On Growing Up in a Tree House

I grew up in a tree house; Birnbaum, (my last name), means “pear tree” in German. I wish I could say that I grew up in a literal tree house, but that is not the case in my life’s narrative. I have always been entranced by nature’s design, though, and the tree is one thing that I could not do without even on an aesthetic basis. The form is an achievement for nature.

Truly good design should not be disregarded as simply aesthetic or frivolous: “from the level of the molecule to that of the region, design can be utterly transforming” . In the Sustainable Architecture White Papers, an exercise of the mind’s-eye is proposed: “Imagine a building like a tree, a city like a forest.” What if our man-made structures were a part of the beneficial side of the equation? Is this possible?

With the building professions (engineering and architecture in particular) endorsing the practice of sustainability we are exponentially better off already. There is a plethora of evidence of support for ‘going green’ in the realm of architecture.

We are in the process of re-configuring our cognitive schema of how we think about buildings. The status of a building is changing from one of hollow spaces to fill-up our time and our possessions with, to a crucial participant in our uphill battle for sustainability and overall well-being. In the Sustainable Architecture White Papers, it is written: “for too long now the machine has been the primary metaphor for our buildings, which implies a relationship with nature that is exploitative.” Also employed is the metaphor of a flower to describe what the building of the future will necessarily be:

The flower must receive all of its energy from the sun, all of its water needs from the sky, and all the nutrients necessary for its survival from the soil. Flowers are also miniature ecosystems, supporting and sheltering microorganisms and insects like our buildings do for us.

This natural model is the way to discuss architecture in our milieu. The paradigm is reminiscent of what Buckminster Fuller once said: “we do not seek to imitate nature, but rather to find the principles she uses”

The architectural firm Croxton Collaborative Architects tries to fuse the goals of human and environmental benefit. They even go so far as to say they aim to “create buildings that ‘give back’ to the environment, sustain and restore natural habitat and human health, and contribute to quality of life”. Multiple factors for the workplace or home are examined:
thermal comfort, access to daylight, time of day, and the season of the year (a dynamic and invigorating ‘echo’ of nature), blended artificial/natural light, anti-glare lighting, high quality indoor air with low or no toxicity sources, and strategies to avoid the growth of microbial/fungal contamination.

A multi-faceted approach is critical to the vitalization of buildings. No longer is it acceptable to design with Neo-Classical, Gothic or Modern styles—the building must be able to thrive as a living thing; this notion penetrates far beyond the surface.

Works Cited:
Sustainable Architecture White Papers. Earth Pledge Foundation, New York: 2000.