This study focuses on the subject of environmental aesthetics and aims to identify the differences and similarities that emerge in the general aesthetic evaluations toward the individual style, particularly examining the physical and connotative meanings in the buildings by Zaha Hadid.  The study further seeks to understand how individual style fosters aesthetic awareness or common perceptions on a universal level without causing a cultural difference.


A survey was conducted to understand the visual aesthetic evaluations of architects and laypersons over 16 buildings of Hadid—an architect who managed to develop her own individual style. The visual images created were evaluated in terms of sensorial and physical concepts in order to understand whether there was a common language by evaluating the aesthetic perceptions of subjects with different backgrounds, and to reveal the effect of individual style in forming a universal tongue. Descriptive statics, correlation analysis and independent t test were performed to conduct the evaluations.


According to analysis results, the rhythm and organic lines of a building are the most significant elements for building façades and masses in aesthetic evaluations. In addition, no significant differences regarding the dimensions of “liking”, “ornate”, “attractive”, “meaningful” and “warm” were found between the groups.

Research Limitations/Implications

The survey was conducted between two different subject groups; architects and laypersons. Specific parameters related to the sensorial concepts of the buildings were used. These parameters included the concepts of liking, pleasant, complex, familiar, meaningful, ornate and warm, while for the physical characteristics of the buildings, the concepts of regular/ irregular, full/ empty, rhythmic/ arrhythmic, soft/ hard, meaningful/ meaningless and symmetric/asymmetric were used.


This study is significant insofar as it is among the rare research studies that found there to be no differences between architects and laypersons but rather, similarities between them.

Author Biographies

Berivan Özbudak Akça, DICLE UNIVERSITY

Berivan ÖZBUDAK AKÇA is currently working as an assistant professor for Dicle University Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Diyarbakır, Turkey. She graduated from Dicle University in 1999, conducted her M.Sc. in the same university in 2004. Her PhD is conducted in 2012 at Gazi University Faculty of Architecture in Ankara.

Ebru Erdoğan, Selcuk University

Ebru ERDOGAN received her PhD degree from the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Selcuk in 2010. She has been working as an associate professor in Selcuk University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Konya, Turkey. She has just completed her post- doc in the Department of Architecture at the University of Liverpool in 2020.


Abercrombie, S. (1984). Architecture as art: an aesthetic analysis. Newyork: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Ackerman, J.S. (1963). “Style”, Art and Archaelogy. Prentice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 174-186.

Amer, M., Attia, S. (2019). Identification of sustainable criteria for decision-making on roof stacking construction method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47 (February), 101456.

Aydınlı, S. (1993). Aesthetic values in architecture. First Edition. Istanbul: İ.T.Ü. Faculty of Architecture Printing Studio.

Basu, T, Ghosh, M. (2018). Visual perception of space and parametric design: A brief discussion, GSTF Journal of Engineering Technology, pp 1-11. DOI: 10.5176/2251-3701_4.2.185,

Benedikt, M.L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 6(1):47-65.

Brown, G., Gifford, R. (2001). Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: whose conceptual properties?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (21) 93-9.

Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment and Behavior, (1) 27-28.

Chan, C. S. (2000). Can style be measured?. Design Studies, 21(3), 277–291.

Devlin, K., Nasar, J.L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisions of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgements of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (9), 333-44.

Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural interpretation: architects versus nonarchitects. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (7), 235-43.

Erdoğan, E. (2010). Stil ve Tasarım Eğitimi. İstanbul: Yapı Dergisi, 342, 62-65.

Erdogan, E., Akalin, A., Yıldırım, K., Erdoğan, H.A. (2010a). Aesthetic differences between freshmen and pre-architects. Gazi University Journal of Science, 23 (4), 5011-50.

Erdogan E, Akalin A, Yildirim K, Erdogan H. A. (2010b). Students’ evaluations of different architectural styles. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, WCPCG-2010, 5, 875-881.

Erzen, J.N. (2006). Çevre Estetiği. Ankara: Odtü Geliştirme Vakfı publishing, İletişim publication.

Fawcett, W., Ellingham, T., Platt, S. (2008). Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public. Environment and Behavior, Vol.40, No.5, 599-618.

Greene, T.M. (1940). The Arts and the Art of Critisism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 5-12.

Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post-Modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (2), 3- 22.

Gifford, R., Hine, D., Clemm, W., Shaw, K. (2000). Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Approach for Understanding the Aesthetics Differences of Architects and Laypersons. Environment and Behaviour, 32 (2), 163-87.

Gifford, R., Hine, D., Clemm, W., Shaw, K. (2002). Why Architects and Laypersons Judge Building Differently: Cognitive Properties and Physical Bases. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19 (2), 131-48.

Hershberger, R. C. (1969). A study of meaning in architecture, Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association, ed. H. Sanoff, S. Cohn, Raleigh, ABD:NC: North Carolina State University.

Hersberger, G. R. (1988). A Study of Meaning And Architecture, Environmental Aesthetics Theory Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, 175-94.

Hershberger, R. G., Cass, R. C. (1988). Predicting user responses to buildings, in J. L. Nasar, (Eds.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, New York: Cambridge University Press., 195-211.

Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting Interpretations of Architecture: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Environmental Psychology, (16), 75- 92.

İmamoğlu, V. (1979). Assessment of living rooms by households and architects, Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Association for the People and Their Physical Environment, Louvain le Neuve, Belgium, 65-85.

İmamoğlu, Ç. (2000). Complexity, liking and familiarity: architecture and non-architecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 5-16.

Jenks, C. (1977). The Language of Post-modern architecture. New York: Rizzoli.

Jencks, C. (1980). The architectural sign, sign-symbols and architecture. pp. 71-118, Eds. Broadbent, G.,Bunt, R.,Jencks, C., New York: John Wileyand Sons Ltd.

Kaplan, R. (1974). Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and 'clients', in F.E. Wolfgang, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Environmental Design and Research Association. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 265-274.

Krampen, M., Öztürk, K., Saltik, H., Özek, V. (1978). Eski ve yeni görünüşlerin öznel izlenimleri ve nesnel ölçümleri, KTU Mimarlık Bölümü Mimarlık Bülteni.

Kunawong, C. (1986). The Study of Responses to Architectural Exteriors by Architectural and Non-Architectural Students, Unpublished Phd. Thesis, Ohio State University, ABD.

Kuller, R. (1973). Beyond Semantic Measurement, Architectural Psychology, ed. R. Küller. Lund Procedings of 2. International Architectural Psychology Conference, Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 181-97.

Larue, J. (1970). Guidelines for Style Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton, ix.

Lang, J. (1987). Fundamental Processes of Human Behaviour Creating architectural Theory, The Role of theBehavioural Science Environmantal Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Maalqe, E. (1973). The Aesthetic Joyand Repetition of the Ever Unpredictable, ed. R.

Küller, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn.

Nasar, J.L., Kang, J. (1989). A post-jury evaluation, Environment and Behavior. (21), 464- 84.

Nasar, J.L. (1989a). Perception, cognition and evaluation of urban places. In I. Altman, & E.H. Zube (Eds), Public Places and Spaces: Human Behaviour and Environment, vol.10, 31-56.

Nasar, J.L. (1989b). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behaviour, 21, 235-257.

Nasar, J.L., Purcell, A. T. (1990). Beauty and the beast extended: Knowledge structure and evaluation of houses by Australian architect and non architect students. Culture, Space, History: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Association for the People and Their Physical Environment 1, ed. H.Pamir, V. İmamoğlu, N. Teymur, 1, ODTÜ, Ankara, 169-71.

Nasar, J.L., (2008). Assessing Perceptions of Environments for Active Living, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34 (4): 357–363.

Özbudak Akça, B., Erdoğan, E., Akalın, A., (2015). A Study of Architects’ Understanding of Laypersons’ Language; Similarity of Architect and Layperson. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 32(2):171-189.

Purcell, A.T. (1995). Experiencing American and Australian high and popular-style houses. Environment and Behavior, (27), 771- 801.

Purcell, A.T., Peron, E., Sanchez, C. (1998). Subcultural and cross-cultural effects on the experience of detached houses: An examination of two models of affective experience of the environment. Environment and Behavior, (30) 348-77.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon.

Rapoport, A. (1980). Human Aspects of Urban Form, Towards a Man- Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt.

Sadalla, E.K., Sheets, V.L. (1993). Symbolism in building materials: self-presentational and cognitive components. Environment and Behavior, vol.25 no.2, 155-180.

Sánchez-Pantoja, N., Vidal, R., & Pastor, M. C. (2018). Aesthetic perception of photovoltaic integration within new proposals for ecological architecture. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39(February), 203–214.

Sandstrom, S. (1973). Socio- cultural theory of aesthetic visual estimation and use. Architectural Psychology, ed. R. Küller, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn.

Sanoff, H. (1974). Measuring Attributes of the Visual Environment. Designing For Human Behavior Architecture and Behavioral Sciences, ed. J. Lang, Dowden Hutchinson and Ross. Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn.

Schapiro, M. (1961). Style, In: M. P. Philipson (Ed), Aesthetics Today. World Publishing, Cleveland, OH, 81-113.

Schulz, N. C. (1965). Intentions in Architecture. London: M.I.T., Press, Cambridge Studio Vista.

Smith, C.S. (1981). A search for structure: selected essays on science, art and history. London: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 359.

Stanislav, A., & Chin, J. T. (2019). Evaluating livability and perceived values of sustainable neighborhood design: New Urbanism and original urban suburbs. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101517.

Şentürer, A. (1995). Aesthetic fact in Architecture. Istanbul: İ.T.Ü. Faculty of Architecture Printing Studio.

Weber, R., Choi, Y., Stark, L. (2002). The impact of formal properties on eye movement during the perception of architecture. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(1), 57-69.




How to Cite

Özbudak Akça, B., & Erdoğan, E. (2021). ONE MORE COINCIDE BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND LAYPERSONS ON THE AESTHETICS OF ZAHA HADID’S BUILDINGS. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 9(1), 220–241.