast to their surroundings.
Architecture includes the major man-made features that support the major site functions such as buildings, bridges and walls or fences. Architecture is malleable enough to change form within one structure. Bland portions of a wall can act as a boundary while highly decorated portions can act as focal points.
Landscape accessories complement the major architecture. Accessories include benches, lamps, planters, and other smaller man made elements. Paving of walks and even of parking lots can be seen as accessories. Depending on their contrast to their surroundings they can serve as focal points or blend into the boundary features.
Infrastructure includes the man-made features which are purely utilitarian. Visible infrastructure might include electrical transformers, HVAC equipment, hydrants, traffic signals, signs, and site lighting. Although some quite attractive examples of integrating utilities into site design exist, these features are most often hidden where possible and decorated elsewhere.
What are the types of reactions that have been cataloged? How can they be used to objectively judge development aesthetics? The complexities of affect theory can be reduced to a simpler classification which can serve as a vocabulary for aesthetic evaluation. Six types of aesthetic emotional experiences can be identified. These experiences reflect how people are able to process the information the encounter in a physical spaces. Different spaces produce different experiences because of how effectively new information can be processed. Six types of experiences can be identified and used in judging aesthetics: Attraction, Distraction, Stress, Relief, Disillusionment and Aversion.
We experience attraction when our minds can process new information in an optimal fashion. It is what keeps a person interested in Name That Tune. When we can quickly understand and relate new information in some way to past experience, we are drawn to the source of the information and focus our attention on it. All creatures (people, horses, dogs, cats, even snails) are motivated to pursue the object of interest whether that might be a new toy, a mystery novel or some other new object. Spaces can be said to be attractive when they are readily understandable and provide something new that engages our interest. Activity focal points can be made more attractive when coupled with complex design features that provide an attractive experience of their own.
Over-optimal processing can be said to occur when stimuli appear suddenly and intensely. All creatures tend to freeze and focus intense attention on the object. On Name That Tune, the first musical note will rivet our attention - and cause us to exclude all other sights and sounds from our attention. We become lost in the moment. It is a reaction that serves to prepare us by riveting our attention but it also leaves us vulnerable because we are no longer able to process other happenings around us. Distracting elements like flashing signs can make for hazardous spaces where attention needs to be focused elsewhere for safety.
When processing is sub-optimal, new information may not be readily processed to fit with the matrix of past memories. Incongruence between new information and past experiences will trigger various forms of stress.
When we are unable to "name that tune" the discomfort that we sense comes from the inability to process the information quickly and retrieve an appropriate matching memory. This state of distress is usually accompanied by a disruption of physical activity while the brain attempts to unravel the puzzle. Distress causes creatures to avoid uncomfortable situations.
Where we cannot fully make sense of features in a physical space we experience distress. This can be brought on by a lack of congruence between activity patterns and design patterns. Overly active design features in locations with little actual activity can produce inconsistent stimuli which trigger distress. The mind expects that the intensity of the visual character will coincide with the intensity of the activity.
While activity focal points will be more attractive when treated in complex contrasting style, the opposite approach will produce distress. Where the surrounding ambiance is more complex and interesting than the focal point, the subtle incongruence undermines what should be an attraction reaction and in its place arises a distressing reaction.
In reviewing design, a distressful reaction can be predicted where the information provided by intensity of the activity and the physical design are not congruent and cannot be readily processed. If activity and design do not go hand in hand, the result is distress.
When distress is intensified, it can readily be transformed into anger. It is important to see frustrating experiences as contributing to the production of anger and the societal consequences that follow. Designs which have this unwanted side effect trigger the fight part of the classic fight-or-flight response.
It is the cumulative contribution of distressing experiences that serve as a precursor to anger that make eliminating distressing visual experiences from development sites so important. Rarely does a design feature capable of producing an intense angry experience escape the designer's attention. Distressful incongruities are more insidious. The cumulative effect of a day's worth of distressing experiences can often, if not frequently, be pushed to intense levels. There are many ways of reducing the cumulative load - better site design is just one way.
Fear is another form of stress. When the rate at which distressing experiences are encountered increases rapidly, it produces fear. This principle is at work in the typical amusement park haunted house where patrons are exposed to imponderable stimuli at a mounting frequency and intensity. Less intense levels of accelerating frequency is experienced as anxiety. The classic flight response is the unwanted affect of many undesirable urban environments that produce this accelerating form of stress.
At the point in a stressful experience when sub-optimal processing ceases , we experience relief. Affect theory has demonstrated that what we call joy is really relief from low level stress. Laughter is triggered by abrupt and sudden relief from stressful situations. The experience tends to reverse the negative feelings and amplify their intensity proportionately. The greater the preceding distress, the greater the enjoyment. Sudden dramatic scenic vistas are an excellent example of the relief experience. Olmstead and Wright frequently incorporated this type of experience into their designs. A narrow wooded path suddenly turning onto an open meadow was Olmstead's favorite. For Wright, it was the low ceilinged corridor opening into a dramatic cathedral-like space.
A counter to relief is disillusionment. Expectations play an important part in disillusionment. When attraction or relief experiences - or anticipation of them - is interrupted, the experience also reverses and intensifies the feelings. When we discover that a person we have pursued is not who we expected - mistaken identity - we experience this. It turns an anticipated positive experience into an intensely unpleasant one; the greater the positive feelings are, the greater is the sense of disillusionment. Whatever the impediment, all creatures tend to withdraw. We instinctually cut off further external input and become wholly introspective - and unconsciously recall similar experiences from the past.
Designs which produce intense disillusionment are rare and quickly corrected once recognized. Like the situation with low level distress, the problem is an insidious one. Low level disillusionment may be hard to sense, but it can create a pervasively negative environment where least expected.
Affect theory has shown a link between disillusionment and rage. Because of the extreme effects of the relief and disillusionment experiences, plans should be examined with care for this potential.
While the preceding experiences are quite predictable, and therefore treatable in fairly objective fashion, one experience is quite subjective. It is therefore important to distinguish it in reviewing plans. We experience aversion, when an object appears that we have tagged as unacceptable. This is a learned behavior and is quite personal and subjective - understandable only to the individual. This commonly occurs with foods and clothing styles but almost anything imaginable can be tagged in this way. All creatures tend to reject and shun such objects. This is the one truly subjective aspect of aesthetics.
This affect based classification of aesthetic experiences advances the objectivity of design evaluation. Kevin Lynch introduced his "sensuous design criteria" as a basis for judging acceptable design but was unable to take it beyond an acknowledged subjectivity. Affect theory allows planners to take that step.
Lynch described several considerations (Lynch 1971). Comparisons to the objective aesthetic experience classification are easily drawn.
Comfort was characterized by Lynch as an avoidance of unpleasantness or intolerability. His perceptions and insights are confirmed by the affect based experiences but with added precision and a degree of objectivity. Comfort corresponds to the classifications of Stressing Experiences, Disillusionment Experiences and Aversion Experiences.
Diversity, he described, as pleasure felt from variations and change, distinct contrasting character. Again this can be objectively related to Attraction Experiences and Relief Experiences.
Behavioral Support addressed the need for visible territories separated to buffer conflicts. Achievement of this requires establishing boundaries which avoid Stressing Experiences.
Identity was something Lynch related to a "sense of place", recognizable, memorable, vivid, characteristic capable of engaging attention. Success can be gauged by the presence of Attraction Experiences.
Temporal & spatial legibility were characterized by Lynch as providing emotional security and self identity. The fulfillment of this criteria can be objectively met with Attraction Experiences and the avoidance of Stressful Experiences.
Meaning was a concern that he expressed in terms of cultural legibility of function, activity, social structure and human values as well as economic & political patterns. This also can be objectively judged as satisfied by Attraction Experiences.
By examining a site or a development plan for the factors that produce various aesthetic experiences, an objective assessment can be made of the visual impact of the design. The reviewer can examine the various elements of the site searching for characteristics that will produce predictable experiences. Because of the objective nature of the assessment, the analysis and recommendations to ameliorate problems can be presented with fairness and impartiality.
The question of arbitrary or capricious judgement can be put aside by a well-defined rational analysis.
The first step is to identify the chief visual elements of the site. This means the boundaries, linkages, viewing points and focal points for each space need to be depicted conceptually on the development plan. Serial numbering will aid in methodically recording information.
The analysis should not only consider the major functional spaces such as parking areas and interior courtyards but also the spaces that form the entry and exit paths through out the site. It is highly desirable to consider the spaces related to the views of approaching drivers along the adjacent roadway and the spaces that may be related to views from neighboring properties.
It is preferable to perform an analysis for each space. Aesthetic experiences and their causal factors are identified and listed for each space. The primary emphasis should be on identifying incongruities between purpose and appearance.
Spatial boundaries should be examined for stress experiences and the conditions that generate them. Physical features should be used to visually delineate the boundaries of a space. Nearby walls may bound an intimate courtyard while a distant horizon might serve as the boundary of a scenic overlook.
Sense of enclosure is an important aesthetic characteristic of spaces. Reviewers should note aspects of the enclosing features which are not consistent with the intended boundaries.
The character of boundary features needs to convey a visual sense of harmony rather than variety. The reviewer should examine boundary features such as planted buffers and building walls for excessive variety in color, form or size. Boundaries should not produce attractive experiences and should remain relatively uninteresting.
Style must also be congruent with the nature of the activity. Reviewers should consider the degree to which symmetry and balance enhance formal activity areas or conflict with informal activity areas.
Activity focal points should be examined to ensure that their design and embellishment produce attractive experiences. Stress or disillusionment experiences can emerge where an attraction experience is not stimulated. These experiences can trigger unexplained hostility - not a desirable situation for the workplace or shopping. It is essential to increase the variety of design elements at portals between spaces such as building entrances or parking lot entry/exit points. Failure to provide distinctive elements to denote parking lot portals is a common failing. The reviewer should look for design element variety to coincide with concentrations of activity.
Proportion is a special concern with sculptural and artistic. Reviewers should examine profiles for elements that appear to defy gravity or seem out of scale for their intended purpose. The classical mathematical standards such as the Golden Mean and Fibronacci Numbers reflect ratios that replicate those found in nature. Conformance with the familiar can be seen as triggering attraction experiences while departures trigger a stress experience because of their incongruity.
Dimension, provides a sense of space ranging from deep to shallow. Reviewers should ensure that foreground and background objects are provided to frame focal points.
Dominance provides a sense of importance ranging from vital to trivial. Reviewers should look for incongruence between the visual importance of focal point objects and the vitalness of activity.
Economy provides a sense of legibility. Reviewers should identify how an increased number of focal points within one space can move from simplicity to confusion.
Movement is a desired sense of direction induced by a linear arrangement of similar objects. Reviewers should check that alignments coincide with major focal points.
Portals linking spaces should be examined for relief experiences and disillusionment experiences. It is desirable for such transitions to produce relieving experiences and while avoiding disillusioning experiences.
One might think that a reverse passage through a portal would produce the opposite experience. Not so. Relief experiences come from relaxation of a particular aspect which has produced a mildly stressful experience in the space just left. This might be relieving a sense of closeness with a sudden openness, or a lack of perceived destination with a sudden vision of one. For this reason, transitions are best designed as very small distinct spaces of their own - building foyers as an example.
Because relief and disillusionment experiences are the most intense, success and failure at transition points is likely to produce the greatest impact.
Individual element profiles and placement should be examined for possible distraction experience or aversion experience.
All elements should be examined for distraction experiences. Suddenly appearing physical features distract the viewer from their prior focus and refocus attention totally. Careful attention is needed to ensure that distraction is associated with positive experiences such as relief or attraction. Distraction elements should be avoided in areas requiring broad attention "bandwidth" such as near traffic intersections and merges with conflicts.
All elements should be examined for aversion experiences. Traditionally, we screen views of unacceptable objects. Sometimes, however, the screening features themselves become so standardized that they are psychologically tagged with the revulsion associated with the object they hide. This is the case with refuse enclosures which are intended to block views of the containers once considered sufficient to block views of open refuse piles. This suggests why disguise should be the true objective. The reviewer must use great caution with aversion experiences since they are a learned association. Aversion accounts for the way in which new fashions and styles gain acceptance slowly then die slowly. These experiences are culturally based - and not truly objective. What one person finds revolting may be another's delight and consensus must be seen as a delicate matter. Consider the Eifle tower or the Statue of Liberty. We accept them wholeheartedly in their context but imagine either proposed to be built in your community.
Developers and local governments can directly incorporate the visual impact assessment methodology into their design and review processes to help focus attention on important aesthetic issues. Where a local government might feel the need to control negative impacts, a regulatory approach would be needed and would require the adoption of ordinances.
It is important to avoid succumbing to the fallacy that objectivity requires quantification or specification of the results or limits. Standards have a role to play, but they are not inherently objective. When imposed where principles are more appropriate, they merely impose arbitrary subjectivity under the guise of objectivity.
Implementing ordinances should be crafted to accomplish several important objectives.
Ordinances containing these features will enable local governments to address aesthetic issues with fairness, impartiality and objectivity. The community will benefit immediately by the predictability with which positive aesthetic experiences are incorporated into new developments and developers will appreciate the increase in aesthetic quality that comes from more effective design rather than increased expenditure. It is a win-win approach that can meet everyone's needs.
Eck, J. Elements of Garden Design, (New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1996).
Greene, Sherwin. "City Shape," APA Journal (Spring 1992).
Kelly, Bruce, and Jeffrey Simpson. Art of the Olmstead Landscape, (New York: New York City Landmarks Commission and the Arts Publisher, Inc., 1981)
Lynch, Kevin. Site Planning, 2d ed. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971).
Nathanson, Donald L. Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992)
Ocvirk, Otto G. et al. Art Fundamentals: Theory & Practice, 7th ed. (Madison: Brown & Benchmark, 1994).
Tomkins, Silvan S. Affect/imagery/consciousness vol. 1: The positive affects, (New York: Springer, 1962)
Tomkins, Silvan S. Affect/imagery/consciousness vol. 2: The negative affects, (New York: Springer, 1963)
Tomkins, Silvan S. Affect/imagery/consciousness vol. 1: The negative affects: anger and fear, (New York: Springer, 1991)
Dennis W. Hudacsko, AICP
Mr. Hudacsko is a planning consultant in Bedminster, NJ