Image via Wikipedia

Articles with positive themes were emailed far more often than negative or downer articles. After noticing that science articles received a surprisingly high rate of email shares, researchers concluded that articles that inspired awe were the most popular and most likely to be shared.

“More emotional stories were more likely to be e-mailed, the researchers found, and positive articles were shared more than negative ones…They used two criteria for an awe-inspiring story: Its scale is large, and it requires ‘mental accommodation’ by forcing the reader to view the world in a different way.”

Determining the root of this behavioral trend was somewhat trickier. Ideas of reciprocal altruism came up, meaning offering something of value and counting on a return favor in the future, as well as the possibility of status and competition, trying to elevate or maintain social status by portraying oneself and well informed. However, researchers concluded that people were actually seeking “emotional communion”

“Emotion in general leads to transmission, and awe is quite a strong emotion. If I’ve just read this story and that changes the way I understand the world and myself, I want to talk to other about what it means. I want to proselytize and share the feeling of awe. If you read the article and feel the same emotion, it will bring us closer together.”

– Dr. Jonah Berger

Can this research indicate anything about how architectural projects or ideas are valued and shared? I imagine that sharing awe-inspiring experiences or knowledge holds true for architecture. There are many projects – modern, classic and ancient – that we hold in our collective consciousness as being awe-inspiring. The Taj Mahal, Machu Picchu, The Acropolis, Therme Vals, The Alhambra, The City of Arts and Sciences, etc, etc. These are projects that, whether we have seen them or not, we understand to be awe-inspiring and value them accordingly.

What makes us want to tell others about architecture we have seen or (preferably) visited? From personal experience I only share projects that seem to hold a connection to the land, people and environmental forces in creative ways. Others, while I may find them interesting, radical, good or absurd, I do not often find them worth passing on. Of the projects and cities that I remember best and tell people the most about that I have visited, it is always ones that carefully, brilliantly or perhaps subtly addressed the human.

Does the potential for people sharing and spreading the word on architectural projects influence the projects? For example consider the Burj Khalifa and the never ending race for the world’s tallest building.  Its seems that the power of awe is being used in a big way; it is difficult to imagine a building reaching half of a mile into the sky. Is it possible that awe is created but also used as a mechanism to ensure that everyone tells everyone and thereby validates the existence of the tower and concretizes Dubai’s prominence? I am also reminded of the building boom in Beijing prior to the 2008 Olympic Games. The projects were, in their own right, revolutionary, a testament to the building boom and the times, and successfully generated a lot of attention. Now, however, many of the projects and planning schemes are facing criticism for being empty, and for not considering their use and value after the Olympics. These two articles, one by The Architects Newspaper and one by the New York Times, look further into this issue and compare Beijing and Vancouver Olympic construction.

Awe is powerful and probably often overlooked, but research shows that we connect strongly to it and that it influences us to share the experience in order to connect to one another. What types of stories do you share? What architectural projects generate the most awe?

Related articles:

• Will You Tweet This Post? Study of 7,500 NYT Stories Finds Long, Happy Pieces Most E-Mailed (trueslant.com)
• So You Want to Get on The New York Times’ Most-Emailed List? [Visualizations] (gawker.com)
• Please Email This Article; Researchers Say You’ll Feel Better (marketingpilgrim.com)
• O Canada! Considering the Impact of Hosting the Olympics (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Shock and Awe: Viral News Is Good News (wired.com)
• Deconstructing Dubai: Considering Questions Posed By the New World’s Tallest Building (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)

An article published in the New York Times in January of 2010 reported that some real estate agents were beginning to consider walkability an important factor in determining the value of a location. A study by C.E.O.’s for Cities looked at the 100-point scale Walk Score and the corresponding values of homes and neighborhoods. Data and observations have shown that home in more walk-friendly neighborhoods sold for higher than homes in other neighborhoods, and that the value of the walkable homes declined less in the recent recession.

Image via Wikipedia

In October of 2008, the Denver Post reported that home prices closer to light rail lines avoided the decline seen throughout most of the metropolitan area. The closer the home to a rail station, the higher the value. Home prices near light rail stations increased by an average of 4% during the same time period that most other home values decreased by 7.5%.

In July of 2009, Time magazine reported a study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute in 2007 of 439 urban areas nationwide. The numbers are sometimes staggering and illuminate the room for change and opportunity in the realm of cities and transportation. In 2007, Americans collectively spent 500,000 years sitting in traffic. 500,000 years. This amounted to $87.2 billion in fuel costs and lost productivity. Imagine what else could have been done with that time, energy and money. Certainly more constructive pursuits could have been followed for the benefit of everyone.

With such clear social and economic benefits to walkable and transit-oriented cities and urban areas, it is a wonder there is not more effort made to update outdated infrastructure. Even if only the $87.2 billion lost to traffic each year was invested, a great deal could be accomplished. The best way to move forward seems to be to educate the public about these benefits to try to garner support for wise decisions and planning in the future.

Related articles:

• Can You Guess Your Home’s Walk Score? (bucks.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Front Seat Management develops ‘civic’ software (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• The Economic Argument for Walkability (streetsblog.org)
• Everybody’s Business: Street Corners vs. Cul de Sacs (nytimes.com)
• How to save money commuting: Take public transit (timesunion.com)
• Target Eyes Smaller, Urban Stores (shoppingblog.com)

Hunter S. Thompson —”Extreme Behavior in Aspen,” February 3, 2003

In similar veins of exploration to previous posts on storytelling and surveillance, this post will seek to examine how the stories told in our 24-hour media culture affect our vision of the world; our perceived reality. As previously discussed, storytelling plays a large part in cultural transmission and learning. So what affects are seen when we embed ourselves in an environment of stories about disaster, disease, death and terrorism?

According to a Gallup Poll done is 2007, 7 out of 10 Americans thought that crime was worse than it was in the previous year. This, in fact, was quite of out sync with reality. Data collected by the FBI and Department of Justice Bureau and Justice Statistics reported violent and property crime to be at historic lows.

In 1998, Florida State University School of Criminology and Justice completed a study correlating perceived fear of crime to television coverage of crime. The report cited Gallup polls that showed that about 3%-6% of people considered crime to be a major societal problem, a figure that held steady for decades. However, the number began to creep up in the 1990s, and jumped from 9% to 54% between 1993 and 1994, correlating with a 400% increase in the amount of time television networks dedicated to covering crime. Further, the study showed that people who watched the news 7 or more times a week had a fear rate that was double those who did not watch so much coverage of crime.

An article published by the New York Times in 2005 revealed that many tales of legions of armed looters, people shooting at helicopters and gangs of rapists terrorizing shelters were wildly exaggerated, if not entirely false. Of course, there were problems with looting and crime, but not to the degree was reported. What is more interesting is that these tales and rumors, after they head spread two or three degrees away from the source, were accepted as fact. Further, the rumors-turned-fact changed the responses from authorities. Some medical evacuation efforts were delayed in fear of volatile and hostile streets, and some police officers quit on the spot after hearing rumors of hundreds of armed looters approaching.

“Anytime you put 25,000 people under one roof, with no running water, no electricity and no information, stories get told.”

­––Lt. David Benelli, NOPD

Dr. Mark Warr, a criminologist and professor of sociology, asserts that research conducted over the last three decades shows that the mass media is an amplifying mechanism that can lead to great misconceptions about the reality of crime.

“People are bombarded with information about crime from the media, which makes them believe the world is a much more dangerous place than it really is.”

–– Dr. Mark Warr

Storytelling has the power not only to pass on cultural knowledge and make up a good portion of social learning, but also to augment the perceived reality we live in.

Related articles:

• New York marks fewest murders ever (cnn.com)
• New York City Murders Will be Fewest on Record (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
• FBI says property crime is down nationwide, but on the rise in Seattle (queenanneview.com)