University Archives

This study investigates how architectural practice can be restructured to address material toxicity. It explores why harmful building materials are still widely used despite scientific evidence, and what systemic changes need to happen to shift the practice toward a precautionary model. People in the United States spend approximately 90% of their time indoors (US EPA), where exposure to toxic materials is significantly greater, yet the current regulatory frameworks remain reactive rather than preventative.  

For this study, some of the research questions that were explored include: Why is material toxicity a problem? Who has the power to create change when it comes to material toxicity? Where should the change happen? How should this change be implemented? 

This study used comparative analysis diagramming (TSCA vs. REACH), precedent analysis of historical regulatory transitions, lifecycle mapping, and case study evaluations of Red List compliant buildings. Backcasting and the Architecture 2030 sustainability framework were used to put together a phased transition model toward 2045. 

Findings uncovered that material toxicity is an issue because of the lack of knowledge which is due to systemic gaps in regulation, education, and accountability, where risk has to be proven rather than prevented. This study shows that change must happen through a multi-dimensional approach where individuals, institutions, and people in power work together to enforce change toward healthier buildings. This, in turn, will influence those who may not prioritize material health and ultimately improve the well-being of building occupants.  

Work Cited:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Indoor Air Quality.” Report on the Environment, U.S. EPA, 17 June 2025, www.epa.gov/reportenvironment/ indoor-air-quality. Accessed 20 Sept. 2025.