This article offers a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the structure of the concept of “comfort” within the framework of architectural design. The study traces the evolution of how comfort has been understood—from a narrowly technical and engineering approach focused on thermal, acoustic, and visual parameters, to a holistic and integrative interpretation that embraces physical, psychological, social, and emotional dimensions. The author highlights the growing relevance of user-centered design paradigms and the necessity of addressing comfort as a complex, dynamic phenomenon shaped not only by objective spatial and environmental qualities but also by subjective human perception and experience. A multi-level structural model of comfort is proposed, consisting of four interrelated layers: physiological (related to basic bodily needs and safety), sensory (linked to perceptual stimuli such as light, color, texture, and sound), scenario-based (connected with patterns of spatial use and behavioral scripts), and cognitive-meaningful (associated with personal values, identity, and sense of belonging). The article demonstrates how these layers intersect to influence the user’s overall sense of comfort in a built environment. The author emphasizes that achieving genuine architectural comfort requires not only compliance with building norms and technical standards but also a deep understanding of human needs and reactions. Through a review of interdisciplinary research, the article argues for a design methodology that integrates psychological and sociocultural factors, enabling the creation of adaptive environments that respond flexibly to the diversity of users. This conceptual framework serves as a foundation for rethinking design strategies toward greater human orientation, environmental empathy, and spatial meaning. The proposed model can be further developed into practical tools for analyzing, diagnosing, and forecasting comfort in architectural and urban contexts.
Natalia Bolharova (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: