2.2 architecture. Dr Ken Yeang as a designer

2.2 Case study on Great Ormond Street Hospital: A
green extension

Dr Ken Yeang is a UK-based architect, he has a
practice in London. He is known as both an architect and an ecologist, he
designs and plans with the philosophy of ‘bringing the outside inside’, or as
he defines it, as a “bio-integration – of physical, systemic and temporal
worlds coming together.” (Dr Ken Yeang)

The
ability of the physical environment to influence behaviours and to produce an
image is particularly seeming for service businesses like hotels, restaurants,
professional offices, banks, retail stores, and hospitals (Baker 1987; Bitner
1986: 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 the
effects of environmental conditions on human health than we do about how
buildings affect our health (Gary W. EvansJanetta
MitchellMcCoy,
1998). This article employs the experiential of
psychological stress to generate a classification of architectural proportions
that may affect human health. Specific interior design elements demonstrating
each of which, architectural dimensions are provided. There is little existing
evidence that specific design features directly impact human health. This
is good because designing in this way of taking into consideration
environmental psychology research within design will improve human functioning
and wellbeing within architecture.

Dr Ken
Yeang as a designer of ecologically-conscious skyscrapers, of which he has
built numerous in Malaysia, that use recycled water systems, solar technology,
and vegetation growing up the exterior of the building. These are revolutionary
structures in the entire field of architecture. Yeang has been noticed as ‘one
of the world’s leading designers’ and is a noted authority on ecologically
responsive buildings, with several books published on this subject. (James Murray-White 2010). Llewelyn Davies Yeang is his London-based architectural and planning
firm. Dr Yeang has been accountable for the design and construction of a new
green wing of the renown London Hospital at Great Ormond Street the district of
Camden. The hospital at Great Ormond Street is
well-known as an NHS run children’s hospital. “We are right now
in a momentous time in the endeavour of green design”, Yeang said in an
interview recently; “I don’t believe we have built the ultimate green
building yet, but we are making advances.” (James Murray White 2010)

In
2008 Llewelyn Davies Yeang received the contract and shortly after followed the
planning approval for a key rebuilding and refurbishment of part of the
hospital. This is phase 2 of a longer-term four part renovation plan. These
plans have developed into two new buildings, comprising of a new clinical
building, and a cardiac wing. The structural work started in October 2008 and
was completed by the winter of 2011. The entire project was forecasted to cost
300 million pounds, and includes new wards, clinical facilities including operating
theatres, offices and  restaurant,
covering some 30,000 square metres. (James Murray White 2010)

An analysis of discoveries from
the field of environmental psychology shows that humans are attracted to
natural contents and to landscape formations (Joye,
Y. (2007). These features are also
found to have positive effects on human functioning and can decrease stress.
Yet, occasions for contact with these elements are reduced in contemporary
urban life. It is claimed that this development can have subtle but nontrivial
contrary effects on psychological and physiological well-being. These can be
opposed by mixing key features of natural contents and structural landscape
features in the built environment. This proves that designing in this way of taking
into consideration environmental psychology research within design will improve
human functioning and wellbeing within architecture.

 

Dr Yeang took into
consideration the brief from the NHS and pursued to highlight green and
sustainable features in the planning and execution of the new build and
restoration of the old. The NHS trust had solicited that the architect ought to
‘significantly raise the bar on sustainability’. “I always look at the
ecology of the site in which we build,” Yeang said. “I see green
design 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 can
actually rectify any environmental damage.” He cited some existing
examples of his work – the Editt Tower in Singapore, and a green master plan
for a commercial park in Turkey, which bore out these aspirations. (James
Murray White 2010)

Precise
green and sustainable features of the project for the hospital’s extension
include:

·                    
a central hub that links all facilities, and allows
easy movement of people and air

·                    
natural ventilation access throughout all areas of
the building

·                    
glass extrusions across the entire facade, allowing
plenty of light in, with options for solar heating

·                    
an estimation to offset approximately 20,000 tons
of CO2 annually, through energy saving and energy creation

Yeang and his firm worked rigorously to UK and
International laws and guidelines for green buildings, and the plan won the
support of the Mayor of London, and a BREEAM ‘excellent’ rating of 77% from the
Building Research Establishment. (BRE Group 2014) Ultimately,
designing in this way of taking into consideration environmental psychology
research within design will improve human functioning and wellbeing within
architecture.

3.0
Case study analysis on sick building syndrome

In recent years, sick building syndrome (SBS) has
developed a important problem in the workplace not only in the UK but most
European countries, the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan. In the United Kingdom
it is generally reckoned to be a reasonably recent problem, most reports having
been published since 1980, though there were early cautions in British research
in the 1960’s (Black et al 1966). In other countries particularly in north
America and Scandinavia, the problem was first reported approximately 30 years
ago, both in the workplace and the home, although the term ‘SBS’ is relatively
recent. (G J Raw 1992)

There is some distinction in the words used to
define the phenomenon (in and amid nations) for example ‘building sickness’,
‘sick office syndrome. ‘tight building syndrome’, ‘office eye syndrome’ and
alternative terms have been used. None of which wholly defines the condition
but ‘sick building syndrome ‘has been rendered acknowledgement by the World
Health Organisation (WHO 1982) and is the most commonly used description.

Regardless of the variation of terms used, there
is a clear consistency in the syndrome being defined. Yet, there has, been a
degree of inconsistency in the clarifications offered. For instance, a European
communities Report (Molina et al 1989) described SBS as “a set of varied
symptoms experienced predominantly by people working in air-conditioned
buildings…”, 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

§    
Irritates
runny or blocked nose (sometimes described as congestion, nosebleeds, itchy or
stuffy nose)

§    
Dry or
sore throat

§    
Dryness,
itching or irritation of the skin, occasionally with rash.

§    
Less
specific symptoms such as headache, lethargy, irritability and poor
concentration

A difference on this theme is that “SBS can be
diagnosed after removing all of the other building related illnesses” (Molina
et al 1989). The term SBS Is often applied mainly to any building-related
illnesses or additional complaints from building broadly to any building
related illness or excess of criticisms from building users. This is
obstructive, and it is better to maintain a distinction between SBS and, for
example:

§    
Complaints
about discomfort (e.g. from temperature, noise and chairs)

§    
Long-term
effects of identified indoor hazards (e.g. radon, asbestos)

§    
Specific
infectious illnesses caused by known organisms (e.g. legionnaires disease)

§    
Building
defects which do not cause SBS symptoms (e.g. structural flaws)

Such complications may happen in
the same buildings, and the casual aspects may overlay, but a division is still
essential. For example, Appleby & Bailey (1990) recognise a building with
complaints of discomfort, mostly related to air movement and environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS), which was not observed as ‘sick’. SBS ought to be well-defined by
a set of symptoms, not by the overall occurrence of disease or by perceived
discomfort without symptoms. It is in this sense a health matter similar to
allergies and asthma: the potential to react is there in the individual but no
symptoms look as if until a specific environmental happenstance is met. This
is the result of not of taking into consideration environmental psychology
research within design therefore human functioning and wellbeing will not
significant improvements within architecture.

Regardless of the need to differentiate SBS from
other building related sicknesses, there is some debate about whether SBS
should be identified only if there is no seemingly obvious cause for the
problem in a building (E.g. dampers seized in a position which stops outside
air 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 a
clear fault (e.g. in the building or the management of the work force) which
needs to be put right. To include this provision in the definition of SBS is
chancy because of the judgement of what would establish apparent problems is
somewhat subjective and may in any case result in some major causes of SBS
being underemphasised just because they happen to fall within present
knowledge. Correspondingly, SBS cannot be diagnosed by opinion of defects in a
building or the indoor environment in the absence of information on
indications.

Although it is now commonly thought that SBS has
several 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 having
many causes. While it is almost the result of study and may obscure the
complication of the situation: that there are probably many combinations of
causes in different buildings but possibly in some buildings a single key
reason.

The symptoms of SBS can be observed as a minor in
the sense that, seemingly, no permanent bodily damage is done. But that,
recovery is usually reported to be rapid at the end of the exposure. The
symptoms are, though, not minor to the people who experience them on a
consistent basis at their place of work and all the evidence is that the number
of individuals affected is not minor. While the basis of approximations is not
flawless, most statistics suggest 30-50% of new or refurbished buildings are
affected but somewhat older buildings are affected as much if not additional.

Air-conditioned buildings are
commonly associated with higher occurrence’s: in the United Kingdom
approximately 55% of staff in such buildings are affected – many only a little
but to the extent that they notice an adverse effect on productivity when staff
are at work, SBS has also been shown to affect absenteeism and makes demands on
the management and trades unions which spend time off, reduced overtime and
bigger staff turnover. In addition, this is the result of not of taking into
consideration environmental psychology research within design therefore human
functioning and wellbeing will not significant improvements within
architecture.

Zyla Wisensale & Stolwijk (1990) conducted
one 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 any
connection amid productivity and environmental variables. Development of the
office environment has been found to result in higher production (Dresser
Francis 1987), but it is not clear whether SBS was involved. (G J Raw 1992)