“We visualized what a humanising new town might look like and asked the public, what do you think? We did a sort of boring version, a humanising version, a contemporary, and then an of old-fashioned one. And guess what? Nobody wanted the standard boxy, soulless one.”

There’s a lack of great social housing in the UK and there's been a real crisis recently about the standards of that housing. We also need to be talking about how to build more joyful housing – there should not be an absence of joy for the people and places who need it most. There's a real risk that we're going to build fast and build poor housing. It shouldn't look bad; it shouldn't look depressing; it shouldn't bring communities down. We know from discussions we've had that people can feel embarrassed bringing their friends and family to their houses because of how they look or how an estate feels. So why not try and do something different?

Schuur:   You talked about guidelines. If an architect like me hears about neuroscience research and the effects of design on people – then I would like to translate those findings into design strategies or perhaps even principles or guidelines for me as an architect to be able to work with how the design will affect people. Do you address that in your guidelines?   

Scott Paul:  We developed five basic “Humanise Principles” that can be applied in different ways depending on the context. They were designed mostly for developers and city commissioners. One principle is ‘emotion as a function of design’.Design always produces an emotional response. Treating emotion as part of a building’s function helps to clarify intent and create places that feel welcoming, calming. What emotional response do you want people to have when people encounter a building?b By designing visual complexity into the façade through the use of materials, texture, details, you can help to generate a sense of meaning, belonging and welcome. You can focus visual complexity at three different  scales: the city, like the silhouette; the street level; and at t door distance. If money is a problem, then we generally advocate for concentrating that visual complexity on the door and street level where most people experience a building.  

We've worked with a planning consultancy to develop the principles to show where they're relevant in the UK planning system. We're hoping these might help kick-start other conversations.  

Schuur:  I have a question about complexity. Nature is obviously very complex - if you look at a tree and its leaves and branches, that is complex.  We’re saying that being close to nature improves human well-being, like in a healthcare setting where it can help a patient heal faster after surgery. But as an architect designing for a healthcare environment, I would choose a more minimalistic approach.  

So, I think it's interesting that you need a level of fascination. You need variation like in music.  

Scott Paul:  We’re not saying that every building needs to have all bells and whistles, or be iconic. We are saying the everyday buildings need to raise their game more and that context matters; where a building sits and what else is around it matters.   

Schuur:  I like that you are asking decision-makers to get into the conversation. How do you see the power of cities to ensure better quality design and how do you see the willingness of design developers to do the same thing?  

Scott Paul:  We're trying to work with the early adopters. Of course, we want everybody to take this on, but first we need to go with the flow where there are people that are expressing interest, like in Seoul. We know that there are mayors in the US who are interested in doing something different too.  

We're finding it hard, however, to have the conversation with mayors in the UK because there's really no design conversation in the UK. It's strange because design is one of our greatest exports as a country and we've got great designers. I think there is still this attitude that design is ‘nice to have’ rather than delivering a basic need.  

Working with like-minded partners helps get the word out in a variety of ways people can take in. For example, the heritage community, the sustainability community, the health community - if we work together to champion great design it can be heard in different ways.  

It's also understanding the power of your message told by somebody else who is not perceived as having a vested interest. Having different messengers starts to build a narrative that becomes hard to drown out.    

Catey Gans Kyrö:  Do you think that this information can be too much to present to people? If you were to say, here's a map of how everything about the building and its users is connected, would that be overwhelming?  
 

“We developed five basic “Humanise Principles. One is ‘emotion as a function of design’ - a building evokes emotion and you need to think about that when you design it. How? Adding visual complexity on the façade, and there are three scales: the city, like the silhouette; the street level; and the door distance.”

Scott Paul:  Probably, so we have to tailor the conversation. With developers we have to prove social and health impacts, but also the commercial benefits. We need to demonstrate that designing for health and well-beingcan deliver economic benefits. That's why getting developers to talk about what they've done is important. If we can show real outcomes there will be more demand.  

We need to get the economic analysis right – and that’s hard. Even with the benefits of the design, developers have to be able to deliver that building on time, on budget and generate a profit. 

Schuur:  Do you believe in convincing people to take this design approach, rather than forcing companies to develop a certain way as some cities have done?  

Scott Paul:  Yes, we're trying to not force or add more rules and regulations. We’re trying to shift a mindset, and to show there are alternative ways to build and design within existing guidelines.  

Schuur: Some US cities have a point system. If you develop in a certain way, then you get points and with those points you can buy additional square footage or height. This allows the city to incentivize a desired outcome. Hamburg, Germany made a policy that you cannot build and then immediately sell. You must hold a building at least five years, making developers invest more in their building and the surrounding area. These approaches provide carrots for the developer. Can we trust that by raising awareness everybody will raise their standards?  

Scott Paul:  There likely must be a bit of carrot and a bit of stick. It requires somebody with a vision and desire to do something different, and then showing a vibrant, economically active place as a result, like the work we did in King’s Cross or Little Island in New York.   

I think architects need to get better at telling these stories, showing what is possible, and shouting about it. I think it comes down to, can you sell a vision and persuade your client to do something that delivers a great place to live, work, play, and is also economically productive with social impact? 

Through the Humanise campaign we want to see it become socially unacceptable in 10 years to build crap buildings that are unhealthy and unsustainable; that this sort of development is seen as an anachronism, and seen in the same way as fast fashion and fast food.