Mixed-methods analysis reveals façade design influences comfort and satisfaction in mid-rise office buildings, indicating cultural relevance is key.
This study investigates how the design of building façades affects users’ emotions, comfort, and satisfaction in mid- rise office buildings in Abuja, Nigeria. Using a mixed-methods case-study approach, data were collected through structured surveys of office occupants (N≈100) and cross-case observational analysis of exemplar buildings. We focus on key façade parameters (materials, colour, patterns, orientation, and cultural motifs) and correlate them with user preferences and reported well-being. Survey results reveal strong positive feelings toward natural materials (wood, stone/brick) and light colour schemes, whereas glass and concrete elicited more neutral or negative reactions (Table 1). Orientation emerged as critical: 82% of respondents found front-facing facades (well-lit and shaded) “highly comfortable”, versus 61% reporting discomfort on rear- facing facades (Table 2). Culturally relevant design elements (local patterns, materials, shading) also boosted satisfaction, with ~70% of users reporting a “strong” positive effect (Table 3). These empirical findings align with contemporary studies in architectural psychology: for example, bright, cool-toned facades and ample fenestration are known to enhance positive affect and spaciousness, while biophilic elements (natural materials, greenery) improve mood and ease. In discussion, we synthesize our data with literature on tropical and sustainable design, emphasizing how climate-responsive features (shading, ventilation) and cultural identity in architecture foster comfort and a sense of belonging (see new Table 4). The results underscore that in Abuja’s hot, humid climate, façade design is not merely aesthetic but deeply influences thermal comfort, cognitive ease, and emotional well-being. We conclude with recommendations for integrating human-centred and context-sensitive façade strategies in tropical office design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
B. et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: