The Secret to Happiness

          What is the secret to happiness? While the old saying 'money can't buy happiness' has
some truth to it, it doesn't offer any clear answers. Luckily, recent research suggests that the
design and layout of the spaces we inhabit may hold the key to our well-being. Our daily
environment can directly affect our mood, emotions, and energy levels, and architects play a
crucial role in shaping this environment. Given this significant influence, should architects be
accountable for designing spaces that foster happiness? And if so, what strategies can they use
to achieve this goal? Through an analysis of various texts, I will argue that architects have a
responsibility to prioritize human well-being and happiness in their designs. I will explore
different effective strategies for doing so and the impacts the built environment has on our
health, like the direct correlation between city living and stress levels and the similar correlation
between exposure to nature and stress relief. Ultimately, buildings must be designed to meet not
only basic physiological needs but also psychological and social needs.

​

          On a large scale, planning decisions can influence our physical and mental health.
However, there needs to be more focus on how we can use these linkages to our advantage.
There is increasing “evidence showing that the health impacts on people of multiple
environmental characteristics are more consequential than singular characteristics of the
physical and social settings in which people live,” (Wells, Evans, Yang, 2010, pg. 132) This begs
the question: if it's not my job that's making me feel stressed, then what is it? One part of the
answer is the auto-centric transportation designed into the heart of every American city. The
division of residential, commercial, and manufacturing zones makes auto-dependence inevitable
and renders walking and other modes of transportation illogical. This reliance on automobiles
leads to excessive car use, long commutes, and traffic congestion, which are associated with
job stress and health issues like obesity, hypertension, and heart disease. (Wells, Evans, Yang,
2010, pg. 130) In turn, these detrimental habits contribute to unhappiness and increased job
stress, not the other way around. Planning decisions also affect the food retail landscape
through the location of food stores and the allowance of mixed-use development. There is a link
between poverty, lack of access to healthy foods, and obesity. The poorest neighborhoods have
fewer supermarkets and three times more access to alcohol. (Wells, Evans, Yang, 2010, pg.
131) It’s no surprise that the people living in these communities struggle to get healthy food on
the table. The idea that Americans are unhealthy due to processed foods, lack of universal
healthcare, and laziness is widespread. While this is partially true, auto-dependence, food
deserts, and limited access to open space play a much bigger role. Urban planning directly
impacts the environmental qualities of cities and neighborhoods, which directly affects the health
of their inhabitants. To foster positive change, architects and planners must design with an
understanding and consideration of how the environment influences our daily lives.

​

          Urban design characteristics have direct and indirect effects on psychological and social
prosperity. Research revealed that the physical aspects of a neighborhood have more influence
on social networks than socio-demographic characteristics. (Raman, 2010, pg. 78) In other
words, living closer to a community park has a greater impact on social interaction than income
or race. (Raman, 2010, pg. 71-75) One reason this reigns true is that planning regulations
dictate the height and size of urban housing. (Wells, Evans, Yang, 2010, pg. 132) Studies
indicate that living in high-rise buildings can indirectly elevate psychological distress due to
increased social isolation. “Social support is a critical component of mental and physical health.
More socially isolated individuals have an elevated risk of ill health.” (Wells, Evans, Yang, 2010,
pg. 133) Living in a large, high-rise building can pose challenges in accessing critical, outdoor
gathering spaces, like playgrounds and parks. Furthermore, planning decisions can affect the
quantity and quality of these open areas. Research has shown that exposure to trees, parks,
and open spaces has a positive impact on psychological well-being, by promoting physical
activity and providing a sense of community. (Wells, Evans, Yang, 2010, pg. 127-129)
Professionals in this industry “have often cited the ill-effects of high-density living including poor
social and physical environment within neighborhoods without much evidence to support such
claims.” (Raman, 2010, pg. 77) The reality is that “spatial configuration of neighborhoods affects
social cohesion more than density does.” (Raman, 2010, pg. 78) To address the complex and
problematic relationship between density, physical organization, and social community, we need
to improve the physical environment by implementing strategies that foster human connection
and a sense of belonging. Creating opportunities for increased social interaction and
engagement in communal activities will lead to happier and healthier cities.

​

          Connecting people with local landscapes through biophilic design creates environments
that nourish the body and improve overall well-being. Biophilic design fosters human health by
“creating good habitat[s] for people in the modern built environment that [satisfy] their need for
beneficial contact with the natural world.” (Chawla, 2012) Biophilia assumes that our
evolutionary history in natural environments has led to favorable reactions to certain natural
objects, likely because they improved our chances of survival. For example, a flowering tree that
used to be a potential source of food still elicits the same positive aesthetic response. Theorists
suggest that because people have only recently transitioned to a built environment, these
biophilic responses continue to impact human behavior. (Joye, 2011, pg. 17-18) “Research
within the field of environmental psychology shows that people respond positively to vegetative
elements and to settings containing vegetation.” (Joye, 2011, pg. 19-20) If this is true, then how
can vegetation be incorporated into architecture? The most obvious strategy for implementing
biophilic design is exposure to actual nature by integrating plant life in the building or on the
exterior surface. Another strategy is imitating natural elements of nature including fake plants,
fractal patterns, and abstract forms. (Joye, 2011, pg. 20) Biophilia can provide restorative effects
for people in negative states. Nature photographs, videos, and art are often and effectively used
for healing purposes in healthcare settings. Additionally, incorporating biophilic attributes, like
daylighting and views of the exterior environment, into the workspace can increase productivity,
especially when completing creative tasks. “Experiments indicate that a brief glance at small
pockets of nature through a window can already have positive outcomes.” (Joye, 2011, pg. 29)
Fundamentally, the theory of biophilic design exhibits a “universalist” view that “aesthetic
preferences and artistic behavior” are shared by all human beings, regardless of culture. (Joye,
2011, pg. 31) Consequently, it is important not to make definite claims about biophilia, even
though our positive relationship with nature is undeniable. The most sustainable designs are
those that push beyond our essential needs, that nourish the spirit as well as the body so that
people can thrive across generations. (Chawla, 2012) In order to build happier and healthier
spaces, Architects need to design spaces that facilitate healing rather than inhibit it.

​

          Architects have a social responsibility to design accessible, inclusive, and adaptable
buildings that improve people's lives. This is because the built environment profoundly affects
human behavior and well-being. Architecture can either facilitate or hinder human survival and
flourishing and thus, it can be utilized to improve the quality of life. (Neutra, 1984, pg. 5-7) As
per Neutra's observations, there seems to be a growing disconnection between the natural
world and the newly constructed buildings. Neutra notes that “a great deal of what has been
vaguely called beauty will be involved in this proposed new and watchful scrutiny of man-made
environment” (Neutra, 1984, pg. 4) To solve this problem, Neutra developed the theory of
Biorealism. Biorealism applies the biological and psychological sciences to design, stating that
there is an inseparable relationship between science, nature, and humankind. Neutra believes
that designers have a “duty to protect the human race through nurturing design.” (Holbert,
February 28, 2023) He encourages designers to prioritize well-being to create a healthier and
more sustainable world. By designing spaces that align with human needs and natural systems,
architects can contribute to the physical, mental, and social well-being of individuals and
communities.

​

          Architects have a responsibility to prioritize human well-being in their designs, given the
significant influence of our daily environment on human health, happiness, and productivity.
Designing for well-being involves creating spaces that cater to our physical, emotional, and
social needs. Spaces that foster happiness can lead to positive changes in people's physical
and mental health and will ensure the survival of humankind. Therefore, architects should use
effective strategies that incorporate biophilic design and biorealism into the built environment.
Understanding how the characteristics of neighborhoods and cities influence our daily lives is
essential to create healthier, happier, and more productive communities. These are the obvious
reasons that “one could pursue something because it is healthy or because it implies an
important aesthetic vocabulary, but one can probably think of many reasons why one would
choose architecture that is ‘unhealthy.’” (Joye, 2011, pg. 33) But, why would someone choose
something they know to be unhealthy? Does this happen at the expense of or in pursuance of
happiness? Taking different perspectives into account brings another layer to these questions.
For example, economic constraints and cultural values can play a role in shaping people's
choices. If it all really is our choice, should architects be health providers? One could argue that
architects should prioritize health as a top priority in their designs, while another could argue
that architects should not be expected to serve as health providers and that responsibility falls to
other professionals, such as public health experts or healthcare providers.