SICK CITY: is architecture really the answer?
1st prize UEL showcase 2019
Landscape Institute Award finalist 2019
London is a sick city
Two million Londoners are living with toxic levels of air pollution (gov.uk, 2019) and only 34% of the Capital’s population manage to walk or cycle for at least 20 minutes on any given day (gov.uk, 2017). Those that work in an office might also suffer with Sick Building Syndrome, which is a collection of symptoms such as headaches and difficulty concentrating that occur only in a particular building; especially offices (NHS, 2019).
In an attempt to combat the health issues associated with today’s city life The Greater London Authority has published a set of Healthy Streets design guidelines (TFL, 2017). These design principles give priority to pedestrians and cyclists, promote street-scapes which have shade, shelter, places to linger and things to see and do, and celebrate streets which welcome a diverse range of people. The Healthy Streets approach is clear: better city design can improve health outcomes. But, in the contemporary city, is architecture really the answer?
When it comes to citizen health, architecture and city design may not be the answer. This exploration of individual health narratives within the context of contemporary London suggests that, instead of architectural changes, changing how citizens experience power within the city will have the biggest impact on mental and physical health.
