Having followed Robin Guenther’s work for some time, when Fast Company named this FAIA and LEED AP one of “The World’s 100 Most Creative People in Business 2012,” I was delighted, but not surprised. The sustainable healthcare design leader at Perkins + Will is known as a strong and persistent advocate for human- and planetary health. Her crusade to increase her own knowledge about our material world gives her the authority of someone with genuine concern for her fellow creatures and long-term experience in the complex filed of health care design. Her advice to the magazine’s readers about the materials we live with every day, is dramatic in its simplicity:

“If they don’t tell you what’s in it, you probably don’t want what’s in it.”

“Consult your nose—if it stinks, don’t use it.”

“Use carbohydrate-based materials when you can.”

With this in mind, I asked Robin to talk about the Health Products Disclosure (HPD) initiative, and how it may change our material world for the better. Read her realistic, but optimistic observations on everything from HPD’s short and long term influence on the built environment, to the power of the design community in creating positive change in the marketplace, and more.

Susan S. Szenasy:  You have been an eloquent advocate for patients (in fact anyone who works or visits) in the healthcare segment for as long as I can remember. Your ammo has been finding the least toxic, most healthy products available for the interiors you design. In view of your long and inspiring campaign for healthy interiors, what does the formation of HPD signal to you?

Robin Guenther: The HPD represents a major milestone in the advocacy for safer and healthier building materials.  For the first time, we will have access to important, accurate information on the contents of building materials – “a nutrition label,” so to speak, that we can use to inform our specifications. As the HPD information is used to build Pharos, the Healthy Building Network comparative tool, it will accelerate the possibility of independent comparisons of products, another important aspect of this quest. Read more…

As head of the Health Product Declaration (HPD) Collaborative, Peter C. Syrett comes to the project with a robust track record  that includes his work at Perkins + Will. Five years ago that firm released its Precautionary List, based on nearly a decade of research of potentially toxic materials specified by the architecture and interior design professionals who shape our built environment, inside and outside. Today, Syrett is chairman of the HPD board and has recently launched a new firm, rePlaceUrban Studio, with his partner Philip Palmgren who lead the urban design practice in the New York office of Perkins + Will. “As a practice we aim to build social, ecological, and economic capital in each of our endeavors,” promises Syrett. “We strive to create a healthier urban future;” their new website will be up and running on March 18th. Here he gives some thoughtful answers to questions about what HPD is doing and how it’s going about making our built environment healthier for all who live and work in it.

Susan S. Szenasy: You were part of the group at Perkins + Will that came up with the firm’s Precautionary List of building and furnishings materials known to be dangerous to human health. Can you explain the genesis of that program and what you all hoped would happen as a result of the firm’s free sharing of the information you collected?

Peter C. Syrett: I believe the transformation of the building material market into one that supports human and ecological health will occur in three phases. The first phase is awareness; the Precautionary List is apart of this phase. The Precautionary List grew out of nine years of research on material health.  When we released it in 2009 it was intended to be an open resource on substances of concern in building materials, with the intent of provoking action in the design community.

We are now in the second phase, which is about the curation and dissemination of information. In this phase awareness continues to grow through greater access to information while the quality of the information and its specificity improves. The HPD is the main tool of this phase.

The last phase is innovation. In this phase the market begins to react to the knowledge gained in the earlier two phases. Tools like the HPD will still need to exist in this last stage because we always need a means to get concise information about a product’s content and its associated health issues. That is why the Precautionary List was so important; it got people to look at the built environment in a different way. It is like reading, once you learn to read you can’t look at a word and not read it. My hope is that designers, owners, builders, now look at a material and can’t help think what is in it because of the Precautionary List.

SSS: Now you are chairman of the HPD Board (and working at a new firm). Can you talk about your plans in going forward with HPD and what your goals are? Is there a timeline for action?

PCS: Last fall at GreenBuild we released the first version of the HPD.  Until then all our efforts were focused upon creating the HPD and gathering a core group of earlier supporters and enlightened manufacturers for the pilot program. Now that HPD Standard is out we need to quickly build the organizational structure to increase the number of HPDs.  We see this as a multi-pronged effort. Foremost, we must increase demand for HPDs.  Fortunately, this is already happening.  Just last week Cannon Design sent out a letter to manufacturers requesting HPDs “for products used in our buildings be publicly provided” and by January 1, 2015,  “only products with product content transparency will be allowed in our library and selected for inclusion on projects.” We will work hard to make sure that Cannon Design’s insistence on HPDs becomes the norm in the building industry.

We are also setting up a universal approach for the adoption by rating systems, certifying organizations, purchasing groups, and other parties that wish to use the HPDs as a disclosure standard. This is a complex effort, but is essential to making HPDs a part of standard practice.

Most importantly, we are looking at ways to help manufacturers to provide HPDs for their products. Creating a HPD, even for the most basic product, takes a huge amount of effort.  Partnering with the manufacturing community is essential for the success of the HPD. To that end, we will be reaching out to members of the manufacturing community that have NOT embraced the use of HPDs to get their input on what we need to do to make the HPD work for them.   This will allow us to better refine the HPD for its next update.

Ultimately, we hope that use of HPDs exponentially increases in the next few years. We are going to do everything possible to make this a reality. Read more…

The U.S. EPA, the European Union Commission on the Environment, the State of California are among the government organizations that have come out on the side of healthy materials for our built environment. In addition, there are a growing number of associations and firms engaged in collecting data on toxic materials that should be avoided, sharing their information with the public. They include the Healthy Building Network ‘s Pharos Project, Clean Production Action, Perkins + Will’s Precautionary List, Living Building Challenge and that organization’s Watch List, and the various LEED programs, such as HC and Pilot.

Most recently, the first open standard format for reporting the content and hazards in building products was launched at Greenbuild 2012. Called the Health Product Declaration (HPD) Open Standard Version 1, the program is managed by a non-profit group of collaborators. The HPD Collaborative is lead by the Pilot Project Committee of 29 building product manufacturers and 50 expert reviewers from across the building industry. The collaborative is in the process of developing, maintaining, and evolving the HPD Open Standard to meet the growing demand from the design and specifying community for health information on the many products used in our buildings. Included in this pilot group is the Canadian furniture manufacturer Teknion. In an effort to build the case for HPD, starting from the supplier’s point of view, I asked Tracy Backus, LEED AP ID+C, director of sustainability programs at Teknion U.S. to answer a few questions. Here she talks about what one manufacturer is doing to safeguard human health, and the Earth that gives us life.

Susan S. Szenasy: As a member of the Health Product Declaration (HPD) Working Group, in the manufacturing sector, and with Teknion’s long-term commitment to environmental health, could you tell us why your firm has decided to join this particular group? And what are your hopes for outcomes?

Tracy Backus: We were asked by Google to participate originally.  As we looked more closely at our history and how Teknion has already made steps to reduce chemicals from our products, like PVC, it was a natural for us to begin the work of full disclosure to the public. The challenge was developing a method that worked for all manufactures of building materials. That is the work of the HPD.

SSS: I understand you heard about HPD from a client, Google, in search of more transparency in products’ chemical/material content, as these relate to human health effects. What was Google looking for?

TB: Google is aligning its business to protect the health and well-being of it’s employees by building and procuring products that eliminate chemicals of concern, identified by the EPA, Living Building Challenge, and the National Cancer Institute. They are investing and, therefore, expect the same of manufacturers to advance the industry to research and develop safer materials for the built environment. Read more…

It seems nary a week (or two) goes by without news of yet another “strategic partnership” or acquisition involving Perkins + Will (P+W).  Last week brought news that Envision Design—the Washington, D.C.-based architecture firm founded by Ken Wilson and Diana Horvat—had joined the P+W fold. For 13 years, Envision carved out a rather impressive niche as green interiors specialists. They designed offices for Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and, three years ago, the LEED Platinum headquarters for the U.S. Green Buildings Council in Washington. We did a major story on the USGBC offices and got to know the firm well. So last week I called Wilson and asked him about the process of being acquired by such a savvy-acquirer. P+W’s approach can be best described as that of a quietly persistent, strategically patient suitor:

On the long courtship: “They first reached out to us about eight years ago. They sent an emissary up from Atlanta. Someone whose firm had recently been acquired by Perkins + Will, who basically said, ‘We did it and it worked out for us.’ We met with them. We drank a lot of very expensive wine. But both Diana and I felt the timing wasn’t right.”

On why they said yes now: “It’s a bitch to run an architecture office these days. And we thought, if we could work something out where we could do less of what we don’t like doing, which is managing the day to day, and more of what we like to do, then we would be interested.”

Read more…

“Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.”
-Chinese Proverb

After Hurricane Katrina and the spectacular failure of the levees, nothing is purely academic in New Orleans. This is certainly true of Tulane University, in particular the School of Architecture, and the role it has played in NOLA’s recovery and rejuvenation. Building on the school’s successes in that regard, dean Ken Schwartz saw an opportunity for his institution to be more proactive in the areas of land use and development while positively impacting the quality of education in the architecture programs. I’m a graduate of Tulane’s School of Architecture and a member of the Dean’s Advisory Board. So when in 2009 Schwartz called me to participate in an informal planning group for a possible new real estate development program, I eagerly took up the challenge.

The new program was launched in 2011 as the Master of Sustainable Real Estate Development(MSRED), based in the architecture school. MSRED is modeled on other one-year graduate programs in real estate, with an intensive summer session followed by two full semesters of coursework. Its director, Alexandra Stroud, is a graduate of Tulane’s School of Architecture, as well as MIT’s real estate program. MSRED is distinctly different from the others, however. It’s one of the few such programs in the Gulf Coast, and the only U.S. real estate degree to focus explicitly on sustainability at its core.

Distinct from the accredited architecture degree programs at Tulane, MSRED infuses the school with practical discussions of how to initiate, finance, and operate a successful project. The ongoing exposure of professional degree candidates to the practicalities of business and aspects development strengthens the traditional role of the architect. Similarly, by teaching real estate development within an architecture program, Tulane emphasizes the value of traditional design expertise to future developers/clients.

Read more…

In my most recent post, I mentioned some of the biggest obstacles to an effective workplace strategy including the integration of the physical work environment, human behavior, organizational dynamics, and business processes. One aspect of these challenges comes up in almost every discussion I have with designers and workers around North America about the NetWork paper: Most of the time we look at ‘the workplace’ as a “one-and-done” interiors project, rather than as an ongoing system to be monitored and continuously improved. (Just to be clear here moves, adds-on, and changes are not what I mean by continuous improvement.)

Looking at workplace making as a periodic event creates an even bigger disconnect between the “place” and the activities happening in it. Work is dynamic, so is human behavior, and business processes will undoubtedly change over time. If we’re doing our best to link “place” and “work”, shouldn’t place be expected to keep up with work as it changes, rather than our current strategy of getting it “right” at a moment in time, then waiting – on average seven years — to rebalance it again?

Workers’ demands change with every generation, too.

Read more…

A tour of Government Center in partnership with WalkBoston during the Common Boston Festival 2007.
Photo by Jonathan Shadmon

Convincing clients about the benefits of progressive design can be difficult; convincing a skeptical public to embrace an unusual design can be almost impossible. This is certainly the case in Boston. A famous tell-tale example is I.M. Pei withdrawing his proposal to build a glass pyramid near Harvard Square for the Kennedy Library, because Cambridge residents objected to its “clashing” with local architecture. It ended up in front of the Louvre.

A hard-hat tour of Renzo Piano’s addition to the Isabella Steward Gardner Museum during the Common Boston Festival 2011. Photo by Benai Kornell.

How can we bridge this divide? A skill that should set architects apart is our ability to think creatively and long-term about our physical environment. We should also be adept at communicating our vision.  However, we’re given very little opportunity to communicate with the general public. Most architects talk with citizens only at community meetings that are carefully orchestrated by clients. Ribbon cuttings are invitation only. Lectures by architects are attended almost solely by students and professionals.

Walking through the South End’s Berkeley Street community gardens during an “urban foraging” tour led by Harvard Medical School researcher David Craft, during the Common Boston Festival 2012. Photo by Valerie Fletcher

In an attempt to bridge this gap in Boston, a few architects and students in an Architecture for Humanity meet-up group planned a week-long series of informal events in 2006, called Arch Fest, that would appeal to a broad public and offer opportunities for dialogue between designers and the general public. This lives on in neighborhood tours, forums, and open buildings during the Common Boston Festival – an annual celebration occurring every year since 2007.

Read more…

I’ve been standing on my soapbox, preaching the virtues of aligning the workplace with the goals and objectives of each organization as well as with their workers’ activities. Some of you, I suspect, disagree with that idea. But if we were to engage in a debate, we might be discussing how this shift actually plays out in reality, and not the shift itself. Recently I came across an article singing the praises of ‘breakthrough’ office-less offices (USA TODAY, June 6th) and another one decrying the soullessness and dysfunction of open-plan (The NEW YORK TIMES, May 19)

Alternate realities: loving or loathing an open-plan office

Why such polar opinions to, and experiences of, the workplace? Why is this so hard to get it right? And why, if we generally agree that my thesis is directionally correct, aren’t we moving there more quickly and easily?

Well, there’s the obvious answer. Change, no matter how desirable, is intimidating and seemingly risky. After all, we’re exchanging the known for the unknown. I’ve been known to glibly summarize the steps involved in “change management” which refers to defining and communicating the reasons the status quo is no longer acceptable; paint a compelling picture of the possible future; slay the monsters on the path from “current state” to “future state” so that people are less afraid to make the move. Each of these steps requires serious decision-making, conscious commitments of resources, and a deep and broad willingness to drive both cultural and structural change. Sayin’ it, don’t make it so.

Read more…

Wilson Hospice House, designed by Perkins + Will, won the 2011 Caritas Project’s Generative Space Award. It is definitely a space that works. The recognition the hospice has received is appropriate because its design has a special psychological effect on the people who spend time there. We need to see more examples of healthcare spaces that work. And so I call your attention to the June 15 deadline for submissions for the 2012 Generative Space Award.

Generative space, as the website explains, satisfies the following criteria: “It improves the health and well-being of all. It improves the performance and effectiveness of the provider organization. It produces systemic and sustainable improvements over time. Improvements are measurable and demonstrate documented evidence substantiating these improvements. It fosters a breadth of improvements ranging from the unique experience of individuals to the establishment of communities that foster health, vitality, and well being.”

Read more…

“Horrified” is how Ila Berman described her reaction to seeing her name next the plastic doll’s for a recent event on women in architecture, produced by the communications committee of the American Institute of Architects San Francisco chapter. Berman is director of architecture at the California College of Arts, and principal of Studio Matrixx. The event was titled, “Ladies and [Gents] Who Lunch with Architect Barbie”.

Pioneering women Architects

Architecture is Barbie’s profession for the year 2011, a result of a partnership between the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Mattel.  Berman, an architect and architectural theorist, joined her fellow practitioners Cathy Simon, Anne M. Torney, and EB Min for a panel discussion on the state of women’s participation in the profession, including the impact of “Architect Barbie”.

Read more…