CONNECTEDNESS AND
SUSTAINABILITY:
AN
EXPLORATION OF THE BENEFITS OF CONNECTING PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES,
BUILDINGS & NATURE
ABSTRACT
Buildings can have a significant impact on
communities, human health, well-being and work performance. Sustainably designed buildings bring a
healthier and safer approach to design.
Yet, at a time of climate changes, rapid resource depletion and world
population exponential growth, the current sustainability practices have
focused more on policies, accreditation and the spurring technological
innovations than on the social aspect of building “green”. As a result we have not made enough
progress with designing sustainably.
While our ecological footprint is getting bigger with time and our
planet is soon to be on “life support”, the public seems to feel less
involved in making changes to build a better future for our living planet.
The bigger the flags, the more helpless we feel. Which begs the question whether architects
and environment behavior researchers can work together to create a change in
the mindsets of people and communities towards the built environment and
anthropogenic issues. Collaboration
amongst architects and environmental psychologists could “seam” the two
fields and figure out the “missing link” between the built environment,
communities, people and nature and get the movement going. And hopefully
reverse the time and undo what went wrong.
|
Today,
we have created a world where the senses are no longer stimulated as we become
more estranged from the natural world. W.H. Whyte suggests that streets are a
place to connect people... a glue of social life. “The street is the river of
life of the city, the place where we come together, the pathway to the center.”
However our social life seems to be suffering. We have been developing suburbs
with no hub, streets with no connection between people, where the use of car
remains the primary activity when stepping outside of our house. We have been
working in windowless offices, in cubicles with minimum stimulation, no color,
no variability, basically no organic quality; In places that are mechanical to
the point that they’re weakening us. As
a result we have forgotten what it’s like to be connected to our environment,
our people and what the natural environment has to offer. So how do we make people take the leap from
changing a light bulb at home to take action within the community and create a better place to live and work?
This
study is an exploration of the benefits of connecting through our senses to
communities, the built environment and nature.
Community: getting people together to play a role in
sustainability
In
the 60’s, people moved out of urban places to the spurring suburbia which was
designed to accommodate the American dream “of the Jones”: an over-sized house,
two cars and garages and a greener lawn. What it did not foresee is the
decline of the sense of belonging to a place. Since the beginning of time
people have naturally gathered together. Centuries ago, at night the villages
placed great value on community rituals. American Indian communities
offer a familiar illustration of this ritual: gatherings around the bond fire
where storytelling takes place. “We believe it may be a vital social
function, which plays a role as fundamental and as necessary to people as
communal eating (…) the experience of the campfire is the closest western
equivalent: people’s love of camping suggests that the urge is still a common
one”[2].
Yet the sense of community has evolved with time and the advancement of technologies. First the hearth replaced the campfire, and then the television replaced the hearth. Although watching the television is a rather disengaging activity, it can be a communal activity. Now the especially singular activity of interacting with the Internet has replaced the television. If we consider this traditional understanding of communal activity, the Internet till now remains a very non-communal activity. The disappearance of the hearth and appearance of the TV set is a milestone in the changes of people’s social life within the household. Unfortunately this sense of belonging has disappeared with the loss of these communal activities.
Outside the home, a sense of belonging in the public space has been eroding as well. How public space shapes social life has been the main subject of observation by urban designers, architects, sociologist, geographers etc. Whyte advocated that “the social life in public spaces contributes fundamentally to the quality of life of individuals and society. (…) we have a moral responsibility to create physical places that facilitate civic engagement and community interaction.”[3] His studies raise the questions: how do we build communities? How do we bring people with shared concerned? How do we bring everybody in the process?
Schneekloth describes the public space as “the space left over from the private articulation” and our private spaces as what we consider “our region of concerns” and therefore our apathy towards the public realm falls outside of our “region of concerns”. She examines a neighborhood organization located in Buffalo, NY called Community Action Information Center. This organization, with the help of a leader activist, manages to come together to take action and move the hazardous trash from the “private” backyards into public spaces. This coalition turns a private problem into a “public” issue and the city is challenged to step up. “The community decided it was time to engage in an act of civil disobedience to draw attention to their problem. If the city would not pick up trash on private property, the only avenue left was to move it onto public lands-sidewalks and street.”[4] This show of community affirmation and connectedness not only strengthens communities but shows how public space should be within “our region of concerns.” The role of communities in sustainable design is paramount. If there’s a sense of community, people will feel accountable for one another again and will take action towards building a healthier place to live.
Yet the sense of community has evolved with time and the advancement of technologies. First the hearth replaced the campfire, and then the television replaced the hearth. Although watching the television is a rather disengaging activity, it can be a communal activity. Now the especially singular activity of interacting with the Internet has replaced the television. If we consider this traditional understanding of communal activity, the Internet till now remains a very non-communal activity. The disappearance of the hearth and appearance of the TV set is a milestone in the changes of people’s social life within the household. Unfortunately this sense of belonging has disappeared with the loss of these communal activities.
Outside the home, a sense of belonging in the public space has been eroding as well. How public space shapes social life has been the main subject of observation by urban designers, architects, sociologist, geographers etc. Whyte advocated that “the social life in public spaces contributes fundamentally to the quality of life of individuals and society. (…) we have a moral responsibility to create physical places that facilitate civic engagement and community interaction.”[3] His studies raise the questions: how do we build communities? How do we bring people with shared concerned? How do we bring everybody in the process?
Schneekloth describes the public space as “the space left over from the private articulation” and our private spaces as what we consider “our region of concerns” and therefore our apathy towards the public realm falls outside of our “region of concerns”. She examines a neighborhood organization located in Buffalo, NY called Community Action Information Center. This organization, with the help of a leader activist, manages to come together to take action and move the hazardous trash from the “private” backyards into public spaces. This coalition turns a private problem into a “public” issue and the city is challenged to step up. “The community decided it was time to engage in an act of civil disobedience to draw attention to their problem. If the city would not pick up trash on private property, the only avenue left was to move it onto public lands-sidewalks and street.”[4] This show of community affirmation and connectedness not only strengthens communities but shows how public space should be within “our region of concerns.” The role of communities in sustainable design is paramount. If there’s a sense of community, people will feel accountable for one another again and will take action towards building a healthier place to live.
Sense of belonging in
the built environment: democracy of the senses
While
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is certainly a positive
push for sustainability and green design, it is not enough. It may be great for
marketability but the USGBC accreditation still has a long way to go to
encompass all necessary steps to make the built environment truly sustainable
and desirable by its users. LEED is often seen as “broken” by architects and
developers who often face the complexity of “getting points” “LEED awards one
point for providing employees in non-perimeter areas the ability to control
temperature, air flow, and lighting. We did one better (…), designing it so
that there were no non-perimeter workspaces, thus providing every employee with
access to views, daylight, and fresh air. But by eliminating non-perimeter
workspaces, we didn't get extra credit; we lost our shot at the credit
entirely.”#[5] The confusing standards may be misleading us
to a maze of point system when really sustainability should primarily take into
account the societal quality of a space.
Basically people must like a building to make it truly successful and
sustainable. While it is convenient to assume that occupants of LEED rated
buildings respond positively to their environment, studies have showed
otherwise: Based on surveys directed by
the University of California, Berkeley, “Center for the Built Environment”,
responses of the occupants of LEED rated buildings show inconsistent
results. The satisfaction with the
interior quality is actually not much different that the non LEED accredited
buildings. In fact, many LEED buildings score worse than non-LEED buildings on
the sensory satisfaction basis. “The
average satisfaction scores in green buildings for lighting and acoustic
quality were comparable to the non-green average. Comparing complaint profiles
of those dissatisfied with lighting and acoustic quality, a higher percentage
of occupants were dissatisfied with light levels and sound privacy in green
buildings.” [6]
Architects must focus on creating tools that will induce a sense of safety and
belonging when navigating through a building.
Perception
and cognition of a public space is an important design step an interior
architect must take into consideration when designing a building. Designers can
improve people’s sense of belonging or not depending on the clarity of the
sense of direction of a space. According
to Lang “the ability to orient oneself, both socially and physically, is a
major contributor to an individual’s feeling of security”[7] Yet Individuals’ feeling of security in the
built environment depends on how easily they can orient themselves and create a
cognitive mapping of the place. Cognitive maps are personal mental graphic
representations of a place and can be partial, schematized or distorted; they
differ from one individual to another.
Therefore, way-finding is important but it is not enough. Other
components come into play to understand how to make people feel welcome and
belong to a space. For this, Post
Occupancy Evaluations have been used to evaluate the degree to which buildings
enable users to feel within a space.
Studies focus on how they take control over the built space. For
example, how do they adjust the lighting and temperature so they feel
comfortable in a given space? The evaluations show that controllability of
lighting and thermal comfort is a key component in the well-being of people in
the built environment: the operability of windows, the controllability of the
HVAC system and light plays a crucial role in people adaptation and perception
of comfort. Meaningful sensory
variability of colors, shapes, smell, sound, tactile qualities and vista are
also key components to experience the built environment. When interior designers specify materials
selected with sensory experience in mind, they create an experiential
engagement for the end user. Unfortunately, today’s architecture have been
converging on serving the visual realm. Luckily, phenomenologist architects
such as Steven Holl, who designs based on how people experience building
materials and their sensory properties. He denounces the lack of sensory
quality in the mainstream architecture: “The architecture of our time is
turning into the retinal art of the eye” [8].
Likewise Alvar Alto, believes it is essential that architecture “(…) addresses
our sense of movement and touch as much as the eye, and creates an ambiance of
domesticity and welcome.”
A
relevant sensorial approach to connectivity between buildings and spaces are
their smell. David Owen, describes his
experience of how he engages with places and specifically their smell. In his
ingenious article The Dime Store Floor the author tells us the entertaining
story of his quest of odors and his recollection of olfactive “childhood”
memories. He illustrates his thesis with examples of what his childhood smelled
like: powerful scents of pines and rooms
which bring back instantly memories of younger years spent in summer camps, at
the dentist’s office, smoky rooms or with family members. “I experienced a form
of time travel: the trees smelled exactly like the summer camp I attended when
I was thirteen and for a moment I was transported to (…) the tent I shared for
six weeks with four other boys”[9]
Our
thermal comfort within a building highlights our sense of connectedness to the
built environment. Heschong in her chapter “Affection”[10]
describes man’s relationship with the seasons and climate and specifically the
thermal qualities of a place or space.
She studies the rituals and festivals of cultures that place great value
not only to the changes of seasons and the thermal conditions but also towards
objects and places that have a certain thermal association.
Lastly,
comfort comes with familiarity: people like buildings that have characteristics
from the past. Historic preservation and the retrofitting of long-standing
buildings is an evident way to complement sustainable design. But what's more is that the remembering of
old places like the dime store Owen
takes us to, confirms that people like the character of a building
because they look or smell familiar confirms their connection and engagement
with the built environment.
Connecting indoor
spaces to nature: Biophilia and Topophilia
People’s desire to seek out the
natural qualities of the environment exists because it offers a sense of refuge
from the everyday world. “The realm of nature, in other words, affords a change
of pace from the high intensity levels, the tensions, and the fast paced
character of the (…) urban society.[11] Think about walking into a forest or the
Grand Prairie. This natural environment is full of stimuli such as the smell of
clean fresh air, outdoor odors, visual changes, color, spatial variability and
change in lighting levels. Yet when entering a building how can we still feel
connected to the natural world? How do
our senses react to the indoor environmental conditions? When connecting our
senses to nature within an interior space, our sense of belonging, morale and
wellbeing improves. Kellert states that
“humans evolved in a “biological – not artificial or manufactured – environment
and continue to depend on ongoing contact with nature for their physical and
mental well-being.”[12]
He suggests that the indoor environment must offer similar qualities for the
users. Biophilia refers to the deep bond between humans and the natural
world. In interior design, biophilia,
or what Herman Miller calls Phylogenetic Design "can refer to increasing
sunlight, plants, high ceilings, places of refuge, etc. to bring qualities of
nature into a space. Studies have shown this increase in exposure to nature can
cause increased wellness and cognitive functioning in the inhabitants of the
space.
Biophilia suggests that there is an
instinctive bond between human beings and other living systems and it can be a
very powerful tool to engage people within the built environment. Biophilic
features and their benefits have been studied extensively already in the
health-care and the work environment.
Benefits include improved health, well-being, cognitive performance but
also reduction of stress, resulting in
enhanced life and work satisfaction.
There is increasing indication that the design features that are
responsible for these benefits are connected to nature. In the case of the
office space, there are some practical ways, aside from adding more plants, to
arouse this phenomenon: daylight and
sunlight, vista to the outdoor, visual changes and last of all atmospheric
conditions such as light, temperature, ventilation and noise. In a Science magazine article, “View through
a window may Influence recovery from surgery”[13] Ulrich examines how visual stimulation
fosters more rapid recovery for the patients with brain impairment and studies
how the restorative influences of nature scenes reduce worrisome thoughts. More precisely trees, plants, water are all
positive distractions that induce positive feelings. Therefore windows offering
a vista on natural elements as well as house plants and pets are key elements
for people’s well-being.
The dialogue between inside and
outside is stimulating. Window views to the outdoors are paramount to keep the
connectivity between the interior environment and the natural world.
Topophilia, a term coined by geographer Yi-Fu Tuan in his book “Topophilia: a
study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values” defines all emotional
connections between physical environment and human beings. As architect Maya line describes her approach
to design “I do not want to see architecture as a dividing line between inside
and outside. Instead I would like to
create a fluid transition between building and its site, so that you will
always feel connected to the land.”[14]
There is a strong correlation of our affection towards anything that connects
us to the outside landscape of a place as well as the natural cycles whether it
is the cycle of days and night or cycle of plants and animal growth. By designing buildings that connect to the
topography of our surroundings, we are more likely to benefit from that natural
landscape.
What is the study
about? Why is this important?
When
quantifying the benefits of connectedness, four values come into play:
economics, physical health, mental health and ecological values. Sustainable
design is not just for social and health benefits; there is a real economic
value to sustainable design. Investing
in sustainable buildings is investing in people and communities which
invariably mean consumers. National and
international accreditations such as LEED do increase awareness but may only
add a perceived value. Unfortunately much of the green design currently
requires high technology and unaffordable products thus hindering architects
and developers ability to sell sustainable solutions for built
environments. But this is not simply a
economic consideration. Although there is great value to finding ways to making
sustainable design economically viable, fixing the public’s eroding sense of
community and our disconnect with nature is the real challenge when we are
educating the public about the benefits of these efforts. Promoting connectivity between people and
their communities, buildings and natural environment is paramount to the
success of the sustainable built environment.
Built environments can build communities and can connect us to nature.
The
thesis research will investigate how a sense of connectedness among us and
among nature may be the “missing link” to sustainable design practices. How can
buildings connect people? How can we create connectivity with interior
architecture? How can we be connected to nature in an interior
environment? The thesis will be a study
of how sustainable interior environments must consider the communities sense of
belonging and their connection to both interior and natural backgrounds. We connect to nature through our senses. The
same occurs with buildings. If we allow our senses to guide us, we can build
successful sustainable built environments.
Additional References:
·
Bachelard G. (1958) The Poetics of Space: The classic look at how we experience the
intimate places, Beacon Press, Boston
·
Conniff R., Reconnecting with Nature Through Green Architecture, http://e360.yale.edu/content/print.msp?id=2164
·
Jacobs J. (1993), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Modern Library Edition
·
Kellert S.R., Building for Life:
Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection, 1st ed. (Island
Press, 2005)
[1] Gertner, J. (2009, 19 April). Why isn’t the brain green? The
New York Times
[2]
Christopher Alexander (1977), A pattern
Language: towns, buildings, construction, 186 Communal sleeping, (p 861)
Oxoford Univeristy Press
[3] http://www.pps.org/articles/wwhyte/
[4] Schneekloth,
L.H. (1996). Confounding the Public and
the Private, Public/Private Issues
[5]
Schendler A. (2005) "LEED Is Broken; Let's Fix It, http://www.grist.org/article/leed
[6] Abbaszadeh
s. (2003) Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in Green
Buildings
[7] Lang, J.
T. (1987), Cognitive maps and spatial
behavior. In Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences
in Environmental Design (pp. 135-144). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
[8] Steven
Holl, Juhani Pallasmaa, and Alberto Perez-Gomez, Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture, 2nd ed.
(William K Stout Pub, 2007)
[9] Owen, D.
(2010, 25 January). The Dime store floor,
the New Yorker, pp. 33-37.
[10] Heschong,
L. (1979), Thermal Delight in
Architecture, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[11] Irwin
Altman and Joachim F. Wohlwill, (1983) Behavior and the Natural Environment,
Plenum Press New York
[12] S.R.
Kellert, Building for Life: Designing and
understanding the human-Nature connection
[13] Rs
Ulrich, (April 27, 1984) “View through a window may influence recovery from
surgery,” Science 224, no. 4647: 420 -421.
[14] Maya
Lin (2006) Boundaries, Simon &
Schuster
No comments:
Post a Comment