This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The human brain is neuroplastic, changing in response to its environment. In an unprecedented era of increasing disconnection from nature, rapid urbanisation, and extensive time spent indoors, architecture has taken on nature’s role in shaping the human brain, but arguably in a blindfolded and overconfident way. Is architecture a good architect for the human brain? Evidence on extensive time spent indoors links prolonged time spent at home to poorer cognitive function and higher depressive symptoms, which suggests a decline in neurogenesis. Can architecture be a good architect for the brain? It can and should, only if it provides architectural enrichment. This paper elucidates recent assessment tools developed to enable buildings to sustain neurogenesis, neurotrophic factors, and brain volume in humans. Architecturally mediated neurosustainability is framed around the 3Es: Ethics, Equity, and Economy. The implications and exemplified applications of architectural spatial complexity, affordances for metabolic equivalents, and neurobiophilia target the neuroplasticity mechanisms that support cognitive reserve, mental health, stress recovery, and resilience.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohamed Hesham Khalil (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: