Our buildings are making us sick

>Meanwhile, the global energy crisis of the 1970s incentivized architects and engineers to design buildings that were increasingly airtight — why pay money to heat a building just to see that heat escape out a crack around a window? That, in turn, required new approaches to controlling their interior climates. Mechanical systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) became more common, as did open-plan layouts to allow for better air circulation.

The flip side of this process is that residential windows became smaller, reducing not only natural light but ventilation. Apartment buildings changed from layouts with lots of windows and cross-ventilation to maximizing the footprint on the lot.

Perhaps more efficient for heating/cooling, but also traps a lot more polluted indoor air. It is startling that today in the US there are a high number of residential units with gas ranges/ovens but very little or no ventilation.

Having switched from a classic EU home (concrete) to a new one (wood frame) I can say:

- now I feel the homes without a VMC, BUT wood based homes are (far) more dusty than concrete based one;

- humidity and temperature controls are better, but they eat energy, and they play well with renewables only in the sunny days.

Long story short: something is improved, but that's FAR from the "pure mountain fresh air inside as outside.

Not only: for those who live in cities, but in general for everyone, filtrating fine particulate (at the maximum home tech available, electric filtration) do something but not more than something, just try look at skin/dress regularly between cities and nature to spot the difference.

The modern model push the idea of a home like an isolated environment where people live inside, and that's nice to a certain extent, but we live on Earth not on a sci-fi starship, witch means we ALSO live outside and outside, also in nature, it's not necessary ideal for us all days long in an year. So, better avoiding the idea of the perfect paradise, improving with a realistic vision, without exaggerations like those who are scared by a socket nearby the bed because it might emit a certain EM field but the smartphone no, MUST get super-good signal, Gb+ WiFi, ...

Est modus in rebus.

This article makes a lot of great points. Thankfully, proof of "green-ness" of a building such as LEED Certification is becoming marketable, and developers or building owners can advertise their building's LEED status to potential tenants. What likely needs to happen to really achieve healthier indoor spaces is to create a standardized process similar to LEED certification for all new construction. Just as the article states, the change needs to happen at the policy level.

Aside from policy changes, customers also have a tremendous amount of leverage in the design process. If customers begin to push for healthier materials and designs, we'll likely see change faster than waiting for policy or building code changes.

Many architects push for healthier materials and designs but cost is such an enormous obstacle. Healthier materials are usually the more expensive option, and are the first to go in any value-engineering endeavor.

There are ways to design for maximum natural ventilation as well, but there are several generations of architects educated to design for HVAC systems, likely due to the energy crisis that the author mentioned. They just don't know how to design a building for passive ventilation. Heck, I finished school in 2020 and just barely touched on this kind of thing. Contractors and engineers also stand in the way - it's tough to re-educate such a huge industry with so many actors, trades, and fields involved in every project. This is also somewhat of an American problem. The western/American AEC industry could and should look to elsewhere in the world for examples of healthier design. Above comment about lack of education applies here as well - very few educators in America can teach this, as most never learned it themselves.

Related: finding air quality measurement devices seems very difficult. It would be nice to know all the things in the air which we are concerned about - CO, CO2, Radon, PPM-stuff, etc. It seems few devices do it all, and some of them actually fake it (using a lookup table based on other measurements).

I'm hoping one of these days someone on HN who is an authority will post a buyer's guide.

I live in a highrise, and I keep an air quality monitor in my bedroom. It amazes me that the building sustains ~1000 ppm of CO2 internally. That seems really high. But, it's not something that's easy to screen for before moving in- and it's not something the engineering seems to think is a problem.

This is not a new thing at all. I remember articles about "sick buildings," from years ago.

Personally, I try to keep as many windows and screen doors open as possible, for as long into each season, as possible. I'm fortunate, in that I live in a fairly temperate climate area.

Surprised there's no mention of radon gases.

I have to say, spending time in the US where everything including small hotels seems to have HVAC (vs. Europe where it's mostly just windows in residential buildings) made me notice and appreciate good air quality (with the US being better).

In Italy AC is not very widespread in private homes, and I guess it's for the better.