BIOARCHITECTURE

i = E as design logic – From the Liedtke Museum (1992) to international scaling at the Globalpeace Campus

Author: Dieter Liedtke
Document type: Academic preprint (Zenodo)
Year: 2026
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (recommended for Zenodo)

Abstract

This study formulates episystemic bioarchitecture as a new architectural theory that no longer interprets architecture as a static object, functional shell or symbolic form, but rather as a structured information order that influences developmental processes.

The central relation i = E describes this connection: spatially organised information generates developmental energy. Architecture is thus understood as an active environmental factor that simultaneously modulates biological, cognitive, social and cultural processes.

The work integrates insights from environmental psychology, neuroarchitecture, systems theory and philosophy, and for the first time develops a meta-systemic design logic that not only describes spatial effects but also operationalises them.

The Liedtke Museum (1992) is analysed as a built manifestation of this theory. The Globalpeace Campus represents its international scaling.

The study demonstrates that architecture in the 21st century must be understood as a medium of evolution that structures conditions for development and can thus make a central contribution to social transformation.

1. Introduction: The Crisis of Architectural Paradigms

The architecture of the 20th and early 21st centuries is characterised by several dominant paradigms, each of which emphasises isolated aspects of building.

Functionalism reduced architecture to its utility; postmodernism interpreted it as a system of signs and meanings, whilst iconic architecture staged buildings as visual events. Digital architecture shifted the focus to complex geometries, whilst neuroarchitecture empirically investigates the effect of space.

However, these models remain fragmented. They address questions of form, function and symbolism, but not the fundamental question of the developmental impact of space.

At the same time, numerous studies demonstrate that environmental conditions have a direct impact on health, perception and behaviour. Architecture is therefore not a neutral backdrop, but an active component of human life processes.

The central question of this work is therefore:

👉 What architectural logic is required if buildings are to not only function but also facilitate development?

2. State of the art: Space as an active system

Interdisciplinary research clearly shows that space plays an active role in biological and cognitive processes.

Studies on healing environments demonstrate that a connection to nature accelerates recovery and reduces stress. Research into indoor environmental quality reveals significant correlations between air, light and cognitive performance.

Theories of attentional recovery demonstrate that certain environmental structures facilitate mental regeneration. Neuroscientific research shows that spatial experiences modulate neural activity.

These findings lead to a clear conclusion:

👉 Space has a systemic effect on people.

At the same time, there is a lack of an integrated theory that formulates these effects as a design principle.

3. Theoretical Foundation: i = E

The formula i = E describes the relationship between spatial information structure and developmental processes.

Information is understood as a structured difference in space. Transitions, rhythms, lighting conditions and materiality generate structures of perception and orientation.

Energy refers to the resulting processes such as attention, regeneration, social coherence and creativity.

The central thesis is:

👉 Architecture structures the conditions under which development arises.

This shifts the focus from form and function to the organisation of difference.

4. Definition of Episystemic Bioarchitecture

Episystemic bioarchitecture is an architectural theory and practice that understands built spaces as information orders that influence developmental processes.

It integrates two levels:

Bio-level:
Impact on biological and cognitive processes

Episystemic level:
Interconnection of social systems such as culture, knowledge, healing and community

Architecture thus becomes a meta-structure of social development.

5. Design principles

The theory is operationalised through concrete principles:

• Threshold architecture (transitions as markers of development)

• Rhythmic spatial sequences

• Light as a biological pacemaker

• Material as a store of information

• Fields of coherence for social interaction

• Regeneration zones

• Self-sufficiency as structural sustainability

• Monumentality as a cultural marker of time

These principles are empirically verifiable and architecturally feasible.

6. System model: Architecture as a medium of evolution

The design logic can be described as a three-stage system:

1. Information (i) – spatial difference

2. Effect (E) – biological, cognitive, social processes

3. Integration – coupling of social systems

The result is architecture as a medium of evolution, which does not directly generate development, but rather enables it.

7. Paradigmatic demarcation

Episystemic bioarchitecture transcends existing models:

• Functionalism → expanded to include a developmental dimension

• Postmodernism → replaces signs with experience

• Iconic architecture → replaces image with structure

• Digital architecture → replaces formal complexity with information logic

• Neuroarchitecture → integrates effect into design principles

👉 The primary parameter shifts to:
The space’s capacity for development

8. Case study: Liedtke Museum

The Liedtke Museum represents a concrete realisation of this theory.

Its architecture is not organised linearly, but structured as an open field of differences. The integration of landscape, water and art creates a complex structure of experience.

The network-like organisation enables exploratory movement without hierarchical control.

👉 The building functions as an information system, not as a static object.

9. The field of difference

The field of difference is the central structural category.

It describes a spatial organisation in which meaning arises through relation, not through hierarchy.

Characteristics:

• Transitions rather than barriers

• Relationships rather than axes

• Diversity rather than centrality

👉 Difference = Information → Basis of development

10. International scaling: Globalpeace Campus

The Globalpeace Campus applies the design logic to a global network of architecture centres.

Each centre adapts to local conditions, whilst the structural principle remains constant.

👉 Not a copy, but structural variation

11. Philosophical foundation

The theory is based on:

• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (dialectics)

• Alfred North Whitehead (process philosophy)

• Niklas Luhmann (systems theory)

These approaches are interpreted spatially and form the theoretical basis.

12. Political dimension: Architecture of the Second Enlightenment

Architecture is understood as the infrastructure of social development.

It can:

• stabilise hierarchies

• or enable development

Episystemic bioarchitecture aims to:

• Creativity

• Coherence

• Resilience

13. A scientific paradigm shift

Conventional architecture asks:

• How do you build?

• What does it look like?

This theory answers:
👉 How does the human being develop within space?

14. Ontological foundation: GIT and Dimension 0

The theory is based on an information-based ontology:

• Building = stabilised information structure

• Dimension 0 = space of possibilities

👉 Concept:
Potential → Difference → Space

15. Architecture of Consciousness

Architecture influences the conditions of perception and consciousness.

Spaces act as resonance fields for:

• Attention

• social interaction

• Integration

16. Overall conclusion

This study shows:

Architecture is not just:

• Form

• Function

• Symbol

👉 but:

structured information that enables development

Paradigm shift

• Representation → Transformation

• Object → Process

• Power → Coherence

Episystemic bioarchitecture is not a stylistic variation of existing architecture, but an independent fundamental architectural logic that shifts the primary parameters of architecture from form and function to the developmental capacity of space.

Episystemic bioarchitecture defines architecture not as a style, but as the primary logic of development.

 

Study 1 – Ulrich (1984)

A view through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science 224, 420–421 (1984).
DOI: 10.1126/science.6143402.

Short abstract:
Patients with a view of natural landscapes showed significantly faster postoperative recovery, required less pain medication and had shorter hospital stays.

Evidence:
Visual environmental conditions have been shown to influence physiological healing processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design has a direct effect on people’s physical condition.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 2 – Allen et al. (2016)

Associations of cognitive function with indoor environmental quality.
Environmental Health Perspectives 124, 805–812 (2016).
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1510037.

Short abstract:
Improved indoor air quality led to significantly higher cognitive performance scores, particularly in decision-making ability and strategic thinking.

Evidence:
Indoor environmental conditions have been shown to influence cognitive performance.

Relevance to architecture:
The design and quality of indoor spaces have a direct impact on thinking and decision-making processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 3 – Kaplan (1995)

The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169–182 (1995).
DOI: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2.

Short abstract:
Natural environments promote the restoration of focused attention through so-called ‘soft fascination’ and reduce mental fatigue.

Evidence:
Natural environmental conditions facilitate the regeneration of cognitive attention.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design influences mental performance and the ability to recover.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 4 – Bratman et al. (2015)

Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation.
PNAS 112, 8567–8572 (2015).
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510459112.

Short abstract:
Spending time in natural environments has been shown to reduce rumination and activity in stress-related brain regions.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions measurably influence neural activity and stress processing.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design has a direct effect on neurobiological processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 5 – Vessel et al. (2012)

The brain on art: Intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, 66 (2012).
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066.

Short abstract:
Intense aesthetic experiences activate neural networks associated with self-reference, internal processing and meaning construction.

Evidence:
Aesthetic stimuli have been shown to influence neural processes of self-perception.

Relevance to architecture:
The design of space and the environment influences people’s perception and sense of self.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 6 – Rizzolatti & Craighero (2004)

The mirror-neuron system.
Annual Review of Neuroscience 27, 169–192 (2004).
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.

Short abstract:
Mirror neurons enable the neural representation of observed actions and emotions and form the basis for social resonance and empathy.

Evidence:
Neural mechanisms of social perception and resonance have been empirically demonstrated.

Relevance to architecture:
Social interaction and perception are influenced by spatial conditions.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 7 – Meaney (2001)

Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity.
Annual Review of Neuroscience 24, 1161–1192 (2001).
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1161.

Short abstract:
Early environmental conditions have a lasting influence on gene expression and the stress response of organisms.

Evidence:
Environmental factors have long-term effects on biological processes and gene regulation.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings represent stable environmental conditions and influence biological systems.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 8 – Berman et al. (2008)

The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature.
Psychological Science 19, 1207–1212 (2008).
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x.

Short abstract:
Spending time in natural environments significantly improves memory and concentration compared to urban environments.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions have a measurable influence on cognitive performance.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design has a direct effect on concentration and mental performance processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 9 – Berto (2005)

Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 249–259 (2005).
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001.

Short abstract:
Spending time in restorative environments significantly restores attentional capacity following mental exertion.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions have been shown to facilitate the restoration of cognitive performance.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design specifically influences recovery and mental regeneration.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 10 – Kuo (2015)

How might contact with nature promote human health?
Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1093 (2015).
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093.

Short abstract:
Contact with nature affects health through several mechanisms simultaneously – in particular stress reduction, attention regulation and social coherence.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions influence health via several interlinked mechanisms.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design simultaneously affects physiological, cognitive and social processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 11 – Whitehouse et al. (2001)

Evaluating a children’s hospital garden environment: Utilisation and user satisfaction.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 21, 301–314 (2001).
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0224.

Short abstract:
Hospital gardens reduce stress and improve the well-being of patients, relatives and staff.

Evidence:
Designed outdoor spaces have been shown to influence stress levels and well-being.

Relevance to architecture:
Outdoor spaces are a functional component of the spatial experience.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

 

 

Study 12 – Ulrich et al. (2008)

A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design.
HERD 1(3), 61–125 (2008).
DOI: 10.1177/193758670800100306.

Short abstract:
Architecture influences healing processes, stress, orientation and error rates in healthcare.

Evidence:
Buildings have a measurable effect on medical processes.

Relevance for architecture:
Architecture is part of the functional healthcare system.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 13 – Hartig et al. (2014)

Nature and health.
Annual Review of Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014).
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.

Short abstract:
Contact with nature improves physical and mental health as well as stress regulation.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions have a comprehensive influence on health.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design affects health processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 14 – Joye (2007)

Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 27, 305–315 (2007).
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.11.001.

Short abstract:
Biophilic design elements promote emotional well-being and stability.

Evidence:
Nature-based design influences emotional processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Design has a direct effect on emotional experience.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 15 – Kellert et al. (2008)

Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice.
(2008).
DOI: 10.1002/9780470163344.

Short abstract:
Biophilic design improves well-being and performance through the integration of natural elements.

Evidence:
Integrating nature measurably increases well-being and performance.

Relevance to architecture:
Design influences functional and psychological processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 16 – Heerwagen (2000)

Green buildings, organisational success, and occupant productivity.
Building Research & Information 28, 353–367 (2000).
DOI: 10.1080/096132100418500.

Short abstract:
Sustainable buildings increase productivity and user satisfaction.

Evidence:
Buildings influence work performance and behaviour.

Relevance to architecture:
Spaces have a direct impact on economic performance processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 17 – Hillier & Hanson (1984)

The social logic of space.
Cambridge University Press (1984).
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511597237.

Short abstract:
Spatial structure influences social interaction and movement patterns.

Evidence:
Spatial organisation governs social dynamics.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings structure interaction and behaviour.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 18 – Penn et al. (1998)

Configurational modelling of urban movement networks.
Environment and Planning B 25, 59–84 (1998).
DOI: 10.1068/b250059.

Short abstract:
Spatial configuration influences movement flows and the use of space.

Evidence:
Spatial structure determines behaviour and movement.

Relevance to architecture:
Design controls use and orientation.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 19 – Frumkin (2001)

Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20, 234–240 (2001).
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00317-2.

Short abstract:
The natural environment is a key factor in prevention and health.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions influence preventive health processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Spaces have an impact on long-term health development.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 20 – Evans (2003)

The built environment and mental health.
Journal of Urban Health 80, 536–555 (2003).
DOI: 10.1093/jurban/jtg063.

Short abstract:
Buildings and cities influence stress, behaviour and mental health.

Evidence:
The built environment affects psychological processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Cities and buildings influence behaviour and well-being.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 21 – Vartanian et al. (2015)

Impact of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgements and approach–avoidance decisions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 41, 1–12 (2015).
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006.

Short abstract:
Ceiling height and spatial confinement systematically influence aesthetic evaluation as well as approach and avoidance behaviour.

Evidence:
Geometric spatial parameters such as height and confinement measurably influence perception, decision-making behaviour and emotional responses.

Relevance to architecture:
The design of fundamental spatial dimensions has a direct effect on users’ behaviour and decision-making processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 22 – Sternberg (2009)

Healing spaces: The science of place and well-being.
(2009).
DOI: 10.4159/9780674053236.

Short abstract:
Architectural environments influence healing, stress reduction and general well-being.

Evidence:
Spatial conditions have been shown to affect medical and psychological healing processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings can be specifically designed to support healing and regeneration.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 23 – Mallgrave (2010)

The architect’s brain: Neuroscience, creativity, and architecture.
(2010).
DOI: 10.1002/9781444316773.

Short abstract:
Architecture interacts directly with neural processes and creative perception.

Evidence:
Spatial design influences cognitive and creative processes at a neurobiological level.

Relevance to architecture:
Architecture has a direct effect on perception, thinking and creative processing.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 24 – Eberhard (2009)

Brain landscape: The coexistence of neuroscience and architecture.
(2009).
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382648.001.0001.

Short abstract:
Neuroscientific findings show that architecture influences perception and behaviour.

Evidence:
Buildings have a measurable effect on neural activity and perceptual processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Design influences the way spaces are perceived and used.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 25 – Nasar (1994)

Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors.
Environment and Behavior 26, 377–401 (1994).
DOI: 10.1177/001391659402600301.

Short abstract:
Building design influences the emotional evaluation and perception of urban spaces.

Evidence:
The external design of buildings measurably influences emotional reactions and behaviour.

Relevance to architecture:
Facade design affects perception, sense of security and usage.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 26 – Zeisel (2006)

Inquiry by design: Environment/behaviour/neuroscience in architecture.
(2006).
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511817021.

Short abstract:
Architecture influences behaviour and perception and can be systematically analysed.

Evidence:
The relationship between spatial design and behaviour can be empirically demonstrated.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings have a targeted effect on human behaviour and usage patterns.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 27 – Marcus & Barnes (1999)

Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations.
(1999).
DOI: 10.1002/9780470175330.

Short abstract:
Therapeutic gardens promote stress reduction, relaxation and social interaction.

Evidence:
Nature-based outdoor spaces have a measurable impact on relaxation and well-being.

Relevance to architecture:
Outdoor spaces are active components of the spatial experience.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 28 – Wilson (1984)

Biophilia hypothesis.
(1984).
DOI: 10.2307/1312705.

Short abstract:
Humans possess an innate affinity for nature.

Evidence:
A connection to nature is a fundamental component of human perception.

Relevance to architecture:
The integration of natural elements meets basic biological needs.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 29 – Evans & McCoy (1998)

When buildings don’t work.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 85–94 (1998).
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1998.0089.

Short abstract:
Poorly designed architecture can cause stress, disorientation and strain.

Evidence:
Negative spatial design has a measurable impact on stress and behaviour.

Relevance to architecture:
Architecture can have both positive and negative effects.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 30 – Penn (2003)

Space syntax and spatial cognition.
Environment and Behavior 35, 30–65 (2003).
DOI: 10.1177/0013916502238865.

Short abstract:
Spatial structure influences perception, orientation and behaviour.

Evidence:
Spatial configuration determines cognitive processes and use.

Relevance to architecture:
Design influences orientation and interaction within a space.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 31 – Nasar (1994)

Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors.
Environment and Behavior 26, 377–401 (1994).
DOI: 10.1177/001391659402600305.

Short abstract:
This study examines which characteristics of building façades lead to positive or negative evaluations. It shows that people do not judge outdoor spaces and buildings at random, but rather on the basis of relatively stable patterns of perception, particularly with regard to order, complexity, clarity and visual coherence.

Evidence:
The external design of buildings measurably influences emotional evaluation, approach, rejection and the general perception of urban spaces.

Relevance to architecture:
This demonstrates that architectural impact begins with the external form and not only with the functional use of the interior. Facades and external spatial boundaries influence orientation, a sense of security and willingness to use the space.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 32 – Evans & McCoy (1998)

When buildings don’t work: The role of architecture in human health.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 85–94 (1998).
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1998.0089.

Short abstract:
The study shows that certain architectural features – such as disorientation, overstimulation, a lack of coherence or a lack of places to retreat to – can increase psychological stress and exacerbate health-related strain.

Evidence:
It has been proven that poorly designed buildings and spaces have a negative impact on stress levels, psychological strain and health-related behaviour.

Relevance to architecture:
Architecture not only has a positive, supportive effect, but can also be stressful and hinder development if poorly designed. It follows that spatial structure itself must be considered as a factor relevant to health.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 33 – Bafna (2003)

Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques.
Environment and Behavior 35, 17–29 (2003).
DOI: 10.1177/0013916502238863.

Short abstract:
This article explains the basic assumptions and analytical methods of space syntax research. It demonstrates that spatial configuration is systematically related to movement, orientation and usage patterns.

Evidence:
Spatial arrangement and configuration have been shown to influence how people orient themselves, move and use spaces.

Relevance to architecture:
Architecture is thus not merely a formal shell, but a relational system that helps determine behaviour and patterns of use. The structure of a building has direct consequences for social, functional and cognitive processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 34 – Ortega-Andeane et al. (2005)

Space syntax as a determinant of spatial orientation perception.
International Journal of Psychology 40, 11–18 (2005).
DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000096.

Short abstract:
The study shows that spatial orientation cannot be explained solely in terms of individual psychology, but is structurally linked to the configuration of space. Space Syntax proves to be a useful tool for analysing orientation and perception.

Evidence:
Spatial orientation is demonstrably influenced by objective structural features of buildings and environments.

Relevance to architecture:
Orientation is not a side effect, but the result of spatial order. Building structure thus influences safety, self-efficacy, stress levels and the quality of use.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 35 – Rossano et al. (1999)

The acquisition of route and survey knowledge from computer models.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, 101–115 (1999).
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1998.0115.

Short abstract:
This study examines how people acquire spatial knowledge of routes and overall structures. It shows that different forms of spatial experience influence the development of orientation and overview knowledge in different ways.

Evidence:
Spatial experience has been shown to influence the acquisition of route knowledge, overview knowledge and spatial confidence.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings and environments shape not only momentary perception, but also long-term cognitive maps, learning processes and the ability to move independently within a system.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 36 – Stamps (2007)

Evaluating spaciousness in static and dynamic media.
Design Studies 28, 535–557 (2007).
DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2007.01.001.

Short abstract:
This study examines how people perceive spatial spaciousness and confinement, and how this perception changes in different display and movement situations. Spaciousness proves to be a central parameter of architectural experience.

Evidence:
The perception of spatial spaciousness is measurable and is influenced by specific design parameters.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial spaciousness affects openness, stress levels, freedom of movement and psychological relief. This makes it clear that even seemingly subjective spatial qualities can be architecturally structured.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 37 – Stamps (2009)

On shape and spaciousness.
Environment and Behavior 41, 526–548 (2009).
DOI: 10.1177/0013916508317931.

Short abstract:
The study shows that the perceived spaciousness of a room does not depend solely on its floor area, but is largely determined by its shape, proportions and geometric relationships.

Evidence:
It has been demonstrated that shape and proportions influence how open, spacious or confining a space is perceived to be.

Relevance to architecture:
Architectural impact thus arises not only from quantitative size, but from designed differentiation and the organisation of form in relation to one another. Form influences orientation, openness, tranquillity and density.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 38 – Stamps (2010)

Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness.
Environment and Behavior 42, 864–886 (2010).
DOI: 10.1177/0013916509337287.

Short abstract:
This study examines how permeability, sightlines and openings influence the perception of confinement, openness and spatial spaciousness. Permeability significantly alters how spaces are experienced as enclosed or open.

Evidence:
Permeability and sightlines measurably influence the perception of spatial quality and confinement.

Relevance to architecture:
Transitions, openings and sightlines are therefore not merely matters of style, but shape perceptions of safety, exploration, proximity, distance and quality of use.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 39 – Stamps (2011)

Effects of area, height, elongation, and colour on perceived spaciousness.
Environment and Behavior 43, 252–273 (2011).
DOI: 10.1177/0013916509354696.

Short abstract:
The study shows that the perception of spatial spaciousness cannot be attributed to a single parameter. Area, height, proportion and the effect of colour interact and jointly influence the experience of space.

Evidence:
It has been demonstrated that several architectural parameters interact to influence the perception of spatial quality.

Relevance to architecture:
Architectural impact arises from the interplay of several design factors. It follows that space is not one-dimensional, but rather takes effect as an overall composition.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 40 – Gregorians et al. (2022)

Architectural experience: Clarifying its central components and their relation to core affect with a set of first-person-view videos.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 82, 101841 (2022).
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101841.

Short abstract:
The study clarifies central components of architectural experience and relates them to affective states. It shows that architectural experience is not one-dimensional, but is composed of several interconnected components.

Evidence:
Architectural experience can be empirically differentiated into various components of perception and affect.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings do not merely function in a functional or symbolic sense, but as structured spaces of experience whose components can be deliberately designed. Architecture thus directly influences the quality of experience.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 41 – Whitehouse et al. (2001)

Evaluating a children’s hospital garden environment: Utilisation and consumer satisfaction.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 21, 301–314 (2001).
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0224.

Short abstract:
The use of hospital gardens leads to measurable stress reduction and improves the emotional well-being of patients, relatives and staff.

Evidence:
Designed outdoor spaces have been shown to influence stress levels, emotional stability and social interaction.

Relevance to architecture:
Outdoor spaces are an integral part of the spatial experience and fulfil functional roles within therapeutic processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 42 – Ulrich et al. (2008)

A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design.
HERD 1(3), 61–125 (2008).
DOI: 10.1177/193758670800100306.

Short abstract:
Evidence-based studies show that architecture influences healing processes, stress, orientation and patient safety.

Evidence:
Buildings and spatial structures have a measurable effect on medical and organisational processes in the healthcare sector.

Relevance for architecture:
Architecture is not merely a framework, but an integral part of functional and therapeutic processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 43 – Berto (2005)

Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 249–259 (2005).
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001.

Short abstract:
Restorative environments facilitate the recovery of cognitive performance following mental exertion.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions have a measurable influence on the recovery of attention and cognitive capacity.

Relevance to architecture:
Spaces can be specifically designed to promote mental regeneration and the restoration of performance.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 44 – Berman et al. (2008)

The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature.
Psychological Science 19, 1207–1212 (2008).
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x.

Short abstract:
Contact with nature improves memory performance and concentration compared to urban environments.

Evidence:
Environmental conditions have a measurable influence on cognitive performance.

Relevance to architecture:
The integration of nature has a direct effect on mental performance processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 45 – Kuo (2015)

How might contact with nature promote human health?
Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1093 (2015).
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093.

Short abstract:
Nature simultaneously influences stress reduction, attention and social cohesion, thereby improving health.

Evidence:
Several environmental factors interact to influence health processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Spatial design simultaneously influences several dimensions of human development.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 46 – Coburn et al. (2017)

Buildings, beauty, and the brain: A neuroscience of architectural experience.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29, 1521–1531 (2017).
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01146.

Short abstract:
Architecture influences neural activity, emotional evaluation and decision-making processes.

Evidence:
Buildings and interior design have a measurable effect on brain activity and perception.

Relevance to architecture:
Architecture influences not only usage, but also perception and decision-making behaviour.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 47 – Azzazy et al. (2020)

Impact of the built environment on brain activity: A review.
Architectural Science Review (2020).
DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2020.1749980.

Short abstract:
Neuroscientific studies show that the built environment causes measurable changes in brain activity.

Evidence:
Architecture has been shown to influence neural processes.

Relevance to architecture:
Buildings have a direct effect on perception, stress management and cognitive processes.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 48 – Gregorians et al. (2022)

Architectural experience: Clarifying its central components.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 82, 101841 (2022).
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101841.

Short abstract:
Architectural experience consists of several measurable components such as coherence, fascination and affective impact.

Evidence:
Architectural impact can be empirically differentiated into individual perceptual and affective components.

Relevance to architecture:
Design specifically influences the quality of experience and perception.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 49 – Thampanichwat et al. (2025)

A systematic review of architectural atmosphere that fosters mindfulness.
Buildings 15, 2443 (2025).
DOI: 10.3390/buildings15142443.

Short abstract:
Architectural atmosphere can promote mindfulness, stress reduction and mental stability.

Evidence:
It has been proven that interior design influences attention and mental stability.

Relevance to architecture:
Design affects mental states and self-regulation.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Study 50 – Thampanichwat et al. (2024)

The architectural design strategies that promote attention to foster mindfulness.
Buildings 14, 2508 (2024).
DOI: 10.3390/buildings14082508.

Short abstract:
Architectural strategies promote attention and mental stability through targeted design.

Evidence:
Design parameters measurably influence attention and cognitive states.

Relevance to architecture:
Spaces can be specifically designed to promote attention and mental stability.

Conclusion:
Architecture should be understood as an environmental structure that influences development.

Implications for research and development

“The available empirical studies consistently demonstrate that spatial environmental conditions have demonstrable effects on physiological, cognitive and social processes.

If such spatial structures are altered, restricted or destroyed, this affects not only structural or aesthetic aspects, but potentially also the underlying causal relationships that are the subject of scientific research.

Interventions in such architectural systems may therefore have an impact on ongoing or potential research processes, particularly when these systems are designed as spaces for research and experimentation.”

 

 

REFERENCE LITERATURE

B1. Architectural Theory & Space

Alexander, C. (1977)
A Pattern Language.
Oxford University Press
ISBN: 978-0195019193

Basic idea: living structures in space
Connection: precursor to relational spatial logic

Zumthor, P. (2006)
Atmospheres.
Birkhäuser
ISBN: 978-3764374956

Atmosphere as a quality of perception Connection: is structurally grounded in i = E

Pallasmaa, J. (2005)
The Eyes of the Skin.
Wiley
ISBN: 978-0470014875

multisensory architecture
Connection: Part of the information structure

B2. Systems theory & philosophy

Luhmann, N. (1995)
Social Systems.
Stanford University Press
ISBN: 978-0804726252

Society as a system
Connection: spatial coupling through architecture

Whitehead, A. N. (1929)
Process and Reality.
Free Press
ISBN: 978-0029345702

Reality as a process
Connection: Buildings as fields of process

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807)
Phenomenology of Spirit.

Dialectics
Connection: Threshold spaces as development

B3. Neuro- & Environmental Research (Reports / Books)

Kandel, E. (2012)
The Age of Insight.
Random House
ISBN: 978-1400068715

Art and the Brain
Connection: aesthetic information = neural effect

WHO (2019)
Arts and Health Report
ISBN / Report

Art improves health
Connection: Architecture extends impact systemically

UNESCO (2015–2023)
Cultural Development Reports

Culture as a Factor in Development
Connection: Architecture as infrastructure

B4. Epigenetics & Environment

Sapolsky, R. (2004)
Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers
ISBN: 978-0805073690

Stress Biology
Follow-up: Architecture as a Stress Regulator

Lipton, B. (2005)
Biology of Belief
ISBN: 978-1401923129

Environment influences genes
Connection: Space as an Environmental Structure

B5. City & Society

Jacobs, J. (1961)
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
ISBN: 978-0679741954

Social City
Connection: Field of Difference Instead of Control

Gehl, J. (2010)
Cities for People
ISBN: 978-1597265737

The Human City
Connection: expanded to development architecture

B6. Art & Perception

Gombrich, E. (1960)
Art and Illusion
ISBN: 978-0691070001

Perception and Art
Related: Information Structure

Arnheim, R. (1974)
Art and Visual Perception
ISBN: 978-0520243835

Visual Organisation
Connection: Basis for field of difference

 

 

 

APPLICATION TO THE LIEDTKE MUSEUM

1. Concrete architectural implementation of the proven principles of effect

“The above empirical studies demonstrate that spatial design has measurable effects on perception, behaviour, health and cognitive processes.

“These design principles have been implemented architecturally in a distinctive way in this building – the Liedtke Museum.”

1.1 Integration into nature (topography and landscape)

“The building has not been constructed in isolation, but has been deliberately integrated into the natural topography and landscape.

This integration creates continuous visual and spatial connections with the surroundings and corresponds to the proven effects of contact with nature on stress reduction, attention and health.”

1.2 Façade design and materiality (rock façade)

“The façade structure is based on natural forms and materials and integrates into the existing rock and landscape structure.

This creates no separation between the built and natural environments, but rather a continuous perceptual structure that has a proven influence on emotional stability and orientation.”

1.3 Water feature (pool as a surface for perception and reflection)

“The pool is not merely a functional element, but is conceived as a design space that creates additional levels of perception through reflection, refraction and movement.

These visual effects have been shown to enhance attention processes, self-awareness and emotional regulation.”

1.4 Visual presentations in landscape and water

“The integration of visual projections and artistic representations into the landscape and water expands the spatial effect to include additional levels of perception and meaning.

This creates a dynamic experiential space that goes beyond static architecture and actively influences perception and cognitive processes.”

1.5 Geometric structure (prismatic triangle / organisational structure)

“The underlying geometric structure of the building follows clear relational principles of order.

Such structured spatial arrangements have been shown to influence orientation, the sense of coherence and cognitive processing.”

1.6 Overall systemic effect

“The elements mentioned do not act in isolation, but as an interconnected structure.

The combination of a connection to nature, materiality, water features, visual planes and geometric order creates a coherent spatial system that integrates and reinforces the effects demonstrated in the studies.”

“The Liedtke Museum thus represents a concrete architectural realisation of the empirically proven principles of how space influences perception, behaviour and health.”

1. Overall assessment of the empirical research

“The available empirical studies consistently demonstrate that spatial environmental conditions have demonstrable effects on physiological, cognitive, emotional and social processes.

These effects are scientifically documented and relate, among other things, to healing processes, stress regulation, attention, decision-making ability and social interaction.

This demonstrates that architecture should not be understood as a neutral shell, but as an effective component of the environment that influences developmental processes.”

2. Scientific classification

“Episystemic bioarchitecture systematises these empirical findings into a model in which space is understood as a structured information order that influences developmental processes.

This leads to the definition of architecture as an environmental structure that influences development, in the sense of ‘urban development architecture’.”

3. Relevance for research

“Architectural systems based on such causal relationships can serve simultaneously as spaces for research and experience.

Interventions in these systems therefore affect not only structural or aesthetic aspects, but potentially also the underlying scientific causal relationships.

A change, restriction or destruction of such structures can thus have an impact on existing or future research processes.”

4. Relevance for artistic freedom

“Insofar as architectural structures are also conceived as works of art, they fall within the scope of protection afforded by artistic freedom.

This applies in particular where the design is not to be understood as exclusively functional, but as an expression of an independent artistic and conceptual achievement.

Interference with such works may therefore also constitute interference with artistic freedom.”

5. Relevance to ownership and use

“The proven impact of architectural structures must be taken into account when assessing interventions in their substance and use.

Measures that impair these interrelationships go beyond mere structural alterations and may affect the functional, scientific and artistic characteristics of the object.”

6. Conclusion

“On the basis of the available research, it can be concluded that architecture should be classified as an environmental structure with developmental impact.

Interventions in such architectural systems are therefore not neutral, but may have effects on health, perception, behaviour, research and artistic forms of expression.

This must be taken into account in the legal assessment of such interventions.”

 

OVERALL CONCLUSION

“The available empirical studies consistently demonstrate that the built environment and spatial design have measurable effects on physiological, cognitive, emotional and social processes.
These effects are not random, but can be attributed to structured environmental conditions.
Episystemic bioarchitecture systematises these findings into a model in which architecture is understood as a structured information order that influences developmental processes.
This leads to the definition of architecture as an environmentally structured framework that influences development, in the sense of ‘urban development architecture’.”