World Health Day: caring for health also means caring for the spaces we inhabit

Few days ago was World Health Day, and it is worth recalling something that still does not occupy the place it deserves in public debate: health is not determined only in hospitals, health centres, the discovery of new drugs, their administration, or individual habits related to nutrition and physical exercise, though all of these clearly matter. Health is also shaped, every single day, by the spaces we inhabit. In the home, in the office, in the school, in the factory, in the hotel, in the healthcare centre, in the gym, in the shop. In short, in buildings. And it is not irrelevant what they are like. To our bodies, the conditions they provide are not neutral.

Health and space are not separate realms, but deeply intertwined ones. To what extent, and with what degree of impact or interaction, will depend on many factors, not all of them measurable or traceable, but that cannot remove them from the equation.

A building is not merely a functional container, nor a sum of materials and systems arranged to make up a few thousand square metres. It is an environment of continuous exposure. A place that can protect, care, facilitate rest, reduce risk and support wellbeing; or, on the contrary, a place that can add physiological burden, discomfort, fatigue, pollution, stress and disease.

It is no coincidence that architecture, in its most elementary origin, emerged as a response to the need for shelter. We build to protect ourselves from the elements, from cold, from heat, from danger and from uncertainty. Classical architectural theory, from Vitruvius onwards, already linked good building to firmness and utility — in addition to beauty — that is, to the capacity to serve human life properly. Two thousand years later, that idea remains valid, but today we know something more: it is not enough for a building to stand up, function and look beautiful; it must also actively contribute to the health of those who inhabit it.

Healthfulness is, in fact, inseparably tied to habitability. A space cannot be considered fully habitable if it compromises air quality, if it accumulates damp and mould, if it overheats its occupants, if it exposes them to harmful substances, if it fails to guarantee thermal, acoustic and visual comfort, or if it hinders rest, concentration and recovery. The World Health Organization has been insisting on this for years: unsafe or inadequate residential conditions increase the burden of disease, whereas adequate housing reduces risk and protects health.

This point becomes even more relevant if we take into account a fact as simple as it is forceful: we spend around 21 hours a day indoors. In addition, the levels of some indoor pollutants can be equal to or higher than those outdoors. Therefore, if we want to speak seriously about prevention, public health and quality of life, we cannot continue to treat the building as a secondary factor. The conditions that shape indoor space form part of our exposome, that is, the total set of environmental exposures we accumulate throughout life and that condition our health. And within that exposome, the building matters far more than society still tends to acknowledge.

Air, water, light, temperature, humidity, noise, materials, ventilation, comfort, contact with nature, ergonomics, accessibility, visual stimuli, occupancy density, maintenance, cleaning, contaminant control, thermal recovery capacity, microbiological quality… none of this is decorative. All of it shapes, to varying degrees, the real conditions in which a person lives, sleeps, learns, works or grows old. And that is why talking about healthy buildings is not an extravagance, nor a fashion, nor a sophistication reserved for premium markets. It is simply a matter of talking about health with a minimum degree of seriousness.

Too often, the debate has been reduced to energy efficiency or regulatory compliance. But the challenge is greater. A building may satisfy many technical requirements and still fail to respond properly to the physiological and cognitive needs of those who use it. The conversation about health in architecture and in real estate requires going beyond the technical file and asking a more demanding question: what kind of bodily, mental and environmental experience does this place produce?

The available evidence already allows us to argue clearly that better indoor environmental conditions have positive effects not only on health, but also on performance and cognitive capacity. Research led by Joseph Allen and his team at Harvard, among others, has shown associations between indoor air quality, ventilation and cognitive performance in office workers. At the same time, reviews and studies on ventilation, temperature, lighting and indoor environmental quality point to the fact that these factors influence productivity, concentration and intellectual performance. In other words, a better space does not merely make people ill less often; it also allows them to think better, work better and sustain everyday effort more effectively.

This also has an economic dimension that should not be underestimated. If we succeed in creating healthier indoor environments, we reduce avoidable exposure, lower the risk of certain symptoms and illnesses, support recovery, reduce sick leave and convalescence, and ease, at least in part, the pressure on healthcare systems. The WHO reminds us that a healthy environment could prevent nearly a quarter of the global burden of disease. Not all of that burden depends on the building, of course, but the building forms part of the environment and therefore forms part of both the problem and the solution.

In the workplace, the argument is just as strong. We are not speaking only about avoiding harm, but about creating conditions that allow people to do their work in spaces that are more comfortable, more legible, more humane and more compatible with the human body. Spaces where temperature does not fatigue, where air does not dull the mind, where lighting supports rather than strains, where noise does not erode, where design does not obstruct but enables. Spaces that, instead of demanding resilience, allow capabilities to unfold. Spaces that invite us to give the best of ourselves.

That is why, when at HAUS we speak about health in buildings, we are not referring to a cosmetic add-on, nor to a layer of discourse intended to differentiate assets. We are speaking about a structural issue. We are speaking about recognising that the relationship between people and spaces has measurable consequences. We are speaking about the fact that design, material selection, ventilation, lighting, water, contaminant control, acoustic and thermal comfort, the relationship with the natural environment, or the space's capacity to adapt are not marginal variables. They are decisions that affect daily life and therefore health.

It is sometimes assumed that incorporating health criteria makes projects more expensive, more complex or slower. In reality, it often does something else: it corrects an excessively narrow view of value. Because the value of a building should not be measured only by its construction cost, its image or its immediate profitability, but also by the quality of the conditions it offers its users and by its capacity to avoid future harm. In this field, continuing to build or refurbish without paying attention to health is not neutral: increasingly, it is a form of obsolescence.

On the occasion of World Health Day 2026, the WHO itself chose to underline the importance of science as the basis for collective decision-making. That message fits this conversation perfectly. If there is one thing we need in the world of building, it is precisely more evidence, more measurement, more judgement and less superficial intuition. More capacity to demonstrate which spatial decisions genuinely improve people's lives and which merely appear to do so.

After eight years of work in this field, our conviction is stronger than it was at the beginning: health and space belong together. They do so in housing and in work. They do so in schools and in hospitals. They do so in architecture, in engineering, in development, in operation and in maintenance. And the sooner we assume that the building forms an active part of care, the sooner we will begin to build not only places that function, but places that truly care for our bodies, that do not harm them, and that, to a large extent, protect them.

Because it is not irrelevant what spaces are like.

And because, if spaces condition our daily exposure, they also condition our health, our energy, our rest, our capacity to concentrate, to recover and to live better.

Caring for health, to a great extent, also means caring for the place where life happens.

Topics