Some older thoughts on this topic https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0961321042000244129?journalCode=rbri20 and http://www.ilankelman.org/articles2/fe2004riskybuildings.pdf

Dear Ali A. Alraouf

Apparently, after COVID-19 there will be many changes in terms of "governance" these are coming to "environmental governance paradigm shift", "urban governance paradigm shift", "urban planning, rural planning, tourism, and anything related to mobilisation and settlement.

In the better words healthy movements and living as has been told us many times during the COVID-19 LOCK DOWN " STAY WELL OR STAY SAFE".

Therefore, they all come around the research topics as they are.

I feel like this is one of those surface level media discourses, where pundits with Pikachu face wonder in awe about issues many scientists have long argued for. Like with all of these surface-level discourses, I would be wary of taking this as a trigger for some entire new research field and start asking fundamental questions, like what is health or a healthy city. Rather, we should use the opportunity the media attention gave this issue to further develop and popularize the research already out there. Holistic health is central to life sciences, we just need to talk to them. Health impact assessments, environmental health, sick building syndrome, and concepts like that have been around for decades. Journals like the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, and research centres themed on environmental health exist. I agree, we should not use adjectives because they are in buzz. There are always swarms of opportunists who do that - I have read so many articles shoehorning COVID into their stories for no reason other than boosting outreach - we should strive to be better. But I also do not agree with the architect's urge to meditate on these big overarching visions and creating new theoretical frameworks. I recommend the humble approach of talking to people who know better than us, and build scientific networks on the intersection of life sciences and urbanism. And call out opportunists when you encounter them. If you read a paper with at least double-digit citations that hijacks the discourse, write to the editor. Buzzword publishing only dilutes scientific knowledge and undermines trust in science overall.

Viktor Bukovszki Can't agree more with your profound analysis.

Health is a very loaded word, there is physical health and mental health are connected. Infectious diseases and lifestyle diseases impact physical health but so do other factors like genetics. Architecture and urban planning can only address some aspects of health and are mainly limited to the preventive aspects. Better planned and designed cities may lead to a better lifestyle which in turn reduces some diseases. Good architecture - with proper ventilation and daylight, proper space management can to a certain extent prevent infectious outbreaks.

Curative aspects however are controlled by big pharma. The old adage that prevention is better than cure does not hold true in this situation (for big pharma at least, who want to make bank). That's why ever since the vaccine was rolled out all focus has been on vaccination drives.

Since the 1990s, the World Health Organization has defined a healthy city as one that continuously develops and improves its physical and social environments and expands the community resources that enable people to mutually support one another in performing all functions of life and reaching their full potential.

According to Kuhn's perspective, scientific advancement consists of three primary components: A paradigm is a set of widely accepted principles, methodological techniques, and cultural conceptions that pertain to the activity of a particular era's "scientific community." Kuhn argued that science does not steadily progress toward truth. Science has a paradigm that remains constant until a paradigm shift occurs when present theories cannot explain a phenomenon and a new explanation is proposed.

Now juxtaposing Kuhn's view, I think there is no trend for interrogating the issue of healthy cities and buildings. There are tons of research on this topic, and very little on impleneting the recommended interventions. I think this call is old wine in a new bottle.

Despite the nice wording of the healthy city definition that Ahmed O. El-Kholei mentioned, to "enable people to mutually support one another in performing all functions of life and reaching their full potential" is a myth. No modern city I know of achieved such a state. Certainly, architecture and urban services can do a lot in triggering good mental health and preventing diseases, it has however little to do with how the governance system and economic rules will enable emancipation and happiness of its inhabitants.

Of note, I founded Cellcityhub which aim at creating a research implementation center around human health within a new design and management of urban, industrial and agricultural practices.

Ali A. Alraouf thank you for the discussion,

Hi all, this is my opinion :)

The healthy city approach is already in many talks in the regions. It is not one that has focused on specific health status. Any city can be a healthy city when its people have access to the health services they need where and whenever they need them. The creation of the health city needs to seek most experts in the health field and technical support throughout. In my point of view, health promotion and health literacy are the main focal points that need to be considered in creating a healthy city. Architecture and urban planning only can focus on the way of alteration in the settings. But to make a resilient and healthy city, health literacy needs to educate the people on the real ground to maintain long-term sustainability.