"Architects and public health officials must work together to prepare for the next pandemic"

Architects have an important role to play in making societies more resilient to the threat of future health crises, write Diego S Silva, Enya Moore and Chris L Smith.

It's now six years since the world was turned upside down by Covid-19. In February of this year, the World Health Organisation issued a plea to all governments, partners and stakeholders: "Do not drop the ball on pandemic preparedness and prevention."

Make no mistake: architects and designers are key stakeholders in pandemic responses. Their understanding of how built environments are designed, experienced and governed is critical during extended public health emergencies.

The architecture of the Covid-19 pandemic responses alternated between places of care and a medium for control

Keeping people and communities safe in place requires a multi-sectoral, interdisciplinary approach. One thing is clear: architects and public health officials must work together to prepare for the next pandemic. But is pandemic preparedness and prevention on the agenda?

Historically, emergency responses within the built environment have followed a cycle of reaction, repression and repetition. Each crisis is addressed as if novel; lessons embedded in design and planning practices fade from view, and similar challenges re-emerge in subsequent events.

Examples include the architectural response to the 21st century sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, which was enacted as if there hadn't been a post-war housing crisis 50 years earlier. Or the automotive town industry crises, where architects rallied internationally in a series of projects centred upon industrial transformation, again, with little reference to the industrial transformations of the past.

All scales of adaptive strategy were enacted during the pandemic: classrooms and community halls were adapted for isolation or emergency use; car parks and shopping centres were repurposed as testing or vaccination sites; hotels served as quarantine centres. Yet it's not clear whether the lessons learned during the immediate response – ones that momentarily reconfigured our relationship with the built environment – are here to stay, or will once again be forgotten.

One of the main lessons is that places we inhabited during the pandemic, which affected how we coped with public health responses to the pandemic (e.g. lockdowns) were differentially felt depending on one's socio-economic standing in a given society. People living in buildings with access to outdoor space fared better than those who did not, for example.

The architecture of the Covid-19 pandemic responses alternated between places of care and a medium for control. We saw hotel accommodation open to the homeless, just as we saw apartment buildings locked down, shutting those who lived there inside.

In response to other crises, architects and designers have embedded resilience into buildings

Fundamentally, the work of architects, and that of public health officials, is always value-laden. Decisions made for the public good are never neutral and serve some groups' interests over others. The question then becomes: whose interests are upheld in times of crisis?

In the case of a pandemic, the ramifications here go far beyond functional, safety or aesthetic considerations, and concern the complex cultural impacts of decisions made during the pandemic. Who will architects design for going forward, and how will this affect our ability to cope with new pandemics and other public health emergencies?

Post-Covid-19, questions remain about the histories, legacies, and flexibility of buildings, as well as their capacity to be repurposed during large-scale crises. For example, in Australia, a key issue identified in the country's federal inquiry on Covid-19 is readiness and preparedness for another crisis. The report identified that, in terms of infection control "there was little consideration of designing the buildings with future or alternative uses in mind". Similar conclusions are being drawn from the UK's inquiries.

As governments worldwide review their handling of Covid‑19, the design community also has a role to play in contributing analysis and proposing alternatives so that past mistakes are not repeated.

There are pressing questions that demand attention. Architects, urbanists, designers and health workers can collectively ask: how can architecture and urban design better prepare us for future health crises? What health values should be expressed through the spaces and buildings we create and occupy?

In response to other crises, architects and designers have embedded resilience into buildings, designing for fire, flood, or earthquake risks in regions where those hazards are prevalent. Can similar thinking apply to health?

Architecture's professional associations might consider how they can secure a place at decision‑making tables

At the same time, researchers and public health professionals could engage with architects to address these questions, while architecture's professional associations might consider how they can secure a place at decision‑making tables concerned with pandemic preparedness.

There are indications of people developing approaches that directly or indirectly tackle these questions. Politecnico di Milano professor of urban policy Gabriele Pasqui discusses how the design of places can build "anti-fragility" – essentially a form of resilience – in the wake of the pandemic, which exposed underlying social challenges. Writing primarily from the perspective of Northern Italy, one of the first and most severely affected regions, he argues that less attention should be given toward larger building projects and more toward smaller "maintenance" work that responds to the everyday needs of its citizens so they can then have the local resources necessary to respond to emergencies like pandemics.

Elsewhere, the exhibition Coming Together: Reimagining America's Downtowns, being held at Washington, DC's National Building Museum until autumn 2026, is notable not only for its commitment to addressing post-Covid-19 issues such as those discussed above, but also for its inclusion of the City Action Hall, a collaborative space where community organisations working to improve neighbourhoods and cities can meet, strategise and take action.

Several points can be drawn from these projects. First, they demonstrate the value of place-based, context-specific work – while globally felt, the effect of the pandemic was not equally distributed. Second, they highlight the importance of examining concepts such as security, fragility and uncertainty more deeply, and considering the values and practices that underpin them, shaping how they are ultimately designed into the world.

Crucially, they show how this work requires engagement from all angles and across all sectors, prompting us to question the role of the built environment in the next pandemic, and how the decisions we make now will influence it.

Diego S Silva is an associate professor of bioethics in The University of Sydney's School of Public Health. Enya Moore is a design lecturer in The University of Sydney's School of Architecture, Design and Planning. Chris L Smith is the professor of architecture theory in the School of Architecture, Design and Planning, and the editor-in-chief of the journal Architectural Theory Review.

The photo is by Edward Howell via Unsplash.

Dezeen In Depth

If you enjoy reading Dezeen's interviews, opinions and features, subscribe to Dezeen In Depth. Sent on the last Friday of each month, this newsletter provides a single place to read about the design and architecture stories behind the headlines.

The post "Architects and public health officials must work together to prepare for the next pandemic" appeared first on Dezeen.