ROUND TABLE REVIEW 45
“functional adaptability,” with fl exibility at its heart, and Lisa Norton offered “natural patterns and analogues,” but also a greater focus on acoustics and even “sound healing.” Jim Hart proposed greater collaboration across the key professions involved would bear fruit, alongside greater awareness, and Larry Tate said that clients experiencing more biophilia in the fl esh would force change, as would the ability, highlighted by Richard Sabin, for biophilia to “do multiple things.”
Solutions & Sponsor Questions
The second half of the debate heard in-depth discussion of solutions for biophilic design, and their effectiveness in use, for workplaces spanning offi ces and schools to healthcare and other commercial spaces. Sponsors Dulux Trade posed questions to the panel to discover views on how colour can contribute to biophilic designs. We also heard key recommendations from all contributors for the industry and clients; these were revealing and diverse, including on what elements should be prioritised, going well beyond just plants.
The colour connection To kick off the solutions section of the debate, Dawn Scott from Dulux Trade asked the group: “We often see biophilic design expressed through planting and timber – how are you using colour as part of that nature connection, particularly in spaces without direct access to outdoor landscapes?” Kim Dixon said that her fi rm “likes to mimic the richness in
nature, including bright colours and things like insects, fl owers, in detail, but keeping the broad palette in mind in terms of what’s going on outside, culturally and the countryside.” Oliver Heath offered the approach used by his fi rm of “ecological balance theory,” which ties into choosing colours with positive associations for users, with blues, greens and yellows all having a place for different uses; even “shots of red and orange“ can be used sparingly for “energising spaces.” Like Dixon, he advocated drawing on the colours found in a local area but also trying to support individual spatial uses, while Scott suggested adhering to local colours could be challenging in some urban environments.
Her second question to the group was whether the palette used for biophilic design could be broadened beyond the commonly- chosen range of “greens and natural tones,” to “support both restoration and activation,” bearing in mind the range of possible users with different neurodiverse needs. Rokshid Ghaziani from Portsmouth University said that it was dangerous to make assumptions on what users wanted, colour-wise, considering neurodiversity – some may not prefer bright colours, or pupils with autism might require a different colour palette entirely. Somewhat concerningly, Stuart Fraser of MAKE asserted that “he didn’t think architects were taught any of that at architecture school,” and Oliver Heath concurred that colour psychology was avoided by architectural schools, partly due to the need to consider different cultural contexts. Other delegates including Craig Jones and Jenny Edwards described how they employed colour to assist users for example in terms of wayfi nding, especially where English may not be a fi rst language, and to create an ‘organic’ sense of change to leaven the effect of large commercial buildings. She
VIEWS FROM ACROSS THE INDUSTRY
Industrial designer Craig Jones said clients had not only reduced their workspace post- Covid, but were embracing a host of new technology including biophilic simulations
cautioned that “diffi culties can arise when clients have very strong colour palettes that they want to utilise.” Lisa Norton said that hue was “extremely important” and that white walls “can stress your system, while warmer colours can create a ‘hug’.” However with different users often having a very different take, designers had to take a balanced view, but as Edwards stated, “you can’t design by committee.” Richard Sabin cited a McArthur Glen shopping centre in Kent, whose green wall changes with the seasons, such as primroses emerging in spring, giving people a real sense of vitality and change, and the client’s data shows that footfall has increased on the side of the site featuring biophilic elements. Dawn Scott and Lisa Norton backed the seasonally changing approach, particularly in urban contexts which can be dislocated from seasonal change, Norton quoting the 15th ‘principle of Biophilic Design’ of “awe and wonder” of nature, as a maxim backing up this approach.
Productive results Oliver Heath cited a retrofi t project in central London his fi rm had worked on, having seen the potential catalysed by a pre-occupancy study that the client, Knight Frank Investment Management, was already planning for its own workplace refurbishment. The crucial constraint was budget – “very small,” says Heath, at around £1,000 per employee, in a modest space for around 40 people. The fact that the in-house project manager had already done a pre-occupancy assessment was the spur that made Heath’s fi rm want to get involved: “they had asked staff a good set of questions, and this was quite a rare thing for a client to go, ‘Well, we’ve asked, we’ve opened that can of worms, now we’ve got to deliver on it.’” The designers embarked on a low-budget treatment, but one which would use the “full plethora of biophilic features, whether elements of nature, natural materials, colours, textures.” Focused on “really careful thinking,” the paint colour used
became “a really important feature, because we know that it can create a large transformation for relatively small cost,” said
ADF APRIL/MAY 2026
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
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
