Interview with DVArea on the Faster Project: scientific research, sustainability, and human data-driven design

For many years, architectural design has been evaluated primarily based on three criteria: aesthetics, functionality, and energy efficiency.

Today, however, the landscape is changing rapidly.

A growing body of scientific research shows that the quality of built environments influences physical and mental well-being, health, the ability to concentrate, social relationships, and even work performance. Natural light, acoustic comfort, air quality, opportunities for movement, contact with nature, and freedom of choice are no longer simply “design bonuses,” but factors that tangibly impact people’s daily experiences.

This has given rise to a growing interest in Evidence-Based Design, an approach that integrates scientific evidence, data, and behavioral observation into the design process.

In Italy, one of the firms contributing most significantly to this evolution is DVArea, which—through ODUElab—has developed a method called Human Data Driven, capable of linking architecture, sustainability, scientific research, and human well-being.

For this reason, we have chosen to dedicate the second interview in our editorial series to Marta Olivieri, delving into the Faster project—a case study that demonstrates how well-being can become a genuine design parameter rather than merely a stated goal.

Crediti immagine: DVArea

MeM: DVArea is one of the few Italian firms to have integrated scientific research, sustainability, and design into a single process. When did you realize that the language of architecture alone was no longer enough to design better spaces?

M.O.: There wasn’t a specific moment, but rather a gradual realization. A project can be formally successful, technically sound, and energy-efficient without necessarily producing a positive experience for the people who inhabit it. There can be a significant gap between the designer’s intention and the actual impact of the space.

This gave rise to the need to broaden the scope of design. Over the years, DVArea has integrated expertise in engineering, sustainability, environmental comfort, the psychology of space, and research, eventually establishing ODUElab—a division specifically dedicated to sustainability, well-being, and Evidence-Based Design. Our focus has gradually shifted toward understanding the effects a building can have on the people who inhabit it.

Evidence-Based Design does not replace the language of architecture nor does it reduce the design to a formula. On the contrary, it makes decisions more informed and verifiable. Every design choice becomes, in a sense, a hypothesis: what effect do we want to achieve? What knowledge does it draw upon? How can we verify it?

It is within this evolution that our Human Data-Driven approach was born, developed through ODUElab: using data, scientific evidence, and listening to people to make design decisions more informed and verifiable, without sacrificing the cultural, intuitive, and expressive dimensions.

MeM: In the Faster project, people’s well-being is not treated as an afterthought, but as a core design parameter. What scientific evidence guided the most important decisions during the project’s development?

M.O.: I wouldn’t describe this as a project derived from a single scientific study, but rather as choices consistent with a well-established body of evidence on the relationship between the built environment, comfort, physical activity, mental and physical recovery, and social relationships.

The brief called for the creation of a new company restaurant and a gym for employees and their families. We interpreted these functions not as ancillary services, but as spaces through which the company demonstrates its care for people.

The cafeteria, the gym, and the sheltered outdoor spaces form a sequence dedicated to breaks, socializing, and physical activity. On the south facade, the “second skin” of micro-perforated corrugated sheet metal creates a shaded, landscaped space, serving as a visual and perceptual filter from the maneuvering areas and the passage of heavy vehicles. In addition to being a compositional element, the cladding helps define the environmental quality of the space by modulating solar radiation, light, and ventilation, thereby creating conditions more conducive to relaxation.

Inside, acoustics, lighting, material selection, and perceptual quality were also considered integral to well-being.

An initial comparative field survey recorded significantly different microclimatic conditions between the space protected by the “second skin” and the outdoor area directly exposed to the sun. Although preliminary, these findings confirm the potential of the shading system as a means of reducing thermal exposure and improving the livability of the break area.

Crediti immagine: DVArea

MeM: A growing body of research shows that natural light, acoustic comfort, air quality, movement, and opportunities for interaction influence attention, stress, and cognitive abilities. How does this scientific knowledge translate into your design decisions in practice?

M.O.: This understanding translates, first and foremost, into a different hierarchy of design decisions. Natural lighting, acoustics, air quality, movement, and opportunities for social interaction are not aspects to be evaluated only at the end, but criteria that guide the form, layout, building envelope, and systems from the very earliest stages.

Designing for natural light, for example, does not simply mean increasing the amount of glazing. It means focusing on the duration and quality of exposure, the relationship with the outdoors, glare control, contrasts, and shading. Studies conducted in workplace settings have linked greater exposure to daylight to improved sleep quality and perceived well-being.

Similarly, air quality is not solely about meeting minimum air exchange rates. It involves controlling ventilation, limiting sources of pollution through material selection, and, whenever possible, monitoring the building’s actual performance over time. Research shows that air quality and ventilation levels can affect not only perceived comfort but also attention and cognitive abilities.

Acoustic comfort, on the other hand, requires zoning, the separation of incompatible activities, sound absorption, and reverberation control. Research on activity-based workplaces shows, for example, how important it is to provide quiet areas with few distractions for tasks that require concentration.

Movement and interaction translate into clear circulation paths, visible and inviting staircases, lively entryways, common areas, and places where people can meet without feeling obligated to do so. The design therefore does not propose a single ideal condition, but offers a variety of possibilities capable of supporting different activities, sensibilities, and needs throughout the day.

Crediti immagine: DVArea

MeM: What stands out in the Faster project is the inclusion of spaces dedicated to social interaction, breaks, and physical activity. Is there evidence today that shows how these environments actually impact organizational well-being and employee performance?

M.O.: Yes, but it’s important to avoid a deterministic interpretation. We cannot claim that adding a gym or a social space automatically results in a specific percentage increase in productivity. The physical environment can encourage certain behaviors, but the outcome also depends on corporate culture, work organization, the time actually available, and people’s ability to freely use these spaces.

Reviews of the literature on workplace physical activity interventions indicate positive effects primarily on various health indicators such as blood pressure, heart rate, and stress, with more variable results compared to strictly organizational outcomes. Similarly, the configuration of spaces can influence the likelihood of movement and face-to-face interactions, but it cannot replace the social and organizational conditions that make these interactions meaningful.

In the Faster project, we therefore interpreted the restaurant, the gym, the sheltered outdoor space, and the large yellow staircase as a true social infrastructure. The staircase, serving as both a vertical connection and a branding element, also takes on the role of a social connector—a place of passage and an opportunity for interaction. The restaurant breaks up the work routine and creates a shared moment; the gym makes physical activity more accessible as part of daily life.

The value, therefore, does not lie in any single function, but in the ability to foster daily rituals of rest, connection, movement, and a sense of belonging.

MeM: One of the most complex aspects of Evidence-Based Design is transforming scientific data into architectural decisions. How does this process take place at DVArea? Is there a specific method you follow to translate research into a design?

M.O.:The process begins with defining the outcomes—that is, the results we aim to achieve through the project. Before discussing solutions, we ask: Who will use the space? What activities will they carry out there? What conditions do we want to foster in terms of comfort, concentration, social interaction, relaxation, safety, and accessibility?

These questions are also organized using DVArea’s Design Framework, which helps us examine each project by relating five dimensions: location, aesthetic intent, environmental sustainability, well-being, and economic sustainability. These are not separate compartments, but complementary perspectives through which we can assess the consistency of our choices and their potential effects.

Starting from these questions, we establish a baseline through contextual analysis, discussions with the client and users, and—when possible—questionnaires, interviews, observations, and environmental data. Scientific research is then used to identify the spatial and environmental factors that may influence the chosen outcomes.

However, there is no automatic correspondence between scientific evidence and an architectural solution. Research does not provide a catalog of answers, but helps formulate more precise questions and critically evaluate design alternatives.

The crucial step is to translate this knowledge into design requirements. An abstract goal such as “promoting recovery” can translate, for example, into noise protection, shade, visual contact with natural elements, air quality, seating opportunities, and distance from main operational flows. “Fostering relationships,” on the other hand, may involve addressing proximity, visibility, threshold dimensions, the layout of pathways, and the variety of common spaces.

Solutions are then developed through an interdisciplinary approach and verified using simulations, environmental indicators, and qualitative assessments. When the project and the mandate allow it, this verification continues even after completion, through measurements, user feedback, and post-occupancy evaluations.

Data, therefore, does not design for us. It helps us make explicit the relationship between an architectural decision and the effect we intend to produce, allowing us to learn from the actual use of buildings as well. This is the core of the Human Data-Driven approach developed in the Faster project.

Crediti immagine: DVArea

MeM: In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about environmental sustainability, while the topic of “human sustainability” has been explored even less. Do you think that, in the coming years, the perceptual and psychological quality of spaces will become a design indicator just as important as energy consumption?

M.O.: We believe so. For many years, we have learned to measure what a building consumes and produces: energy, emissions, water, and waste. Today, we must learn—with the same seriousness—what a building is capable of generating in people.

Environmental and human sustainability are not opposing concepts. A building cannot truly be considered sustainable if it reduces consumption but causes discomfort, fatigue, exclusion, or a poor quality of experience. At the same time, well-being cannot be achieved through energy-intensive or unsustainable solutions in the long term.

The challenge lies in the fact that perceived well-being and the experience of a space cannot be represented by a single number. It requires the integration of objective data—light, temperature, air quality, noise, occupancy—and subjective data related to perceived comfort, a sense of control, belonging, safety, and satisfaction.

What has already happened in the energy sector will likely happen here as well: initially, the issue is framed as an intention; subsequently, it becomes an indicator; then a design objective; and finally, the subject of evaluation. However, it will be essential to use data ethically. The goal must be to measure the quality of spaces, not to monitor people.

The most important cultural shift will be precisely this: viewing buildings as technical infrastructure capable of sustaining health, relationships, and quality of life over time. Human sustainability must therefore become an explicit design criterion, not merely a consequence expected of good architecture.

MeM: If you had to point out one mistake that is still being made today in the design of workspaces, what would it be? And what cultural shift do you consider most urgent for those designing the spaces of the future?

M.O.: The most common mistake is to design for an average, abstract user, focusing primarily on optimizing density, floor area, and spatial efficiency, and then adding well-being as an afterthought through a few plants, a relaxation room, or a gym.

Well-being, however, is not a catalog of amenities. It’s about the ability to choose, concentrate, meet others, move around, recharge, understand the space, and feel at ease. Different people, different activities, and even different times of the same day require different conditions.

One of the most obvious limitations of contemporary design is precisely its tendency to continue designing static conditions for experiences that are, by their very nature, dynamic. Buildings are often conceived as stable configurations, whereas throughout the day, people change their activities, postures, levels of attention, and needs for privacy, interaction, and comfort. This does not necessarily mean imagining spaces that are constantly transformable, but rather offering a variety of conditions, different degrees of control, and real possibilities for choice. The design should therefore not propose a single ideal condition, but rather a system of possibilities capable of accommodating different needs and experiences over time.

The most urgent cultural shift, therefore, is to move from product-centered design to outcomes-centered design. We shouldn’t limit ourselves to asking whether the building was delivered on time, within budget, and in accordance with requirements, but also: Is it functioning as we had imagined? For whom does it work, and for whom does it not? What effects is it producing?

This means listening first, verifying later, and accepting that the project does not end with the handover of the building. It means viewing every building as a source of knowledge for future projects.

The future of design will depend on the ability to balance sensitivity and measurement, intuition and responsibility, architectural quality and real-world impact. It is not a matter of abandoning the designer’s vision, but of making that vision more mindful of the effects it produces.

From research to design practice

The interview with DVArea offers a vision of design that we feel is deeply aligned with that of MeM: architecture capable of combining design sensibility, scientific research, and a genuine focus on people.

Today, design means understanding its long-term effects and asking how light, materials, environmental comfort, movement, and relationships can contribute to the well-being of those who experience these spaces every day. It is a paradigm shift that requires new tools, new skills, and, above all, an interdisciplinary approach.