Thoughtful editorial pieces exploring the implications, trade-offs, and intellectual debates that shape the discipline of longevity architecture.
On the gap between what we know about environmental health and what most people can access. And on the quiet conviction that architecture is the largest, most constant exposure we never talk about.
On the paradox that the most important qualities of a building are precisely those that remain invisible to the eye.
Why longevity architecture must distinguish itself from the wellness industry, and why precision, not aspiration, is the path to credibility.
If healthy buildings improve health outcomes, then unhealthy buildings are a form of environmental injustice. The implications are profound.
A 25 to 30% increase in cardiovascular disease risk. Not from diet, not from exercise, but from the light environment of the buildings where we spend our lives.
Radon beneath the foundation. VOCs off-gassing from the flooring. Lead in the pipes. PFAS in the water. The systems that matter most in a home are the ones no one photographs.
A 4 to 6% construction premium that is often offset from day one. A 600-home study that validated health outcomes across every measured parameter. The case for Passive House is no longer theoretical.
Buildings outlive their designers, their first occupants, and often their original purposes. What does it mean to design for health across decades?