Renzo Piano, a world-renowned architect, once called his profession a “dangerous” one.
The key word here is “impose.” Bad architecture is imposed on us. The vast majority of citizens don’t have a say. That needs to change.
Of course, some will say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder—which, by extension, means ugliness is also in the eye of the beholder.
Unattractive buildings aren’t just a strain on the eyes. They’re a strain on the human psyche. The psychological effect of architecture—both the awe-inspiring and headache-inducing—deserves much closer attention.
In short, nothing good.
To address the problem, we must first get to the root of the problem, which appears to be located in architects’ heads.
This ties in with construal level theory (CLT), which helps explain the connection between psychological distance and the degree to which an individual’s thoughts are shaped. The more psychological distance between a person and an event or object, the more abstract their thought tends to be. Ten people dying in a remote part of Africa is, on a psychological level, very different from 10 people dying in your immediate community, for example.
Apply CLT to architecture, and you quickly see how psychological distance could be fueling America’s obsession with the creation of ugly objects. An architect, sitting in an office many miles away from where his or her design will be erected, is coming at it from a purely objective, mathematical level. A great degree of psychological distance is almost certainly guaranteed. Mr. Gifford found that architects don’t merely hold contrasting aesthetic views with non-architects; they appear to lack the ability to discern the disparity between their own aesthetic inclinations and those of individuals who aren’t architects.
When designing buildings, especially buildings that will be viewed, passed by, and used by a large number of American people, shouldn’t citizens have a say?
This is a critically important question to ask.
The Roman architect Vitruvius believed that a truly respectable structure should possess three qualities: stability, utility, and beauty.
This should be considered the holy trinity of architecture. It’s not enough for a building to sit on a solid foundation and serve a specific purpose; it should also be aesthetically pleasing—or, at the very least, not a complete eyesore. Buildings, Vitruvius suggested, “should delight people and raise their spirits.” This is especially true for public buildings.
As Mr. Staczek pointed out, similar to the ways in which we avoid certain routes that are littered with potholes or lines of traffic, we tend to avoid poorly designed spaces, such as dark alleys, basement offices, or certain conference rooms. Visually stressful landscapes become psychologically harmful ones. Offices with low ceilings, poor ventilation, and too few windows, for example, affect worker productivity and mood. Unpleasant environments create unpleasant people. Ugly architecture brings out our ugly side.
