Biomimicry and Biophilia: A Juxtaposition

Biomimicry is the imitation (mimicry or mimesis) of nature. It ‘promotes the transfer of ideas inspired by Nature to the design of our world, for a more sustainable, healthier planet,’ according to The Biomimicry Institute’s website. The site also says that as we learn from nature and study “how to grow food like a prairie, build ceramics like an abalone, create color like a peacock, self-medicate like a chimp, compute like a cell, and run a business like a hickory forest,” that “the conscious emulation of life’s genius is a survival strategy for the human race, a path to a sustainable future.”

On the topic of sustainable buildings, the Biomimicry Institute specifically cited the Eastgate Building, an office complex in Harare, Zimbabwe and a model of sustainability and biophilia. Impressive Architect Mick Pearce teamed up with Arup Associates to design Eastgate, and it has won numerous awards and been heralded for its innovation and place-sensitive design.



Biophilia (coined by Harvard Biologist Edward O. Wilson in 1984) does what Biomimicry does not: it reaches into the human desire for an affinity with nature on both the meta- and individual levels. Biophilia is different from Biomimicry because it is based more in the appreciation of nature. To my mind it (-philia) is more on a spiritual/emotional plane rather than a quantitative/measured level. The following quote is an extrapolation on this concept:

“Architecture needs the existence of something old and permanent, like the cycle of the years, the rhythm of the moon, the majesty of the streams, or the old moss-covered rock. I feel that the most important aspect in modern architecture is the attempt to make man re-discover these fundamental values” –Aulis Blomstedt, 1950-70

More concrete examples of these are that Biophilia is the belief that natural light should be maximized in a building for humanitarian/health purposes while Biomimicry finds a more outward aesthetic expression in systems and ratios—taking an ecosystem as a model for a city, for example.These concepts are not entirely separate, and further, the concept of Biomimicry is embedded in Biophilia, but the inverse is not always the case.

Biomimicry and Biophilia are both important for the future of architectural strategies of design, but their influence is not new. The Finnish Architect, Alvar Alto worked primarily in the first half of the 20th century, was both a proponent of modernism and he "dreamed of an architecture without style, buildings determined only by the diverse needs of the people using them and the conditions dictated by the building site, the materials available and financial considerations" (quote link). Aalto also believed that as nature and architecture should be derived from the same concepts.

“Nature, biology, offers profuse and luxuriant forms; with the same constructions, same tissues and same cellular structures it can produce millions and millions of combinations, each of which is a high level of form” –Alvar Alto, 1935

Though Alto's words are from long ago, we are now more widely accepting that we need to incorporate sustainable architecture, design, and daily choices into the fabric of cities. The status of a building is changing—it is a crucial participant in our uphill battle for sustainability and overall well-being. This natural model is the way to discuss and to design buildings in our milieu.

Image from: http://i.treehugger.com/files/th_images/termite_mound.jpg

Cob Methods and ChiCobCo

One can find a deep shade of "green" (in terms of the environmental consciousness and connectedness) to be pervasive in architecture’s history from the passive solar solutions of Ancient Greece (I found links 1, 2, and 3 helpful for more information on this) to the long history at Taos Pueblo. These and other examples can provide wonderful models, and should be looked at to inform the contemporary push for eco-friendly city/community planning. Building practices in ancient societies necessarily used 'green technologies’ such as passive solar space heating, local materials, etc. which were neglected or undervalued in the last few centuries, and are now being re-discovered and utilized; established vernacular forms and materials are reappearing in a modern and even urban context. Cob building is one prime example of this phenomenon.

Cob building is a traditionally based method of construction is uses earth (dirt/mud) and straw. Historically the technique comes primarily from the United Kingdom area, but ancient Cob buildings can also be found in Africa and the Middle East. This method is still being used today, and it is being exported to South America and Asia as a grassroots-inspired alternative building strategy.

"It is quite similar to adobe in that the basic mix of clay and sand is the same, but it usually has a higher percentage of long straw fibers mixed in. Instead of creating uniform blocks to build with, cob is normally applied by hand in large gobs (or cobs) which can be tossed from one person to another during the building process. The traditional way of mixing the clay/sand/straw is with the bare feet; for this reason, it is fairly labor intensive" (Green Home Building).

It is the epitome of local, sustainable material. Cob also lends itself to sculptural forms. It is a cost-effective and sustainable building method: it utilizes local materials and elements such as passive solar heating can be incorporated. It is fireproof and can be used in a variety of climates.

Here is a polaroid of a friend and I at a cob bench/gazebo site in Portland, OR (March 2008).

The ChiCobCo group has created buildings and benches out of this time-tested method of Cob building. In the Chicago neighborhood of Edgewater they were commissioned to create a bench outside a health foods store (at 1034 N. Broadway St.). This bench includes a tri-partite seating arrangement, orange and yellow coloring, a whimsical-looking owl’s face, wings, and feet, and white mosaic tiles atop. Its curving back and use of tiles are remarkably similar to Antoni Gaudi’s serpentine seating in Park Guell.

Miguel Eliot, founder of ChiCobCo, has also built a merged oven/bench structure in Cabrini Green. A leap beyond constructing benches, however, is the Butterfly Social Club (at 722 W. Grand Ave. in Chicago). This all-organic nightclub has a Mayan theme created with benches, trees, tables, a DJ booth, and bar; with all these, the club features the world’s largest cob sculpture. The aesthetic is not within the mainstream nightclub vocabulary, but the fact that such a large space has incorporated cob is indicative of a readiness in the zeitgeist for eco-friendly spaces that push the aesthetic envelope.

ECO-nomics

The conception that green buildings exist solely in order to diminish CO2 emissions displays the first and most common misconception about sustainable architecture. We should remove the socio-political debates about global warming from the picture. At the Greenbuild 2007 conference, former president Bill Clinton stated that, “building green is the greatest economic opportunity since WWII.” The ‘green collar jobs’ that are created by the emerging industry initiatives are significant to the American economy especially after a decline in manufacturing jobs in the US. George Hartwell, the mayor of Grand Rapids, Michigan, mentioned at Greenbuild that his city—after feeling the devastation of globalization—has now started to increase its wealth by changing old manufacturing edifices into new green material manufacturing facilities.

The book Green to Gold (2006) tackles the burgeoning world of green business revenue and aims to be pragmatic in a niche where “over 95 percent of the stories and examples talked only about the benefits of environmental thinking.” Many businesses are enthusiastically fueling the green movement and it is critical to remember that “no business strategy works all the time” . The authors’ realistic approach is still optimistic, but they have sought out the book’s information with the specific aim of presenting a non-idealized view in the burgeoning domain where ecology and business meet.

Green to Gold presents some key strategies and thoughts about going ‘green’ in the business world. My favorite is: “Climate change is shaping up to be the biggest environmental strategy issue the business world has ever faced.” The authors employ metaphors from economic jargon: “Natural resources are the assets on the planetary balance sheet.” The aims of getting ahead and making a profit are still in play, but the notion of a greater ecological and human good are also addressed.

Eco-chic and green business initiatives are excellent and simultaneously problematic. As the July 1, 2007 article called “Buying Into the Green Movement” stated in the New York Times:

Consumers have embraced living green, and for the most part the mainstream green movement has embraced green consumerism. But even at this moment of high visibility and impact for environmental activists, a splinter wing of the movement has begun to critique what it sometimes calls “light greens” .

[Though it should (as I stated at the outset of this post) be out of the realm of politics and climate change, we can choose to consider this as well if that is on your agenda.] The global climate and carbon footprint problems we are facing are too large in scope to be bought by consumers who propone the same life style choices, overall. Simply buying green stocks while not recycling and driving an SUV will not bring us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.

We need to educate ourselves and make smart, green, lifestyle decisions. Since many businesses and marketing campaigns have aimed at green images, it is the consumer’s responsibility to be discerning. An accessible space for information about this new intersection of ecology and business is the weekly video news podcast called ECOBIZ. Sponsored by Citi Smith Barney, this video podcast is free, straightforward, interesting, and encouraging in many ways. The website falls under the umbrella of the Sundance Channel.

Environmental sustainability and social change are the broad topics attended to by a great podcast (in video): ECOBIZ, but the information embedded in any given episode can lead to a quickly snowballing interest. For example, the episode about the Terra Pass, if one’s interest is sparked, can lead to the company’s website, a potential purchase in one of many areas, and even to joining the Terra Pass Facebook group. The ease of the modern American consumer is all-too evident between TerraPass and the plethora of businesses going green to gain our business.

A wide range of individuals and companies are featured, and Emmy-Award winning Allison Stewart, who serves as the podcast’s anchor. The episode’s features have included Timberland, Terra Pass, Emory Knoll Farms, Recycline, Ben and Jerry’s, and The Sallan Foundation; these companies are all making environmentally conscious steps in different ways. These segments validate the opportunity that the green movement has augmented.

There is intangible brand value in marketing your entire company as environmentally friendly, but it is more than painting the façade of your company headquarters green. The innumerable websites, podcasts and books on this ‘green’ topic are successful because being informed is the only feasible preparation for the future of corporations; a green image may suffice for now, but not for long. Knowledgeable, committed consumers are making demands for transparency of policies in companies. Companies are being asked about their environmental footprint, from alternative energy investment, office policies, waste management, architectural choices, ad infinitum.

The social sites, podcasts and blogs (like my own) are changing media, and by extension the issue of our “e-waste.” The question of what to do with all the outdated electronic material is pressing, as “every old computer has about four pounds of toxic materials including […] flame retardants, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Given that over 300 million computers are awaiting disposal in the United States alone, the toxic waste math is not pretty.” ReCellular is yet another eco-smart business, which was created “to refurbish, reuse and responsibly recycle discarded cell phones.” It is “the world's largest recycler and reseller of used cellular phones and accessories.” Companies like this one are innovating and changing the notion of green business. They have a green hue in more than their appearance: they are building a green business out off sustainable practices and using waste materials to generate new revenue.

Briefly Noteworthy

I found this image here, and it is apparently hanging in the foyer of HGTV's (2008) Green Home. If HGTV isn't mainstream, I dont know what is.

Greening My College Campus (Unforeseen Challenges)

I have not updated this blog with the frequency I intended, but I have been quite busy working on moving my convictions about sustainability from the (virtual) page to the world. As usual, I have been advocating 'going green' incrementally to friends and family, but I have also been presented with a particular challenge:
I am on the Senior Steering Committee, and am on the particular sub-committee where I will help choose the Class Gift. I am passionately advocating a “green gift” of some kind. Despite my bias toward environmentally friendly choices (predictable given this blog’s subject matter), I believe that something "green" speaks more to our time, as the Class of 2008. Convincing others to make sustainable choices requires choosing your battles; this committee has been my chosen sphere of advocation and action.

The first sustainable gift idea I Iproposed was an arborsmithed bench (see above image or see here). I think that a special bench such as this would be utilized because it would give a unique sense of place and artfulness to wherever it is put. Others raised concerns about vandalism, but with thoughtful consideration for its location (i.e. not by fraternity houses and instead outside the art building or library) it could add a sustainable and aesthetic marker in our outdoor campus space. This idea was the first I proposed to counter the groupthink that was going on in the committee, and it was not taken up with much excitement—instead it became more of an exemplar that there are other ideas out there beside the one that was proposed early on for a large metal mascot sculpture.

The metal mascot is kitschy, antiquated and most importantly: not sustainable. (My concern was also that the committee was taking the path of least resistance by silently settling for the metal statue to not have to do further research.) The voice behind the mascot (pun intended: mask-ot) seemed determined to derail anything I proposed; his authorship to the idea was clearly paramount.

The next idea I researched and proposed was a “green fund” of some sort, and in particular I was hoping to get it to pay for the LEED certification of the next green building on campus. This was met with curious animosity from some (financially oriented) staff members. I pressed the issue, but was quite discouraged to hear that the school’s system may not be able to accommodate such a small (aim: $10,000) fund, as it presents a risk. The risk was partially that the school may not choose to “build green” in the future, and then the fund would go unused.

With this news, I called to the head manager of our facilities about the next building renovation’s lack of an environmental agenda (scheduled to break ground in Summer 2008). He explained that they were taking what opportunities they could for incorporating sustainable practices. With the new building’s construction we will lose (inevitably) about six white oaks. With this fact, I began thinking about how we could take these and keep the wood locally; thus the idea of carved chairs or a carved mascot was born. As of now, we are still in the process of getting votes from an online poll of the senior class, which will determine our next move.

It has been an uphill battle and I have been at the forefront of it--daring to dream of making this campus sustainable and I have been taking the heat for it from the opposition. The case for sustainability can be helped only by teamwork at this point; if the senior class votes for the green fund and if others speak up, (as some of my peers have begun to at my request for some vocal support) then incorporating sustainability could become a reality in some small facet. A univocal campaign does not get far, no matter how many people tell you that you are “fighting the good fight.” In this experience I have learned how resistant some can be to sustainability, and I have learned how to deal with such conflicts in a professional manner.

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.

Sustainable? Modern, International and Prairie Styles Considered

We could point to a variety of places to explain the use of non-indigenous building materials or the spread of different styles, but there is no single time of urbanization or of the building of infrastructures to support the move to cities. (One could point to the Agricultural or Industrial Revolutions, but one could also point to Mesopotamia or Rome as early examples, so I shall not tackle the question of urban genesis in the scope of this post). The global move toward urbanization, generally speaking, has affected our built environment and our lives. The necessity of higher-density housing that came with the lifestyle changes of cities gave way to new forms in architecture. Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe and others “employed modern materials, new technology, and industrial forms (the building as a sleek, mass-produced machine) in the interest of replacing unsanitary, inequitable housing with clean, austere buildings for the masses.” (Gissen, 116)

I grew up in Chicago, and it’s history is steeped in architecture. Most notable for the history of urbanization is The Chicago School of Architecture, which evolved in response to the new technologies for buildings in the late 19th Century (involving steel-frame construction and elevators, which allowed for progressively taller buildings). Chicago became the architectural city of the time because of the buildings that boasted the latest innovations in form and height were being erected in the city. The main practitioners of this style were Daniel Burnham, Louis Sullivan, William Holabird, Dankmar Adler, William Le Baron Jenney, John Root, Martin Roche, and Solomon Beman.

For example, the Home Insurance Building (1883-85) was one of the incremental steps to a complete iron skeletal framed building. Still using masonry construction, William Le Baron Jenney encased the iron supporting walls in stone. This building is the first skyscraper in existing structural terms. Starting less than a decade later, the Reliance Building (1889-91) by Burnham & Root was underway. This trumped the Home Insurance Building in the movement toward austerity and Modernism; it was the “quintessential expression of the steel frame.” Visually, the heavy masonry was nearly eliminated; leaving the upper floors covered with white glazed terra cotta and large ‘Chicago style’ windows. The lightness and sixteen-floor height of the structure come from an emphasis on verticality.

The next vast step in city forms came with the striking Modern and International styles. The Feb. 22, 1932 article called “Machines to live in” in TIME Magazine explained the emergent style of International Architecture:

"If the average citizen does not understand the principles of the International Style in architecture the fault is not with its innovators. France's Le Corbusier, most vocal of the lot, has expressed it in a single sentence: ‘The modern house is a machine to live in.'

Like all good architecture, the International Style demands that the new materials at the service of modern architects (reinforced concrete, plate glass, steel, etc.) shall be used honestly. Cement walls must look like cement walls and not be disguised as Gothic masonry.

The International Style thinks of building in terms of space enclosed as opposed to mass. Walls no longer support the house; they are curtains enclosing its skeleton.

The International Style as opposed to "modernist" architecture eschews all decoration and ornament. "Functionalism" (a word overworked ad nauseam) is its watchword. Such beauty as their buildings possess is dependent on fine proportion of individual units, clever use of color, and the technically perfect use of materials. (Cement is sometimes poured in glass-lined forms to give it a marble-like polish.) Light is its fetish."

The aesthetic of this and Modern Architecture were totalizing and were explicitly aimed at creating universal forms. They eschewed not only “all decoration and ornament” for pure functionalism, but also any indigenous or localizable style.

This avant-garde aesthetic was not only anti-traditional, but it was anti-sustainable in aesthetic parameters and in philosophical foundations. There is a binary between Traditional and Modern/Inernational styles. Where Traditional is place-centered, the Modern** style is universalizing and effectively place-blind. Traditional uses local materials and is often inherently sustainable. Modern uses primarily concrete, marble, glass and steel often (if not always) regardless of a material source’s proximity to a site. In sum, the Modern aesthetic philosophy affords no concept of sustainability because of its ideological and formal limitations; the skyscraper must adapt to this challenge.

The aesthetic drive for Modernism segued into air conditioning, which was called 'man-made weather' by its inventor. The implementation of this invention effectively divorced architecture from nature. Paradoxically, this divorce took place in the context of the Modern movement, which also upheld ‘truth to materials’ and formally expressed its love of natural light. Corbusian ethics, in particular, were so pro-machine that they were antithetical to environmental—or even nature-aware—architecture.

Perhaps the man with the most recognized name in Chicago Architecture (if not the practice as a whole) is Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright approached the task and art of architecture unlike most others of the 19th century. He looked at nature to inspire his designs, (as many others indisputably did), and he had a distinctive way of conveying his aesthetic visions. The theme of inclusion was present in the layout: Wright created interwoven spaces, culminating in an open-plan with a characteristic central fireplace mass. Openness was important on the exterior as well, as Wright’s Prairie Style house opens into and interacts with the landscape through views, porch spaces, horizontal emphasis, cantilevers, outdoor walkways, patios, etc.
Wright’s Robie House (1906-09) has been praised from all corners of the globe, and was even nicknamed in Europe as the “ship house” for its shape after Wright published his portfolio in Berlin. Robie house was called the “culmination of the Prairie Style” because Wright had been refining the Prairie aesthetic, but the houses previously had not encompassed all of the principles fully. Robie is unified throughout with carpet, furniture, and integrated light fixtures created by Wright, himself. Though Wright did not aim for sustainability (in our contemporary definition), his design aesthetic and philosophy were (in juxtaposition to the Modernists), naturally inspired; they were the Prairie of the city.

The Robie House is notable for all the Prairie principles, but especially its hyper-emphasized horizontal planes and eaves, as none of Wright’s designs had done to such a degree before. Overall, Robie house was the climax of Wright’s search for “Nature…not ready-made [but] a practical school beneath…in which a sense of proportion may be cultivated” within the Prairie Style. This style did not employ any ‘green’ technologies, per se, but it did propose a naturally inspired, total viewing model.

Works Cited
*Home Insurance Bldg image from http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/spr01/282/w2c2i04.jpg
**For the purpose of this blog entry, I intend to encompass both Modern and International styles when speaking of the "Modern."

David Gissen, ed., Big and Green: Toward Sustainable Architecture in the 21st Century, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press), 116

"Machines to live in” Feb. 22, 1932. TIME Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743212,00.html.