This article presents an emergent heuristic framework for the core environmental gerontology concept of “place.” Place has been a central concern in the field since the 1970s (Gubrium, 1978) for its hypothesized direct relationship to identity, the self, and agency–suggestive of the appropriateness of lateral theoretical linkages with developmental science. The Ecological Framework of Place (EFP) defines place as a socio-physical milieu involving people, the physical setting, and the program of the place, all catalyzed by situated human activity and fully acknowledging that all four may change over time. The article begins with a concise overview of the EFP before moving on to consider it within three theoretical terrains: place theory, developmental science theory, and environmental gerontology theory. The EFP will be argued to be a place theory which subsumes themes of emergent environmental gerontology theories within a developmental science perspective. Implications for theory, method and practice are discussed. One of the strengths of the model is its ability to serve both research and practice, as is exhibited in its ability to incorporate applied design research and inform architectural decision-making so often lacking in other environmental gerontology models. Place should be viewed as an integrative concept providing opportunities for both environmental gerontology and developmental science to more critically concern the profound role places have in terms of agency, identity and sense of self over the life course.

The popularity of the concept of evidence-based design (EBD) has exploded over the past five years, picking up speed as a topic of attention in environmental design conferences, papers and articles, and books. Rooted in the healthcare environment, the EBD concept has now bridged out to design of long-term care settings, housing and workplaces, as well as facilities management. While evidence-based design is indeed a seductive term for those of us interested in advancing research-informed design – portending linkages between research-derived evidence and environmental design – we cautiously note that, as of this writing, in its current conceptualisation, its clout is stronger than its clarity. This paper is a clarion invitation to the environmental design research community to consider the concept of evidence-based design as emergent, warranting careful, critical examination regarding its meaning and underlying assumptions.

Building on Gutman’s (1987) argument that architectural practice should reflect the nature of the problem, this article explores four eras of architectural practice: the Patronage Model, the Clientage Model, the Transitional Models, and Future Models. Each era is examined in relation to six “Questions of Praxis”: (1) What is the nature of the problem?, (2) What is the nature of the intervention?, (3) What knowledge is valued?, (4) What is the stance toward the problem?, (5) What is the continuity in the relationship?, and (6) What is the prioritization of professional obligations? Through a comparative analysis of questions 2–5—the analytic core of action-taking—alongside four drivers of change in today’s volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous world, yields 16 possible futures for architects. Further synthesis identifies five primary roles for architects of the future: systems-thinking designer (embracing complexity), steward (building trust amid volatility), facilitator (reducing ambiguity through shared meaning), curator (making sense of uncertainty), and strategic forecaster (transforming volatility into preparedness). These roles embody a care-based approach—prioritizing ongoing relationships over episodic interventions, collective capacity-building over expert prescriptions, and adaptive readiness over static solutions. This reflects the positioning of architecture as a public good, focused on strengthening social, ecological, and systemic foundations so communities not only withstand disruption but also adapt, learn, and thrive through it.

This 21st century has brought robust attention to the role the environment plays in human health. This article offers a mapping of the theoretical landscape to help orient and potentially connect the diverse research conducted in the areas of healthy places. The premise is that much research has been conducted within the environmental stress approach to understanding the health-environment nexus, but that additional, important work has also been conducted within both a Fit and a Place approach that provide different insights into healthy places. Each approach has its own underlying assumptions regarding the relationship between human and environment, the research questions that should be asked, the type of validity valued and praxeological assumptions. Each approach also has differing affinities with various theories of health that may serve useful in connecting Healthy Place Research to interdisciplinary research endeavors. Here it is asserted that the concepts and models of allostatic load, salutogenesis and cumulative (dis)advantage hold great promise for connecting Healthy Place Research to robust fields of health inquiry.