EN
Select location and language
Select location
Ubicación global
ACTIU Berbegal y Formas, S.A.
ACTIU Talks with Sophie Schuller: architecture and wellbeing in office design

ACTIU Talks with Sophie Schuller: architecture and wellbeing in office design

JUNY 2025 | 5 minutes

Too often, we just accept the default: a table, six chairs, job done. But different types of work require different cognitive support, and from a neuroscience perspective, that means different environmental cues.” 

Since beginning her research career at the intersection of urban strategy and public health, Sophie Schuller has sought to understand how the spaces we inhabit shape our daily lives. From sweeping cityscapes to the details of individual workplace environments, her work explores how design decisions influence social outcomes, health, and well-being. Today, her research takes on new dimensions through interdisciplinary collaborations that reveal the profound and measurable effects our surroundings have on both mental and physical health.

What was it that first drew you to explore the intersection of neuroscience and architecture; is this a well-trodden path in terms of existing research?

Beginning my career in real estate finance, where offices have historically been treated purely as financial assets, I noticed how unhealthy and uninspiring they were – designed for efficiency, not real people. That disconnect led me to study neuroscience and psychology. I wanted to understand how the spaces we work in impact our brains, bodies, and behaviour. Now I focus on neuroarchitecture - applying science to workplace design. It’s about creating environments that don’t just look good, but actually help people feel better, think clearer, and perform at their best

Could you walk us through how a typical meeting room may fall short when it comes to supporting health and wellbeing?

For me, it all starts with intentionality. Design is always the result of choices - but were they the right ones? Did someone stop to ask: what is this space really for? In a meeting room, we increasingly need spaces that can adapt, but that adaptability still needs to be rooted in purpose. Too often, we just accept the default: a table, six chairs, job done. But different types of work require different cognitive support, and from a neuroscience perspective, that means different environmental cues.

What are the biggest myths or misunderstandings about sensory design in architecture that you regularly encounter?

One of the biggest myths come from broad statements claiming something is either universally good or bad. I often see posts claiming we should design spaces that eliminate cortisol, but that completely misunderstands how the body works. Cortisol isn’t inherently bad; it helps us focus, stay alert, and engage in complex thinking. It only becomes a problem when it’s chronically elevated.

Part of the issue is that many of these claims are based on small, unrepresentative studies, which are then turned into bold, oversimplified design rules. That kind of ‘one-size-fits-all’ thinking flattens the science and actually slows down progress between academia and design practice. Instead of chasing universal truths, we should focus on building frameworks of understanding - creating spaces that support people’s natural rhythms and help bring them back to balance. Sensory design isn’t about fixed rules; it’s about intentionality, adaptability, and context.

"Every choice sends a message. A space filled with cheap, utilitarian materials signals one thing. But thoughtful details, like acoustic panels that are functional and beautiful, communicate care and value"

How can material choices, often driven by cost or aesthetics, be rethought to serve behavioural and neurological health?

Good sensory design doesn’t have to cost more, it’s about making intentional choices. For instance, investing in a high-quality chair finish over an expensive floor makes sense, because people interact with chairs more. Touch is central to how we experience space, and if you understand the sensory homunculus - which maps areas of the body with the most sensory input - you begin to see where design investment really counts.

We also need to rethink how we define value. Workplace design is often reduced to budget lines: furniture, finishes, totals. But what about long-term outcomes - staff retention, wellbeing, creativity, fewer sick days? These aren’t soft metrics; they’re measurable and financially relevant. Additionally, design is never neutral. Every choice sends a message. A space filled with cheap, utilitarian materials signals one thing. But thoughtful details, like acoustic panels that are functional and beautiful, communicate care and value. That matters.

In practical terms, how can good design encourage healthy movement through spatial design, without making it feel prescriptive or forced?

Most workplaces are built around one default: the chair. Sitting is often the only real option, yet most people aren’t conditioned to sit or stand for long periods without strain. The result? Hours spent in a single posture, day after day - a design failure that has become a health issue. For me, the solution lies in creating spaces that support a variety of postural positions. That could mean ledges for leaning, stools for perching, beanbags or bolsters for reclining - even room to lie down during a long presentation. These options give people agency. When a space encourages movement, you begin to feel ownership of it. You're not just passively occupying the environment - you're part of it.

How can we measure or assess the success of ‘spaces that care’? Are there frameworks or indicators that you’d recommend?

One of the most important things you can do is simply ask people. But you need to do it properly. Traditional methods like surveys or interviews often fall short. People tend to give socially desirable answers, what they think you want to hear - especially in short timeframes. What we really need is proper ethnographic research, long-term, observational studies of how people actually behave and interact with their environments. For example, if you paint the stairs beautifully to encourage movement, are people taking them more? You can’t find that out with a tick-box survey. But you can see it over time through ethnographic observation. The other thing is that there are now so many wellness frameworks and toolkits that people often end up focusing more on the framework itself than on the actual goal: improving how people feel. This is the biggest risk, as you lose sight of the purpose.

Where do you see the next frontier of neuroscience-informed design going? What excites you the most about what’s coming?

What really excites me is the growing intersectionality between disciplines. Right now, we have designers who know a bit about neuroscience, and neuroscientists who know a bit about design, but there’s often a mismatch in expectations. Designers might expect clear, actionable answers from science, while scientists hand over results without fully understanding how they’ll be used.

What we need is true collaboration, not transaction - that’s when things start to get exciting: when you build a feedback loop that advances both fields simultaneously. I think the future lies in breaking down silos, so we can co-create environments that are not just smart or efficient, but genuinely supportive of human health and flourishing. 

Torre Marenostrum Showroom

A space designed for people

ACTIU Talks with Sophie Schuller: architecture and wellbeing in office design
ACTIU Talks with Sophie Schuller: architecture and wellbeing in office design
From vision to B Corp™
From vision to B Corp™
Design trends in educational spaces: sustainability and functionality
Design trends in educational spaces: sustainability and functionality
Talking to Fran Silvestre about architecture, design and health
Talking to Fran Silvestre about architecture, design and health
Sustainable materials: the key to responsible and efficient design
Sustainable materials: the key to responsible and efficient design
Industrialised architecture: Spaces for living
Industrialised architecture: Spaces for living