DESIGN FOR WELLBEING: Supporting health, inclusivity, and comfort
Sliding Door
FOREWORD
04
Adam Haddow RAIA
EDITORIAL
05
Matida Gollan RAIA
David Welsh RAIA
DESIGNING FOR WELLBEING
08
The role of architecture in workplace wellbeing
Words: Alison Huynh
11
Social value in the built environment
Words: Helen Bell and Brett Pollard
14
Wellbeing in a crisis
Words: Caitlin Murray
18
Nurturing by design
Words: Dua Green
22
Neuro-architecture for everyone, everywhere
Words: Domino Risch
ARCHITECTURE BULLETIN
VOL 81 / NO 1 / 2024
Official journal of the NSW Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects since 1944.
The Australian Institute of Architects acknowledges First Nations peoples as the Traditional Custodians of the lands, waters, and skies of the continent now called Australia. We express our gratitude to their Elders and Knowledge Holders whose wisdom, actions and knowledge have kept culture alive. We recognise First Nations peoples as the first architects and builders. We appreciate their continuing work on Country from pre-invasion times to contemporary First Nations architects, and respect their rights to continue to care for Country.
26
Social value: How can architects measure the impact of design on wellbeing?
Words: Eilish Barry
30
Wellbeing – a buzzword or the way forward?
Words: Georgina Blix and Stewart Monti
34
Wellbeing for Whom?
Words: Imogen Howe
37
Soft spaces: Learning from virtual reality to design for people in pain
Words: Isabella Reynolds
40
Questioning the status quo Words: Hugo Chan 42
The epidemic of loneliness and the role of cities
Words: Jennifer L Kent 44
Burudi Gurad, Burudi Ora: Critical spatial, relationalities of care
Words: Rhiannon Brownbill
48
Wattleseed: nature -focused retrofit of a children’s centre
Words: Sarah Scott
52
NextSense centre for innovation
Words: Claire Davies
54
The state of wellbeing in the architectural profession
Words: Vicki Leibowitz, Naomi Stead and Byron Kinnaird
57
Starting well
Words: Sean Wong
60
How architecture can support the wellbeing of building users
Words: Pippa Lee
2024 NSW ARCHITECTURE AWARDS
64
Awards and commendations
This is my final edition as President of the NSW Chapter as I transition to National President Elect. It’s been an honour to represent NSW members, and I look forward to continuing to advocate for better professional and built environment outcomes nationally.
I recently returned from an Institute board meeting in Brisbane, where we discussed our membership’s future and the industry’s challenges. Your passion for creating positive change is evident, and the Institute is committed to supporting our collective goals. We are all better architects when the Institute is strong, and we have a clear voice.
During my term, I focused on advocating for equitable, available, and sustainable housing. While we now have a government determined to turn the tables on housing affordability, we need to continue to pressure them to do better, to act on our professional advice, and invest heavily in social and affordable housing outcomes. We must shift the dial from housing as an investment strategy to housing as a human right. If we believe in an equal society, we must judge ourselves by the way in which we house the most vulnerable among us.
In this respect we are at a turning point – we can choose to accept homelessness, or we can choose to reject it, and by rejecting it we must find ways to do things better, faster, cheaper, and more sustainably – while still delivering on our professional promise of beauty, delight, and joy. During WWII Churchill was asked to defund the arts – he replied, “if we cut the funding the war is already lost.”
Architecture is the art of achieving beauty while delivering society’s needs – they are not mutually exclusive.
The NSW Architecture Awards were a testament to that – the number of public buildings and housing outcomes that supported this ambition was a delight. The schools, pools and extensions will bring joy to our communities for decades to come and underpin New South Wales as one of the great furtile grounds of architectural endeavor globally –congratulations.
In good news, we have secured funding from the Institute to refurbish Tusculum and have appointed DBJ as the architects. We are racing toward lodgement of a DA and I look forward to helping cut the ribbon on the refurbished building, complete with lift, auditorium, exhibition space and new toilets in 2025.
This Bulletin focuses on the wellbeing outcomes of our built environment. Rose Jackson, Minister for Water, Housing, Homelessness, Mental Health, Youth and the North Coast, announced reforms placing mental health responsibilities across all government agencies. As architects, we recognise that quality housing is fundamental to a good life – we look forward to continuing to work with the NSW Government to ensure fair, equal, and high-quality housing for everyone. ■
Adam Haddow RAIA NSW Chapter President
The call out for this issue asked how architecture can support the wellbeing of building users. The responses made it apparent that wellbeing in design has a broad focus with contributors examining the topic from diverse viewpoints. The common thread between the contributions is the aspiration for buildings to be designed not only for efficiency of users, but also to support their health, welfare, and comfort.
Wellbeing, with a new focus on psychosocial hazards, is something that institutions, governments and the public are increasingly aware of, particularly in the workplace. Indeed, for some time this has been a point of contention within the architectural profession, prompting recent research into the wellbeing of practitioners and pervasive work practices. While much of the current discourse on wellbeing has centred on the workplace, residential architecture should not be forgotten (or considered separately), particularly with the current pressure to increase housing stock in NSW. Considering the wellbeing of occupants in all building typologies must be a fundamental design driver: the balance of privacy and fostering community, efficiency and amenity being central to the mental and physical wellbeing of occupants.
Even as the profession examines its own wellbeing, it must be done in parallel, while maintaining a focus on the wellbeing of all those who use the buildings and spaces we design. Typically, considerable analysis goes into the experience of visitors, patients, students, or clientele, however, equal consideration must be extended to backof-house workers, differently abled and the broader public.
This issue explores ideas of how we might ensure buildings allow equity of access, health, inclusiveness, and enjoyment to everyone who experiences them; providing insights from diverse viewpoints, offering strategies and ideas to shape buildings which best support all building users. ■
Matilda Gollan RAIA, David Welsh RAIA Editorial Committee Co-chairs
MANAGING EDITOR
Emma Adams
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Matilda Gollan (Co-chair)
David Welsh (Co-chair)
Cate Cowlishaw
Nathan Etherington
Sarah Lawlor
Kieran McInerney
NSW AWARDS AND PRIZES MANAGER
Peter Fry
CREATIVE DIRECTION
Felicity McDonald
DESIGNER
Andrew Miller
PUBLISHER
Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter 3 Manning Street Potts Point, Sydney NSW 2011
COVER IMAGE: Art Gallery of NSW Library, Tonkin Zulaikha Greer
Contact Joel Roberts: joel.roberts@architecture.com.au
PRINTER
Printgraphics
REPLY
Send feedback to bulletin@architecture.com.au. We also invite members to contribute articles and reviews. We reserve the right to edit responses and contributions.
The views and opinions expressed in articles and letters published in Architecture Bulletin are the personal views and opinions of the authors of these writings and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Institute and its staff. Material contained in this publication is general comment and is not intended as advice on any particular matter. No reader should act or fail to act on the basis of any material herein. Readers should consult professional advisers. The Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter, its staff, editors, editorial committee and authors expressly disclaim all liability to any persons in respect of acts or omissions by any such person in reliance on any of the contents of this publication.
WARRANTY
Persons and/or organisations and their servants and agents or assigns upon lodging with the publisher for publication or authorising or approving the publication of any advertising material indemnify the publisher, the editor, its servants and agents against all liability for, and costs of, any claims or proceedings whatsoever arising from such publication. Persons and/or organisations and their servants and agents and assigns warrant that the advertising material lodged, authorised or approved for publication complies with all relevant laws and regulations and that its publication will not give rise to any rights or liabilities against the publisher, the editor, or its servants and agents under common and/ or statute law and without limiting the generality of the foregoing further warrant that nothing in the material is misleading or deceptive or otherwise in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
DESIGN FOR WELLBEING
The role of architecture in workplace wellbeing
Words: Alison Huynh
The complexities of shifting work dynamics highlight the role of architecture in fostering wellbeing at work. The WELL Building Standard emphasises how indoor environments affect health through air quality, lighting, and comfort, and is used widely in the design of offices. Yet, a significant oversight remains in architectural discourse: how can we enhance wellbeing in non-traditional workplaces?
WORKPLACE, NOT OFFICE SPACE
Consider the everyday precincts that anchor our urban landscapes, like hospitals. User-centric design reveals a dichotomy between on-stage spaces, meticulously crafted for customers and visitors, and off-stage spaces, where workers labour behind the scenes. Many workers may spend most of their workday in off-stage spaces, which are de-prioritised in access to amenity and comfort. These overlooked areas, from kitchens to maintenance sheds, are essential for smooth operations but lack the aesthetic allure of their on-stage counterparts. At Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred (RPA) Hospital, only 12% of the 4000
workers are in offices, 74% work on-stage in direct care, while the rest support off-stage.1 Designers must uncover off-stage workers’ routines to advocate for solutions that enhance their wellbeing and overall work experience. Through methods like direct consultation and journey mapping, designers can understand and advocate for design solutions for off-stage workplaces.
Two examples highlight worker wellbeing. Melbourne’s Gig Workers Hub2 offers food, amenities, and rest areas for delivery drivers, created through self-advocacy. Similarly, London’s cabmen’s shelters3, established in 1875, provided warmth and food for cab drivers in bad weather. Both projects show that wellbeing at work focuses on reducing discomfort rather than the work itself. Thoughtfully designed restorative spaces4 can make work easier, more enjoyable, and sustainable. They support physical health through nutrition and rest, as well as mental health through stress relief and workplace support.
DELIGHT IN DAILY LIFE
Today’s renewed focus on workplace wellbeing echoes the 1960s and ‘70s era of humancentred design. Westmead Hospital in Sydney, completed in 1978, exemplifies this with its flexible low-rise structure and multi-storey glazed circulation spines, allowing natural light to penetrate deeply into the floorplate. Cafes, shops, and dining spaces activated circulation zones and leafy courtyards, ensuring that both off-stage and on-stage environments share this experience. Westmead embodied urban features of Jane Jacobs’ sidewalk ballet5, with corridors becoming internal streets for casual interactions and relaxation. This design created a mini city, rich in experiences for staff and patients. Thus, the workplace becomes more than just a work site; it is a vibrant neighbourhood and community. Designing for delight in daily life, infusing every space, whether on-stage or off, with opportunities to connect, explore, or decompress, architects and designers can augment the workplace to support wellbeing.
In the 20th century, staff cafeterias were central to hospital work life, serving as places to recharge, connect, and rest, complemented by amenities like tennis courts and swimming pools. Today, workplace needs have evolved. Westmead’s refurbished Education and Conference Centre, and growth as a vibrant health precinct, exemplifies this shift by prioritising flexible spaces for training and knowledge sharing, supporting lifelong learning.
BRINGING THE NEIGHBOURHOOD INTO THE HOSPITAL
Back at RPA, the hospital is reinventing its campus. Adjacent to the University of Sydney in Camperdown, it’s a busy precinct with heritage buildings, narrow streets, and mature tree canopies. Its cafes, walkability, and leading health, education, and research facilities make it a popular place to live and work.
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Redevelopment, Artists Impression from Johns Hopkins Drive, designed by Jacobs, Bates Smart, and Neeson Murcutt + Neille.
/ THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN WORKPLACE
WELLBEING
WORDS: ALISON HUYNH
The redevelopment includes a new clinical building and a joint biomedical research building. In the centre of the hospital is a dilapidated concrete courtyard. Unloved and underutilised, it became an important component in the hospital’s COVID response, providing a safe space for staff to access fresh air while under strict infection control protocols. This space will be revitalised and integrated into the shared public realm of the hospital, creating opportunities for community-building and placemaking moments.
CHANGE ON PAPER, REAL IN LIFE
To truly prioritise wellbeing, change must extend beyond well-conceived drawings and ideas. Architects and designers must advocate for the wellbeing of all workers, persuading clients to care about those working behind the scenes. This journey of prioritising worker wellbeing begins with listening, understanding, and empathising with the needs of these workers.
An evidence-based approach like the WELL standard can be adapted to various off-stage environments when we fully understand the nature of non-office-based work. This method should drive change in industries grappling with burnout, stress, and physical or emotional labour, ultimately improving workforce retention.
We need a new perspective on work – one focused less on efficiency and more on creating experiences that support satisfying and sustainable work practices. Through thoughtful design and advocacy, architects and designers can lead the way towards a future where wellbeing is a priority for all workplaces and all workers. ■
Alison Huynh is an associate director at Bates Smart. She focuses on strategic design direction, project goals, and stakeholder engagement, emphasising a holistic approach to health and wellness through inclusive urban design and architecture.
Notes
1 SLHD Workforce Strategic Plan 2016-2020, accessed April 14 2024, https://www.slhd.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/WorkforceStrategicPlan.pdf
4 WELL Standard M07, https://v2.wellcertified.com/en/wellv2/mind/feature/7
5 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961
Social value in the built environment
Words: Helen Bell and Brett Pollard
Record breaking weather events, lack of affordable housing and rising intolerance are just some of the pressing issues we face in our towns and cities. Enhancing community and individual wellbeing is essential for resilience and social cohesion. Recognising this, the Australian Government released the Measuring What Matters Framework1 with five wellbeing themes: healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive, and prosperous. This framework aims to ensure wellbeing is considered alongside economic issues when determining government policy.
The built environment plays a key role in improving people’s wellbeing by creating social value. Wellbeing and social value are interconnected, with social value being described as the positive effects buildings, spaces, and infrastructure have on people’s wellbeing and quality of life. It includes how the design, construction, and management of these places contribute to communities’ social, economic, and environmental wellbeing. For example, the Victorian Health Homes Program2 demonstrated that upgrading a home’s energy efficiency and thermal comfort not only reduced energy consumption but also improved occupants’ mental and physical health and overall quality of life
There is certainly significant interest in social value with Architecture Media establishing the Social Impact awards, the Property Council of Australia releasing its Collective Social Impact Framework and RIBA developing a Social Value Toolkit to pick just three of the many initiatives underway. However, despite the interest and activities, there is still much uncertainty about social value and how to create and measure it.
This is why Hassell and the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) recently released the Social Value in the Built Environment3 discussion paper. Based on a review of Australian and international literature and interviews with
a range of experts, the discussion paper aims to help move us towards a common language and framework for creating and measuring social value in the built environment. So, what did we learn from the research?
What is social value? There are numerous definitions for social value in use across the social purpose and built environment sectors. Some commonalities in these definitions include a focus on the community, creating positive change and involving stakeholders in the process. To help move closer to a widely accepted definition we have proposed the following working definition:
“Social value is the net positive change in social, environmental, and economic wellbeing of those directly and indirectly impacted by an initiative, project, or organisation.
In the built environment, social value is created when local needs are understood, the people most impacted are authentically engaged and where buildings, places, and infrastructure improve present and future communities’ quality of life, wellbeing, and social cohesion.”
Summer Hill Flour Mills community market.
Photo: DS Oficina/Hassell
/ SOCIAL VALUE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
WORDS: HELEN BELL AND BRETT POLLARD
Summer Hill Flour Mills community market. Photo: DS Oficina/Hassell
What isn’t social value? Although closely related, terms such as social impact, social justice and social equity focus on specific areas, whereas social value is more collective and holistic. Less closely related are concepts such as Environmental Social Governance (ESG) reporting, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and impact investing. These are respectively focused on addressing business risks, voluntary and philanthropic activities and gaining financial return by creating a positive impact.
Every project. There is no doubt that designing and delivering social infrastructure for notfor-profit and for-purpose organisations is important, but so is making sure that all our projects create social value for those directly and indirectly involved. By working with a common understanding and framework we have the opportunity to create significant positive impact for our communities.
Context is vital. One issue that emerged strongly in the research is that social value is highly contextual. Different communities have different needs, priorities, and cultural norms shaping what is considered valuable within their own context. The development of social value goals for a project must consider the specific social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors relevant to the local community and context.
Process, process, process. In the literature and expert interviews, a recurring theme was the imperative to commence projects by comprehensively researching local needs and consistently involving stakeholders meaningfully and authentically throughout the lifespan of a project.
Jobs and more. Social value generation during construction is a key consideration in numerous built environment endeavours, particularly infrastructure projects. Traditionally, this entails job creation, training, and skill enhancement; however, avenues for fostering social value permeate every phase of the built environment’s lifecycle, from project initiation to eventual disposal or redevelopment.
Big data, little data. Measuring the social value throughout the life of a project is important as it helps to ensure that what has been agreed with stakeholders is delivered and fine tune activities and initiatives. Measurement needs both quantitative and qualitative data to inform decision making, but we also need stories to bring them to life by demonstrating the impacts on people’s quality of life and wellbeing.
What’s next? Two key themes emerged from the research: the imperative for governmental leadership to establish social value priorities and mandate the evaluation of social value during procurement with national uniformity; and closer collaboration within the industry to cultivate shared methodologies and approaches.
The urgency to integrate social value into our built environment has reached a critical juncture. Over the next decade, our urban development and housing decisions will significantly shape societal welfare, inclusivity, and communal empowerment. Building an environment that embodies social value transcends functionality; it entails cultivating spaces that nurture community, enrich well-being, and bolster individual and collective prosperity. ■
Helen Bell is responsible for research within the GBCA. She has more than 20 years of experience working in social and market research.
Brett Pollard is a senior researcher at Hassell. He is an architect passionate about creating healthy places that have a positive impact for people and the planet.
Notes
1 Commonwealth Treasury, 2023, “Measuring What Matters” Available online at: https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters
2 Sustainability Victoria, 2022, “The Victorian Healthy Homes Program” Available online at https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/research-dataand-insights/research/research-reports/the-victorian-healthy-homesprogram-research-findings
3 Green Building Council of Australia & Hassell, 2024, “Social Value and the Built Environment” Available online at: https://new.gbca.org.au/ green-star/green-star-strategy/social-value/
Wellbeing in a crisis
Words: Caitlin Murray
“If you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you” – eleven words aimed at the neck of the world by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg via address to the UN’s 2019 Climate Action Summit in New York City.
Just three days before, an estimated 1.4 million school-aged children – Gen Z, the “us”, that Thunberg referred to – skipped school to lead millions of others on what would become the largest climate strike in history.
Five years on, Gen Z’s commitment to climate awareness defines the generation – but so too does their climate-anxiety. Now aged between 12 and 27, a good portion are stepping onto secondary and tertiary campuses worldwide –they deserve to be met by spaces that address their wellbeing in the context of the climate crisis.
Fueled with environmental distress. With their anxiety around climate change described as a “global phenomenon”, over half of Gen Z feel sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty – 59% are extremely worried about climate change (84% are moderately worried) and over 45% say their feelings negatively affect their daily lives.1
Determined to be the change they need to see in the world, an increasing amount of Gen Z university students are pursuing environmentally related degrees and careers because “there’s no point in anything else.”2 These priorities require the campus to balance anxiety with activism, understanding that sustainability is as much an act of care for our kids as it is for the environment itself.
Campuses are evolving to become places that meaningfully improve behavioral health, finding ways to instill hope for the longevity of our environment, upgrading their goal from being the best in the world to being the best for the world.
Becoming a living laboratory. Repositioning campuses as dynamic, living laboratories can immerse students in opportunities for positive change. As a living laboratory, campuses become places to discover, explore, test, create, and evaluate new sustainability practices. Here, the campus acts as teacher in its own right –allowing Gen Z to begin to realise their dreams for a sustainable future.
There are many ways campuses might become a living laboratory, such as the design of handson learning environments like bio-gardens and closed-loop systems. While others may use sustainable building materials or promote sustainability research outcomes. One example at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) is a pop-up container developed by UTS researchers displayed at the heart of the campus. The Green Genie is 40 times more efficient than trees at removing carbon from the atmosphere.3 In any form, living laboratories create hope by taking every opportunity to showcase advancements in environmental science and sustainable futures – making them the everyday occurrence they should be.
Galvanised and tenacious, an estimated 4 million people worldwide hit the pavement on what would become the largest climate strike in history – 1.4 million were school-aged children.
/ WELLBEING IN A CRISIS
WORDS: CAITLIN MURRAY
Located in the middle of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) campus is the Green Genie. 40 times more efficient than trees at removing carbon from the atmosphere, this unassuming pop-up container was developed by UTS researchers.
Comprising two original 1930s warehouses with a 22-metrediameter glass dome, the University of Tasmania’s Forestry Building tells a richly layered sustainability story.
Responsible adaptation. Because responsible campus planning provides the opportunity to speak to the environmentally conscience values of the next generation, every opportunity should be taken to retain, re-use and revitalise existing assets. Tomorrow’s campuses must be vehicles for their own sense of purpose and reflection of sustainability values. More than just adaptive re-use of existing buildings, we can minimise our carbon footprint by choosing products and manufacturers that offer take-back schemes and recycling or recovery programs, or by reducing adhesives and applied finishes. We can also consider how elements of the design might eventually be re-assembled in alternative locations or recycled in their specific material stream from a project’s beginning.
Projects like the adaptive reuse of the Forestry Building for the University of Tasmania – which incorporates a lifecycle assessment to measure its carbon impact – have been holistically designed for disassembly, embedding the methods of adaptability into the documentation package. This approach investigates how buildings can be deconstructed after a certain lifespan, working to soften a project’s environmental footprint. Action of this kind can work to alleviate Gen Z’s deeply felt anxiety around their own environmental footprint –becoming beacons of action that align with the values of their users.
Upping the voltage and sparking hope. Teenage climate activist and co-organiser of Sydney’s School Strike 4 Climate march Jean Hinchliffe describes her experience of the day like this, “The whole event carried an electricity that is difficult to describe: it’s as if we had bottled up all the anger and frustration from years of never being listened to and released it into the square, transforming it into a place of undeniable power.”4
As architects and designers, we need to create education spaces that spark and conduct this same electricity by using the principles of placemaking to reinforce progress on climate change, and give students back the hopes and dreams of their future. ■
Caitlin Murray is an accomplished senior user strategist, education strategist and architect, with a visionary approach to creating transformative experiences.
1 Elizabeth Marks, Hickman, Caroline, Pihkala, Panu, Clayton, Susan, Lewandowski, Eric R., Mayall, Elouise E., Wray, Britt, Mellor, Catriona and van Susteren, Lise, “Young People’s Voices on Climate Anxiety, Government Betrayal and Moral Injury: A Global Phenomenon.” The Lancet, (2021). Accessed May 25, 2023. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3918955 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918955, 10.
2 Evan Young “More and More Uni Students in Australia Are Choosing to Study the Environment.” Pewresearch.Org. SBS News, February 22, 2022. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/more-and-more-uni-students-in-australia-are-choosing-to-study-the-environment/f3ajo2d22.
3 Green Genie: Carbon Capture with the Magic of Algae, University of Technology Sydney, March 25, 2022. https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/ partner-us/green-genie-carbon-capture-magic-algae.
4 Jean Hinchliffe, 2021 Lead the Way: How to Change the World from a Teen Activist and School Striker. 1st ed. AU: Bloomsbury.
Nurturing by design
WORDS: DUA GREEN
The built environment in education settings is often referred to as ‘The Third Teacher’ from the Reggio Emilia philosophy1 acknowledging the significant role the built environment has on student learning and engagement. So significant the Australian Children’s Education & Care Authority has a quality area dedicated to it, citing that “Behind educators and families, physical spaces hold the potential to influence what and how children learn”.2
In two recent education projects, AJC explores how the built environment can apply biophilic principles to engage with students and support their wellbeing. The incorporation of biophilic design, according to Terrapin Bright Green “can reduce stress, improve cognitive function and creativity, improve our well-being and expedite healing.”3
The two projects, for the same school, one the junior school and the other at the senior campus, required individual approaches. When designing for younger students, AJC employed natural analogues through the built elements which encourage students to engage through physical participation and play4 – a crucial engager for wellbeing and connectivity in this student cohort. At the senior school it is about being in nature and the passive perception of this through opportunities for reflection in the form of views, smells and sounds.
THE ABBOTSLEIGH JUNIOR SCHOOL LIBRARY & INNOVATION CENTRE
This project explores how the allusion to nature or memory of nature could be created with reference to scale, play and tactility embracing the biophilic principle of natural anaolgues to enhance wellbeing. One such reference is in the overlap and relationship of spaces both in plan and section drawn from lily pads that grow individually but are connected and nurtured from the same roots.
These abstractions to nature referenced throughout the design include pond ripples, waterfalls, steppingstones, and glowworm caves expressed through tiered seating, nooks, tunnels, curved bookshelves, and spatial relationships. Not just spatial elements they have a scale that requires students to engage differently such as climbing though or over, tactile changes suggest areas that are for sitting or moving. This indirect connection to nature, fostered through physical interaction, is a direct correlation to the brief of bringing the literacy world to life through which student imagination is encouraged and the space becomes the setting to the story books held within.
All these elements have the dual purpose of learning and engagement which is enhanced through natural analogues and overlaid with circadian lighting, natural daylight that reaches deep into the plan, and colour theory that is woven into the material palette and furnishings.
Centre for Science and Art, Abbotsleigh. Photo: Ben Guthrie
/ NURTURING BY DESIGN
WORDS: DUA GREEN
Top and above: The Abbotsleigh Junior Library and Innovation Cenre
Right: Centre for Science and Art
Photos: Ben Guthrie
THE CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ART
Located at the senior school, the Centre for Science and Art is set within a constrained site between heritage buildings and remnant bushland resulting in a building that weaves through and around existing trees giving physical and visual connections to the environment. The building is literally shaped by its natural, living context, set within a forest from day one.
This context provides opportunities for breaths of fresh air throughout the centre which recognises the five-minute breaks between lessons and utilises movement between classes to enhance student wellbeing though moments to pause, reflect, and reset ahead of the next lesson. These include bench seating along the glazed-bridge link providing an opportunity to sit in nature, large south-facing skylights that draw the southern light in and frame views to the treetops, landscaped ribbons wrap the building adding to the sense of nature first, building second, and light-filled voids for vertical circulation – as a student travels up the building they are literally travelling with the tree trunks up into the canopies.
“The modern learning environments enhance opportunities for collaboration. The natural light and expansive views, where every window frames a tree and provides inspiration, enhance wellbeing, and the seamless integration of the interior with the beautiful outdoor areas provide excellent opportunities for indoor and outdoor learning.”5
The setting also provides the perfect backdrop to the building’s purpose of scientific endeavour and artistic creativity. The interiors of the spaces develop this further, again referencing the notion of the built environment as the Third Teacher. The science wing reveals its working with exposed services and structural elements while the art wing harnesses natural light through large southern skylights to provide a backdrop celebrating the creativity within.
TWO APPROACHES
The two buildings draw on elements of biophilic design, but the results are very different, shaped by the different users – primary and secondary students – site contexts, and building functions. These unique characteristics provide the building an identity and a connection to the students. The buildings are created for them providing a sense of belonging to the school community and supporting wellbeing. ■
The two case studies here are by AJC’s education and interiors team with educational lead, director Dua Green
Notes
1 Reggio Emilia Early Learning Centre Unveiling the Reggio Emilia Philosophy
2 ACECQA [2018] Quality Area 3, The Environment as the ‘Third Teacher’, National Quality Standard-Information Sheet, Australia QA3_TheEnvironmentAsTheThirdTeacher.pdf (acecqa.gov.au)
3 Terrapin Bright Green [2014] 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment, New York and Washington 14-Patterns-of-Biophilic-Design-Terrapin-2014e.pdf (terrapinbrightgreen.com)
4 The Canadian Playful Schools Network CPSN – The Canadian Playful Schools Network (playjouer.ca)
5 Megan Krimmer, Headmistress, Abbotsleigh School
Neuro-architecture for everyone, everywhere
Words: Domino Risch
Neuro-architecture, neuro-design, and sensory design are terms gaining recognition not only in specialist circles but within the design community and wider society. However, they often present a cognitive challenge, appearing enigmatic, scientific, and difficult for non-experts to comprehend. So, what exactly is neuroarchitecture, and why is it relevant to everyday experience?
Simply put, neuro-architecture employs typical design elements to recognise the role of the built environment in supporting four pillars of psychosocial safety and wellbeing: physical (body), intellectual (brain), emotional (emotions), and social (behaviour). It acknowledges that the places we create for living, learning, working, and playing are experienced differently by different people due to our unique capacity for sensory immersion and personal preference.
Neuro-architecture should be an integral part of our everyday experience as its adoption benefits everyone, not just those diagnosed as neurodivergent. Despite the rising prevalence of neurodiverse individuals and beyond that, the rich and varied cognitive and behavioural traits present in every group of people – neurodiversity is not a well-understood concept. However, it is increasingly relevant in discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), moving beyond traditional categories like gender, age, and physical ability.
In the context of the built environment, a more universally accessible term might be what I call ‘invisible diversity’– the internal differences and needs that shape who we are, how we think, and why we behave as we do. Invisible diversity is particularly pertinent for Australians. With the highest rates of diagnosis of childhood autism globally, along with conditions like ADHD and dyslexia, it’s evident that neurodiversity is a fundamental aspect of society. Given this reality, neuro-architecture – a field at the nexus of neuroscience, psychology, and architecture – must be a guiding philosophy and a topic in the education and practice of architectural and related design professions.
Fundamental to enclosing and defining space, the design elements of many buildings and spaces are often overlooked in terms of their sensory and psychological impact, particularly when repeated at scale with minimal variation. Take a typical commercial office – dark grey carpet and task chairs, with contrasting white workstations, walls and ceilings, uniform lighting levels and the odd relieving feature of a coloured wall, timber or plants. This lack of elemental diversity is not inevitable. Rather than being a by-product of our building standards and codes, it is more likely caused by a combination of limited imagination, restrictive design briefs, time and cost control, and overreliance on systemised products used in simplifying documentation and construction.
Deloitte by Hassell. Photo: Rusty Crawshaw MPA
WORDS: DOMINO RISCH
Having two variations of a quiet room, Deloitte’s Sydney workplace provides people with a binary choice in their preferred levels of transparency, lighting, and acoustics, while maintaining functionality, technology, and ergonomic support. Beyond enclosed rooms, even more choice can be offered with non/ NEURO-ARCHITECTURE FOR EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE
Industry codes, standards, and systems provide acceptable conditions for the physical and ambulatory requirements of about 95% of the population, and DEI programs increasingly recognise and celebrate gender, ethnic, religious, and LGBTQ+ communities. Unfortunately, practitioners of the built environment still fall short of addressing the needs, preferences, and comfort of all individuals equally. However, by adopting a neuro-architecture approach, we can come much closer to meeting these needs.
As a parent of an autistic teenager, and as a workplace strategist and designer, educating, advocating, and designing for invisible diversity by adopting a neuro-architecture philosophy is core to my purpose and is critical for all buildings and environments in being more inclusive. But how? Neuro-architecture does not have a specific formula, but instead relies on a set of concepts involving sensory and neuro-processing properties impacted by characteristics of the built environment, limited only by imagination and willingness to embrace sensory, material, and aesthetic diversity within a beautifully composed environment.
The application of neuro-architecture principles commences by creating versions of ordinary settings in a variety of sensory and stimulation versions – with the intent of providing spatial and experiential diversity and choice depending on personal preference and the task being undertaken.
Taking the humble office quiet room. Lowstimulation versions might have low levels of visibility, user-controlled task lighting with minimal ceiling lighting, cocoon-like acoustic panelling, timber work surfaces with rounded junctions and sightlines designed to avoid accidental eye contact. High-stimulation versions might allow more daylight and a view of city life, occupancy visibility, simple tonal furniture, and less acoustic attenuation.
enclosed settings such as highbacked lounges, booth seating, and unique places for people to work quietly that provide variation in posture, technology, lighting, scale, geometry, visibility, exposure, colour, texture, scent, soundscape, planting, artwork, views, and daylight. These attributes are the foundational design elements that can be used as principles for bringing neuroarchitecture to life.
By embracing neuro-architecture and elevating public understanding and discourse, we unlock opportunities and experiences for a wider community of both neuro-typical and neuro-divergent people – be they communities of colleagues in a workplace, students and teachers in learning institutions or patients and carers in medical facilities, just to name a few applications.
Ultimately, everyone, everywhere will benefit from architects and designers embracing neuro-architecture and creating diverse sensory environments and experiences that foster a greater sense of inclusion, belonging, and wellbeing for all. ■
Domino Risch is known for her expertise in navigating complex organisational changes through the lens of workplace design.
Deloitte by Hassell.
Photos: Rusty Crawshaw and Domino Risch
Social value: How can architects measure the impact of design on wellbeing?
Words: Eilish Barry
Design decisions made by an architect have a fundamental impact on an inhabitant’s quality of life. Decades of research have shown how good design can enhance both people and the planet’s sense of wellbeing.1 The National Wellbeing Framework, released in late 2023, reflects the desire to consider the wellbeing of Australians alongside economic measures. We expect to see this framework influence the type of projects government invests in, and the evaluation of their value and success.2
To demonstrate and evaluate the extent to which architecture influences the wellbeing of people and the planet, architects need empirical and measurable data.3 The tracking and measurement of social value in practice can be the vehicle for this. While there’s no single, widely agreed definition for social value in Australia, the GBCA have recently released a working definition that “social value is the net positive change in social, environmental, and economic wellbeing of those directly and indirectly impacted by an initiative, project, or organisation.4
There is now an opportunity for architects to develop an agreed methodology and approach to benchmark and measure social value in their
projects. So, where to begin. Social value can be created at every stage of a development, but it’s highly contextual. It’s critical that any project should start with authentic community engagement. The aim is to understand local needs before putting pen to paper.
Last year, Hayball developed an industry-first social value framework, in collaboration with the Australian Social Value Bank (ASVB), based on global-leading wellbeing literature. It sought to outline the social outcomes architects seek to create in their projects. Based on the results of community engagement, you can select the relevant outcomes for your project and its local context/needs.
Once these social outcomes have been agreed with the whole project team, the project can be designed through the lens of creating these outcomes. For example, Hayball are the executive architect in a large social and affordable housing project in Redfern. From community engagement, one of the local communities’ priorities was a consistent sense of safety. Therefore, much of the master planning, landscape, and built environment design decisions have since been focused on creating this outcome.
Nightingale CRT+YRD. Hayball. Photo: Tom Ross
/ SOCIAL VALUE: HOW CAN ARCHITECTS MEASURE THE IMPACT OF DESIGN ON WELLBEING?
WORDS: EILISH BARRY
Nightingale CRT+YRD. Hayball. Photo: Tom Ross
The agreed social outcomes can then be tracked throughout the timeline of the project, acting as a compass for design decisions throughout the project. We’ve found this particularly useful during the value management process. For example, we had a project where a sense of community was a priority for the future residents, so the choice of balustrade was critical to ensure safety but also visibility to other apartments. Throughout the project timeline, the choice of balustrade was not compromised despite the cost pressures due to the social outcome it could create.
Once a project is complete, the social value can be measured. We recently tested this process in our recently completed project CRT+YRD in Nightingale Village, Melbourne. Social value is best evaluated qualitatively, or with a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods.5 Our data was collected through resident surveys and a social return on investment calculation by the ASVB. The results of this study gave evidence to the extent of change in residents since moving to CRT+YRD. For example, 93% of residents spoke to their neighbours more and 83% of residents felt a sense of safety due to the circulation design and passive supervision of the courtyard arrangement.
In the future, when more data is available, we hope to be able to forecast the potential social value created by a development and to confirm if this has been achieved after completion. These calculations are powerful tools. We could provide evidence for allocating resources to
where they will create the most positive impact on people’s wellbeing. For example, it can help identify the design elements that should be incorporated or removed, depending on the social value that it creates. Or reflect on whether our design decisions delivered the outcomes we were hoping, which can help to inform future practice.
The built environment, particularly architecture and design, has a crucial role to play in the success of places and the quality of people’s lives. By placing wellbeing at the heart of design, projects will inherently be more liveable, socially cohesive, and desirable places.
We’re calling for architects and industry bodies to work together to develop common approaches and methodologies. With more frequent measurement, social value can be benchmarked and standardised. We believe that if the implementation of social value principles can be established at the beginning of new developments, the impact could be transformational for communities across Australia. Will you join us? ■
Eilish Barry is a project leader at Hayball. She has been leading Hayball’s research into the measurement of social value. Her research received the Alistair Swayn Foundation Design Thinking Grant in 2023 and the 2024 SIMNA Innovation Award for her pilot study.
NOTES
1 The Quality of Life Foundation - What We Do and Who We Are (qolf.org)
2 National Wellbeing Framework White Paper – Blix Architecture and Atelier Ten
3 Skidmore, R (2021) Measuring social value: Can we agree on a metric? The Developer. Available at: https://www. thedeveloper.live/places/places/ measuring-social-value-can-we-agree-on-a-metric (Accessed: 03 March 2023).
4 Social Value in the Built Environment: GBCA & Hassell. https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-strategy/social-value/
5 Crossick, G & Kaszynska, P (2016). Understanding the value of arts and culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/publications/ cultural-value-project-final-report/
Wellbeing – a buzzword or the way forward?
Words: Georgina Blix and Stewart Monti
Five88 San Francisco by David Baker Architects. Photo: Mariko Reed
In the creation of the built environment, we are increasingly seeing the word ‘wellbeing’ used in a number of ways. So, what does it all mean (briefly), and why is there a groundswell of interest?
Many architects may be aware of the application of wellbeing to a building like a hospital. Typologies specifically related to health, and more recently workplaces have used the term to describe the positive impact of spaces (often primarily focused on internal spaces) to influence physical and mental health. But the term ‘wellbeing’ in other fields of research like psychology is broader. In architecture it is starting to be applied to a range of building types and used by not only by architects but government. As we ask, would a metro station, a park, or school improve wellbeing? we are part of a larger international movement to consider the positive social impact of our work, and the measures we can use to answer that type of question.
What if you wanted to summarise all the benefits of good design in a project and give it a final dollar value? This social value or social return on investment. It could be described as a field dedicated to translating both the tangible impacts and intangible impacts (eg how you feel in a building) to a financial value and the common language of money. People may disagree on the methodology for coming up with that figure, or even the ethics of putting a dollar figure on something as important such as wellbeing for Indigenous communities. But it is an area of research the Green Building Council Australia (GBCA) have been developing to gather evidence for design impact, and to help the industry develop a common language and set of tools.1 Work in this area will ensure we all use the same methodology and language when comparing apples with apples. Or metros with parks.
But translating wellbeing into a financial value is not the only tool we need. It is interesting to note that Professor Flora Samuel, one of the lead authors for the RIBA Social Value Toolkit and now Head of Cambridge Architecture now believes mapping is the tool we most need. Mapping in her opinion offers a democratic process for shared community consultation that can more accurately capture social value. Rather than an economic formula that hard for anyone to follow, a map can be understood by all, and contributed to by the community over time.2
This groundswell of interest in wellbeing is coming in part from an international and local political context where government is looking to include wellbeing measures in addition to economic measures. In July 2023, the Federal Government released Measuring What Matters, Australia’s first national wellbeing framework.3 Following that, in March 2024, the NSW Government announced they will be releasing a new performance and wellbeing framework. This surge in wellbeing frameworks is in part a response to the OECD and other international countries who have legislated a requirement to report on social impact. At this stage they are often high-level frameworks, not specifically focused on the built environment but they are useful documents to consider – both how we can design for wellbeing, and what measures governments may start to use to assess project feasibility and outcomes.
Reflecting on the early days of sustainability in the built environment also offers a revealing parallel to the burgeoning focus on wellbeing in architecture today. Initially, sustainability was more a buzzword than a blueprint for action, surrounded by enthusiasm but lacking a clear path to implementation. Over time, it has crystallised into a suite of actionable practices – energy efficiency, waste reduction, carbon footprint minimisation – that now define
/ WELLBEING – A BUZZWORD OR THE WAY FORWARD?
WORDS: GEORGINA BLIX AND STEWART MONTI
the industry’s approach to environmental stewardship. This evolution of sustainability provides foresight into the trajectory of wellbeing within design. Just as sustainability transitioned from concept to criteria, wellbeing is gradually moving from the periphery to the core of architectural discourse.
Architects and designers, often intuitively, are incorporating aspects of wellbeing. You may have examined safety, universal access, connection to Country or landscape. You may have also considered the internal environmental performance of a building in terms of air, light, acoustics, and thermal comfort. All of these factors are strong foundational elements of wellbeing that can contribute to personal and community wellbeing. However, the exciting new areas of research are expanding this lens to a more wholistic set of concepts that may include concepts such as how to mitigate loneliness, enhance social cohesion, and promote physical health. As we explore wellbeing and develop more frameworks, we can expand these disparate concepts to a more robust and cohesive whole.
Furthermore, as wellbeing is unique to each person and community, we expect the range of design solutions will be varied and nuanced. And these concepts can apply to any scale of project. Take for example social cohesion and connection. At a small scale, door thresholds for shared affordable housing developed for Vasey by Calderflower and Blix Architecture explores how to encourage people to talk across a threshold is a way that offers filtered privacy. Rather than a blank corridor, it creates a front door niche to each private room with a moment for laundry drop off and personal expression. This approach is aligned with the work of Shopworks Architects in Denver who use this technique of individualised front doors as one of many design techniques to the wellbeing of those who have experienced trauma.4
Scaling up, some exciting new projects like Redfern Place by Hayball, Hickory, ASPECT Studios, Yerrabingin, Atelier Ten and others is exploring how to create social cohesion and a sense of belonging through social housing, community spaces and mixed-use areas.
Similarly, larger urban-scale projects like the Greenline Project led by ASPECT Studios X TCL in collaboration with the City of Melbourne are exploring how to offer improved wellbeing through the connected infrastructure of the river. These projects, like many, are expanding the brief beyond economic measures to consider positive social impact, and how design can encourage community wellbeing.
In time we expect government wellbeing frameworks to inspire funding for projects and create new areas for design research. For example, the national wellbeing framework has placed a clear measure on perceived safety at night with 53.8% of people reporting feeling unsafe when walking locally in their community at night. An important urban design challenge for us to face, particularly as we discuss urban density and growth. Perhaps in response, TFNSW has created the Her Way Programme to improve safety for women, girls, and gender diverse people around transport hubs, providing vital funding for local councils to consider safety at night around stations. They will be collecting data on the design techniques that have worked to improve perceived safety. This feedback loop combined with measures will hopefully see a targeted approach for designers of the public realm. By drawing lessons from the maturation of sustainability, architects and designers are positioned as pioneers, shaping the future of the built environment in a way that harmoniously blends environmental responsibility with the profound promotion of human wellbeing.
As wellbeing frameworks and metrics begin to solidify, we should expect the relationship between frameworks, measures and design will eventually gain regulatory backing. The design community’s proactive engagement will be crucial in ensuring that these frameworks
reflect the nuanced realities of creating spaces that genuinely enhance human life. So, now is the time for our Institute and other leading bodies, supported by architects and designers, to step forward and help guide the exciting next chapters of design for wellbeing. ■
Georgina Blix is the founder of Blix Architecture. She oversees the strategic vision of the practice, developing key research into how to design for wellbeing. Georgina undertakes the Byera Hadley Travelling Scholarship on this topic in 2024.
Stewart Monti is an associate at Atelier Ten and Byera Hadley Scholarship recipient.
Notes
1 GBCA – see the discussion paper, https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-strategy/social-value/
2 Source: Byera Interview Georgina Blix and Professor Flora Samuel, author of Housing for Hope and Wellbeing
3 National wellbeing framework from the perspective of the built environment (in particular with a focus on the measures)
– See the White Paper by Blix Architecture and Atelier Ten, https://www.blixarchitecture.com/research
4 For more on the Shopworks Trauma Informed design approach see https://shopworksarc.com/tid/
Calderflower and Blix Architecture for Vasey
Wellbeing for Whom?
Words: Imogen Howe
What do you think accessibility means? Does it mean compliance with AS1428.1 or the ability to enter a building and spaces within it? Is it about usability? Even if it means all these things, the word accessibility is too limited to encompass all the considerations for people with disabilities and generally does not account for the psychosocial or psycho-emotional experiences of a building.
The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing is well known. But, when it comes to wellbeing, buildings and urban spaces frequently disappoint people with disabilities by being inaccessible, stigmatising, creating the feeling of being out-of-place, a misfit in places you have a fundamental right to be in.
Wellbeing goes beyond the physical and mental health of an individual. It is a holistic concept of health and wellness that encompasses psychosocial elements like social connectedness, belonging and inclusion and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society, feeling valued and respected, and environmental contextual factors such as connection to community and place. These physical and social environments, including buildings, are relational and interdependent. Buildings are in fact powerful actors that convey messages that can directly impact an individual’s sense of belonging through both physical barriers or accommodations but also by reproducing and perpetuating stigmatisation or societal expectations of who a user might be. For example, accessible solutions that look institutional or medical can perpetuate the idea of disability as pathology, or placing entrances around the back of a building or designing
building elements that are hard to use can make you feel like your needs weren’t considered or you’re not valued.
Why is this so important? Around 18% of Australians live with a disability and even though this is a significant proportion of the population, they are often marginalised and treated as a minority. It’s particularly problematic when you consider that disability can be experienced by any of us, at any stage of life. It can be temporary or permanent, chronic, constant, intermittent, and episodic. It can also be visible or invisible and can for example be physical, sensory, cognitive, or psychological. One thing we know for sure is that our population is aging, and as we age, we all experience some aspect of this – especially when it comes to experiencing barriers in the built environment.
It would be easy to frame exclusion for people with disabilities in architecture as a problem arising only from old buildings that have not been upgraded to meet accessibility compliance standards, but when you think about the barriers beyond accessibility standards to consider psycho-emotional disablism and human rights, it’s clear this is a bigger problem.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability establishes the fundamental human rights of people with disability. The purpose of the convention is to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights for people with disability foundational to which is the recognition and respect of their inherent dignity, individual autonomy and independence, full and equal participation in society, accessibility, and respect for difference
of disability as part of human diversity among several other things. These principles should, as a minimum, form the basis of and be central to any design. But architectural design tends to be created for abstract normative concepts of the human body, and when disability is considered, it tends to focus on the accessible design standards or building codes even though it has been shown that these aren’t enough to overcome discrimination.
If human rights and diversity are not central to every design, then even new buildings that might be useable will perpetrate social injustices
by making people feel like they don’t belong, be stigmatising, ugly, challenging to use, poorly managed and maintained, or lack of a dignified solution for users with disability.
These experiences create psycho-emotional barriers in buildings that can detrimentally impact a person’s sense of belonging and therefore their wellbeing. So much so that the recent Royal Commission into disability regarded exclusion of people with disability from settings they have a right to access and participate in (such as work) as a form of neglect.
Accessible entrance, over there! A sign directs people away from the main entrance to find the accessible entry.
The accessible entrance is placed below the grand staircase of the main entrance. This conveys a subtle message about societal status and power dynamics. This is psycho-emotional disablism.
Accessible Entrance at Rear. A sign directs people to the back of the building for entry.
A strange and ugly ramp for the entry to a shop. This ramp demonstrates little care taken for accessibility.
/ WELLBEING FOR WHOM?
WORDS: IMOGEN HOWE
So, where should you start? There are two concepts that are widely used within disability circles that are hepful to consider when undertaking any design. These are ‘Crip Time’ and ‘Spoon Theory’. Crip Time is a phrase used to express the fact that for someone with disability or chronic illness, many things take longer to do. Getting ready in the morning might take over two hours, getting into work may take twice as long as another person because the accessible route is not the most direct, or navigating to a room inside a building may also take longer. Any aspect of a design that makes things harder, rather than easier, increases this time. Spoon Theory is a concept intended to express energy levels and how much you can give of yourself in any given period. In this concept, the energy you have is represented by spoons. Generally speaking, most people have unlimited spoons, but people with disability or chronic illness only have a fixed number of spoons or certainly far fewer spoons than those without. Any energy depleting experience will take away some of their spoons until they may be left with too few spoons to get through the day. So, it is particularly cruel when the built environment takes spoons that are needed for human interaction.
To be respectful of someone’s energy, time and spoons in a building you need to think about ease of use. For example, is the door you have designed going to be too heavy for someone with chronic pain, inability to twist, mobility limitations, limited strength, or even just someone with their hands full to use? Might this space be too glarey, over stimulating, disorienting or confusing to use? What does your design express psycho-socially – what expectations are embedded in it? Does it reinforce power dynamics, stigmatising expectations and views of people’s abilities, height, strength, state of mind?
When someone creates a building, they should consider whether they will be increasing ‘crip time’ or reducing somebody’s ‘spoons’ in using
it. In undertaking a project, think about the implications of your design. Ask yourself, “is it necessary to put those stairs there and a lift, or could the ground floor be a level entry or the terrain manipulated to gently ramp up to it?” Make sure you think these ideas through in some depth. It is critical to be aware that these decisions are not insignificant, they hold very high stakes for human rights. You have the capacity to take away independence, autonomy and dignity, to deplete energy, increase frustration or time. As an architect, a designer, a developer, a builder, a decision-maker, you have the agency and power to improve the status quo and to make good decisions.
So, when talking about best practice in architecture, we need to look beyond the concept of accessibility to consider diversity and belonging, knowing this is an essential part of wellbeing.
To create places that are dignified, where people feel they belong, requires a design approach where diverse experiences and abilities are central to the design concept and embedded in the design and procurement process at every stage. ■
Imogen Howe‘s architectural practice focuses on creating socially-inclusive places where everyone can belong. Imogen has specialist expertise in creating built environments that consider the equity needs of diverse users, especially those with disability. She is currently undertaking PhD research at the University of Melbourne in disability-inclusive workplace design.
Soft spaces: Learning from virtual reality to design for people in pain
Words: Isabella Reynolds
Art Gallery of NSW Library. Tonkin Zulaikha Greer. Photos: Cieran Murphy
/ SOFT SPACES: LEARNING FROM VIRTUAL REALITY TO DESIGN FOR PEOPLE IN PAIN
WORDS:
ISABELLA
REYNOLDS
Living with pain is a growing issue for people across Australia. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, over four million Australians live with chronic pain that is persistent or recurrent lasting longer than three months.1 While the use of pharmacology is undoubtedly efficient in pain management, the side effects of traditional pain medications such as opioids warrant longer-term pain management strategies for people with ongoing and chronic pain conditions.2 When an increasing number of Australians live with frequent pain, how can our cities and public spaces be designed with sensitivity for the growing population that works, cares, plays, and commutes in pain?
The Soft Spaces project has been an initiative to investigate the potential for the physical environment to affect positively, and in some ways provide relief for, the experience of someone with chronic pain. It seeks to expand a conventional approach beyond compliance, to consider the broad population that co-exists with pain. The research is based on qualitative reports from people living with a variety of conditions that result in frequent pain experiences, including endometriosis, spinal injuries, polycystic ovarian syndrome, migraines, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, inflammatory bowel diseases, arthritis, and cancer.
One interviewee, Sarah, lives with a layering of autoimmune diseases and maintains a full-time desk-based job despite having debilitating pain almost all day. Upon waking up, her muscles are seized and stiff, and pain reverberates through her body. At work, moving is difficult, but sitting feels worse, and she tries to alternate between an agitated crouching position and slow laps around her office. By mid-morning she considers abandoning social convention and laying down on the office floor to release the pressure from her back and legs. At lunchtime, Sarah walks to a park nearby and lays down in the shade; the dappled movement of the light on her closed eyelids provides some gentle distraction. Sadly, much of Sarah’s time is spent in places that aggravate her pain instead of mitigating it.
I asked Soft Spaces participants where they would seek refuge if they were away from home and felt unwell. Many described a quiet gallery or library as a refuge – sparsely populated, free to enter, quiet, consistently lit, calm, and free from individual surveillance. They described the physical qualities of these spaces. These included cool temperatures, clearly signed exits, plentiful amenities, and a balance of visual stimuli without clutter, and appropriate distraction. The respondents also sought dappled sunlight and shade, natural outlook, and broad open spaces. These desirable qualities are abundant in our cities’ most expensive public buildings but less common elsewhere.
What can we learn from our cities’ most successful reprieve spaces, and how can we apply this to the design of other public spaces? While the parameters of the typology and the realities of lower budgets may prevent a Westfield food court from offering the same conditions as an architecturally significant public library, there remains room to improve these places in a pain-sensitive manner without compromising the typology or the project feasibility.
To determine improvements to these spaces, it’s helpful to examine environments that are favoured by patients and clinicians when practical limitations are removed from the environment. Researchers in pain medicine, neuroscience, and design are investigating the use of virtual, digital environments as a pain management tool.3 While these environments are accessed through a virtual reality (VR) headset, these environments are not to be confused with video games. These are purposebuilt environments with sights and sounds designed specifically for distraction from pain.4 Imagine a grassy field and gentle pebbly stream, complete with sounds of chirping birds and running water, far from the virtual realities that come to mind from VR games like Red Dead Redemption, Half-Life or Resident Evil.
In an umbrella review of research across more than 17,000 patients, in 274 studies, the review concluded that virtual reality assists in managing pain conditions.5 Some research focuses on distraction as a mechanism for pain modulation. These rich and multisensorial, immersive virtual environments may decrease the patient’s concentration on pain, which may result in a stimulus being perceived as less painful.6 For example, a patient may be virtually immersed in a grassy field with a rolling stream, complete with sounds of birds chirping and water running over rocks.7 These environments don’t use a task or narrative to distract the user, as in a typical game, instead providing distraction through immersion, as well as seeking to soothe effects associated with pain, such as fear or anxiety.8
Much can be learned from the environmental conditions used within these VR programs that echo the ideal conditions noted by interviewees. How do we move these qualities from the realm of ideal conditions (in VR) into real-world structures and landscapes? The research is ongoing and aims to consolidate a set of considerations for physical, and public spaces, combining the objectives and learnings from research into virtual environments designed specifically for pain relief, and best-practice public spaces identified by interviewees.
These considerations are divided into the following categories:
Physical accessibility: design issues such as the location of elevators, stair design, and key distances
Lighting: brightness, colour, consistency, and location of lighting
Visual stimuli: provision of a calm uncluttered visual environment, without rapidly changing or moving visual stimuli such as advertising, transport, or crowds
Amenity: number of and location of toilets or parent rooms, as well as provision of seating
Aspect and nature: inclusion of views toward green or blue spaces, as well as the lighting conditions created by that proximity
Materials and textures: judicious use of hard, rough, or very temperature-absorbent materials
Noise and acoustics: modest ambient noise levels
Wayfinding: provision of easy egress, clearly located amenities, and rest spaces.
These considerations may act as a resource for practitioners to consider when designing spaces to ensure they are doing so in a manner sympathetic to the millions of Australians living with chronic pain. Designing for pain goes beyond rote standardisation, with accessibility as an open-ended project where architectural problem-solving changes with medicine and user experience, to ultimately offer better spaces not just for people who live with pain, but for all. ■
Isabella Reynolds is an architect at Tonkin Zulaikha Greer. Isabella’s experience encompasses a multitude of project types, ranging from workplace, public buildings, residential, education, masterplanning and health.
Notes
1 Painaustralia. “Submission to the Review of the Australian Government’s Financial Assistance Grants Programme.” Treasury.gov.au. Last modified May 2021. Accessed 1 May, 2024. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/171663_painaustralia_0.pdf.
2 New South Wales Ministry of Health. “Chronic Pain - Medical Practitioners.” Accessed 3 May 2024. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pharmaceutical/ doctors/Pages/chronic-pain-medical-practitioners.aspx.
3 “Virtual reality for chronic pain relief.” Harvard Health Publishing. Accessed 1 May, 2024. URL: https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/virtual-reality-forchronic-pain-relief.
4 “Virtual Reality as a Distraction Technique in Chronic Pain Patients.” Accessed 1 May, 2024. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/262816040_Virtual_Reality_as_a_Distraction_Technique_in_Chronic_Pain_Patients.
5 Viderman, D., Tapinova, K., Dossov, M., Seitenov, S., & Abdildin, Y. G. (2023). Virtual reality for pain management: An umbrella review. Frontiers in Medicine, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1203670
6 Bordeleau, M., Stamenkovic, A., Tardif, P. A., & Thomas, J. “The Use of Virtual Reality in Back Pain Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Journal of Pain 23 (2022): 175–95. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2021.08.001.
7 Mahrer, N. E., and Gold, J. I. “The Use of Virtual Reality for Pain Control: A Review.” Current Science Inc 13 (2009): 100–109. doi:10.1007/s11916-009-0019-8.
8 Teh, J. J., Pascoe, D. J., Hafeji, S., et al. “Efficacy of Virtual Reality for Pain Relief in Medical Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” BMC Medicine 22 (2024): 64. doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03266-6.
Questioning the status quo
Words: Hugo Chan
“ It can’t be all just takin’ and no givin’
The mundane life of the average 1980s employee is encapsulated in these eloquent lines. The contemporary life of many architectural practitioners is perhaps, no different. From the time we begin our training, we learn to survive design studio and overcome harsh criticism. Cans of energy drink allow us to power through endless nights. All-nighters are our badges of honour, worn proudly by those who worked the longest hours and look the most dishevelled – rather than raising alarm bells of unrealistic performance expectations, workloads, or poor time management. We are caught between Sisyphus, pushing the boulder of architecture endlessly up a mountain, and Icarus, too proud to acknowledge our own failings as we fly ever closer toward the sun, teetering on the edge of collapse. That our industry perpetuates an exploitative and unhealthy culture, far from elevating the profession as one of dedicated hard workers, actually reveals broader systemic issues in our collective mindset – one in which we undervalue the effort of established practitioners and young graduates alike, while also limiting opportunities for career growth and excellence by people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
“
Dolly Parton
The concept of overtime is of course, not exclusive to the architectural profession. Across the Australian work environment, the Centre for Future Work report published in November 2023 revealed that the average worker was losing out on $11,055 a year to unpaid overtime, with an average of 5.4 hours of unpaid work being performed per week, equating to an annual time theft of 281 hours a year or seven standard work weeks spent working for free.1
In architecture school, statistics on the wellbeing of students tracked in the United Kingdom by Architects Journal over the course of a decade, showed little improvement and suggests that architecture remains unhealthily linked with concepts of overwork as the source of design motivation, the life of a tortured artist where stress is the expectation, not the exception and sacrifice is not merely accepted but an inevitable necessity for our craft. In this sense, we generally assume such practices and behaviours are acceptable indicates an uncritical appraisal of the fact that industry is part of the problem and begs the question: Why is this acceptable to begin with?
Undoubtedly there will be critics who see such stories of mistreatment and statistics of suffering as little more than another elongated whine – an insufferable call to a supposedly non-existent injustice. That is perhaps revealing of challenges to changing mindset. But an assumption that concern for the wellbeing of architects is a contemporary notion is a false one. The Architect’s Benevolent Society, founded in London in 1850 and still operating today, was formed by architects for architects as a charity specifically dedicated to those experiencing “undeserved misfortune” and “real distress.”2 Contemporary calls for change are present and only growing. The Wellbeing of Architects: Culture, Identity Practice research project, which recently released its guides to wellbeing in practice this year, provides the first comprehensive study into the state of Australian architectural culture and provides a clear and definitive call to fundamentally change how we approach, teach, and practice architecture. This project gives us the first step towards understanding the bigger picture of mental health within the architecture industry and provides a hopeful catalyst to effect lasting change.
With upcoming changes across various legislation around the right to disconnect and the criminalisation of wage theft – questions surrounding overwork, underpayment, and stress in the workplace will be here to stay, both in the architecture industry and beyond.
Notes
Once again, Dolly, with the help of her incredible co-conspirators (Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin), showed us the way, four decades ago. From job-sharing to flexible hours, from equal pay to in-office daycare, they did it all, sweeping away an old guard and boosting productivity by 20% along the way. As with Dolly Parton’s victory, in questioning the status quo, she inspires us all to collectively strive for better.
While a movie often ends in a tidy bow, the sentiment still stands – time and again research has shown that investing in employee wellbeing has only ever had a positive impact on productivity and the quality of work being produced regardless of industry.3 Only by shifting our mindset collectively can we begin to practise what we preach and not merely design spaces that facilitate wellbeing, but also work to support the wellbeing of our peers and those we are mentoring to be the next generation of architects. In the meantime, however, if ever you need ideas worth implementing in the workplace, look no further than that cult classic, 9 to 5 ■
Hugo Chan is an architect, writer and researcher with his own practice StudioHC as well as working as architect and associate operations at Cracknell & Lonergan Architects.
1 Fiona Macdonald, Short Changed: Unsatisfactory working hours and unpaid overtime, (Canberra: The Australia Institute Centre for Future Work, 2023), p. 5. Online Access Via: https://futurework.org.au/?p=1717#:~:text=That’s%20the%20finding%20of%20the,a%20fortnight%2C%20to%20unpaid%20overtime
2 The Architects Benevolent Society, Annual Report of 1851, (London, 1851), p. 5-6. Online Access Via: https://absnet.org.uk/about-us/.
3 Jacqueline Brassey, Brad Herbig, Barbara Jeffery, and Drew Ungerman. “Reframing Employee Health: Moving Beyond Burnout to Holistic Health,” McKinsey Health Institute. 2 November 2023. Online Access Via: https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/reframing-employee-health-moving-beyondburnout-to-holistic-health
The Australian Institute of Architects provides resources to assist employers, employees, and architectural students with their mental wellbeing
For more information, please visit: https://www.architecture.com.au/advocacy-news/wellbeing-for-architects
The epidemic of loneliness and the role of cities
Words: Jennifer L Kent
Urban planning, as a discipline and practice, emerged at a time when cities were crowded and polluted, providing the optimum environment for the incubation and spread of infectious diseases such as cholera, typhoid and diphtheria. In the early 20th century, medical professionals recognised the biological mechanisms behind infectious disease contagion, prompting a widespread call to disperse populations and separate polluting uses from the places where people live. And so ensued emergence of the profession we now know as urban planning.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and many previously devastating infectious diseases have been replaced by what are known as chronic non-communicable diseases. Conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, depression, and cancer now dominate mortality and morbidity statistics, and deplete the health budgets of developed and increasingly developing nations.
Antecedent and parallel to many chronic health conditions, and a condition in and of itself, is the experience of loneliness. Loneliness is the averse emotional response emergent when a person feels their current social relationships are inadequate for their needs, and it can have severe negative impacts on health. For example, loneliness is associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, depression, and anxiety. People reporting feeling lonely die younger, are more likely to die from suicide, and more likely to engage in risky behaviours, including substance abuse.
Even prior to the isolation and fear induced by the COVID pandemic, loneliness was an increasingly common experience. Today, loneliness is so widespread that the US surgeon general has famously described it as an epidemic, with a mortality impact “similar to that caused by smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day”.1
There are many ways the built environment can prevent, or temper, experiences of loneliness. Key to this ability is the concept of social interactions. The quality and quantity of interactions required to avoid loneliness are deeply personal and will be different for every individual. Research shows, however, that a variety of regular interactions is essential for wellbeing.
American-based neuroscientist, John Cacioppo, has written extensively on a lack of social interaction as a risk factor to loneliness. He proposes a model of the types of interactions required to maintain good physical and mental health, based on three levels2 of connections:
Level one: up-close and personal relationships, such as with a long-term partner
Level two: less intense but still regular connections between extended family and friends
Level three: incidental interactions with the people who inhabit the spaces around us.
The way cities are structured and managed can shape all three of these levels. For example, by providing jobs in close proximity to housing, city structure can reduce commute times, providing more opportunities for people to be at home with family (Level one). City form and function also influences, to an extent, housing affordability, enabling family and friends to remain in close proximity (should they choose), rather than having to move away to afford a home (Level two). These less-direct impacts of urban form on social interaction are important, however, cities are particularly important in facilitating tension-free incidental interactions (Level three).
Incidental interactions are the day-to-day meetings we have with people using the same spaces at the same times as us. These interactions may not be with the people we
would normally choose to associate with, yet they are critical components of the health of communities. They are small events that enrich connection to place, promote a duty of caring, increase perceptions of safety, and, importantly, decrease feelings of loneliness and isolation. Furthermore, incidental interactions pave the way for more sustained interactions, making it possible for more organised activities to flourish.
Many of the built environment treatments that facilitate positive incidental interactions reflect what urban professionals know as good urban design or placemaking. For example, by providing adequate and well-designed public and open spaces, cities can facilitate people lingering in place, opening up opportunities for convivial interactions. Natural elements are also important because they provide objects of fascination that can become talking points, as well as enliven spaces, making them more pleasurable places to traverse or stay. And by providing infrastructure that supports active travel, cities can provide opportunities for interactions while walking and cycling.
More specifically, it seems the more time people spend crossing the paths of others, the more opportunities there are to interact through acknowledgment. The first step to an incidental interaction, therefore, might just be a slackening of pace. In many cases, this slowing down may be task-oriented – such as waiting for a bus – and making these spaces comfortable will facilitate lingering. It might also be whimsical –such as a work of public art.
Once we understand that interactions depend upon personal deceleration, or slowing, we realise why it is so important that the city’s public realm be designed to encourage lingering. The most obvious way to do this is to provide ample places for people to sit. Famous urban designer, William H Whyte once remarked: “The human backside is a dimension architects seem to have forgotten” 3. In his well-known
film The social life of small urban spaces, Whyte demonstrates the way people merge and linger not in the large and exposed expanses of public squares, but in smaller parcels of space throughout the city.
While diverse and well-designed public spaces are key to interactions, they will not occur if people do not feel as though they can retreat and take time out when required. This is an important point when we consider that many people are increasingly asked to live their lives in public, through shared infrastructure, increased residential densities, and the use of public open spaces. While living publicly will amplify opportunities for interactions, unless this is balanced with opportunities to have time out, we risk interactions becoming sources of tension, rather than conviviality. This reiterates the need for well-designed buildings, where acoustic and visual privacy is prioritised, and space is adequate to host a day at home.
The links between environments and loneliness are complex and nuanced. Loneliness is a quintessentially personal experience, and its diagnoses depends on a subjective assessment of the interactions deemed to be adequate by the individual. Urban form and function therefore can only provide opportunities for connection as interpreted by those seeking to call the cities we plan and manage home. People come to the spaces and places we provide with their own agendas, histories, experiences, appreciations, desires, and routines. Our role is as minor as providing the stage from which interactions can be enacted, and as major as ensuring those opportunities exist when and where they are needed. ■
Jennifer L Kent is a senior research fellow at the University of Sydney, School of Architecture, Design and Planning.
Notes
1 United States Office of the Surgeon General (2023) Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, Office of the Surgeon General, Washington, page 1.
2 Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Norman, G. J. and Berntson, G. G. (2011) Social isolation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1231(1) pp 17-22.
3 Whyte, W. H. (1980) The social life of small urban spaces, Conservation Foundation, Washinton D.C.
Burudi Gurad, Burudi Ora: Critical spatial, relationalities of care
Words: Rhiannon Brownbill
Design and planning across Australia is founded upon Terra Nullius and tabula rasa1 & 2. These ideas of no man’s land and a blank slate continue to inform how we think about healthcare design:
“When Australia was colonised by European settlement in January 1788, there was adequate planning for health services, but apparently, no provision made for a hospital. With the first fleet containing ten doctors for 1,363 passengers, the colony commenced operations with a doctor/population ratio of 1:136, a figure that has never been equalled since!”3
This embedded legacies of biomedicalisation and paternalism, wholly erasing comparable knowledges of medicine and care held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for millennia.4, 5, 6, 7 Today, healthcare spaces are designed through standards within the Australasian Health Facility Guidelines AusHFG. These standard room components erase the complexities of Country defining spatial practices that overlook the needs of community, ecology, and family/kin.
Within Indigenous research methodologies, the practice of positioning is fundamental. A critical practice of relationality, positioning asks who you are and how you are in the world. As a nonIndigenous person working at Bangawarra, I hold responsibilities to Designing with Country and this cultural protocol.
I grew up in a nursery surrounded by native plants and animals. The formative architecture surrounding me were wild gardens of
eucalyptus, wattle, grevillea. Life was all about the plants. The care of these plants is how my dad treated his mental illnesses. Losing the nursery after years of drought, he lost this tool of healthcare and relied on drugs and alcohol. Isolated from healthcare through violent past experiences, his health deteriorated and by the end of 2018, we were homeless.
As he was actively dying, I witnessed his body become an object of biomedicalisation; stripped of agency and subjected to several perfunctory surgeries. Spatially oscillating between hospitals and the realities of homelessness stripped everything from him and reduced him to a single unit within a system of care that focused only on the treatment of disease.
Growing up with two disabled parents, I had developed an interest in architecture and disability, but this experience focused these interests towards architectures of care and wellness.
Directly contradicting the siloed spatial logics of Western medicine, Sioux Dakota Scholar, Kim TallBear, stipulates that “Indigenous frameworks of relationality … are explicitly spatial narratives of caretaking relations”. Spatial webs of intimacy and memory that connect the human body to all the living: non-living entities of the Land. Spatial webs that are “undercut and relentlessly erased when the extractive nation-state continues to be dreamed” and hierarchically actualised.8
Working collaboratively with a local D’harawal Elders and Knowledge Keepers circle, my master’s was dedicated to one core question:
How can architecture create healthcare spaces that assert the complex caretaking relations of Country, knowledge, community, and culture as fundamental practices of care alongside Western medicine?
Burudi Gurad, Burudi Ora was the culmination of this research. Meaning, Healthy Country, Healthy People, the project explores how Ancestral knowledges of Country might combine with contemporary architecture to reassert caretaking as the fundamental principle of healthcare.
The proposed design prioritises the health of Country. The needs of plants, animals and water systems are held equally alongside the needs of human communities and prescriptions made within the AusHFG. Three design drivers were developed to navigate these complexities: prioritising ancestral knowledges of Country, Ceremony as programmatic and spatial driver, and indeterminacy.
Located on Memel (Goat Island, Sydney Harbour) the site has always been a place of shared healing where local Aboriginal peoples have enacted protected ceremonies. Connecting
Memel to other surrounding islands across Sydney Harbour, headlands and underwater topographies, the Ancestral stories and ceremonies of this place hold lores that reinforce our reliance on the health of Country.
As saltwater rises along predicted 2100 shorelines, the project’s urban scale investigates how urban infrastructure might be repurposed to support ecological regeneration. As saltwater inundates abandoned warehouses, exposed steel corrodes, mimicking natural material interfaces and facilitation the regeneration of river mangrove environments. Marine wildlife return to the shoreline, restoring these ecological associations, stories and cultural connections.
Surrounded by a dense canopy of remnant native vegetation the floorplate perches on top of the island and forms a circular plan, centred on existing rock carvings. The building form creates an offset perimeter plan that protects this carving and provides shelter from harsh salty winds that blow off the harbour. This buffering enables the interior circle to be planted with rare and venerable locally endemic plants
that are cyclically cared for by cool-burning cultural fire. Healing Country through the care of these plants, the architectural design enables this internal space to provide a rich medicinal landscape. Scattered with sandstone boulders reclaimed from the demolished colonial buildings of the island, people can share medicinal knowledge, enact culture and receive allied and community health care embedded within the colours and smells of Country.
The building is a lightweight single-storey structure, that appears as two horizontal planes that float within these landscapes. While two-thirds of the building is fixed directly to the sandstone bedrock, the lightness of the structure enables a significant portion of the plan to cantilever over the island’s south-eastern aspect as it falls towards the water. This siting allows the design to integrate spatial organisation methods that provide patients, staff, visitors, and community with an agency to interact with care interdependently.
The fixed program spaces are located on level ground, where the building meets the stone. These care spaces are for childbirth, cancer treatments, palliative care, recovery and other longer-stay inpatient scenarios. The threelayered facade system that encloses these rooms ensures that these spaces still maintain visual, physical, and sensory porositities to the surrounding ecologies and community spaces. The outer facade integrates an external linen curtain. Segmented to run the entire perimeter of the building, this curtain can be moved to enclose semi-private spaces close to these rooms. Set roughly one meter in from this outer layer, the rooms are enclosed by glass slideand-turn glazing systems. Each glazing panel
operates independently allowing the entire facade to be sealed or fully open. Finally, a thick possum skin curtain is integrated inside rooms. This is a significant element of cultural practice that I will not explain in detail, but this element draws culture directly into the care scenarios whilst providing thermal and visual privacy. The facade system works almost identically along the interior perimeter, but in this instance the linen curtain sits internally between the glazing and the possum skin.
Where the building cantilevers above the island, freer programs are integrated. Prioritising accessibility all of the furniture and medical care equipment is specified with wheels. With a smooth ochre-dyed concrete screed with shell inlay floor finish, the cantilever allows patients, families and community to use this space however they wish. With expansive views towards the Sydney Harbour bridge, patients can sit within the upper canopies of tall eucalyptus trees and seamlessly receive all types of care and healing.
Today the profession of architecture has a responsibility to support the care and healing of Country. Located on Aboriginal land, recently returned to local custodians, Burudi Gurad, Burudi Ora explores how non-Indigenous architects might work with local Aboriginal peoples to create these new methodologies of care and design. ■
Rhiannon Brownbill is graduate of architecture and a Connecting with Country spatial design consultant at Bangawarra.
Notes
1 Jackson, S, Porter, L. and Johnson, LC (2018). Planning in Indigenous Australia, From Imperial Foundations to Postcolonial Futures, Routledge
2 Foster, S, Paterson Kinnburgh, J, & Wann Country (2020) There’s No Place Like (Without) Country
3 D Hes & C Hernandez-Santin (Ed.), Placemaking Fundamentals for the Built Environment, pp 63-82, Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-329624-4_4
4 Kerr, W. (2014, November, 03). A History of Health Care Architecture in Australia. Knowledge, Hames Sharley. https://www.hamessharley.com.au/ knowledge/a-history-of-health-care-architecture-in-australia
5 Fredricks, B. (2009). “There is Nothing that Identifies me to that Place”: Aboriginal Women’s Perceptions of Health Spaces and Places. Cultural Studies Review, 15(2), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.5130/csr.v15i2.2036
6 McPhail-Bell, K., Bond, C., Brough, M. & Fredericks, B. (2015). ‘We Don’t Tell People What to do’: Ethical Practice and Indigenous Health Promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 26(3), 195-199
7 The Lowitja Institute (2020) We Nurture our Culture for Our Future, and Our Culture Nurtues Us. Close the Gap Steering Committee. https://humanrights. gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/ctg2020_report_final.pdf
8 TallBear, K (2019) Caretaking relations, Not American Dreaming. Kalfou 6 (1), pp 24-41 https://doi.org/10.15367/kf.v6i1.228
Wattleseed: nature-focused retrofit of a children’s centre
Words: Sarah Scott
Ambient biophilic film effects projected onto playroom wall with accompanying soundscape.
In this era of climate change and pandemics it is evidently clear that humanity is a part of nature and, Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are part of nature’s systems, yet our urban lives can seem removed and out of touch with the natural world.
This lack of connection is concerning when we review the relevant scientific research, particularly for children. The natural outdoor environment is healthier, more stimulating, and more engaging than indoor environments and delivers greater social, emotional and physical wellbeing. Children learn through their senses when they interact with their environment through exploration and experimentation on a physical, social and cultural level. Natural environments are proven to enhance wellbeing, learning, mental and physical health.1, 2, 3, 4
However, access to authentic nature is not always available. So how can we as architects deliver these benefits to children in this scenario?
Wattleseed is a collaboration between Scott and Ryland Architects, Royal Botanical Gardens, Sydney Community Greening, Indigi-grow, Taronga Zoo, Powerhouse Museum and Western Sydney University. The design draws on existing Biophilic design and Living Future Institute research and aims to facilitate environmental education through the retrofit of early childhood centres. Funded by a 2023 Sydney City Ideas/ Innovation Grant, over one year, KU-James-Cahill is the program’s pilot site, implementing both immersive biophilic environments and nature focused programs.
Biophilic design while not a new concept is referred to often in architectural and interior design magazines and in home decor supplier’s websites and applied to anything from plastic flower centrepieces, stone-effect ceramic tiles, through to full simulacra, such as the Cloud Forest Dome in the Gardens by the Bay in Singapore, a larger-than-life replication of nature that provides its own immersive impact.
This overuse of the word undermines a genuinely valuable architectural resource, nature, and undervalues the research and thinking that has contributed to the evolution of truly immersive, nature-focused design and its impact on our health and wellbeing. On its own, biophilic design may not give children the same opportunities to climb a tree, poke around in the mud with a stick or go hunting for insects, but perhaps when combined with nature-focused education, it can provide some of the health benefits and a more genuine connection with the nature available within their immediate setting.
The International Living Future Institute5 (LFI) is the leading organisation defining and promoting biophilic design. The LFI defines biophilic design as being an expression of the relationship between nature, human biology and buildings. It requires a sensory approach to the act of design: biophilic buildings are designed to be experienced, rather than just utilised. The LFI has divided biophilic design into specific quantifiable components. This means it can now be incorporated within the structured program of modern building in the same measured way that sustainability is being incorporated.
/ WATTLESEED: NATURE-FOCUSED
RETROFIT OF A CHILDREN’S CENTRE
WORDS: SARAH SCOTT
Wattleseed uses the LFI Biophilic toolkit (2022) to create a checklist of core objectives, distilled into ten interventions, designed as economic, effective ways of achieving the goals within a modest budget. This was combined with in-situ, child-focused workshops on native plants, Indigenous cultural practices, and nature play. In parallel with this, regular monitoring of interactions with the environment was recorded to provide data on the impact of the immersive biophilic program.
The interventions:
1. Accessible and interactive Indigenous ecosystem gardens inside and outside
2. Film and audio ambient projections of water and murmuration within the playrooms
3. Tuneable colour-changing lights to match circadian rhythms
4. Fresh-air ventilation throughout, all day
5. Sensory textured installation artworks made with children (ie woven cubby)
6. Attunement to external eco systems via: onsite workshops delivered by Taronga Zoo, Indigigrow and Sydney Botanical Gardens
7. Natural palette colours and materials throughout (painting, removal of plastics where possible)
8. Layout for external views and hierarchy of spaces from large, open, and communal, to small, enclosed retreat
9. Customisable play areas: sand, moveable parts, changeable layouts
10. Active/changeable pathways to interior.
In architecture, emphasising the agency and vitality of the living natural world can lead to innovative design approaches that consider not only the aesthetic but also the ecological and social impacts of the built form. Architects can explore how the built form interacts with the immediate natural environment, changes over time, and how this affects the wellbeing of occupants. We can explore the idea of responsive or adaptive architecture that dynamically interacts with its surroundings, adjusting to changing conditions through materiality and flexible design.
These architectural opportunities encourage educators to think about the classroom as a dynamic, evolving ecosystem where students and environment co-construct knowledge. It encourages educators to use the physical environment as a pedagogical tool and to incorporate non-human elements (like natural landscapes) into the learning process.6
Throughout the year, we investigated how children responded to this human made biophilic design and whether it has the capacity to generate even a few of the beneficial effects of being in nature. The results, which will be explored in detail in my MPhil thesis, have been both entertaining and thought provoking. This project will provide practical demonstration of how to achieve a biophilic retrofit and the ongoing study will contribute to key debates in the field by sharing new knowledge arising from the possibilities and barriers to biophilic design. ■
Sarah Scott has specialised in designing children’s services since 2004. Author of Architecture for Children, Sarah is a partner at Scott and Ryland Architects and recently completed a year as senior technical designer, co-designing a preschool template and brief for the rollout of new preschools across NSW.
Notes
1 P Grahn (1996) Wild nature makes children healthy, Journal of Swedish Building Research, 4, pp16-18.
2 A Faber Taylor, Kuo, FE (2011) “Could Exposure to Everyday Green Spaces Help Treat ADHD? Evidence from Children’s Play Settings” Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(3), pp 281-303
3 A Christiansen, Hannan, K. Anderson, S. Coxon, L. and Fargher (2018), Place-based nature kindergarten in Victoria, Australia: No tools, no toys, no art supplies. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education 21(4) DOI:10.1007/s42322-017-0001-6
4 LK Chawla, Pevec, I and Stanley E (2014) Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence Health and Place, (pp 28, 1-13)
5 https://living-future.org.au/
6 D Coole and Frost, S eds. (2010) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics.
wattleseed ku james cahill preschool
NextSense centre for innovation
Words: Claire Davies
The NextSense centre for innovation at Macquarie University by WMK has opened heralding a new era for hearing and vision loss in Australia.
The centre, co-locates NextSense’s national operations, health and disability services, education and research, under one roof to support and drive better outcomes for children, adults and families living with sensory disability. It connects the vast and rich expertise across the organisation’s 20 locations with colleagues at Macquarie University to share knowledge and build insights that drive change.
By 2060, 7.8 million Australians are expected to experience hearing loss, and more than a million will have blindness or low vision. The financial implications are substantial; hearing loss alone currently costs Australia approximately $41.2 billion annually in health system expenses, productivity losses, and diminished wellbeing.
A SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
The NextSense centre is not just a building but an integral part of a broader ecosystem that integrates research, education, healthcare, policy, and industry. The NextSense centre aims to foster innovation, trial new ideas, attract leading thinkers, and solidify Australia’s position as a world leader in addressing hearing and vision loss. The centre will continue the 164-year-old legacy of NextSense in innovation and advocacy.
LIVING MODELS AND EXPANDED SERVICES
The centre offers the opportunity to develop models that demonstrate best practice in service delivery and education, continuously evolving
based on ongoing research and practical application. This will benefit the children, adults, and families who rely on NextSense for health, disability services, and education, and will influence broader service delivery and teaching approaches for those with sensory disability. The centre will enable NextSense to launch new research and professional education programs, expand in-person and telepractice services across Australia and enhance the reach of its world-leading cochlear implant program.
ARCHITECTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
Designed by WMK, the NextSense centre for innovation blends the fundamental requirements of this multi-faceted organisation with bespoke details. Carefully curated materials and custom wayfinding create an environment that not only accommodates people with hearing or vision loss but offers a place where they can grow and excel as they progress through the different stages of their life.
WMK’s design approach revolved around three key pillars: sensory, network, and sense of purpose. The centre provides a tactile, therapeutic space tailored to wellbeing and the needs of its users. It fosters an interconnected and collaborative environment and celebrates NextSense’s culture and commitment to innovation.
Spread over 9,520sqm, the development consists of two interconnected pavilions at the corner of Culloden and Gymnasium roads. The design mixes a range of unique spaces including a school for up to 120 students, a preschool for up to 80 children, a workplace for 260 staff, conference and seminar areas, therapy, rehabilitation and clinical services hubs, a cafe, reception, and resources library.
Connection to outdoor spaces and the landscape played a pivotal role in the design process with each pavilion strategically arranged around the courtyards, allowing each classroom and many of the internal spaces to interface directly with the open environment. This research-backed approach reinforces the importance of the connection between people, the natural environment and their wellbeing.
The preschool’s outdoor play area is designed to support sensory play, quiet zones, sound play, water play, and storytelling. All key areas throughout the building are positioned to gain the most natural light and a series of key view corridors were incorporated, establishing visual connectivity from the indoors to outdoors.
The entrance off Gymnasium Road, Macquarie Park, features an impressive double-height foyer and is the centre of activity with the cafe, business hub and showcase zone, and is filled with multi-sensory stimulation. The central building serves as the public interface for the centre, accommodating key functions and programs over two main levels. The ground level houses most client-facing functions, including assessment, diagnostics, therapy, and allied health services, while the first level is dedicated to workplace departments.
The workplace is designed to increase fluidity and collaboration among departments, with diverse spaces for individual and group work. The floor is organised into neighbourhoods, each with its own style, fostering a dynamic and agile work environment.
From its new home at Macquarie University, NextSense aims to push boundaries, break down barriers, and build a more inclusive society for people with vision and hearing loss. ■
Claire Davies leads the strategic marketing, communications, and client engagement initiatives for WMK to build brand awareness, lead generation, customer retention, and bid management performance. She also leads the change management programs for the practice’s clients across WMK studios.
NextSense centre for innovation at Macquarie University by WMK. Photo courtesy WMK
The state of wellbeing in the architectural profession
Words: Vicki Leibowitz, Naomi Stead and Byron Kinnaird
The subject of this issue attests to the increasing value and attention placed on architecture that enhances the wellbeing of the community.
But what of wellbeing within the profession itself? A recent ground-breaking study into the Wellbeing of Architects in Australia, (based at RMIT and Monash Universities, funded by the Australia Research Council and supported by numerous industry partners) found that working in the profession isn’t necessarily easy. In fact, many architects display concerningly low levels of personal wellbeing.
The research was based on quantitative and qualitative data gathered from a series of nation-wide surveys and focus groups. The online surveys were undertaken in 2021 at the height of the COVID pandemic (with a total of 2066 respondents) and again in 2023 (with 782 respondents). The findings noted poor and deteriorating scores across a range of measures including personal wellbeing, psychological distress, and burnout. Indeed, measured against the Personal Wellbeing Index (a global measure of personal wellbeing), architects rate substantially lower than the Australian average –and this is diminishing.
SO, WHAT’S NEW IN THE FINDINGS?
For many working in architecture, this isn’t news. For them the research simply provides solid evidence following years of anecdotal accounts of an overly demanding, exacting, and exhausting career choice. But there were still unexpected results here: including the seemingly contradictory attitudes that respondents demonstrated towards the profession and their professional identity.
Many respondents both in 2021 and again in 2023 identified architecture as a career that did not support their personal wellbeing and would not necessarily recommend it to others. But in an apparent contradiction, respondents also recorded high levels of professional and creative identity – in other words they felt proud to be personally associated with the practice of architecture.
Measures of professional commitment were also strong, suggesting a high level of personal investment in being an architect. In other words, even though many respondents would hesitate to recommend a career in architecture to others, they still felt proud to be architects themselves, and expressed high levels of belief in the profession’s goals and possibilities. As one respondent noted in the 2021 survey, “I wouldn’t encourage anyone to study it, unless they had a passion – but I’m so glad I did, even if it broke my heart at least once.”
HOW CAN WE MAKE SENSE OF THIS APPARENT CONFLICT?
Wellbeing in architecture appears to be conditioned by a series of tensions. Often the very things that undermine wellbeing can also enrich it: the work is both demanding and rewarding, complex and creative, exhausting and invigorating – the pay is sometimes low, but the intrinsic rewards can be high. This all happens in an environment where the mechanics of working in architecture are increasingly challenging: procurement processes, available fees, challenges in time and resource management, perceptions of value, and economic and political pressures can squeeze some of the joy out of practice.
Hayball Sydney Studio, encouraging staff wellbeing through a variety of multi-purpose work settings. Photo by Hayball.
/ THE STATE OF WELLBEING IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION
WORDS:
VICKI LEIBOWITZ, NAOMI STEAD AND BYRON KINNAIRD
Yet despite it all, respondents also reported that often it’s very much worthwhile: for example, that “although [architecture is] a challenging career with respect to remuneration and working hours, the work is fulfilling and at times incredibly rewarding” (2021 Practitioner Survey).
HELPING OTHERS HELPS ARCHITECTS’ WELLBEING
There are, undoubtably, enriching aspects of being an architect that keep many practitioners working in the profession. The point is however that these are inextricably entangled with the daily demands of practice – and their sometimes quite negative effects. We suspect that one factor supporting the engagement of practitioners may be the feelings of ‘efficacy’ entailed in architectural work itself. For example, architectural work is fundamentally premised on devising creative solutions to other peoples’ problems – namely, helping others. The value of this is exemplified by comments in our survey such as: “I still believe in the power of architecture and urban design to enrich lives” (2021 Practitioner Survey).
Understanding architectural work as a creative task (in part at least) which works to the benefit of the community can help architects to feel both valued and valuable. As one respondent commented, “I have been very fortunate in becoming an architect. It has been immensely rewarding to have been able to contribute to society and to have helped to create spaces that people enjoy using.” (2021 Practitioner Survey).
The personal and professional identity of architects are often tightly enmeshed. Aligning the profession of architecture with improving
the wellbeing of others, works to shift architects’ professional and creative identity into the arena of change-making. What this suggests is that despite the difficulties of working in architecture, and the daily realities that can undermine practitioner wellbeing, architects are nevertheless proud of their professional identity because they feel empowered to creatively help others.
Making significant and real changes to peoples’ lives, not just direct clients but also a wider community and the environment through architectural work, can be personally and professionally uplifting. In the words of one contributor to the 2022 Focus groups, “It’s always about making the world a better place. Everything that we do is about improving things.” If architects are able to turn the focus of their altruism and creativity back to improving their own wellbeing, we will have achieved the best of both worlds. The expression ‘healer, heal thyself’ could equally be applied to architects. ■ _____
Vicki Leibowitz is a research fellow of design and creative practice at RMIT University.
Naomi Stead is an associate professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Queensland (UQ) and deputy director of the UQ research centre Architecture, Theory, Criticism, History.
Byron Kinnaird is a researcher and educator with a deep interest in the cultures and structures of the architecture profession. Byron is a Research Fellow at Monash University under The Wellbeing of Architects project.
Note
The Wellbeing of Architects: culture, identity + practice research project was conducted with support from the Australian Research Council (LP190100926). The Linkage Project research team included Naomi Stead, Julie Wolfram Cox, Maryam Gusheh, Brian Cooper, Kirsten Orr, Byron Kinnaird, and Tracey Shea, with assistance from Vicki Leibowitz, Liz Battiston and Julia Rodwell. Industry partners were the NSW Architects Registration Board, The Australian Institute of Architects, The Association of Consulting Architects, the Association of Australasian Schools of Architecture, BVN, DesignInc, Elenberg Fraser, The Fulcrum Agency, Hassell, and SJB. The project has produced a series of Guides to Wellbeing in Architectural Practice in partnership with Parlour, and with key authors Susie Ashworth, Alison McFadyen, and Justine Clark. To access the Guides to Wellbeing see https://parlour.org.au/mental-wellbeing/ For more details on the research see: https://thewellbeingofarchitects.org.au/.
Starting well
Words: Sean Wong
The COVID-19 pandemic was a shock to the world. It left a profound impact on our lives and various industries alike. However, amid the chaos, it also catalysed the emergence of a new normal. Notably, it prompted a heightened emphasis on prioritising wellbeing1
Being an architect is undoubtedly fulfilling. Working in a field where creativity meets the opportunity to positively impact individuals and communities, is a privilege not commonly found elsewhere. Being “well”, however, is not always synonymous with our industry, especially for younger architects. We often find ourselves vulnerable to burnout, exclusion, and a lack of motivation.
PREVENTING BURNOUT
Burnout was an epidemic in our industry, even before the pandemic2. The crisis only worsened when the boundary between work and home life was blurred. This, compounded by the pervasive long-hours culture, takes a significant toll on our wellbeing3
While stress is a shared burden in the industry, younger architects are particularly more susceptible to exploitation due to our limited experience and authority. It is often expected that we should work beyond our contracted hours. This prevailing culture of being overworked needs to be reconsidered because it rewards
Emerging Architects Graduate Network social catchup, Archibubs 2023.
/ STARTING WELL
WORDS: SEAN WONG
poor time management. It celebrates inefficiency as a badge of honour, and it perpetuates a cycle that begins from the educational system.
It is important to recognise that burnout isn’t merely a personal issue; it is a consequence of systemic circumstances. While stress is inevitable, we can take steps to prevent and alleviate burnout.4 Setting boundaries that align with both our needs and our employer’s is crucial. While it may seem like we are the only one grappling with stress, chances are it is a shared concern with our employer. Therefore, fostering open communication between both parties is essential.
PURSUING GROWTH
Architecture is always evolving and offers endless opportunities for learning. For younger architects, being in an environment that encourages growth is critical.
While some practices offer mentorship, it is not always the priority for others. The lack of transparency in decision-making builds distrust and fuels stress. This opacity not only restricts our access to essential management skills but also hinders our career progression and overall growth within the architectural profession. Remote work during the pandemic exacerbated this challenge as it disconnected us from overhearing discussions about project progression and the general development of the office.
Communication is key here, as always. Waiting to be included in conversations can only get us so far. It’s essential to actively seek involvement. If it seems like information is being deliberately
withheld to hinder our progress, it’s crucial to recognise this as workplace bullying. Safe Work Australia mandates businesses to address psychosocial hazards like workplace bullying, emphasising our need to understand our rights and contractual obligations.5
SUSTAINING MOTIVATION
The recent pandemic gave us a taste of flexibility in our work routines and prompted many of us to explore new avenues. However, as life returns to normal, that flexibility diminishes, particularly for younger architects who are assumed to be less independent.
Dealing with inflexibility, alongside poor work-life balance, and lower-than-expected salaries, poses significant challenges in our profession. While the work can be fulfilling, staying motivated becomes tougher with heavy workloads and financial pressures. As a result, many have considered alternative career paths that offer more flexibility and better suit their personal needs. Recent research supports this trend as it shows a reluctance to recommend architecture due to its negative impact on our mental and physical wellbeing.
To maintain motivation and personal growth, it’s imperative to seek inspiration both within and outside the field of architecture6. We should embrace the hobbies we discovered during the pandemic and make time for them. Setting clear boundaries between work and personal life is essential for a sustainable work-life balance7 Remember, prioritising our mental and physical health not only benefits us personally but also improves our performance as an architect8
BEING WELL
If you’re struggling with your wellbeing, know that you’re not alone.
Mental health challenges are more common than you think, and it is vital to seek support. Look for peer groups where you can openly discuss issues and share resources.
The Emerging Architects and Graduates Network9 (EmAGN) is a great platform for young architects to connect, build relationships, and join educational events for personal and professional growth. Exploring activities like community sports outside of architecture can also improve physical health and expand your social circle.
The Association of Consulting Architects Australia (ACA) is spearheading the Architects Mental Wellbeing Forum10, which has adapted the Architects Mental Wellbeing Toolkit11 with local resources and practical advice for coping with the pressures of our profession. Additionally, larger practices often offer Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) for better mental health support, while Mentorloop12 offers personal guidance through a national online matching platform, connecting mentors and mentees to achieve mentoring goals.
While we may not have the authority to tackle systemic issues directly, we can take proactive steps to safeguard our wellbeing within our current environment.
Prioritising self-care, using available support resources, and fostering connections within the architectural community are essential. By doing so, we, as emerging architects, can effectively navigate the challenges of maintaining wellbeing in our demanding profession. ■
Sean Wong is a project leader at Wardle Studio and co-chair of the Emerging Architects and Graduate Network (EmAGN) of the Australian Institute of Architects.
How architecture can support the wellbeing of building users
Words: Pippa Lee
Architecture is not just about creating aesthetically pleasing buildings; it plays a crucial role in creating environments that support the health and wellbeing of those who live, work, and play in those spaces. This concept has gained recent attention, as studies highlight the impact of indoor environments on our physical and mental health and how architects are playing a leading role in an increasingly wellness-focused world.
Our modern lives are driving us indoors more than ever, and the quality of our indoor environments directly impacts our health. The visceral impacts of COVID, lockdowns, bushfires, flooding, drought, air pollution, and even housing affordability, have made this connection more noticeable than ever. As architects, it is critical to understand that we are the gatekeepers of those indoor environments. It’s up to our design decisions to ensure those spaces support occupants’ wellbeing.
Building sustainability has been a major decision-making factor for architects, influencing material selections, energy efficiency, environmental impact, and building lifecycles. Sustainability has guided architects to create buildings that minimise consumption, promote environmental stewardship, and contribute to ecological balance, but who has been paying attention to how those environments impact the health of its occupants?
Historically, the link between architecture and occupant health has been overlooked, focusing on designing aesthetically pleasing buildings at
the lowest price. Yet, as we all spend more time indoors, the market is screaming for architects to take a more holistic role focused on health and wellbeing.
Most recently, the WELL Building Standard took scientific data on the impact of the indoor environment on occupants and created a building standard that prioritises occupant health by focusing on factors like air and water quality, lighting and comfort within indoor environments.
THE IMPORTANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS ON WELLBEING
Several factors contribute to how indoor environments impact wellbeing, including site location and orientation, air and water quality, ventilation (both natural and mechanical), moisture management strategies, lighting (both natural and artificial), low-tox building materials, and furniture/finishes that don’t negatively impact indoor air quality.
ENHANCING INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ)
Poor indoor air quality is created from sources such as unvented stoves, fireplaces and heaters, off-gassing building materials containing formaldehyde or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), household products like cleaning supplies, pesticides, and personal care products, moisture and mould (which releases spores and mycotoxins into the air), tobacco smoke, and outdoor pollutants like vehicle emissions, pollen, and industrial pollutants. Combine this toxic cocktail with inadequate ventilation, and you have occupants experiencing a range of health issues.1
The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that women and children (in low and middleincome nations) mostly bear the heaviest health consequences from poor indoor air quality.2 Nearly half of all deaths from lower respiratory infections among children under five, stem from inhaling particulate matter found in household air pollution. Furthermore, there is evidence linking household air pollution to conditions like low birth weight, tuberculosis, cataracts, as well as nasopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers.
Ventilation isn’t just a luxury; it’s essential for safeguarding the health of occupants. Some of the most significant ways architects can positively impact air quality and health is by selecting low-VOC materials; installing advanced HVAC systems with true HEPA filtration, and incorporating natural ventilation.
MAXIMISING NATURAL LIGHT
Exposure to natural light is essential for regulating circadian rhythms, which affect sleep patterns, mood, and overall wellbeing.3 In a study by Cornell University, researchers found employees exposed to natural light reported an 84% decrease in headaches and eyestrain, leading to potential productivity increases of up to 40%.4
Moreover, natural light doesn’t just address physical health concerns; it also positively impacts mental health. A 2002-2023 study by the WHO found exposure to natural light led to a 50% reduction in depressive symptoms.5 Put plainly, access to natural light creates a better indoor experience.
Burnt Earth Beach House by Wardle illustrating plenty of
Photo: Trevor Mein
/ HOW ARCHITECTURE CAN SUPPORT THE WELLBEING OF BUILDING USERS
WORDS: PIPPA LEE
WATER QUALITY
Access to clean and safe drinking water is fundamental to human health.6 Architects can ensure water quality by specifying advanced water filtration systems and using plumbing materials that do not leach harmful substances. Typical tap water contains contaminants such as chlorine, fluoride, bacteria, viruses, asbestos, VOCs, copper, heavy metals such as lead, pesticides, PVC and PFAS (Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which have been found in most of the global water supplies and exceed PFAS safe drinking limits, and concerningly, in Australia, “many of our source waters are above PFAS regulatory limits”.7
THERMAL, ACOUSTIC AND OLFACTORY
COMFORT
Creating a comfortable indoor environment requires reducing the most common sources of physiological disruption, distraction, and irritation while enhancing acoustic, olfactory, and thermal comfort. By addressing these three ‘invisible’ aspects, architects can prevent stress, lower blood pressure, improve sleep, facilitate comfort, and increase productivity and overall wellbeing.
THERMAL: Effective insulation, efficient HVAC systems, and access to natural ventilation help create a thermal environment that enhances the comfort and productivity of occupants.8
ACOUSTIC: Designing spaces with effective sound insulation and minimising noise sources are crucial steps in fostering a peaceful and focused atmosphere.9
OLFACTORY: Strong odours have the potential to disrupt physical and psychological comfort, causing symptoms like eye, nose, and throat irritation, as well as nausea and headaches. Actively minimising odours by eliminating toxic materials and synthetic fragrances and implementing proper ventilation are key.
In addition to the abovementioned design techniques that protect occupants, there is an increasing role for architects to adopt holistic and biophilic design approaches that seek to have a more proactive role in enhancing health and wellbeing through increased movement, recreation, relaxation, and interaction with natural elements that have been shown to reduce stress, enhance mood, and improve cognitive function.10
Architecture holds the potential to support and enhance our interactions, health, wellbeing and relationships with the environment through the thoughtful selection and arrangement of materials, technologies, form, and lighting. By approaching the design of our indoor spaces holistically, architecture can significantly boost our wellbeing, making our lives more enjoyable and healthier. ■
Pippa Lee is a WELL AP, wellness architect and healthy home expert. She founded Haven (formally Pip+Pencil) in 2016 after researching the importance of the indoor environment on our health. She has over 15 years of experience in architecture and construction both locally and abroad (NYC). Pippa is deeply committed to creating non-toxic, healthy, and sustainable buildings through holistic design approaches with healthier indoor environments for all users.
Lee House by Candalepas Associates. Maximising natural light for better occupant health. Photo: Rory Gardiner
2024 NSW ARCHITECTURE AWARDS
NSW ARCHITECTURE MEDALLION
NORTH HEAD VIEWING PLATFORMS BY CHROFI AND BANGAWARRA WITH NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: THE GAI-MARIAGAL PEOPLE
BUILDER: GLASCOTT LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL
PHOTO: CLINTON WEAVER
COLORBOND® AWARD FOR STEEL ARCHITECTURE
ROSEDALE HOUSE BY SCALE ARCHITECTURE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: YUIN COUNTRY
BUILDER: OWNER BUILDER – TOM ZUBRYCKI
PHOTO: TIM CLARK
COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURE
THE SIR ARTHUR G STEPHENSON AWARD
CAMPBELL HOUSE PRIVATE OFFICE BY TONKIN ZULAIKHA GREER
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: GADIGAL AND BIRRABIRRAGAL COUNTRY
OF THE EORA NATION
BUILDER: BUILDCORP
PHOTO: CIERAN MURPHY
AWARD
THE PORTER HOUSE HOTEL | CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES | THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: HUTCHINSON BUILDERS
THE SYDNEY SWANS HQ AT THE ROYAL HALL OF INDUSTRIES |
POPULOUS | THE GADIGAL AND BIDJIGAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: FDC CONSTRUCTION & FITOUT
COMMENDATION
GOODHOPE | THOSE ARCHITECTS | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: REIMER DEVELOPMENTS
BLUE & WILLIAM | WOODS BAGOT | CAMMERAYGAL COUNTRY
BUILDER: FDC CONSTRUCTION
EDUCATIONAL ARCHITECTURE
THE WILLIAM E KEMP AWARD
ST. PATRICK’S COLLEGE: SCIENTIA BUILDING BY BVN
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: THE WANGAL CLAN OF THE DARUG PEOPLE
BUILDER: HANSEN YUNCKEN PTY LTD
PHOTO: TOM ROE
AWARD
DARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL | FJCSTUDIO | THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: AW EDWARDS
COMMENDATION
BARKER COLLEGE MATHS AND STUDENT HUB | ARCHITECTUS | DHARUG COUNTRY | BUILDER: BUILDCORP
BLACKTOWN EXERCISE AND SPORTS TECHNOLOGY HUB (BEST) | ARM ARCHITECTURE WITH ARCHITECTUS AND CO.OP STUDIO | DARUG | BUILDER: BUILDCORP
HILLTOPS YOUNG HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY | HAYBALL | BURROWMUNDITORY CLAN OF WIRADJURI NATION |
BUILDER: JOSS CONSTRUCTION
ST PATRICK’S PRIMARY SCHOOL LOCHINVAR | SHAC | THE WONNARUA PEOPLE | BUILDER: RICHARD CROOKES CONSTRUCTIONS
HERITAGE
THE GREENWAY AWARD
THE PORTER HOUSE HOTEL BY CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
BUILDER: HUTCHINSON BUILDERS
PHOTO: RORY GARDINER
AWARD – CONSERVATION
THE GLASS HOUSE | CRACKNELL & LONERGAN ARCHITECTS | CAMMERAYGAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: PETER LUCAS
AWARD – CREATIVE ADAPTATION
REDFERN STATION | DESIGNINC | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: NOVO RAIL ALLIANCE
COMMENDATION – CONSERVATION
PARRAMATTA TOWN HALL | DESIGNINC SYDNEY, LACOSTE+STEVENSON, MANUELLE GAUTRAND ARCHITECTURE AND TKD ARCHITECTS | DHARUG PEOPLE OF THE DHARUG NATION | BUILDER: BUILT
COMMENDATION – CREATIVE ADAPTATION
119 REDFERN ST | AILEEN SAGE, DJINJAMA, JEAN RICE, DR NONI BOYD AND THE CITY OF SYDNEY | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: ROGERS CONSTRUCTION GROUP
PARRAMATTA NORTH, WESTERN SYDNEY STARTUP HUB | TKD ARCHITECTS | BURRAMATTAGAL PEOPLE, A CLAN OF THE DHARUG | BUILDER: FDC CONSTRUCTION & FITOUT PTY LTD + BEACH CONSTRUCTIONS
THE SYDNEY SWANS HQ AT THE ROYAL HALL OF INDUSTRIES | POPULOUS | THE GADIGAL AND BIDJIGAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: FDC CONSTRUCTION & FITOUT PTY LTD
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
THE JOHN VERGE AWARD
477 PITT ST BY WARDLE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
BUILDER: BUILDCORP
PHOTO: PETER MARKO
AWARD
BLACKTOWN EXERCISE AND SPORTS TECHNOLOGY HUB (BEST) | ARM ARCHITECTURE WITH CO.OP STUDIO | DARUG | BUILDER: BUILDCORP
LEE HOUSE | CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES | THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: JASON BOYLE CONSTRUCTIONS – JBC CONSTRUCTIONS
COMMENDATION
CAMPBELL HOUSE PRIVATE OFFICE | TONKIN ZULAIKHA GREER | GADIGAL AND BIRRABIRRAGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: BUILDCORP
MICHAEL KIRBY BUILDING | HASSELL | WALLUMATTAGAL CLAN OF THE DHARUG NATION | BUILDER: FDC CONSTRUCTION (NSW) PTY LTD
TRANSURBAN | BATES SMART | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF EORA NATION | BUILDER: MPA CONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE
THE SULMAN MEDAL
PARRAMATTA AQUATIC CENTRE BY GRIMSHAW AND ANDREW BURGES ARCHITECTS WITH MCGREGOR COXALL
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: DHARUG PEOPLE
BUILDER: LIPMAN
PHOTO: PETER BENNETTS
AWARD
119 REDFERN STREET | AILEEN SAGE, DJINJAMA, JEAN RICE, DR NONI BOYD AND THE CITY OF SYDNEY | THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: ROGERS CONSTRUCTION GROUP
LONG REEF SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB | ADRIANO PUPILLI ARCHITECTS | GAYAMAYGAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: GRINDLEY INTERIORS
POWERHOUSE CASTLE HILL | LAHZNIMMO ARCHITECTS | BIDJIGAL PEOPLE OF DARUG NATION | BUILDER: TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH EAST CENTRE FOR CONTEMPORARY ART (SECCA) | SIBLING ARCHITECTURE | YUIN-MONARO NATIONS | BUILDER: LLOYD GROUP AND BEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCIL
COMMENDATION
THE PAVILION PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE SUTHERLAND | CHROFI AND NBRS | GWEAGAL CLAN OF THE DHARAWAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: ADCO CONSTRUCTIONS
REDFERN STATION | DESIGNINC | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: NOVO RAIL ALLIANCE SYDNEY FOOTBALL STADIUM (ALLIANZ STADIUM) | COX ARCHITECTURE | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: JOHN HOLLAND GROUP
RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE –HOUSES (ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS)
THE HUGH AND EVA BUHRICH AWARD
ARU HOUSE BY CURIOUS PRACTICE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: PAMBALONG CLAN OF THE AWABAKAL PEOPLE
BUILDER: BUILT BY ELI
PHOTO: CLINTON WEAVER
AWARD
ARCADIA | PLUS MINUS DESIGN | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: BRIGHT BUILD CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
BAYVIEW TREE HOUSE | WOODWARD ARCHITECTS | THE GARIGAL AND CAREGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: PCM PROJECTS
BLUE MOUNTAINS HOUSE | ANTHONY GILL ARCHITECTS | GUNDUNGARRA AND DHARUG PEOPLE | BUILDER: ROBERT PLUMB BUILD
LEE HOUSE BY CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: JASON BOYLE CONSTRUCTIONS
TERRACE HOUSE MIRAGE BY ALCAMI ARCHITECTURE | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
COMMENDATION
BELLEVUE HILL HOUSE | TRIBE STUDIO ARCHITECTS | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: LAYCOCK
HOUSE IN LILYFIELD | CHARMAINE PANG ARCHITECT | WANGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: BCM AUST
HOUSE IN SURRY HILLS | ARCHITECT GEORGE | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: MARSH TO MANSION
VESSEL | MADELEINE BLANCHFIELD ARCHITECTS | CADIGAL PEOPLE (AREA KNOWN AS CARRAGEEN OR KURRAGHEEN) | BUILDER: IVISON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE –MULTIPLE HOUSING
THE AARON BOLOT AWARD
IGLU MASCOT BY BATES SMART
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
BUILDER: ICON CONSTRUCTION
PHOTO: FELIX MOONEERAM
AWARD
HORIZON APARTMENTS | CKDS ARCHITECTURE, HILL THALIS
ARCHITECTURE + URBAN PROJECTS | AWABAKAL AND WORIMI PEOPLE | BUILDER: BLOC CONSTRUCTIONS
HUNTINGTON | SJB | AWABAKAL AND WORIMI | BUILDER: BLOC
MAGGIE STREET BY CURIOUS PRACTICE | PAMBALONG CLAN OF THE AWABAKAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: BUILT BY ELI
COMMENDATION
BOTANY ROAD | CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: WATERSIDE CONSTRUCTIONS
NIGHTINGALE MARRICKVILLE | SJB | CADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: CD CONSTRUCTION GROUP
THE SURRY | CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: GROWTHBUILT
ZIGGY’S VILLAS | HARLEY GRAHAM ARCHITECTS | BUNDJALUNG COUNTRY | BUILDER: STEHN BUILD
RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE –HOUSES (NEW)
THE WILKINSON AWARD
MAITLAND BAY HOUSE BY STUDIO BRIGHT
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: KURINGGAI/DARKINJUNG COUNTRY
BUILDER: COCHRAN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
PHOTO: RORY GARDINER
AWARD
BLOK BELONGIL | BLOK MODULAR WITH VOKES AND PETERS | ARAKWAL PEOPLE OF THE BUNJALUNG NATION | TODD KNAUS
CONSTRUCTION AND CONNOLLY LAND HOLDINGS
CLIFTON HOUSE | ANTHONY GILL ARCHITECTS | GADIGAL, BIDIAGAL AND BIRRABIRRAGAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: ROBERT PLUMB BUILD
KIDMAN LANE | PLUS MINUS DESIGN | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
SHED HOUSE BY BREAKSPEAR ARCHITECTS | WANGAL, BEDIGAL AND KAMEYGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: A.M. CUSTOM BUILDERS
COMMENDATION
FISH RIVER HOUSE | INCIDENTAL ARCHITECTURE | GUNDUNGURRA PEOPLE OF THE WIRADJURI NATION | BUILDER: BAILEY HOMES AND CONSTRUCTIONS
LITTLE YOUNG STREET 4A & 4B | DAVID LANGSTON-JONES | THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: TOKI CONSTRUCTION
SHIPLAP HOUSE | CHENCHOW LITTLE | GADIGAL AND BIRRABIRRAGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: BUILDING WITH OPTIONS
SMALL PROJECT ARCHITECTURE
THE ROBERT WOODWARD AWARD
NORTH HEAD VIEWING PLATFORMS BY CHROFI AND BANGAWARRA WITH NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: THE GAI-MARIAGAL PEOPLE
BUILDER: GLASCOTT LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL
PHOTO: CLINTON WEAVER
AWARD
HURLSTONE MEMORIAL RESERVE COMMUNITY CENTRE | SAM CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS | WAN | BUILDER: 2020 PROJECTS
COMMENDATION
BOBBIN HEAD AMENITIES | AILEEN SAGE | GARIGAL COUNTRY | BUILDER: WESTBURY CONSTRUCTIONS
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE
THE MILO DUNPHY AWARD
BARKER COLLEGE MATHS AND STUDENT HUB BY ARCHITECTUS
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: DHARUG COUNTRY
BUILDER: BUILDCORP
PHOTO: BRETT BOARDMAN
AWARD
CAMPBELL HOUSE PRIVATE OFFICE | TONKIN ZULAIKHA GREER |
GADIGAL AND BIRRABIRRAGAL COUNTRY OF THE EORA NATION |
BUILDER: BUILDCORP
OLIVE TREE HOUSE | BASTIAN ARCHITECTURE | WORIMI COUNTRY | BUILDER: SMART ADDITIONS
POCKET PASSIV | ANDERSON ARCHITECTURE | GADIGAL COUNTRY | BUILDER: MINDFUL BUILDING
COMMENDATION
FUN HOUSE | ASA | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: SOUTER BUILT PTY LTD
LONG REEF SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB | ADRIANO PUPILLI ARCHITECTS | GAYAMAYGAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: GRINDLEY INTERIORS
THE PAVILION PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE SUTHERLAND | CHROFI AND NBRS | GWEAGAL CLAN OF THE DHARAWAL PEOPLE | BUILDER: ADCO CONSTRUCTIONS
URBAN DESIGN
THE LLOYD REES AWARD
SYDNEY FOOTBALL STADIUM (ALLIANZ STADIUM) BY COX
ARCHITECTURE WITH ASPECT STUDIOS
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: THE GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
BUILDER: JOHN HOLLAND GROUP
PHOTO: COURTESY OF VENUES NSW
AWARD
CHARLES STREET SQUARE | LAHZNIMMO ARCHITECTS WITH SMM |
BURRAMATAGAL PEOPLE OF THE DARUG NATION | BUILDER: REGAL INNOVATIONS
PARRAMATTA AQUATIC CENTRE | GRIMSHAW AND ANDREW BURGES ARCHITECTS WITH MCGREGOR COXALL | DHARUG PEOPLE | BUILDER: LIPMAN
COMMENDATION
REDFERN STATION | DESIGNINC | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: NOVO RAIL ALLIANCE
TRANSPORT ACCESS PROGRAM – TRANCHE 3 BY TRANSPORT FOR NSW URBAN DESIGN (PUBLIC TRANSPORT & PRECINCTS) | GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION | BUILDER: ABI CIVIL CONTRACTING, ARENCO, DOWNER GROUP, HASLIN CONSTRUCTIONS, GARTNER ROSE, VAN MEL GROUP CONSTRUCTION, DEGNAN, LAING O’ROURKE, NORTH CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING
ENDURING ARCHITECTURE AWARD
GLASS HOUSE BY RUTH AND BILL LUCAS
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: CAMMERAYGAL PEOPLE
BUILDER: PETER LUCAS
PHOTO: UNKNOWN
EmAGN PROJECT AWARD
AWARD
TOP – MAVIS TERRACE BY PASQUAL ARCHITECTS
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: WANGAL COUNTRY
BUILDER: ALPINE DESIGNER HOMES
PHOTO: JASON PASQUAL
ABOVE – TERRACE HOUSE MIRAGE BY ALCAMI ARCHITECTURE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
PHOTO: DAVID WHEELER
LORD MAYOR’S PRIZE
REDFERN STATION BY DESIGNINC
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: GADIGAL PEOPLE OF THE EORA NATION
BUILDER: NOVO RAIL ALLIANCE
PHOTO: BRETT BOARDMAN
PREMIER’S PRIZE
NIGHTINGALE MARRICKVILLE BY SJB
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: GADIGAL PEOPLE
BUILDER: CD CONSTRUCTION GROUP
PHOTO: TOM ROE
BLACKET PRIZE
SOUTH EAST CENTRE FOR CONTEMPORARY ART (SECCA) BY SIBLING ARCHITECTURE
TRADITIONAL OWNERS: YUIN-MONARO NATIONS
BUILDER: LLOYD GROUP AND BEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCIL
PHOTO: KATHERINE LU
EMERGING ARCHITECT PRIZE
JENNIFER MCMASTER | TRIAS
Jennifer McMaster has been awarded the 2024 Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter Emerging Architect Prize.
As a founding director of TRIAS, Jennifer’s contribution to architecture is multi-layered: design excellence in practice, a fascination with research and innovation, and a deep commitment to the profession and society more broadly. Her work is driven by a profound dedication to addressing two of the most critical challenges of our time: housing and sustainability.
In practice, Jennifer has co-led many award-winning projects at TRIAS, showcasing a clear commitment to creating buildings that are solid, simple, and beautiful. Her leadership in these projects reflects a consistent pursuit of design excellence and sustainability.
Recently appointed as a Professor of practice at the University of Sydney, Jennifer is leading students to critically consider embodied carbon, regenerative materials, and the contemporary material economy. Research intended to be shared with the profession at large.
MAKE A BETTER WORLD THROUGH ARCHITECTURE
MAKE A BETTER WORLD THROUGH ARCHITECTURE
MAKE A BETTER WORLD THROUGH ARCHITECTURE
The Institute has launched an Embodied Carbon Curriculum endorsed by the Government and Green Building Council of Australia to tackle the complex challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings.
The Institute has launched an Embodied Carbon Curriculum endorsed by the Government and Green Building Council of Australia to tackle the complex challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings.
The Institute has launched an Embodied Carbon Curriculum endorsed by the Australian Federal Government and Green Building Council of Australia to tackle the complex challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings.
Gain 5 CPD points and lead our profession on regenerative design.
Gain 5 CPD points and lead our profession on regenerative design.
Gain 5 CPD points and lead our profession on regenerative design.
architecture.com.au/embodied-carbon-curriculum
architecture.com.au/embodied-carbon-curriculum
architecture.com.au/embodied-carbon-curriculum
Image: Nightingale Village | Hayball and Breathe and Architecture architecture and Austin Maynard Architects and Clare Cousins Architects and Kennedy Nolan | Photographer: Tom Ross
Image: Nightingale Village | Hayball and Breathe and Architecture architecture and Austin Maynard Architects and Clare Cousins Architects and Kennedy Nolan | Photographer: Tom Ross
Image: Nightingale Village | Hayball and Breathe and Architecture architecture and Austin Maynard Architects and Clare Cousins Architects and Kennedy Nolan | Photographer: Tom Ross
