This research aims to show the fundamental differences between the "painterly" perception of space and the "architectural" perception of space, in order to test the possible advantages of the painterly perception in architectural design and urban planning. Here, the meaning of advantage is a reserve that, in addition to the intellectual and practical reserve of a conventional architect or city planner, is the factor of his superiority over others and makes him more capable of perceiving the space in a different way, visualizing and designing cities and architectures that are more self-sufficient, and more harmonious with human needs. The author's approach, with the help of which he tries to measure the differences between these two types of perception, as well as to understand the influence of painterly perception on architectural design and urban planning, is called the "environmental psychology" approach, and from this viewpoint that these two perceptions, theoretically have been compared to each other, this review can be considered a comparative review. Based on the results, it can be said that painterly perception is more colorful, more flexible, more self-sufficient, and more individualistic than its architectural counterpart. Architectural perception is exposed to external practical thinking more than its painterly counterpart, so it is more easily affected by external forces incompatible with its conditions, here painting can act like a road map, and provide a small model for architect designers. An architect or urban planner, who is familiar with painterly perception, is provided with the possibility of a more correct understanding of environment, place, architecture, city, color, and in one word: "Space". It does not mean that painters build better cities or houses, but it means that the act of painting and seeing paintings, and looking at space like painters, can weaken the controlling mind, which is an important factor for architects' conservatism.