Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/325019188
CITATIONS READS
0 1,611
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Anuradha Sabherwal on 08 May 2018.
This paper advocates a smart-city approach where cities are intelligent to respond to the
constant change of demands in urban cores and continuously reinvest in pioneering
technology and resources.
The growing knowledge and technology economy is shifting cities toward an ‘urban boom’.
While people prefer to live in walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods, where amenities,
convenience and a sense of community are right on their doorstep, the balance and
connections of digital, physical and social interaction are also changing the way we live,
work and play. This culture is redefining the design of our cities today and the demand for
multi-dimensional physical environments are on the rise, with modern architecture
adapting to being flexible, inclusive and transitional.
Cities are greater when the sum of their parts are working in unison. Dense urban centres
are engines for growth, wealth and the wellbeing of citizens. When the disparate parts and
pieces of these engines are not well connected, the urban condition cannot meet its full
potential. Destinations or nodes in the urban fabric are important, but the urban connective
tissue and the accompanying journey along the path are what drive the emotional and
social element. For society to shift towards a healthy cities culture, we must capitalise on
environmentally friendly practices, data collection and policy creation, social and physical
wellness for humans, and increased safety through self-driving cars. Architecture that
encourages and supports human interaction is on the rise. The profession is evolving to not
only be aesthetic but also pragmatic, through constantly evolving design that adapts to the
needs and lifestyles of a changing society.
Adapting design to improve the human experience
Urban reset
Demographic shifts in millennial and baby boomer populations, together with the growing
knowledge and technology economy, are fueling an urban boom. Changes in demography
and economy are igniting an ‘urban reset’, shifting real estate and infrastructure
investment in urban cores. New ways of digital, physical and intellectual connections are
changing the way we live, work and play in urban environments. While the digital
infrastructure is important, there will be a stronger emphasis on physical infrastructure
and convenience, including access to retail, educational and cultural institutions. Urban
citizens feel a sense of home when they live in areas that are convenient, community-based
and socially responsible.
High on the list of priorities for cities and employers is attracting and retaining a young and
creative generation. As millennials begin their careers, the design of workplaces and
communities are being re-imagined. The lines between life, work, and play become fuzzy.
Residential and workplace options must be part of a community that is walkable, bike-able
and accessible to work and play. But accessible also means easy access to the latest
technologies – for example, convenient transportation networks, smart communities, and
even smarter buildings. We are also noticing a trend in baby boomers seeing the benefit of
these communities; having ‘downsized’ once their kids have moved out, they begin to
appreciate the benefits of living in a community where all amenities are within proximity.
The growing senior population also tend to want to drive less, so being close to transit
allows them greater and safer access to travel.
Data and policies
Our approach to city adaptation includes the use of big data analytics, innovative
infrastructure technologies and policies, and the design of intelligent cities and buildings.
By collecting and analysing demographic and psychographic data, architecture
incorporates a mix of urban uses that contribute to the overall wellbeing of humans, the
environment and economy.
While cities are hubs of economic growth and wellbeing, poor planning can result in
inequality traps. By implementing policies and guidelines, we can work to ensure that cities
grow inclusively and that the design will work to benefit all. In Toronto, for example, there
is a growing trend of using design guidelines to address the healthy cities concept. The
latest request for proposals, released by Waterfront Toronto, outlines plans for a 12-acre
community that mimics a micro healthy city, incorporating a smart grid, equitable and
affordable housing, alternative methods of transportation, smart buildings, urban
agriculture, innovative green building technology, and employment opportunities. This
mixed-use concept encourages mixed-income areas, which reduce barriers to
transportation and provide easier access to amenities and public services, such as
healthcare. The sharing of space not only contributes to the quality of life by increasing
convenience for residents, but it also provides an economic spill-over effects, such as
shared public areas (e.g., parks and courtyards), proximity to transportation systems,
energy networks and city infrastructure.
Smart, sustainable, and socially responsible solutions for buildings
Using systems and tools to increase building performance
Vital to healthy cities are systems and tools that create cleaner and healthier environments.
Major cities are made up of the sum of innumerous individual decisions: what to buy,
where and what to develop, operational goals, etc. A city, however, is more than the
physical construct of its decisions. It’s made up of both intended and unintended outcomes
relative to physical construct, climate, and culture.
In Los Angeles, the intended consequence was a massive conurbation enabled by cheap
fossil fuels and low-density growth blanketing the space between the mountains and the
Pacific. When viewed as a sunny paradise of single-family oasis, it’s a success; yet, the
unintended consequence of what was built was a trap for smog. A series of legacy decisions
will likely forever impact the health and wellness of Los Angeles citizens, while intense
heat, drought and other impacts of climate change will only exacerbate public health
problems.
Doing more to promote the health of citizens
All forms of urban development take more than it gives back to the natural environment,
but doesn’t this beg the question: can cities could do more to promote the health of their
citizens? One exemplar is Melbourne, Australia. Melbourne is lauded for being a green, 15-
minute walking city. It’s polycentric, mono-nucleic urban environment co-exists with the
natural environment, an extension of parks and the ocean. It’s renowned for its social
equity metrics, low crime, culture, and reputation as Australia’s fastest growing city – a
healthy city is a place where people want to be.
The same can be said for individual buildings and neighbourhoods, and there exists now a
spectrum of standards, based on evidence-based research, which translate research into
actionable steps that designers can use to make positive decisions regarding the physical
construct of the built environment. These standards, WELL and Fitwel, are pairing with
established ‘green’ standards (LEED and BREEAM) to promote a more efficient and healthy
built environment. The CBRE headquarters in Los Angeles, the world’s first Well Platinum-
certified building, exemplifies this with active seating, exposed stairs, indoor plants, and
workplaces with ample views and natural light. At the urban scale, the first Well
Community is currently being planned in Tampa, Florida to scale these strategies up for
multiple buildings and shared public spaces. This marks a shift in our thinking about
buildings and cities as interchangeably responsible for impacting health in all aspects of
life, including work, play and living.
The natural carbon cycle
Another unintended consequence of our urbanisation is the phenomena of creating high
concentrations of carbon where they previously didn’t exist. Rapid urbanisation has
resulted in extracting carbon from the crust to generate carbon-based structures whose
creation and operation result in higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon (and other
greenhouse gases) being stored at rates which nature cannot reintegrate as quickly as they
are introduced. When the American Institute of Architects (AIA) began researching the
place of buildings within the matrix of global energy use in the late 1990s and early 2000s,
it was shocked to discover that buildings were the number-one global emitter of
greenhouse gases (40 per cent), ahead of both industry and transportation. It wasn’t until
then that we realised our buildings and lifestyle decisions were negatively impacting our
health. The materials in buildings contribute further to this decline, in addition to poor
indoor air quality and high energy consumption.
What can be done?
Existing buildings represent an opportunity to store embodied carbon. If we view them as
“carbon banks”, the materials suddenly shift psychologically from “future waste product” to
“current and/or future value”. A study by Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture in
Chicago looked at making all the buildings in the famous Chicago Loop carbon-neutral
through a repositioning programme, planning for future ultra-efficient development, and
through large-scale renewable energy technologies incorporated at the building scale and
on a new floating PV island on Lake Michigan. The most intriguing aspect of the idea is that
emissions could be drastically reduced, even eliminated, through a nexus of greater
density, creative adaptive re-use, new buildings and new infrastructure – all with current
technology.
While only a study, elements of this approach are being implemented at the city scale
across North America, in cities such as Seattle, Toronto and Dallas. These “2030 districts”
accomplish goals through public/private partnerships aimed at reducing overall energy
use, emissions, and shared resources and incentives. What is truly innovative is moving
from individual properties acting in isolation towards behaving as ‘linked’ properties.
Instead of buildings depending solely on large, expensive, inefficient, and often antiquated
municipal systems, individual and/or groups of buildings can share district-based systems
to achieve greater efficiency and resiliency, where allowed by building codes.
Creative partnerships save costs and the environment
Perhaps city governments, supposedly acting in the interest of their populace, are the
greatest barrier to sharing. There exists a movement towards establishing “microgrids”,
which are trailblazing ‘sharing’ systems across buildings and are appropriate for large-
scale developments owned by a single entity.
Other examples include community-based approaches. Gundersen Health System in La
Crosse, Wisconsin is a healthcare facility in a cold climate with inherently high process and
heating needs. It partnered with six regional wood mills to purchase waste wood chips to
power a new biomass boiler, producing enough heat, hot water and steam to make it the
first energy-independent healthcare facility in the US. This symbiotic relationship delivered
$500,000 in annual savings for the hospital in natural gas from neighbouring states, and
$800,000 revenue for the mills instead of landfilling the waste.
Living buildings as a catalyst for the future
Cities offer a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of local proximity and urban
clustering. In Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Stantec’s project Evolv1 involves the design of a
building so innovative that it disrupted the entire green building industry: a net-positive
energy building that generates more than enough energy for heating and cooling, and
power the lights, computers and everything else in the building. The excess energy
generated can either be sold back to the grid or used for electric vehicle-charging stations.
Living buildings are yet another tool for cities to use to promote sustainability and health.
They act as standalone utilities in the same way as a living plant; powered by sunlight and
water, they emit no waste and are made of healthy, renewable materials.
Technology to build healthy cities exists today, but if we’re to improve the health and
wellness of citizens, we need municipalities to meet innovation in the middle, help forge
relationships and remove red tape.
Healthy buildings are an extension of our own physical health
Creating healthy and sustainable buildings in our cities is not only crucial for reducing
energy consumption and alleviating our global ecological footprint but also for our health
and quality of life. On an average day, we spend nearly 90% of our time inhabiting
buildings, and the environmental quality of these spaces directly influences our physiology
and feeling of wellness.
See image “determinantsofhealth.png”
Source: UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Report 2017; Barton et al. (2010).
Building energy use currently accounts for over 40 per cent of total primary energy
consumption in the US and EU, and as much as one-third of global greenhouse gas
emissions. The US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) ‘International Energy
Outlook 2017’ observes that energy use in buildings is projected to increase by 32 per cent
between 2015 and 2040 with current trends in population growth, more time spent
indoors, increased demand for building functions and indoor environmental quality, as well
as global climate change. Furthermore, the UN predicts that 60 per cent of the world’s
population will live in urban environments.
The design of a healthy building must be seen as an extension of our own physical health in
our environment. For the built environment to be in harmony with nature, it must achieve
a natural balance with its environment through adaptation and self-regulation. It should be
part of a self-sustaining circular economy and ecosystem. Our approach to sustainable
design takes a holistic view that combines green building practices with promoting healthy
living, and comprises three main aspects for designing a healthy building:
1. Do Less Harm – through green building practices to meet global environmental
sustainability targets;
2. Focus on Holistic Health – promote healthy living, mental and physiological
wellbeing, and comfort; and
3. Nurture by Nature – promoting benefits of nature in our built environment
(biophilia) and learning from nature (biomimicry).
Measuring the health of our buildings
This brings us to the question of how we can meaningfully measure the health of our
buildings. Our current approach to measuring sustainability in architecture and
construction is to focus on energy efficiency, reducing environmental impact of materials
and building systems design, as well as minimising waste and maintaining local ecological
balance. It’s now a prerequisite for green buildings to achieve certifications for various
international sustainability standards, such as LEED in North America/internationally,
BREEAM in the UK, and lesser known systems such as 3 Star in Australia, and Estadima in
the Middle East. They all aim to achieve similar goals: to make buildings energy and waste-
efficient, and carefully measure our energy and carbon footprint to reduce our impact on
the environment. Aspects of health and wellbeing in these standards are usually measured
in the physical comfort parameters of designing space, such as temperature, ventilation
and daylighting. Other initiatives, such as One Living by Bioregional and the Living Building
Challenge, aim to set benchmarks for going beyond measuring building performance
efficiency to promoting health and happiness in design by creating self-sufficient
regenerative spaces; others such as the 2030 Challenge focus on our buildings and cities
becoming carbon neutral.
We’re now seeing a gradual shift in the focus of building design practice towards
promoting the physical, emotional and mental health of occupants with the emergence of
the Well Building Standard, which focuses on human health and wellness. It marries best
practices in design and construction with evidence-based medical and scientific research,
harnessing the built environment as a vehicle to support human health and wellbeing. With
this, the architectural design community now recognises the need to take a more integrated
approach, where sustainability and health are seen as synonymous and where our impact
on both is evaluated in equal measure.
Homeostasis – ie, the maintenance of natural balance within the body’s internal
environment with feedback regulation – is key to the ability to adapt and survive. For
human civilization, a key function of architecture is to facilitate this natural equilibrium as
an adjunct to our physiology, providing energy-efficient comfortable environments for
different activities.
Biomimicry – learning from natural systems – and biomorphic design – learning from
natural forms and biophilia – are emerging fields in design and architecture that offer
exciting opportunities to think laterally when creating architectural adaptations that
promote health and wellbeing.
Shared autonomous vehicles provide mobility access for those who would otherwise be
prevented from using city transit systems, affording them clear health benefits. The links
between the environment and the urban worker are obvious. If cities work to reduce
pollution and traffic congestion, they become more attractive for firms and skilled workers.
Moreover, increased access to transportation networks reduces greenhouse gases, mental
and physical stress relating to driving in traffic, and better use of dense space.
Cities are greater when the sum of their parts are working in unison, moving us towards
achieving social equity and improving the human experience.
Authors
Gail Borthwick is Principal, Buildings, at Stantec in Canada, where Rod Schebesch is Regional
Business Leader – transportation. Anu Sabherwal is Senior Associate, Project Leader at
Stantec, based in the UK, and Blake Jackson is Sustainability Design Leader, Associate at
Stantec in the US.
References
1 Smart Growth America, https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources?resource_type=fact-
sheet&authors=&category_name=complete-streets&s=
2 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Complete Streets,
http://www.completestreetsnc.org/project-examples/
4 McCoy, K. Drivers spend an average of 17 hours a year searching for parking spots. 12
July 2017. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/12/parking-
pain-causes-financial-and-personal-strain/467637001/
5 Marshall, A. It’s time to think about living in parking garages. 2 November 2016. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/time-think-living-old-parking-garages/