Designing Buildings that care.

Aparna Anirudhan, Architect and head of Research at Zyeta

 
Fig 1. Ecolab Digital Center by SMC2 at Bengaluru

Fig 1. Ecolab Digital Center by SMC2 at Bengaluru

 

Physiological, personal and organisational resources are fundamental factors for a positive mind and health outcome. The physical environment - whether at work or home - needs to compliment these factors in making the building ecosystem comfortable and competent. The decline in the efficiency of these factors causes detrimental effects on the health of the employee causing an undiagnosable pattern of symptoms, collectively known as ‘Sick Building Syndrome (SBS)’.

Sick building syndrome

According to industry standards, SBS can be associated with the building “if significantly more than 20% of a building’s occupants complain of such symptoms as headaches, eye irritation, fatigue and dizziness for more than two weeks, if the symptoms are relieved when the complainant leaves the building, and if there is no specific cause of the problem.” (Philips and Stanley. 2001)

Physiological and environmental factors must be dealt with in a step-by-step process, starting from ground zero (ventilation and flooring) until the finishing of the interiors (furniture, walling, etc.). Considering these factors as one and working towards providing a suitable environment by way of disruptive solutions to combat SBS have been explored in the report “Designing Buildings that care”.

Ventilation, thermal comfort and indoor air quality

Indoor air quality (IAQ) refers to the circulation of air in a building, especially that which helps in maintaining the quality of life in the indoor environment. Research has shown a direct relationship between satisfaction with one’s physical environment and overall job satisfaction, although this is not the only factor. The level of comfort within the office depends on the management of ventilation systems and consideration of individual preferences for ventilation and temperature.

Fig 2. Carnegie Centre for Global Ecology, Stanford utilises hybrid mode of ventilation

Fig 2. Carnegie Centre for Global Ecology, Stanford utilises hybrid mode of ventilation

Fig 3. Cross ventilation by trickle vents and operable windows in a high-rise office building

Fig 3. Cross ventilation by trickle vents and operable windows in a high-rise office building

 

Lighting

Although there is little evidence of the direct impact poor lighting has on a worker’s cognitive performance, there is sufficient supplementary evidence to suggest that it could interfere with physiological factors and possibly disrupt an individual’s circadian rhythm. Such impact can be a source of fatigue and lack of sleep which increases the risk of an early onset of Alzheimer’s disease, weight gain, eyestrain, elevated stress levels, and risk for breast and prostate cancer. These represent additional SBS symptoms and side-effects. Building occupants who do not have access to natural lighting reported more instances of ill-health effects and a considerable decrease in productivity.

Fig 4. Recommended illumination levels for offices

Fig 4. Recommended illumination levels for offices

Fig 5. Colour temperature that follows the body’s circadian rhythm through the course of a day

Fig 5. Colour temperature that follows the body’s circadian rhythm through the course of a day

 

Noise and acoustics

Ambient noise (from surrounding speech and other sources) is an annoyance and disruptor to employees whose work requires concentration and thought. Bad acoustic and noise performance can lead to dissatisfaction with the office environment and reduced employee performance. Continuous and prolonged noise at higher levels can induce and increase stress levels over time. It can lead to higher levels of blood pressure and stress.

Fig 6. Providing a less intrusive background sound to mask disturbing levels of sound

Fig 6. Providing a less intrusive background sound to mask disturbing levels of sound

Fig 7.  Acoustic booths; Phone booth for Udaan by Zyeta

Fig 7. Acoustic booths; Phone booth for Udaan by Zyeta

 

Spatial layout with look and feel

The advent of the open office has led to its mass adoption by the corporate world. But this design isn’t without its limitations. The lack of privacy, both visual and acoustic, is an unintended consequence. The greater an office area is apportioned as open collaboration space; the more effort and cost is required to mitigate resulting increases in noise. Viruses can more easily breed and spread in open offices which can lead to a stressful work environment and a deleterious effect on the health of the employees who work in the space. The lack of defined areas can also be a source of increased distraction for knowledge workers which can result in a reduction of their productivity.

Fig 8. To cubicle or not to cubicle – the Dilbert way©
DBTC 9.3.jpg

Fig 8. To cubicle or not to cubicle – the Dilbert way©

 
 

Biophilia & access to nature

Various definitions of biophilia have one commonality – ‘representing the deep bonds between humans and the natural world.’ The ever-increasing trend toward man-made and artificial environments has resulted in the severe and perhaps irrevocable side-effect of reduced cognitive processing of the inhabitants of these spaces. Not having early exposure and prolonged connection to nature can create a condition called ‘biophobia,’ defined as ‘facing discomfort or having scorn or a particular dislike towards anything that isn't man-made, managed or air-conditioned.’ (HLW, 2016)

Fig 9. Biophilic interiors of Amazon’s HQ at Seattle.

 

Culture in the workplace

Lack of positive workspace - consisting of a supportive, human-centric design with an ergonomically relevant physical environment - can additionally contribute to SBS. The absence of a receptive environment discourages employee engagement which can lead to an increased susceptibility to health issues. Workers who perceive their employer is insensitive to their wellbeing can cause reduced employer affinity and thus lower employee retention.

Methods of mitigation

Every individual ‘character’ of building design needs close monitoring and care in order to maintain both the life cycle and integrity of the building. Regularly maintaining the building ecosystem and having a maintenance protocol per building will greatly help in achieving ‘healthy’ buildings and in turn healthy occupants now and over time. Working towards the inculcation of human-centric design principles in the workspaces will always have the desired combination of productivity and efficiency. The research paper “Designing Buildings that care” elucidates how health and well-being of the building user need to be prerequisites when it comes to spatial design. These solutions have been beneficial for us at Zyeta and through this report we have striven to determine that they will hold good for individual employees, organisations and societies.

For further details please visit www.zyeta.com

Fig 10. A hostile work environment adds to the already adverse effects of SBS

Fig 10. A hostile work environment adds to the already adverse effects of SBS

 
 

Citations & Image references

Philips, S. and Stanley Jr, S. (2001). INDOOR AIR QUALITY: IS IT AN ISSUE FOR ARCHITECTS?. [online] Baltimore: Maryland Society AIA, p.5.

HLW. Architecture, Design, Planning & Strategy. (2016). BIOPHILIA & BIOPHOBIA.

Fig 1. Brager, G. (2006). Mixed-mode cooling. [ebook] California: ASHRAE Fig 2. Lmsarch.com. (2019). ClimateWorks Foundation | LMSA. [online] Fig 3. Anon, (2018). [image] Fig 4. Human centric lighting. (2018). [image] Fig 5. Sound Masking 101. (2017). [ebook] Fig 6. VANK_MELLO. (2019). [image] Fig 7. Property of ©ZYETA Fig 8. Property of ©Dilbert comics Fig 9. Seattle Times (2018). Take a look inside Amazon’s Spheres as they get set to open. [image] & The Washington Post (2018). Why Amazon built its workers a mini rain forest inside three domes in downtown Seattle. [image] Fig 10. Heathfield, S., 2018. What makes an hostile environment? [image]