2.2 Case study on Great Ormond Street Hospital: Agreen extensionDr Ken Yeang is a UK-based architect, he has apractice in London. He is known as both an architect and an ecologist, hedesigns and plans with the philosophy of ‘bringing the outside inside’, or ashe defines it, as a “bio-integration – of physical, systemic and temporalworlds coming together.” (Dr Ken Yeang) Theability of the physical environment to influence behaviours and to produce animage is particularly seeming for service businesses like hotels, restaurants,professional offices, banks, retail stores, and hospitals (Baker 1987; Bitner1986: Booms and Bitner 1982; Kotler 1973; Shostack 1977; Upah and Fulton 1985).We spend most of 90% of our lives within buildings, yet we know more about theeffects of environmental conditions on human health than we do about howbuildings affect our health (Gary W. EvansJanettaMitchellMcCoy,1998).
This article employs the experiential ofpsychological stress to generate a classification of architectural proportionsthat may affect human health. Specific interior design elements demonstratingeach of which, architectural dimensions are provided. There is little existingevidence that specific design features directly impact human health. Thisis good because designing in this way of taking into considerationenvironmental psychology research within design will improve human functioningand wellbeing within architecture.Dr KenYeang as a designer of ecologically-conscious skyscrapers, of which he hasbuilt numerous in Malaysia, that use recycled water systems, solar technology,and vegetation growing up the exterior of the building. These are revolutionarystructures in the entire field of architecture. Yeang has been noticed as ‘oneof the world’s leading designers’ and is a noted authority on ecologicallyresponsive buildings, with several books published on this subject.
(James Murray-White 2010). Llewelyn Davies Yeang is his London-based architectural and planningfirm. Dr Yeang has been accountable for the design and construction of a newgreen wing of the renown London Hospital at Great Ormond Street the district ofCamden. The hospital at Great Ormond Street iswell-known as an NHS run children’s hospital. “We are right nowin a momentous time in the endeavour of green design”, Yeang said in aninterview recently; “I don’t believe we have built the ultimate greenbuilding yet, but we are making advances.” (James Murray White 2010)In2008 Llewelyn Davies Yeang received the contract and shortly after followed theplanning approval for a key rebuilding and refurbishment of part of thehospital.
This is phase 2 of a longer-term four part renovation plan. Theseplans have developed into two new buildings, comprising of a new clinicalbuilding, and a cardiac wing. The structural work started in October 2008 andwas completed by the winter of 2011. The entire project was forecasted to cost300 million pounds, and includes new wards, clinical facilities including operatingtheatres, offices and restaurant,covering some 30,000 square metres. (James Murray White 2010)An analysis of discoveries fromthe field of environmental psychology shows that humans are attracted tonatural contents and to landscape formations (Joye,Y. (2007).
These features are alsofound to have positive effects on human functioning and can decrease stress.Yet, occasions for contact with these elements are reduced in contemporaryurban life. It is claimed that this development can have subtle but nontrivialcontrary effects on psychological and physiological well-being. These can beopposed by mixing key features of natural contents and structural landscapefeatures in the built environment. This proves that designing in this way of takinginto consideration environmental psychology research within design will improvehuman functioning and wellbeing within architecture. Dr Yeang took intoconsideration the brief from the NHS and pursued to highlight green andsustainable features in the planning and execution of the new build andrestoration of the old.
The NHS trust had solicited that the architect ought to’significantly raise the bar on sustainability’. “I always look at theecology of the site in which we build,” Yeang said. “I see greendesign as having a mandate to actually restore eco-systems on the ground,”Yeang continued: “by monitoring and mapping out the taxonomies of a site,and considering the lifecycle of the built environment, green architects canactually rectify any environmental damage.” He cited some existingexamples of his work – the Editt Tower in Singapore, and a green master planfor a commercial park in Turkey, which bore out these aspirations. (JamesMurray White 2010)Precisegreen and sustainable features of the project for the hospital’s extensioninclude:· a central hub that links all facilities, and allowseasy movement of people and air· natural ventilation access throughout all areas ofthe building· glass extrusions across the entire facade, allowingplenty of light in, with options for solar heating· an estimation to offset approximately 20,000 tonsof CO2 annually, through energy saving and energy creationYeang and his firm worked rigorously to UK andInternational laws and guidelines for green buildings, and the plan won thesupport of the Mayor of London, and a BREEAM ‘excellent’ rating of 77% from theBuilding Research Establishment.
(BRE Group 2014) Ultimately,designing in this way of taking into consideration environmental psychologyresearch within design will improve human functioning and wellbeing withinarchitecture.3.0Case study analysis on sick building syndromeIn recent years, sick building syndrome (SBS) hasdeveloped a important problem in the workplace not only in the UK but mostEuropean countries, the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan. In the United Kingdomit is generally reckoned to be a reasonably recent problem, most reports havingbeen published since 1980, though there were early cautions in British researchin the 1960’s (Black et al 1966). In other countries particularly in northAmerica and Scandinavia, the problem was first reported approximately 30 yearsago, both in the workplace and the home, although the term ‘SBS’ is relativelyrecent. (G J Raw 1992)There is some distinction in the words used todefine the phenomenon (in and amid nations) for example ‘building sickness’,’sick office syndrome. ‘tight building syndrome’, ‘office eye syndrome’ andalternative terms have been used.
None of which wholly defines the conditionbut ‘sick building syndrome ‘has been rendered acknowledgement by the WorldHealth Organisation (WHO 1982) and is the most commonly used description.Regardless of the variation of terms used, thereis a clear consistency in the syndrome being defined. Yet, there has, been adegree of inconsistency in the clarifications offered. For instance, a Europeancommunities Report (Molina et al 1989) described SBS as “a set of variedsymptoms experienced predominantly by people working in air-conditionedbuildings…”, this links quite closely to World Health Organisation statements(WHO 1986). The symptoms are:§ Irritated,dry or watering eyes (sometimes described as itching, tiredness, smarting,redness, burning, difficulty wearing contact lenses§ Irritatesrunny or blocked nose (sometimes described as congestion, nosebleeds, itchy orstuffy nose)§ Dry orsore throat§ Dryness,itching or irritation of the skin, occasionally with rash.§ Lessspecific symptoms such as headache, lethargy, irritability and poorconcentrationA difference on this theme is that “SBS can bediagnosed after removing all of the other building related illnesses” (Molinaet al 1989). The term SBS Is often applied mainly to any building-relatedillnesses or additional complaints from building broadly to any buildingrelated illness or excess of criticisms from building users.
This isobstructive, and it is better to maintain a distinction between SBS and, forexample:§ Complaintsabout discomfort (e.g. from temperature, noise and chairs)§ Long-termeffects of identified indoor hazards (e.g. radon, asbestos)§ Specificinfectious illnesses caused by known organisms (e.g.
legionnaires disease)§ Buildingdefects which do not cause SBS symptoms (e.g. structural flaws)Such complications may happen inthe same buildings, and the casual aspects may overlay, but a division is stillessential. For example, Appleby & Bailey (1990) recognise a building withcomplaints of discomfort, mostly related to air movement and environmental tobaccosmoke (ETS), which was not observed as ‘sick’. SBS ought to be well-defined bya set of symptoms, not by the overall occurrence of disease or by perceiveddiscomfort without symptoms.
It is in this sense a health matter similar toallergies and asthma: the potential to react is there in the individual but nosymptoms look as if until a specific environmental happenstance is met. Thisis the result of not of taking into consideration environmental psychologyresearch within design therefore human functioning and wellbeing will notsignificant improvements within architecture.Regardless of the need to differentiate SBS fromother building related sicknesses, there is some debate about whether SBSshould be identified only if there is no seemingly obvious cause for theproblem in a building (E.g. dampers seized in a position which stops outsideair from entering a building). There is a logic to this in practical terms:there is no point in launching into inexact explanations to SBS if there is aclear fault (e.g. in the building or the management of the work force) whichneeds to be put right.
To include this provision in the definition of SBS ischancy because of the judgement of what would establish apparent problems issomewhat subjective and may in any case result in some major causes of SBSbeing underemphasised just because they happen to fall within presentknowledge. Correspondingly, SBS cannot be diagnosed by opinion of defects in abuilding or the indoor environment in the absence of information onindications.Although it is now commonly thought that SBS hasseveral causes, there is still a inclination to refer to (and to research)single causes or classes of causes (e.g.
air conditioning, indoor air quality).It is perhaps not helpful to respond to this by defining SBS causes as havingmany causes. While it is almost the result of study and may obscure thecomplication of the situation: that there are probably many combinations ofcauses in different buildings but possibly in some buildings a single keyreason.The symptoms of SBS can be observed as a minor inthe sense that, seemingly, no permanent bodily damage is done. But that,recovery is usually reported to be rapid at the end of the exposure. Thesymptoms are, though, not minor to the people who experience them on aconsistent basis at their place of work and all the evidence is that the numberof individuals affected is not minor. While the basis of approximations is notflawless, most statistics suggest 30-50% of new or refurbished buildings areaffected but somewhat older buildings are affected as much if not additional.
Air-conditioned buildings arecommonly associated with higher occurrence’s: in the United Kingdomapproximately 55% of staff in such buildings are affected – many only a littlebut to the extent that they notice an adverse effect on productivity when staffare at work, SBS has also been shown to affect absenteeism and makes demands onthe management and trades unions which spend time off, reduced overtime andbigger staff turnover. In addition, this is the result of not of taking intoconsideration environmental psychology research within design therefore humanfunctioning and wellbeing will not significant improvements withinarchitecture.Zyla Wisensale & Stolwijk (1990) conductedone of the scarce studies of productivity which has used an objective measure,in this case the rate of data entry. This was not a study of SBS as such,because symptoms were not informed, but minute evidence was produced of anyconnection amid productivity and environmental variables. Development of theoffice environment has been found to result in higher production (DresserFrancis 1987), but it is not clear whether SBS was involved.
(G J Raw 1992)