P R O B L E M S A N D P R E V E N T I O N F A C T O R S
W H Y A R E T H E R A P E U T I C A N D H E A L I N G S P A C E S I N
N O T O F T E N
C O N S I S T E N T L Y
P R O V I D E D ?
It can be analysed that hospitals have evolved historically: being inspired by historical, religious and cultural precedents or as a result of centurial trends and societal transformation. Questionably, it suggests that hospital architecture has either failed to reach its optimum or the requirements of hospital architecture change too frequently for one architectural style to be sustained.
£
$
€
Post-opening, the cost of hospitals are more expensive than initial expenses (Nickl and Nickl-Weller, 2013, pp184). There is potential that provision and maintenance of healing features such as gardens and recreational spaces are viewed as an unnecessary investment, second to the proven capabilities of medicine alone. Regarding existing hospitals, the addition of healing features would be expensive and require departmental closure.
With the capabilities of medicinal advancement, practices aim to have the patient healed in the fastest possible time to accommodate new patients (Heathcote and Jencks, 2010, pp90). Due to the fact that ‘change in the medical sector takes place at a particularly fast pace’ (Nickl and Nickl-Weller, 2007, Foreword pp2) and the extensive timescale of hospital planning, it is possible that the design will need updating prior to physical completion. Despite now having greater knowledge on designing spaces that can assist healing, it is viewed as a time consuming and economical risk to build a hospital for an ‘experiment simply to measure its effectiveness on health’ (Sternberg, 2009, pp238). The modern hospital timescale is often ‘five to ten years’ (Maddox, 2014) and it is surfacing that hospitals ideally need to last three decades before demolition and re-design to suit societal needs (Nickl and Nickl-Weller, 2013, pp184).
A problem surfaces when debating ‘location and cultural constraints’ of hospitals. Since the relationship between neuroscience and architecture there has been an increasing number of culturally sensitive and ‘architecturally inventive, innovative, and elegant health buildings’ globally, however they tend to be smaller, privatised organisations (Heathcote and Jencks, 2010, pp83). This poses the idea that the designs of such organisations is unlikely to transfer to a modern city hospital (Heathcote and Jencks, 2010, pp83), being more largely populated and consequently having a higher demands. It is challenging for healthcare architects to meet the needs of a variety of users, not only for staff, patients and visitors but on a personal, cultural, religious and health related level. In terms of the facilities provided, it is equally complex to ‘consider design, art, medical science, logistics, technical equipment and building technology’ (Nickl and Nickl-Weller, 2013, pp184).
Regarding the design layout of treatment areas, it is preferred that hospitals provide private patient rooms rather than wards, as indicated in primary research interviews with Kent based hospital patients. An interview with a Tunbridge Wells hospital patient highlighted that the use of a private room with bathroom facilities was more convenient in comparison to the ward layout the patient experienced at East Grinstead hospital. Multi-patient wards can contribute to increased stress, as exemplified with one patient of Maidstone hospital stating the experience of a 12 bed ward disturbed her rest due to increased noise. Due to many hospitals having high patient accommodation demands, such as NHS hospitals, wards offer space and expense saving solutions, hindering the provision of private, therapeutic recovery spaces.
FIG 37
FIG 38 PRIVATE PATIENT ROOM SKETCH
FIG 39 MULTI-PATIENT WARD SKETCH
HAYLEY MARCROFT
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE | NTU
N0495471