Much as I enjoyed reading Botton's Consolations of Philosophy, I cannot recall enough about this book to review now, after a few years. ( )

Finished The Architecture of Happiness by Alain de Botton. In this book de Botton does for whole buildings what Gallagher does for the rooms within a home in House Thinking. de Botton discusses what makes different architectures appealing and tries to answer the question "how can we judge the quality of architecture when we admit that no style is universally the best?" As I see it, he answers the questions in three ways, which i shall discuss in more detail below.

Architecture and psychology



The first answer will resonate with anyone who enjoys environmental psychology. Buildings should appeal to the psychological needs of those who interact with them. At the most basic level, this implies that the form of a building should be related to its function, but it goes beyond that. A building also needs to appeal to the deeper psychological needs of the culture and time it belongs in. de Botton boils these psychological needs down to two main categories: memory and ideals.

Memory



Memories are triggered by surroundings (as well as by smell, sound, any input really). A building that reminds one too much of school may cause one to feel anxiety or pleasure, depending on one's experience in the educational system. While it is impossible for an architect to know what memories will be triggered in any specific person, there are cultural memories that are can be embedded in architecture.

Ideals



Architecture is psychologically related to the past through memory. It is related to the future through ideals. People will react positively to architecture that reflects who they want to be. An unorganized person who wants to be organized may find simple architecture more appealing than ornamental architecture. Good architecture should reflect the ideals of its intended audience.

The Effect of Time



Designing a building to appeal to the psychology of a group of people means that a building may not always be considered as wonderful as it was when it was first built. As the associations with a particular type of architecture change, perceptions of a building will change. As the needs and ideals of a society change, perceptions of a building will change. This means that no architectural style is really timeless (although a building may be, as a historical artifact). However, that is okay, as long as the new styles (which may very well be rehashes of older styles) appeal to the needs of their time.

Virtues of Buildings



All that psychological mumbo jumbo aside, de Botton does argue that there are some basic aesthetic principles that can be used to judge a building or an architectural style.

Order



de Botton claims that we tend to like spaces that are ordered. What he means by this is that people like places where they can see some mark of intention and intelligence. People like to know that things are how they are because of some plan. I relate order to Mehrabian's idea of load as described in Public Places and Private Spaces. The idea of load is that a place requires some amount of mental processing. Places that require a large amount of mental processing are perceived negatively when a person does not have the desire or ability to put that much attention into the place. Order is appealing because it reduces the load of a place. Order is contrasted with complexity. Too little complexity (too much order) is boring. When the load of a place is too low, the mental processing is too easy and, if one does not having something to distract oneself with, the place will start to seem boring.

Balance



Balance is achieved when, in the words of de Botton,

architects skilfully mediate between any number of oppositions, including the old and the new, the natural and the man-made, the luxurious and the modest, and the masculine and the feminine.

The appeal of balance is that it introduces the unexpected. One of the components that contributes to load in Mehrabian's work is the arousal/non-arousal spectrum. By providing balance between contrasting elements, an architect can increase the arousal of a place. This makes the place more stimulating, and, therefore, more interesting. However, a person who feels that the contrasting elements are not balanced may feel overly aroused because one element is perceived as unexpected. If the increased arousal is not balanced by some pleasurable aspect, the place will be perceived negatively.

Elegance



The third architectural "virtue" that de Botton discusses is elegance. Elegance, in this book, represents the "wow" or "how does it do that" factor of architecture. It involves overcoming a challenge with seeming ease. I relate elegance to the dominance/submissiveness axis in Mehrabian's work. A thin column, a long bridge, or complex and functionally unnecessary ornamentation demonstrates that the architect, engineers, and workers and, by extension, humanity and the observer have conquered nature and, seemingly, even physics by creating something that demonstrates their skill and superiority. However, a point de Botton does not bring up is that elegance must be trustworthy. A column that seems too thin to hold up a roof will make the building feel unsafe (at least until people adapt to the new materials or techniques that made it possible).

Coherence



A building in incoherent if it is trying to be something it is not. A skyscraper that imitates the style of traditional 1 or 2 story buildings will look out of place. Short buildings, because their width is generally comparable to or greater than their height, tend to stress the horizontal. A tall skinny window looks much more out of place on a standard home than a wide picture window. Incoherence comes about when architectures try to borrow from other styles without understanding what impression the elements they borrow give or why they work for existing buildings. Coherence, to put it squishily, is a way of evaluating the degree to which a building spiritually fits in to larger physical and cultural communities it is a part of. By understanding what makes a building coherent, an architect can design a building that is superficially different from the buildings around it but fits in better than a building that just borrows the trappings of the buildings around it without understanding them.

Self-knowledge



Self-knowledge in architecture applies when an architect designs a building that fits the real needs (and weaknesses) of people. A tower surrounded by green parks may be a more efficient method of housing than many houses with tiny yards, but in a densely packed tower, one disruptive person has the ability to cause a large disruption. This point is where the chapter on virtues touches most closely on environmental psychology. The most beautiful and logical building in the world can be considered a failure if it was not built with an understanding of how people will really use it.

As good as the land it's replacing



Good architecture, according to de Botton, should be as good as the land that it is replacing. When land has been built upon, people should feel that while something has been lost, something just as good (different, but just as good) should be gained. If a building is thoughtfully and beautifully built, "the promise of a field", as the chapter is called, will be fulfilled. One conclusion you can draw from this is that it is okay to destroy nature with beautiful buildings, but I do not think that is what de Botton means (if so, shame on him!). I think what he means is that if we are going to destroy nature by building on it, we should design buildings that are beautiful and that fitting. That, I can agree with.

Conclusion



One thing I like about this book is that it has lots and lots of pictures (I really think the book might be half pictures). However, like House Thinking, there is a lot of emphasis on specific examples and not quite enough general discussion to suit my taste. Most of what I wrote above was what I extracted from the examples rather than things set out explicitly. Yet, I suppose, it is good practice for me to study actual examples and draw conclusions for them. Overall, this was an excellent book. ( )

de Botton discusses what makes different architectural styles appealing and tries to answer the question "How can we judge the quality of architecture when we admit that no style is universally the best?" As I see it, he answers the questions in three ways.

Architecture and psychology

The first answer will resonate with anyone who enjoys environmental psychology. Buildings should appeal to the psychological needs of those who interact with them. At the most basic level, this implies that the form of a building should be related to its function, but it goes beyond that. A building also needs to appeal to the deeper psychological needs of the culture and time it belongs in. de Botton boils these psychological needs down to two main categories: memory and ideals.

Memory

Memories are triggered by surroundings (as well as by smell, sound -- any input really). A building that reminds one too much of school may cause one to feel anxiety or pleasure, depending on one's experience in the educational system. While it is impossible for an architect to know what memories will be triggered in any specific person, there are cultural memories that are can be embedded in architecture.

Ideals

Architecture is psychologically related to the past through memory. It is related to the future through ideals. People will react positively to architecture that reflects who they want to be. An unorganized person who wants to be organized may find simple architecture more appealing than ornamental architecture. Good architecture should reflect the ideals of its intended audience.

The Effect of Time

Designing a building to appeal to the psychology of a particular group of people means that a building may not always be considered as wonderful as it was when it was first built. As the associations with a particular type of architecture change, perceptions of a building will change. As the needs and ideals of a society change, perceptions of a building will change. This means that no architectural style is really timeless (although a building may be, as a historical artifact). However, that is okay, as long as the new styles (which may very well be rehashes of older styles) appeal to the needs of their time.

Virtues of Buildings

All that psychological mumbo jumbo aside, de Botton does argue that there are some basic aesthetic principles that can be used to judge a building or an architectural style.

Order

de Botton claims that we tend to like spaces that are ordered. What he means by this is that people like places where they can see some mark of intention and intelligence. People like to know that things are how they are because of some plan. I relate order to Mehrabian's idea of load as described in Public Places and Private Spaces. The idea of load is that a place requires some amount of mental processing. Places that require a large amount of mental processing are perceived negatively when a person does not have the desire or ability to put that much attention into the place. Order is appealing because it reduces the load of a place. Order is contrasted with complexity. Too little complexity (too much order) is boring. When the load of a place is too low, the mental processing is too easy and, if one does not having something to distract oneself with, the place will start to seem boring.

Balance

Balance is achieved when, in the words of de Botton,

architects skilfully mediate between any number of oppositions, including the old and the new, the natural and the man-made, the luxurious and the modest, and the masculine and the feminine.

The appeal of balance is that it introduces the unexpected. One of the components that contributes to load in Mehrabian's work is the arousal/non-arousal spectrum. By providing balance between contrasting elements, an architect can increase the arousal of a place. This makes the place more stimulating, and, therefore, more interesting. However, a person who feels that the contrasting elements are not balanced may feel overly aroused because one element is perceived as unexpected. If the increased arousal is not balanced by some pleasurable aspect, the place will be perceived negatively.

Elegance

The third architectural "virtue" that de Botton discusses is elegance. Elegance, in this book, represents the "wow" or "how does it do that?" factor of architecture. It involves overcoming a challenge with seeming ease. I relate elegance to the dominance/submissiveness axis in Mehrabian's work. A thin column, a long bridge, or complex and functionally unnecessary ornamentation demonstrates that the architect, engineers, and workers and, by extension, humanity and the observer have conquered nature and, seemingly, even physics by creating something that demonstrates their skill and superiority. However, a point de Botton does not bring up is that elegance must be trustworthy. A column that seems too thin to hold up a roof will make the building feel unsafe (at least until people adapt to the new materials or techniques that made it possible).

Coherence

A building in incoherent if it is trying to be something it is not. A skyscraper that imitates the style of traditional 1 or 2 story buildings will look out of place. Short buildings, because their width is generally comparable to or greater than their height, tend to stress the horizontal. A tall skinny window looks much more out of place on a standard home than a wide picture window. Incoherence comes about when architectures try to borrow from other styles without understanding what impression the elements they borrow give or why they work for existing buildings. Coherence, to put it squishily, is a way of evaluating the degree to which a building spiritually fits in to larger physical and cultural communities it is a part of. By understanding what makes a building coherent, an architect can design a building that is superficially different from the buildings around it but fits in better than a building that just borrows the trappings of the buildings around it without understanding them.

Self-knowledge

Self-knowledge in architecture applies when an architect designs a building that fits the real needs (and weaknesses) of people. A tower surrounded by green parks may be a more efficient method of housing than many houses with tiny yards, but in a densely packed tower, one disruptive person has the ability to cause a large disruption. This point is where the chapter on virtues touches most closely on environmental psychology. The most beautiful and logical building in the world can be considered a failure if it was not built with an understanding of how people will really use it.

As good as the land it's replacing

Good architecture, according to de Botton, should be as good as the land that it is replacing. When land has been built upon, people should feel that while something has been lost, something just as good (different, but just as good) should be gained. If a building is thoughtfully and beautifully built, "the promise of a field", as the chapter is called, will be fulfilled. One conclusion you can draw from this is that it is okay to destroy nature with beautiful buildings, but I do not think that is what de Botton means (if so, shame on him!). I think what he means is that if we are going to destroy nature by building on it, we should design buildings that are beautiful and that fitting. That, I can agree with.

Conclusion

One thing I like about this book is that it has lots and lots of pictures (I really think the book might be half pictures). However, like in Gallagher's House Thinking, there is an emphasis on specific examples and not quite enough general discussion to suit my taste. Most of what I wrote above was what I extracted from the examples rather than things set out explicitly. Yet, I suppose, it is good practice for me to study actual examples and draw conclusions for them. Overall, this was an excellent book. ( )

Not what I had hoped or thought it would be: how we design and construct happiness. Rather, this should've been titled "The Happiness of Architecture," because architecture is the chief topic. Much discussion about aesthetics. I'm surprised that there was little mention (or any?) of the character of a house or building. Nor was there much (if any?) mention of the importance of landscaping to the appreciation of architecture, the two of them complementing one another. ( )

I do love architecture and frequently find myself fascinated by examples of architecture while traveling. This is a beautifully written book, sort of part philosophy and part close observation of building and design and, if you like that sort of thing, you might try this. One caveat: the section on why buildings speak to us is pure anthropomorphic blather. De Botton is better than this. You could skip it to avoid being annoyed, but the illustrations are worth a look. Regardless, I would read the book again, no problem, and recommend it to others. ( )

https://archidose.blogspot.com/2007/01/book-review-architecture-of-happiness.htm... ( )

Surprised by how much I enjoyed these musings on architecture and what it can tell us about societies. ( )

Best for: People not that familiar with architecture who are interested in learning about it in a philosophical way.

In a nutshell: Author de Botton takes the reader through a lovely journey exploring how the buildings we inhabit can help fill missing pieces in our lives, and impact how we feel.

Line that sticks with me: “The buildings we admire are ultimately those which, in a variety of ways, extol values we think worthwhile.” (p 98)

Why I chose it: I bought this long ago. It’s survived multiple book purges and moves, but I finally opened it up because I’m participating in a book challenge this summer, and one of the categories is a book about art or an artist. To avoid spending all the money, I’m checking my to read pile first, and came across this gem.

Review: I don’t know much (anything?) about architecture. I know that craftsman homes are popular in my current city, and that ranch-style homes were popular where I grew up. I’ve been learning a bit reading the amazing blog McMansion Hell (which I only came across recently thanks to Zillow going after the writer, then having to back off), but I’ve not been able to put my finger on why certain styles depress the hell of me (most one-story homes; any office park a la Office Space), while others bring me joy (pretty much anything in Paris).

This book has helped me to understand a bit better where my tastes lay and why. I am certain that there are architects who would disagree, but much of Mr. de Botton’s premise is that not only does style reflect the available resources and the elements that must be kept out (a house in Phoenix is probably going to look different from a house in Finland), but also the lives we are living. The greatest example of this is when he argues that people who seek out modernist homes are looking for some order in a chaotic life outside the home, whereas those dramatic palaces built in the 1600s weren’t just a fancy show of money, but also an attempt to create beauty in a time that was pretty dangerous (I mean, think about the diseases running rampant through cities).

I feel that I learned about architecture and beauty, but I also got to enjoy some gorgeous writing. The language Mr. de Botton uses throughout is lovely, a perfect accompaniment to the many examples of different styles of home and building. It can be a bit dense at time, but I think it is worth it, especially for those interested in a more philosophical examination of our built environment.

The only reason this is a 4-star book for me is because there are so many lovely pictures in this edition but they are all in black and white, which really takes away from my ability to see the detail and understand more of why they might be examples of architecture that elevates or depresses us. If not for that, this would be a 5-star read. ( )

A cool look at the evolution of architecture. ( )

At first I thought the nouns should be reversed, ie, the Happiness of Architecture. But I began to realise that the book isn't so much about architecture as it is about people and how they express themselves with architecture, as they do with other art forms. He is using architecture to explain humans. He anthropomorphises archictecture. Architecture becomes a frozen emotion. He says that “In essence, what works of design and architecture talk to us about is the kind of life that would most appropriately unfold within and around them” Design is used to show what we want to be, or what we want our values to be. It springs from “…the need for idealised forms to stand as a defence against all that remains corrupt and unimaginative within us.” The human psyche naturally seeks balance and ‘beautiful’ architecture provides that, a psychological balance and therefore mental well being and happiness. “In literature, too,” he says, “we admire prose in which a small and astutely arranged set of words has been constructed to carry a large consignment of ideas.” De Botton’s book is just that: a small and astutely arranged set of words that carries a large consignment of ideas. Which brought me to happiness.
( )

I enjoyed this book but it wasn't what I was expecting when I picked it up (to be honest I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting). Still, the theories about why some architecture works or doesn't, the idea that we look for in art or architecture what we lack in ourselves or our society did get me thinking.
( )

Seemed incredibly devoted to a touchy-feely, almost pop psychology, view of architecture and architectural history. I got the feeling I'd really hate de Botton if I spent any time with him. Still, for a someone who doesn't know anything about architecture, this was an interesting and useful read. I'm sure there are better introductory books on architecture, but I'm not asking for my time back or anything. ( )

The author does not discuss anything new, he just puts it all very well together, chose excellent illustrations to make his points.
It is written in such fine and clear language and structure, that it just flows of the pages. Such a pleasure to read and to use as a little nudge to contemplate about a few truths in life. ( )

At first I thought the nouns should be reversed, ie, the Happiness of Architecture. But I began to realise that the book isn't so much about architecture as it is about people and how they express themselves with architecture, as they do with other art forms. He is using architecture to explain humans. He anthropomorphises archictecture. Architecture becomes a frozen emotion. He says that “In essence, what works of design and architecture talk to us about is the kind of life that would most appropriately unfold within and around them” Design is used to show what we want to be, or what we want our values to be. It springs from “…the need for idealised forms to stand as a defence against all that remains corrupt and unimaginative within us.” The human psyche naturally seeks balance and ‘beautiful’ architecture provides that, a psychological balance and therefore mental well being and happiness. “In literature, too,” he says, “we admire prose in which a small and astutely arranged set of words has been constructed to carry a large consignment of ideas.” De Botton’s book is just that: a small and astutely arranged set of words that carries a large consignment of ideas. Which brought me to happiness.
( )

This book asks a question that has interested me for a long time -- what makes some buildings beautiful? Unfortunately, the author does not provide much in the way of answers. He does discuss some interesting ideas, notably the fact that ideas of beauty in architecture change over time. But he passes over this to go on to more timeless issues -- balance, elegance, etc. It all sounds very nice -- Mr. De Botton's prose in unfailingly elegant, sometimes irritatingly so. It just doesn't add up to much. ( )

I enjoyed reading the book: de Botton is an insightful and skilled writer. His style tends to be somewhat uniform: articulate, careful, always bordering on fussiness and pretentiousness. His range of reference is truly impressive. I hoped to learn more about architecture from this book, but it's more a meditation on aesthetic principles than a study of architecture as such. A good book, but not a really memorable one. ( )

This is the third of De Botton's books that I have read. I enjoyed 'The Consolations of Philosophy', as it taught me a lot about the history of philosophy and about some of its prime movers. De Botton kept himself out of the text as much as possible, and let the philosophers' words shine on their own.

Then I had my first real meeting with Proust, in 'How Proust Can Change Your Life'. Again, it was not De Botton's writing that most impressed me, although it was good in its own way. De Botton proved a most capable gatekeeper to a writing talent I hope to enjoy some other time, but who was extremely able to express his ideas himself.

Finally, I have experienced what De Botton can do when he writes something truly his own, about people who certainly communicate a lot to the world, but who generally do it nonverbally - architects.

De Botton examines what it is to build, and to build beautifully. He looks to philosophy to provide answers to the questions that drive architectural fashions, and offers some insights into why beautiful buildings are beautiful and ugly ones so overwhelmingly ugly. He writes lucidly and with a personal touch that makes his essay seem almost conversational at times.

This is without a doubt the best book I have read about architecture; I learnt a lot that I am sure soon to forget, so this book will keep its place on my shelf for years and years, always ready to remind me of the secrets of the four walls around me. ( )

While I can't say that architecture is *always* meant to balance the current terrors of society, I do think de Botton is right that this is a large part of art movements. He also gives a bit of a primer on the basic art principles (balance, coherence) that are applied to architecture, and he gives many great examples with actually useful pictures. I think "close readings" of a few buildings and some more examples of the forces that motivate cross-cultural architecture would be all I would add to this book. It is very lovingly written and the language is a pleasure. ( )

a definitive reading for architecture student / enthusiast. detailed perspective about architecture around us, with witty humour and philosophical language ( )

I was expecting something else about this book. I thought that it will show me more concepts about ho whappiness is understood, but it was another kind of essay.

In this book, De Botton shows us how he thinks the constructions or buildings that surrounds us can influence our animic state. This is interesting, but sometimes I felt a little tired reading this author. ( )

Why do we like some buildings and loathe others? How much impact does architecture have on our mental and physical well being? Turns out we are surprisingly vulnerable to the aesthetics of our surroundings. The author explores this less tangible aspect of the built environment and provides an excellent dicussion on the nature of aesthetics. ( )

"passive-aggressive"
"somewhat reactionary"

una serie de meditaciones sobre algunos temas relacionados con arquitectura. supongo temas fundamentales. muy facil de leer. a veces se siente como pseudo filosofia o filosofia "lite". hay algunas ideas muy buenas, muchas ideas que son cuestionables y bien debatibles. hay algo en el tono del autor que es medio exasperante. abusa del modo primera persona plural, despues de un rato se siente bien manipulativo, bien "passive-agresive." algunas ideas me parecieron reaccionarias, bien conservadoras. tambien molesta esta cuestion moralista en la discusion de arte. pero el hecho que me moleste me parecio en si mismo interesante. en todo caso fue una lectura buena. me sirvio para darme cuenta de que el tema si me interesa. ( )

Summary: Alain de Botton explores the effect of architecture on the human condition: how it inspires us, how it enforces our ideals of beauty, and how it reflects our culture and our desires.

Review: My sister, who is starting her studies in architecture at the University of Toronto, bought this book to prepare herself. One day I had nothing to read, so she lent me her copy. It’s a slim book but it packs a lot of ideas, and it doesn’t hurt that de Botton is an elegiac, poetic writer, capable of squeezing poignancy even into the most mundane sentences. I mean it: this is a man who could write about eating toast and I would lap it all up.

His suggestions about architecture are interesting. I don’t know much about the subject so I can’t offer an educated opinion, but I thought he did a good job of exploring the connection between architecture and human wants and fears. It’s also good that there are photos to accompany his writing so that I can see what he means — some of the pictures took my breath away.

However, one niggling feeling ate at me the entire time I was reading, and those were De Botton's prejudices. He discusses the universals of architecture and the human condition but what he's really talking about is the West. He talks about how humans all want democracy and classical ideals and things like that, but that is only a limited view of humanity. Yes, he mentions briefly Japanese architecture and culture, but not much and a bit on Japan is hardly encompassing all non-Western cultures (as an Asian I get annoyed when Japan is always presented to the West as the model Asian nation, but that's another rant entirely). I don’t mind that he focuses on Western culture. I just wish he would clarify that more often rather than assume that the West is default. Also, he tends to revert to male as default when talking about people whose gender are unknown. This is a pet peeve. Others might not mind it but in an academic context it is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

Conclusion: A pretty book about a subject I was eager to learn more about. Ticks off a few of my buttons, but overall a good read. ( )

I like this book. ( )

In this comprehensive and heavily illustrated essay, de Botton retraces the history of architecture, the motivations and standards of beauty that have ruled our buildings and the human aspects that make a building appealing or not. It is a superficial account which nonetheless covers much ground. Written simply, it is fun and easy with many concrete examples. Not for an architecture student, but an agreeable introduction for the layman. I have certainly started giving more careful attention to my environment and its influences. ( )