Bloom – Healthy Spaces

“When you build a thing you cannot merely build the thing in isolation, but must also repair the world around it, and within it, so that the larger world at that one place becomes more coherent, and more whole … ” Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language: Towns, Building, Construction.

Why run, walk or stand when you can sit? According to surveys, this is a motto for many of us. Typical adults sit for 9.3 hours each day – that’s more than we spend sleeping (7.7 hours).¹ For children, it’s up to six hours. Sitting at work, sitting at school, sitting at home, sitting in our cars. Combined with decreasing levels of physical activity, the effects of our sedentary ways are catching up with us – in particular, with our waistlines.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, one out of every four adults was obese in 2007–2008.² Nationally, obesity has overtaken smoking as the leading cause of premature death and illness in Australia.³ Globally, the number of obese people now exceeds the number of malnourished.⁴ And growing in partnership with our waistlines are associated medical problems like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and asthma.

There are several factors contributing to our weighty population – the electronic age and access to unhealthy food often get the most finger pointing. But rarely do we frame the discussion in terms of our built environment – where we live, where we work, how we travel – and assess how the design of these spaces positively or negatively impacts on our health. As urban designer Jan Gehl said in a recent interview, “We definitely know more about good habitats for mountain gorillas, Siberian tigers, or panda bears than we do know about a good urban habitat for Homo sapiens.”⁵

Frederick Law Olmsted – one of the founding fathers of landscape architecture in the nineteenth century – believed that the health of a community was directly linked to the design quality of its urban spaces. During the industrial revolution, issues of overcrowding and water, air and noise pollution caused disease rates among the urban population to soar. Recognizing conditions that allowed disease to originate and spread – among them poor sewerage systems, narrow streets and pollution from manufacturing plants – Olmsted believed the solution was to redesign the city according to a different model.⁶ He proposed the introduction of parks and boulevards into a city ringed by satellite suburbs as a design solution for the urban health problem. Many twentieth-century cities are a reflection of this vision.

In the same way that poor sanitation caused infectious diseases in the nineteenth century, the low-density, car-dependent planning approaches of today are leading to an increase in sedentary behaviours and decreasing physical activity. If we are serious about changing this trend and creating healthier places for people, we need to reshape the way that we design our everyday environments, much in the same way that Olmsted changed the urban infrastructure of the industrial revolution.⁷

It’s easy to say that people need to walk more, but it’s a tough thing to do when communities are built without pedestrian crossings or footpaths. We like the idea of letting our children ride to school to get more exercise, yet we drive them for safety reasons. Studies have shown how observing nature can restore concentration and improve productivity, yet rarely do our typical work environments accommodate views – or access – to restorative outdoor spaces. Internationally, billions of dollars are spent each year on medical research, yet we spend almost nothing learning about how the structures of our everyday world – new housing developments, playgrounds, streetscapes, parks – affect our health.⁸

And it’s not just our physical health that can benefit. Studies have shown how contact with nature can reduce anger, frustration and aggression; increase our sense of belonging and acceptance; and bring about greater satisfaction with one’s home, one’s job and life in general.⁹ Considering that in 2012, one in five Australians will experience a mental health problem during their lifetime – with issues of depression or anxiety being among the most common – the psychological benefits of our outdoor spaces need to be better recognized.

The Bloom exhibition is about looking at our world from a landscape perspective and determining whether or not we are designing enough spaces that promote healthy lifestyles. From parks to prisons and high schools to hospitals, elements of the everyday are presented as a way to better understand the qualities of the places we’re creating in the age of Facebook and fast food.

Developed in partnership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA), the exhibition evolved over a twelve-month period. I started by reaching out to designers and the broader public to better understand what constitutes a “healthy space.” Between June and August 2011, AILA invited design professionals to submit built work that they thought addressed people’s health and wellbeing. Aware that notions of “healthy space” can vary between people and professions, it was important to get impressions from frequent users of outdoor spaces. So I approached two types: walking groups and kids. Walking groups affiliated with the ACT division of the Heart Foundation were asked to send through images from their walks of “healthy” and “unhealthy” spaces. I also visited year 5 and 6 students at several primary schools, who drew images or created montages that presented elements of what they viewed as healthy and unhealthy spaces.

The feedback from the walking groups and students was very similar. For the walking groups, images of “healthy” environments predominated – blue sky, open space, and parks with trees; vegetation, a sprinkling of artwork and people. Only one picture was shared depicting an unhealthy space – a construction site with buildings that diverted pedestrians off the footpath. For the students, healthy spaces were playgrounds and parks with trees, benches and blue sky; such spaces were described as “safe,” “relaxing” and “where you go to hang out with friends.” Their “unhealthy” environments showed garbage and pollution; they were dark and unkempt. There was one student picture I found to be particularly striking: “healthy” was an open park with green grass, blue sky and a large shade tree. “Unhealthy” was the same picture – with buildings drawn in in the background. Based on this exercise, it appeared that walkers and children view “healthy” spaces as those where nature dominates, and where built interventions are kept at bay.

Perhaps most interesting were the responses I received back from design professionals. A total of twenty-one private design firms, six city councils and two health professionals submitted a total of sixty-eight projects for consideration. Work covered projects in rural, urban and suburban areas around Australia; all states and territories except Tasmania and the Northern Territory were represented. And while it was interesting to see what types of projects tended to dominate – city parks, playgrounds and multi-use paths – what was more curious were those projects that were missing. For instance, not one housing development was submitted – a glaring gap, considering we spend such a large part of our lives in our homes. Also unmentioned were shopping-centre upgrades where footpaths, seating, shade and lighting act as positive, transformative devices, and whose absence can result in struggling businesses and vandalism. Sporting ovals are often viewed as important sites of recreation, yet none were included.

If such projects are not being put forward as promoting health, perhaps we should accept that their current design is encouraging unhealthy patterns of use. We have residential areas where we can’t walk to parks, shopfronts whose design accommodates the car, but not the pedestrian, and sporting ovals that allow the occasional cricket game (played by 2.1 percent of the population), but are too exposed to engage a broader set of users for activities like walking (preferred by 36 percent of the population).¹⁰

Under the themes of Play, Heal, Learn, Work, Live and Travel, twenty-six projects were selected to represent different types of spaces and a broad spectrum of users: the young, the old, the worker, the student, the disabled, the infirm. It was also important to choose projects that were found within different types of communities – urban, regional and rural. The selection of projects represented within Bloom is not intended to showcase the best work from Australia, but instead focuses on the contrasts in how we approach – and value – different types of outdoor spaces. Structuring the discussion of Bloom based on everyday environments seemed the most logical framework to use, particularly if it’s the design of these everyday spaces that is influencing the habits of our overweight and unfit population.

But that isn’t to say the exhibition isn’t without its flaws. I interviewed the designers and clients to get a better sense of the design process and desired outcomes, but wasn’t able to visit all the projects, so I didn’t always get to meet those who actually use the space. If we are to better understand how such projects can be improved, we need to go to these spaces, talk to the users, and assess whether the design is benefiting the people it was created for, and if it’s not, work out what can be done to change it.

Bloom coincides with a range of important initiatives to boost population health. While trying to change the way we design our communities may seem like a daunting task, individuals and organizations are already taking action. Artist Natalie Jeremijenko has established the Environmental Health Clinic, where people (“ImPatients”) can schedule appointments to talk about their specific environmental health concerns. Prescriptions are given not for drugs but for actions – local data collection and urban interventions directed at understanding and improving one’s environmental health. Referrals are also provided, not to medical specialists but to “organizations that can use the data and actions prescribed as legitimate forms of participation to promote social change.”¹¹

Healthabitat is an Australian company established by an architect (Paul Pholeros), a thoracic physician (Dr Paul Torzillo), and a public and environmental health officer (Stephen Rainow), which seeks to “improve the health of disadvantaged people, particularly children, by improving their housing and the conditions of the living environment.”¹² This not-for-profit group has created links with partners both in Australia and abroad, and has delivered 184 Housing for Health projects, with over 7,300 houses improved to date. Each one is surveyed in terms of impact on inhabitants both before and after works have been completed as a way to measure the effectiveness of each intervention.

Governments are also finding ways of transforming research into policy and practical action. The New York City Department of Design & Construction has released a publication, Active Design Guidelines, which outlines strategies for how designers can create environments that promote healthier lifestyles within communities. Topics addressed include how to design neighbourhoods, streets and outdoor spaces in ways that are accessible via walking and bicycling. The underlying strategy of the guidelines is not to change people’s choices by appealing to their morals (“you should walk because it’s better for you”), but instead to design our environment in a way that reshapes available choices (“you’ll want to walk because it’s easier/cheaper/faster”).

Many of these examples are fairly new initiatives whose long-term impacts are unknown. But what all of them have in common is a belief that the way we design our communities – and particularly our outdoor spaces – has a big impact on our health and behaviour.

The structures of our everyday world are a reflection of our society. Bloom is about looking at some of these everyday spaces and assessing whether they are impacting on our health and habits, or making no impact at all. It’s important that we start finding ways of prioritizing people back into the way we design our spaces. It doesn’t take long to assess whether represented projects were designed with people in mind, or included them as an afterthought. Come to the Gallery of Australian Design in Canberra between 8 May and 9 June 2012 and see for yourselves. Alternatively, you can learn more at aila.org.au/bloom.

The exhibition, Bloom: Healthy Spaces, was at the Gallery of Australian Design, Canberra, ACT, 8 May – 9 June 2012, gad.org.au

References
- Howard Frumkin, Lawrence Frank & Richard Jackson, Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities (Washington: Island Press, 2004).
- Michael D. Murphy, Landscape Architecture Theory: An Evolving Body of Thought (Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2005).
- Billie Giles-Corti, “The Impact of Urban Form on Public Health,” from a paper prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/public-health/pubs/public-health.pdf (accessed 7 February 2012).