Overview
Sharp, asymmetrical designs unsettle people because our brains hunt for symmetry, softness and familiar patterns.
Balancing novelty with comfort turns that insight into residential architecture we actually enjoy living in.
- Evolution tunes us to spot danger cues like spikes and harsh edges.
- Eye‑tracking shows viewers avoid blank, brutalist façades.
- Loved buildings last centuries; disliked ones face demolition.
- Use asymmetry, color, and texture sparingly to keep homes welcoming.
The design of the Cybertruck as designed by car manufacturer Tesla is…controversial…to put it mildly. I have seen it described as a dumpster, moving safety violation, and as an eyesore. Personally, I quite like it, but that can often be expected from a design professional. I am naturally drawn to designs that take risks and try new things because it piques my curiosity as an artist, even if they are not acceptable to the palettes of the masses. However, in considering this design in tandem with architectural styles such as brutalism and contemporary design it is worth considering that the many buildings that are trying to take a risk and stand out may not survive beyond their useful life and be saved by society.
Ann Sussman, author of the book Cognitive Architecture (coauthor Justin Hollander) gave an interview to the Business of Architecture Podcast (viewable on YouTube) where she showcases some of the lessons found in her book. Ann is a licensed Architect and student of neuroscience. She talks about how humans evolved to immediately find faces, sharp objects, and the color red as all three of those are sources of danger. Our ancestors which did not learn to recognize these elements died out, and their genes did not contribute to who we are as a species today. Sussman posits that these lessons are built into our evolutionary psychology and this impacts how we view Cybertrucks and the buildings we visit everyday. Designers who ignore this lesson create buildings that violate our comfort seeking natures. Further, she has developed an eye tracking tool to see where people look when viewing architecture. Comparing results of these studies across neoclassical buildings (often considered beautiful), to brutalist or contemporary works (often criticized for being cold, soulless, ugly, or inhuman) she notes that in neoclassical buildings viewers tend to focus on centerlines of symmetry, entrances, and complex details that were hand hewn out of stone by artisans. In contemporary architecture which lacks symmetry, complex details, and obvious entrances the eyelines tend to the edges of the building almost as if the viewer is specifically trying to look away.
These lessons taken together beg the question of what Architectural design should aim to achieve, especially in the face of sustainability. The most sustainable building is the one that is 700 years old. No matter what it is made of and the embodied carbon of the materials chosen the reality is that if a society likes a building, they will protect it and continue to find uses for it far beyond its initially designed lifespan rather than tear it down to build a brand new concrete, glass, and steel monument to post WWII design. So, should we return to previous architectural styles and build with hand carved solid stone, symmetry, and order per Greek revivalism?
Getting back to the Cybertruck then, the reason that the design has been received so controversially is due to the same factors as the mixed reactions to contemporary Architecture. It is too sharp, it is imposing, it looks…well dangerous. This makes people uncomfortable, and few want that in their lives or on their streets.
If it were cheaper I’d totally buy one, if my wife would let me. But, she may have been the one who called it a dumpster. Alas.