this is why i hate when non-architects try to make spatial arguments. there is a huge psychological difference between a 10' ceiling in a room that is 10' square verses a room that is 10' x 20'. it's more about the proportions of the volume of space rather than just the height of the ceiling. one of my favorite "compressive" spaces is tanaguchi's lobby to the moma addition. despite it probably having a 20' ceiling, the space is so horizontal, you can really feel the horizontal plane of the ceiling above you.
Why would they conduct tests to publish something about something we are already aware of? That's like posting a lab on how I found the acceleration of gravity (sorry just got out of a Phyics final)
University of Minnesota has nothing more interesting do?
Maybe they should have used their funds to buy cheap books on how to decorate your room, usually the first pages are about ceilings, their heights and their colors....
as designers, we are aware of this. And some other people might be aware of this as well. But when research by non-designers concludes something about a design issue, it legitimizes the information for those outside of the design field.
I think if anything, we need more of this quantitative research. It's where the field is going, regardless.
On a serious note, I do enjoy this kind of research even if its not perfect. This kind of thinking can get you passed spatial perception as simply good (cool) vs. bad (lame). There are many variables that architects control where we may be unaware of its implications. And Mark, sure we may have some vague notion of ceiling heights changing perception, but its a totally different issue when they have quantifiable thresholds (which I would assume would have a relationship to body size and proportions of the individual) and measured brain activity.
my problem with this is that while the research may be more nuanced the message is going to reinforce the simplistic, non-spatial notion that high ceilings are "better." in terms of teaching people how to understand architecture it's sending absolutely the wrong message.
I see what you're saying, jafidler, but the article was pretty clear in explaining that it can be just as good to have a low ceiling in some situations. Seemed pretty balanced to me.
This won't exactly be front-page news, either, so I don't think everybody's going to start demanding 15-foot ceilings for a while.
you're right, slant - it's not worth getting worked up over, but it is a reminder of how much we as architects have to overcome, whether it be "style" prefereces, pop science articles from yahoo.com, or whatever else shows up in the latest parade of homes, to effectively communicate with clients. a client who can truly understand architecture is a rare and wonderful beast.
Also, it should be noted that the more the general public becomes aware of how architectural design can effect the work environment and productivity - and thus the bottom line - the more inclined they may be to hire an architect to design their next building, instead of throwing up a developer box or picking house plan 417r from some builder catalogue.
Things are constantly changing, and changing more quickly all the time. Who has time to do leisurely research nowadays? People are inundated by crappy magazines, photo opportunities, celebrity scandals, bullshit news.....
That stuff's not going away. The wise will use some of these things to their advantage. Designers are free to rebel and do their own thing on your own terms, but if you don't succeed in today's marketplace, this is an indication why.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or what it has to do with ceiling heights. All I know is that we all like 10-second sound-bites, and that's not going to change.
On the other hand, some of this research does trickle down over time. Whether it's used for good or evil all depends, and as we know, everything - everything! - can be manipulated.
i think it is interesting to think of design in terms of economics [or rather, perceived economics]
Bruce Mau's Massive Change anyone?
before you get all idealistic on me, economics doesn't have to signify exclusively money, but let's face it, this is the way our world works.
this study seems to me to be another profession experimenting with the currency of attention. and that's great! even if we architects already know that ceiling heights affect your experience of place, we don't automatically know why it is important to somebody else. so i'm all for these funny little experiments and learning what i can about somebody else's perspective.
Ceiling height...
thoughts?
this is why i hate when non-architects try to make spatial arguments. there is a huge psychological difference between a 10' ceiling in a room that is 10' square verses a room that is 10' x 20'. it's more about the proportions of the volume of space rather than just the height of the ceiling. one of my favorite "compressive" spaces is tanaguchi's lobby to the moma addition. despite it probably having a 20' ceiling, the space is so horizontal, you can really feel the horizontal plane of the ceiling above you.
Why would they conduct tests to publish something about something we are already aware of? That's like posting a lab on how I found the acceleration of gravity (sorry just got out of a Phyics final)
University of Minnesota has nothing more interesting do?
Maybe they should have used their funds to buy cheap books on how to decorate your room, usually the first pages are about ceilings, their heights and their colors....
Here's the thing, before bashing the research...
as designers, we are aware of this. And some other people might be aware of this as well. But when research by non-designers concludes something about a design issue, it legitimizes the information for those outside of the design field.
I think if anything, we need more of this quantitative research. It's where the field is going, regardless.
This explains why I read the most in the bathroom
On a serious note, I do enjoy this kind of research even if its not perfect. This kind of thinking can get you passed spatial perception as simply good (cool) vs. bad (lame). There are many variables that architects control where we may be unaware of its implications. And Mark, sure we may have some vague notion of ceiling heights changing perception, but its a totally different issue when they have quantifiable thresholds (which I would assume would have a relationship to body size and proportions of the individual) and measured brain activity.
my problem with this is that while the research may be more nuanced the message is going to reinforce the simplistic, non-spatial notion that high ceilings are "better." in terms of teaching people how to understand architecture it's sending absolutely the wrong message.
I see what you're saying, jafidler, but the article was pretty clear in explaining that it can be just as good to have a low ceiling in some situations. Seemed pretty balanced to me.
This won't exactly be front-page news, either, so I don't think everybody's going to start demanding 15-foot ceilings for a while.
you're right, slant - it's not worth getting worked up over, but it is a reminder of how much we as architects have to overcome, whether it be "style" prefereces, pop science articles from yahoo.com, or whatever else shows up in the latest parade of homes, to effectively communicate with clients. a client who can truly understand architecture is a rare and wonderful beast.
Also, it should be noted that the more the general public becomes aware of how architectural design can effect the work environment and productivity - and thus the bottom line - the more inclined they may be to hire an architect to design their next building, instead of throwing up a developer box or picking house plan 417r from some builder catalogue.
when in doubt, ask an ExPeRt
Things are constantly changing, and changing more quickly all the time. Who has time to do leisurely research nowadays? People are inundated by crappy magazines, photo opportunities, celebrity scandals, bullshit news.....
That stuff's not going away. The wise will use some of these things to their advantage. Designers are free to rebel and do their own thing on your own terms, but if you don't succeed in today's marketplace, this is an indication why.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or what it has to do with ceiling heights. All I know is that we all like 10-second sound-bites, and that's not going to change.
On the other hand, some of this research does trickle down over time. Whether it's used for good or evil all depends, and as we know, everything - everything! - can be manipulated.
vado-
it's the portman hotel in downtown LA in the intro!
i think it is interesting to think of design in terms of economics [or rather, perceived economics]
Bruce Mau's Massive Change anyone?
before you get all idealistic on me, economics doesn't have to signify exclusively money, but let's face it, this is the way our world works.
this study seems to me to be another profession experimenting with the currency of attention. and that's great! even if we architects already know that ceiling heights affect your experience of place, we don't automatically know why it is important to somebody else. so i'm all for these funny little experiments and learning what i can about somebody else's perspective.
Massive Change. Uuuugghhhh.
What a pitiful waste of a good idea.
its the not the ceiling, watch out for that first step its a doosey
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.