Art in hospitals is such a good idea. The above photos are from Michael Garron Hospital, here in Toronto. One thing I have never understood is why so many hospitals look and feel depressing. (My mom is a nurse and so I was around them growing up.)

I fully appreciate that utility is first and foremost and that construction budgets are always tight. But it strikes me that if there's one place where you want the opposite of depressing, it is in the places where people go when they're already not well.

It also doesn't necessarily need to cost more to be "not depressing." A little creativity and caring goes a long way.

I don't know, maybe this is so often the case because the people making the important decisions don't believe that our environments affect our well being. So the design process naturally reduces to just getting the utilitarian parts right and not spending a penny beyond that.

Whatever the case, I do believe that our environments affect us. More than most of us probably appreciate. And so naturally, I think that art in hospitals is a very good thing.

I haven’t spent a lot of time in hospitals. So I may not be the best judge of what I’m about to say. But why do we design hospitals to be so depressing? Why do they have to look so, well, clinical?

I asked this question on Twitter a few days ago and I was recommended to listen to a 99% Invisible podcast called The Blue Yarn. If you haven’t yet heard of this podcast series, I would highly recommend you check it out (in addition The Blue Yarn episode).

What this particular podcast was about was rethinking hospital design in terms of patients, as opposed to staff hierarchy. And the way they illustrated the need for that was through some simple blue yarn.

Using yarn, management physically mapped out the paths of patients as they moved through this particular medical center. And what they found was a tremendous amount of waste. There was a lot of waiting around (in dingy rooms) and a lot of unnecessary moving around.

Instead of putting patients first, the hospital had been designed in terms of staff offices and other criteria. Ultimately, this exercise ended up triggering a complete redesign of the hospital.

After the redesign, there were a lot of grouchy doctors who had lost cushy offices. Some even quit. But the hospital became more efficient, more profitable, and, most importantly, safer for patients. So much so that their insurance expenses dropped by 37%!

But this obviously isn’t the only foray into rethinking hospital design. In fact, there’s something out there called “evidence-based hospital design”, where the objective is to leverage data and actual evidence to figure out the relationship between architecture and patient well-being.

One of the pioneering studies in this area was done in 1984 by Roger Ulrich. 

The study took patients in Pennsylvania recovering from gallbladder surgery and split them up into two groups. The first group was given a room with a beautiful nature view and the second group was given a room with a view of a brick wall.

What they discovered from this experiment was that the group with the view of nature not only recovered faster but also needed fewer painkillers during the recovery. That’s a fascinating finding.

So it’s not surprising that this sort of thinking is making its way into contemporary hospital design. And that’s a great thing.

Hospitals should be uplifting, restorative, and beautiful spaces. Does that not seem sensible?