Environmental Building News has an article up on integrating biophilia into green building practices.
Biophilia is a notion popularized by biologist E. O. Wilson. It describes humans' innate affiliation for the natural world. Biophilia attempts to define "the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life."
The thrust of the article is that biophilia is an underdeveloped element of green building practices, but one that has significant potential benefits.
... it is becoming increasingly well demonstrated that biophilic elements have real, measurable benefits relative to such human performance metrics as productivity, emotional well-being, stress reduction, learning, and healing. And second, from an environmental standpoint, biophilic features foster an appreciation of nature, which, in turn, should lead to greater protection of natural areas, eliminate pollution, and maintain a clean environment.
It's great to see a well-known green building publication drawing attention to these issues. EBN describes the major threads of this work and provide a good cross section of examples of research that's been done on nature's impact on human well-being, from increased patient recovery to reduced ADHD symptoms to increased school performance. Something to keep in mind: not all research on nature contact subscribes to the biophilia hypothesis. While the article cites Ulrich's work on stress and others' work on attention, some of those researchers argue for mechanisms other than biophilia behind their discoveries (disclaimer -- some of those researchers are my advisors).
Another important issue the article raises is that much of this research has been pretty small scale so far.
The evidence collected to date is compelling, though integrating biophilic design strategies into buildings on a more widespread basis will require significantly more scientific data showing tangible benefits of these features. Federal and state agencies should take the lead in funding this research, but health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and insurance companies should get involved as well.
What's needed before we plunge forward giving out LEED credits for potted plants in buildings is more comprehensive research. It would be easy to take some of these ideas and run with them, but more research and careful application are needed; otherwise, we might see some pretty silly applications that don't yield the benefits we're looking for.
The authors also address a concern I have with biophilia in green building, something I raised earlier -- balancing biophilia with other green design priorities.
The SkyCeiling system described in the sidebar above is a popular strategy for easing stress, particularly in healthcare facilities--but it comes with a penalty of increased energy consumption. Incorporating this biophilic feature may make it more difficult to achieve energy conservation goals. Other strategies, such as large glazing areas of high-visible-transmittance glass, operable windows, and indoor-outdoor spaces that connect people with nature, may carry even more significant energy penalties.
On a different level, providing large open areas around buildings--to serve the evolutionarily based desire to look out on savannah-like vistas that many biophilia proponents suggest we have--may conflict with the strategy of high-density development, or may encourage sprawl and development of the most beautiful greenfield sites.
These conflicts are real, but they are surmountable. By understanding these potential conflicts and working with integrated design teams to address them, all of these goals can be achieved.
It's critical to keep this in mind as our palette of green building options grows. Obviously it's a tradeoff any time you're considering options with a green building, and many biophilia concepts could be valuable. But with biophilia as a green design principle the emphasis does shift somewhat from the environment at large to the occupants within. That's not what green builders want, what E.O. Wilson is after, or what producers of skyceilings have in mind, but in this capitalist society, with the "client" driving the selection of options, it could be tempting to focus on personal environmental benefits at the cost of the larger environmental benefits.
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 10:53 am
06 Jul 2006
Kif, this is an interesting post, you raise some good points about "personal environmental benefits" versus "larger environmental benefits".
In Vancouver, near downtown, they have built needle scrapers, very tall thin buildings, each with space around it. Thus they achieve density, while at the same time providing a strong sense of open space, and views (grin).
In Beijing, the density is a bit higher, but buildings are set back quite a ways from the street, and they are built in groups that don't touch (ie, there is open space between each building) and there are parks and green areas at the ground level. A different approach, but again, density without the feeling of density (or not so much).
The old American and European model of building right to the edge of a lot is not (in my opinion) the best model.
Tall buildings with space around them, well set back, can achieve the desired results.
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:57 pm
06 Jul 2006
Traditionally, urban residential architecture from Japan to Portugal seems not to have considered important the outward views, save for windows to find out who is outside. Here and there, there are open-air porches well above the street level (e.g. in many noble houses in Spain, and in that palace in Beijing, with Mao's portrait over the front door, overlooking the unforgettable Tiananmen Square). But mostly the view is inward, toward an enclosed space, ideally with a garden and a fountain.
I suppose there is nothing unnatural about enjoying views from above. But it is characteristic of our society that we consider such views prestigious commodities, worth money, worth paying for. And sometimes we consider ourselves to be entitled to them. Here in NYC, offices with views count for a lot, whether or not the occupant of the office appreciates what he/she has got.
A reporter that I know lives in a penthouse on the Upper West Side, with a northern exposure (a bit depressing, that), and magnificent windows. She can see nearly to Burlington from up there. The late Peter Jennings, when first he visited her, exclaimed, "You do not have a view, you have a prospect."
The tenants of the late (!) Twin Towers of the World Trade Center presumably were there as much for the views as anything else. From most reports, the buildings themselves were inefficient and uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the views were renowned.
On the top floors of the north tower was a restaurant fittingly called "Windows on the World." My friend Joseph, father of my goddaughter, was there that morning, down from Boston, for a business breakfast.
Well.
Patrick, I wonder if you saw last Sunday's NYTimes Magazine, with the story on an American's motor trip from Beijing into central China with a self-driving club. The moral seemed to be: Yes, China has a big thriving automobile consumership, and a big thriving highway system; but No, the Chinese are not going about this any more intelligently than the foolish Americans did. I would be grateful for any comments.
One of the accompanying photos showed a traffic jam, somewhere in or around Beijing. There are lots of new, tall structures in the background. With lots and lots of windows. Actually, they seem rather more stylish than what typically goes up in American cities. Nevertheless they share that same American big-building vacuity.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:24 pm
06 Jul 2006
Yes, I saw the article about the "self-driving club" (which turns out to be a way to travel in cars in a group, rather than alone). A couple of comments. First of all, the numbers of Chinese involved in such activities are really really small. So to suggest "the Chinese" is rather too large an order.
I also saw the articles that said 50%, yes, half of the world's automobile pollution comes from one country (which contains about 5% of the world's population). It makes no sense for any American to be angry or irritated at what a FEW Chinese do, when SO MANY Americans do worse.
The article could have been about the rise in vegetarianism, or the government's push for fuel efficiency and cars that pollute less. (Of course, such an article could NOT have been written about America).
In actuality, the Chinese highway system is relatively small once you pass the very biggest cities, and many of the car drivers drive these tiny tiny little boxes that I am sure pollute, but compared to the sea of SUVs on American roadways, well it's hardly the same.
And there are traffic jams, saw the worst I have ever seen today! But, compared to any American city of size (New York, LA, Houston, Dallas, Chicago), it was mild. And this in a city of 13+ million.
The buildings. Density requires building to height. What styles should be used? There is lots of disagreement. I know that many Americans prefer that buildings be built New York City style, right down to the sidewalk, no space between them at all.
The style's here are varied. In the cheaper projects, the buildings tend to be built in blocks, but always with space between them, and gardens and small parks around them. They are also built a long way back from the street, so that the feeling is of less density.
Given that, are they all beautiful? No. Who has the money to make every project gorgeous?
But, for instance, alongside the highway near me, next to the access roads, runs a series of parks, usually about 50 to 100 meters wide, with walks, benches, lots of trees and bushes, and even small pavillions where people can sit. They also often contain simple exercise equipment. There are an incredible number of tiny parks in Beijing!
Some of the new developements are very tall, usually a group of buildings built around a center open core that will contain a small park, then some open parkland built around the external buildings (again maybe 100 to 200 meters back from the main external street), and with space between the buildings.
Are they vacuous? It's a matter of taste. Unless you are very very rich, most people don't get to be so picky, in China, or anywhere.
What taste do you prefer? I spent many years working with urban groups many of which were dominated by people who preferred that everything look the same, preferably in a dead Greek or Roman style.
If you are an architect, or have other solutions, please tell!! The Chinese are quite open to new ideas and often put big projects out to international competition...
patrick
Permalink