A room can be filled with plants and a lovely colour palette.

And still not support biological coherence.

One of the easiest ways to misunderstand Biological Coherence in Architecture is to equate coherence with calm, or indeed comfort.

A healthy living system does not remain in one ideal physiological state.

It changes.

It mobilises when something is required of it. It settles when the demand passes. It can move between attention, activation, social connection, creativity, recovery, repair and growth without progressively losing its capacity to adapt.

I believe that this distinction matters.

When I talk about nervous-system safety within Biological Coherence in Architecture, I am not imagining buildings that keep us perpetually relaxed. Nor am I proposing that activation is inherently harmful.

We need activation.

We need challenge, novelty, concentration, effort, stimulation. Biology is built for movement between states.

The problem is not arousal. It is rigidity.

A system that cannot mobilise when needed is not coherent. Neither is one that mobilises easily but cannot find its way back.

So the question I'm asking of a building is not simply:

Does this space make people feel calm?

It is:

Does this environment support or constrain the organism’s capacity to change state, respond appropriately and recover?

That shifts the conversation beyond comfort alone.

Towards adaptive range.

Because when we lose adaptive range what we seem to develop are symptoms which end up being a diagnosis. The symptoms are a how this narrowing show up in our bodies.

And it creates a much more interesting research problem.

Which environmental conditions alter that range?

Which parts of the response belong to perception, appraisal and neuroendocrine signalling, and which may occur without us consciously registering them?

Which biological layers can we measure reliably?

And might apparently different environmental signals share points of convergence within the organism?

Those questions are shaping the framework I’m developing, including MitoArchitecture, the research strand exploring whether mitochondrial biology may provide one route through which multiple environmental signals are integrated.

I'm not suggesting that mitochondria are a magic explanation for everything.

But because they sit at an interesting biological intersection between energy demand, stress signalling, circadian regulation, immune activity and adaptation.

The larger idea of Biological Coherence remains broader than any biomarker.

It is about the dynamic fit between organism and environment, and whether that relationship preserves our capacity to respond, recover, connect, create and participate.

Margulis helped change biology by insisting that one of the great engines of complexity was not simply competition, but relationship. Mitochondria, the tiny structures inside almost every cell that make complex life possible, were once free-living bacteria. At some point, unimaginably long ago, one life entered another and stayed. Not swallowed and destroyed. Not defeated. Integrated. Two became something neither could have become alone.

The mitochondria inside us still carry the trace of that ancient encounter. Once separate, now inseparable. Every breath, every thought, every movement of a hand depends on that old intimacy.

Margulis later became closely involved with James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, the idea that life and the Earth are not separate systems, but participate in a vast web of feedback between organisms, atmosphere, oceans, temperature and chemistry.

I’m not especially interested here in adjudicating every argument about Gaia, or in fighting with people who think Margulis was wrong. I’m interested in something much simpler: the way these ideas seem to keep finding each other in my mind.

One of the loveliest illustrations was Daisyworld.

Imagine a planet covered in black and white daisies. Black daisies absorb more heat. White daisies reflect more of it. As the planet warms and cools, the proportions that survive change. In doing so, the flowers alter the temperature of the world that determines whether they survive.

No daisy needs to understand any of this. There is no committee. No planetary thermostat. No flower trying to save the world.

And yet, together, they can help make one habitable.

Whether we say the flowers “regulated” their world, or simply lived, died and reproduced according to the conditions around them, relationship produced regulation. The system became capable of something that none of its individual parts intended.

I don’t think we should dismiss that human craving for something larger than ourselves simply because we sometimes reach too quickly from mystery to explanation. Gaia. God. Ecology. Consciousness. Quantum entanglement. Love. Quantum entanglement is not evidence that human beings are psychically connected, and Gaia does not require the Earth to possess intention. But do we have to flatten mystery in order to be scientific?

Reality is strange enough.

Cells communicate. Organisms shape environments, and environments shape organisms. Forests alter atmosphere. Microbes alter bodies. Light alters time inside us. Life does not appear to exist as a collection of sealed objects.

It exists in relationship.

Margulis showed that what looked like an individual cell was already a relationship. Gaia asked whether the same might be true at planetary scale. BCA asks what changes when we stop pretending the human body ends at the skin.

We like to imagine that a building ends at the wall and a body ends at the skin. Biology is much less tidy.

Light enters us. Temperature alters us. Air carries particles, chemistry and life. Microbes move through rooms, across surfaces, into and out of bodies. Sound changes vigilance. Space changes behaviour. We shape these conditions, and they shape us back.

This is the quiet premise behind what I call Biological Coherence in Architecture: that the wall between organism and environment was always more membrane than boundary.

Perhaps the deeper lesson from Margulis is not simply that cooperation matters. It is that relationship can create new capacity. Organism with organism. Cell with cell. Body with light. Human with landscape. Human with human.

Sometimes what emerges is regulation. Sometimes complexity. Sometimes resilience. Sometimes joy.

And perhaps hope is simply the feeling that we are participants in systems whose possibilities are larger than the isolated self.

We don’t have to believe the universe was made for us to be astonished that we belong to it.

.

“It is very probable that only what we call consciousness is contained in space and time, and that the rest of the psyche, the unconscious, exists in a state of relative spacelessness and timelessness. For the psyche this means a relative eternality and a relative non-separation from other psyches, or a oneness with them.”

Carl Jung, via Maria Popova’s The Marginalian

Bear with me, I know this already sounds up its own arse...

I was scrolling Instagram this morning, half paying attention, when this Jung quote stopped my thumb. That is the actual origin of this piece. Not a paper or a lecture. Social media. something from the brilliant feed of ’s The Marginalian, which is how many of my thoughts start blooming.

Jung was writing about the unconscious. He suggested that only consciousness may be contained within ordinary space and time, while the rest of the psyche exists in a condition of relative spacelessness, timelessness and non-separation.

He was not making a claim about quantum physics.

But reading him made me reach for it.

Superposition. The idea that a system can hold more than one possible state before interaction resolves it into a particular outcome. Some part of me wondered whether consciousness does something structurally similar, taking the multiplicity of the psyche and giving it sequence, identity and form.

It was an analogy. A borrowed shape. Then I realised I had borrowed it before.

Twice.

Noticing the pattern

Late last year, I wrote about coherence and decoherence as a way of thinking about biology.

Resilience Health

When Systems Lose Flexibility: Coherence, Decoherence, and the Biology of Health

In quantum physics, things don’t begin as fixed objects…

Read more

8 months ago · Rini Chatterjee

In quantum physics, coherence describes a precise physical relationship between possible states. Interaction with the environment disrupts that relationship, and the system resolves into a measurable outcome.

The shape turned out to be useful for describing mitochondria.

Mitochondria continuously read their surroundings: light timing, temperature, inflammation, nutrient availability, hormonal signals, threat. Under changing conditions, healthy biology adjusts. It mobilises, conserves, repairs, grows, withdraws. It changes state because the context has changed.

Under chronic mismatch, that range may narrow.

The system becomes less flexible. Less responsive. More fixed.

I had used coherence to describe capacity, and decoherence to describe the loss of adaptive range.

Then, earlier this year, I reached for the same structure while writing about architecture.

A building participates in physiology. Its light, sound, scale, geometry, air, temperature and sensory demands continually ask something of the organism within it.

Some environments invite exploration. Others invite vigilance. Some allow the body to move between activation and restoration. Others quietly reinforce one state for hours, months, sometimes years.

Cleo Valentine’s façade research offers one small but intriguing example. I find myself returning to her work often, partly because so few studies have directly measured what happens in the body when a specific architectural feature changes. There are important neighbouring examples, including Julio Bermudez’s fMRI research into contemplative architecture, but the experimental field remains young. In Valentine’s controlled pilot study, façades that departed from the visual statistics commonly found in natural environments produced greater discomfort and a modest shift in heart-rate variability. The sample was small and the physiological effect was not large, yet the autonomic response was detectable alongside a conscious experience that participants may not yet have fully put into words.

And now Jung. Three domains. The same reach.

In each case, possibility narrows through relationship with an environment. A psyche forms a story. A body adopts a physiological state. A building repeatedly invites one kind of response. When there is enough adaptive range, the form can change as the context changes. When that range is lost, the form begins to harden. I have now reached for the same structure in three different places. Once might have been a passing analogy. By the third time, I could see that it had become a pattern in my own thinking.

What kind of claim is this?

The honest question is whether a borrowed structure must be literal physics before it is allowed to be useful.

I do not think it does.

Analogies become dangerous when they smuggle certainty from one field into another. Quantum coherence is a precisely defined physical phenomenon. Psychological flexibility, mitochondrial adaptation and autonomic regulation are not simply versions of the same mechanism at larger scales.

The mechanism does not travel.

But, I humbly offer that the pattern might?

Across very different systems, something similar can sometimes be seen: several possible responses remain available until context selects among them. Form emerges through relationship. Repeated conditions make some responses more likely than others. What begins as adaptation can become rigidity when the environment stops changing, or when the system loses the capacity to change with it.

This is structural resonance.

It does not need a hidden quantum mechanism underneath it to be worth naming.

The distinction matters.

It also frees the idea from having to win the argument about quantum consciousness before it can say anything useful.

A brief encounter with the physics

The strongest objection to quantum accounts of consciousness is straightforward.

Brains are warm, wet and crowded with molecular activity. Quantum coherence is generally expected to disappear extremely rapidly in that environment, far faster than the millisecond timescales involved in neural firing. This remains the default physical argument against quantum effects playing a functional role in ordinary cognition.

Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have proposed otherwise. Their Orch-OR model suggests that structures called microtubules inside neurons may sustain quantum effects long enough to contribute to consciousness. The proposal remains contested and lacks decisive empirical support.

Research in photosynthesis has complicated the broadest version of the dismissal. In certain light-harvesting systems, quantum effects have been demonstrated under warm biological conditions.

Orch-OR remains unvalidated. Consciousness remains unproven as quantum.

What the photosynthesis findings show is narrower: biology can sometimes sustain quantum effects under conditions once thought likely to erase them.

That is where the physics currently sits. Open at the edges. Unproven where consciousness is concerned. And not necessary for the argument I am making here.

Where ordinary language runs out

What keeps drawing me back is the suspicion that ordinary language becomes thin when we try to describe systems that are relational, dynamic and only partly available to conscious awareness.

Dreams do not obey sequential time.

Memory does not arrive as an orderly archive. One smell opens a childhood room. One sentence retrieves five versions of the self.

The nervous system reads a room before the conscious mind explains why it feels exposed.

Subscribe now

Mitochondria adjust their behaviour long before a person experiences anything recognisable as illness.

These phenomena are not identical. Each one unsettles the idea that the visible, conscious or measurable state is the whole of what is present.

There is always more possibility underneath the current form.

But healthy systems are not meant to remain indefinitely open. They resolve. They commit. They act. They become specific.

A heart accelerates.

A cell shifts its metabolism.

A person takes a position.

A room asks the body to soften, focus or brace.

Form is not the problem.

The real difficulty is losing the capacity to form differently when the context changes.

Perhaps coherence is not openness itself, but the preservation of adaptive range after form has been taken.

The environments that make us

This is where Jung, architecture and biology meet for me.

Consciousness gives the psyche a story. Architecture gives the body a context. Stress gives metabolism a priority.

Each turns possibility into form.

And each can become restrictive when one state is repeated often enough that it begins to feel inevitable.

A person can be repeatedly observed as difficult, fragile, productive, ill, brilliant or unsafe until that version hardens around them. A body can remain in vigilance so long that mobilisation becomes its baseline.

A building can repeatedly ask the same physiological question, hour after hour, month after month, the same demand every time someone walks through the door.

What appears to belong entirely to the person may partly belong to the relationship.

The organism and the environment are always co-authoring the state that emerges between them.

It does not have to be quantum to change a life.

The body is an ecosystem in continuous negotiation with the world around it.

Perhaps this is why I keep reaching for the word.

At three in the afternoon, the strip lights are giving exactly the same white light they gave at nine in the morning.

Outside, the sun has moved across half the sky. Shadows have lengthened, the air has warmed and the spectral composition of daylight has changed.

Inside, almost nothing has happened.

The clock on the wall says that time has passed. The room does not.

As a physician, I spent years asking people when?

When did the fatigue begin? When is the pain worse? When does the energy disappear? When do you eat, move, sleep, bleed, wake, feel clear, feel hungry, feel anxious?

Now, I ask why.

Why does the energy disappear at that hour? Why does sleep come easily in one place and not another? Why does a body feel more alert, more settled or more depleted in certain environments?

Because I am no longer only interested in what is happening within the person. I am interested in what their biology is responding to. The timing matters because physiology is never truly static. Hormones rise and fall. Body temperature changes. Digestion, immune activity, alertness, glucose regulation and tissue repair each have their own rhythms. A blood result is a snapshot taken from a moving system.

Yet when we assess buildings, we usually do the opposite.

We measure a light level. A temperature. A carbon dioxide concentration. A moment of reported comfort.

These measurements matter, but they can miss the pattern. Biology may care as much about the curve as it does about the average.

The architecture inside the cell

A review published recently in Mitochondrion has been sitting with me. Its title is “Energy beats: Daily and circadian rhythms in mitochondrial biology.”

The paper does not study buildings. It is a synthesis of research examining the relationship between circadian timing and mitochondrial function. Much of the detailed mechanistic work beneath it comes from cultured cells and animal models, so it cannot simply be translated into claims about human rooms or human disease.

But what it describes is extraordinary.

Mitochondria are still routinely introduced as the powerhouses of the cell, which makes them sound like tiny static generators: fuel enters, ATP comes out.

They are far more alive than that metaphor allows.

Mitochondria form responsive networks. They join together through fusion and divide through fission. They alter their shape according to nutrient availability, energetic demand and cellular stress. Damaged sections can be separated and removed through mitophagy, while new mitochondrial components are created through biogenesis.

These physical changes are not merely cosmetic. They help determine how effectively the cell can produce energy, distribute resources, contain damage and respond to changing demand.

The architecture of mitochondria changes with time.

In mouse liver, BMAL1, one of the core circadian clock proteins, has been shown to regulate rhythmic mitochondrial fission, mitophagy and biogenesis. When liver BMAL1 was disrupted, mitochondria lost aspects of this rhythmic flexibility and metabolic adaptation was impaired.

Other mouse research found that mitochondrial proteins involved in processing different nutrients oscillate across the day. PERIOD proteins helped determine when particular enzymes accumulated and when mitochondria were better prepared to use fats or carbohydrates. Mitochondrial respiration did not simply rise and fall uniformly. Its timing depended partly on the fuel being offered.

This is such an important shift in perspective.

Energy production is not a tap that should remain fully open at all times. Healthy metabolism anticipates. It changes strategy. It prepares for expected periods of movement, feeding, fasting and repair.

Capacity depends on flexibility.

Subscribe now

The metabolic clock

One of the clearest molecular examples involves NAD+, a molecule central to energy metabolism, redox regulation and cellular signalling.

In mice, the circadian clock produces daily oscillations in NAD+ availability. I have witten about this here :

Through the NAD+-dependent enzyme SIRT3, this helps regulate the activity of mitochondrial enzymes, ATP production and respiration across fasting and feeding cycles. The clock is not simply deciding when an organism feels sleepy. It is helping organise how cellular energy is produced and used.

Research in synchronised cells has also shown rhythmic mitochondrial respiration linked to oscillations in NAD+ and reversible changes to a component of Complex I, part of the mitochondrial respiratory chain. In plain language, even the machinery that extracts energy from nutrients can change its activity according to biological time.

The newer review brings these lines of evidence together, but then moves beyond the familiar one-way story.

We tend to imagine that the circadian clock gives instructions and mitochondria follow them. Yet mitochondrial metabolic state may itself feed back into circadian timing.

Timing shapes metabolism. Metabolism returns information about what the cell can actually do.

This is closer to a conversation than a chain of command.

The authors also explore a deeper evolutionary possibility. Rhythmic redox and metabolic cycles may be far older than the transcriptional clocks controlled by genes such as CLOCK and BMAL1. Primitive organisms were already living with recurring changes in light, oxygen, temperature and nutrient availability long before the evolution of the complex nervous systems we now associate with circadian rhythm.

The suggestion is that cellular timekeeping may not have been laid on top of metabolism.

It may have grown from it.

That remains an evolutionary interpretation rather than a settled human mechanism, but it changes the scale of the question. Rhythm is not a lifestyle accessory added to biology. It may be one of the ancient conditions through which biology became possible.

Buildings that flatten time

Modern architecture has achieved something remarkable. It has allowed us to remain productive after sunset, warm through winter, cool through summer and protected from much of the instability of the natural world.

I am not interested in romanticising cold houses, dark workplaces or physical discomfort. Comfort matters.

But comfort and biological coherence are not synonyms.

The problem may arise when protection from extremes becomes removal of almost all variation.

A modern interior can remain at roughly the same temperature throughout the day. Electric lighting can provide a similar intensity and colour from morning until late evening. Deep floor plates and sealed glazing can reduce contact with moving air, changing weather, solar direction and the gradual arrival of dusk.

The environment becomes more stable at precisely the moment the organism needs to keep changing.

This is where I think our current conversation about circadian design remains too narrow.

We often reduce it to brightness and colour temperature. More daylight in the morning. Warmer lamps in the evening. Both are useful, but a biological day is not created from two lighting settings.

It has direction, movement, contrast and sequence.

Dawn is not simply dimmer than noon. The angle, spectrum and distribution of light are different. Temperature rises and falls. Meals, activity and social contact provide additional timing information. One signal reinforces another, giving the organism a coherent account of where it is within the day.

The body reads the relationship.

A single number cannot fully describe that relationship. Lux tells us how much visible light reaches a surface, not what the whole organism is experiencing over time. An average temperature tells us little about whether warmth arrived, peaked and receded. A comfortable room may still be temporally ambiguous.

We have designed buildings around space while treating time as something supplied by the clock on the wall.

But time is also a material of architecture.

It enters through orientation, windows, shading, glazing and electric light. It is shaped by thermal mass, ventilation and the ability of a building to respond to changing external conditions. It is either made visible to the occupant or engineered away.

What the paper does, and does not, tell us

The mitochondrial review does not demonstrate that an invariant office alters human mitochondrial function.

No study has yet shown that a particular architectural environment produces a defined circadian-mitochondrial state in its occupants. The complete pathway remains to be demonstrated.

That boundary matters.

But science often advances by establishing the pieces of a relationship before the relationship itself can be tested.

This paper strengthens one of those pieces. It shows that mitochondrial function is rhythmically organised, that the molecular clock helps regulate mitochondrial form, respiration and fuel use, and that mitochondrial metabolism may feed information back into biological timing. It also connects disruption of this axis with metabolic, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative and cancer biology, while recognising that the strength and direction of evidence vary by condition and model.

For architecture, the significance is not that we can now make a causal disease claim.

It is that we have a better question.

If cellular energy depends on temporal coordination, what happens when the environments in which we spend most of our lives provide weak, conflicting or unchanging information about time?

What happens to metabolic flexibility when the day has no discernible shape?

What happens to recovery when activation is prolonged by light, temperature, noise and activity patterns that never quite resolve into night?

And what would it mean to design a building that supports variation without creating threat, discomfort or chaos?

Allowing the day to happen

There is a particular kind of fatigue that feels less like emptiness and more like mistiming.

Tired, but unable to settle. Hungry, but not nourished. Awake, but not clear. A body producing signals that no longer arrive in the order we expect.

Circadian disruption will not explain every instance of this, and mitochondria should not become another fashionable single cause for complex human illness.

The body is an ecosystem. Its rhythms emerge from interactions between light, food, movement, stress, relationships, temperature, sleep, tissues, microbes and metabolism. Mitochondria sit within that ecosystem, responding and contributing, carrying information between energy demand and cellular possibility.

This is why the paper interests me. It offers verification without closure. It supports the idea that time reaches deep into cellular function, while leaving open the larger question of how the spaces around us participate in that timing.

Perhaps the healthiest building is not one that holds the body at an imagined optimum every minute of the day.

Perhaps it allows states to change.

Morning should feel like morning. Afternoon should have travelled somewhere from it. Evening should be permitted to arrive. Darkness should remain biologically different from light.

The day should leave a trace.

Goethe described architecture as frozen music. But living bodies cannot flourish frozen in time.

References

Ceccato N, Damulewicz M, Mazzotta GM. “Energy beats: Daily and circadian rhythms in mitochondrial biology.” Mitochondrion. 2026;91:102191. doi:10.1016/j.mito.2026.102191.

Jacobi D et al. “Hepatic Bmal1 Regulates Rhythmic Mitochondrial Dynamics and Promotes Metabolic Fitness.” Cell Metabolism. 2015;22(4):709–720.

Peek CB et al. “Circadian Clock NAD+ Cycle Drives Mitochondrial Oxidative Metabolism in Mice.” Science. 2013;342(6158):1243417.

Neufeld-Cohen A et al. “Circadian Control of Oscillations in Mitochondrial Rate-Limiting Enzymes and Nutrient Utilization by PERIOD Proteins.” PNAS. 2016;113(12):E1673–E1682.

Cela O et al. “Clock Genes-Dependent Acetylation of Complex I Sets Rhythmic Activity of Mitochondrial OxPhos.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2016;1857(2):196–209.

We spend around 90% of our lives indoors. Every day, the light entering through a window, the air we breathe, the sounds around us, thermal comfort, materials, opportunities for movement, visual complexity, access to nature and even the experience of safety or threat become biological signals.

Those signals don’t stop at our senses.

They become biology.

They influence hormones, inflammation, cognition and emotional regulation. And many of them eventually converge on mitochondria, extraordinary signal integrators continuously adjusting cellular bioenergetic capacity in response to the environments we inhabit.

Yet when we talk about health, we rarely talk about buildings.

when we talk about health, we rarely talk about buildings.

Instead, we talk about optimisation.

I’ve been reading the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, who argues that modern society no longer controls us through force, but through the relentless pressure to optimise ourselves.

We are told to optimise our sleep. Optimise our nutrition. Optimise our hormones. Optimise our stress. Optimise our productivity. Optimise our mindset.

Optimise.

Optimise.

Optimise.

But what does optimise actually mean ?Optimise for what? More output? More productivity? More years? More efficiency?

Architecture is one of the few environments we collectively design. That means it is also one of the greatest opportunities we have to reduce unnecessary biological load.

What if the greatest barrier to human flourishing isn’t a lack of optimisation, but a lack of biological coherence?

Working at the intersection of humans medicine, and the built environment, I found myself asking something different. I’ve started to wonder whether we’ve been measuring the wrong outcome all along. Instead of asking how we optimise human performance, perhaps we should be asking how we increase human capacity.

Living systems don’t flourish because they are optimised. They flourish because the conditions support coherence. A forest doesn’t optimise itself. Neither does a coral reef. Neither does the human body. Living systems flourish when the signals they receive are coherent with the biology they have evolved to express.

For me, biological coherence describes a state in which our internal systems are working harmoniously with one another and with the environments we inhabit. When those signals are coherent, the body spends less of its precious bioenergetic capacity responding to unnecessary stressors and more maintaining, repairing and adapting.

And many of those signals eventually converge on mitochondria, extraordinary sentinels continuously sensing and integrating information from within and around the cell.

Coherence doesn’t guarantee flourishing. It creates the conditions from which flourishing becomes more likely.

Capacity doesn’t emerge because we push living systems harder. It emerges when the conditions allow them to function as they evolved to.

Coherence creates the opportunity for capacity.

Capacity to think clearly.

Capacity to recover.

Capacity to connect.

Capacity to create.

Capacity to experience joy, purpose and awe.

Capacity to question the systems around us rather than simply reacting to them.

Mitochondria are often described as the cell’s powerhouses, but that description barely scratches the surface. Increasingly, they are understood as extraordinary signal integrators, continuously sensing and responding to the world within and around us.

From the perspective of a mitochondrion, a building, a meal, a night’s sleep, a relationship or an inflammatory response are all sources of biological information that influence how cellular energy is produced and used.

Every environment eventually becomes biology. Mitochondria integrate those biological signals, influencing cellular bioenergetic capacity. Bioenergetic capacity shapes what becomes possible. It is from that possibility that resilience, creativity, connection, purpose, awe and human flourishing can emerge.

Perhaps the future of longevity medicine isn’t helping people adapt to biologically incoherent environments. Perhaps it’s creating environments that are biologically coherent in the first place.

When I was little, I used to dream about the same house over and over again. I couldn’t have told you the floor plan or the architectural style. It was the feeling I was chasing: light pouring throug…

Read more

There is an ordinary kitchen.

A non-stick pan warming on the hob. A coating designed so food will not catch, burn, tear, or leave a trace. A takeaway container on the counter, lined so that oil does n…

Read more

For years, metabolic medicine has trained us to ask the same questions.

What are you eating? How much are you moving? How many hours are you sleeping? How consistently are you doing the plan?

They are …

Read more

The question is not whether light affects glucose metabolism.

The question is: which light, at what time, in what context.

And that context is increasingly architectural.

The places where we live, work …

Read more

Some children moved into greener, less urbanised environ…

Read more

The architecture of mismatch

Walk into most modern offices and homes and notice what happens next. The fluorescent flicker at the edge of awareness. The constant reverberation of sound off hard surfac…

Read more

Read more

There is a building I have spent time in that does something to me I have never quite been able to name.

Subscribe now

It is not beautiful in any obvious way. The proportions are generous. The light moves across t…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Long before we had biomarkers, wearables or neuroscience language, to decipher HRV, sleep and vagal tone, humans were using their interoceptive abilities, and using sound to shift state.

Across cul…

Read more

I learned a new word this week: enthalpy. Stored energy. Heat held within a system. Not motion. Not noise. Capacity. The word was used at the bottom of a middle page of an Indian newspaper talking o…

Read more

In quantum physics, things don’t begin as fixed objects.

At the most fundamental level, systems exist as possibility, a range of potential states rather than a single, solid “thing.”

They only become …

Read more