Walking through our historical city centre, I often wonder who approved some of the ugly, boring, glass buildings that were built right next to the gorgeous 500 year old ones. There has to be a better way to add new buildings, without them being an eyesore or an uninspired pastiche. Luckily, I’m not the only one that thinks this way, so keep reading to find out what the research has to say about it.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925519302926

In many historic city centres across Europe, there are buildings that have been designated as "Assets of Cultural Interest" due to their significant architectural value. Protected areas have been established around these buildings to preserve their cultural significance and provide opportunities for contemplation. However, in some cases, the visual value of these areas is diminished by the presence of poor-quality modern architecture that clashes with the surrounding buildings. To address this issue, researchers are exploring whether treatments can be applied to these buildings to improve their integration into cityscapes. Although there is a considerable amount of literature on integrating infrastructure and industrial facilities into natural environments, there are relatively few studies on integrating architecture into urban and ancient city centres.

In many studies and environmental impact assessments (EIAs), the visual impact of an artificial element decreases when it blends in with its backdrop or is invisible. Buildings are sometimes perceived negatively in natural landscapes, and respondents generally prefer natural scenes over those with buildings. However, the architectural style can influence this evaluation. For example, buildings with rural characteristics can improve the positive perception of natural landscapes.

When it comes to urban scenes, respondents also tend to prefer developments that blend with their surroundings. However, the prevailing criteria used for visual impact assessment may not be sufficient in historic landscapes. Recent findings suggest that the meaning and aesthetic of architecture can be more important than its visibility. This means that there may be architectural interventions that, even though they contrast with their surroundings, increase the visual value of a cityscape.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (merged into the Design Council in 2011) highlights that the relationship of a design to its context does not necessarily mean that it has to "fit in." In historic city centres, townscapes must be understood as an integrated totality where both change and conservation coexist. By considering all these factors, we can create urban developments that are not only visually appealing, but also preserve the cultural heritage and historical context of a city.

The research on the visual impact of artificial elements in both natural and urban landscapes acknowledges that visibility is an essential criterion, but it also emphasizes the importance of considering other elements such as aesthetics and meaning. This approach opens up the possibility of enhancing visual quality without compromising visibility. In light of this, a survey was conducted to evaluate the overall visual impact of a building in a historic urban setting from three different perspectives: its integration with the urban scene, its contribution to enhancing the cityscape's visual quality, and personal preference. More on this later.

In the realm of architecture and art, there have been notable efforts to establish a dialogue between buildings and their surroundings through facade solutions. These solutions can be categorized into three types: mimetic, harmonic, and contrasting.

Mimetic approaches seek to make visually impactful buildings blend in with their environment by utilizing similar shapes, materials, and/or colours. Examples of this technique include the trompe-l'oeils by Mehdi Ghadyanloo and the use of mirrors by Roeland Otten.

Harmonic approaches, on the other hand, aim to create harmony between the building and its surroundings without making it "disappear." This is achieved through the use of colours, materials, and textures that transform the perception of the building's size, geometry, weight, rhythm, and other visual properties of its shape. Examples of this technique include the works of F. E. von Garnier and the Longyearbyen project by G. Smedal.

Contrasting approaches, as the name suggests, use colours and materials that are distinct from their surroundings, with the belief that divergence can increase the visual quality of the environment. Some studies suggest that a certain degree of contrast is necessary to create tension and change in natural landscapes, and that clearly perceived outlines are appreciated by observers. Notable examples of this technique include the Beukelsblauw in Rotterdam by Florentijn Hofman, the colour projects in underdeveloped social communities by Boa Mistura, and the Louvre pyramid by Ming Pei.

The goal of the survey mentioned earlier was to find the best facade solution for enhancing the aesthetic appeal of visually impactful buildings in historic city centres. To achieve this objective, the Kansei engineering approach is adopted, which examines the relationship between the physical attributes of facades and people's overall perceptions from a perceptual standpoint. People's perceptions are based on both objective physical parameters and subjective affective evaluations. The specific objectives of the study are: (a) to identify the affective structure of the facade solutions, (b) to determine the influence of the affective structure on the overall assessment of the solution, and (c) to determine the impact of design parameters on observers' assessments. The affective factors that describe the assessment of visual impact of an architecture in an urban scene were identified. The physical features of the buildings were evaluated based on three design attributes: shape, colour, and material, and interventions were grouped accordingly. The overall visual assessment was evaluated based on three approaches: integration into the urban scene, the enhancement of the visual quality of the surroundings, and personal preference.

CASE STUDY

The study focused on a residential building located in a historic neighbourhood in Valencia, Spain, which is surrounded by the protected area surrounding the Santa Cruz Church. The researchers designed ten possible facade solutions for the building and evaluated them along with the current facade solution. The proposed solutions were different enough to cover three potential visual relations: mimetic, harmonic, and contrasting.

To ensure variability in the stimuli, the researchers enlisted the help of ten highly skilled observers, including three experts in colour with doctoral degrees, three experts in landscape with doctoral degrees, and four architects. They evaluated the images based on the visual variables shape, colour, and material, focusing on the similarities and differences between the building and its surroundings.

The observers evaluated the comparison between the suggested facade treatments and the surroundings using a scale from 1 to 5, which ranged from not similar to very similar. Through this initial evaluation, the researchers ensured they had a wide enough range of stimuli to analyse the relationship between the architecture and its surroundings in terms of shape, colour, and material: 3 mimetic, 3 harmonic, and 4 contrasting.

For visualization, the researchers used spherical panoramic photographs, with a horizontal visual field of 360° and a vertical field of 180°. This allowed them to assess the building against its entire surroundings rather than just against a pre-set framework. The assessment of the building was carried out online through the respondents' viewing devices, and the researchers used the Kansen method scheme to analyse the data.

This study provides valuable insights into the factors that contribute to the visual impact of a new building in a historic urban area. By analysing the perceptions of a sample, the study identifies two independent factors - coherence and shocking - that account for over 60% of the variance in how people perceive the building.

The coherence factor, which represents the building's fit with its surroundings and lack of distortion to the surroundings, has been highlighted in previous research as an important consideration in visual impact assessments. The shocking factor, on the other hand, represents the building's striking, contrasting, complex, large, and unsettling variables. This factor has been used in previous studies to determine the impact of human activities on natural environments.

The research suggests that buildings that are more coherent and less shocking are generally better received and integrated into the historic urban scene. However, it is important to note that when it comes to the overall assessment of "increasing the visual value," only coherence is an influencing factor. This means that while a building's shocking factor may influence people's perceptions of it, its coherence with the surrounding environment is ultimately the most critical factor.

Overall, this research has practical applications for guiding future projects to address citizen engagement. By incorporating these two factors into visual impact assessments, policymakers can ensure that new buildings are better integrated into their surroundings and contribute positively to the historic urban scene.

So if I understand this correctly, the research basically said that the new building needs to blend in with the old by kind of looking the same, but also needs to stand out so it’s not too boring, but also needs to use the same colours and materials as the historic buildings, but also needs to provide contrast? Right now, I’m very happy I chose interior architecture, that’s a lot less people to please per project than urban planning and design!