Beyond the Architectural Style Debates: Why We Might Say "It’s the Geometry, Stupid” (?)

New research confirms the transcendent (and surprisingly cutting-edge) qualities of built environments that enrich our lives and promote our well-being – and that may be the key to the durable, flourishing, livable cities, towns and suburbs we must build for the future

ABOVE: A few examples of the endless rich geometries from around the world and across eras, including a contemporary example. Also included are several examples of naturally occurring geometries that are related. We naturally perceive these geometries as beautiful -- and as research shows, they promote our well-being, and the livability of our environments.

Amid the often-heated arguments over modern versus traditional architecture, we risk missing a deeper and more consequential truth: that the human response to the built environment is not primarily an issue of style, but one of geometry. New research shows that, from Kyoto to Cairo, from Renaissance Florence to indigenous villages in Africa and the Americas, traditional architectures around the world and across history all have exhibited commonly recurring geometric patterns—hierarchical scales, gradients of detail, symmetry and asymmetry in balance, spatial enclosure, and other perceptual cues that foster a sense of harmony, coherence, and livability.

Yet too often, debates rage about the “correct” style that is appropriate to our time. So many of those debates over architecture devolve into shouting matches over who is “pastiche”, who is “arrogant”, who is “modern”, who is "reactionary", and so on—but it seems these arguments miss the point. Perhaps, paraphrasing the famous slogan of the 1992 Clinton campaign about the economy in the US, we could say, it’s not the style, “it’s the geometry, stupid.”

Cutting-edge research across multiple disciplines, including neuroscience, environmental psychology, urban planning, and architecture, is revealing that certain geometric qualities of the built environment are deeply connected to our health, our well-being, and our sense of beauty and enjoyment. These qualities go beyond style or historical period. Instead, they reflect a kind of spatial logic, found across many cultures and eras: patterns of complex symmetry, web-network relationships, integrated scales, fractal complexity, and coherent structure featuring "organized complexity"—all of which mirror characteristics of the natural world.

These qualities are found in abundance in many traditional architectures around the world and through history. Unfortunately, they are all too rare in contemporary environments, where technocratic or artistic prerogatives dominate - often with harmful consequences for health and well-being.

Studies show that environments exhibiting the geometric properties of natural environments tend to reduce stress, promote cognitive restoration, and improve well-being. They're also more likely to be perceived as beautiful or harmonious. This isn't merely a matter of taste—it’s a matter of how our brains and bodies respond to the spaces around us, and whether that's conducive to our well-being, or harmful.

These geometric characteristics also shape how we engage with our environment in practical and ecological ways. Neighborhoods that embody such qualities often include human-scale proportions, walkable street networks, and diverse, textured façades. Their appealing characteristics encourage walking, cycling, lingering, and outdoor activity -- behaviors that are not only healthier for individuals, but also for communities and the planet. They reduce car dependency, lower emissions, and allow people to live well in more compact, resource-efficient neighborhoods. The form and pattern of these places—tree-lined streets, public squares, and intricate streetscapes—often mimic ecological systems themselves, with diverse, layered, and interconnected structures that support resilience and adaptability.

Importantly, these qualities also foster stronger social interaction, an important antidote to the social isolation and divisiveness that is increasingly common today. When people feel comfortable, stimulated, and safe in their environment, they are more likely to spend time outside their homes—walking, lingering, talking to neighbors, and engaging in public life. Urban form that supports this kind of sociability tends to include pedestrian-friendly streets, places to gather, mixed-use buildings, and visual cues that draw people out and invite engagement. The geometry of these places—whether a graceful curve in a pathway or the nested rhythm of doorways and windows—subtly guides our movements and interactions. The result is not just a more aesthetically pleasing city, but one that cultivates stronger social ties and a greater sense of belonging.

As this body of evidence grows, it challenges the assumption that beauty and function are separate, or that style debates are the most important design issue. Instead, the focus is shifting to measurable structural properties of spatial geometry that support life—biological life, social life, and ecological sustainability. The possible combinations of these geometries are vast, as we can see from the endless varieties of beautiful traditional architecture around the world. This research opens up a powerful path forward: to design cities not merely as collections of buildings, but as living systems shaped by the same structural principles that have guided nature and culture for millennia.

Nor is this a mandate to reproduce only the successful forms of the past—although revival is certainly a time-honored practice, resulting in so many of the most beloved and enduring places in human history. Our contemporary attitudes forbidding it have resulted in a vast impoverishment of the rich genetic material available for placemaking. But there is also ample space for innovation, for a mix of the new and the old, and for new artistic expressions -- so long as they are aimed at enriching the lives of people and place.

There is also a hard truth in these findings for those of us working to build contemporary environments: too often, we have let our artistic prerogatives and ideologies, or our technical concerns, obscure the fundamental human properties needed in our built environments. The evidence is clear that we have to do better. It's ultimately a matter of professional responsibility, and an imperative for professional reform in our time.

At the 62nd International Making Cities Livable conference in Potsdam, Germany (October 15-19, 2025), we will hear from several leaders in this exciting new field of research, as well as practitioners, policymakers and educators who are driving forward reforms. Here are a few of them:

Dr. Alexandros Lavdas, from EURAC Research in Bolzano, Italy, will discuss how organized complexity in urban form—hierarchical scaling, richness, and coherence—engages the brain in ways that promote comfort, interaction, and emotional connection. Drawing from neuroscience and urban theory, he shows how these spatial properties foster both individual and social flourishing.

University of Cambridge researcher Cleo Valentine will present new findings on how certain visual patterns in building façades—especially repetitive, high-contrast designs—can induce subtle neurological stress known as allostatic loading. Using AI-generated façade studies, her work shows how the visual environment can contribute to chronic physiological strain, adding to our understanding of how architecture affects health at a biological level.

Professor Justin Hollander will explore how spatial design influences cognitive function, emotional comfort, and mental clarity. His research in cognitive architecture shows that complexity, coherence, and legibility in urban form can reduce stress and support better memory, navigation, and mental restoration—critical benefits for dense, walkable neighborhoods.

Dr. Nikos Salingaros will highlight how fractal geometry—patterns found in nature and in traditional architecture—supports human well-being through biophilic responses. His work shows that mid-level fractal structures can reduce stress and enhance our experience of beauty, helping to reframe ornament and geometry as essential to human-centered design.

These and many other speakers will dive into the new research, and its practical implications for design, building and governance today, aimed at making cities livable. Their work shows that the geometry of our built environments—and the beauty we perceive—is deeply connected to our human biology, behavior, and ecological well-being. Their insights point to a new paradigm in design—one that supports livability life-affirming spatial qualities, with specific tools and strategies to drive forward positive change.

----

For more information on the 62nd IMCL conference, October 15-19, 2025, please visit https://www.imcl.online/potsdam-2025.

Lennard Institute Announces Complementary IMCL Membership Program For All Attendees at 40th Anniversary Conference in Potsdam

Benefits in the no-obligation program include a discount for the 25th Anniversary INTBAU World Congress during the following week; optional membership carries no obligation

ABOVE, the beautiful IMCL Potsdam locale offers many lessons for livable cities, towns and suburbs, including walkability, bike infrastructure, public space, markets, mixed-use development, and much more. In addition, attendees from around the world will share their own rich lessons for effective actions in making cities livable at the conference.

POTSDAM, GERMANY - Preparations are proceeding for the 62nd International Making Cities Livable (IMCL) conference in the beautiful and instructive locale of Potsdam, Germany, October 15-19, 2025. This conference comes at a critical time, as the professions and disciplines of the built environment are at a global watershed moment – challenged as never before to meet the pressing needs of the urban future. Europe in particular is stepping into a newly energized role as a global leader in meeting the challenges of the future.

The Lennard Institute has announced that all attendees at the conference will be given a complementary membership in the new IMCL membership body, an honorific position with no cost or obligation. Membership is optional but attendees will be automatically enrolled unless they opt out. Members may designate themselves "Member, IMCL" or "Member, International Making Cities Livable" and may use the honorific "IMCL" after their names.

Perhaps more important, members are eligible for discounts and other program benefits, including a 20% discount to the 25th Anniversary INTBAU World Congress, taking place in London immediately following the IMCL conference (22-24 October). Tours and other activities will be offered between the two events. We will announce other benefits in the near future, including additional content and activities.

The theme of the Potsdam conference is, “What Is the Architecture of the (LIVABLE) Future?” This is a watershed moment in urban history, when the professions of the built environment are challenged as never before to meet the pressing needs of the urban future. The architecture profession in particular is confronted by demands to be more relevant to contemporary challenges and needs. One manifestation is a growing movement of citizens unsatisfied by “modern” business-as-usual building designs, and demanding an architecture that integrates the richer qualities of history and nature. At the same time, new findings from the sciences are discrediting old orthodoxies, and illuminating the unmet human factors of our urban world.

Featured topics will include improving public space and walkability, balancing transport, targeting effective climate action, identifying new financial tools and strategies, and exploring fascinating new research on cognitive architecture, neuroscience, complexity, and of course, AI, its role and challenges.

As always, we will gather to share peer-to-peer knowledge in a beautiful, convivial setting, with both formal and informal opportunities to interact and share knowledge. We will not just discuss the challenges, but explore case studies of those who have made impressive progress, and their specific tools and strategies. We also examine other case studies from around the world, as well as the latest research on urban challenges and successes.

Our last conference in Cortona, Italy in November 2024 included city leaders from the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. Attendee comments included “Truly a great conference,” “Fabulous sessions… Wow!,” “It was terrific,” “Thank you for hosting this magnificent event!” and “Thank you for the great conference sessions… [and] the knowledge sharing and inspired messages from people from around the world.”

Our 62nd conference venue will be the MAXX Hotel Sanssouci, at the gates of the beautiful Sanssouci Park, and within walking distance of much of Potsdam's rich urban and architectural history -- including fascinating new projects now under way. In addition to the conference, we will also have opportunities for study tours and exploration of the rich history of the city and its region – not only its 20th century upheavals, but many centuries of architectural and urban history.

The location is easily accessible from the Berlin Brandenburg Airport via the S-Bahn train and other modes, and the neighborhood offers many excellent hotel choices at a range of prices. October is an excellent time to travel in Germany, with lower-cost travel, fewer crowds, and generally beautiful crisp autumn weather. There are excellent opportunities for convenient side trips to other parts of Germany and Europe.

ATTENDEE SPACE IS STRICTLY LIMITED by the conference venue size, and attendees will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Please register as soon as you are able. For more information, please visit https://www.imcl.online/potsdam-2025.

We hope you can join us in the beautiful Berlin and Potsdam region!

How can we apply urban research more effectively to make better cities, towns and suburbs?

The 62nd International Making Cities Livable (IMCL) conference in Potsdam, Germany, October 15-18, will take up this important question, among others

ABOVE, the "new urbanist" neighborhood of Orenco Station, in the Portland, Oregon region, is one of many that offer compelling research findings about their positive results. Orenco Station showed a reduction in trip generation and parking demand of over half of ITE manual standards, translating into significant financial and ecological benefits. Photo: Michael Mehaffy (former project manager for the master developer)

A fascinating new research project at the University of Notre Dame in the USA is addressing a thorny problem: a growing body of research is documenting the many significant benefits of compact, walkable, mixed cities, of the kind that are common in many parts of Europe -- but the lessons are not getting through to the majority of building projects around the world.

The findings are compelling: the characteristics of "the new urbanism" -- that is, the patterns of traditional city form adapted to a contemporary context -- can convey significant, measurable economic, social, environmental, and health benefits.

Among the findings:

• Walkable mixed-use or new urbanist development can save an average of 38 percent on upfront costs for new construction of roads, sewers, water lines and other infrastructure, generate 10 times more tax revenue per acre than conventional suburban development, and can reduce the costs of ongoing delivery of public services including police, ambulance and fire by an average of 10%

• New urbanist development can reduce trip generation and parking demand by over half of ITE manual standards, resulting in significant savings to municipalities, businesses and homeowners, and reducing negative impacts on land, water and air quality.

• Homes in New Urbanist neighborhoods command price premiums of up to 14.9%, reflecting high demand for walkability and mixed-use development. (This also indicates the need for more supply to ease demand and lower prices.)

• A 5% increase in walkability leads to a 32.1% increase in time spent walking, a 6.5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and a measurable decrease in air pollutants.

• Residents of walkable neighborhoods are approximately 50% more likely to achieve recommended levels of physical activity compared to those in less walkable areas. Additionally, they are about 24% less likely to experience obesity.

• Residents of walkable neighborhoods report significantly and measurably higher levels of social trust and civic engagement than those in car-dependent suburbs.

• Streets in compact, walkable urban areas are measurably safer than sprawling suburbs, due to lower vehicle speeds and pedestrian-friendly street designs, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries.

• Older adults living in walkable areas experience measurably lower rates of depression, stress- related illnesses, and dementia.

• Traditional walkable and mixed-use development reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 20–40%, making it a key strategy for fighting climate change.

• Auto-oriented developments, including big-box retail, are linked to higher rates of traffic-related injuries and even deaths, while pedestrian-friendly retail areas see fewer crashes.

• High-tech firms prefer compact, walkable urban environments, boosting economic growth.

• Traditional street patterns—such as those found in historic city centers—are associated with lower crime rates, while modern suburban layouts show higher rates of burglary and street robbery.

• Compact development reduces infrastructure costs by 38% and generates 10 times more tax revenue per acre than conventional suburban sprawl.

• Most members of the public strongly prefer traditional and vernacular architecture, and there is evidence that those characteristics are more supportive of popularity and success in urban development.

The research project, commissioned by the Notre Dame School of Architecture, has compiled a representative database of over 220 research papers in a wide range of disciplines, including medicine, psychology, anthropology, sociology, ecology, economics, law, policy, and other fields. The research assesses the impacts of new urbanism (or other related variants of "traditional city form") on health, well-being, safety, social activity, economic costs and benefits, and the natural environment.

IMCL and Lennard Institute Executive Director Michael Mehaffy is leading the research project, as part of The Center for Housing and Community Regeneration at the School of Architecture, University of Notre Dame, led by Professor Marianne Cusato. Contributors include fellow Senior Researchers David Brain and Jim Brainard, both part of the CH&CR initiative. Jim Brainard is the long-time mayor of Carmel, Indiana, an IMCL award-winning example of a suburban transformation into a national model of livability. Jim Brainard is also a board member of the Lennard Institute/IMCL, and David Brain, a sociologist, is a noted speaker at several IMCL conferences. Dean Stefanos Polyzoides, who commissioned the research, is a co-founder of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

The upcoming 62nd conference of the IMCL, to be held October 15-18 in Potsdam, Germany, will explore the range of research findings, as well as the larger challenge of communication and implementation.

A key conclusion is that the research is there, but in fragmented form. What is needed is to put together, and to share, the "big picture" -- how all these benefits work together as a system, and often contribute more in combination than any one of them in isolation. That's one benefit of this kind of survey research.

Another important outcome of survey research is to identify key gaps in the research, and that is certainly an important outcome of this project. One of the most notable gaps is in project level research, assessing the achievements and goals of specific projects.

Some of this research does exist -- and it is very encouraging. Portland's Orenco Station, for example, showed reductions in automobile trip generation and parking demand of over half of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' standards, contributing to significant economic and ecological benefits. The community also showed significantly higher indications of "social capital" (levels of trust and cooperation between residents) as well as much higher rates of walking by residents. (IMCL Executive Director Michael Mehaffy was the project manager for the master developer of Orenco Station.)

The Notre Dame research project has also documented many economic benefits of new urbanist development. (Reductions in parking demand and trip generation are two of the many examples, since they reduce costs of land, construction, and maintenance.) At the same time, the project also documented many of the remaining barriers to new urbanist development. These obstacles make New Urbanism much harder to implement, and they constitute hidden subsidies for “business as usual.” This too is a critical area of much-needed follow-up research, providing much-needed implementation streamlining for policy and practice.

One of the more surprising barriers may be our own misunderstanding as practitioners of the usefulness of urban research. There are common misconceptions about the role of research in relation to practice. One is the belief that a given finding must be conclusive – must be “proof” – or else the effort to engage the research is futile.

But in the world of research, rarely does one finding conclusively “prove” a fact. In most fields of research, the goal is not “proof” but the “preponderance of evidence” – that is, we develop and confirm our theories as guides to our practice, unless and until they are disproven. Until then, our goal is to show that our theory is better than the others out there – it is more likely to “deliver the goods,” in whatever field.

Like any practitioner, advocates of walkable mixed use and new urbanism certainly have their own theories about the patterns and practices that will result in better outcomes for human beings, as judged by them, and by us all. We have the same obligation to demonstrate the validity of our theories as any professional, if we are to be credible, and to drive successful reform with persuasive evidence to rebut our critics.

Perhaps our role as practitioners can be compared to that of medical practitioners. While we usually don’t conduct the research ourselves, it’s important to be aware of it, and to be able to communicate its findings to our “patients” – the governments, businesses, and citizens that we serve. Too often, however, the research doesn’t find its way into practice and policy, leading to a lack of progress on critical urban issues. It’s as though a series of new life-saving medicines were discovered, only to be ignored by practitioners.

The great urban journalist Jane Jacobs may have put it best when she accused her generation of planners of practicing “pseudo-science” – seemingly almost neurotic in their “determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success.”

We have the empirical success to accumulate, to show, and to learn from – and it’s urgent that we do so.

---

NOTE: A version of this article previously ran on the journal CNU Public Square. Our thanks to editor Rob Steuteville.