“Now that’s innovative!” a juror exclaimed during our recent judging for the Environments for Aging Design Showcase, an annual compendium of projects in senior care settings, from conceptual designs to newly completed buildings.
A jury of industry members including architects, interior designers, providers, consultants, and researchers met at Moorings Park’s Center for Healthy Living in Naples, Fla., to analyze the dozens of projects submitted, accept those that qualified for publication in the Spring 2015 issue of EFA, and then drill down to see which ones rose to the top for Honorable Mention or the Award of Merit. (For details on the winners, go here.)
My editorial function at the event is essentially to be a fly on the wall, to take in the conversations and debates that inevitably get rolling once the jurors start determining which projects they each think should receive special recognition.
What struck me most of all during this year’s judging was the topic of innovation—what exactly defines innovation and do we properly encourage it?
As to that remark earlier, this particular juror was taken by a project that truly represented its community’s residents, who they are and what they’re looking for in where they live. The dining facility project submitted to the program embraced the local farm-to-table culture of the area and mirrored that in its design response, creating a space (and food program) that was close to residents’ hearts.
And this project wasn’t alone in its success—it’s among our five winning projects. But why weren’t there more innovations noted by jurors, particularly in regard to something so seemingly obvious as answering resident needs with new approaches to design?
It's tough to say how significant that shortage is, though.
For example, there were design elements in some projects that jurors questioned, components that didn’t quite make sense. But perhaps they did make sense for that particular community, but the presentations didn’t articulate ownership goals, resident desires, or the “why” behind the design solution. It’s safe to say that the story is likely there, but it’s not always communicated effectively.
And that story is key when it comes to innovation, when a project steps away from what we’re all a bit more comfortable with, away from solutions that have been proven effective. That’s really the crux of the problem—innovation at times requires taking a risk.
Another juror said that she’d be apprehensive to submit innovative projects to the group for fear that design decisions would be dissected and potentially discounted because not yet proven. But that can’t be what any of us wants.
Healthcare in general, from outpatient to acute to senior care, needs innovation. Models of care and the environments necessary to support them are constantly evolving. So are we too stuck on research and results to encourage it? Are we causing our own lag in rethinking appropriate building solutions for senior living because there’s a negative connotation tied to it?
It’s important to celebrate new approaches, and that doesn’t diminish the importance of results. We should be encouraging innovation with the hope that the effectiveness of those solutions be measured and that the story behind why they were explored be shared.
At the end of the day, it will help us all to know what works and what doesn’t, and hopefully why. And that’s a pretty good start.
