Which architectural style makes an attractive street scape? Aesthetic preferences among city centre managers

ABSTRACT

Rational design based on aesthetic principles from the 1930s dominates contemporary architecture and property development, contributing to a homogenous urban landscape. The aim of this paper is to examine how professionals involved in city centre development value different architectural styles. Based on a sample of 109 respondents, measuring the architectural preferences of city centre managers, this study indicates that city centre managers view classical architecture in terms of being better for city centres than modernist. The paper suggests that city centre managers can successfully be involved in the design process of attractive streetscapes.

KEYWORDS:

• city centre managers
• streetscapes
• architectural preferences
• urban design

Introduction

There is an ongoing debate among European and North American city management and development professionals about the value of reintroducing pre-modernistic architectural ideals and streetscapes into city centres (see, for example, New Classical Architecture, Architectural Revival, Architectural Uprising). One aspect of this discussion concerns the value of reconstruction: For instance, cities like Gdansk and Dresden have built on their pre-war architecture to attract visitors (Vees-Gulani 2005; Dymnicka and Szczepański 2016), while cities like Frankfurt am Main have replaced some of their post-war modernistic city centre buildings with replicas of old and iconic pre-war buildings.

Another, more controversial discussion relates to constructing new buildings, resembling classical designs, extending cities, or building completely new cities with classical layouts, streetscapes, and design. In countries such as the US, the UK, Germany, Hungary and Sweden, a political dimension is attached to this discussion whereby new classical architecture is linked to conservative values and representatives of the right wing. In a Swedish suburban community, north of the capital city of Stockholm, conservative political parties have implemented a policy that new buildings should be constructed in a pre-modernistic style. To establish this policy, a survey on architectural preferences was sent out to every citizen in that municipality. Even though the response rate was low, the results of this survey indicate that classical architecture is preferred to modernistic (Gunne 2020).

In 2019, however, the connection between newly-built classical buildings and conservativism entered a new era when a right-wing populist party became involved in the debate on classical architecture in Sweden’s second city, Gothenburg. Populists put pressure on local politicians from all parties to jointly stop modernistic plans for downtown waterfront development. Instead, they were promoting traditional local architecture that would appeal to the tastes of locals and visitors alike. The decision to stop waterfront development, however, was met with a negative response in both local and national newspapers. Architects and other experts urged politicians to keep out of aesthetic matters, calling the reproduction of historical facades opportunistic and reminiscent of earlier totalitarian strategies for designing cities.

Turning to recent research into the attractiveness of city centres and architectural preferences, a few scholars have demonstrated that architecture matters when it comes to the attractiveness of urban centres (Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt 2008; Gjerde 2011). However, there are few empirical studies on the role of architecture in city centre development. In a systematic literature review, Parker et al. (2017) identify 201 different factors influencing the vitality and viability of town centres. Among these factors, only one, known as “urban design”, covers the architectural aesthetics of facades. Besides architectural design, they also identified some additional factors of relevance to how urban streetscapes are experienced, e.g., recreational spaces, attraction atmosphere, street characteristics and cleanliness. Thus, extant research provides some support for the proposition that architecture make cities more attractive and contributes towards increasing flows of visitors and stimulating business. Thus, architecture is not the only factor affecting attractiveness, having to compete with a very long list of other aspects that are key to city centre development. Even if some cities and projects favour new buildings in the classical style – the bulk of new architecture in city centres follows modernist aesthetic principles (Gehl 2010; DeNisco and Warnaby 2014).

This paper is concerned with how city centre managers value the ability of different types of streetscapes and aesthetic ideals to promote certain processes and activities that are considered vital to city centres and urban development. How do city centre managers see the connection between the architectural styles of a streetscape and the value attached to that place? Examining these views advances our understanding of the extent to which different architectural styles are deemed able to support city centre development. Since city centre management is a profession with only a brief history, and no educational programme of its own, the teams working in this field are seldom approached as a homogenous group. Nevertheless, they are still responsible for managing major urban challenges. The study contributes to knowledge of the kind of architectural ideals that contemporary city and streetscapes adhere to within this heterogenous profession. What kinds of architectural styles are valued as attractive and what kinds of qualities do these styles possess? The study also addresses the call for more knowledge of participatory urban visualization as both a method of and an ideal for urban design (cf. Kallus 2016; Calderon 2020)

The paper is arranged in three parts: First, it presents a literature review leading to the analytical framework of the study. Drawing on research dealing with architectural preferences, place management, retail, and geography, a multidisciplinary approach was used to understand city centre development. Second, it presents a methodological discussion about how to measure architectural preferences among city centre managers. Third, it presents a results section where the correlations are described and where the conclusions that can be drawn from them are highlighted. In this section, future research is also discussed.

Literature review

Maintaining the attractiveness of city centres is important to contemporary urban development. In the European and North American contexts, in particular, many city centres face serious challenges due to the relocation of retail businesses to the suburbs and external malls. With less retail, downtown areas need to rely on other strategies, e.g., a more experience-based approach with restaurants, museums, events, art and urban design playing a key role in attracting residents and visitors. The logic behind the decay of city centres has been well researched (e.g., Verkasalo and Hirvonen 2017). Other research shows that the more reasons there are for people to visit a city centre, the more retail establishments will be attracted to that area (Goodman and Coiacetto 2012; Castillo-Manzano, Lopez-Valpuesta, and Asencio-Flores 2014). Having many passers-by is considered positive since spontaneous footfall generates a large part of stores’ sales volumes (Wood and Reynolds 2012).

Several studies focus on how certain environments attract visitors and influence shopping behaviour. In general studies of retail environments, interior design has especially been highlighted as having a crucial bearing on customers’ moods, purchasing plans, and willingness to spend money (Turley and Chebat 2002; Yin-Lam 2001; Verhoef et al. 2009; Bäckström and Johansson 2017; Grewal, Roggeveen, and Nordfält 2017). Källström, Persson, and Westergren (2021) claim that atmosphere is as important as the retail offer itself when evaluating city centres (Källström, Persson, and Westergren 2021). More relevant to the present study is research focusing on how classical architecture attracts visitors and customers (e.g., Warnaby 2009). DeNisco and Warnaby (2014) found that the aesthetics of the architectural design used in a historic Italian town centre encouraged visitors to stay longer and to spend more money. Another study found that the harmony between buildings and history is key when it comes to explaining why people visit Las Ramblas in Barcelona (Sepe 2010). Similarly, Giannakopoulou et al. (2017) show that tourists spend more money in traditional and historical places.

In addition, previous research also highlights the economic value of well-planned places in community development. Zawadzki et al. (2017) write that the economic value of commercial properties and homes increases when these buildings are situated next to green areas and appealing open spaces, and in preserved historic neighbourhoods. Other research highlights the fact that revitalization can only be successful if the community supports it; when people actively value their properties (Shipley and Snyder 2013). Shipley and Snyder (2013) conclude that professional development actors are able to bring economic value to city centres by taking an area’s cultural heritage into consideration when revitalizing it. Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan (2014) write that this kind of preservation has evolved into a new profession among developers and planners working towards creating dense, walkable and unique communities with a strong sense of place by means of streetscaping and investing in public green spaces. In paying attention to how residents and visitors experience their urban surroundings, these studies underscore the fact that certain streetscapes produce economic value for investors (Vandell and Lane 1989; Zawadzki et al. 2017).

A wide range of studies of urban environments demonstrate the importance of attractive architectural design for other aspects of a city, e.g., social life (Gehl 2010; Heffernan, Heffernan, and Pan 2014); creativity (Lukic 2011; Malinin 2016), health (Devlin and Arneill 2003), recreation (Foster, Giles-Corti, and Knuiman 2011; Lindal and Hartig 2013; Kooshari, Badland, and Giles-Corti 2013), and crime prevention (Growe 2000; Shu 2000). Even if desirable architecture often seems to be associated with historic and traditional architecture, attractive and qualitative architectural design is not the same as historic, classical and traditional architecture. However, a common standpoint adopted by researchers studying the relationship between architecture and urban life is that large, monotone, closed and undetailed facades do not create an inviting milieu for stays, strolls, conversations and inspiration (see Stamps 1999; Gehl 2010; Kooshari, Badland, and Giles-Corti 2013).

Discussions about more holistic ways of analysing the liveability of streetscapes and architecture are sometimes associated with the work of Jane Jacobs (1961). In her book “The death and life of great American cities”, Jacobs shows that a city environment with abundant variation and interesting detail encourages low speed and slow movement, in addition to supporting spontaneous gatherings, creative meetings and consumption. The intention of her book was not only to analyse the liveable city environment, but also to stop modernistic interventions in Manhattan, which were seen by planners and developers as a formula for success as regards improving city centres during the 1960s (Mowery and Novak 2016). In many cities, pedestrian streetscapes with multiple architectural styles and functions were replaced to varying degrees by larger single-function areas and vehicle-based infrastructure solutions. Typical modernistic architecture is characterized by stripped down repetitive aesthetics, with plain and closed facades, flat roofs and right-angled corners.

For over two decades, a turnaround has been ongoing in city centre planning when it comes to pedestrian areas, vehicle traffic, bicycle lanes and inner-city functions. However, rational and effective modernistic expression still dominates the architecture. Despite typical modernistic architecture not being experienced as attractive (Gehl 2010), and considered to make all places look the same (Omholt 2019; Novak 2017), modern design is the standard when city centres are revitalized and extended (e.g., waterfront projects).

Studies show that participatory and inclusive approaches to urban design processes are desirable (cf. Toker and Pontikis 2011; Kallus 2016; Calderon 2020). Including different stakeholders and community members at the beginning of a design process highlights aspects that fall outside the traditional domains of property managers, municipalities and business developers. In their study of the neighbourhood of Pacoima in the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles, Toker and Pontikis (2011) illustrate that a successful, inclusive and generative design process may entail a more sustainable urban milieu. On the basis of community workshops and interviews with residents, the project implemented principles of sustainable urbanism, e.g., places with mixed purposes, walkability, and a better traffic situation with less car dependency and pollution. Toker and Pontikis (2011) demonstrate how the design process was generated by the local community, rather than being a master plan implemented from above.

Analytical framework

Here, for the purposes of this study, the Swedish mid-sized city of Helsingborg serves as an example for illustrating the kind of architecture used in extending city centres. Figure 1 consists of six photos of architecture and streetscapes from this city showing how modernistic ideals reoccurred in 2005 and 2020. The picture shows the largest city centre extension projects undertaken in Helsingborg during this period. These were constructed in parks, in car parks, and in waterfront areas within short walking distance of the main commercial streets.

Figure 1. Pictures of city centre extension projects.

In order to investigate city centre managers’ preferences regarding architectural styles, the present study employs an analytical framework based on conceptualizations of architectural, visual and user preferences. Urban life is very much connected to how people live in and value their local environment, but also to how they appreciate the aesthetics conveyed by the streetscape environment (Gehl, Johansen Kaefer, and Reigstad 2006; Gehl 2010). In research into facade preferences, soft, detailed and varied facades are often described as inviting, while large and closed facades, with little or no detail, are described as unwelcoming (Stamps 1999). Moreover, McCoy and Evans (2002) show that highly detailed complexity, natural materials, warm colours and green areas stimulate creativity. White and Gatesleben (2011) found that buildings featuring greenery are positively valued while Herzog and Shier (2000) note, for example, that respondents prefer buildings with a clear entrance to those without one that is visible. There are also studies showing that respondents prefer facades without too many complex constructions to those with either too little or too much complexity (Akalin et al. 2009).

One obvious focal point of urban research and architectural preference is illustrating possible discrepancies between how certain urban environments are experienced by certain groups of people. Some research compares the architectural preferences of laymen with those of architects (cf. Wilson 1996). Vees-Gulani (2005) shows that the idea of rebuilding German city centres to how they were before the bombings of WWII was popular among citizens. Nevertheless, at the time, there was great opposition to this idea from architects and other intellectuals such as historians, journalists and curators, finally resulting in a modernistic streetscape. These intellectuals embraced the role of builder of the future rather than supporter of the conservative ideas of the past (Vees-Gulani 2005). Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt (2008) compare the difference between laymen’s and architects’ preferences for roof silhouettes, finding that laymen have more traditional taste than architects. Gjerde (2011) argues, in a similar study, that people, whether they are architects or not, prefer certain types of street environments, where buildings have clearly-defined individual expression but still contribute to a harmonious whole. However, Gjerde (2011) also observed that architects in the study were critical of pictures showing “bad” architecture, according to typical and learned professional taste.

In the 1930s, prominent architects started to promote the idea that modern architecture was related to a narrative of public health and hygiene, democracy, development and prosperity (Arrhenius 2010). In many Swedish cities, due to robust modernization and the expansion of the welfare state, large amounts of traditional architecture were torn down in the 1960s and replaced by new buildings typical of the time (Verkasalo and Hirvonen 2017).

Architecture has often been used to modernize society, and architects have played a key role as social planners during this modernization project. Between 1959 and 1975, some 125,000 flats were demolished in Sweden and, in many cities, more than 50% of the buildings built before 1901 disappeared (Verkasalo and Hirvonen 2017). The era of large-scale renewal had ended by the early 1970s due to public resistance, with the demand for modernistic flats in large-scale housing estates drastically reducing (Hall and Vidén 2005; Arrhenius 2010).

Previous research has predominately compared the aesthetic tastes of different groups of people (e.g., Gjerde 2011; Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt 2008). Moreover, research also shows how different aspects of urban design can successfully be involved at the beginning of a design process aimed at promoting sustainable urbanism (Toker and Pontikis 2011; Parham and Jones 2021). Kallus (2016) notes that architects have the professional tools and competence to visualize the design process as a final product grounded in their knowledge and developed in self-referential dialogue with other architects of the same background sharing the same discourse. This means that the design product is presented to local communities and not planned with them. In a similar vein, Calderon (2020) writes that, even though participation by stakeholders is praised and requested, it is generally rare in practice, however. Parham and Jones (2021) show that there are slippages between the master plan and how it is implemented in practice, with master planning also falling short if judged to be a process of collaboration.

This study focuses on how a particular professional group values architectural styles in relation to each other, and what kind of role this style plays for the city centre. The focus on professionals enables us to capture aesthetic influences on decision-making as regards the architectural styles of city centres. Furthermore, the approach that is used focuses on the facade as a part of the streetscape rather than something detached from it.

Research design

A survey was carried out in May 2017 which measured city centre managers’ aesthetic preferences for downtown architectural facades in different streetscapes. The sampling method used followed the procedures of a strategic convenience sample. The sample consists of managers who have a well-developed interest in how city centres should best be designed in order to attract visitors and encourage them to use the amenities available in the city centre. The majority of the respondents included have professional roles and job titles such as city centre manager, tourism manager and municipal business executive. Others are employees working in municipal planning and administration, with a special emphasis on physical planning and design. Yet others are professionals from real estate companies and the retail sector. In their work, they address different ways of making a city centre inviting, appealing and interesting. The respondents are heterogenous but belong to a unified group characterized by the common aim of making city centres more attractive so that people will tend to visit them more frequently, and stay longer. Even though this group represents different platforms, with different agendas and strategies, they still are united by their shared interest in making city centres more attractive to visitors. City centre managers’ work concerns how different businesses add to the experienced value of the city (Coca-Stefaniak, Radominski, and Ryczek 2009). In turn, the presence of people who experience the environment positively increases the revenues of local businesses, e.g., retailers, restaurants and other services (Jacobs 1961; Adams et al. 2012).

To reach key actors managing city centres, a survey was distributed to city centre managers at the annual conference of the Swedish City Centre Organization. Almost five hundred city centre managers from all parts of Sweden attend the annual conference. They represent, more or less, the entirety of Sweden’s professional city centre managers and work with the same challenges as regards making city centres more attractive to residents, visitors, and businesses. The conference is a platform unifying professional city centre managers in their mission of making city centres more attractive. The group consists of different professionals, but these are homogenous in the sense that they share the same mission: This annual conference is an event where they meet, mingle and share their knowledge and experiences.

As the conference attracts committed city centre managers working in Sweden, this selection can be said to represent a large proportion of these key people. While it is not a randomized and controlled sample, it cannot be considered representative of all. The conclusions drawn from the exploratory analysis are tentative, but they do provide us with an illustration of the tendencies and attitudes of this profession. A printed questionnaire was distributed to the attendees on the first day of the conference, upon registering. Following registration, the attendees mingled and visited the stands of the various sponsors while waiting for the joint programme to start. In total, 109 attendees completed the survey, corresponding to approximately 25% of the total number.

The survey was designed to explore the attitudes of city centre managers. The questionnaire consists of two parts: The first part includes 11 background variables; i.e., their gender, country of birth, age; and three variables about their own life circumstances, i.e., education, employment and income group. The purpose here was to see whether or not any differences in preferential patterns and attitudes could be explained by specific background variables; in other words, whether or not city centre managers are a homogenous or heterogenous group. The second part of the questionnaire consists of 13 Likert scales measuring how the respondents view certain streetscapes in relation to city centre attractiveness. The questionnaire measures attitudes towards different architectures and streetscapes, but its design is explorative and captures how the common and attractive characteristics, and strategic effects, of the city are believed to be facilitated by certain streetscapes, e.g., feeling safe, happy and creative.

Research into people’s preferences and attitudes in architecture and design is often done using pictures of facades and house silhouettes (e.g., Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt 2008; Gjerde 2011). This stream of research (e.g., Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt 2008 & Gjerde 2011) focuses both on specific and isolated parts of facades and on components of architecture, e.g., entrances, roof silhouettes and decorations. The present study is not just grounded in architectural preferences, however, but also in the broad research into what makes a city centre attractive (i.e., Parker et al. 2017). The buildings featured in the questionnaire are not detached from their immediate surroundings: Instead, the typical streetscapes associated with a certain building style are also included.

Making respondents react to images and pictures enables researchers to measure attitudes and preferences, either for or against certain designs (Lindal and Hartig 2013; Deghati Najd et al. 2015). In this study, six images of period-typical streetscapes consisting of multi-family homes no taller than six storeys were selected (Figure 2). The rationale underpinning this design was to have a few images of buildings, but with more questions connected to each building. Other studies of facades or scenic preferences usually have more images but fewer questions. Accordingly, the part about preferences consists of nine Likert scales, with the same questions being related to six different types of facades. The images are partly from Google Maps Street View and partly from searches for specific architectural styles. The buildings are generic residential ones and not iconic commercial or public ones: For people unfamiliar with the specific neighbourhood where the building is, they are difficult to identify. As Herzog and Shier (2000) suggest, the variables capable of affecting perceptions of these pictures should be reduced. The images used in the survey also consist of photographs oriented horizontally and taken in similar atmospheric lighting conditions, similar to what De La Fuente De Val and Mühlhauser (2014) used in their study of visual qualities outside Santiago (Chile). None of the photographs used in the survey show people (cf. De La Fuente De Val and Mühlhauser 2014; Svobodova et al. 2012; Bradley and Kearney 2007; Rogge, Nevens, and Gulinck 2007).

All of the images signal a calm urban environment, with both the building and how it interacts with its immediate streetscape in focus. All of the pictures were taken at pedestrian eye level and thus show how people perceive the buildings as they approach them (cf. Svobodova et al. 2012; Rogge, Nevens, and Gulinck 2007). The target group of the present study are used to navigating in streetscapes where the architecture contributes, together with other attributes, to a context that creates value. On the one hand, the approach was quite separate from research specifically focusing on facades (cf. Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt 2008; Gjerde 2011), and their composition, while on the other, the chosen images are more aligned with how pictures are used to analyse visual preferences in landscape research where the scene and framing are in focus (cf. De La Fuente De Val and Mühlhauser 2014; Svobodova et al. 2012; Bradley and Kearney 2007; Rogge, Nevens, and Gulinck 2007). Additionally, this kind of photograph is in keeping with a tradition in which the more holistic aspects of the servicescape are captured (Bitner 1992).

The questionnaire was validated by means of two group interviews. The members of each group tested the questionnaire and, in relation to that, the questions were then rephrased.

Figure 2. Facades used in the survey to measure respondents’ attitudes and preferences.

All types of architecture are commonplace in the city centres of major northern European cities. Today, Sweden’s city centres have limited possibilities of being extended, for several reasons. First, older architecture is protected today and cannot be cleared away as easily as it could in the 1960s. Second, land surrounding city centres is limited and, unless there is a pending waterfront project, infills are to be done wherever a corner of a park or a schoolyard can be used for property development. Third, even though new areas seem to have more of a calm and residential nature than bustling city centres, there is still very little demand for retail and office space. In combination with today’s e-commerce, decades of urban sprawl, whereby retail and other businesses have been moving out of city centres, have been making property managers unwilling to invest in commercial facilities at street level. The focus of this study, thus, is streetscape aesthetics and facades as both an attraction and an object of study in their own right.

The survey included buildings that are mundane and well-represented in both mid-sized and larger cities in northern Europe. Each building represents a certain period of architectural history. The most modern building, as seen in streetscape B, is typical of the decades after 2000, when modernistic expression was influenced by original modernistic architecture, as seen in streetscapes C and E. With the start of modernism, the urban ideal changed from traditional blocks, with distinct front facades facing the street (see streetscapes A, D and F), to houses with no distinct fronts and with greenery around them (streetscapes D, C and E).

• Streetscape A (Figure 2a) shows a 1920s brick building with dark facade tiling and a red brick saddle roof.

• Streetscape B (Figure 2b) shows a modern residential building, built in 2010, with a smooth and plain facade, large balconies and flat roofs. Entrances do not connect directly to the street.

• Streetscape C (Figure 2c) represents a 1930s functional building with a smooth facade and a mainly flat roof. Entrances do not face the street.

• Streetscape D (Figure 2d) shows architecture from the years either side of 1900. These buildings are typically stucco, along with clearly-defined ground floors, bay windows, balconies and varied roof silhouettes.

• Streetscape E (Figure 2e) is a building mainly in red brick, in addition to having vertical windowsills. Entrances face courtyards instead of the street. The house is in a late 1960s modern style, where each floor is identical, with a smooth facade and a flat roof.

• Streetscape F (Figure 2f) shows a building in a classical European style of architecture often used during the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The building in this streetscape has a clearly-defined ground floor, plenty of facade decorations and a broken roof, with roof trusses.

Each picture was connected to nine multi-item scales about different aspects found in the literature review about urban facades and their connected values. These nine items were then divided into three dimensions measuring the city centre managers’ preferences. The first dimension measured personal attitudes towards these buildings as regards whether or not the respondents would want to live in them and whether or not they would like to visit settings that included these kinds of buildings.

The second category measured attitudes concerning how certain types of buildings make people feel safe, happy and creative. The third category measured whether or not the respondents believed that the buildings in their immediate settings make a city centre more attractive to visitors, tourists and residents. The respondents had to react to different statements made in relation to each image and to then rank their responses on a five-point scale: i.e., Strongly agree – Agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Disagree – Strongly disagree.

The Likert scales were transformed into three three-item scales for each response category functioning as indices (Devellis 2011); i.e., personal preferences, strategic effects (e.g., attractiveness) and target groups. Then, a comparison was made between each picture to see which was considered the most attractive. In order to see which streetscape received the highest and lowest scores, all the answers for all the pictures were combined. Then, all the categories were added together to make an overall index for each picture, so it was possible to estimate which ones the respondents saw most negatively and most positively. The high points represent negative attitudes, while the low points represent positive attitudes. The findings are presented in Table 1 in the Findings section. The index is made up of three dimensions (see Box 1).

Table 1. Total score^a.

	Personal preferences	Strategic effects	Desirable target groups	Total score
Streetscape A	1195	1136	1191	3528
Streetscape B	1092	940	977	3009
Streetscape C	1355	1244	1279	3878
Streetscape D	732	705	574	1984
Streetscape E	1548	1445	1455	4448
Streetscape F	712	622	499	1833

a. All three scales showed a Cronbach’s alpha >0.7

Box 1.

A. Personal preferences
This type of building ……	1. I would like to live in right now.
	2. I would like to live in the future.
	3. I would like to see in areas I often visit.
B. Strategic effects
These buildings make people in cities ……	1. Feel safe.
	2. happy.
	3. creative.
C. Attractiveness
This type of building contributes towards making a city centre more attractive for
	1. visitors.
	2. tourists.
	3. new residents.

a. All three scales showed a Cronbach’s alpha >0.7

To measure the concept of attractive streetscapes among city centre managers, three dimensions were identified, A-C. These three dimensions were then narrowed down to the operational Likert scales 1-3 that were attached to the different dimensions. To make the questionnaire more accessible, questions were asked about the buildings instead of the streetscapes, architecture or facades. Using this survey design, the aim was to measure the aesthetic preferences of our respondents. Architecture is viewed here as a part of a service landscape, a kind of infrastructure for achieving social and economic goals (e.g., Bitner 1992). The responses were analysed using IBM SPSS statistics version 25. An initial analysis was done to identify which facades were valued highest and lowest according to the devised scales. After that, t-tests and ANOVA tests, with post hoc, were conducted to investigate the impact of background variables, e.g., age, living conditions, occupation and level of education, on preferences regarding architectural styles.

Findings

In summarizing the different questions posed for each streetscape, the analysis revealed which streetscape was considered the most attractive in city centres. In order to measure personal preferences, an index was designed by combining the three questions along dimension A (see Table 1). To measure what is known here as strategic effects, questions along dimension B were added to the index. In addition, to measure the desirable target groups of a building, questions from dimension C were also added. Each index was assigned a value between 3 and 15. The variables were positively formulated, with low values indicating agreement about the facades’ attractiveness, and high values indicating disagreement about their attractiveness. Accordingly, low scores indicate a positive attitude, and high scores a negative one.

Each streetscape was first analysed in terms of personal preferences, strategic effects and desirable target groups. The three categories were then merged into an overall score showing the most attractive (low points) and least attractive (high points) streetscapes. The findings show that the picture with the Baroque building (F) is considered to be the most attractive in all categories; it is considered to be the most attractive building to both live in and be close to, as well as the most suitable for boosting security, joy and creativity, and for attracting visitors and residents.

The second most attractive streetscape contains architecture from the years either side of 1900 (D). The picture with the third most attractive streetscape shows contemporary architecture, with large balconies (B). The fourth most attractive streetscape has buildings from the 1920s, in dark brick (A). The modern functionalist building from the 1930s (C) is ranked fifth while the least attractive streetscape shows architecture from the late 1960s (E). The two streetscapes that city centre managers deemed most attractive are those that feature buildings from before 1910. Findings of the study thus lend support to the argument that city centre streetscapes with classical architectural design are appreciated by city centre professionals (see Gehl 2010; DeNisco and Warnaby 2014; Gunne 2020 for similar reasoning). From the perspective of city centre managers, this finding is of significance since it puts an even greater emphasis on making city centres more attractive in times of increasing competition from suburban malls and e-commerce.

Exploratory analysis of background variables and discussion on reliability

Urban design is done by certain groups that develop a concept for how that design should be and look. Kallus (2016) suggests that urban design is often a self-referential practice carried out by similar peers sharing the same discourse. Calderon (2020) also identifies the fact that community members’ knowledge is seldom included in the planning process of urban environments. Hence, urban design, as a final product, tends to be presented and implemented by a homogenous group of architects sharing the same background and social status. However, different groups identify different aspects, problems and possibilities of urban life to the ones that are implemented using a master plan (Kallus 2016; Parham and Jones 2021). To check whether or not the respondents in this study comprised a heterogenous group, with different perspectives on urban design, an explorative analysis was performed. The background variables are also of relevance to testing the reliability of the study, to determine the variations in city centre managers. The explorative analysis checked whether or not the respondents’ attitudes were determined by personality or by background variables such as gender, age and education (cf. Devellis 2011; Cook and Furnham 2012). The respondents share the same interest in urban design, but their backgrounds vary, making the findings tentative. Due to the limitations of the sampling frame, the findings cannot be generalized, thus being in some sense tentative. However, the analysis does show some tendencies within this group of respondents.

The findings indicate that men have a higher mean score for streetscape A than women. Additionally, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene’s F test, F(107)=.754; p=.387, which was met. The independent samples t-test was associated with a statistically significant effect, t(107)=-2.732; p=0.007. The findings also indicate that men are more positively inclined towards picture A in terms of personal preference, that is to say that they could see themselves living in that kind of building. The assumption of homogeneity tested using Levene’s F test, F(107)=.6.236; p=.014 was not met apparently, thus no equal variances were assumed. However, the independent samples t-test was associated with a statistically significant effect, t(50.428)=-2.848; p=0.006.

The one-way ANOVA test yielded a statistically significant effect as regards residential area for streetscape A at the p<0.05 level, F(3, 105)=3.955; p=.010. Post hoc comparisons, using the Tukey HSD test, showed that the mean score for rural respondents regarding streetscape A was significantly more positively valued than it was for respondents living in mid-sized cities (Mean difference=-2.97; p=.010). The respondents living outside of larger cities believed that streetscape A was better in terms of strategic effects than those living in cities.

City centre managers living in detached houses are more positively inclined towards picture B at the p<0.05 level. The one-way ANOVA test indicated a statistically significant effect as regards form of residence on streetscape B F(3)=3,3, p=.023 . Here, a post hoc comparison, using Tukey HSD, was also made. The post hoc test showed that respondents living in detached houses are more negatively inclined towards the streetscape in picture B than those living in flats (Mean difference=-1,85; p=.015).

Living in a private residence had a significant impact on personal preference for streetscape D (F(3, 105)=3.94; p=.010). A post hoc Tukey HSD test showed that city centre professionals living in detached houses show a statistically significant and more negative personal preference for streetscape D than those living in flats (F(3)=3.94; p=.010).

The last significant correlation, using a one-way ANOVA, was between the respondents’ private residences and their personal preferences for streetscape F (p=.001). Furthermore, a Tukey HSD post hoc test was conducted, which indicated a significant difference between city centre professionals living in detached houses and those living in flats. The Tukey post hoc test showed that professionals who live in detached houses seem to be more negatively inclined towards streetscape F (F(3)=5.712, p=.000).

The analysis shows that there are some variations between gender, residential area, and form of housing. This supports the notion that there is a demand for a more participatory and inclusive design process. However, in general, the respondents showed consensus with regard to which facades were felt to support city centre attractiveness the most. Overall, there are some disparities among city centre managers’ attitudes, but the general tendencies lend support to the findings of the study.

Discussion

The extant research on streetscapes and city centres claims that details, variations, historical architecture, density and walkability (e.g., Jacobs 1961; Fawcett, Ellingham, and Platt 2008; Warnaby 2009; Gehl 2010; Sepe 2010; Kooshari, Badland, and Giles-Corti 2013; Giannakopoulou et al. 2017) all make for an attractive place. In a similar vein, this research indicates that streetscapes with different details, decorations and variated rooftops are preferred to homogenous ones with a modernistic design. The findings of this study suggest that city centre managers prefer classical architecture to modernist when it comes to creating urban streetscapes that encourage sought-after features like security, joy and creativity, which attract desirable groups such as visitors, tourists, and residents. The two most-preferred streetscapes in the study involve facades with classical architectural and a pre-modernistic style, as well as with clearly-marked ground floors, entrances towards the street, paned windows, decorations and expressive roof silhouettes. Hard and closed facades are preferred less in city centres, which the findings also support. Modernistic city centre extensions do not realize the full potential of value co-creation in city centres.

The study also reveals that the classic streetscapes, i.e., buildings in dark brick and with a corner shop (A), were less appreciated than streetscapes with newly-constructed buildings (B), whose facades are characterized by large glass balconies. This finding is noteworthy since classical architecture that features a retail space, as in picture A, would probably appeal to city centre managers. However, facades that have large spaces between windows can be experienced as too closed and unattractive (Gehl 2010; Stamps 1999; Kooshari, Badland, and Giles-Corti 2013). Gehl (2010), Stamps (1999) and Kooshari, Badland, and Giles-Corti (2013) also show that observers do not generally prefer facades that are too closed, as in streetscapes A, C and E. The results are in line with Herzog and Shier (2000), who found that their respondents preferred architecture with clear and identifiable entrances, something which is also obvious in how respondents valued streetscapes with classical buildings. Thus, traditional architecture cannot automatically be considered something that is preferable (cf. Sepe 2010). To conceptualize what it is that is being appreciated, one needs to take a street level perspective and focus upon the streetscape, rather than individual buildings.

The questionnaire consists of streetscapes that are commonly found in Scandinavia, and other parts of northern Europe. The study shows that there is a preference among city centre managers for classical facades from before WWI. Streetscapes with buildings from different modernistic periods are ranked low in relation to the classical ones. The finding suggests that it is easier to develop attractive city centres in areas consisting of streetscapes that include buildings with classical facades that are soft, organic, varied and detailed.

The respondents assessed and analysed the architectural styles of the buildings in a certain streetscape, but also what they associated with these buildings on the basis of their past experiences. Today, traditional, costly and well-maintained facades are associated with areas that are often expensive to live in and of high status. In the same way, completely newly-built houses, with large balconies and lots of light, are associated with prestigious urban areas, while streetscapes like the one in Figure 2(b) are often associated with rapidly-built suburbs and extensive areas of inner-city renovation during the 1960s. These types of modernist housing areas are also characterized by repetitiveness and large-scale solutions aimed at as many people as possible. But what is appreciated by city centre managers are streetscapes that are varied and heterogenous.

Conclusion

The attitudes of city centre managers differ from those of architects and architecture students, and of ‘lay’ people (cf. Wilson 1996; Gjerde 2011). If politicians, planners, property owners and business developers want urban environments that facilitate elements such as creativity, joy, security, visits and tourism, then the architectural features of more classical architecture, as the study shows, are preferable to those of modernist architecture. The present study clearly shows that modernistic facades, in spite of their lengthy and dominant tradition since the 1930s, are not regarded to be attractive by city centre managers. One aspect that is overlooked in research into traditional environmental preferences, with single cropped out facades in pictures lacking surroundings, is that architectural repetitiveness is not taken into consideration. As previously noted, modernistic architecture is repetitive, with buildings standing close to their identical siblings. Modernistic architecture in a varied heterogenous streetscape, or in a natural setting, would be valued differently. This is one advantage of using the streetscape as method of studying the value that different buildings bring to city centres. Newly-constructed buildings are not automatically bad for city centres: However, further research is needed in order to highlight the nuances of contemporary architectural design and what it is that brings value to a city centre. Even if the building in streetscape B is from 2010, and represents contemporary standardized architecture (as the pictures from Helsingborg clearly show), other kinds of architectural solutions exist nevertheless. For example, at the beginning of 2020, architects in Sweden were more open to variation, using organic and decorative elements in their work. Furthermore, planners and politicians have also realized the need for aesthetics and variation. Therefore, an extension of the results calls for a broader investigation of the values connected to different kinds of modern and newly-developed streetscapes.

The paper suggests that there are some internal discrepancies between the preferences of the professionals responsible for filling cities with urban life and the professionals designing the physical structures of cities. These findings contribute to research showing that the design and planning of streetscapes matters when it comes to making a place attractive to investors, residents and visitors (Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan 2014; Zawadzki et al. 2017). Research into which values are preferred and how both city centre managers and professional development actors address these aspects of urban design needs further investigation. The findings suggest that it is not only architectural appearance that is appreciated, as many conservative and populistic debaters would argue, but an inclusive and pluralistic streetscape. A more urgent field of research calls for attention since, city centre managers are key actors in developing places and making them more attractive. However, city centre managers, with their expertise in streetscaping, are not influential when it comes to the design process right from the beginning.

The findings are supported by the literature review, which shows that the streetscapes that are perceived as harmonious and historical strengthen local consumption. Including city centre managers throughout the design process can strengthen the urban environment. But to do this, a participatory and inclusive approach needs to be adopted.

The explorative methodological approach adds new aspects to the process of urban design. Focusing on city centre managers, rather than on architects and laymen, provides a new tool for understanding value creation through physical design. This value creation process is grounded in questions other than those specifically about preferences: The questionnaire includes several questions that measure professional attitudes towards different streetscapes. The method in this paper can be useful when place developers intend to anchor their design decisions using a more holistic approach. Using pictures of streetscapes instead of plain, cropped pictures of architecture brings this tool closer to how the streetscape is experienced in context. Ongoing technical and digital development provides opportunities for experiencing streets from all over the world, as well as constructed images of streets for the planned streetscapes of the future.

Future research

This study opens up avenues for further research concerning how architectural taste preferences are acquired, determined, developed and manifested, but also concerning who has the preferential right to how inner-city streetscapes should be designed. Furthermore, the study paves the way for future research into socially-sustainable and resilient cities. How can the design process involve this kind of key actor in making city centres more attractive? Their knowledge and competence can make the city centre resilient to fluctuations and market failures. Today, when inner-city brick and mortar retail outlets are being challenged by external malls and fast-growing e-commerce, attractive streetscapes could turn out to be a factor of significance to city centres. The main contribution made by this study is identifying a professional group located in-between the architects and the local community. Previous research (e.g., Vees-Gulani 2005; Kallus 2016; Calderon 2020) shows that there is a need to develop methods of including different stakeholders in the design process. Hence, there is a need for future research into how different groups value certain kinds of architectures, streetscapes and urban environments. However, finding participation methodologies that include the wider local community and “the common man” in the design process might be too broad and elusive. This study adds to the field of participatory urban design by showing that future research could benefit from identifying strategic groups and professionals with important knowledge of certain kinds of desired use and appreciation when it comes to urban environments. Focusing on certain key groups also improves possibilities of bringing their experiences into the discourses of urban design and how different forms of legitimization are involved between certain professional groups. Finally, this approach can also be used to identify key groups and, in the long run, train them to be a natural part of the urban design process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).