bridging the gap: façade colour, aesthetic response and planning policy

12
This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] On: 16 June 2013, At: 16:15 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Urban Design Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20 Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy Zena O'connor a a The Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group and the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia Published online: 18 Mar 2011. To cite this article: Zena O'connor (2006): Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy, Journal of Urban Design, 11:3, 335-345 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574800600888251 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Upload: zena

Post on 08-Dec-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]On: 16 June 2013, At: 16:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Urban DesignPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20

Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Responseand Planning PolicyZena O'connor aa The Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group and the Faculty of Architecture,University of Sydney, NSW, AustraliaPublished online: 18 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Zena O'connor (2006): Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy, Journalof Urban Design, 11:3, 335-345

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574800600888251

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 2: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

Bridging the Gap: Facade Colour, Aesthetic Response

and Planning Policy

ZENA O’CONNOR

The Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group and the Faculty of Architecture, University

of Sydney, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT The value of environmental visual quality is now well recognized and theneed to maintain scenic amenity is influencing planning guidelines and developmentcontrol plans in many countries, including Australia. This influence has extended toplanning guidelines relating to facade colour. In Sydney, Australia, such guidelines tendto be highly prescriptive and often suggest that facade colours should be harmonious,compatible or sympathetic relative to the surroundings. These guidelines seem to implythat aesthetic response to facade colour is universal and deterministic; that is, one categoryof facade colour will invariably be perceived as harmonious irrespective of other factors.This paper reports on two preliminary studies that investigated facade colour. The studiesfound that the range of facade colours evaluated as harmonious was broader than expected.It appears that a gap exists between the notion of harmonious facade colour as implied inplanning guidelines and actual responses to facade colour. Consequently, a model of facadecolour development and evaluation is presented as an alternative approach to the currentprescriptive planning guidelines. This model allows for factors that may influenceaesthetic response to facade colour such as individual differences as well as cultural,temporal and contextual factors. Further research may shed light on the extent and impactof these factors and the broader implications for planning policy.

Facade Colour and Planning Guidelines

Planning guidelines and controls that address visual quality and scenic amenityare emerging as key planning issues in European countries (Nelissen, 1999). Thesame is happening in Australia. For example, the recently released SydneyHarbour Foreshores Development Control Plan (DIPNR, 2004) aims to maintainthe unique visual quality of Sydney Harbour foreshores by ensuring that newdevelopments meet specific planning criteria and contribute to the diversecharacter of the landscape. Facade colour is considered one of a number ofattributes that contribute to aesthetic response to the built environment (Nasar,1994; Stamps, 2000). Therefore, it is no surprise that planning guidelinesfrequently and specifically mention facade colour. The Sydney HarbourForeshores Development Control Plan (DIPNR, 2004) includes a generalrequirement relating to the colour of the built environment as follows: “Colours

Correspondence Address: Zena O’Connor, Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, NSW2006, Australia . Email: [email protected]

Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 11. No. 3, 335–345, October 2006

1357-4809 Print/1469-9664 Online/06/030335-11 q 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13574800600888251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 3: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

should be sympathetic with their surrounds and consistent with the colour criteria,where specified, for particular landscape types (detailed) in Part 3” (DIPNR, 2004,p. 37).

Some examples of colour criteria for particular landscape types in the SydneyPlan are as follows.

Overall colours should match native vegetation and geological features asclosely as possible with trim colours drawn from natural elements suchas tree trunks and stone. (DIPNR, 2004, p. 19)

Boatsheds: The exterior colours should be compatible with the immediatesurrounds and the landscape character in which the boatshed isproposed. (DIPNR, 2004, p. 44)

Except in areas where industry is surrounded by bushland, lightercolours sympathetic to the marine setting should be used for windowframes, door surrounds, bargeboards and gutters. Roofs should be mid-tone grey or grey-greens . . . (DIPNR, 2004, p. 50)

The Sydney Plan aims to enhance the unique visual qualities of Sydney Harbourand encourage new developments that “contribute to the diverse character of thelandscape” (DIPNR, 2004, p. 18). The Sydney Plan suggests that visual contrasthas a negative influence on visual impact: “The potential visual impact . . . issignificantly reduced if the level of contrast in colour, texture, line and formbetween the building and background is minimised” (DIPNR, 2004, p. 66).Perhaps as a result, the Sydney Plan requires facade colours to match the naturalsurroundings or be harmonious, compatible and sympathetic, terms often usedsynonymously in planning guidelines.

With reference to facade colour, Stamps (2000) notes terms such as‘harmonious’, ‘compatible’ and ‘sympathetic’ are vague and unclear. Theseterms, Stamps asserts, describe subjective responses to the environment,responses that may vary due to individual differences, cultural differences andcontextual factors. Facade colours are objective aspects of the physicalenvironment, and, like the colours of cars or clothing, are open to varyingsubjective responses.

Specifically in relation to facade colour, the Sydney Plan raises two questions.First, the Plan appears to suggest that colour-camouflaged buildings will enhancethe visual qualities of Sydney Harbour and contribute to the diverse character ofthe landscape. But, has a link between colour camouflaged buildings, visualquality and scenic amenity been established? Second, the Sydney Plan suggeststhat aesthetic response to facade colour is essentially nomothetic anddeterministic. But are responses to facade colour of a universal nature? Doesone facade colour rule apply to all contexts, irrespective of individual and culturaldifferences? Does a cause and effect relationship exist between colour andaesthetic response? While the first question is beyond the scope of this paper, thesecond question was addressed empirically through two preliminary studiesconducted to investigate aesthetic response to facade colour and to explore thenature of this relationship.

An underlying theme of this paper is to call into question the influence of‘experts’ and ‘elites’ with respect to planning guidelines that focus on aesthetics.Experts empowered with the responsibility of drafting planning guidelinesappear to favour restrictive controls in respect to issues relating to aesthetics,

336 Z. O’Connor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 4: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

while some elites in the architectural profession argue for greater artistic freedomand are keen to promote their own version of ‘good’ design with respect toaesthetics. However, neither approach appears to allow for a more idiographicand less deterministic understanding of aesthetic response.

Current Approaches to Colour Harmony and Environmental Colour Harmony

In the domain of colour, colour harmony is an obscure concept and there is nosingle, widely accepted theory of colour harmony (Burchett, 2002; Chuang & Ou,2001). Burchett (2002), p. 28) suggests that “Colours seen together to produce apleasing affective response are said to be in harmony”. However, in the literaturethere are a number of different approaches to colour harmony which tend to fallinto three main groups:

(1) Colour harmony based on hue similarity (Ostwald, 1916; Chuang & Ou, 2001;Hard & Sivik, 2001). This approach is defined as colour combination based ongrouping together colours that are related or similar in hue, or appearalongside each other on colour wheel models.

(2) Colour harmony based on contrasting or ‘complementary’ hues (Chevreul,1839; Itten, 1973; Munsell, 1929). This approach suggests combining coloursthat are opposite each other on colour wheel models.

(3) Colour harmony based on colour symbolism and the connotative meanings ofcolour (Albers, 1963). This approach suggests that colours carry symbolic orconnotative meaning and that colour combination can be based on thesemeanings.

These approaches also differ ontologically in their definitions of colour harmony.Some colour theorists suggest that colour harmony is basically deterministic andnomothetic; that is, colour harmony is a universal phenomenon that can beachieved by applying specific colour combination formulae (Chevreul, 1839;Ostwald, 1916; Munsell, 1929). Conversely, other colour theorists suggest thatthe notion of colour harmony is more idiographic and less predictable, andtherefore make a clear distinction between the objective characteristics of colourand subjective responses to colour (Albers, 1963; Hard & Sivik, 2001). Recentstudies suggest that responses to colour may be influenced by individualdifferences as well as cultural and contextual factors. For example, familiarityand recognition may influence judgements about colour harmony (Svedmyr,1997); colour preference may have a bearing on judgements about colourharmony (Chuang & Ou, 2001); and colour preference may be influenced byculture (Saito, 1997).

In the field of architecture, context is considered an important factor inrelation to facade colour. Norman Foster, using a metaphor of caves andtemples, suggests that facade colour is one of a number of elements that can beused to reinforce the relationship between a building and its surroundings(Foster, cited in Porter & Mikellides, 1976). Facade colours based on huesimilarity with the surroundings fall into the ‘cave’ category, while facadecolours that are vivid or contrast with the surroundings fall into the ‘temple’category. Similarly, Unver & Ozturk (2002) suggest that facade colours should belinked to the surroundings with one or two contrasts in hue, luminance orsaturation. However, the notion of ‘fit’ between facade colour relative to thecolours of the surroundings has been found to be an important factor: “a colour

Bridging the Gap 337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 5: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

has to fit in to its surrounding, not disappearing all together and becomingindifferent, nor becoming too conspicuous, which might make it appear badlychosen” (Janssens, 2001, p. 4).

While there are many studies that investigate aesthetic response to colour,there are few that investigate aesthetic response to facade colour. This paperattempts to address this gap and reports on the findings of two small, sequentialstudies that are preliminary studies for a larger PhD investigation. The first aimwas to develop simple classifications for facade colour based on terminology usedin planning guidelines, specifically the terms ‘harmonious’ and ‘contrasting’. Asecond aim was to explore the notion that responses to facade colour areuniversal, and a third aim was to explore the link between aesthetic response andpreference. While this paper makes no claim to provide definitive or conclusiveevidence relating to these aims, it intends to generate further discussion andresearch.

Methodology

Both studies investigated subjective responses to a physical, objective aspect of thebuilt environment: facade colour. In terms of methodology, both studies used thenominal group consensus technique in conjunction with F-sort and Q-sorttechniques. Nominal group consensus technique is one of a number of techniquesused to gain consensus. It does not use a panel of experts like the Delphitechniques but instead uses participants that are considered to have relevantknowledge or experience. The Q-sort technique, developed by Stephenson in the1930s, seeks to elicit perceptions and judgements of a subjective nature bydirecting participants to sort visual stimuli using categories defined by theresearcher (Amin, 2000; Stephenson, 1953). The F-sort technique is a modificationof the Q-sort technique and allows participants to define their own categorieswithout direction from the researcher when sorting visual stimuli (Miller et al.,1986). This methodology was used because it combines a qualitative approachwith quantitative analysis and is considered an effective tool for capturingpatterns of subjective responses to a set of stimuli that feature objective physicalcharacteristics (Amin, 2000; Brown, 1986).

Participants

The participant group for both studies was a cohort of postgraduate students andacademic staff from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney; 8 for thefirst study and 10 for the second study. The participants varied in country of birth:Australia, England, Canada, China and Taiwan. Given their involvement withinthe domain of architecture, this group were considered to have a high degree ofknowledge relevant to classifying and responding to facade colour, therebymeeting the conditions of the nominal group consensus technique. While theirparticipation may also be considered narrow and biased, their responses wereconsidered suitable for two reasons. First, they established simple facade colourclassifications without resorting to a larger study, and second, they provided abenchmark for subsequent studies.

338 Z. O’Connor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 6: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

Visual Stimuli

A set of A5 digital images was used as the visual stimuli in both preliminarystudies; 12 in the first study and 9 in the second study. Each image featured aharbour-side boatshed and was identical except that each displayed a differentfacade colour treatment as shown in Figure 1.

Treatments

An image of a harbour-side boatshed was digitally manipulated using Photoshop7.0 computer software to create 11 treatments in two categories. First, fivetreatments were created based on hue similarity between facade colour and thecolours of the surrounding natural vegetation and sandstone. Treatments aredetailed in Table 1.

Six treatments were created based on hue dissimilarity or contrasting hues andthese are detailed in Table 2. This group also included a treatment that featured theboatshed in its original colours, included in the Table as OC1.

Procedure

The first study included an F-sorting task followed by a Q-sorting task.Participants were first required to sort the visual stimuli into groups according totheir own criteria. The second sorting task required participants to sort the visualstimuli according to whether they considered the facade colours to be harmoniousor contrasting relative to the colours of the surroundings.

The second study included two Q-sorting tasks. Participants were asked tosort the visual stimuli according to whether they judged the facade colours asharmonious or contrasting relative to the colours of the surroundings. The finalsorting task required participants to rank the set of visual stimuli according topreference.

Response Measurement

Responses from both studies were recorded by participants using questionnaires.The category headings arising from the F-sort were examined to identifysimilarities and differences. Participant answers from the first and secondQ-sorting tasks were tallied, and rankings from the final Q-sorting task werecompared as per Table 2.

Results

Responses from the F-sorting task of the first study indicate that 62.5% ofparticipants created categories without clear reference to the surroundings. Forexample, ‘kitsch’ and ‘warm graduated’. The remaining 37.5% of participantscreated categories in which facade colours were assessed in relation to thesurroundings. For example, ‘contrasts with environment’ and ‘muted, fitting intocontext’.

The tally from the first Q-sorting task of the first study indicates that allparticipants consider facade colours that exhibit hue similarity with the coloursof the surroundings to be ‘harmonious to a greater degree’ and, generally, most

Bridging the Gap 339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 7: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

Figure 1. Set of 12 images used as visual stimuli.

Harmonious to a greater degree Harmonious to a lesser degree

8 7 3 1 06 5 4 2

Figure 2. Classification of facade colour.

340 Z. O’Connor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 8: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

participants consider facade colours that exhibit hue dissimilarity to be‘contrasting to a greater degree’. Figure 2 features the results from this sorting task.

The results from the second Q-sorting task (second study) are summarized inTable 3. These results echo the results from the first Q-sorting task. That is, facadecolours that exhibit hue similarity with the colours of the surroundings areconsidered to be harmonious. However, 50% of participants also consideredharmonious some facade colours that contrasted with the colours of thesurroundings, as indicated by the circled responses in Table 3.

In terms of preference, the results from the preference Q-sorting task aredetailed in Table 4 and indicate that preference ratings were spread across allimages and are not aligned with judgements of harmonious or contrasting facadecolours. As seen in Table 4, the treatment that scored the strongest preference wastreatment OC1. Treatment RC1 was the least preferred, followed by treatment CC2.

Table 2. Seven facade colour treatments based on dissimilarity of hue relative tothe hues of the surrounding vegetation. Treatments in grey used in the second

study

Code Description RGB & HSB values

OC1 Facade: White – original facade colour F: 255-255-255; 0-0-100Roof: Desaturated grey/green – original colour R: 225-211-174; 44-23-88

CH1 Facade: Desaturated orange/red – contrasting hue F:214-192-182; 19-15-84Roof: Similar to facade colour; darker luminosity level R: 196-128-114; 10-42-77

CH2 Facade: Desaturated orange/red – contrasting hue F: 255-223-208; 19-18-100Roof: Similar to facade colour; darker luminosity level R: 221-152-90; 28-59-87

RC1 Facade: Desaturated red – contrasting hue F: 246-204-223; 133-17-96Roof: Similar to facade colour; darker luminosity level R: 213-101-132; 343-53-84

BC1 Facade: Blue F: 204-210-236; 229-12-93Roof: Similar to facade colour; darker luminosity level R: 110-120-165; 229-33-65

PC1 Facade: Purple F: 202-166-208; 291-20-82Roof: Similar to facade colour; darker luminosity level R: 156-123-130; 347-21-61

YC1 Facade: Yellow F: 246-241-177; 56-28-96Roof: Similar to facade colour; darker luminosity level R: 219-189-84; 47-62-86

Table 1. Five facade colour treatments based on similarity of hue between facadecolour and natural surroundings. Treatments shaded in grey were used in the

second study

Code Description RGB & HSB values

CC1 Facade: Green – similar in hue to surrounding vegetation F: 195-182-140; 46-28-76Roof: Brown – similar in hue to local stone R: 148-148-110; 60-26-58

CC2 Facade: Green – similar in hue to surrounding vegetation F: 166-163-140; 53-16-65Roof: Brown – similar in hue to local stone R: 149-112-75; 30-50-58

GC1 Facade: Green – similar in hue to surrounding vegetation F: 183-187-165; 71-12-73Roof: Green – similar in hue to facade colour R: 140-137-94; 56-33-55

DK1 Facade: Green – similar in hue to surrounding vegetation F: 177-167-158; 28-11-69Roof: Green – similar in hue to facade colour R: 145-132-106; 40-27-57

MC1 Facade: Green – similar in hue to surrounding vegetation F: 165-176-157; 95-11-69Roof: Green – similar in hue to facade colour R: 161-150-129; 39-20-63

Bridging the Gap 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 9: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

Discussion and Implications

Caution needs to be exercised in terms of discussing the implications of this study

given that the sample group was relatively small and contained a select group of

architects and architecture students. However, the results suggest that there is

sufficient consensus to classify facade colour using the terms ‘harmonious’ and

‘contrasting’ at least by those with relevant knowledge in the domain of

architecture. Facade colours considered harmonious were generally those that

exhibit a high degree of hue similarity with the colours of the surroundings.

However, some facade colours that contrast in hue with the colours of the

surroundings were also considered harmonious, providing support for colour

theorists who assert that colour harmony rests on contrasting or ‘complimentary’

Table 3. Harmonious and contrasting facade colours. Responses circled indicateindividual variations. Key: H – Harmonious; C – Contrasting

Facade colours similar in hue to thesurroundings Facade colours contrasting in hue to the surroundings

CC1 CC2 DK1 GC1 OC1 BC1 CH2 CH1 RC1

H C H C H C H C H C H C H C H C H C

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U

10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 1 9 0 10 0 10 2 8 0 10

Table 4. Preference rating of facade colours. Treatment OC1 was the mostpreferred treatment, RC1 was the least preferred treatment and CC2 the second

least preferred, as indicated by the circled areas

Harmonious facade colours Contrasting facade colours

Preference CC1 CC2 DK1 GC1 OC1 BC1 CH2 CH1 RC1

1st 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 12nd 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 3 03rd 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 04th 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 15th 1 4 2 0 0 0 1 2 06th 0 3 0 4 0 1 0 2 07th 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 08th 1 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 09th 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

342 Z. O’Connor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 10: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

colours (Chevreul, 1839; Itten, 1963; Munsell, 1929). A link between preferenceand harmonious facade colour was not established in this study. The most preferredfacade colour featured contrasting colour and the second least preferred facadecolour featured harmonious colour.

These findings suggest that aesthetic response to facade colour may varyaccording to individual differences. Judgements about colour harmony in relationto facade colour may be less universal and deterministic and somewhat moreidiographic and complex than planning guidelines seem to suggest. This raisessome interesting questions. If facade colours that exhibit hue similarity with thesurroundings are not always considered harmonious and are not always the mostpreferred, why are they often recommended in planning guidelines? The findingsfrom this study indicate that positive responses to facade colour vary along acontinuum from harmonious to contrasting facade colours. Therefore, why do someplanning guidelines adopt a nomothetic, deterministic approach to facade colourand only favour facade colours that exhibit hue similarity with the surroundings?It would appear from this study that there is also a strong argument in favour ofcontrasting facade colours.

In response to these implications, a model for facade colour evaluation isproposed that attempts to bridge the gap between current planning guidelines inSydney and the findings detailed in this paper. The model is featured in Figure 2and describes a participatory approach to facade colour evaluation and usesdigital technology, thereby allowing for the evaluation of multiple facade colourtreatments by any number of participants. The multiple facade colour treatmentscan therefore include both harmonious and contrasting facade colour. In doing so, itallows for individual differences as well as other factors, such as cultural andcontextual, that may affect facade colour evaluation (O’Connor, 2004). This modelprovides an alternative approach to the facade colour selection process asproposed the by Sydney Plan and can be used as a tool by architects and plannerswho may prefer a more democratic approach to facade colour selection.

Current planning guidelines in Sydney appear to suggest a positive linkbetween colour-camouflaged buildings and scenic amenity. This raises

Digital image of environment

Image manipulated to createmultiple façade colour treatments

Evaluation of façade colour treatments

Consensus with regard to evaluation of façade colours

If consensus is not reached,theimage can be manipulated

again and re-evaluated

Environmental setting

Figure 3. Model of facade colour evaluation.

Bridging the Gap 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 11: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

opportunities for further research with respect to the relationship between colour-camouflaged buildings and scenic amenity; and whether diversity of facadecolour contributes to, or detracts from, environmental visual quality. Some ofthese issues are currently being addressed by a larger study in Sydney. Outcomesfrom this study may inform planning policy and encourage a paradigm shifttowards a more idiographic and less deterministic perspective on the relationshipbetween aesthetic response and facade colour.

Acknowledgements

This paper is an amalgamated and extended version of two papers, one presentedat the EBRA 2004 Conference in Tianjin, China, and another presented at theEDRA 2005 Conference in Vancouver, Canada. The author is grateful forthe support and critique provided by Professor Gary T Moore, Kat Martindale andthe members of the Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group at theFaculty of Architecture, University of Sydney.

References

Albers, J. (1963) Interaction of Color (New Haven: Yale University Press).

Amin, Z. (2000) Q methodology — a journey into the subjectivity of human mind, Singapore Medical

Journal, 41(8), pp. 410–414.

Brown, S. R. (1986) Q technique and method: principles and procedures, in: W. B. Berry & M. S. Lewis-

Beck (Eds) New Tools for Social Scientists: Advances and Applications in Research Methods (Newbury

Park, CA: Sage).

Burchett, K. E. (2002) Color harmony, Color Research and Application, 27(1), pp. 28–31.

Chevreul, M. E. (1839) Les lois du contraste simultane des couleurs. Cited in Vienot, F. (2002) Michel-

Eugene Chevreul: from laws and principles to the production of colour plates, Color Research and

Application, 27(1), pp. 4–14.

Chuang, M. & Ou, L. (2001) Influence of a holistic color interval on color harmony, Color Research and

Application, 26(1), pp. 29–39.

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) (2004) Sydney Harbour

Foreshores and Waterways Area Draft Development Control Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment (Sydney:

Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources and the Waterways Authority).

Hard, A. & Sivik, L. (2001) A theory of colors in combination — a descriptive model related to the NCS

color-order system, Color Research and Application, 26(1), pp. 4–28.

Itten, J. (1973) The Art of Color (New York: John Wiley).

Janssens, J. (2001) Facade colours, not just a matter of personal taste, Nordic Journal of Architectural

Research, 14(2), pp. 11–16.

Miller, D. M., Wiley, D. E. & Wolfe, R. G. (1986) Categorisation methodology: an approach to the

collection and analysis of certain classes of qualitative information, Multivariate Behavioral Research,

21(2), pp. 135–167.

Munsell, A. H. (1929) The Munsell Book of Color (Boston: Ellis). Cited in Kuehni, R. G. (2002) The early

development of the Munsell system, Color Research and Application, 27(1), pp. 20–27.

Nasar, J. L. (1994) Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors, Environment

and Behaviour, 26(3), pp. 377–401.

Nelissen, N. (1999) Preliminary conclusions: ten mega trends in aesthetic control in Europe, Urban

Design International, 4(1), pp. 77–78.

O’Connor, Z. (2004) Concord v discord: a new approach to environmental colour harmony, Spatial

Environment Agreeable for Human Beings: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium for Environment-

Behaviour Studies (Tianjin, China: Baihua Literature & Art Publishing House).

Ostwald, W. (1916) in: Faber Birren (Ed.) Die Farbenfibel (The Colour Primer) reprinted in 1969 (New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold).

Porter, T. & Mikellides, B. (1976) Colour for Architecture (London: Studio Vista).

344 Z. O’Connor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Page 12: Bridging the Gap: Façade Colour, Aesthetic Response and Planning Policy

Saito, M. (1997) A cross-cultural study on color preference in Japan, China and Indonesia, withemphasis on the preference for white, in: L. Sivik (Ed.) Colour Report: Proceedings of the AssociationInternationale de la Couleur Interim Meeting 1996 (Stockholm: Scandinavian Colour Institute AB).

Stamps, A. E. (2000) Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment (Boston: Kluwer Academic).Stephenson, W. (1953) The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and its Methodology (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press).Svedmyr, A. (1997) The aesthetics of recognition: an important aspect of a colour harmony theory, in: L.

Sivik (Ed.) Colour Report: Proceedings of the Association Internationale de la Couleur Interim Meeting 1996

(Stockholm: Scandinavian Colour Institute AB).Unver, R. & Ozturk, L. D. (2002) An example of facade colour design of mass housing, Color Research andApplication, 27(4), pp. 291–299.

Bridging the Gap 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 16:

15 1

6 Ju

ne 2

013