Could bad buildings damage your mental health?

Research has shown city dwellers are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression but could
individual buildings have a negative impact on wellbeing?

Cities is supported by
About this content

Emily Reynolds
Friday 16 September 2016 07.30 BST

Screaming sirens, overcrowding, traffic; life in the city isnt always relaxing.

These stressors arent simply inconvenient or irritating, though; research has suggested that
urban living has a significant impact on mental health. One meta-analysis found that those
living in cities were 21% more likely to experience an anxiety disorder mood disorders
were even higher, at 39%. People who grew up in a city are twice as likely to develop
schizophrenia as those who grew up in the countryside, with a 2005 study suggesting this
link may even be causal.

Urban stressors appear to have a biological impact, too. A 2011 study from the Central
Institute of Mental Health at the University of Heidelberg found that city living was
associated with greater stress responses in both the amygdala and the cingulate cortex
areas linked to emotional regulation, depression and anxiety. This increased activation, the
research team said, could have a lasting effect, both on the brains development and its
ongoing susceptibility to mental illness.

The studies are part of a wider field of environmental psychology that seeks to understand
how individuals interact with their environments, and how those environments can affect
our social lives, relationships and even our mental health.

The issue is hotly debated. For example, its often believed that open plan offices promote
pro-social working and avoid the drab monotony of cubicle working, but other studies claim
that it can instead be bad for productivity and wellbeing.

Co-housing is often promoted as a way of encouraging community spirit. Many people who
live in these communities usually private bedrooms with communal kitchens or social
areas and shared maintenance responsibility have reported increased happiness and
connection with other residents. But other studies have stressed that tenants can lose their
sense of individualism and privacy.

Layla McCay, director of the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health, says these debates
are complex and dependent on a number of nuanced factors. The think tank was set up to
encourage more rigorous evaluation on the way we design our cities, and what impact it can
have on mental wellbeing. She isolates several elements that she believes have a positive
influence: access to nature or green spaces, the design of public spaces that facilitate
physical activity and encourage social interaction, and living and working in spaces that feel
safe.

But what about particular kinds of buildings? Brutalist structures like the Barbican estate in
London are not always considered to be so positive for mental health, with many
condemning brutalisms depressing aesthetic. Yet despite some calling it Londons ugliest
building, the Barbican is a perfect example of the positive attributes outlined by McCay.
Full of greenery, lakes and balconies, the estate also gives pedestrians priority over cars and
features mini town squares where residents can socialise, work and relax.

The estate is well lit and designed with good sight lines, meaning residents feel safe a huge
factor in their mental wellbeing. But this can be a difficult line to tread. Though well-lit
areas are generally considered to reduce stress by increasing feelings of safety, it has been
argued that darkness is a luxury not afforded to those living in council housing. If you live in
an estate where bright lights shine in your window, you may lose sleep or feel exposed and
surveilled; darkness, on the other hand, can be more subtly landscaped to provide a sense of
value, safety and beauty.

But if a so-called ugly building can still be positive for mental health, what role does beauty
and aesthetic have to play? Despite beauty being a subjective term, recent research has
found that inhabitants of more scenic environments report better health, but again this
often comes back to the presence of nature. Indeed, neglected environments can contribute
to mental ill-health dilapidated neighbourhoods and abandoned shops or houses can make
us feel unsafe, with run-down environments found to contribute to anxiety and persistent
low mood.

Though high-rise housing was initially commended for its views, larger rooms, sense of
urban privacy and efficient use of concrete, it was later suggested that the designs gave
rise to various social and mental ills: increased crime, suicide rates and behavioural
problems. High-floor dwellers were most at risk when it came to the negative impacts of
such living environments because they were apparently most likely to isolate themselves.
Such buildings were roundly condemned by JG Ballard, who felt that the rapid turnover of
acquaintances, the lack of involvement with others, and the total self-sufficiency of lives
he saw in high-rises would allow the psychotics to take over.

Though Ballards doom-laden vision of high-rise living may seem compelling especially
considering the anti-social reputation of such estates more recent research suggests that
the buildings are not as intrinsically flawed as we might first imagine. Rather, the social ills
found in such environments may be more closely related to poor maintenance than
anything innate. Reports have found that risky facilities such as broken lights and
windows, litter, graffiti and non-functioning CCTV may have more to do with increased
crime rates and anxiety-inducing fear of crime than the physical environment itself. So
mental ill-health may increase once the physical environment has deteriorated.

Southwarks Heygate Estate had a reputation for crime, despite crime rates that were half
the average for the borough. Southwark councils director of regeneration claimed in 1999
that social housing generates people on low incomes coming in, which generates poor
school performances, and middle class people stay away. With attitudes like this, is it any
surprise that tenants felt isolated and abandoned?
Shopping centres also appear to refute the physical determinism of much environmental
psychology. Often considered to be vast, unhealthy behemoths designed to disorient and
dazzle us into spending money we dont have, shopping malls could, in fact, be beneficial to
individual and societal wellbeing. One team of researchers argues shopping centres may
possess mentally restorative qualities that could rival even natural settings. Again it
suggests that healthy factors greenery, a focus on safety, good maintenance, a sense of
openness could significantly reduce stress, no matter how buildings themselves are
designed or interpreted.

This isnt always the case; privatised public spaces like shopping malls often limit activity
and use design to control behaviour. Though these spaces may feel and seem as if they are
public, they are privately owned, meaning that our rights and behaviours are constricted
and controlled. This in turn can contribute to a sense of anxiety.

What about buildings that claim to be cities in themselves? In China, the proposed
development of a Sky City which was supposed to combine natural green spaces with
homes, hotels, offices, shops, schools and a hospital in one building was an attempt to
create a living environment that both encourages tenant wellbeing as well as improving
sustainability and providing efficient use of space. Genslers Shanghai Tower, which is set to
open to the public soon, has incorporated restaurants, shops, homes, offices and even parks
inside a consciously pro-social spiral glass shell. Visiting a park two floors down from your
flat might sound convenient, but can it really replace the health benefits of a stroll in a
natural green space? Going to school in the same building you live in could save time, but it
also sounds like a limiting, claustrophobic and homogenous experience.

In terms of workspaces, McCay describes Coca Colas new Tokyo headquarters, designed by
Japanese architectural firm JMA, as an impressive example of design that combines good
architecture with mindfully positive environmental features. The company has established
bike parking so that employees cycle rather than drive to work, the building is full of natural
light, and co-working spaces have replaced traditional cube-style office working spaces.

Ongoing debates aside, physical environment can only determine so much. Biological and
social factors are still major drivers of mental ill-health, whether clinical or not.

Genetics, early experiences, family relationships and social settings cant be addressed
through urban design, McCay explains. But urban design can and should play a role, just
as it does for physical disorders, which have equally complex causes.

Increasingly, buildings and public spaces are being designed or at the very least, critically
analysed with mental wellbeing in mind. A small number of collectives and centres have
been established to examine the ways urban spaces intersect with mental health, and
architects and policymakers are slowly becoming more mindful of the ways their projects
impact on the health and happiness of city-dwellers.

With anti-stigma campaigns and increased media visibility bringing mental health to the
forefront of the cultural landscape, theres a clear case for policymakers to take it into
consideration when designing public spaces. But experts believe guidelines for healthy
urban environments are currently failing to take this growing awareness into consideration.
Alan Penn, dean of the Bartlett faculty of the built environment at University College
London, believes that policymakers and architects are not dealing with mental health
sufficiently because understanding of these issues is not yet mainstream in the
architectural community.

McCay is optimistic, and believes that opportunities to improve mental health will become
business as usual, and an expected component of the value of any design for buildings
and public spaces.

Designing spaces to promote good mental health and to support people with mental
health problems is an integral part of building a sustainable city, she says.

Good mental health can improve our enjoyment of life, our coping skills and relationships,
our educational achievement, employment, housing and economic potential, help reduce
physical health problems, ease the demand for healthcare and social care, build social
capital, decrease suicides; and help people to live together in a positive, productive, cost-
effective and ultimately happy way. That benefits everyone.

How do different spaces and buildings in your city make you feel? Share your thoughts in the
comments below or join the discussion on Twitter and Facebook

Topics
Psychology Design Architecture Mental health Health

Save for later Article saved

Reuse this content