Introduction
We all know from our experience that some places feel better than others.
Students typically prefer to study in a space which is roomy, well-lit, has soft
furnishings, and is painted in pastel colors over a room that is boxy, illuminated
with fluorescent lighting, has institutional furniture, and is painted in bright
orange and blue! No doubt there are some exceptions to this pattern, but few. But
beyond these obvious factors of light, color, furnishings, why do we prefer some
places to others? Do some places feel better than others to most people? What
does "feeling better" mean? What processes are involved when people respond
with positive emotion to their surroundings? Can we determine common
denominators to use in our design of campuses? Can they be designed with good
intent rather than by uncaring default? Are there voices about "feel good designs"
from our "collective" past?
Timeless Way of Building
Christopher Alexander and his colleagues at the Berkeley Institute for Environmental Structure say that there is a "timeless way of building" (Alexander, 1979):
There is one timeless way of building. It is thousands of years old, and the same today as it has been. The great traditional buildings of the past, the villages and tents and temples in which man feels at home, have always been made by people who were very close to the center of this way. It is not possible to make great buildings, or great towns, beautiful places, places where you feel yourself, places where you feel alive, except following this way. p.7Alexander's (1977) "timeless way" calls for recognition of the "common pattern language" in our designing and building. Our towns and buildings will not come alive unless designers express this shared common pattern language. The elements of this language are entities called "patterns" (Alexander, 1977):
Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice. p. xAlexander goes on to present 253 patterns. For example, pattern No.243 describes a sitting wall. The pattern speaks to the concern that high walls and fences are not always appropriate to use in dividing environmental spaces. Some marking of boundary is needed, but major structures could be overwhelming to the inhabitant. This problem can be solved by designing a barrier which functions as a separation structure, and at the same time a joining structure i.e., "a sitting wall." Alexander goes on to describe the function and specific pattern of the sitting wall.
Sitting walls make minor boundaries between spaces and are designed just right to be used as sitting places. This in Alexander's scheme is common language pattern No.243. We all have experienced this "sitting wall" pattern on our campuses. The delight we have when we find a "sitting wall" just in the right place and just the right design for sitting and daydreaming or sitting and visiting with a friend. We also know the frustration of not having such a Wall where we need it or finding one that is not designed correctly. We have "feelings" about sitting walls (Photograph 1).
Whyte (1988) has captured this sense of "feeling" in his concepts of
"sittable space". In a sense, these patterns speak our preferences. Where do these
preferences come from? Again, are there voices from the past?
"Innate" Voices from the Past
It does appear humans have some innate tendencies that make us prefer some environments to others. Is there a connection of these preferences to our evolutionary ancestors? Jackson (1984) suggests:
There comes a moment when we begin to suffer, psychologically and even physically, for the companionship and presence of others. Ethologists and others who study animal behavior know much about the gregarious nature ... of birds and animals and fish and even insects, tell how they respond to the presence of others of their kind and seem to languish when they are alone too long. So we are not unique in this respect, but are much more demanding. p. 11Are the evolutionary voices calling for community? How can we plan our campuses to bring about community? Which of Alexander's patterns speak to community? Promenades? Green streets? Accessible Green? Street cafes? Activity Pockets? Common Areas? Sitting Walls?
In addition to the call for community, there is a past voice calling for
territory. The need to have a place to call our own also seems to be passed down
through our evolution. Many species are known for their territorial behavior.
Robert Adrey (1966) uses the concept of the territorial imperative to denote this
behavior. From this perspective, we may have no choice in answering this call.
We see students selecting "their" favorite areas of the campus, "their" private
places in the union, and often seemingly by habit they gravitate to "their chair" in
the classroom.
Do our campus designs support this sense of finding "place?" Again, how
can we use the concepts of Alexander to access and build places of "territory?"
Is there a calling for landscapes? Do we have a "hand-me-down" preference for landscapes which offer survival value, either by apparent safety or by their promise of new opportunity? Kaplan and Kaplan (1978) capture these two counteracting components with the concepts of "mystery" and "legibility." Legible environments are those with open and distinctive landmarks; a landscape that one could wander through and feel safe and not become lost. Mysterious landscapes are those that appear as if we could acquire new information if we were to pursue our travels into them (Photograph 2). It is the yearning to know "what's beyond the bend." Do our campus landscapes present a balance between safety and mystery? Do our campus landscapes contain an overabundance of "institutionalized legibility" (Photograph 3)? Or, is there mystery that does not evoke fear? What campus landscapes balance these issues?
Are there distant voices from the Africa savanna calling for water and Grassland? Is there an innate tendency that can be attributed to our ancestors for the preference of landscapes that offer water or grassland. Studies have shown when subjects are asked to rank pictures of landscapes, those which depict a body of water receive consistently high scores (Ulrich, 1983). Practical? Ernest Boyer (1987) notes that the presence of water in photographs of college campuses attracts prospective students (Photograph 4). How can we capture this penchant for grassland (Photograph 5) and water on campus? How can use this knowledge when we design large spaces for human comfort on campus?
Messages for the Future
Environments impact our feelings and behavior. We all have an intuitive
feel for this relationship. Whether the nature of this relationship is shaped by the
innate evolutionary voices or by some other mechanisms, the power of the
relationship exists. Our campuses must be designed to support feelings of well
being and comfort, but our efforts must not stop there. A university should honor
the individual through ample private space, honor the community through useful
public space, encourage our innate love of mystery with varied and aesthetic
landscape, and satisfy our safety needs with legible and articulate campus
planning. Perhaps most importantly, we need a university that invites all to be
partners in the process of creating a campus that listens to the voices and pattern
language.
Editor's Note: Margaret R. Miller is a 1992 graduate of the Student Affairs in
Higher Education Program at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Alexander, C. (1977). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford Press.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns,
buildings, construction. New York: Oxford Press.
Ardy, R. (1966). The territorial imperative. New York: Dell.
Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New
York: Harper and Roe.
Jackson, J.B. (1984). Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.). (1978). Humanscape: Environments for people.
North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.
Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In
I. Altman & J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Vol. 6.
Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum.
Whyte, W.H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center. New York: Doubleday.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.