Dear Miss Chloe Hendricks,

This is a really interesting idea. There are thousands of papers focusing on the social and geographic effects on real estate quantitatively. However, I think your idea is a kind of sociology studies, not a kind of fragmental quantitative studies. But I do think you will find some previous papers about urban policy , sociology and economic geography. Or, how about start a new research with a high originality ?

Hope this can help you. I am looking forward to your reply.

Regards.

I think it depends.  If the real estate market is efficient in the sense that health and well-being are capitalized into housing rent or price, then real estate investment can certainly improve quality of living, health and well-being.  At least developers will try to cater to different people's different demands for those goods.  But if those qualities are not capitalized into rent or price either due to people's unawareness or due to weak demand, then real estate investment would not improve those aspects.

Dear Chloe,

We are living in a world, in which billions of dollars are spent by various countries to produce or to buy weapons every year! If the military budgets were to use for some other purposes like health and education, I guess we would live in a totally different and of course better world.

Now to be realistic about real estate investors, I guess the only way to improve the quality of their products is through legal and standards obligations. For instance, there are buildings codes which make it necessary for builders to use double glazed windows in construction. If it was up to them, they may use single glazings simply because it is cheaper and easier to produce; but law has restricted them.

We need more integrated and inclusive building and design codes. Codes which also control the quality of spaces, as you described. For better codes, we need louder voices like you. We need researchers and activists who concern about architecture, physical and mental health of people. Such ideas should develop and become formulated, and real estate investors should follow them the way they follow other design/building codes.

Dear Chloe,

Surely you are right there. The market is not the best way to address affordability and residential health and livability questions simultaneously. But you are in the best place to address this. There are possibilities to go beyond the market to ensure housing stock matches these standards. It is up to the profession to lead.

@Kai Liu

Yes, it is much more sociological. It is definitely one of the main focuses to my discipline if anything. My discipline also focuses on psychology and physical. A house (or "home") is a social construct in which we envelope ourselves in on a daily bases and helps form ourselves. I like to argue that home is supposed to be a "sanctuary" rather than a meaningless object that defines our economic status and should be treated with care. I will have to explore more on the suggested topics. I thank you for that. Sometimes I need help looking for evidence outside the normal academic topics of a particular field. Also, I did do my thesis (and am still working on project wise) on a universally designed home or a basis to design homes from that benefit a human's well-being for other artists/architects/contractors to base a successful design from.

@ Feng Frederic Deng

Can you clarify your statement, " If the real estate market is efficient in the sense that health and well-being are capitalized into housing rent or price, then real estate investment can certainly improve quality of living, health and well-being."? I am not aware if appraisers (assuming that is who you are talking about when it comes to pricing a home) know anything about health and well being but more on how it compares to the other homes in the market and area or what amenities it offers socially such as schools.  Further, if that were the case, a valuable home would be worth a lot and that would require changing the definition of needs to the public to make a home not designed for health worth purchasing. Contradicting that statement however, sustainable movements have changed the market drastically such as the simple topic of energy saving and long term investment. People are willing to pay more for a house that will save them money (and headache). Maybe I clarified the statement myself, ha. Correct me if I am wrong. It then makes me curious, is it possible or even a worthwhile "headache" to universally designed homes for health and well-being?

@ Aryan Shahabian

Veteran housing is a perfect example of where to start. I actually attempted to go through the military to design homes and facilities specifically for human health and well-being for those serving our country. Maybe I had the wrong tactic as when I took the tests I was going to become an officer but they do not have a discipline in which I could do that service for them. Another option is the homeless communities.

Design for human health is an emerging field. At least from my school, I am one of the first to graduate ever from a program like this. There are other schools who have made a very similar program in other states now but when I was searching, I couldn't find anything like this. Point being, that if a field like this were going to make any major change in the way homes are designed, it will have to be made on a a huge platform or through some other political campaign or awareness to make it a big deal. ADA for example started because people needed something like that. I also am aware that they still get flack on occasion for their influence on the industry (very rarely, but it is still there.) Sustainability is a more subtle act in which people who fought for it cared but it changed the market more so than the laws. That may be because sustainability is a luxury and ADA attacks safety measures of the built environment. Public Health individuals are in a more political stance to make the awareness of health and well-being an awareness issue but it is a problem in the fact that it is much more political than it is a movement like ADA or sustainability. It becomes a more private issue that touches subjects that are hard to talk about but design for human health doesn't need to be like that, especially if it is more based on UD (Universal Design). LEED and WELL AP are fantastic ways to get commercial building and investors to make high quality and sustainable buildings (make every penny go as far as possible and will last for ages) however it costs money to keep a certification like that which is where the money is made with the companies who provide the awards. There are many buildings that are still in working order but cannot afford to renew their status every year. Maybe it just needs to happen slowly.

Humorously, I never considered myself as someone who was "loud" but I guess that is what I have turned into, haha. Hopefully I do more than annoy people with my passionate discussions. I have been told more than once that I can come off as aggressive. I hope it does not seem that way. Maybe it is the fact that I know how to use words as swords but knowing me, that is also why I choose to be quiet until asked. I scare myself sometimes. Please take this as a discussion. I mean no hurt feelings or aggressive arguing to make a point. I just like to "hash out" details to get to the roots of the bush.

@ Stephen Robert Horn

It is a tough spot to be in. It takes resources I don't have except a will power to do what I love and care about. That is why I am going to learn about the real estate market, investing, and becoming an agent as well as a designer so I can do it one person at a time. Assuming that if people to move by the statistical average of 10 years (as hoped, if not forever), then I can reach people over generations as the selling of the house will also prove what worked or did not work in the value of the home. Also, if these investors flip 10+ homes a year then over 10 years that is 100 families or more depending on the amounts of moves. Also, most people may or may not have a health concern but if designed with UD concepts then it will reach a broader amount of people without catering to the "healthy" society and actually improve the health of all people instead of segregating by housing. I once heard a saying that went something like "You are either disabled or you haven't found yours yet." If someone just has the luck of the bunch, there is always aging! Any ideas on other aspects to consider while moving forward?