In response to a cross country listening tour, Dr. Vivek Murthy, the 19th Surgeon General of the United States posited “the most important question [today] is not who am I, but who am I in relation to others?”1 This proposition is rooted in a troubling global trend: the 21st century is the loneliest century on record.2 And although people are migrating to cities at unprecedented rates, proximity does not appear to be a substitution for meaningful interaction and a shared sense of belonging. Instead, people are unwittingly amid a socially based pandemic: One of chronic loneliness with prevalence rates exceeding diabetes or smoking.3 Available research, largely situated within the social sciences, indicates this weakened social participation significantly impacts our short term and long term physical and mental health. Advances are underway regarding attitudinal, relational, and cultural drivers of connection, but the impact of early, conceptual design decisions on sociability remains marginalized. Despite entrenched beliefs that physical space affects behaviour and well-being, architects still tend to rely on a combination of experience, informed intuition, and anecdotal post-occupancy evaluation to gain insight about the impact design has on social interaction. To address this conundrum, this pedagogical research unites academia, practice, and policy through a graduate seminar course to evaluate and measure the effect architecture can have on human connectivity and social interaction. Inspired by curator Hashim Sarkis’ 2021 Architecture Biennale question How Will We Live Together, there are two themes guiding the research: 1) Under implicit and explicit social contracts, individuals are oft willing to concede certain personal freedoms if the maintenance of social order or other freedoms are protected.4 But what about our collective spatial contracts? How much should individuals, groups and cities be willing to negotiate individualistic, personal spatial freedoms, in exchange for a more publicly robust, interconnected, and meaningful way of living?; and, 2) What are the measurable repercussions of spatial propositions and structural drivers of connection (the physical environment and infrastructure) in shaping and promoting (or perhaps exacerbating) human interaction, belonging, and participation? These structural drivers of connection fall squarely within the architect’s area of expertise but remain under explored and underrepresented as pro-active and preventative health strategies based in design. To advance these ideas, the research uses human simulation software (FLUID) to assess how architecturally driven changes, employed on three common residential typologies, might enhance social interaction. Through the creation of testable hypotheses, and emergent design proposals, the impact of spatial propositions are quantifiably simulated. To begin, baseline typological conditions are established and following specific architectural interventions, new design scenarios are developed. The results present a comparative working methodology whereby architects can evaluate design options from the perspective of social connectivity and belonging, and thereby provide enhanced design rationales to proactively build resilient communities and combat the next pandemic: loneliness.