I agree! Genuine biophilic design for public spaces is great, but fake should be banned. I was thinking about this while walking in 36C heat along Kenilworth 'new' high street (from the 70s, not the old medieval one). There's no vegetation at all. In March I walked through the streets of Swakopmund, Namibia, in similar heat. The main walkway is a beautiful linear garden with shady trees and grass. That makes such a big difference. They also have covered parking areas, some with solar panel rooves. England needs to change irs approach to the design of public spaces or it will be uninhabitable.
Hey Robert, I think you've touched on something really important. As our summers become hotter, we're often making public spaces harder to inhabit rather than easier. Trees, planting and shade aren't decorative extras; they're infrastructure. They cool streets, improve air quality, encourage people to walk, stay and socialise, and ultimately make places people want to spend time in.
On a personal level, I know the difference being outdoors makes to my own health—my WHOOP data consistently shows it. The challenge is creating environments that encourage people to spend more time outside in the first place.
One thing I've noticed is that we often default to the operationally easiest solution rather than asking what experience we're trying to create. Living landscapes require maintenance, investment and long-term thinking. Artificial planting is often chosen because it's simpler to manage, not because it creates a better place for people.
That said, I also think there's an interesting question. Is a well-designed space with artificial planting better than one with no greenery at all? I suspect the answer is often yes. Even simulated nature can soften a space, change how it feels and positively influence our mindset. It's certainly not equivalent to living ecosystems with all their environmental and physiological benefits, but perhaps it's better viewed as a step along a spectrum rather than a binary choice.
For me, though, the ambition should still be higher. Nature shouldn't be something we imitate because it's convenient—it should be treated as essential infrastructure for the places we live.
I agree! Genuine biophilic design for public spaces is great, but fake should be banned. I was thinking about this while walking in 36C heat along Kenilworth 'new' high street (from the 70s, not the old medieval one). There's no vegetation at all. In March I walked through the streets of Swakopmund, Namibia, in similar heat. The main walkway is a beautiful linear garden with shady trees and grass. That makes such a big difference. They also have covered parking areas, some with solar panel rooves. England needs to change irs approach to the design of public spaces or it will be uninhabitable.
Hey Robert, I think you've touched on something really important. As our summers become hotter, we're often making public spaces harder to inhabit rather than easier. Trees, planting and shade aren't decorative extras; they're infrastructure. They cool streets, improve air quality, encourage people to walk, stay and socialise, and ultimately make places people want to spend time in.
On a personal level, I know the difference being outdoors makes to my own health—my WHOOP data consistently shows it. The challenge is creating environments that encourage people to spend more time outside in the first place.
One thing I've noticed is that we often default to the operationally easiest solution rather than asking what experience we're trying to create. Living landscapes require maintenance, investment and long-term thinking. Artificial planting is often chosen because it's simpler to manage, not because it creates a better place for people.
That said, I also think there's an interesting question. Is a well-designed space with artificial planting better than one with no greenery at all? I suspect the answer is often yes. Even simulated nature can soften a space, change how it feels and positively influence our mindset. It's certainly not equivalent to living ecosystems with all their environmental and physiological benefits, but perhaps it's better viewed as a step along a spectrum rather than a binary choice.
For me, though, the ambition should still be higher. Nature shouldn't be something we imitate because it's convenient—it should be treated as essential infrastructure for the places we live.