PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRCIDateDue.indd-p.1

 

 

”/THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LIVING IN
HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES/,

By

James L. Gordon

UP 898 ..,

PLAN B
Summer 1987

Submitted to:

Professor Roger E. Hamlin

ABSTRACT

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LIVING IN
HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
By

James L. Gordon

High-rise residential development in the United States has
shifted from a once predominantly government entity to one which is
now basically private sector initiated and operated. Historically,
high-rise apartment construction was done primarily by private
developers to meet the needs of overcrowdedness in population in
major cities. It should be noted that high-rise apartment living
at this time was totally voluntary. One chose his/her type of
housing according to affordability.

The federal government first became involved in providing
public housing during World War II. The government entrance into
the housing industry at this time was a response to the urgent need
for providing workers' accommodation in the ship building industry.

Federal government participation in the housing industry grew
as a result of such legislation as the Housing Act of 1937. The
purpose of this act was to generate employment for unemployed con-
struction workers and to provide housing for middle-class and

working-class families who were experiencing hardships.

Beginning in the years between 1957 and 1968, United States
_ public housing construction took on the production of high-rise
apartment buildings for the first time. This period of public
housing became known to many as “the era of the superblocks.” Such
cities as Chicago, New York, Detroit, Washington, St. Louis,
Buffalo, Baltimore, Cleveland, Boston, Philadelphia, and Atlanta
were hosts of the new public high-rise apartments. The United
States public housing project remained vital (in terms of construc-
tion) until the early 19805. Today, high-rise apartment building
has been taken over basically again by private developers.
Psychological studies, reports, and research have produced
inconclusive and mixed results in their efforts to document the
well-being of occupants of high-rise apartments. Congruence does
exist among researchers that children, the elderly, and families
with children tend to be more victimized as a result of living in
high-rise apartments. The chief complaint among parents and chil-
dren living in high-rise apartments is a lack of supervision and
communication between the apartments and the playground. The
elderly tend to be more concerned about their impaired health and
its effects on them in dealing with emergencies and overall safety.
Given the complexity of the differences in life styles, age
compositions, household types, preferences, and taste, psycho-
logical research has discovered that high-rise apartments, whether
publicly or privately built, must be done as a joint effort between

the psychologist and the architect.

Prior to building any high-rise apartment structure, the psy-
chologists must provide the architect with as much data as possible
so that occupants' preferences, tastes, and life styles can be
integrated into the design of the building prior to occupying it.
The ultimate goal of high-rise construction is to build an environ-
ment which leads to social interaction among residents and accommo-
date a variety of life styles, while giving everyone a 'sense of

control of his/her immediate surroundings.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................... 1
BODY OF EVIDENCE ....................... 3

Psychological Impacts of High-Rise Living ........ 3

Children Living in High-Rise Apartments ......... 4

The Elderly Living in High-Rise Apartments ........ 6
SUMMARY ........................... 35
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 37
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 41
NOTES ............................ 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

APPENDIX ........................... 51

INTRODUCTION

High-rise residential facilities have always been a part of
the American culture and heritage. Historically they serve the
housing needs of residents in cities throughout the United States.
Psychologists have reported a variety of effects of living in high-
rises but with only a few common discoveries. Some of the most
common discoveries are: (1) an individual's anxiety increases the
higher he lives from the ground, (2) one increases his chance of
respiratory problems (especially in young children), (3) one
suffers from a sense of isolation (most so the elderly), and
(4) the high-rise atmosphere is less friendly.

Recently, psychologists have attempted to identify one's
level of satisfaction by linking the design of the high-rise build-
ing to the individual's perception and feelings. Thus, psychology
researchers have changed their focus over time from associating
crowding in high-rise buildings (which has no effect on satisfac-
tion) to a more human/architectural design approach.

High-rise apartment living received some of its more negative
publicity as a result of the federal government providing such
housing types for low income residents. Not all of the high-rises
built for lower- and moderate-income level families were failures.

Inept architectural design without prior consideration of the

potential residents' desires has been stated as the primary reason
for the failures.

Unfortunately, psychologists, social researchers, planners,
and politicians have not been able to define consistent high-rise
apartment features to justify the ultimate design. Levels of
satisfaction of high-rise living fluctuates generally by age group,
marital status, life style, and number of children. High-rise
apartments in City A may be considered successful in terms of occu-
pant satisfaction while at the same time occupants in City 8 with
identical apartment facilities generate dissatisfaction.

Despite the discrepancies in psychology findings the future
of high-rise apartments in the U.S. looks impressive. In 1977, the
construction starts of 536,000 homes in multiunit structures (con-
taining five dwellings or more) were authorized. This represented
an increase of 27 percent of all housing construction and was an
increase of 6 percent over 1975.1 The United States is currently
building at a rate of one and one-half times the demand of 416,000
units projected for the 1975-1980 period. It is estimated that
between 1980 and 1990 an additional 3,670,000 units in multifamily
apartments will have been built with a further increase of
3,350,000 units by the year 2000 (Joint Economic Committee,
1978:1). These projected figures of increase high-rise apartment
productions arouse one's curiosity of how they will be built,

designed, and arranged in space.

BODY OF EVIDENCE

Considerable attention has been given to the social, psycho-
logical, and cultural effects of occupying a high-rise apartment
building. The increased use of such high-rise buildings has been
in response to vthe need for more working space and shelter in
highly urbanized areas. In addition, attention has mounted because
of the criticisms associated with their construction. The atten-
tion area will be reviewed in the text of this paper. The primary
focus of this paper will be a direct review of the human responses
to living in high-rise residential buildings in the United States.
Also, recommendations and suggestions will be given to problem
areas. A major emphasis will be to review the social, psycho-
logical, life style, safety, and family make-up of residents living

in highdrise buildings.

Psychological Impacts of High-Rise Living
There is much diversity among occupants of high-rise apart-
ments in terms of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Research
literature has defined low-income residents, families (with chil-
dren, and the elderly to be the most negatively affected groups of
high-rise occupants. Case studies will be reviewed to further
explain the controversial definition of high-rise satisfaction and

the good and ill psychological effects of it. The level of-

satisfaction experienced by residents of high-rises ultimately
depends on the situation at hand and the individual's perceived

likes and dislikes of his environment.

Children Living in High-Rise Apartments

 

Research findings of the effects of children living in high-
rises appear to be jejune and inconclusive. With respect to physi-
cal development and health, there is some evidence that young
apartment children are somewhat less adept at certain playful
activities than are their counterparts living in single family
homes.2 Studies of medical records (Darke and Darke, 1969) found
that the incidence of respiratory diseases increased with height of
the home.3 Likewise, Fanning (1967) obtained similar results in a
more carefully executed study of the health status of children of
British army personnel stationed in Germany.4

With regard to mental health, the literature is replete with
assertions regarding the negative effects of high-rise apartment
living. For example, apartment children have been cited as being
more aggressive because they cannot get back quickly to the safe
shelter of their homes and, in order to survive, must learn to be
tough. Young apartment children would be more nervous and bored
and would develop a greater dependence on their parents who
restrict their mobility because of the difficulty of supervising
them outside the home. Older apartment children, on the other
hand, would roam around freely and, through peer influence, would

more likely become engaged in vandalism and other delinquent

behavior. These findings of children's behavior were evidence
based on the personal experiences of observers in such professional
roles as housing manager, child welfare worker, and psychiatrist.
The area of high-rise living influence on peer relations and ,
friendship formation has been blurred by conclusions in literature.,
Some researchers believe that apartments inhibit spontaneoussocial
interaction and limit the possibility of receiving friends at home
(Gregoire (1971),5 Jephcott (1971),6 and Young (1976)7). Other
researchers found the opposite behavior in that they failed to find
any negative effects of high-rise apartment living on children's
social interactions. For example, Farley (1977) found that chil;
dren who had moved to high-rise apartments had more rather than
fewer friends as compared to children who had moved to houses,
although the difference had diminished one year after the move.
Children's play activities appeared to be one of the most
easily defined characteristics of high-rise apartment living. The
significance of easy parental supervision and easy access to the
outdoor environment emerge as the two principal findings from
numerous studies of children's play activities. Studies show that
parents in high-rise apartments tend to take an all or nothing
approach with respect to children's outdoor behavior. Either the
parents relinquish care and let their children play outside any-
where they wish or they take the overprotective route of keeping
them inside the apartment all the time. Children's age becomes a

crucial factor with play habits. Research studies show that

younger children living in high-rise apartments played more fre-
quently indoors as compared to children of the same age group
living in walk-ups. Among older ichildren, the situation was
reversed; those living in the high-rise apartments spent more time
outdoors.

This overview of findings in the literature is not exhaus-
tive, but it suffices to indicate the diverse issues that have been
investigated along the spectrum of possible influences of high-rise

apartment living on children.

The Elderly Living in High-Rise Apartments

Research focusing on the psychological effects of the elderly
living in high-rise apartments has produced information data but
with complex implications. The level of well-being tends to rest
on the link between the building's physical features, its outright
design, and the social activities it offers. Overall it can be
concluded that lower level or court residents experience a higher I
degree of satisfaction as compared to high-rise residents. Two
case studies will be briefly reviewed to demonstrate this conclu-
sion and highlight the major variables involved in designing
elderly high-rise housing.

In the early 19705 the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare funded researchers at the Phildadelphia Geriatric
Center to do a nationwide study of elderly people living in tall/
high-rise buildings. The researchers found that high-rise living

among the elderly residents did not have a major impact on their

morale and ability. to make social contacts or participate in
activities in or out of the building.9 Despite the majority satis-
faction among the elderly residents, many of the residents were
dissatisfied because they were afraid of fire and uneasy that _ele-
vators would leave them stranded. The use of fireproof buildings
was not enough to convince many elderly residents that their par-
ticular building was safe.

Many general concerns of the elderly were mentioned, such as
the reduction of their physical strength which comes with age,-
’ health problems, hearing impairments, and the overall decline of
the sensitivity of the five senses. These concerns will have to be
considered more by architects and engineers in their designing and
building of high-rise apartments to house the elderly.

Ann Sloan Devlin, an environmental psychologist in New
London, Conn., conducted a study of the elderly living in high-rise
apartments compared to low-rise dwelling units. The overall find-
ings showed that both groups experienced moderate/satisfaction in
their respective domiciles. L

The level of elderly satisfaction in the high-rises of 9 (and
11 stories was based on the following factors: .(1) understanding
and organizing information, (2) avoiding confusion and disorienta-
tion, (3) environmental legibility, and (4) perception of safety
and social interaction.10 The interaction of these contributing
factors (which will be discussed in more detail shortly) to the

individual's level of satisfaction further complicates the design

picture for architects and engineers in addition to proper
planning.

Elderly residents who participated in the study had the basic
high-rise fear of building height, threat of fire, and concern
about elevator mishap. Also, the elder residents cited dissatis-
faction in the area of site arrangement and surveillance. Many of
the negative findings in this area were related to the design
variables of wayfinding, orientation, and knowledge of the environ-
ment. A chief site arrangement complaint was the improper location
of entrances to the housing project area. The residents felt that
the buildings were facing the wrong way and this orientation has
negative ramifications in terms of crime prevention, the often-
noted benefit of the elderly high-rise design. The areas were not
considered "Defensible Space“ as referred to by Oscar Newman and
others.

Participants in the study were asked to give their perception
of security of their buildings in relation to stress and design.
Most respondents stated that they had fear of being assaulted in
the building atcgjght, particularly on the ground floor and in the
laundry room. Also, at this time, the participants listed the
other stresses of fear caused by elevator mishap, fear of fire, and
building height. These phobias appear consistently throughout
research literature, thus reinforcing the human response to tall
buildings irrespective of the building's design, location, and

architectural elegance.

Environmental awareness appears to be another problem of the
elderly as they are placed in buildings with many floors of uniform
design. Many of the elderly residents were guilty of putting their
key in someone else's apartment door, thus failing the test of
environmental legibility. This problem of disorientation derives
from the confusion brought on by the lack of orienting codes and
personalization of floors and doors.

Many respondents in this study did not appreciate the limited“
landscape and perceived lack of control offered by their building.
Many respondents felt separated from nature and were not in control
of their immediate environment. 'They did not have.a Special incen-
tive or attraction to seek possession of the limited public_ space-g'
among the buildings. Therefore, they spent tWice as much time '
Finside'itheiFFrapartments as compared to residents of lower-rise
'uNIts.

' The participants in this study reversed the long held belief
that high—rise residents were more likely to have greater diffi-
culty in social relationships (McCarthy and Saegert (1977)). The ‘
high-rise residents demonstrated higher levels of satisfaction, in
terms of creating and promoting social activities, neighborliness,
friendliness, and a greater level of community spirit.11 All "of
these attributes were attainable because of the immense number of
residents available in the high-rise to support social activities.

This study identifies a number of important congerns for

designers of housing for the elderly as well as other populations.

10

First, architects and planners must be aware of the impact of
.design on human information-processing capabilities, as described
here by the confusion of high-rise tenants trying to open someone
else's apartment door, fears surrounding building height and ele-
vator mishap, and threat of fire. Designers must also possess sen-
sitivity to defensible space principles (i.e., proper location of
buildings) t; improve the security perception of the buildings.

Second, as nature continues to be perceived as an important
,3919 in resident Satisfaction, landscaping should not be treated as
the design concern of lowest priority. It may be possible that
increased contact with nature could provide an extension of ter-
ritoriality and sense of control over the environment.

The two aforementioned studies highlight some of the basic
complexities Linvolved with constructing high-rise residential
facilities when there are great discrepancies between social and
physical variables leading to the occupants' satisfaction or dis-
satisfaction. The challenge of designing the appropriate high-rise
structure can be difficult, as evidenced by the two elderly studies
just reviewed. The psychological factors of design quality,‘social
interaction, and the environment will be further examined in light
of other high-rise projects used to meet our housing demands in
urban areas.

Public high-rise residential facilities have been a major
part of the housing market since the 19305. Unlike many other

sponsors of housing, public high-rise housing has received an

10

First, architects and planners must be aware of the impact of
.design on human information-processing capabilities, as described
here by the confusion of high-rise tenants trying to open someone
else's apartment door, fears surrounding building height and ele-
vator mishap, and threat of fire. Designers must also possess sen-
sitivity to defensible space principles (i.e., proper location of
buildings) to—improve the security perception of the buildings.

Second, as nature continues to be perceived as an important
groie in resident Satisfaction, landscaping should not be treated as
the design concern of lowest priority. It may be possible that
increased contact with nature could provide an extension of ter-
ritoriality and sense of control over the environment.

The two aforementioned studies highlight some of the basic
complexities linvolved with constructing high-rise residential
facilities when there are great discrepancies between social and
physical variables leading to the occupants' satisfaction or dis-
satisfaction. The challenge of designing the appropriate high-rise
structure can be difficult, as evidenced by the two elderly studies
just reviewed. The psyghglogical factors of design quality,*social\
interaction, and the environment will be further examined in light
of other high-rise projects used to meet our housing demands in
urban areas.

Public high-rise residential facilities have been a major

part of the housing market since the 19305. Unlike many other

sponsors of housing, public high-rise housing has received an

11

undeserved negative review from the public and professional critics
because of many political and personal biases toward it. Despite
the fact that only about 2.5 percent of the population lives in
public high-rise housing, it has received undue negative publicity
because of a few outright failures.

A celebrated example of such a project is the Pruitt-Igoe
complex in St. Louis, Missouri. The inner city of St. Louis
included extremely dilapidated slum areas which were replaced by
the Pruitt-Igoe project in 1954. Almost 12,000 persons were
relocated into 43,711-story high-rise structures covering
57 acres.12 Initially integrated, the project rapidly became a
black ghetto. Many of the black families were headed by women,
many were unemployed and on welfare, many lacked formal education.

Pruitt-Igoe is considered one of the most investigated ;caSesl
studied of the breakdown of social interaction and socialf>eupport
projects in ,higherise public housing. From 'its inception, the
project feiled overwhelmingly to meet the social and psychological
needs of its residents. Pruitt-Igoe became notorious for its
[emggdt,vandalism and constant sense of fear and distrust.

Yancey (1971), an architect, conducted a series of interviews
with residents of Pruitt-Igoe in an effort to uncover why the
project failed as a human habitat.13 Yancey discovered that
Pruitt-Igoe lacked the cohesion and mutual support that have been
found to characterize many central city neighborhoods. In analyz-

ing the cause of the breakdown in natural Social support, Yancey

"

12

concluded that the physicelugesign of the Pruitt-Igoe project had
,,,_’/I _

exerted an "atomizing" effeet on the informal social networks that

flw

 

typify many inner city neighborhoods.14 Yancey strongly criticized
the philosophy behind Pruitt-Igoe's design that encouraged minimiz-
ing "wasted space," that is, semi-public space within the buildings
that was outside of individual apartments.

Yancey, however, argued for a different design philosophy.
He suggested that the designers of multi-family housing for low-
income residents, rather than seeing the space between apartments
as something to be avoided, should strive to provide an appropriate
amount~ of space between dwelling units. At the core of the prob-
lem, he argued, was a Jack of adequate "defensible space"--space
that is characterized by a high level of social responsibility and
personal safety. Yancey explained that defensible space is
vachieved when semi-public space between apartments is actively used
by a large number of residents who assume some personal responsi-
bility and interest in keeping the area safe. The defensible space
'notion is particularly compelling because it incorporates aspects
of both social networks and personal control. He explained that
such semi-public space and facilities would offer areas that
smaller and identifiable groups of residents could organize with a
sense of personal turf. He emphasized that designers should mini-
mize space in the residential setting that belongs to no one, and
foster.the development of spaces between dwelling units over which

groups of residents will share a feeling of informal control.15

13

One feature of high-rise public housing that produces dis-

satisfaction is the height of the building. A central problem with

M..-

height involves the high-rise tenants' lack of control over their

"F_ ..-ur“.u— ......_...-._._.~-m-

 

eneieonment. In his interviews with residents of the Pruitt-Igoe
complex, Yancey (1971) found that the architectural design of the
building was such that as soon as the ehild left the confines of
the apartment unit, he was out of mether's supervision and sight.
Oscar Newman (1972) has further devel0ped the notion of
defensible space in high-rise public housing environments, emph-
asizing that by imeeexing the sgeial_functioning of public housing
the level of crime in these settings can be significantly

m

redeeed.16 Like Yancey, Newman's analysis of the social and

4......—

psycholegical failere of public housing is related to the psocial

 

network level. Newman explained that defensible Space is a charac-

 

wM_

teristic of housing environments that inhibit criminal activity by
presenting a physical setting that gives the impression of an
underlying social order that can defend itself. He proposed that
eeegtral to defensible space is the_eete:elflmeurveillanee as the
ability of residents to observe the public areas of the residential
environment while they are engaged in their daily activities.17
Again, it is clear that natural surveillance depends on both the
presence of a social network and the exercise of personal control.
Newman suggested that natural surveillance can be best
achieved by eeeieeing the residential setting in such a way that

people will naturally view the commonpaths, entry and lobby areas,

W

14

and outdoor areas in the residential environment. When natural
surveillance is achieved, an intreeee VII] peeeeive that his or her
activities are under obseeeetion by residents, and that unlawful
activity will be easily recognized and dealt with. He advanced a
number of~Eeeigeeeeiteria for achieving natural surveillance. For
example, he recommendededividing corridor space within buildings
into dietinct zones, each with its own small cluster of apartments.
He also proposed designing buildings so that their lobbies faced
teeeed rather than away from the surrounding city, streets, and
including several apartments near the lobby area in order that
their residents might oversee activity in the lobby area.18
Jonathan Freedman shares similar feelings with Newman in that he
advocates breeking up long corridors into separate units to provide
residents with a feeling of protection Iand social interaction.

Freedman, a psychologist, also feels that the way to have a safe,

comfortable, and full life is to interact with neighbors, to know

\ /‘ , ' d

L“

other people around you, and to be part of a community. Finally,
Freedman feels that- the design of the building will be the deter-

‘ mining factors of the odcupants' well-being.19
C;Newman provided evidence for his hypothesis about the role of
defensibIe space in crime prevention in a comparison of housing
peejects. across the street from each other in New York City that
were matched _in p0pulation characteristics relating to socio-
economic ‘status, family composition, and ethnic background. The

high-rise Van Dyke project was totally devoid of defensible space

15

qualities while the low-rise building of the Brownsville project

 

had comparatively more defehsible space qualities. “The high-rise_

apartments were found to have 50 percent moreutotalm crime inci-_

-\

.

dents, including over three and ohe4half times as” many robberies .
and 64 percent more felonies and misdemeanors than the lOw-riSe
apartments.20 Despite the wide acceptance of Newman'sV DefensiblehL‘
Space design technique, it should be mentioned that the technique ’4
operates under two_impertant”assumptions:u (1) it aeeemes that

designed-in visual cues will be understoodand adhered to by. resi-

,.—.——~

 

< ——-.— H—ar-

dents and strangers alike, and (2) it also assumes that residents

w

 

and criminals are twomeeparate populations.'*In‘ reality,"public

housing residents frequently victimize their own neighbors.

u—J

 

Residential crowding has appeared in psychological literature
as a key concern among researchers in identifying high-rise occu-
pants' well-being. Aparticular social psychological_ problem in
housing environments is residential crowding. Since many of the
laboratory studies of personal control have involved stresses that
are common in overcrowded residential environments, such as high
levels of density and noise, community-oriented research and inter-
ventions. involving personal control have focused heavily on resi-
dential crowding. Often, these interventions have been carried out
in a setting that provides an analogue of the stressful condition
of urban residential and high density student housing.

Research evidence has demonstrated that high levels of crowd-

ing in student housing designs that involve long double-loaded

16

corridors and common facilities shared by large numbers of resi-
‘dents, when coupled with an inability on the part of residents to
effectively control their social contacts at the group level with
other residents, has negative social contacts and psychological
effects on residents' functioning (Baum and Valins (1977)).21 Baum
and Valins (1977) noted that the architectural design of a college
dormitory can affect the residents' perception of crowding and con-
sequently their patterns of interaction. Their hypothesis was that
if the architectural design of the dormitory provided semi—private
spaces, smell_group formation would be facilitated and the indi-
vidual's ability to control unwanted social interaction would be
strengthened. The investigators compared students living in a
suite design (6 people, 2 in a room, share a bathroom and a lounge)
versus a hall or corridor design (17 double-occupancy rooms share a
central bathroom and an end hall lounge).22

Baum and Valins' findings indicated that residents of suite-
designed housing, a design which included more semi-private space,
experienced greater feelings of privacy , less sense of crowding,
and less desire to avoid other hall residents. In contrast, the
members of corridor design dormitories, with little or no provision
of semi-private space, experienced more feelings of lack of pri-
vacy, more sense of crowding, and an increased desire to avoid
other hall residents. In addition to residents' self reports, data
from behavioral mapping provided evidence for social withdrawal by

the corridor residents. Baum and Valins proposed that crowding is

17

experienced when ehigh density inhibits individuals' ability to

regulate the nature and frequency of their social interaction with

 

others.23

Jonathan Freedman, a well-known psychologist, contends that
crowding per se is less of a factor in generating negative effects
in high density settings. Freedman argues that crowding is not
usually arousing or harmful to people, but the response depends on
the situation.24 He believes that the effects of density depend
entirely on the situation and on the people involved. Crowding is
not always stressful and does not always produce harmful effects.

_ThETSTtuation an individual is in can be intensified by the density
level to produce either positive or negative responses. Freedman
believes this theory holds true for high-density housing. He
firmly believes that the density of housing will not be an impor-
tant factor in rates of pathology. social or otherwise.

High-rise housing has been found according to Freedman to be
free of crowding problems as livable habitats. Despite the
critics' point of view of high-rise living, a great many people
live in high-rise apartments and seem to function just fine.
Freedman concludes by stating that neither high-_ nor low-density
housing is better than the other, but each may be more suitable for
some people and some situations.25

The previous discussion of the unsuccessful public high-rise
apartment project (Pruitt-Igoe) is a prime example of the missing

link between architects, public decision-makers, and occupants of

18

the units. The housing project stimulating enough intereSt in the
housing research community to encourage other architects, social
scientists, and policy-makers to examine the problem. It was evi-
dent that solutions designed to solve high-rise housing units can
be applied in college and university residential settings.

Just ,as there are failure stories of high-rise apartments,
there are many succesSful public high-rise projects. For example,

820__Belle Plaines, a subsidized high-rise project in Chicago, has
I been con5idered a success by its occupants despite critics' allega-
tions of the high-rise environment. 830 Belle Plaines, which is
located in the Uptown Community area in Chicago, is a 24-story,
256-unit project built in 1969.

The diverse make-up of 820 Belle Plaines tenants demonstrates
the possibility of high-rise apartments to meet their needs ade-
quately. The Uptown Community is the neighborhood entry for immi-
grants, and refugees from poVerty-stricken areas. It also contains
a good many middle-income families and is adjacent to the higher
rent neighborhoods of Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Edgebrook.26
'Overall, 50 percent of the tenants are Black, 25 percent Asian, and
25 percent white including Spanish Americans.27

Surveys were sent and interviews were conducted with 830
Belle Plaines tenants to solicit their opinions and feelings of
their housing environment. Generally the re5ponses were favorable
and supportive of the high4rise apartments. Many tenants felt that

the high-rise units gave them a better view of the city. Other

19

tenants [ejected many planners' perspectives that high-riSe units
lead to TSOIation by discussing the many friends they have made as
a result of living in the project.

Architectural critics tend to point to the_]ack of; amenities
in ”nigh-rises, especially outdoor space.e The ténants agreed "with‘
the deeire of having private outdoor space, but in reality jobs,
they claim, are located in concentrated areas so that people must
flock to them without much elbow room.28 Presently, the time and
cost required to commute to work from far away is considered too
great for many of the tenants and therefore the high-rise structure
which is clean and well-maintained is the best alternative.

Much tenant satisfaction was attributable to the low rents
relative to the unsubsidized housing market. Some of the tenants
were students remaining until the completion of studies. Others
were renting only until they could save enough money to buy a home.
Many tenants remained because of the cheap rent.

In summary, the 820 Belle Plaines high-rise complex proves
contrary to popular notions currently in vogue in planning circles.
Tenants can and do live happily in high-rises with diverse ethnic
groups, with different income groups, and with. children. Most
important, they can provide good housing for a large number of low-
and moderate-income families without the need for extensive com-
munity facilities or cash subsidies to tenants.

At least from the point of view of the dwellers, it provides

satisfying, inexpensive housing without isolating people, depriving

20

them of spiritual comfort, or violating their rights as citizens.
The satisfaction of residents described in the 820 Belle Plaines
project shows how an individual's attitude effects his/her level of
well-being regardless of the population make-up or the design of
the building itself.

The survey findings in the 820 Belle Plaines project illUS-
trate the need for designers and decision-makers to identify and
incorporate human feelings, desires, lifestyles, and culture into
high-rise structures as much as possible. Studies have shown that
mahy people have been forced to live in high-rise apartments (espe-
cially public housing) because it is considered more economical and
planners claim that it is the best alternative for using land. The
lack of human cultural and lifestyle characteristics being incor—
porated to high-rise design has led to low levels of satisfaction
among many residents.

The Mark Twain Village high-rise apartment complex, which is
located in Chicago, demonstrates how a diverse group of residents
use their environment irrespective of the building design to meet
their needs. At the time of the study the housing project con-
sisted of five 29-story buildings and two 31-story buildings
constructed. between 1963 and 1968.29 There .were 2,567 rental
apartment units.

The majority of the tenants of Mark Twain Village are young
single adults between the ages of 21-40; only 29 percent of all

tenants are over forty coming either from suburban areas around

21

Chicago or from other parts of the country.30 The young tenants
are highly mobile and transients. Many are recent college
graduates with jobs in professional, managerial, clerical, and
sales positions. There are almost no families with children. The
differentiating feature of this particular high-rise development is
the self-selecting, age significant factor which attracted pri-
marily young adults.

The most attractive factor of the housing complex for young
people is the environment it provides them to meet pe0ple like
themselves. It is evident that the young residents of Mark Twain
Village perceived it as a place for social interaction and contact.
Social interaction became the driving force and critical criterion
for determining their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

An interesting feature of Mark Twain Village apartments is
the number and speed of the buildings' elevators. Each building is
serviced by two passenger elevators. There are no lounges or
informal gathering places, nor is there a recreation center. Thus,
elevators, considered by most residents as public places, became
the social meeting place for most tenants. The elevators traveled
at a below-normal rate of speed, thus allowing its riders to start
casual conversations. For Mark Twain Village, the elevator became
an instrument for encouraging social interaction while at other
projects it has a reputation as being a crime center.

Many residents expressed the need_for semi-public space that

would drawtenants. Given the socializing objective of many of the

, a..-"
_ '4'",—

‘r _

22

residents, spacious gathering places may in fact, because of their
sociofugal (factors that separate people) nature, actually inhibit
interaction between_tenants rather than facilitate it.31 Also, if
there are :00 many places to meet the population becomes too dis-
persed, thereby decreasing the little opportunity to meet. There-
fore sociopetal (forces bringing people together) elevators, on the
other hand, are good places to meet neighbors because they are
small enclosed spaces. '

Not everyone chooses Mark Twain Village for social reasons.
The different groups of tenants have needs and expectations of the
environment which actually conflict. Most of the young tenants
were satisfied but the middle-aged residents tended to be concerned
with the physical aspects of the environment. At Mark Twain Vil-
lage it was discovered that those tenants who were most satisfied
with the housing environment also had the most definite plans for
moving within a year or two. On the other hand, those tenants with
the most complaints about the physical condition of the apartments,
the maintenance of the buildings, and the management tended to be
the ones who had lived there for five to seven years and who did
not plan to move in the foreseeable future.32

The high-satisfaction group generally included tenants who
are single or young married couples. For this group living at Mark
Twain Village is a stop-gap measure between child bearing and
ownership of a home in the suburbs. Because many of these tenants

are interested in the social environment which this housing offers

23

and do not plan to live here long, they tend not to be overly con-
cerned with the physical features of the environment.

The low-satisfaction group, on the other hand, was composed
of older, more stable tenants, many of whom had moved from houses
with yards into a high-rise apartment with considerably less living
Space than they were accustomed to. This group was more apt to
make the high-rise apartment their permanent home and to be con-
cerned about the physical condition of the apartments as well as
the surrounding area. (

Comparing the younger, more transient to the older, more
stable population, it was discovered that their differing attitudes
extended to communal spaces such as lobbies, halls, elevators, and
malls. The staele group, which is interested in making the apart-
ment their home, treated communal spaces as an extension of their
own living space.\ They become up5et when people litter, when gar-
bage accumulates in the garbage chute, or when flower beds are
neglected. It is the long-term, older tenants who enumerate long
lists of complaints about the physical condition of the project.
Younger tenants, on the other hand, view such spaces purely as
public space and rarely mention them as a source. of dissatisfac-
tion. Also, the physical design of apartments and the project as a
whole were of little interest to the young. Since short-term resi-
dents are most interested in the sociofugal nature of the complex,
they are also most sensitive to the architectural design features

that bring people together. Older, more stable tenants, on the

4"

24

contrary, are concerned with individual needs relating primarily to
the design of their own apartments.33

In summary, the Mark Twain Village review has attempted to
show that in order to know how high-rise buildings affect a group
of people, one must first know something about that group. Age,
social needs and expectations, stage in the family life cycle, and
life style are all variables affecting the group's use of the hous-
ing environment and its satisfaction with it. Management policies
and architectural design features that cater to the needs of one
tenant group invariably do not satisfy the needs of the other.

' The location of high-rise apartment complexes in declining
central cities has been cited by many critics as the cause of their
failure. ‘Hallmark House, a 429-unit, 25+story apartment building
in downtown Newark, New Jersey, has met the desires and” needs of
its tenants despite the general atmosphere of the city. The per-
ceived safety and design of the building have persuaded researchers
to call it the "defended neighborhood."34

Built" in 1966, the building was planned as a small residen-
tial neighborhood, with its first floor devoted to shops and sers
vices; sbch as a “dry cleaner, a _beauty salon, a self-Service
laundry, an attorney and a physician, etc. which draw the bulk of
their clientele from residents. These amenities and accessories
are part of the designer's overall scheme to develop a vertical

QEiHDQthood.

25

Site design and security precautions further reinforce the
impressionof Hallmark House as a small vertical neighborhood. The
building and its ground fully occupy a small city block in Newark.
While exit from the building is possible from three or four places,
entry and access to the elevators and eventually to the residential
apartment are limited to the main entrance.” Access to the building
is protected by a buzzer-intercom system and a watchman, and
visitors are also visible to a switchboard operator. Hallmark
House is not fully self-contained, but protective technology and
building design have made it a more controlled setting than most
conventional neighborhoods.35 The Pruitt-Igoe housing project,
which was discussed earlier, did not meet the defensible space
requirements of safety and self-control as is present in the Hall-
.mark House project.

The key factor attracting residents to Hallmark House is its
combination of reasonable rent and convenient access to the outside
world. Hallmark House is a building for persons of lower-middle/
=middle-class income status. In addition, the building is in close
proximity of all of the local city agencies and departments,
shopping centers, the city's major corporations, and transportation
centers. Also, the housing site is less than fifteen minutes away
by car from the Newark International Airport and the world.36

Surveys and informal interviews were conducted with Hallmark
House residents to get their opinion of how they feel about their

immediate residential environment and that of the city of Newark.

. 26

O
J

The survey results reflected an attachment of Hallmark's residents
to their living environment and less to the community of Newark.
Such questions and areas of inquiry that were given to the resi-
dents focused on their level of satisfaction in terms of attachment
to the apartment complex, facility use, fear, and safety. The
majority of residents have become attached to their defended neigh-

\
borhood and preferred staying there, but if given an‘option would

”J,

not stay in the City of Newark. Facility use of laundry, dry
cleaner, etc. was relatively high among respondents. Fear and
safety responses among residents were more varied depending on the
time of day or the carryover effect of perceived crime rate in the
city. Most Hallmark residents see crime increasing in the city
(76.4 percent) but remaining constant near the building (a
plurality 47.1 percent), most feel unsafe (51.4 percent) walking
near Hallmark at night, but very or moderately safe (39.7 percent
and 45.3 percent, respectively) doing so by day. Most residents
(78.7 percent) are satisfied with building 5ecurity.37

Measurement of resident satisfaction in the Hallmark study
focused primarily on the comparisOn between the isolated housing
complex and the general atmosphere of the City of Newark. Thus the
'study implies that location and the general quality of life in the
city had significant influence on the well-being and perception of
the Hallmark tenants. The findings in this particular Hallmark
study were unique in comparison to other studies discussed earlier

in that tenant satisfaction was not measured only in terms of the

27

building's design but extended further to the surrounding environ-
ment of the city. Thus the impact of the total environment of a
high-rise apartment structure may be considered a contributing
factor to residents' satisfaction, while meking location and design
of the structure two attributes that must be done simultaneously to
generate the highest level of resident satisfaction.

It is apparent by now that high-rise residential satisfaction
is a fluid process that varies according to an individual's per-
ceived level of well-being and his/her preferred mode of living.
Also, the ultimate high-rise environmental design depends on a
cooperative and cohesive effort between architects, psychologists,
and planners so that a balanced approach to decision-making can be
achieved.

It should be noted that joint planning efforts of architects,
social scientists, and planners are not always a harmonious
process. Architects and psychologists have different backgrounds
and perspectives as to what is considered the ideal environment for
residents of high-rises. Architects tend to show a callous dis-
regard for the fact that people must live in the environments they

"Eregte. They become more interested in construction techniques or
forms manipulation than in the people who live in their buildings.
'Atflother times, architects try to be sensitive to the needs of the
prospective inhabitants. They rely on their own intuition and the

unquestioned intuition of other architects' views of human

nature.38

28

These intuitions can be painfully misleading for several
reasons. The architect has a personal and cultural history that is
often drastically different from those of the future inhabitants.
White, university-trained, middle-class designers may not know the
world of the person who lives in the public housing projects they
design.39 If the anehitect experiences a different. perspective
from the inhebitant, it is not always appropriate for the archi-
tect's intuition to serve as the basis for designing the inhabi-
tant's residence. In addition, when a particular intuition is
.translated into a design and constructed, there is usually no
evaluation of the social psychological success of the building.
There is no systematic testing of particular ideas about the
behavioral impact of design, and furthermore, the psychologist does
not usually include any specific design implications of his work.
Designers may have some notion that what they are reading is rele-
vant to their work, but they receive little help from the psycho-
logical source in translating the behavioral findings into design.

Many roadblocks in the way to successful collaboration arise
because the architect and the psychologist come from two cultures
that differ in many ways. For example, scientists are usually
truth seekers at a leisurely pace. They are oriented toward the
testing of abstract general concepts, while working architects are
involved with a specific, concrete set of problems unique to their
current project--thereby creating two different orientations that

do not mesh easily.

29

This difference poses a problem for psychologists. If they
exercise their judgment and go beyond their data to suggest some
concrete designs that they have not tested, they may satisfy the
architect, but they run the risk of offending their colleagues and
perhaps some of their own values.41 At the same time, if they
delay (making any design suggestions until they are sure of them-
selves by rigorous scientific standards, they will never be able to
be useful within a designer's normal time framework. As a result,
the psychological and architectural professions present prac-
titioners with different reinforcement strategies that dictate
different sorts of work if professional advancement is to be
forthcoming.

In order for an environment to be successful, the architect

“_- EM.» ._. .

must provideesome way for the inhabitants to manage their space to

,,.—.—w .H. . - L , WELL 2 -. .,-
conform to their needs. People will act on the environment to
(bring it into line with their life styles whether the architect
likes it or not. Therefore the issue for the architect becomes how
to make the environment as responsible as possible. In the case of
high-density living arrangements, the architect must provide indi-

Just as there are discrepancies between architects and psy-
chologists in formulating design techniques for high-rise resi-
dents, the same conflict occurs between planners and architects.

Collectively planners and architects have evaluated the quality of

residential facilities by looking at physical structure of dwelling

30

size, the availability of electricity and plumbing, etc. without
giving sufficient attention to residential environments in satisfy-
ing human needs.

Historically, architects and planners have assumed that their
background and training have adequately prepared them to judge the
quality of housing and residential neighborhoods.41 Very little,
if any, attention was paid to the feelings of the neighborhood's
residents in making these judgments. Research studies illustrate
that while there is some agreement among the two groups in assess-
ing certain attributes of the environment, large gaps in belief as
to what constitutes residential quality exist between residents on
the one hand and environmental designers on the other.

This distinction clearly demonstrates the fallibility of
urban planners and architects in judging residential quality and
admittedly in making decisions which take these judgments into
account. Yet the very nature of urban planners and architects as
an elitist group of experts, and their lack of any emotional
involvement with the residential environments they judge, suggest
that total agreement between their assessment and those of the
people they design for may be extremely difficult to achieve.42

ACQOITQQLSIIand planners can perhaps narrow the gap between
what they believe constitutes a quality residence setting and the
feelings and behaviors of the people for whom they design by trying
harder to better identify human needs as much as possible.' It

V $.W—fl‘ ’

should be noted that an individual generally faces a problem in his

31

residential environment whenever an individual's image of a
preferred environment does not match his actual environment. The
problem one faces does not necessarily mean that a person's present
situation is bad; it simply means that the existing environment is
not as good as it could be.43

It is apparent from research studies that man experiences
exposure to an external environment which has various levels of
influence on the individual's well-being and must be responded to
by architects and planners in residential design. In terms of the
physical environment there is little question that urban man is
being exposed to noise, air pollution, traffic congestion, and
crowding. Given the opportunity, most individuals would tend to
move away permanently from such conditions.

In terms of the socio-cultural environment, man is often con-
fronted with too many unrewardihg social contacts, particularly
when exposed to large numbers of people in urban settings. Another
element of socio-cultural environment external to the individual is
the crime and violence which is so pervasive in many urban areas.
To the extent that man does not have or cannot create some form of
protection or defense for himself he is faced_ with a problem
situation.

The psychological environment, internal to man, generates
problems when a preferred way of behavior does not equate the
actual behavior at a given time. Some people have strong affilia-

tion needs which can be provided by the proper residential

32

environment. There is also the psychological need for individuals
to have a high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, and for
having the respect of others.

To summarize, a number of problem situations stemming from
the various environments that man encounters can give rise to
several needs. These include: the need to escape temporarily from
the physical stresses of the urban environment; the need to experi-
ence nature; the need for privacy; the need for security and safety
for self and family; and the needs for social recognition and
status. This list is not exhaustive of the many complex variables
that planners and architects must attempt to address in designing
high-rise residential units. This list includes factors affecting
residents' well-being which are beyond the immediate design area of
a high-rise building but still have contributing influence. Specu-
lation would assume that the environment setting of a high-rise
residential building plays a significant role in determining the
tenants' level of satisfaction.

In ~the planning of new residential environments, it is
clearly recognized that Open space (if possible) including parkiand
is an integral part of the building complex. However, if buildings
are 'planned at very high densities and in locations potentially
susceptible to environmental stressors, then the amount and kinds
of open space to be provided become critical decisions for the
architect and planner. As these conditions intensify, and as new

research demonstrates their impact on outcomes ranging from mental

33

and physical illness to increasing demands for outdoor recreation,
it will become more evident to the architect concerned with
planning residential environments that other factors and systems
besides housing must be programmed into the design process.

There is another external factor, management, which if done
properly can be used to enhance the environmental quality of the
high-rise complex. Management of the high-rise building becomes
important in helping promote tenant satisfaction by responding
positively to their needs.

Management of high-rise buildings has as its primary objec-
tive the provision of efficient services so that human activity can 1
function at its optimum level. Human activity will be defined in
relation to what is and what is not permissible in the best‘ common
interest of a particular population density. There are many dif-
ferent management methods used in the United States which have dif-
ferent effects on the responsible representation of the occupant of
high-rise buildings. One type, management by an institutional
owner, who owns and manages the buildings, may only be concerned
about the purpose of being in business. He does not respond dili-
gently to various cost control impacts as does a building owner.

A second method of management, Fee Management Organization,
is growing rapidly in the United States as buildings grow higher.
The method is characterized by a third party (a professional

management company) coming in to manage the high-rise structure.

34

I

Thus, professional property management training is a growing pro-
' fession in the United States.

A third method of management which is used in different parts
of the United States is the In-House Management approach. The
developer is responsible for both building and managing a high-rise
structure in-house from its inception through the life of the
structure.45

This ultimate decree of efficiency acceptable to occupants
depends on responsible management. Management will vary when it
comes to choosing a style to accommodate the various needs and com-
plaints of occupants. Some managers choose to alter established
rules which were based on prior covenants. Normally, boards
elected by the owners (for condominiums) hire fee management groups
which are responsible for operational purposes but the board may
make changes in policy at will.

In rental tenant buildings, complaints are not responded to
as often by management. It is only after continuous effort and
massive tenant participation that a complaint receives the atten-
tion of management. It may be safe to speculate that the more
responsive management is to tenant complaints the less likely one
would be encouraged to involvedi himself/herself in vandalistic

action within the building or its surroundings.

SUMMARY

Research studies on the psychological effects of living in
high-rise apartments have produced mixed and inconclusive results.
Generally the level of human satisfaction has been shown to be
moderate. The elderly and children have been found to be the most
victimized of all high-rise tenant groups. The elderly fear
increases as one's health declines, and emergencies occur in high-
rise apartments. The elderly's chief concern becomes centered on
security mechanisms in the event of trauma. As for children, they

'wimmediately lose contact with parents the higher up they live
within a high-rise building. At the same time parental anxiety
increases the greater the separation from the child.

U The overall determinants of the level of satisfaction among
high-rise tenants depends on a combination of factors such as the
location of the high-rise structure, the design features of the

building, one's lifestyle, one's personal needs, and the building's
management style. There is an underlying connection of linking
‘these factors into high-rise construction to the extent that they
reflect human needs, promote social interaction, and ultimately
establish a sense of environmental control among the tenants.

Research studies suggest that the built high-rise environment

can provide higher levels of resident satisfaction with a better

coordinated planning effort between architects, planners, and

35

36

psychologists. Unfortunately, there is not always a unified
attempt by these professionals in designing and locating high-rise
residential sites. Unique training styles and overall level of
expertise come in conflict among these groups. In the future,
planners, architects, and psychologists, as well as other social
scientists, will be required to formulate a more cooperative net-
work among themselves to ultimately build high-rises which are more

reflective of the needs and desires of the people residing in them.

CONCLUSION

The density of residential development and the height- of,~\
buildings in urban areas will be higher in the future. An increase,
in density does not necessarily mean residents of high-rise ,apart-
ments will be faced with pathological threats produced by over-
crowding. A number of factors exist within our society and more
specifically our economy which project an increase in density and
height of buildings.

First, there is evidence that single family housing is becom-
ing more costly for consumers and for the political jurisdictions
in which the housing is located. Low density single family housing
developments require not only more land for dwellings, but for the
streets, recreation areas, schools, and other public services
necessary to support them. In addition, the cost per household for
such services as police and fire protection, trash pickup, and mail
delivery tends to rise as density of development decreases. The
'costs of providing these services are increasing for local units of
government at a rapid rate and are being passed' along to local
residents. Added service charges in the form of taxes, together
with rising building costs, have reduced the ability of many con-
sumers to purchase new single family homes.

Second, despite recent fluctuations in the cost and avail-

ability of gasoline, indications are that in the long run, the

37

38

price of fuel will continue to rise. With this increase, the
demand for housing at great distances from employment and shopping
centers could diminish. Conversely, there could be a greater
demand for housing concentrated near major centers of activity.

Third, the growing awareness of the value of open lands,
including farms and forests, will place a premium on such lands for
agricultural and recreation uses, especially if they are within the
confines of an urban region. Should such lands be used for these
purposes or retained in their natural state, housing to accommodate
the growing metropolitan population will by necessity be built at
higher densities and at greater heights.

The potential of future increase in density and the demand of
affordable high-rise apartment units requires future planners,
architects, and psychologists to collectively identify those cri-
teria which reflect preferences of the future tenants. Presently,
research in housing (according to psychologists) provides an excel-
lent example of work at the interface of community and environmen-
tal psychology. This research encompasses three levels of social
process to determine human well-being and satisfaction. The three
levels used to evaluate success of a high-rise structure are social
groups and social organization.

In addition, housing research has addressed particular atten-
tion to the processes of social support and personal control that
are viewed as key mediating links in producing the ideal high-rise

residential environment. Therefore housing research tends to focus

39

on how residents feel in terms of controlling their environment
after a housing unit has been built and occupied. This approach to
measuring high-rise residents' social well-being represents bias
designers, planners, and the ultimate residents of the building.

It is apparent that research on housing has notable limita-
tions. A limitation of work directed toward both interior space
and outdoor space in high-rise public housing is that the evalua-
tions have focused on the social and psychological limitations of
existing projects, but the recommendations for change in public
housing design have been directed only generally toward architects
and urban decision makers for applications in future designs.
There have been no efforts (as of the present) in environmental
psychology to alter the physical environment in existing public
housing settings as part of an ongoing evaluation and social change
program.

Clearly, it is important to consider the moderating effects
of the social characteristics of the residents before developing
general principles on the effects of environmental design. Resi-
dential design must conform to the behavioral and cultural charac-
teristics of its residents. Examination of prior residential
preferences, participation, and incorporation of them into design
is the challenge facing future designers.

F; Locationeof the high-rise residential site in relation to the
_Meommunity at large plays a major role in influencing the perception

of residents. Research has shown that there is a cerryover effect

40

of the community at'large and one's perception of_ his. place of
_residence. .Generally the better impression one has of his neigh-
‘ borhood and community at large, the better he feels about his resi-
dence and vice versa. Planners play an important role at. this
stage of the game. 4

Taken together, planners, architects, and psychologists,
through a cohesive effort, will continue to be responsible for
implementing housing policies to meet the various needs, life-
styles, age, socio-economic make-up of the residents in communities

throughout the United States.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The actual construction of a high-rise apartment building is
a rather straightforward process once a designer knows its physical
dimensions. The definition of the living environment quality of
the residents of-high-rises is a complex and fluid endeavor. The
complexities of identifying good environment quality is exacerbated
by the diversity of needs ef potentialhighérise residents.

: Researcher5' have been active in their efforts to identify
factors contributing to resident satisfaction mostly in a post-
occupation capacity. This process has led many public officials to
support many public high-rise residential buildings without basic
concern of the needs of the occupants. In order to correct this
problem, planners, architects, landscape architects, and psycholo-
gists have been chosen to provide the leading roles in the planning
and implementation of housing projeCts.

Peyehelogy researchers have developed three basic criteria
for high-rise development which will lead to tenant satisfaction:
(1) the integration of human needs and life styles into design as
much as possible, (2) build and design high-rises to the extent
that adequate social interaction takes place, and (3) the build—
ings' locations and public space between them should promote a

sense of environmental control.

41

42

Architects, landscape architects, and urban planners have
long been interested in the housing environment and have Operated
under the premise that such environments are important to the well-
being of individuals and society. But like government officials,
many in the design professions have judged improvements in housing
solely in terms of the dwelling size, the condition of the struc-
ture, the availability of electricity and plumbing, and the
presence of health, educational, and shopping facilities. At the
same time, no attention has been given to the quality of high-rise
housing environments as experienced by the people who live within
them.

The gap between architects and planners and tenants in their
perception of what constitutes a quality environment must be
closed. In order to do so it will become necessary for architects
and planners working in concert with social scientists to develop a“
better understanding of the needs of potential high-rise residents.
The social scientists clearly recognize that the needs and motives
influencing human behavior in the physical environment are so
imperfectly understood and many have turned to the environmental
design professions for help.

Perhaps there are three ways that architects, planners, and
social scientists can work together in the future to better inte-
grate human needs and preferences into high-rise design prior to
people occupying the residential units. Eirst, it is recognized

that at the beginning of the planning process the architect or

43

planner must gather information which eventually will be syn-
thesized and integrated through design talents to produce an .
environment consonant with the program objectives. Information can
cover the prospective uses of the environment and it is here that
the architect, together with the social scientist, can design and
conduct research aimed at producing such information. The specific
kinds of information needed about the users and the data collection
methods depend on the type of environment being designed, .the
ability to identify the user group beforehand, and the basic pur-
pose for which the environment is intended.

Secondly, at the other end of the planning process there_ are
several instances where architects and social scientists must col-
laborate in order to devise an evaluation technique to measure the
quality of the residential environment from the point of view of
the users. Evaluation techniques must address questions as to what
extent the needs of the residents have been met. 15 the environ-
ment being used by its occupants in the ways designers had
envisioned it? And finally, to what extent has the environment
contributed to the residents' quality-of-life experience? These
and many other questions can be answered through .post-construction
evaluation. 1
IT And thirdly, architects and social scientists should begin to
pool their talents in efforts to determine those salient dimensions
of housing and residential areas which contribute to the overall

quality-of-life experience.

44

These recommendations rest on the belief that high-rise
tenant level of satisfaction depends on how well the planning
process is able to collect data and identify tenant needs and wants
2510' to having architects design the building. In addition, post-
construction evaluation studies must be performed and evaluated so
that problems may be detected and resolved. The9closer architects,
planneFS, and social scientists work at integrating prospects'
preferences into design with the feedback mechanism the more likely
the level of satisfaction will increase.

The ultimate chellenge for architects, planners, psycholo-
gists, and other social scientists will be to identify the multiple
needs and desires of our ever-increasing diverse population into' afi

compatible design for high-rise residents.

NOTES

1U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Construction Reports,
Series C40.

2Willem V. Vliet, “Families in Apartment Buildings Sad
Stories for Children?" Environment and Behavior (March 1983):218.

 

31bid., p. 219.
41bid., p. 221.

5M. Gregoire, "The Child in the High Rise," Ekistics
186:331-333.

6P. Jephcott, Homes in High Flats (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1971), p. 141.

 

75. Young, Social and Psychological Effects of Living in
High-Rise Buildings (Sydney: Ian Buchan Fell Research Project on
Housing, Department of Architecture, University of Sydney, 1976),
p. 219.

 

 

8J. Farley, "Effects of Residential Settings, Parental Life-
styles, and Demograhpic Characteristics on Children's Activity
patterns" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977).

9Roy C. Herrenkohl and Christian Norberg-Schulz, eds.,
Planning and Environmental Criteria for Tall Buildings (New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1981), p. 30.

 

10Ann Sloan Devlin, "Housing for the Elderly: Cognitive Con-
siderations," Environment and Behavior 12 (November 4 1980):453.

111oid., p. 463.

 

12J. Douglas Porteous, Environment and Behavior (Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1977), p. 294.

 

13W. Yancy, "Architecture, Interaction, and Social Control,"
Environment and Behavior (1971):6.

 

14Ioid., p. 9.
15Ioid., p. 11.

45

46

16Oscar Newman, DefensiblegSpace: Crime Prevention through
Urban Design (New York: MacMillan, 1972).

 

17Ioid.
1816id.

19Jonathan Freedman, Crowding and Behavior (New York: Viking
Press, 1975), pp. 123-124.

20Newman, pp. 46-47.
21A. Baum and S. Valins, Architecture and Social Behavior:

Psychological Studies in Social DensityTTHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1977).

 

22Ibid.
23Ioid., p. 138.

24John R. Aiello and Andrew Baum, eds. Residential Crowding
and Design (New York: Plenum Press, 1979), p. 169.

 

 

25Ioid., p. 172.

26J.S. Fuerst, "High-Rise Living: What Tenants Say," Journal
of Housing (May/June 1985):89.

 

27Ioid., p. 89.
28Ibid.

29Gerda Wekerle and Edward Hall, "High Rise Living: Can the
Same Design Serve Young and Old?" Ekistics (March 1972):186.

3OIbid., p. 186.
3116id., p. 188.
321bid., p. 189.
33Ioid., p. 191.

34Jeffrey S. Slovak, "Attachments in the Nested Community,"
Urban Affairs Quarterly 21 (June 1986):577.

35Ibid., p. 578.
351bid.

47

37Ibid., p. 581.

38Aiello and Baum, p. 230.

39Ibid., p. 231.

4016id., p. 234.

41Robert W. Morans, Basic Human Needs and the Housing
Environment (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research and College

of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, 1977
p. 44.

4216id., p. 45.
43Ibid., p. 46.
44Ioid., p. 48.
45Herrenkohl and Norberg-Schulz, p. 251.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Aiello, John R., and Baum, Andrew, eds. Residential Crowding, and
Design. New York: Plenum Press, Inc., 1979.

 

Altman, Irwin, and Werner, Carol M., eds. Home Environments. New
York: Plenum Press, Inc., 1985.

 

Altman, Irwin; Lawton, M. Pavell, and Wohlwill, Joachim F., eds.
Elderly People and the Environment. New York: Plenum Press,
Inc., 1984.

Beedle, Lynn 3., ed. Advances in Tall Buildings. New York: Van
Norstrand Reinhold Company, 1986.

 

. ed. Developments in Tall Buildings. Pennsylvania:
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 1983.

 

Choldin, Harvey M. Cities and Suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1985.

 

Conway, Donald J., ed. Human Response to Tall Buildings. Penn-
sylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., 1977.

 

Downs, Anthony. Rental Housing in the 19805. Washington, D.C.:
The Brookings Institution, 1983.

 

Freedman, Jonathan. Crowding and Behavior. New York: The Viking
Press, Inc., 1975.

 

Gaylord, Edwin H., and Mainstone, Rowland J. Tall Buildings Cri-
teria and Loading, Vol. CL. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1980. .

 

 

Herrenkohl, Roy C., and Norberg-Schulz, Christian, eds. Planning
and Environmental Criteria for Tall Buildings. Vol. PC. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1981.

Michelson, William. Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological
Agproach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Inc., 1976.

 

Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. New York: MacMillan, 1972.

 

48

49

. Community of Interest. New York: Anchor
Press/Doubleday, 1980.

 

Porteous, J. Douglas. Environment and Behavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.

 

Sternlieb, George, and Hughes, James W. America's Housing. New
Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research,
1980.

 

Wanderman, Abraham, and Hess, Robert, eds. Beyond the Individual:
Environmental Approaches and Prevention. New York: The
Haworth Press, Inc., 1985.

 

Yancey, W. "Architecture, Interaction, and Social Control: The
Case of a Large-Scale Public Housing Project." Environment
and Behavior, 1971.

 

 

Journals and Magazines

 

Ashley, Steven. "Superskyscrapers." Popular Science (December
1985):191.

 

Cappon, Daniel. "Mental Health in the High-Rise." Ekistics (March
1972):192-195.

Devlin, Ann Sloan. "Housing for the Elderly: Cognitive Considera-
tions." Environment and Behavior 12 (December 1980):433,
463.

 

Ellis, Dean. "Safe Exit from a Towering Inferno.‘I Popular
Mechanics (April 1984):153.

Fuerst, J.S. "High-Rise Living: What Tenants Say." Journal of
Housing (May/June 1985):89.

 

Gleich, Jenny. "Real Estate Room at the Top." Esguire (March
1985):l71.

Matill, John. "Tall-Building Centenniel: The Rise of Economics."
Technology Review (April 1986):231.

 

Slovak, Jeffrey S. "Attachments in the Nested Community: Evidence
from a Case Study." Urban Affairs Quarterly 21 (June 1986):
577-578, 581.

 

Vliet, Willem V. "Families in Apartment Building Sad Stories for
Children?“ Environment and Behavior (March 1983):218-219,
221.

 

50

Wandersman, Abraham, et al. “Environmental Psychology and Preven-
tion." Preventive Psychology: Theory Research, and Practice
(June 1983):242-247.

Wekerle, Gerda, and Hall, Edward. “High Rise Living: Can the Same
Design Serve Young and Old?" Ekistics (March 1972):186.

Widmar, Ron. "Preferences for Multiple-Family Housing: Some
Implications for Public Participation." Journal of Architec-
tural and Planning Research (December 1984:256-259.

 

annrv:‘itiuziiszrtguyewa 2.. tz-W-o -..... ..,.-.-.—. .
- . ' . a

:1m

31293 02645 9887