All language subtitles for Built Beautiful (2020) Mariel Rodriguez-McGill.en

[dramatic operatic intro]

[singing opera:
in foreign language]

Well, music was
part of my childhood,

really
from my earliest memory.

♪

So I've always
been interested in

the scientific aspects
of music.

♪

Being in the fMRI
for an experiment

was incredibly fascinating.

It was long.
I mean, I didn't. .

I don't think I really quite
clocked that I was signing up

for spending two hours
in the machine.

It was extraordinary
because, in my case,

this experiment
had me singing,

imagining
singing and speaking.

And the most powerful of the
three was imagining singing,

which surprised the scientists
who were looking at the results

but, in fact,
ultimately they said,

well, it was because
you're a singer.

So singing a second nature
for me, which is true.

And imagining singing
took a little more effort.

It was interesting to see how
this oxygen in the brain,

how that shows on the results
with the fMRI,

because you can really see
where the activity is.

I've created a network now
of scientists

really everywhere
that I performed.

I also loved the idea

of bringing a performing arts
venue together

or entity
together with researchers

in the same community
and they begin to collaborate.

And so I'm a bit of a catalyst
for that work

and certainly an advocate,

which, for me,
is an incredible gift.

♪

For years, scientists have
explored neuroesthetics,

the link between the arts
and the brain.

Today, neuroscientists
and architects

are working together
to explore a new link:

understanding how the built
environment affects the brain,

and how this knowledge
can help to build

a more beautiful world.

[operatic singing
slowly fades]

[jaunty orchestral music]

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

[John] When
you're designing something,

you're inevitably thinking
how you're using it.

You're thinking what's it like
to have a party here?

What's it like just sitting
here and enjoying a book.

[fire crackling]

You're designing it for

all these various
different occasions,

what it's like in summer

when you can fling
all the doors open.

And what's it's like in winter

where everything is shut in
with a fire roaring.

As a human being,
you know,

you are such able to connect
to architecture.

So that architecture
in a way becomes part of you,

like it's allowing you to
be what you need to be there.

And it's very strange,
is such powerful.

[Martha]
In my 20s,
I went to live in Paris

and I felt right at home there
right away.

Why did I feel more at home
in Paris and I'm not French?

What's going on?

We are beings that are always
looking for safe space

and the visceral qualities
of touch and smell and sight,

the audio components.

I think architecture

is something in-between
natural and human beings.

Natural is unlimited

and is basically something
that we don't fully grasp.

Architecture is able to be
just something in the middle

on that limited unnatural,
and limited human beings.

And it is able in a way
to bridge the gap.

[John] Architecture is
a sort of language

which allows us to be
able to design buildings

and, through that,
design cities.

They are places in which

we all can live together
amicably, happily.

Each society
has its own language.

I mean, you go to Middle East,
you go to China,

you go to India
and you can see there's

a very specific language
of architecture

which exists alongside
the spoken language.

And he's all part
of the culture

and the traditions of that
particular set of people.

[Anjan] Built environment is
any environment we're in,

which has been manufactured
by people.

For example, being in
a beautiful place like

the Grand Canyon would
not be a built environment.

That was still
have an impact on you, but

a built environment
would be like this room.

It could be a church,
it could be a temple,

it could be a hospital,
it could be a school,

it could be a museum.

Any environment that has
built. . been built by humans.

We're surrounded
by architecture.

And it's impactful.

Just think of it this way.
There are probably buildings

that you go out of your way
to avoid.

Likewise,
there are probably buildings

that you go out of your way
to see.

[Martha]
Scientists,
political researchers,

advertising agencies,
they've all studied the brain.

Whether determining which
color pops on a billboard.

to which buzzwords trigger
a positive response

from future voters,

the potential to integrate
neuroscience into the arts

has been studied
for over a decade.

Architecture's really
lagging behind a little bit

in terms of the research
that's been going on

in the retail world
in utilization of patterns

that generate empathic
transference of emotions.

And it's
really quite important.

It's about deciding, am I
going to approach something

or will I avoid it?

I believe the brain is the most
interesting organ in the body.

Neuroscience is the study
of the brain,

its biology, its properties,

what happens to it
in health and disease.

And it occurs at many levels
of organization,

from the properties
of individual cells

and structures within the cells

to large-scale systems

that give rise to things
like language and emotion

and perception and aesthetics.

I got into neuroscience
and architecture

around 2005

when this was just
an emerging field of interest.

And that started with

the Academy of Neuroscience
For Architecture.

And we were pioneering
a new discipline here.

We thought, gosh,
if we can get neuroscientists

thinking about the spaces
they are working in

and spending most
of their time in,

then maybe we can
kind of pull something

out of that kind of what's
familiar to them.

You know, the thing is that
I'm an architect,

I'm not a neuroscientist.

And I've realized that,
uh, architecture

needed to be, uh,
complemented by something else.

[Anjan] It's estimated that
in most developed countries,

people spend 90% of their time
within the built environment.

And so it has a huge impact
on how we operate,

how we feel,
where we spend time.

And so in the context
of thinking of the nature

of aesthetic experiences as
influenced by our environment,

architecture becomes
an important piece of that.

We are seeing
a fortunate confluence

of, uh, several independent
currents that have been, um,

running along independently
and isolated from each other

and they're coming. .
suddenly coming together.

So neuroscience becomes
this beautiful venue to say,

wow,
here's this emerging field

that is offering us ways
to better quantify

some of the qualitative aspects
of the built environment

that we've believed
for so long

that maybe we could actually
start to define.

[Meredith] And our brain is
a pattern-making machine.

It likes to make sense
of things.

[man] When the sun comes up and
you feel the warmth of the sun

and the flowers open up,

that sequence
is known as a pattern.

[Meredith] We know
what beauty is not.

we know that when there's

conflicting sensory
information coming in

and that might happen
within one sense like vision,

um, where you have sort of one
pattern

being expressed
in a different one

and the brain struggles to make
sense of what's going on there.

And that creates confusion,

that creates stress
for the brain.

It has to work harder to
figure out what's going on.

Um, a nice analogy is-
is when we think of- of music.

If you have one instrument

playing in a pattern
that's musical

that's pleasing,
we like that.

When you have
two instruments playing

and there are
different patterns,

there are different music,
then the brain is conflicted.

It's trying to decipher
both of them.

When you have
two instruments playing

and they're not patterned,
you have noise.

That's really stressful.

We do have to recognize
that neuroscience

is opening the door for us
to better try and understand

why things in the past
may be resonating today

with the things we did last
week

in a building that just opened.

Why might it be working
and why is it not working?

Are there triggers
that can be read

through reactions of the body

that could help us
make better decisions,

not in such absolute terms,

but kind of hinting
in that direction?

[Martha]
Humans have sought shelter

for thousands of years.

Early structures continue to
challenge archaeologists,

ranging from prehistoric
Stonehenge

to cliff dwellings
discovered across the globe.

Fast-forward a few thousand
years to temples, shrines,

and pyramids constructed
from man-made materials

such as blocks
made of sunbaked mud.

The architecture of
the ancient Greeks and Romans

is still visible today.

Symmetry and mathematical
proportions were considered

while constructing
classical architecture.

Brick, dome grooves
and mosaics

defined the transformational
Byzantine era.

Architecture evolved more
swiftly as time progressed,

with noticeable style
differences

defining the Romanesque,
Gothic, Renaissance,

and Baroque periods.

Rococo's elegance made way
for orderly neoclassicism.

The 20th century saw
an evolution of its own.

The asymmetrical shapes
of Art Nouveau,

the elaborate ornamentation
of Beaux Arts,

vertical lines
soaring to great heights,

identified as
neo-gothic architecture,

the sleek lines
and Jazz Age ornamentation

defining the Art Deco era,

but everything seemed
to change after World War 1

as the focus shifted to new
and emerging technology

and modernism became en vogue.

[John] In the early 20th
century, modern architecture,

as we call it today,
was invented, I think,

for the best reasons.

People felt that they had
all this industrial technology

and they felt, well,
why couldn't this be used

to actually deal with
a lot of the ills.

You know, there was
such shortage of housing,

quality,
that sort of thing.

Why can't we mobilize
that industrial might

then we use it
to solve humanity's problems?

[Tiziana] The idea of modernity
comes also from the idea to,

not just build,
uh, modern buildings,

but shape the life
of the modern man.

[woman] We needed to rebuild
after the war very quickly.

It was cheaper ways to build.
We wanted to be mechanical.

We were entranced
with the machines.

The amount of building that
occurred in the 20th century

could never have happened,
not in a short period of time

if it wasn't for that,
but, of course, in doing that,

we lost a lot because
all those techniques

that'd been developed
for centuries,

all just got swept away
and forgotten.

So the result was that
things were being built,

which in retrospect now
have ended up being

quite unsympathetic
to human existence.

[Tiziana] And, of course,
that idea to bring

the idea of modernity
to everybody

made sense in a way to create
something

that works for everybody
universally,

but then later in the history,

it was easy to understand
that that cannot happen.

♪

The Bauhaus School in Germany
was considered at the time

and, still, today to be

one of the most
influential schools of design

in the history
of the world.

They revolutionized the way
that architects

and planners and designers
approach

the task of shaping the built
environment we live in.

Modernism was about saying,

"There's nothing here
of value.

Let's start
with a tabula rasa. "

In education,
that meant students come in

and they would say to them,

"I don't care
what you learnt

from your parents
or your grandparents

or what religious fash-
faith you grew up in,

or what your intuition
may be telling you

because that has no value. "

You should empty yourselves
out of all of that

so that we can fill you up
with the right stuff.

That makes no sense
because if everyone was

emptied out and filled up with
the same right stuff,

they couldn't innovate.

[Justin] A hundred years
after the Bauhaus,

we are now at a pivotal moment
in understanding the science

in a much more profound way
and starting really a new era

in terms of how
do we use information

about the human experience

to shape the places
that we spend time.

[Martha]
As architects embrace
minimalism and function,

the term beauty
all but disappeared

from conversation.

Beauty is a word that. .
or a term that, uh,

many people don't like to use
because it's so subjective,

but, at the same time,
I think

beauty is a word that
invites us to participate

and to- to consider,
you know,

how is this potentially
valuable to me?

You could argue
literally forever, uh,

about an ind-
an individual person's

understanding
of aesthetic beauty,

but I think
in the built environment,

you have to take it
a bit more broadly

and profoundly than that.

[Melissa]
When I walk into a place

and I immediately
feel calm and serene

and I'm interested
in staying there,

I think it's beautiful.

[Duo] Beauty is not dependent
on the human things,

but anything that
is described as "beauty"

is described through
lens of being a human.

Beauty really is about the
reason why we're alive.

[Tiziana] Beauty is being
connected, for example,

to the idea of harmony and
perfection of a building,

but at the same time,

some other theories
have told that, uh,

beauty is connected to the
functionality of the building.

If we think about
the old saying,

"beauty is in
the eye of the beholder",

that's not exactly true.
It's not in the eye.

It's in the brain.
Our experience of the world

is- is multi-sensory.

That experience of our senses
coming together

and integrating
happens in the brain.

Beauty is in the brain
of the beholder

and our brains are more similar
than they are different.

The question always is
beauty of what?

And what the research
suggests is that

if we're talking
about beauty of faces,

people are really
quite consistent.

People are consistent
across cultures.

It turns out that infants will
look at faces that adults

regard as beautiful for longer
than faces not as beautiful.

This seems to be
a core biologic response

to attractiveness in faces.

At the other end
of the spectrum is artwork

and people
are all over the place.

If you look at landscapes,
people are pretty consistent,

not as consistent as faces.

And then if you look at
architectural interiors

or exteriors,
they kind of fall

in between artwork
and landscapes.

And so one way of thinking
about the built environment is

that it's a kind of
manufactured landscape.

Right? So it kind
of falls in between.

And the broad idea is that
what we might refer to

as natural kinds, right?

So, faces
and natural environments,

those are the things that
our brains have really evolved

to fit with and so there's
greater consistency.

[Justin] Every second,
11 million bits of information

come into our human mind
through our five senses.

First of all,

10 million of that
is coming in through our eyes.

So, of course, our other
senses are important,

but humans, we're primarily
a visual creature.

Of the 11 million bits
per second,

only 50 of those bits
are we conscious of.

So we are largely walking
through our day,

walking through our night

experiencing
the world unconsciously.

I hate to break it to you,

we evolved
without buildings.

And the brains and bodies
we have

arrived in a world
expecting not to see buildings.

We're really about
living in the wild.

[Nikos] Humans create what
our neural mechanism

is hardwired to create.

And we create
because we have evolved

to recognize patterns
in nature for our survival.

[Donald] Mankind evolved in
the Savannah of Eastern Africa

over millions and millions
of years.

At that point, our brain
structure was made up of

the brain stem
and the mid-brain.

Those two components
of the brain are

the emotional centers
of our neurological structure.

Mankind learned that
there were certain patterns

that were good for them

and certain patterns
that were not good for them.

Those that discerned the
patterns that were dangerous

and could take avoidance
were the ones who survived.

Those patterns
became ingrained in our DNA.

And if passed on
from one human to another.

[Martha]
How did the human brain become

the powerful machine
it is today?

Typically, people think
of the Pleistocene era

over two million years ago.

Much of the discussion
has been around landscapes

and what type of landscape
humans find approachable.

The first is referred
to as prospect.

Humans feel a sense of safety

if they can see
a considerable distance.

They are able to scan
the horizon for any threats.

Well, a pattern that I like to
refer to a lot is a broad view.

You can tell
if bad weather's coming

or predators are coming

or even enemies
are hiding out in trees.

If it's sparsely spaced trees
and a big open view,

that's a pleasure-inducing
pattern.

And the other has to do with
sources of nourishment.

Whether that has to do with

the availability of fruits
and vegetables,

whether that has to do
with availability of animals

that one might be hunting
at that period,

that there are sources
of nourishment.

Those things seem to apply
to natural environments.

And we think that
they remain operational

within
the built environment,

which is that people
need to feel safe,

or whatever that constitutes
safety in that setting,

and you need
to feel nourished.

And we would speculate that
nourishment can be thought of

in a more abstract way
than simply,

can I get food and water?

Also nourishment for what
it means to feel well,

to be well,
which becomes, I think,

more of an issue in
our contemporary society.

In our research,
we found another variable

that seems to be important with
the built environment

that is not as relevant
with natural environments,

is something
we're calling hominess,

which is when you walk into
a built environment,

do you feel at home?

Does it feel like you own the
space or are comfortable in it?

And you can have
very beautiful environments in-

which are still off-putting,

or at least doesn't feel
quite homey.

And that's a piece that
we are finding in our research

that seems to be relevant

in a way that was not true
for natural environments

because the notion of hominess
doesn't really apply

in that setting.

Trying to lay out
a framework for us

to start to think
and start to do research

and empirically
start to measure that

so that we can do a better
job of creating places.

Places that are meaningful
to people,

places that connect with them,

that are beautiful, that. .
that make sense to people,

that people
are gonna care about.

And you have to operate on
that unconscious level.

If you don't, then- then you
have no chance.

All mammals have those three
responses to fear,

fight, flight, and freeze.

[Justin]
The autonomic nervous system

supplies the information
to our brain to process.

So the nervous system is
collecting data

and then feeding it
to our brain for processing.

And then the autonomic
nervous system

is bifurcated
into two components,

and these are inseparable

but opposing streams
of information.

[Meredith] We have two systems,
sympathetic and. .

and the parasympathetic system
that, uh, work together

and is measured in
heart rate variability.

And the variability
is a good thing.

If we didn't have variability,
um,

that- that might be a. .
a case where. .

a. . a person who has- has
Alzheimer's has no variability.

So you- you want sort of that-
that- that balance,

that exchange, that variation
between the two systems.

The parasympathetic system is
that which is calming,

and the sympathetic system
is that which is

kind of our
fight-or-flight response.

It's what happens
when we're under stress.

We get elevated blood pressure
increase in heart rate.

There are some very important
health ramifications

to those two streams
of information.

So the sympathetic stream of
information is stress inducing.

It elevates our heart rate,

increases our blood pressure,
it activates adrenaline

into our bloodstream,
and also cortisol.

So adrenaline elevates
our heart rate

and stresses out
our cardiovascular system,

compromises
our immune system.

And some researchers
have even found

that it affects
the length of our DNA,

which is affecting
the length of our lives.

On the other side
of the equation is

the parasympathetic reaction,
which is rest and relaxation.

So this is actually
a pleasure reaction

which lowers our heart rate,

lowers our blood pressure,

improves
our cardiovascular system,

improves our immune system,

and our overall sense of
health and well-being.

So certain architectural
patterns can generate

a sympathetic reaction
or a parasympathetic reaction.

Just like how the Greeks
have different words

to describe different types
of love,

Emmanuel Kant said there were
different types of- of beauty.

Um, and I think neuroscience
is starting to parse those out.

And so, for example,

we have a beauty experience

that has a outcome
where we feel calm,

where we feel relaxed.

But we also have beauty
experiences that excite us,

Where we have a heightened
sense of pleasure.

Maybe it's attraction
to another person,

for example, and that's very
stimulating.

There's a variability
between the sympathetic

and the parasympathetic

and I think even where
beauty is concerned.

The parasympathetic response
is more conditions in which

people want
a calmer environment

and the sympathetic
is where people want

a more exciting one, right?

So if you're designing
a sports stadium,

you don't want
the parasympathetic

to be in ascendance.

You want people
to be excited there.

You don't want everybody
to be kind of sort of chill

and not so excited
about what's going on.

So, I think it depends on the
context of what the building is

for what- what the effect
you are trying to create.

Homeostasis
is a very important concept

to our health
and well-being.

And it's bringing
the parasympathetic inputs

and the sympathetic inputs
into a proper balance.

We can't live our life
under stress 24/7.

We know that's bad
for our health.

Likewise, living a life that's
all rest and relaxation,

while I'd like
to try it someday,

is not good for us either.

It also is important
in architecture

that we have strong moments
of awe

and interesting curiosity.

What I want the leaves to do
is to make you feel

that you are responded to
in them.

That they take what you feel
and turn them into something

that's 3-dimensional
and desirable.

The panopticon was a. .
initially a prison.

And it was a prison
where it was like

a star and right in the middle
was where the guards were.

And then on the radii

that radiated out
from the middle

was where
the cells were for the prisons.

And there were supposed
to be prison guards

in the middle watching you
at any given time.

So the panopticon
literally means many eyes.

So it was a way of conserving
with your guards.

So you could just have guards
in the middle

watching everybody.

Of course, the prisoners
couldn't really see the guards.

So the idea was that they're
watching the prisoners,

but the prisoners
can't see them,

which meant that
they really need

to have guards there
ultimately.

And so it's this feeling of
being watched all the time.

And that, uh,
that idea of the panopticon

was then applied
to other things as well.

And that feeling that we're
being watched

led to a sense
of paranoia and to fear.

[Martha]
For generations,
the built environment

that surrounds us
has influenced feelings,

fears,
and a sense of identity.

But why is it important
to take evolution

and the human mind
into account and instead,

build for the humans
who inhabit these spaces?

There are different things that
make different people happy.

Right? And so that's again,
comes back to, you know,

architects needing to recognize

that there is
no one type of user

or individual or citizen
that experiences our work.

[Tiziana]
I react to spaces,

especially when I'm in a
building which I really like.

It leaves me a feeling
that stands for some days.

It's really something
inside me, I don't know.

But I just loved the feeling
of some kind of buildings

that are
just well-designed.

I think when we say
we love a place

it's because
when we're there,

maybe we feel connected
to ourselves.

Maybe we feel connected with
other people in that place.

Maybe we feel connected with
nature in that place.

Maybe we feel connected to the
past in that place.

Maybe we feel a connection
with the future

or connection
with a higher being.

Conversely, when we say
we hate a place,

it is because
we feel disconnected.

[engine rumbling]

We feel alienated
and we feel isolated.

When we say we hate a place

it's because we don't feel
any connection there.

[Tiziana] An architect
is really more than

just a functional space
because we consume buildings,

we don't experience building.

No one is asking you in the
church to be silent, you know,

but you enter in this space
and you act in that way

because the building
is designed in a way

that you feel that that's
appropriate for you to do.

And the kind of architecture
is really an architecture

planned to guide rituals,
human behavior,

and really allow
an experience of the building.

Because you're creating
something that's public,

it has to have the buy-in.

And that's how people feel
that they belong to a place

and it belongs to them
even though they didn't own it.

Person-centered design is
something that I've been

interested in
from my earliest education.

Um, as an undergrad
I studied both science

as well as archaeology.

So getting into architecture
was a natural extension

because it's just archaeology
in reverse.

In- in my mind,
it's about studying people,

and behaviors, and culture,

so that we can design artifacts
to support what they're doing,

to support their culture,
to support their behaviors.

Design always starts
with the person

and trying
to understand their goals,

how they're performing
and support that

through artifacts,
through environments

that we're creating
and constructing.

[Hans] We are not succeeding

if the people
who use our buildings

are not finding joy
in these projects.

They are not feeling as if they
are, you know,

somehow fulfilled, buoyed,
uplifted by our work.

[John] You need that language
so as to make sure that

you've got something
in the first place

that everybody
can subscribe to.

But also you need to get across
generational buy-in,

so that future architects

and future members
of the community using it

all feel it
belongs to them as well.

[Hans]
And so, as we design,

we're also thinking
in particular about,

will people who come to
experience these spaces

that we help craft,
will they come away with

a heightened
or deepened sense of identity,

a sense of belonging?

Aesthetics is about
all the senses.

And the visual
tends to dominate

much of the discussion
about aesthetics.

But when I'm talking
about bridge aesthetics

because I was
a bridge designer,

it's much more
about being on a bridge.

The sense of slight
nervousness that you feel,

the wind on your face,

the environment around
you is moving,

there are boats moving.

[Colin] Humans are
preponderantly visual animals,

we're a member of
the. . the primate group.

And primates collectively
almost entirely have brains

that are dominated
by the visual sense.

Unlike most other animals,

we regulate our social lives
by means of our visual sense.

So I know how you're feeling

based on the expression
of your face.

I'm learning about
the social context of my life

based on the visual sense.

It's not to say that. .
that the other senses

aren't making
a contribution.

If you walk into a room where
there's a really bad smell,

you are likely to have
a negative impression

of that room and
a negative set of emotions.

We are actually
reasonably good

at being able to process
auditory information.

You can walk through a space
with your eyes closed

and simply from the echoes
of your foot falls

or even the sound
of your breathing,

you can get some sense of the
size of that space.

So we're doing space
with our auditory senses

as well as
with our. . our visual sense.

Why is it important
to look at how

the built environment
impacts people?

Well, because
it has a big impact on us.

Long car commutes,

living in a small flat
off a long corridor,

where you don't know
who you're gonna meet

when you come out
of that corridor

or where there are lots
of intermediate space

that's neither public
nor private.

Er, living in
a polluted environment,

living in an environment where
you're ashamed to live there,

living in an environment
you find ugly,

living in an environment
where it's noisy or stressful

or difficult to go about
your quotidian business.

All these things
are provably bad

for the amount we walk,
our mental health,

and we can and should fix them.

This stuff matters.

[Nikos] Biophilia is
the love of living things.

Human beings love plants,
flowers,

we love our domestic animals,

we love other human beings
on a primal level.

When we apply certain
biophilic principles of design

to create our environments,
then we connect to them.

Biophilia is
this evolutionary perspective,

where, um,
there's a suggestion

that people have evolved
in nature.

And only recently since
the Industrial Revolution

have we separated ourselves
from it.

And so our bodies
aren't able to adapt to

the new environments because
it's such a recent phenomenon.

The first bit of research
on biophilia

was very much in the health
space in the early 1980s,

took two hospital wards.

One of the hospital wards
looked out into a brick wall,

and the other looked out
to attractive green space.

And they had enough data

that they're able to match
patients from two wards,

of roughly similar age,

roughly similar
socioeconomic status,

roughly similar levels
of ailment.

And, again, you can probably
guess where this is going.

Patients in the ward which
looked out onto greenery,

they got better faster.

Fascinating, they stayed
better for longer

than the patients who
were in the ward that didn't.

And since then, there's been
lots of subsequent research

that links, you know, greenery
and what's not threatening

and places
that you find beautiful

with better mental
and physical health.

What always amazes me
is why buildings

such as hospitals are designed
to be such brutish places.

You'd have thought a hospital
in particular

where people are feeling ill,
feeling bad,

you really want to design them

so that they will uplift
the patients.

And one of the things
that we did

to the Defense National
Rehabilitation Centre,

is that the client there
came to me and said,

"Look, we want to design
this rehabilitation center,

but we want to make sure that
it's not just the medicine that

we're putting in there, but
actually building a building

which is actually going
to help, positively help,

rather than just be a nice
place for people to be in. "

One of the things
that we did was

to find a
nice rural location.

We found Stanford Hall which
was an old 18th century estate.

This was the first time
that a client had come along,

who had actually acknowledged
that the architecture

was actually going
to help the people

who are going
to occupy the buildings.

It's not the condition
that we're relating to,

it's the person
and the people themselves.

And it's really creating
a sanctuary here

where the patients can find
somewhere

within this whole complex

which is going to suit them
best as individuals,

and at the same time provide,
of course,

all that medical equipment

and to actually service
their needs.

So again, it comes
back to that whole idea

creating something which
is useful, convenient,

but at the same time
as pleasurable

and appeals as much as possible
to the human senses

so that people
can react to that.

Neuroscience is, I think,
opening the door for,

er, architecture to become
much more rigorous,

and also for people to
change how they understand

the value
of good architecture.

I think it is
a real game changer.

We've been talking about
this notion for years now,

the evidence-based design.

Beauty is
not subjective.

What one individual person will
say you can't predict.

Take a room of 10 or 100
or 1,000 people,

and you can predict
growing confidence

how the strong majority
of people

will respond to most places
most of the time.

Evidence-based design, er,

actually came out of
evidence-based medicine.

So using data and research
to inform

how doctors practice medicine,
clinicians practice medicine.

In our project at Sutter
Roseville Oncology Center,

which is an outpatient facility
for people with cancer,

some of the research activities
we did

were to have focus groups
with patients.

We built an exam room
and a clinic out of cardboard,

and we brought people through
that to test and see

what worked
and didn't work.

We collect information
at the beginning,

we collect their research
to inform the design.

But we don't wait
till everything

is constructed to test it.

We're always testing
through the design process,

we're not just waiting
till the end

and. . and you can't do much
about it.

The Eating Recovery Center

treats persons
with eating disorders.

I went into
the neuroscience research

because I had hypothesized
that there might be

an environmental correlate
to the- the disorder

and- and that is indeed
what we found.

For example, in persons with
anorexia and bulimia,

they tend to overestimate
their body size.

As a result of that,
they also misjudge distances

between their body
and another object

or a person or a wall
or environment.

And so they have a different
perception of space

or spatial cognition

than people who don't have
the eating disorders.

It is important to mind that
evidence from neuroscience

so that we could design
the right spaces for them.

Some of the things
we did was increase distances

almost by two-fold
in the dining,

so that they didn't feel
as cramped or as crowded.

In the human-centered design
paradigm this is desirability.

And, and so for us
we use user experience methods

to understand what people want,

and I think that's where beauty
becomes really important.

So the fact that buildings
are made by humans for humans,

but become inhuman and against
the humans who are there,

become projections
of the designer

over the rest of us
as a statement of,

"this is important
because I am important. "

The perception of beauty
has been,

um, compartmentalizing
our society.

The industry of creating art

does not create
beautiful things,

and the industry of building
architecture

no longer creates
beautiful architecture.

So there has been
a disassociation

from what the human body feels

to be beautiful
in a biological sense,

from what is officially shown
in the press as beautiful.

Though in making something that
makes many people miserable,

that shows the perversity
of the desire to control

over the desire to create.

[Nikos]
We can go to the moon.

We have a roving robot
with a camera on Mars.

Are we incapable of creating
a decent office environment?

Are we incapable of creating
a decent kitchen?

These are deeply ingrained
prejudices in our society.

And even people who have not
gone through architecture,

so they have picked up
from the media

that this is the way
things are supposed to be.

[John]
When you design something

which is completely alien,
completely your own,

and somebody says,
"I don't like it"

and you say, "Well,
you don't understand it,

that's why you don't like it",
What can they say?

They usually just give up
and that's the problem.

Working within something
which is traditional

allows people to engage,

allows people
to become part of it

and allows people to feel
comfortable talking about it.

[Nikos] When you look at
science fiction films,

sometimes you see things
that are alien

and you know
they cannot be alive.

It doesn't look
like something that,

that can be alive
even on Mars.

We have an intrinsic connection
with what is alive

and what is beautiful.

This is the design disconnect.

We get. . we get into
lots trouble for this.

So there are three
or four bits of research

which show with pretty high
level of confidence

a predictable difference
between what, if you like,

professional designers
and everyone else

prefer
or generally say they prefer.

The first study
I'm aware on this

was done by
my uncle David Halper.

He was actually experimenting
on what impact

repeated exposure to the same
image has on your preference.

That was what
he was trying to do,

but he actually ended up
with different findings.

He was using faces
and using buildings.

And he was doing on students
because students are cheap.

And he showed, for different
faces, to lots of people,

and he showed different
buildings to lots of people.

Faces, you know,
he got the response,

I guess he was expecting.

Buildings, he realized
that the responses

were [indistinct] into two
completely different subsets.

Subset Group A, whose favorite
building was that

and your second favorite
building was that

and whose least favorite
building were those.

And there was Group B where
it was literally the opposite,

completely averted.

So that got him puzzling
so he had. .

he had further look at these
two sets of students.

He found the Group A
was the architecture students

and Group B was everyone else.

And then he looked even further
and he realized that the longer

people had been architect
students, the more divergent

they were from the rest
of the student body.

The Hamilton Building
of the Denver Art Museum

was really groundbreaking
at the time it was built

because we had
the technology to create

these new forms,
these crazy angles.

And because this was new,

these forms hadn't been
experimented with before

at this scale.

It was also a new experience
for the museum goers,

for the people experiencing
these crazy angles.

Some people began to report
a feeling a sense of dizziness,

especially when
they were going up the stairs.

What's happening there is
a. . a disconnect

between what your-
your eyes are telling you,

the visual information
that you're getting,

which is these angles,

which is telling you that
your position is not upright,

but your inner ear cells

where gravity
is pushing down on them,

is telling you that
you are upright.

So your brain is confused.

Am I upright?
Am I not upright?

And the result
is this feeling of dizziness.

The Hamilton Building though,
if you look at the interviews

with the architect
Daniel Libeskind,

he wanted a provocative piece
for the city of Denver.

And certainly the intent of all
art is not to be beautiful.

And in some cases
it does intend to. . to provoke

or make people
think differently.

There are other buildings
that have been designed,

some of them intentionally
to disorient you

like there's a building

called the Upside Down House
in Poland.

And even while they were
constructing that,

the workers had to take a break
very frequently because

they would feel dizzy,
they would feel disoriented

and it was really
upsetting their systems.

Analogy is music.

So, in. . in Britain,
there are, uh,

two main stations
that play "classical" music.

There's one called Classic FM,
which music aficionados

are a bit snooty about
because, you know,

it's a bit predictable,
a bit of Mozart,

bit of Puccini,
bit of Williams,

you know, it's stuff you've
sort of heard before.

Then there's Radio 3
which is no doubt

much more interesting if you're
into your academic music,

which plays far more
experimental music,

it plays the classics as well,

but it's out there
pushing the boundaries.

And the difference is this,

your music taste or my music
taste doesn't matter.

It's our music taste.
Listen to what we like.

Listen to. . we go to the
concerts we want to go to.

But what we build in the built
environment does matter,

and it has an impact
on the well-being

and the health
of our fellow citizens.

So if people who have come
to have divergent tastes,

no criticism, from the rest
of the population,

if they're controlling
what we build,

then we need
to correct for that.

[Martha]
So,
how do we build for humans?

And how can neuroscience
help us do this?

For years, advertisers have
been utilizing technology,

examining how the brain reacts

to one color
or font over another.

Why not apply these tools
to the built environment?

[Colin] So we have tried
as much as we possibly can

to adopt scientific methods

to understanding
that relationship

between the built environment
and human psychology.

And we've used

a range of different kinds
of tools for that.

One of the cornerstones is
what's called self-assessment.

We ask people when placed into
a particular kind of setting

to reflect on how
that setting makes them feel.

The other thing
that we've ventured into

is the use of biometrics
to explore the relationship

between human psychology
and built environment.

I wanted to see how people
actually use nature

within
our urban environments.

I can actually study how
people can be happier

and have higher levels of
well-being and health

based on reducing
people's stress levels

and improving attention

and then also looking at
people's mood.

One big development
in the field is, uh,

not only the miniaturization of
some of these hardware sensors,

but also the fact that now
they're wireless.

One of the monitors
that we use goes on your wrist

just like a regular watch.

It measures your heart rate
through your skin.

And we have two sensors
that measure

your skin conductance

and basically
these two electrodes

pass an electric current,

1/1,000 the amount
of what you'd get

if you touched a doorknob
and got shock.

The faster
the electric current goes,

uh, the more sweat
is on your arm.

And so that's going to show
heightened sense of arousal.

One of the areas will be

a naturally restorative
environment.

You're surrounded by trees,
you've got a heavy tree canopy,

have this sense of being away
from your everyday environment.

And then there's
a street corner, high traffic,

was rated
as least restorative urban,

really boring, plain buildings
in front of us.

So lots of noise and not very
interesting environment.

And then the last environment
is this little courtyard.

The brickwork around the area

is really interesting
to look at.

There's always lots of people
walking through.

And there's
some little hanging plants.

So not a lot of nature
by just a little bit.

It's much more interesting
environment to look around.

So we can see whether people
were really stressed out

or rather
they're really excited.

And so from there we can then
determine what that signal

is looking like
for the skin conductance

while as for heart rate,

you can measure
the interbeat intervals

when your parasympathetic
nervous system is active.

So you're resting
and digesting situation,

then you're gonna have
more heart rate variability

because your heart rate doesn't
need to be so consistent.

While as when you're
in a stressed-out state,

your sympathetic nervous system
is gonna be more active.

And what we find is
that you get much less

heart rate variability
because your body

has to be very consistent
because it needs

to make sure that
when there's blood

that needs to go
to your muscles

so you can
run away from a bear

or something like that,
you have that.

So when we're looking at
that heart rate variability,

we're able to tell
whether people are resting

or whether they have
that, um, stressed-out

fight-or-flight
kind of response.

So, traditionally,
uh, biosensor research

has been very cumbersome,
complex and costly as well.

Now it's easier to actually
plug and play

all of these sensors
and hardware together

so that the researcher
can focus on

what's really important.

If we want to take this
into the real-world,

we use something like
these eye tracking glasses.

They have
a tiny little array of

an infrared light emitters
and, uh, cameras

and are able to track
where I'm actually looking

in the scene in real-time.

[Justin] Eye tracking is
powerful for our research

because it helps you understand

what is called
pre-attentive processing.

In those first 3-5 seconds that
you see an image or a scene,

it's that unconscious
that's revealing itself.

And if you track
a person's eye,

you'll know what
they're fixating on

and that'll tell you what
they are interested in

and attracted to look
at an unconscious level.

It's a window
into the unconscious.

And so one
of our early ideas was,

let's take Boston City Hall
because it's been the building

that had issues with the public
with its reception

for over 50 years.

What we realized is that

people have a very hard time
looking at the building.

They'll tend to look at other
people around the building,

or they'll look
through the building

because there are
some areas in the building

where you can see light
through the building

but don't really want to look
at the building.

Whereas when you eye track
the Old State House,

the 1713 buildings
is a 10th of a mile away,

people instantly
within one second

are looking right at the center
of that building.

So some buildings are designed
by design are easier

for our brain to take
in unconsciously

without our conscious
awareness.

[Justin] Eye tracking
is only part of the story.

What we need to be
very aware of is

just because
someone's eye fixates on,

let's say a window,

that is suggesting
an unconscious level,

that is where
they want to look.

But it could be
because they're scared of that.

And he wanted to look at it
because they're afraid

and that's a trigger
of flight response.

I think we need to do more
robust scientific studies

that show how important eye
tracking,

but also the other aggregated
biometric measures

are to reframe architectural
experience.

[Martha]
In addition to tapping
into new technology,

architects are taking
a closer look

into the structural elements
and patterns

repeatedly used by
generations of humankind.

Our firm has been
looking at a pattern

that has recurred worldwide.

We'd like to refer to it as
a three-by-three pattern.

We started to notice that it
wasn't just a western pattern.

It occurred
on every single continent.

We actually traced it back
to 5000 BC in China

which is pretty remarkable.

Why would this single pattern
be recurring in every culture

on every continent

through almost the entire
length of recorded time.

There are major examples of
this pattern being used

to establish the geometry a
famous points of architecture.

And these are spots that are
revered by mankind.

♪

So I'm looking at the
three-by-three geometry

for architecture,
we refer to it as

left, center, right,
top, center, bottom.

And basically the key idea
here is that

there's a center
with boundaries

and the geometry doesn't
have to be rigorous.

♪

The center can be quite large
and boundaries can be small,

can also be asymmetrical.

♪

We exalt the architecture
and we protect it.

And the reason is because it's
pleasure inducing and that

pleasure inducement is caused
by the three-by-three pattern.

We are born looking
for this pattern

and we go to great lengths
to try to reconstruct it.

So when it's there,
we will relax.

When that main idea
is very clear

then everything else tends
to fall into. .

to place pretty easily
and harmoniously.

And that doesn't mean
that there can't be

beautiful anomalies or
deviation within that pattern,

uh, because a lot of times
there are,

and actually you can celebrate
them more easily

if the foundation is solid.

Three-by-three pattern
can be used in any style.

Whether traditional,
neoclassical,

Georgian style or contemporary,

or deconstructivist,

the human brain is just simply
looking for the pattern.

I think there's genetic basis

to our ability
to recognize shapes.

And I think the. . there was
a very famous experiment

from last century called
Lorenz looking at seagulls

and the way the newborn chick

could recognize
particular colors,

could recognize patterns,
could recognize the shape

of a hawk,
so we have a genetic basis

for shape recognition.

When a child is born

65% of
their neuronal structure

is dedicated
to face recognition.

Darwin theorized that
a child has to find a face

in order to survive.

From some of our research,

we know that people are
attracted to symmetry.

In fact, symmetry
can sometimes trump

some of the other values
that we might manipulate.

It's more interesting
to understand the symmetry

as something of parts
that are balanced

from one part to another.

And there are connections
between parts

and connection
between parts to the whole

so that the visual weight
of each single element

is contributing
to the composition

to give you
the sense of balance.

[man] There's something
called the figural primitive;

two dots for an eye,

a vertical line for a nose,

and a horizontal line
for a mouth.

We are born looking for that.

And it turns out we're looking
for it everywhere.

Our whole lives
we're looking for that.

There's a reason most old
buildings look face-like.

Because it turns out more
of the human brain is hardwired

to see and look for faces,
than most anything else.

We're face
a textbook a world.

So today you've got the chance
to draw the picture of a house.

You can use felt tips
or crayons,

it's up to you.

You can draw your house
however you want.

♪

♪

Last year,
I gave 19 talks.

I said before each talk,

draw a house as if
you're a five-year-old.

Everybody drew a square

often with a pitched roof,
they're not always,

and then two windows
that suggest eyes

and then a door
that looked like a mouth.

I was like,
"What's going on here?"

They were drawing a face. "

The sociopolitical components
of architecture

historically, right,

and what they say and how they
may still be relevant today

is something we cannot deny.

And so the urge to focus

more and more elemental
components of architecture.

And I think that's where
proportion comes into play.

Proportion is- um,
is one of the parameters

that has to do with
the understanding of

the built environment
from dimension and size

to when we perceive
the external environment.

We try to grasp or understand
some different components

of those elements.

And one of them is,
for sure, size and measure.

[Hans] The sensibilities of
how our bodies feel comfort

as we progress
through a building,

move in and out
from one space to the next,

that sense
of shifting perspective.

Those are things I think they
are more sensible for us

to lock in on, then actual
aesthetics of the past.

Today it's very difficult
to define proportion

because it's one of those words
with the. . the lost meaning.

We use that word but we don't
really know what it is.

But if you. .
we try to just go back

and give even just
a grammatical definition,

proportion is nothing
more than the relationship

one-dimension to another
in one single object.

[Hans] We see in our
own children how differently

they perceive
the environment today

as a result of the different
elements that their brains

are reacting to
and what somebody

may like and may not like.

What's appropriate and
what's inappropriate today,

whether it's with how we dress
to work or go to school,

but also what type of
architecture in its formality

or lack thereof is appropriate.

These things are so
dramatically shifting today

that we have to. .
we have to always be careful

about what we choose
to take from history

and apply it moving forward.

So what I'm trying to do
is to approach proportion

in a 3-dimensional way, right,

because space
is 3-dimensional.

But I need to add on the top
of that perspective distortion

because what happens in the
space is that we look at things

and they are constantly
distorted.

I'm using the blocks
which are the morphotheek.

Morphotheek
is made of 120 pieces,

and each of them has
a different proportion.

But when you start moving
those objects

in different angulations
you will see that

the object becomes less clear
to you in terms of proportions.

And that's what in this
specific moment I'm interested

in trying to understand
our cold place,

two objects in different
perspective or situation.

So let's see.

And now, the subjects
will react

in terms of discriminating
one proportion to another.

[Martha]
In addition
to proportion, there are

other mathematical
tools found in nature

that are often applied
to architecture.

The patterns in nature have
very specific characteristics,

have definitive number of
possible patterns

that are very few,
that we see in nature.

Fractals show up,

first of all,
everywhere we look.

Even if we look at our face,
eyelashes

are essentially a fractal.
It's the repetition

of something
that's beautiful.

[man] Fractals are one of the
patterns that we theorize

that mankind evolved with.

[man 2] Fractals
is repeating patterns.

We see them in cauliflower
and trees.

So the idea of
these naturally occurring

repeating patterns is something
that we are just drawn to.

[woman] Your brain
is organized as fractals,

neurons make fractals.

And they realized that you
couldn't have

the 100 billion neurons
that you have in your head

with the trillion connections
unless it was fractal.

No other geometric shape

would permit the amount
of connections.

[man 3] And so we theorize
that fractals

lead to a parasympathetic
reaction

because we understand that
it's safe and pleasurable.

[Nan] And I think that we
need to get back to that beauty

that is inherent in nature

and is part of nature's
intelligence

to remind ourselves that
we too are part of nature.

[Nikos] Those organic forms

we unconsciously consider
beautiful.

We see the beauty in an insect

unless it's- it's a type of
insect that's gonna bite us.

We consider a lot of mammals
very beautiful,

even threatening animals;
lions and tigers,

if they're in a cage.

[low growling]

Out of an infinite possibility
of geometries,

living things take only a very
small spectrum

of possible geometries.
This is incredible.

The question about the
restorative properties

of nature is one
that many people believe

and have a strong intuition
about,

which is that
if we spend time in nature

that we feel calmer
and we feel more restored.

And as someone
who likes the wilderness,

I find it quite restorative.

And the kind of
nature-liking people vary.

For me, the desert
in the Southwest

are where
I feel the most at home.

I feel like, ah, like,
I can breathe over here.

It's, like, big open spaces,
clean lines.

Having said that, trying to get

decent scientific
evidence for that is very hard.

And this is where I think

people's backgrounds
might matter.

So if you're a child
who grew up

in an urban environment
like Philadelphia,

maybe nature is threatening,
it's scary,

like, you don't know what
creatures are out there.

Nature itself varies
considerably.

The built environments vary
considerably.

So if you actually wanted
to construct

an experiment to test
the hypothesis,

what are you comparing?

What kind of urban environment
are you comparing

to what kind
of natural environment?

And it becomes a very
complicated proposition.

[Nicolas] Street trees
are interesting one.

Street trees are no-brainer
at one level.

If in doubt,
plant street trees

is a good thing to say
to a city council.

Interestingly actually,
they're not statistically

a big differentiator
between the best

and slightly
less good areas because. .

they're not enough to save
a really bad place.

So if you've got
a really ugly streets

whether you have too much space
to walk in,

ugly buildings,
and false traffic,

planting a bunch of trees isn't
necessarily gonna save it.

[Meredith] There's widely
diverse variables in nature,

but they're all
being attributed to

as if they were the same thing,

as if it was this common
stimulus nature.

The outcomes
are also very diverse,

but again, they're kinda
being lumped together

as good, beneficial.

And I'm not demonizing nature.

The evidence is very robust
that nature is good for us.

But without understanding

what about nature
is causing a certain effect,

as designers we can't do a lot
with that information.

[Martha]
Today's architects
are taking it

upon themselves
to extend their education

and seek out new angles
to analyze their work.

Many professionals are
translating

their newly acquired knowledge
into the classroom.

But what I find is young people
are actually fascinated.

And they have no real biases
about architecture,

what it should look like,
really.

And they're just fascinated
about learning

and there's
an opportunity for them

to take the lead
and use this technology

to start to find
better environments.

I'm a dual degree student
between the schools

of architecture
and forestry at Yale.

So I'm really interested
in how this applies

to green architecture
in particular

and how these new findings from
neuroscience might inform,

um, the future of green design.

Neuroscience is one way to
help articulate students

about what
great responsibility

they will have in
their future professions

for the well-being of people
who use their buildings,

who walk by them or spend hours
and hours, uh, years,

er, within the- the framework
of- of their spaces.

And so the more
we can introduce

real-time ways of measuring
response, right?

So VR, for example, right?

Is a very quick way in which
you can start to help students

understand
what they've designed

as they virtually move
through the space and say,

"Oh, my gosh,
this is what I wanted,"

or, "Oh, my gosh,
I didn't realize,"

or "Oh my word, that's
terrible. I need to redo this. "

It's not just about diversity
and inclusion

of different kinds of people,

and their different traditions
and ways of seeing the world,

it's also about diversity
and inclusion

of intellectual
and artistic traditions,

and seeing
the value in each one

and thereby be innovative
in a positive way,

in a way
that supports humanity,

that inspires humanity,

and allows us to continue
to thrive.

So the way
that I met Dr. Chatterjee

was actually through my mom.

I had realized that something
deeper was going on with her,

potentially neurological.

She kept asking me the same
questions over and over.

So I connected
with Dr. Chatterjee,

and he contacted us and said,

"You need to come back
for follow-up. "

And at
that follow-up appointment,

he diagnosed my mom with
what we found out to be

early onset Alzheimer's.

My passion was always within
the healthcare industry

and I thought, what a wonderful
way to honor my mom.

Let's build a memory center

and let's take it
a step further

and make it this really
idiosyncratic place

where it's purpose-built.

We're thinking more about
design.

We're thinking more about the
experience for the individual

while- while they're there
and we're thinking about

the experience for the family
while they're there also.

And I just found myself in this
really unique opportunity

where I could create
my own space

and do something really
im- impactful and meaningful.

An access point.

And the you can even. .
you can even put. .

It grew into well, what can
we do with Dr. Chatterjee,

beyond just the provision
of care for my mom?

We're not worried
about them getting lost,

that they'd always
get oriented back.

They can keep walking,
which is really nice. I think. .

He was really intrigued
by this idea of building

from the ground-up,
a memory care enter

and what that would
actually look like.

I don't think either of us
really knew.

I've added EwingCole
and decided to bring them on.

And the project's evolved
from there

and morphed into what it
is today.

Working with a neuroscientist
is new to me.

Having somebody like
Dr. Chatterjee who. .

who, you know, understands
the nuances of space

and the impact to memory,
uh, it's just incredible.

To get a further level
of detail

and understanding
from him,

we can really create specific
instances of moments

that will help these people

that are impacted daily
with loss of memory.

And we will actually
have a research office

and a bedroom there

so that if someone from my lab
wants to be there for a week,

we can do that.

What we're thinking
of doing is, uh, collecting

quality of life measures
on the residents there,

but also two other things,

which is quality of life
measures on the caregivers

that how do people feel about
having their loved one

be in this place.

For the residents,
we're always thinking about

safety is paramount.
But then beyond that,

how can they live life
in a more homey setting.

Something that feels less
institutional, more organic,

more connected
with the world around them,

and allows them
to make decisions

without really
consciously knowing

they're making the decisions.

We might want to look
at their activity.

We know that movement
is good for people.

How much are they moving?

Especially in the setting

where they have free range
of the place, right?

We're- we're not gonna
have any barriers for them.

What is the impact of that?

And to be honest,
there may be other things

that we haven't
even thought about

because there
is no precedent for this.

And we're taking somebody
out of their homes.

So how do we make them familiar
with- with their new house.

The plan is kind of derived

from that notion of
a central courtyard

and organizing it around it.

But doing it in a way that
if somebody could get lost

but always find their way back.

A lot of interest
has been within that.

The internal circulation
of the courtyard

so that it gives people a place
to move and kind of wander,

get lost,
but then come back home.

So when I bring
Dr. Chatterjee in,

when I bring Kevin in,
or these guys at EwingCole,

or even the engineer, everybody
has a different opinion.

So listen to them,
integrate them,

let everybody collaborate,

and you end up with something
really beautiful at the end.

[Martha]
Technology
is quickly developing,

helping humans
to understand the brain

as they never have before.

Though the marriage of
architecture and neuroscience

is just emerging,
these new explorations

allow the start of
a beautiful conversation.

Well, there's this
paradigm shift happening.

It is happening,
about really understanding

how humans work
and what we need,

and it's going
to impact architecture.

I think we've always known
that architecture

has some strong relationship
with people's well-being.

I think we understood
intuitively

the importance of beauty

before we had neuroscience
to prove it.

But what's helpful now
is that for the skeptics

and for the people who need
science to prove something,

it's almost like we're evolving
to this higher level.

The urban environment matters

for our mental
and physical health.

We need to empirically

care about that
and understand about.

And the exciting thing is
we are starting now

to have that public debate.

I think all of that,
as exciting as it is,

is still at a stage where
it's very much in its infancy.

There is a tendency for

the promise of biometrics
to be over-hyped,

that we might think
that it's simple and easy

because of the ubiquitous
availability

of simple technology
for measuring these values,

that it might work.

What we know from having worked
with this kind of equipment

for about 10 years,
is that there's a glimmering

of a possibility that
it might actually

turn out to be useful
to help us

characterize the human
response to a setting.

But in most respects
we're not there yet,

but we're trying anyway because
you have to start somewhere.

I think it's important
to say that when you decide

to work in between neuroscience
and architecture,

and you already want to work

in the middle
of the two fields of studies,

you really need to accept
at one point

that you need
to learn something, uh,

some new body of knowledge

that comes from neuroscience
in my case.

We're at this evolutionary
point in our history

where as a civilization,

we are asking those deeper
moral and ethical questions.

We really are trying to get
beyond the silos

of our disciplines.

To what extent can findings
in my field

contribute to the design
of places that can actually

enhance psychological
sustainability

while supporting
high density?

We need to respond
to the people

who are going to be using
these places.

And we need to study
these people

and we need to analyze
what's going on in their head.

And we needed to make that

a big part of the design
process going forward.

And we need to take the
responsibility as architects

who are willing to work
with neuroscience

and architecture
to really work in the middle.

We should not pretend
to wait for neuroscience

to give us answers.

Clearly, architecture has
ramifications on our health.

And we need to understand
what are the forms,

what are the ideas,

what are
the repetitive patterns

that support proper health
and well-being?

My theory is that if you design
to health and well-being

and you do it properly,

then it will lead to
a recognition of beauty.

We're doing humanity
a disservice,

particularly in a time
where we have

all of the information
we need

to prove that these things
we're creating

directly impact how we feel,

how we eat, how we read.

It's not just
creating something,

it's doing a service
for people.

You respond to the patterns
and designing

in the patterns through
your visceral responses,

your. . your biological
responses to the possibilities

offered by designing using
the patterns.

And the result is
a wonderful experience

that you feel biologically.

You feel subconsciously.

This has nothing to do
with style

because our subliminal brain

doesn't care what style
we're working on.

Its only cares is,

is it a pattern that will
generate a pleasure response?

[Meredith] One of the things
I hear from designers

since I got into this field
is this concern

that the research
is gonna dominate

to the point that design
becomes prescriptive,

and they won't have that
ability to be creative

or to have
the freedom to design.

[Colin] It's a really
complicated question

as to how far one should take
evidence that pertains

to people's innate or intrinsic
responses to environments

with respect to codifying
the principles of good design.

So if, for example,

it's discovered that. . that
round doors are the best doors

for psychology and doesn't make
sense to make code and say,

"Okay, from here on,
all doors shall be round. "

There are
so many different ways

to think
about that question.

As a scientist, I might say,
well, of course,

if I discover that round doors
are the best doors

for human psychology,
then why on Earth not?

Why on Earth not do that and
always have round doors?

Further to that argument,
I might also say that

if you think about
what a building is,

the objection to having
round doors forevermore

might be that codifying
a principle like that

takes away from the creativity
of the designer

to make whatever design
they want.

The counter to that is,

although building
may be a piece of art,

a building is not
just a piece of art,

it's a piece of art that needs
to be used for humans.

There's a social responsibility
to design a building

in such a way
that it's good for us.

But overlaid on that is
so much variability

that has to do with
experience and culture

that you could never come up

with a way of codifying
all of that.

Um, nor would you want to.

Um, the richness of
architectural experiences

that we have to allow
that kind of variability.

We have to allow the artistic
impulse as well as

having the grounding
in good science

to build
a successful building.

I think it would be a mistake
to think that neuroscience,

the kind of research I do
is going to tell architects

what the right answer is,
right?

That I think would be
just a. . a mistake

to even think about it
that way.

However, I think what we might
bring to the table,

uh, for example, is, uh,

what our very early
research suggests is

that there are
these three-dimensions,

coherence, fascination,
and homeliness

that we think
varies independently,

that we have some evidence
that our brain is responsive

to these three parameters.

When you're
designing something,

you should take those
into consideration.

I think the idea is that we can
maybe offer some principles

that then becomes part
of the architect's toolkit

that they can then
choose to use

based on what they
are trying to accomplish.

What is important is really
trying to understand, uh,

how neuroscience in the. . in
the specific case can help us

to be more aware of
what are the necessities

all by this human beings.

[man] Anybody who's
in a design profession,

whether it's architecture,
urban planning,

urban design should
be quite familiar

with a lot of the ideas
that we've been discussing.

I think
there's rising awareness

of the importance
of this stuff.

It's a game changer
for the profession

and for our communities.

And the quantification
that neuroscience offers,

I think is- is here to stay
for architecture.

We are at a point where
we can't remain in our silos.

We need
to have expert knowledge

as designers,
as architects,

but we also need to work
together with other people

who have the expert knowledge

in their field
and in neuroscience,

in cognitive science,
in computer science.

It is important to move
past neuroscience

and architecture to
neuroscience of architecture.

So I think
whereas we get better

at understanding
those neuro-signals,

the goal is that
we will be able to then,

uh, start to do experiments
in the field. Right?

You say, "Okay, someone
walks into a gaudy cathedral,

what are the neural signals
that are coming out of that?"

And that's something
we have not been able to do,

but hopefully,
in the next five years,

we'll become part
of our armamentarium.

It really is, I think,
our mandate

and our privilege to intervene
in the built environment

in a way that supports
people to thrive.

Not only to survive.

[Colin] It's important
to build for people

because what else is the built
environment for

other than to support
the activities

and emotional lives
and successes of human beings.

What else is there?

[Nikos] The tipping point
will occur

when a client goes to an
architect and they will say,

"I heard about this biophilic
design and neuroscience

and patterns
from somewhere I read

on the Internet,
can you do it?"

[woman] There's this paradigm
shift in understanding

that we now have the tools to
really see

how things impact us,
how buildings impact us,

and we'd be foolish
not to look at.

It is the same as hearing
a great piece of music

or going into a museum
and looking at great art,

I have the same gratitude

and extraordinary moment
of appreciation for beauty

that I have when I'm
in a beautiful building.

[woman] It has to work,
it has to support health,

has to support well-being,

but also has to be loved
and desired

by its users
and then has to be beautiful.

♪

♪