44
ROUND TABLE REVIEW
at the University of Portsmouth, Rokshid Ghaziani, and Larry Tate, Projects and Communication Coordinator, at the Alliance for Sustainable Building Products. Lastly, giving key insights from the construction specifi cation end of growing biophilic design approaches in theory and practice, were Jim Hart of Corstorphine + Wright architects, and Stuart Fraser of MAKE Architects. Our attendees brought learnings and passion from and for other sectors than offi ce workplaces, which could also be transferred into the human-centred imperatives needed to enliven offi ces. In particular, Lisa Norton gave a strong case for biophilia in schools, and Jim stressed the benefi ts of such human- centred connections to nature in healthcare environments, although he admitted there were major challenges in bringing planting into healthcare interiors, even in primary care settings.
Making a compelling case for workplace clients Oliver Heath said that bringing biophilia into workplaces meant using a range of design measures to make“connections to nature,” from natural light and materials, to mimicking nature using more ‘artifi cial’ approaches, and the simple aim of changing scenery in an interior over the course of a day. He added that by “evoking a sense of life,” biophilic design can be the route to stimulating workplace interiors, not just “calming and restorative” ones, as required. He gave a sense of the current state of design in workplaces, saying adoption of biophilia in the sector had become “more and more interesting over the past few years.” Heath said by “drawing in elements of hospitality, education and healthcare” interiors, a richer blend of different sector approaches was creating design interest for practitioners as well as clients. This aligned with moves, post-Covid, for what is considered a workplace to be seen in the broadest sense, so design typologies are blurring – for example, “new generations are seeing their workplaces as somewhere which furthers their learning and becomes an educational environment.” Richard Sabin of Growing Revolution said that from his fi rm’s experience helping workplace clients embrace the challenge of comprehensively integrating biophilic approaches such as green walls, the “return on investment conversation is one that always comes around.” He said that while it is easy to “win clients over in the heart,” when their board starts requiring data on the value for money of such approaches and installations, “is when it really becomes interesting.” Despite the engagement with the concept, Sabin added that the aim of supporting datasets around the effect of plants in the workplace were “very undervalued.” Oliver Heath cautioned that biophilic design’s multi-faceted nature meant that quantitative data might not be appropriate, so “qualitative data needed to become more compelling.” Lisa Norton said that the design sector was short of UK-focused quantitative data on the benefi ts of biophilic workplace design. “We can’t prove it particularly well, because we don’t have the statistics in the UK; we need to be pushing for post-occupancy research.” However, Jenny Edwards warned that where data on effectiveness exists, blue chip corporate clients were prone to “hold it to themselves.” Natural materials may be the ideal scenario for biophilia, but they can provide challenges for consultants – Richard Sabin provided the somewhat counterintuitive feedback (from fi re
LESSONS FROM OTHER SECTORS Architect Jim Hart from Corstophine & Wright brought relevant human-centred design insights for workplace clients from projects in the healthcare sector
consultants) that “nature is a non-conventional building material,” which according to them, therefore “can’t be quantifi ed, or trusted.” He explained that because natural components such as green walls are highly context-dependent, “if you’re putting a green wall up for air pollution reduction, and you’ve got it on the wrong side of the street, it will do completely different things; so the problem there is getting transferable data on it.”
Biophilia plus fl exibility
Biophilic design could be a lever for not only providing the fl exible, adaptable workspaces which have become especially relevant to the new generation of post-Covid employees seeking a balance of home working and offi ce collaboration. The changing elements of nature which can help bring wellness benefi ts can be used to help drive biophilic design components to help support both this fl exibility and the outcomes being sought from human-centred design. At the same time, as Craig Jones pointed out, people can now be working “basically anywhere,” which presents its own challenge. Jenny Edwards said that employers had to be aware that “Gen Z, in particular, react very strongly against being forced to come back in, they want to be encouraged.” Craig Jones said that clients had severely reduced their capacity after Covid, but ingenious design solutions were needed to now accommodate the increased numbers. Edwards agreed, citing her client Deloitte, but saying there was now a “massive focus on fl exibility,” for example using the adaptability of circadian lighting for evening events, “making it work harder.” Stuart Fraser of MAKE said that the client focus on attracting and retaining the ‘best’ employees using design in competitive markets had been embedded pre-Covid, but this had intensifi ed to be a more fundamental need post-Covid to persuade them to commute. “Suddenly it’s about whether people want to come back, or not, and everyone realises that there are benefi ts in the campus lifestyle approach.”
Oliver Heath got the group to summarise their key innovations for the future of biophilic workplaces – Jenny Edwards said
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF APRIL/MAY 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
