Introduction
This essay explores the pivotal question of whether architecture designed for wellbeing should be regarded as a luxury or a necessity, particularly within the context of 3D design. As a student of 3D design, I am particularly interested in how spatial environments influence human health and happiness through deliberate design choices. Wellbeing in architecture refers to creating spaces that promote physical, mental, and emotional health—whether through natural light, ergonomic layouts, or biophilic elements. This discussion is increasingly relevant in a world facing urbanisation, mental health challenges, and environmental crises. The essay will first examine the argument for architecture for wellbeing as a necessity, grounded in its impact on public health and productivity. It will then consider the perspective of it being a luxury, focusing on economic and accessibility constraints. Finally, a balanced evaluation will be offered, synthesising these views to assess the broader implications for design practice. By engaging with academic literature and real-world examples, this essay aims to provide a sound understanding of the topic, reflecting both its relevance and limitations within the field.
Architecture for Wellbeing as a Necessity
The case for considering architecture for wellbeing as a necessity is rooted in its profound influence on human health and societal function. Research consistently shows that the built environment affects mental and physical health. For instance, access to natural light and ventilation in buildings has been linked to reduced stress and improved mood (Ulrich, 1984). Hospitals designed with healing environments—such as the Maggie’s Centres, which incorporate calming landscapes and private spaces—demonstrate how architecture can directly support recovery and emotional wellbeing (Jencks and Heathcote, 2010). From a 3D design perspective, the careful modelling of such spaces using software to simulate light and spatial flow highlights our role in creating environments that inherently nurture health.
Moreover, the necessity of wellbeing-focused architecture becomes evident in urban settings where populations face high-density living. Poorly designed spaces can exacerbate issues like anxiety and social isolation, whereas thoughtful design—such as community-centric housing with green spaces—can foster connection and resilience. A report by the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasises that urban planning and architecture must prioritise wellbeing to address global mental health challenges (WHO, 2016). Indeed, if buildings are to serve their fundamental purpose of shelter and support, then designing for wellbeing is arguably not optional but essential. This perspective aligns with social equity principles, suggesting that healthy environments should be a right, not a privilege.
Architecture for Wellbeing as a Luxury
Conversely, there are compelling arguments for viewing architecture for wellbeing as a luxury, primarily due to economic and practical constraints. High-quality design that prioritises wellbeing often involves significant costs, such as the use of sustainable materials, advanced technologies, or bespoke layouts tailored to individual needs. For example, biophilic design—integrating natural elements like living walls or water features—can be prohibitively expensive for large-scale public projects, limiting its accessibility to wealthier clients or regions (Kellert, 2008). As a 3D design student, I am acutely aware of how rendering such intricate designs often requires costly software and expertise, further highlighting the resource-intensive nature of this approach.
Additionally, in many global contexts, basic infrastructural needs—such as access to housing itself—often take precedence over wellbeing-focused design. In developing economies, or even within deprived areas of developed nations like the UK, funding for architecture is frequently directed towards functional necessity rather than enhanced quality of life. Government reports on housing in the UK underscore persistent shortages and affordability crises, suggesting that resources might be better allocated to quantity over quality (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2020). Therefore, while wellbeing in architecture is desirable, it can be seen as a secondary concern—a luxury that only certain demographics or economies can afford.
Balancing Necessity and Luxury: A Critical Evaluation
Evaluating these perspectives reveals a tension between idealism and pragmatism in the field of architecture and 3D design. On one hand, the health benefits of wellbeing-focused design are undeniable and supported by evidence, positioning it as a necessity for modern societies grappling with urban stress and mental health crises. Projects like the Bosco Verticale in Milan, a residential tower covered in greenery, exemplify how design can mitigate environmental and psychological stressors even in dense urban areas (Boeri, 2015). From a design process standpoint, creating 3D models for such projects allows us to test and refine these benefits virtually, reinforcing the argument for their necessity.
On the other hand, the economic barriers cannot be ignored. The disparity in access to wellbeing architecture highlights a limitation in its universal applicability, suggesting it often functions as a luxury. However, this does not negate its importance but rather calls for innovative solutions. For instance, modular design and cost-effective materials, often explored in 3D design workflows, could bridge the gap between affordability and quality. Furthermore, policies that integrate wellbeing standards into public building codes could democratise access, shifting the perception from luxury to necessity. A nuanced view might therefore suggest that while wellbeing in architecture is a necessity in principle, its realisation often depends on economic and systemic factors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has explored the complex question of whether architecture for wellbeing is a luxury or a necessity. From a 3D design perspective, the creation of spaces that support health and happiness is fundamentally aligned with the purpose of design, supported by evidence of its positive impacts on mental and physical health. However, economic constraints and accessibility issues present a credible argument for its classification as a luxury in many contexts. A balanced evaluation suggests that while the concept is a necessity for addressing contemporary challenges, its practical implementation often remains out of reach for many. The implications for design practice are clear: there is a need for innovative, cost-effective solutions and policy interventions to ensure that wellbeing-focused architecture becomes a standard rather than an exception. As aspiring designers, we must advocate for and contribute to a future where healthy environments are accessible to all, leveraging tools like 3D modelling to test and promote such ideals. This discussion, while broad in scope, remains limited by the lack of specific data on long-term outcomes of wellbeing architecture, pointing to a need for further research in the field.
References
- Boeri, S. (2015) Bosco Verticale: A Forest in the Sky. Stefano Boeri Architetti.
- Jencks, C. and Heathcote, E. (2010) The Architecture of Hope: Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres. Frances Lincoln.
- Kellert, S. R. (2008) Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley.
- Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2020) English Housing Survey 2019-2020. UK Government.
- Ulrich, R. S. (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), pp. 420-421.
- World Health Organization (WHO) (2016) Urban Green Spaces and Health: A Review of Evidence. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
