Group Psychology and Design Implications
The Work of Venturi and Scott Brown
By Chase Kramer
Architecture and Psychology: Marriage or Divorce?
The fusion between architecture and psychology is an important union, but also a
young and somewhat incomplete one. Around the time of architect Robert Venturi’s master’s
thesis in 1950 on the architectural implications of Gestalt Psychology,1 a new rush towards
examining the connections between architecture and psychology emerged. The fusion of
these two fields seemed to be an exciting venture, as Dr. Edwin P. Willems, a psychology
professor at Rice University, declared in a 1967 lecture on architectural psychology at Rice
University. In his speech, Willems went so far as to say “Think of it, just architecture and
psychology! We’re married, and a long future of shaping and enriching human life lies ahead of
us!” 2 Yet, since this speech, the implications of psychology in architecture as an integrated
couple, each dependent on the other, have not penetrated most mainstream practices of
architecture.
Later in Willems’ speech, he outlines three important questions that, ironically, seem to
elucidate this disconnect between architecture and psychology. Though listed as his third
question, “how persons are shaped by their environment” seems to be, as Willems points out,
the question people usually think about in the relations between architecture and psychology.
However, it should not be the only one. Architecture and urban design have addressed the
third question head on, and exhausted it. There are, theoretically, an infinite number of
1
Venturi, Robert and Denise Scott Brown, Architecture as Signs and Systems: For a Mannerist Time, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2004, 7
2
Willems, Edwin P., Ph.D. “Architecture and Psychology: Beyond the Honeymoon.” Address presented at the
concluding lecture series for Rice University School of Architecture, Houston, April 24, 1967, 7
experiments and tests that can be formed to test how a certain lighting condition can achieve a
certain response from people, and the practice can inform designers on a needs-be basis, but it
is far from an integrated approach to design. Actually, it is Willems’ other two questions that
begin to reveal something about the apparent, current, schism. The first is “how do people
comprehend the environment” and the second “how do people shape the environment.”
Though the second question has been addressed at least in a small way with the resurgence of
community-based architecture in the 80s, both questions have failed to be considerd in their
entirety by many architects and urban planners.3
Thus, it is within these two questions that the chance to make architecture and
psychology an integrated field lies. Granted, there have been and are attempts to make
architecture and urban design a much more psychologically-integrated field, specifically when
one examines the work of Venturi and Scott Brown. They have developed a fusion of
psychological principles and sociological principles (the fusion of which one might call social or
group psychology) into their actual design practice. By examining how Venturi and Scott
Brown have addressed Willems’ first two questions from a social psychology standpoint
(intentional or not), one will be able to see why such an integration of principles is so important
to architecture from a human scale.
How People Comprehend Their Environment: Signs, Symbols, and Reality.
Social psychology relies heavily on forms of communication in understanding social
comprehension. Communication is something that all creatures engage in, but humans are
3
Ibid., 19
unique in that we communicate with symbols. This, basically, to the social psychologist, is a
system of language that can include vocal gestures, body language, and the “symbols” you are
deciphering in the process known as “reading.”4 This essential human characteristic, the use of
symbols, is something that Venturi and Scott Brown are extremely concerned with, as
evidenced in their study of Las Vegas in the 60s. Here they attempted to understand
architecture as “sign” and communication rather than space.5 Here they began to analyze
architecture and the strip of Las Vegas as a system of symbols that communicate (or advertise)
the use of a building or space based on a certain scale (automotive vs. pedestrian).6 This
system became very important for them in understanding the American commercial
vernacular and how it is comprehended by the public.
The connection between Las Vegas and symbolic communication is obvious, but to
understand the full ramifications that the study has for architecture and urban theory, one
must examine it further from a deeper social psychological point of view. Symbols are “shared”
or constructed meanings. The way humanity communicates is by a prearranged agreement on
what meaning the symbol holds. Communication, then, is based on a series of shared
definitions or generalizations that are utilized as a stand in for the objects of events to which
they refer.7 This basic principle begins to answer Venturi’s question in Learning from Las
Vegas, “How is it that in spite of ‘noise’ from competing signs we do in fact find what we want
4
Lauer, Robert H. and Warren H. Handel, Social Psychology: The Theory and Application of Symbolic Interactionism.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977, 35
5
Venturi, Archtiecture as Signs, 12
6
Ibid. 22-23
7
Venturi, Architecture as Signs, 35-36. Granted, sometimes there is a disagreement on meaning, and the
implications this has for architecture and urban theory will be examined later in the paper.
on the strip?”8 Essentially, each specific sign has a different symbolic meaning that it is
communicating. Specifically in Las Vegas, the shared definitions rely on historical
understandings (Caesar’s Palace, Tower Pizza, Dunes) or basic illuminated “language” or text.
Basically, these definitions are based on stereotypes or generalizations (these words are not
negative, but rather essential for human communication) that simplify or codify a set of
information. A glowing pizza can be a symbol for an Italian restaurant (not selling only pizza)
and alerts the viewer (in a vehicle) that, if they want Italian food (or pizza), they should exit
soon.
Looking at this holistically,
Venturi and Scott Brown begin to
understand architecture as having
the ability to communicate more
than just a “capitalist” ideal.
Figure 1 & 2. Left: Hôtel du Département de la Haut Garonne ,
www.arcspace.com. Right: Old site of Hôtel, Venturi,
Architecture as Signs.
Specifically, their Hôtel du Département de la Haut Garonne (a provincial governmental
administration center) in Toulouse, France engages symbolic communication head-on. This
building communicates a sense of history and context about the site, from its diagonal
relationship (reflecting an old road that used to run through the site), to representing two old
columns that were traditionally used to mark the gateway to the intersection (and were signs
themselves [see Fig. 1 & 2]).9
8
Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour, Learning From Las Vegas, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972,
74
9
Venturi, Architecture as Signs, 192-194. From a holistic viewpoint, one could argue that “tradition” sets up a
series of generalizations or stereotypes based on history and culture that help simplify and symbolize information
and in turn facilitate communication.
The users of the building as well as the members of the nearby community, then, begin
to comprehend the building in a very historical sense. Even the use of some materials is based
on a contextual understanding, but the blatant use of a contextual language or vocabulary
begins to speak to the identity not only of the space but also the culture. This then works back
on how those who interact with the building in turn understand themselves as a larger group
(employees of the Hôtel du Département de la Haut Garonne, residents of Toulouse, citizens of
France, etc).
Essentially, by using “context” as their main method of communication, Venturi and
Scott Brown are attempting to help the community “define their situation” in a specific way.
They are attempting to create a certain framework or “reality” in which those who interact
with the building (directly or indirectly) understand the significance not only of the site, but the
site within the community, the role of the government in Toulouse (from a modern yet
historical viewpoint), and ultimately the role of architecture in communication. Even Venturi’s
earliest writings in Complexity and Contradiction also deal with this issue of reality definition in
terms of context. Using contextual clues of a place or space also help give meaning to the
larger idea of place. “Fallingwater is incomplete without its context – it is a fragment of its
natural setting which forms the greater whole. Away from its setting it would have no
meaning.”10
Looking back at this communication in terms of social psychology, some interesting
connections begin to appear. As before, Venturi and Scott Brown are using a symbolic
architectural language to create a specific situation or reality that they (or, rather, their clients
10
Venturi, Robert, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966, 96
in the project) want to communicate to the populace. These notions of “reality” and “defining
of situation” are key ideas in understanding interaction and comprehension in social
psychology. Realities and situations, essentially, are frameworks for interaction that create a
certain context of understanding in which all (or many) aspects of the social interaction will
occur. Objects (i.e. what some might call architecture) become important through our
perception of them. “We perceive them in terms of their relevance to our plans.”11 What
Venturi and Scott Brown are attempting is to engage and communicate architecture as
something more than an “object” but rather a facilitator or role-player of social interaction in
terms of defining realities and situations.
However, Venturi and Scott Brown’s theory of design (not just architectural), deals with
this notion of reality a little bit deeper than even the basics of symbolic interaction. Their
understanding of social psychological principles leads them to a very populist or pluralist
interpretation of the design process, most evident in their notion of redefining functionalism.
Ultimately, they attempt to challenge the architectural notion that form follows function.
Function, as a word being part of language, is a symbol. The point Venturi and Scott Brown try
to make is that function or “functionalism” can be interpreted in different ways by different
people. They ask “For whom?” and “Why?”12 In the end, they theorize that form does not
follow function because function is different for each person depending on their definition of
the situation or their specific reality, but rather form should accommodate function and, more
importantly form accommodate change. This is best illustrated by their “glove/mitten”
analogy where a comparison is made between the formal abilities of each (see Fig. 3). The
11
12
Lauer, Social Psychology, 97-98
Venturi, Architecture as Signs, 146
glove, with its individualized fingers, articulates the function as a simple layer over the hand.
While it is efficient in terms of articulation of the fingers, it increases surface area exposed to
the cold (making it less thermally effective). The mitten,
however, while maybe not as articulated, still accommodates
a similar grabbing function (with opposable thumb) while
also allowing the wearer to move their fingers more freely
within the mitten (possibly retracting them into a fist to
create a warmer environment). 13
Figure 3 Mitten and Glove. Venturi,
Architecture as Signs.
The idea of accommodating change is very important in social psychology and populist
understandings. Within a group of interacting people, it is inevitable that people with differing
realities will try to interact and communicate their definitions of the situation. But what
happens when these multiple realities conflict? At a personal scale it requires an open mind
and an ability to negotiate reality; otherwise problems occur within the interaction (like, the
interaction ending, denial, emotional responses, etc.). 14 At an architectural scale (or a larger
group scale) it implies an allowance of social change within the built environment. Thus, the
communication of architecture and urban fabric must be carefully considered in that it is openminded and adaptable (Venturi and Scott Brown would argue that many modernist housing
towers were not adaptable to people of different socio-economic statuses used to a different
“reality.”) 15
13
Ibid. 153
Lauer, Social Psychology, 115-120
15
Larson, Magali Sarfatti, Behind the Postmodern Façade, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1993, 172-173
14
In the end, symbols form the basis of human communication and comprehension.
Using this knowledge, Venturi and Scott Brown attempt to apply such notions to architecture
and not only understand how architecture communicates from a contextual standpoint, but
also how it helps to accommodate function and changes in people’s definitions of situations
and realities. Venturi and Scott Brown’s application of social psychology to architecture is an
attempt to make architecture not just an “object” but an actor in the process of human
interaction, changing the human comprehension of the architectural world and urban
framework from a static one to a more dynamic one. However, examining how people
comprehend their environment is only the first part of Willems’ 3 questions. The second
(examined in the next section) holds many connections with the first question, but attempts to
understand people’s role within an existing architectural fabric.
Architecture and Projecting Identity
The second question that Dr. Willems asks of the connection between architecture and
psychology is that of how people shape their environments, both consciously and
unconsciously. In terms of social psychology this has some special implications. In the process
of negotiating realities and defining situations (the basics of human interaction), there exists of
process of self-presentation where an “establishment of a situated identity through the
appearance one presents in an interaction” occurs. Basically, this ties back to a system of first
impressions that helps to provide a context for human interaction (a basis for a reality).16 If an
environment (a community or building) can act in a similar way (providing a context for human
16
Lauer, Social Psychology, 103-106
interaction), then it can be understood people (individuals and groups) should have a say in
how an environment communicates something about their identity. Essentially, design (from
a communicative standpoint) can begin to communicate not only its own reality or identity
(examined in the previous section), but also the identity of those who are part of the user
groups of the space.
Though a common phenomenon now (and an example of psychology entering into
architecture, though often more championed by sociologists), community architecture was a
fairly novel idea before Venturi and Scott Brown began involving real people in their actual and
theoretical practice. What they were able to do was obtain the thoughts and ideas of
communities and translate them into a more academic and intellectual context that appealed
to a professional audience. A key example of this is their involvement in the Crosstown
Community of South Street Philadelphia. Their interventions and plan for the area, after
helping stop the expansion of a highway
system through the area, involved a primary
focus on “rehabilitation of housing for
[current] low-income owners and renters,
with corresponding neighborhood
improvements and with minimum relocation Figure 4. Southstreet, Philadelphia. www.urban75.org
of households.” They also outlined plans to increase local employment, local business
ownership, and home ownership.17 This (with the efforts of other designers as well) has helped
17
Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates. “The Philadelphia Crosstown Community.” VSBA.
http://vsba.com/pdfs/PhiladelphiaCrosstownCommunity01.pdf (accessed November 18, 2009).
South Street become a thriving community that is a tourist attraction for many young adults
(see Fig. 4).
In the specific scenario of South Street, there were a series of deeper social
psychological ideas taking place. Essentially, a populist approach was taken to the
neighborhood. This populist notion was actually examined earlier in understanding how
people comprehend their environment. In South Street, Venturi and Scott Brown challenged
the established definition (or reality) of “good” architecture by asking (as Scott Brown did of
Kenneth Frampton), “Why must architects continue to believe that when ‘the masses’ are
‘educated’ they’ll want what architects want? I distrust the presumption behind the social
critique that a society which gives freer rein to its architects and planners will find its life
improved.”18 It is also important to note that this was not the first time Venturi and Scott
Brown dealt with a social critique of architecture. Their Learning From Las Vegas exercise
challenged the “presumptions” of many architects that the commercial vernacular of the
highway (that of Las Vegas) was not “good” architecture (or high culture). They suggested
that architects should not be ashamed of what has occurred at Las Vegas, but rather should
embrace it and learn from it. In fact, their ability to “like” the Las Vegas strip was what drew
advisors for the Crosstown Community to approach them.19 Scott Brown would even suggest
that “architectural function should perhaps be defined through a political process to assure the
representation of those being planned for.”20
18
Larson, Behind the Postmodern Façade, 173
Venturi, “The Philadelphia Crosstown Community”
20
Venturi, Architecture as Signs, 146
19
Furthermore, Venturi and Scott Brown believe strongly in making spaces where the
function is constricted by the form, but rather where the function(s) is(are) accommodated by
the form. This goes back to the glove and mitten analogy already discussed (see pg. 5), but it
has important implications in terms of how people are allowed to shape their environment to
help support or preserve their identity (long after planners and architects are out of the
process). Scott Brown suggests that “in the end, users assign their own programmatic
interpretation to the buildings and spaces they occupy, doing so, as the architect does,
subjectively and self-referentially.”21 Allowing space to be adaptable to different user groups
(and, understanding that no user group is completely homogenous) makes a space not only
more effective but also more dynamic. Essentially, Venturi and Scott Brown would argue, it is
about creating space that enforces what “is” rather than what “ought” to be (that ought should
be derived from what is). Scott Brown puts it nicely: “Allow many interpretation [realities]
rather than one truth.”22
Conclusion
Ultimately, the design and theory of Venturi and Scott Brown illustrates the
possibilities of social psychology integrated in architecture. The connections to architecture
(as Willems’ suggests all psychology has) are not only obvious, but also important for
humanity. With modernism, architecture lost a “human” scale that was so vital to even the
earliest architectural pursuits of Ancient Greece. Yet beyond that, a dynamic, populist
architecture based within a social psychological framework lends itself to an urban fabric more
21
22
Ibid. 147
Ibid 220-221
so than modernism. Venturi’s and Scott Brown’s buildings, as Vincent Scully suggests, are
“prepared to get along with the other buildings in the city, to take up their roles in a gentle
comedy of citizenship rather than in a melodrama of pseudo-heroic aggression.”23 In the end,
Venturi and Scott Brown’s attempt to answer Willem’s architectural psychology questions
allow their work relate to a human scale both in form and mind.
23
Scully, Vincent, “Robert Venturi’s Gentle Architecture,” In The Architecture of Robert Venturi, edited by
Christopher Mead, 8-33, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989, 8. Ironically, I can’t help but think of
such a statement in terms of improvisational theatre, something that social psychologists uphold as illustrating
many of the basic tenets of human interaction.
Bibliography
Küller, Rikard, ed. Architectural Psychology: Proceedings of the Lund Conference. Stroudsburg, PA:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.
Larson, Magali Sarfatti. Behind the Postmodern Façade. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1993.
Lauer, Robert H. and Warren H. Handel. Social Psychology: The Theory and Application of Symbolic
Interactionism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977.
Sanmartín, A., ed. Venturi, Rauch, & Scott Brown. London: Academy Editions, 1986.
Scully, Vincent. “Robert Venturi’s Gentle Architecture.” In The Architecture of Robert Venturi, edited by
Christopher Mead, 8-33. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989.
Venturi, Robert and Denise Scott Brown. Architecture as Signs and Systems: For a Mannerist Time.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. Learning From Las Vegas. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1972.
Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966.
Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates. “The Philadelphia Crosstown Community.” VSBA.
http://vsba.com/pdfs/PhiladelphiaCrosstownCommunity01.pdf (accessed November 18, 2009).
Willems, Edwin P., Ph.D. “Architecture and Psychology: Beyond the Honeymoon.” Address presented
at the concluding lecture series for Rice University School of Architecture, Houston, April 24,
1967.
Images:
Urban75.org. http://www.urban75.org (accessed December 13th, 2009).
Arcspace.com. http://www.arcspace.com (accessed December 13th, 2009).