Irina Verona and guest GHI board secretary Meghan joined us recently for our Weekly Wednesday Free CEU webinar Series.
If you missed this session, want to rewatch it, or share it with a friend or colleague, you can now do so, as the recording and article on the topic are available below.
Overall, respondents indicated that the webinar significantly expanded their understanding of neurodiversity and its relevance to architecture and sustainability, with many noting that they had previously given little thought to neurodivergent users or to concepts like neuroinclusive spaces, sensory audits, or functional and sensory redundancy. Participants reported learning that an estimated 15–20% (or more) of the population is neurodivergent, and that design elements such as lighting, acoustics, furniture, circulation, exposed structure, wayfinding, and even appliance noise play a critical role in comfort, cognitive function, and inclusion. The idea of redundancy—providing multiple ways to achieve comfort or perform the same function—stood out as a key takeaway, reframing sustainability around human experience, choice, flexibility, and abundance rather than minimalism or code compliance alone. Attendees also valued the integration of accessibility, sustainability, and lived experience, noting that inclusive design goes beyond ADA requirements and often requires deeper conversations with building owners, especially in historic contexts. Remaining questions and areas of curiosity centered on practical implementation: how to resolve ADA constraints beautifully in existing buildings, what standards or guidelines currently exist for neurodiversity, how to apply these ideas consistently in real projects, and how far the profession can push beyond code toward truly inclusive, occupant-centered design.
Follow up after the webinar
“One idea I didn’t fully unpack in my talk last week — and that feels worth sitting with — is the variability of our spatial experience.
There is no universal way to experience space.
We all experience space differently because we process information through our senses differently. And all of our senses participate in this process: touch, sight, hearing, smell, taste, proprioception (body sense), vestibular sense (balance), and interoception (our internal physiological needs). The same environment can feel very different to each person.
Yet in architecture — and especially in energy code standards — we often design as if comfort is stable, measurable, and broadly shared. Take thermal comfort as an example. The ASHRAE 55 comfort chart defines a relatively narrow range of temperature and humidity that is considered acceptable, calibrated to satisfy about 80% of occupants in a room.
Variability is often treated as statistical noise rather than as a design condition. But in practice, this variability is essential and will determine whether a person is enabled or disabled by their environment, and whether they can do what they need to do at home or at work.
It’s also worth remembering that codes are not fixed. They change in response to new knowledge, technologies, and social values. Minimum ventilation standards, for example, have shifted dramatically over time — tightening, loosening, and even spiking during periods when indoor smoking was common. What we consider “healthy” or “acceptable” air has never been static.
If codes can evolve in response to energy use, public health, and environmental performance, they can also evolve to reflect a broader understanding of human experience, and, by extension, of comfort.
Designing for variability means moving away from singular solutions and toward environments with options: different sensory characteristics; multiple ways to participate, engage, or control; and the ability to adapt over time. Comfort, in this framing, is not a single target but a range.
And it is dependent on redundancy in building systems and spaces. If sustainability is about long-term performance and resilience, then human experience can’t be standardized or assumed. Environments that support the broadest range of bodies and minds are more functional, durable, more equitable, and ultimately more sustainable.”
Article based on webinar*
Abstract
Sustainability in the built environment has traditionally focused on reducing energy use, minimizing material consumption, and lowering emissions. While these goals remain essential, they are incomplete without a parallel consideration of human diversity—specifically neurodiversity. Neurodiversity recognizes the natural variation in how people perceive, process, and interact with their environments. When sustainability is understood only through efficiency and reduction, buildings risk becoming optimized for a narrow range of occupants, unintentionally excluding many others. This article explores how integrating neurodiversity into sustainable design reframes sustainability itself, shifting it from a model of austerity toward one of resilience, abundance, and redundancy. Through an examination of sensory experience, comfort standards, building systems, and design processes, it argues that environments designed for a broader range of bodies and minds are not only more inclusive, but also more durable, adaptable, and ultimately more sustainable.
Rethinking Sustainability Through Human Experience
Sustainability has long been framed as a response to environmental limits. From early environmental legislation to contemporary climate policy, the dominant narrative has emphasized conservation, efficiency, and reduction. In the building sector, this approach has translated into tighter envelopes, lower energy loads, and increasingly sophisticated performance standards. These measures are critical, particularly given that buildings account for a significant portion of global emissions. However, sustainability has never been purely environmental. From its earliest formal definitions, it has also been social—concerned with equity, health, and the well-being of present and future generations.
Yet, in practice, the social dimensions of sustainability often remain secondary. Health is frequently reduced to air quality, daylight, or thermal performance, while accessibility is commonly understood as a question of physical mobility alone. This narrow framing overlooks a fundamental truth: people experience buildings in profoundly different ways. A space that feels comfortable, legible, and supportive to one person may feel overwhelming, distracting, or even disabling to another. Sustainability, when divorced from this reality, risks serving only a subset of its intended beneficiaries.
Neurodiversity offers a powerful lens through which to expand sustainability’s scope. It challenges the assumption of a “typical” user and calls for environments that acknowledge and accommodate a wide spectrum of sensory and cognitive experiences. When sustainability is viewed through this lens, the question shifts from how little a building can consume to how well it can support diverse human needs over time.
Understanding Neurodiversity in the Built Environment
Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in human neurocognitive functioning. It encompasses both neurotypical individuals and those who are neurodivergent, including people who are autistic, have ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress. Estimates suggest that roughly 15–20 percent of the population is neurodivergent, though the true number may be higher due to underdiagnosis and social stigma.
Importantly, neurodiversity is not synonymous with disability, though the two can overlap. Many neurodivergent individuals are disabled not by their neurological differences, but by environments that fail to accommodate them. When spaces are designed around a narrow set of sensory assumptions—about noise, light, movement, or spatial complexity—they can actively prevent participation. In this sense, disability is often produced by design rather than inherent to the individual.
Central to neurodiversity is the recognition that there is no universal response to space. People process sensory information differently across all senses, including sight, sound, touch, smell, balance, body awareness, and internal physiological cues. Some individuals are hypersensitive to stimuli, while others seek sensory input. As a result, identical environments can elicit vastly different experiences. A classroom described as “energetic and collaborative” by some occupants may be experienced as “distracting” or overwhelming by others. Space, therefore, is never neutral.
Neuro-Inclusive Space and the Role of Affordances
A neuro-inclusive space is one designed with an understanding that sensory experience is individual rather than universal. Instead of assuming a single optimal condition, such spaces provide multiple affordances—different ways of occupying, navigating, and experiencing an environment. Affordances may include variations in lighting levels, acoustic conditions, spatial enclosure, or furniture types, allowing occupants to choose what best supports their needs at a given moment.
This emphasis on choice and agency represents a departure from traditional approaches to accessibility, which often focus on minimum compliance with dimensional standards. While physical accessibility codes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act have transformed the built environment for people with mobility impairments, comparable requirements for sensory and cognitive accessibility remain largely absent. Existing guidelines addressing neurodiversity are typically voluntary and unevenly applied.
Designing beyond code, however, does not mean abandoning rigor. On the contrary, it requires deeper engagement with occupants and more nuanced thinking about how spaces function over time. Neuro-inclusive design acknowledges that needs change throughout the day, across seasons, and over the lifespan of a building. By anticipating variability rather than resisting it, such spaces become more adaptable and resilient.
Sustainability Codes and the Myth of Universal Comfort
Most sustainability standards implicitly assume that improving building performance will automatically improve occupant comfort and well-being. Comfort, however, is often defined narrowly. Thermal comfort standards, for example, identify a relatively small range of temperature and humidity conditions deemed acceptable for a majority of occupants. These standards typically aim to satisfy approximately 80 percent of users, leaving the remaining 20 percent outside the comfort zone by definition.
This statistical approach reveals an underlying assumption: that discomfort for a minority is an acceptable trade-off for efficiency. In practice, this assumption is frequently challenged, as anyone who has witnessed disputes over thermostats can attest. Comfort is not a single point or even a narrow band; it is a spectrum.
Similar limitations appear in standards addressing lighting, acoustics, and indoor air quality. While certification systems such as the WELL Building Standard and the Living Building Challenge place greater emphasis on human health, they often still rely on standardized notions of comfort and performance. Variability, choice, and sensory diversity remain difficult to reconcile within frameworks designed around optimization.
Redundancy as a Sustainable Design Strategy
At first glance, redundancy may appear incompatible with sustainability. The term is often associated with excess, inefficiency, or waste. However, in fields such as ecology, engineering, and systems design, redundancy is recognized as a cornerstone of resilience. Functional redundancy allows systems to adapt, absorb shocks, and continue operating when conditions change.
In ecological systems, multiple species often perform similar roles, ensuring stability even when individual components fail. Similarly, in buildings, redundancy can support adaptability and long-term use. When applied thoughtfully, redundancy does not mean duplicating systems indiscriminately. Instead, it involves providing multiple pathways, options, and layers of functionality that allow occupants to interact with spaces in different ways.
In the context of neurodiversity, redundancy becomes a means of inclusion. Multiple circulation routes, varied lighting conditions, alternative seating options, and overlapping program spaces enable users to select environments that align with their sensory and cognitive needs. Far from being wasteful, these strategies can extend a building’s useful life by accommodating a wider range of activities and users without major alterations.
Designing for Redundancy Across Scales
Redundancy can be integrated at every scale of design, from early planning to detailed systems coordination. At the level of process, inclusive engagement with occupants—using multiple modes of communication and participation—ensures that diverse perspectives inform decision-making from the outset. Sensory audits and post-occupancy evaluations help identify barriers that may not be visible through drawings alone.
At the spatial scale, loosening the relationship between program and form allows rooms and circulation areas to support multiple uses. Corridors can become places for pause, movement, or retreat rather than mere conduits. Lounges adjacent to circulation can vary in acoustic character, lighting, and furniture, offering choice without significantly increasing square footage.
Building systems also play a critical role. Zoning mechanical systems to allow localized control can support both comfort and energy efficiency. Lighting systems that combine natural light, layered artificial lighting, and user controls create environments that respond to changing needs throughout the day. Acoustics, though often underregulated, are equally vital; integrating absorptive materials, spatial buffering, and flexible furnishings can dramatically alter sensory experience.
Furniture and finishes provide another layer of redundancy. Offering a range of seating types—rigid, soft, enclosed, mobile—acknowledges different preferences for posture, movement, and social interaction. Signage and wayfinding elements that rely on visual landmarks, color, or art can enhance legibility and reduce cognitive load, particularly in complex buildings.
Inclusion, Adaptability, and Long-Term Sustainability
Buildings that support neurodiversity tend to be more adaptable over time. By accommodating variability rather than enforcing uniformity, they are better equipped to respond to changing demographics, programs, and cultural expectations. This adaptability reduces the need for frequent renovations or premature obsolescence, aligning social inclusion with environmental responsibility.
Moreover, neuro-inclusive environments challenge the notion that sustainability requires deprivation. Instead of framing sustainability as a series of constraints, they present it as an opportunity to design richer, more responsive spaces. Redundancy, when understood as abundance rather than excess, becomes a tool for balancing efficiency with humanity.
Conclusion
Sustainability cannot be fully realized without inclusion. A building that conserves energy but excludes a significant portion of its occupants falls short of its social responsibility. By integrating neurodiversity into sustainable design, architects, builders, and sustainability professionals can expand the definition of what it means to build green. Functional and sensory redundancy offer a framework for creating environments that are resilient, adaptable, and welcoming to a broad range of bodies and minds. In doing so, sustainability moves beyond reduction toward a more holistic vision—one that recognizes diversity not as a challenge to be managed, but as a resource to be embraced.
Key Takeaways
- Sustainability is both environmental and social; addressing one without the other produces incomplete outcomes.
- Neurodiversity highlights the wide range of sensory and cognitive experiences that buildings must support.
- There is no universal definition of comfort; standardized thresholds inherently exclude some occupants.
- Neuro-inclusive design prioritizes choice, agency, and multiple affordances within the same environment.
- Redundancy, when applied thoughtfully, enhances resilience and adaptability rather than undermining efficiency.
- Designing for variability across space, systems, and time supports long-term sustainability and inclusion.
- Buildings that work for the broadest range of users are more durable, flexible, and socially responsible.
