Robert Bean on the Human Experience of Buildings
We often discuss indoor air quality (IAQ) in terms of specific pollutants and acceptable thresholds. We measure particulates, track CO₂, and set limits for VOCs. But what if this narrow focus, while essential, is causing us to miss the bigger picture? What if the true goal is not just a building that is not toxic but one that actively supports the complete human experience?
This was the central theme of a meandering and insightful conversation on the Air Quality Matters podcast with our recent guest, Robert Bean . A retired engineer, ASHRAE Fellow, distinguished lecturer, and co-host of the Edifice Complex podcast, Robert has been a tireless advocate for a more holistic, human-centred approach to building design for decades.
The conversation explored the vast and complex world of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), challenging us to think beyond the meter and consider the full sensory experience of the spaces we inhabit.
The Big Picture: From IAQ to the Full IEQ Spectrum
Many in our field first became familiar with Robert during the pandemic through his iconic Twitter banner—a striking graphic illustrating the multifaceted nature of IEQ. As he explained in the podcast, he designed it himself to counter the pervasive idea that air quality could serve as a proxy for the entire indoor environment. It was a visual manifesto declaring that our experience is shaped by a symphony of factors: thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, vibration, and more.
This holistic view is gaining traction. As Robert notes, ASHRAE is now formally expanding its definition of IEQ to include the microbiome and water quality. This shift is crucial because it acknowledges that our buildings interact with us through all our senses. The vernacular we use to describe a space—"it's drafty," "it's loud," "it's muggy"—speaks to this deeply personal, sensory experience. A three-year-old, as Robert points out, can tell you if a room is uncomfortable; they don't need a PhD to understand their own experience.
Beyond Benchmarks: The Future of IEQ is Neurological
For decades, our standards have been based on population studies and subjective feedback—asking what percentage of people in a room feel uncomfortable. While these benchmarks have served a purpose, they are a coarse tool. The conversation with Robert ventured into a fascinating future where we might move beyond these statistical averages.
He posits that the neurosciences hold the key to truly understanding how our bodies respond to environmental stressors. Using technologies like quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG), we can literally see the brain light up in response to poor acoustics, uncomfortable temperatures, or other stressors. Robert imagines a future where architectural and engineering students could sit in an environmental lab and witness their own neurological responses as conditions are manipulated. This wouldn't just be an intellectual exercise; it would be a subjective, empathetic experience, building a deeper understanding of the consequences of design choices. Hearing Robert articulate the potential of this approach is a powerful glimpse into a future where building design is informed by direct physiological data.
Roadblocks to Progress: Why We Fail to Apply What We Know
If we have the knowledge to create better buildings, why do we so often fail? Robert passionately argues that the problem isn't a lack of science, but a series of systemic failures in its application. He uses a brilliant analogy of stacked "cake pans" with filters, where information gets clogged as it tries to pass through layers of building codes, architectural dogma, business practices, and engineering conventions.
The discussion highlights the tragic absurdity of radon as a case in point. Here is a known carcinogen, simple to detect and relatively inexpensive to mitigate. We have been aware of the risks and solutions since the 1980s. Yet, decades later, we still struggle with widespread public awareness and government action. It’s a stark example of how, even with the simplest of IAQ challenges, our systems can fail.
A recurring theme was the failure of building codes, which establish a minimum floor for safety but are treated as a maximum ceiling for performance in the market. In a profit-driven development world, there is little incentive to exceed these bare-minimum requirements, leaving us with a built environment that does just enough to avoid immediate harm but rarely strives for optimal human health and well-being.
One Take: The Hard Data Linking School Air Quality to Student Sick Days
In our companion One Take episode, we moved from the broad philosophy of IEQ to the sharp focus of a single, powerful study. The paper, "Associations between illness-related absences and ventilation and indoor PM2.5," provides exactly the kind of evidence we need to make the case for better buildings.
Researchers from the Journal of Environment International conducted a large-scale study across 144 classrooms, tracking over 3,000 elementary school pupils for two years. They measured ventilation rates and indoor PM2.5 levels and correlated this data with anonymised, illness-related absence records.
The findings were direct and statistically significant:
Ventilation Matters: For every 1 litre per second per person increase in the outdoor air ventilation rate, there was an average reduction of 5.6 sick days per classroom over the school year.
Filtration Matters: For every 1 µg/m³ increase in indoor PM2.5, there was an increase of over 7 sick days per classroom per year.
Perhaps the most crucial insight from the paper is that these health impacts were observed at PM2.5 levels that are considered low—averaging just 3.6 µg/m³. This strongly suggests there is no safe threshold for particulate matter, especially for vulnerable children, and that every incremental improvement in air quality yields a tangible health benefit. This study provides a potent, data-driven argument: investing in school ventilation and filtration is not just a building maintenance cost; it is a direct and measurable investment in public health and educational equity.
The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with
Farmwood - Eurovent- 21 Degrees - Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - Inbiot
The One Take Podcast in Partnership with
Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website.
If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.