Affect Architecture on Behavior of the Society – Literature review Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Affect Architecture on Behavior of the Society"  is an outstanding example of a term paper on architecture. In an examination of how scholars have argued and expressed understanding of architecture, it is possible to develop coherent arguments on how power control affects behavior and people (Lockton, 2011). The diverse set of concepts and methods in some the journals helps in understanding the ways in which architecture regulates the social, economic and political phenomena. To develop relevant discussion, various approaches such as pull and push factors, demographic and economic, negotiations and differences are implicated in architecture. Expressions of Architecture Power can be proactively used to influence specified behavior, like enhancing or reducing social interaction.

Sometimes power determines the place, designs, planning, geography, and social factors applied in architecture. There are categorizations that provide clear and practical perspectives on the outcomes of power-related architecture. In some cases, architectural aspects are seen in ways they develop special patterns of interaction, communication, and biases. As argued by (Kesan, 2007) architecture can be used as a means by which symbolic meaning and cultural expressions are communicated, determine and affect people's interactions and promote biases by favoring some values and social groups. According to Moore & Barbara, (2009) building codes are expressed through planning, construction, zoning, manufacturing, ordinances and policies and health laws used to regulate the built environments.

Power has been used to control and determine architecture, and through power, architectural planning decisions are mostly employed to meet political and strategic agendas. In turn, architecture is then used as a regulatory force. Through power, architecture has been used to revitalize impoverished regions. Government and authority have also used massive development programs and settlements to colonies and occupied territories.

The architecture policies enacted and enforced in certain areas, shopping centers, and central business districts can serve to change the demographic as well as the economic make-up of an area. This is seen from how architecture has been used in controlling and influencing public behaviors when power is embodied in many ways. However, the surface purposes of such development mostly seem to follow the aspects of economic sustainability, efficient services, and ecology. Power and law recognize the communicative function of a particular architecture.

Expressions of cultural and symbolic values can be done through the choice of materials, sizes, forms, colors landscaping and furnishings for a certain building. Some buildings design, express values of security, reliability, and trust. The techniques used to enhance a certain feeling for instance reliability and continuity. It is possible then to argue that, when certain features are conventionally understood, they function as a control system between people. They also serve to attract or repulse other activities, and interactions. The built environment, therefore, determines how architecture communicates.

Aspects of power such as prestige and privacy are applied and therefore buildings reproduce and symbolize elements of specific cultural life. Power can serve a commercial end through the manipulation of the communicative properties of architecture. Product prices, services, and features can change between different buildings, locations and times. Most of the time, architecture communicate this in an obvious and pervasive manner. Architecture and Interactions In his discussion Carmona, et al (2010) argues that design is a process meant to solve a certain problem. Decisions by political forces in most cases dominate over communal policies.

We can, therefore, argue that those who are in positions of making policies determine how the problem will be solved. Designs have more than visual and physical appearance. The idea behind a design is to create places for people. Since people actively participate in making choices and plans, their lifestyles and values will be embedded in architectural designs where they work, live and get services. Urban design action has the global, local, regulatory and market contexts. In all these aspects, power will favor their best scenario between the alternatives.

It is, therefore, important and as we can see that most architectural designs have a significant attachment to global relations, manifested in politics, business and culture. There are dimensions in a design such as morphological, social, visual, perceptual, temporal and functional. Depending on who is in power and significant relations around them, the architectural designs are procured, communicated and controlled for implementation and to ensure delivery mechanisms.

References

Burnett, A., 2008. Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Planning. In O E, eds. Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe. o.P., p. o.S.

Carmona, M., et al (2010). Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Amsterdam Boston: Architectural Press/Elsevier.

Franck, K. (2002, Women and the Environment. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.),

Gieryn, T., 2002, What Buildings Do. Theory & Society, 31, 35-74.

Hatherley, O. 2008, Militant modernism. Winchester, England Washington, D.C: O Books.

Lawyer, 34, 961-969.

Lockton, D. (2011, September 12). Architecture, urbanism, design, and behavior: a brief review. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from Design with Intent Blog: http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk

Moore, S. & Barbara, W., 2009, Contested Construction of Green Building Codes in North America: The Case of the Alley Flat Initiative, Urban studies, 46(12) 2617–2641

Shah, R. & Kesan, Manipulating the Governance Characteristics of Code. Info, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 3-9.

Sheth, S. et al., 2010. we help: A Reference Architecture for Social Recommender Systems. Architecture, p.46-47.

Talen, E. 2002. The Social Goals of New Urbanism. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 165-188.

Tappendorf, J. A. (2002). Architectural Design Regulations: What Can a Municipality Do To Protect Against Unattractive, Inappropriate, and Just Plain Ugly Structures. Urban Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 347-362). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us