Personally, I have always found that the purpose of a building, or other large structure, is what entirely definiens the design of it. This is usually true as long as it has been built for a specific purpose, and untrue when that is not a factor. For example, a building that is built to be a church will usually have religious aspects built into it, i.e. stained glass windows, cathedral platforms, chapel rooms, etc. Whereas a building that was designed to be an office building then later turned into a church will not posses the same qualities and attributes Anyways, the point is that the intentional purpose of the building is basically like the thesis of everything else that goes into it Without it there would not be anything to actually define the building as it’s own unique structure, which would take away one of the core factors we use to decipher the quality of it’s design.
Another way you could think of it is by considering the purpose of the building as being the set “rules” of what it’s architecture is supposed to accomplish.
A restaurant is supposed to make guests feel guests feel welcome, warm, and ready to relax and sit down for a meal, A hotel is supposed to feel cleanly and organized, yet exotic enough to feel interesting to visiting tourists, And a prison isn’t supposed to do anythings. If anything it is supposed to make guest feel like they can’t leave (aka try to escape), and I haven’t heard of any provisions that aim to make their “guests” feel more comfortable with their surroundings, Aside from those more obvious examples, I have also noticed that architecture styles that are considered more expensive, or “classy” also tend to evoke the most positive of emotions, Having large glass windows, and open corridors to let in sunlight for example.
These are structural elements that are usually associated with penthouses, modern mountainside mansions, and new age pholpshies. It is also no coincidence that these are also some of the most expensive types of structures you can have built into your home or other benign type.
The more pleasure it is likely to bring, the more refined it is considered. To serve as further proof for this I would like to point out the fact that we tend to associates tight spaces and dim lighting with the more “ghetto” sorting of living arraignments. For example, bars on windows, cramped apartment buildings, small houses with low roofsi Then on the other hand, larger proportions, long hallways, and ample lighting tend to be seen as the wealthier sort of establiments. In terms of basic principles this also makes a lot of common sense After All, the bigger the better. It is not to uncommon that for you to hear stories about wealthy people trying to outdo each other by displaying their riches with grand parties, fancy dinners, or frivolous real estate The size of one’s ballroom or living room was supposed to be a way to show off to guests and other competitors. Therefore sensibly, being able to have a home that was larger that someone else’s was a “polite” way of proving that you were better off than they were.
One of the other things that I find interesting about the psychology of architecture is that the color scheme tend to have more of an effect on the atmosphere of the building than people give it credit for, In this way I find that architecture is extremely similar to conventional paintings and two dimensional artworks. Then in addition to that similarly, the quetta for the effect of said colors also tends to be the same, Bright colors evoke positive emotions, and darker ones do the opposite. Though for the sake of being more accurate I should also mention that these underlying subconscious effects are far more complex than that simple rule This is clearly evident in certain cases, like with gray being considered both a formal and drab color to cite a specific example Beige is also a color people tend to associate with a boring lifestyle, yet at the same time a tan shade of beige is also considered lively on an adobe landscape.
All of this just goes to show how much complexity goes into dealing with the numerous factors that are incorporated into creative architecture. Which also leads us into the dilemma of organized and practical architecture. For example cereal buildings that are meant to be created and recreated hundreds of times. We see this often times in military stand housing projects, company office buildings, or recurring chains of building made by certain large corporations, Aside from being repetitive, this buildings also tend to be the least archut lally pleasing, More often than not they are designed to be overly simplistic so as to cut down on costs and save money for their benefactors This is why we see Targets and Safeways that are always similar on the inside, and almost always have the same department settings. While it is practical to create these structures in this way on monetary terms, it it utterly uninspiring from and heechul viewpoint, and has almost no positive effect on the spectator.
Though to be perfectly fair, it‘s not like people go to department stores to judge the architecture of the place. Once again that also ties into the effect the purpose of a building can have on the psychological effect it creates for people. The more important, special, or significant a place is supposed to be, the more likely it will be designed to have some kind of emotional effect on the people who enter it. It is for this reason that we tend to associate churches, places or government, and other important fields with fanciful and descoted arLitecturet And it is also why no one tends to get on Walmart’s case for having all of their stores be carbon copies of one another, We just don’t expect that kind of performance out of a building designed for the purpose of being a supermarts, conventions store, or other average brand name.
A Fascination of the Psychology of Architecture. (2022, Oct 23). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/a-fascination-of-the-psychology-of-architecture/