ABSTRACT
Advocates of a more psychologically vigorous environment have to face a formidable body of urban executives who believe that the physical form of the city is of little consequence. Their ace is the mental characteristic of habituation. This simply describes the performance of certain brain cells as showing a rapid fall-off in response to an identical repeated stimulus. If familiarity quickly causes a fall-off in response, is it worth while going to great effort and expense to provide a perceptually rich environment? The Department of the Environment seems to support those who attach little importance to the actual phenomenology of the city. In their Circular 143/73 Streamlining the Planning Machine, planning officers are positively discouraged from entering the lists of aesthetic combat:
Lay committees have a part to play in decisions relating to external appearance and architectural detail. But the design of a building is the professional responsibility of the architect. While there will always be scope for wide divergence of professional opinion (and the importance of lay opinion is not to be discounted) planning authorities must endeavour to bring about a situation in which arbitrary and idiosyncratic decisions are avoided.
