boring environments can generate stress, impulsivity, lowered levels of positive affect, and risky behaviour. [...]
based on well-understood principles of neuroplasticity and on what is known of the effects of deprivation and enrichment in other more extreme settings ... there is every reason to believe that these sterile, homogeneous environments are exerting a measurable effect on our behaviour [...]
Given this, the prudent design of city streets and buildings is a matter of public health.
— aeon.co
More on the intersection of urban design and mental health:
24 Comments
Pseudoscience and bad journalism, always the best friends. If Whole Foods in bustling NYC is your case study and prime example of boring, you aren't looking hard enough
Boring articles are bad for your mental health.
irv, clean-up of the conclusion looking for evidence in aisle 9.
boring is in the eye of the beholder, too
interesting website
Have to say it is a solid argument for promoting good design, Stephen Kieran FAIA was a pioneer in this regard early in his career and built his practice around it, speaks fluently on the subject..…because what we do matters to the human condition and using these studies to define our purpose far outweighs our current argument – “We think it looks goods.”
We need more of these kinds of articles to lend creedence to what we do.
"Boring" as criteria inevitably leads to look at me garb. How about meaningful?
ill keep my unquantifiable aesthetic/design expertise, thank you very much.
This block is not boring. It may be ugly, uncomfortable and chaotic but its not boring.
Framing places that are unfriendly to pedestrians as "boring" is problematic, in my opinion. We're not ADHD preschoolers who need constant stimulation. Yes, blank walls are bad for the public realm, we've known that for years, none of the conclusions drawn by the "study" are things that architects didn't already understand - the problem is that designing good public places is at odds with corporate profitmaking.
If architects keep listening to bullshitting pseudo-scientists our gullible profession will just inflict more ridiculous fads on the public - you know how they hide the gorilla's food at zoos so the animals have something to do all day - behavioral enrichment? Let's do that. How 'bout an app?
Boring seems to me to be a catch-all for the study participants' response. They also used "passionless" which I think is a better word.
I walked though downtown Columbus, Ohio yesterday. On one side of the street is this:
On the other side of the street (and up a block) was this:
To me it's obvious which project is at least trying to have some passion for something beyond maximizing ROI, yes?
"If architects keep listening to bullshitting pseudo-scientists our gullible profession will just inflict more ridiculous fads on the public - you know how they hide the gorilla's food at zoos so the animals have something to do all day - behavioral enrichment? Let's do that. How 'bout an app?"
You sound like an old fart.
must ... defend ... apps.
Neither tech nor "new paradigms in design thinking" are going to make everyday public spaces better as long as long as developer's profits are prioritized over the public good.
What the guy is saying isn't wrong. He's right about what kinds of streets are interesting to inhabit. It isn't new, though, I think that the basic ideas go back to Jane Jacobs, right?
Here's what I see as the problem: His methodology is weak, and there's no need to frame the obvious as the result of a scientific process. I know he's not an architect, but our profession has a bad habit of mimicking rigor by producing slick graphics and mountains of paper in the support of a flawed hypothesis. I worry that introducing the idea of "design by psychology" will just induce us to more bullshit. Here's a nice quote from Colin Davies who gets at it better than I could:
Psychology, sociology, economics - the disciplines that deal with the human mind and human behaviour - all stubbornly refuse to conform to the certainties and predictive power of pure science. And yet we feel the need to call them 'social sciences' because science is seen as the only true form of knowledge. At an everyday level, this often leads us to behave in absurd ways. When we feel cold, for example, we look at a thermometer to see how cold it 'really' is. So deep is our respect for the objective reality represented by the scientific instrument that we allow it greater importance than the reality of our own experience. Scientific reality is a disembodied reality. The only reality available to us, however, is the reality of our bodily presence in the world.
Davies, Work and Technology
Aeon is not an architectural publication targeting architects, think the author was doing architects a big favor giving the public some reason to all the apparent madness. Aeon states that “Aeon is committed to big ideas, serious enquiry, a humane worldview and good writing. That’s it.” So, that’s it, it’s not a dictum or movement it’s a supposition based on studies written by an environmental psychologist and neuroscientist.
There are tamer writings that principally say the same thing including "Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs, and writings by Kieran on studies of human behavior as it relates to our built environment, and for us it’s not a matter of buying-it, it’s a matter of selling-it.…I heard a lecture by Kieran when he was at U of M and I ran with it…people love the study of human behavior and it gives reason to what we do, and it’s a tool to explain our purpose…in a world that thinks we have no purpose.
This is what happens when you take the modernist/traditional filter off your eyes. You see the world as its actually experienced and not through an ideological prism. The reaction to this story is amazingly hostile but sadly predictable. Modernism is one of the main culprits of boredom with the monolithic masses and sterile surfaces. This is why I didn't like modernism on the whole before I even knew the whole debate existed. As a kid I simply wondered why so many modern buildings where ugly, and by ugly I mean boring.
If this guy is right and if people like Jane Jacobs have been saying this for a long time, the obvious question is what the hell are we waiting for? What's holding architecture schools up in learning from empirical evidence rather than 100 year old ideologies and manifestos? We know we need to build walkable communities, so why are we holding back from studying the design of those older fine grained blocks and buildings that elicit such pleasure? We're afraid to contradict all the crap we inhaled in schools that we've built our bona fides on. And we know what happens if you say anything remotely favorable towards traditional architecture which was predicated to communicating with the pedestrian through symbol, pattern, and rhythm to name a few.
It's an endless source of fascination how such a progressive, educated, and well meaning folks like architects can be stuck. Developers have always been greedy, it's us who don't know or lack the courage to design spaces their mothers would love. Work with what you have, but make it nice to walk by. As an easily bored pedestrian, I beg you. (or maybe I should go on medication!)
+++Thayer-D
Didn’t realize till this post, that it’s Modernism behind the negative posts. Don’t think that either of Donna’s photos are “boring”, think too that the author should have used a photo of a Walmart instead, that’s what’s at stake.
Said my whole career that architects are their own worst enemies, and agree with Thayer-D completely.
I agree with the article, and Donna, that Eisenman building is gawd awfulllllll!
i'm surrounded by boring shit all day long and i've never been happier. go figure.
Thayer, you're the one who always views architectural issues through a lens of modernism vs anti-modernism. I know that you're politically liberal, but I can't help but think about Fox News and how central the idea of a liberal-media bias is to its existence. And of course that perception drives Fox News to be far more biased than any other major media outlet.
With that said, have you actually experienced the block of Houston Street described in the article?
davvid, the traditional vs. modernist lens is the one imposed by our current schooling. That is the way modernism began, in opposition to traditional architecture, not as another perspective, but as the only valid one. Yes, modernism has changed a lot since its origins, but it maintains its anti-historical, ant-traditional, and anti-ornamental stance. At this point modernism is historical, traditional, and in many ways pro-ornament as the whole building is many times seen as a sculpture, or an ornament to the street.
My issue with the current paradigm (assuming you agree with the premise) is that architecture was a hobby of mine in high school, so I began thinking about it outside the this lens. When I got to Pratt Institute in the mid 80's, everyone I spoke with expressed a preference for the traditional urbanism and architecture of Clinton Hill and Fort Green rather than the near by projects buildings or the glass towers of mid-town Manhattan.
I never understand the arbitrary line separating history into that which could be emulated and that which couldn't, simply on ideological lines. I guess I'm more of an empiricist as this article speaks to. As a liberal and a musician who sampled from any style I likes, it just doesn't make sense to heed these artificial boundaries to what I might be inspired to, especially since my goal is to create something beautiful.
Anyway, please excuse the rambling back story, but I think it's important to understand a wide eyed liberal who loves natural materials, pedestrian detailed buildings and history.
Donna Sink, no it's not particularly obvious which you think has some passion beyond maximizing ROI. Peter Eisenman tried to make a contribution via a convention center that has semi-random chunky bits at odd angles. Across the street, David Meleca built a somewhat over-the-top classical lid over an expressway to hide the traffic from pedestrians. It is successful. Personally, I'd love to see more animation and ornament rather than supposedly exciting chunks. Perhaps that was your point? Or perhaps the opposite?
For to sell you antidepressants with?
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.