8/18/2019 4f5

1/4

Journal

of

Architectural

and

Planning

Research

25:2 (Summer,

2008)

176

Book

Reviews

Inquiry by Design

by

John Zeisel. New

York: W.

W.

Norton &

Company, 2006.

400

pp., $34.95

paper.

Since the inception of the Environment-Behav-

ior (E-B)

discipline

in

late

1960s, its followers

have assumed that architectural

design should

be

based on understanding the

intricacies of hu-

man and environment

relations, and its applica-

tion

should be

shaped by

research-based

knowl-

edge. Some

o

its scholars, such as Amos

Rapoport,

asserted that architecture

is not a

'free' artistic

activity but a science-based profes-

sion

that is concerned

with

problem solving

(2005:1). Inherent in

this approach to architec-

ture is the

basic

assumption that studying

the

behavior of people

in relation

to

the environ-

ment can elicit knowledge, which can

be

gener-

alized

and

applied in

various design

contexts.

Be

that

as it may,

despite

the wealth

of

informa-

tion about the

interrelationships

between

people

and

their built and

natural

environments

that

the E-B field

has

yielded over

30

years of re-

search,

the

field

has taken

a

back seat

in

current

architectural education. There is little emphasis

on evidence-based design in

student

projects,

and only a few

schools require courses in pro-

gramming, master planning,

and

post-occu-

pancy evaluation.

Things were very different

when

John Zeisel's Inquiry by Design first ap-

social and behavioral scientists,

along with a

few

architects

committed

to the

need

for more

socially responsible approaches to planning and

design

of

the

environment,

ambitiously

at-

tempted to articulate a new

model or paradigm

for the

design

process. Zeisel, who came to

E-B

from sociology (1975), has

been one

of

the

founding

members

of

this

new

discipline, and

his book, Inquiry

by

Design

has been a land-

mark

text in

the

E-B field since its

publication.

Both the need

for theoretical understanding

of

the relationship between people and

their sur-

roundings,

and an immediate, pragmatic con-

cern over

mismatches

between people,

institu-

tions, communities, and other designed

envi-

ronments provided

impetus for this

book.

The

motivating force was the premise

that knowl-

edge of the

fundamental

principles

of

human be-

havior

helps

designers

clarify the relationship

between

environment

and behavior. This,

in

turn,

helps architects consider

how the

designed

environment

can

afford people of different

back-

grounds

distinctive

experiences

and diverse

ac-

tivity patterns.

Lang (1987) claimed that this

knowledge enables designers

to

understand

what they can predict

with confidence and when

they are really going

out

on

a limb.

The

functionalist model

that

Zeisel

follows in

his book

begins with knowledge and research,

followed

by a

programming

stage that

specifies

the social knowledge to be incorporated in the

8/18/2019 4f5

2/4

Journal of rchitecturalt

and Planning

Research

 

25:2 (Summer,

2008

177

this process would result in buildings

that would

better fit the

needs

of

their future occupiers and

users. The

last step,

which was

added

later, is

post-occupancy evaluation,

which completes

the

circle

by providing

the source

for

new

social

sci-

ence

knowledge

to

inform

the design process

for

the

next round

of

projects. The new paradigm

was

embraced by the architectural establish-

ment, and as a result during

the late 1970s and

early

1980s

virtually

every leading

school

of

ar-

chitecture,

interior

design,

landscape

architec-

ture, and urban

planning required courses

in

people-environment

studies. Zeisel's book be-

came an essential text

in

many

of

these courses

and

influenced

young minds in

the

field around

the world.

A

quarter

of

a

century later, Zeisel updated

his

classic text

by revising

some

of the chapters,

adding

new research

examples,

and

challenging

the

field by linking the social,

psychological,

and physiological research

of

E-B studies

to

neurosciences. The

updated version, just like

the

first edition, is

clearly

written

and well

orga-

nized. The format,

which summarizes topics in

tables and matrices and provides

overviews at

the end

of

each chapter, helps the reader to navi-

gate throughout

the book and makes

the

reading

exceptionally accessible.

It

is

an

excellent text

for

undergraduate as

well

as graduate students

in courses

that focus

on

the meeting

point

of

de-

sign

and

research.

While some

of the photo-

graphs

and illustrations did

not maintain their

freshness over the

years,

most of the line

draw-

ings and diagrams are still unblemished

and

supportive of

the text as in the

first edition.

The

two parts

of

the book, research

and design

and

research

methods, are saturated with research

examples.

Some examples are old,

but many

are

updated with

new,

credible information.

The

last

chapter

in the revised book breaks away

from the original

version and introduces the

new environment/behavior/neuroscience

(E/B/

N)

approach

that Zeisel believes is an enriched

way

of understanding

some

of

the

central

con-

cepts

of

E-B studies, such

as

place,

territory,

personalization,

and wayfinding. Zeisel

argues

that these concepts

are

strategic

issues in E-B

studies,

and as a result, exploring them can

il-

lustrate how

neuroscience

can add to

traditional

E-B

perspectives.

He

writes,

If

a

new paradigm

is to further

the

discipline

of

environment-be-

theories, and models

(p. 356). To demonstrate

the viability

of

his proposition, Zeisel discusses

examples

from

neonatal care units' design and

learning environments,

as

well

as a case study of

an assisted living

treatment residence for

people

with

Alzheimer's.

It

is somewhat unclear

how the addition

of

neu-

roscience to the

already many

existing

fields

that

make

up the

E-B

discipline can

guarantee

an improved evidence-based design

for

con-

structing healthier or enhanced

environments.

While

the

E/B/N

model

can assist

in

the

pro-

gramming

stage

of

some

facilities, it is danger-

ous

to

assume

that the

design

process could

fol-

low a recipe

with

premeasured

ingredients

which when ordered

and combined according

to

absolutely explicit instructions

...

will produce

all

by itself, the

correct result

(Fish, 1989:343).

Architectural design is

a complex process that

often

generates

unexpected and

unpredictable

alternative solutions even when

it is

done

within

the

boundaries

of

a strict program

and precise

performance-criteria

design guidelines.

Nearly

all the decisions

in the design process regarding

form and structure are

made

without

empirical

evidence. Furthermore,

the

design

program re-

flects only

a

fraction

of

the

total context

of

an

architectural

undertaking.

The

context can dif-

fer

in

scale, location,

culture, market, technol-

ogy, and the inventiveness and creativity

of the

individual designer.

Judging

the E/B/N model is perhaps premature.

These

days, when the E-B concepts

are almost

absent from undergraduate

architectural cur-

ricula,

which reflect

merely

a

marginal attention

to

human

or social implications,

it

appears that

Zeisel's

approach

is

mainly theoretical

and

can

benefit

graduate students

who

choose to pursue

research-oriented

degrees. These

concepts can

advance

basic

theoretical research

in

the areas

where E/B/N

interact, and perhaps

can

replace

the naYve

stimulus-response

model

of

human

be-

havior (Lang, 1987:viii).

We need theory

to

fo-

cus research

in

order

to improve the knowledge

base of

the

discipline, as Nobel

Laureate

Herbert

Simon contended: Society

supports basic re-

search because

of a

belief

that

fundamental ad-

vances

in

knowledge will lead

to

important

practical applications,

and

conversely,

that

ad-

8/18/2019 4f5

3/4

Journal

ofArchitectural

and Planning

Research

25:2

(Summer,

2008

178

history of the past two or

three

hundred years

provides

a

mass

of

evidence

to support

this be-

lief

(Simon, 1976:20).

In summary,

Inquiry by Design carries on the

work of

many

other E-B researchers

who

share

the idea

that environmental

design

can benefit

from

a

much

clearer

and more

theoretical foun-

dation than it now enjoys.

If

there is any authen-

ticity

to Robert Gutman s

(1989)

argument that

  the balance between the attention to the purely

architectural and a concern

for usability

seems

to change every few decades, then there is a

hope for the E-B field and its advocates.

REFERENCES

Fish S (1989) Doing what comes naturally :

Change, rheto-

ric, and

practice

of theory in literary

and legal studies.

Durham, NC: Duke University

Press.

Gutman

R

(1989) Human

nature

in

architectural theory: The

example of Louis Kahn. In R

Ellis

and D Cuff

(Eds.),

Archi-

tects people.

New

York:

Oxford University

Press.

Lang J (1987) Creatingarchitectural

heory : The role of

the

behavioral

sciences in environmental design.

New

York:

Van

Nostrand Reinhold.

Rapoport

A (2005)

Culture,

architecture,and design.

Chi-

cago,

IL:

Locke Science

Publishing

Company,

Inc.

Simon HA (1976)

Social

and behavioral science programs

in

the National

Science

Foundation.

Washington,

DC:

Na-

tional Academy of Sciences.

Zeisel

J

(1975)

Sociology

and architectural

design. New

York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

Benyamin

Schwarz

Ruth

Tofle

University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, Missouri,

USA

Knowledge-Based

Design :

Developing

Urban

and

Regional

Design Into a Science

by

Ina

T.

Klaasen. Delft, Netherlands:

Delft

University

Press,

2004. 240

pp.,

$56.00 soft

cover.

I

was

quite excited

about

reviewing

Ina

Klaasen s book. I have

been searching for

a

University in Canada and practice

urban

design

across

North

America, I find there is

a large gap

between theory,

facts, and practice in

urban and

regional design. Ina

Klaasen

does an admirable

job

of meticulously describing

the

past and

cur-

rent

approaches

to urban and

regional

design

from

an

academic

perspective.

Thorough

and

substantiated research supports

the

hypothesis

and follows

through

with exhaustive explana-

tions

from

various

perspectives.

Ina Klaasen's

book

is a very

well documented explanation

of

the past and current orientation

between urban

and regional

design

as

a

pattern-oriented

ap-

proach

versus

a

process-based

approach. She

carefully describes the subtle and

distinctive

dif-

ferences

and then

illustrates them

with ex-

amples.

The book is actually Ina Klaasen s Doctoral dis-

sertation

that

has been

translated to

English

from

Dutch. Unfortunately, in the translation,

some of the

clear

flow and meaning

is lost.

This

book also

has

an

academic orientation, which is

a mixed blessing.

I

like the

very

clear and struc-

tured approach, and the detailed table

of con-

tents is very helpful.

However, I found my con-

centration

tended to drift in the actual content

as

it went into such detail in parts

that seemed

to

disrupt

the

flow

of

the

content.

What also

ap-

peared awkward is that

the summary is located

at the end of the book,

detached from the formal

table

of contents.

A

concise summary

at

the be-

ginning

would

have been very helpful. Again, I

had

to remind myself

that as

a

Doctoral

disserta-

tion, that rigor is demanded and certainly

was

delivered.

Past

literature has generally

emphasized

the

  aesthetic

architecture

of

urban

design

rather

than

the science

of

urban design.

Some

of

the

references that

are very familiar

to

the

more sci-

entific or logical side of urban design, including

Jacobs, Lunch,

and

Alexander, were well

refer-

enced

and

differentiated

in the book s text.

There

is a definite gap between the fact-based,

more scientific

design and the big idea or ar-

tistic/culturally

oriented

design.

The

big

idea

design that dominates

the aesthetic-driven ur-

ban

design

world frequently has little (if

any)

actual basis in local and regional

economic, so-

cial, and

ecological

data or

rationale.

It may

also

have

an orientation

to historic conservation and

8/18/2019 4f5

4/4

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: [Inquiry by Design]

SOURCE: J Archit Plann Res 25 no2 Summ 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://taz.tamu.edu/Press/japr2.html