Limitations of the preceding discussion include an inability

Limitations of the preceding discussion include an inability to adroitly compare and contrast the esthetic content of the visual, non-written material embedded in each submittal. This is because conventional content analysis methodology is dependent upon written texts. In order to develop a comparable lexicon of terms and concepts, it would have been necessary to interpret subjectively the content of the esthetic properties of the more than one hundred interior and exterior renderings, floor plans, and diagrams included within the nine entries. In future research on this topic it is recommended that a feasible method be utilized to interpret the esthetic content of this non-visual material. One such approach might be to assemble a panel of judges to assess and rank order all visual materials, item by item, and to provide descriptive labels, accordingly. This can result is a useful typology of non-written content and can be used to further quantify and illuminate the overall analysis. A review recent research on the topic of the structure of esthetic preferences is also recommended (Wang and Yu, 2012). Two questions arise: ‘How can designers adroitly weave together EBR&D information with esthetic and technical content?׳ In the case of evidence-awarded architecture for health, ‘How can design concepts be “tested” in the constructed project? It can be instructive to take cognizance of the eight steps in the EBR&D process as developed by The Center for Health Design for its EDAC certification program. These steps are (1) Define EBR&D goals and objectives; (2) Find relevant sources of evidence; (3) Critically interpret relevant evidence; (4) Create and innovate EBR&D concepts; (5) Develop a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses; (6) Collect baseline performance measures; (7) Monitor implementation of EBR&D concepts during design and construction; and (8) Measure the built outcome via post-occupancy assessments(Hamilton, 2004; The Center for Health Design, 2013a; Ulrich et al., 2010).These criteria have defined the Pebble Project׳s aim to advance the movement towards knowledge-based healthcare architecture. With this said, an evidence-based healthcare design purchase Erastin holds the promise of advancing safer, more functional, ecologically attuned, and more aesthetically satisfying healthcare environments.
Note 1 The nine submittals expressed a broad span of esthetic and technical approaches. These ranged froma major emphasis on conventional architectural renderings of exterior spaces, interior spaces, site plan, and schematic plans of each floor level, to submittals devoid of exterior or interior architectural renderings but instead opting for detailed conceptual statements accompanied by conceptual diagrams. Five of the nine “architecturally concrete” submittals, however, were sufficiently interpretable by the authors regarding their building design images. The co-winning teams, ADITAZZ, and M+NLB/Perkins+Will (New York), perhaps not coincidentally, provided substantial descriptive visual information in support of written project narratives. ADITAZZ proposed a 36-bed, 4 level facility that featured one large solar panel/energy harvesting apparatus functioning, compositionally, as a single, iconic, and immediately identifiable organizational element, to be clearly recognizable within the community. Various diagnostic and treatment, patient-family support, and administration, are to be housed beneath in interconnected yet decentralized building elements. This parti׳ featured a large open air “Agora” housing a ground level farmers market, concepts, secluded therapeutic as well as more public gardens, and multiple seating areas. Exterior and interior renderings depicted this immense canopy as a large “hanger-like” device that allows natural light to filter through a semi-opaque grid. The other co-winning submittal, by M+NLB/Perkins+Will, was for a 100-bed, 3 level facility. Its renderings depicted a parti׳ comprised of a horizontal arrival element housing administration and patient-family support functions with a connecting spine at its midpoint leading to a pair of mirrored triangular med-surgical units. A one level diagnostic and treatment wing would be located to the right of the two med-surgical pavilions. Numerous exterior and interior renderings were provided, including one of a typical patient room. Next, the submittal by the Smith Group featured a smaller number of perspective views. These depicted a pair of two mirrored (parallel) wings, one of which would be 1 level in height and house administration, central support, and community outreach. To the rear, a pair of 2 level patient housing units would be situated, one of which housing “high acuity beds,” and the other “low acuity beds.” A fourth submittal, by the firm Gresham, Smith and Partners, was, for lack of a better term, a conventional community “hospital” in appearance and in its spatial organization, based on exterior and interior views, and floor plans, provided. Its main feature would be Central Arroyo Park. This large, open-air courtyard, at its core of the parti׳, would contain a farmers market, space for outdoor wellness education classes, a rock garden, and performance spaces. At the rear of the site plan, three identically massed (in plan) medical office buildings were depicted. A fifth scheme, by the team of John Cooper Architecture/TBL Architects, consisted of an extensive written narrative but accompanied by images too diagrammatic to be classified as architectural design renderings when compared to the other four schemes described above.