By Michael P. Rybin
Arch
4270 Architectural Theory and Criticism
Professor
Dr. Ole W. Fischer
Scientific
Research Paper, v77
April
30, 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction
Definitions
History
High
Cost
Current
Standards
Examples
of successful architecture biomimicry
Conclusion
Bibliography
Every weekend, the man
loved to race his Porsche through the dangerous mountain roads to his cabin.
One weekend he was approaching his favorite curve, when another car came around
the corner swerving out of control and almost hit him. As the other car barely
squeezed by, a beautiful woman yelled at him “Pig!” He was shocked, and immediately
yelled back at her “Sow!!” Enraged, he thought how dare she call me a pig.
She was the one careening out of control. However, he felt satisfied she did
not pass without hearing his angry retort. Then he promptly stepped on the
accelerator and raced around the curve - and ran into the pig. Joel Barker
shared this story in his book “Paradigms, The Business of Discovering the
Future.” He explained that sometimes people would be yelling seemingly
insulting things at you. If you have paradigm paralysis, you will be offended,
but if you have paradigm pliability, you will stop and listen for an
opportunity. Moreover, so it is with architecture and biomimicry. Some people
are unable to see any connection between the two, let alone any real success
with architecture biomimicry.
What is the
proto-modern theory of architecture biomimicry all about? Do not feel
intimidated, even many college architecture students do not know about the subject
of biomimicry. Ecology and biology are not commonly thought about as key
components or tools of architecture design. At least, they are not like the well-known
college degrees of computer engineering or bioengineering. As a consolation, computer
college degrees have only existed for a fraction of time compared to ecology,
biology, and architecture. Furthermore, some professional architects are
unfamiliar with the scientific details about ecology and biology.
Correspondingly, ecologists and biologist know little about architecture design
or construction. As unexpected and seemingly unrelated as biomimicry and
architecture may seem, this lack of knowledge about the other profession is one
reason for this paper. Even though architecture biomimicry comes with a high
cost, it is a valuable tool because it fills a gap where some current standards
fall short, and there are an increasing number of successful incorporations in architecture.
First, as a point of clarification and
context for any reader who is not familiar with architecture biomimicry, some definitions,
and history are included here. Biomimicry or biomimetics means “the
study of the formation, structure, or function of biologically produced
substances and materials … mechanisms and processes … especially for the
purpose of synthesizing similar products by artificial mechanisms which mimic
natural ones” (Merriam-Webster). Michael Pawlyn suggests biomimicry means,
“trying to learn from the way functions are delivered in nature” (Pawlyn). Janine Benyus says, “Biomimicry (from bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning
to imitate) is a design discipline that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating
nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies, for example, a solar cell
inspired by a leaf. The goal is to create products, processes, and
policies—new ways of living—that are well adapted to life on earth over the
long haul. Biomimicry thinking helps create products and processes that:
·
Are
sustainable
– follow “Life’s Principles” and use life-friendly materials and processes, and
enhance the bio-sphere
·
Perform
well
– Nature has been vetting organisms and their strategies for 3.8 billion years
… study the successful strategies of the survivors that thrived in their
habitats
·
Save
energy
– like plants and animals - life tends to organize extremely energy-efficient
designs and systems, optimizing energy use at every turn
·
Cut
material costs
– Nature builds to shape, because shape is cheap and material is expensive
·
Redefine
and eliminate “waste”
– mimicking how nature transitions materials and nutrients within a habitat (Ask Nature)
Finally, because
of sustainability’s close relationship to architecture biomimicry, let us
review the terms sustainability and architecture sustainability. “In ecology, sustainability
is how biological systems endure and remain diverse and productive” (Wikipedia Sustainability). “Sustainable architecture is architecture that seeks
to minimize the negative environmental impact of buildings by efficiency and
moderation in the use of materials, energy, and development space” (Wikipedia Sustainable Architecture).
From a historical
perspective, the British writer Geoffrey Grigson first used the term
biomorphism in 1935 (Grigson). In addition, Alfred Barr used the term in
Cubism and Abstract Art in 1936 (Barr). However, this is not really the first
consideration or observation of nature in architecture. Although not the
earliest, Leonardo Da Vinci (1452 – 1519) is famously remembered for a number
of works and quotes about nature including, “Those who are inspired by a model
other than Nature, a mistress above all masters, are laboring in vain” (Haddock). In addition, the famous architect Antoni Gaudí (1852-1926) was known for his
organic style inspired by his love of nature. A wonderful example is “The nave
in the Sagrada Familia with a hyperboloid vault. Inspiration from nature is
taken from a tree, as the pillar and branches symbolize trees rising up to the
roof (Wikipedia Gaudi).
More recently, Peder Anker’s 2005 article,
“The closed world of ecological Architecture” in The Journal of
Architecture, sheds some light on the history of ecology and biology relative
to the culture of architecture.
“In 1976 the
architectural students at the University of Minnesota … [built] their own
self-sustaining ecological house. They named it ‘“Ouroboros” after a mythical
dragon which survived by eating its own tail and faeces’. This is a telling
image of what ecological architecture came to be in the 1970s: a way of
designing which fed on its own ideas and gradually closed itself off from
developments in the rest of the architectural community. Its followers
sense of self-sufficiency resulted in a sect-design for the believers whose
recycling of resources and ideas led to a lack of interest in an outside world
simply described as ‘industrial’ and thus not worth listening to” (Anker).
While architects
were aware of ecological issues, Anker’s critique suggests that they were not
ready to listen to biologists or ecologists. Although the term architecture
biomimicry is relatively new, by virtue of the above examples, it is clear that
the understanding of the environment by some architects is not new.
Another historical
example is the January – March 2013, exhibit “Lessons from Modernism:
Environmental Considerations in 20th Century Architecture, 1925 –
1970” (The Cooper Union). “This exhibition was presented by The Irwin S.
Chanin School of Architecture and The Cooper Union Institute for Sustainable
Design” in New York. It is an “analysis of the influence of nature and the
environment in architecture design” (The Cooper Union). The exhibit comprised an
examination of twenty-five case studies and their “environmental strategies -
long before they were commonly used in 21st century buildings” (The Cooper Union). Kevin Bone’s forthcoming new book titled “Lessons from Modernism:
Environmental Design Strategies in Architecture, 1925 – 1970” will be a
welcomed edition covering this subject. The exhibition and book will include
but not be limited to the works of:
·
Le
Corbrusier and Pierre Jeanneret ~ New Dwelling for Bordeaux
·
Oscar
Niemeyer ~ Building for the Emprezas Graficas o Cruzeiro
·
Frank
Lloyd Wright ~ Jacobs House I and Jacobs House II
·
Paul
Rudolph and Ralph Twitchell ~ Cocoon House
·
Jean
Prouvé ~ Maison Tropicale
·
Arne
Jacobsen ~ Soholm
1
·
Alvar
Aalto ~ Housing at
Sunila Pulp Mill
What is the point
of these two historical references? Simply that concerns about the environment
have existed for a long time before the post-modern crisis of global warming
and our current understanding that American buildings use roughly 48% of our
nation’s total energy, more than industry (24.4%) and transportation (28.1%) (Architecture 2030). However, it is sad to think since 1925 or after almost 90 years, that
sustainable architecture has not made more progress. At the same time, it is
good to see that architects have not given up and are trying again with architecture
biomimicry.
Biomimicry success comes
with a high cost. In April 2008, National Geographic’s Tom Mueller published
the article, “Biomimetics: Design by Nature”. He highlights many inspirational
stories yet concluded with a candid reality check. “For all the power of the
biomimetics paradigm, and the brilliant people who practice it, bio-inspiration
has led to surprisingly few mass-produced products and arguably only one
household word—Velcro, which was invented in 1948 by Swiss chemist George de Mestral”
(Mueller). Scientists have yet to develop or industrialize several other
highly advertised examples that Michael Pawlyn and Janine Benyus cite in their biomimicry
speeches. No one has matched the gecko lizard’s strong adhesion ability nor
the strength of the abalone nanostructure, nor spider silk. Several
well-funded biotech companies have gone bankrupt trying. Another reason why
biomimetics is a gigantic challenge is that nature is staggeringly complex. “To make the
abalone’s shell so hard, 15 different proteins perform a carefully
choreographed dance that several teams of top scientists have yet to
comprehend” (Mueller). Beyond the proteins of the spider’s silk, is the
mystery of “600 spinning nozzles weave seven different kinds of silk into
highly resilient configurations” (Mueller). While there is always short-term expectations from
venture capitalist, critics
of architecture biomimicry have a solid argument because the fact is that
research is time-consuming and expensive. Consequently, some people feel it is
useless for ecologist, biologist, and architects to collaborate and seek to
discover new solutions, let alone establish standards and certifications.
Janine Benyus admits there are constraints. However, she adds, people do not have to create a brand new product. They can
begin with short-term goals by modifying current products. Janine
optimistically responds, “Life taps the power of limits and like Picasso
makes art out of taking things away” (Benyus). Time and money will always be
the trade-off to initiative and progress.
Despite the fact that architecture biomimicry comes with a
high cost, it is a valuable tool because it fills a gap where some current standards
fall short. More Federal and State government
departments now require higher energy efficient standards in new public
buildings. New county and city laws plus actively revised civil construction
and building codes are added to the issue. For example the U.S. Department of
Energy created the “Energy Independence & Security Act” that establishes
new energy management goals and requirements to reduce energy consumption per
gross square foot of Federal government buildings on an increasing scale from 2
percent in 2006 to 30 percent in 2015 (U.S.D.E.). Building companies with
architects and engineers are implementing these new high-energy standards with
promotional marketing about the energy savings and positive financial
return-on-investment benefits for both commercial and residential construction.
The general public homeowner is gradually becoming more knowledgeable about
the reality of net-zero and passive energy homes plus the monthly savings and
increased financial worth and marketability of these new homes, not to mention
their improved living comforts. This is definitely a bonus to society’s existing love of great architecture.
While architecture has
never been loved more, or more energy efficient, there is a very long list of
competing products and standards, which have provided limited progress. Several national and international
high-efficiency energy standards are becoming common practice, but are in
various stages of maturity, legalization, and development. Regrettably, they
are in serious conflict with each other. Despite the fact that their overall
goal is virtually the same, they share little unity between themselves or their
community of followers.
The most common of
these standards include:
1. Net-zero energy architecture
2. Passivhaus Institute, (i.e., Passive House)
Residential
Energy Services Network (RESNET) ~ (USA)
7. Building Research Establishment’s Environmental
Assessment
Method (BREEAM) ~ (United Kingdom)
8. Comprehensive Assessment System for Building
Environmental
Efficiency (CASBEE) ~ (Japan)
9. GBTool (International)
10. Green Globes™ US ~ (Canada)
11. Cradle-to-Cradle
The length of this list in and of itself speaks to the conflict of
values and misunderstanding about the definition of environmental efficiency
standards. There are no agreed-upon
standards globally, not in any country, nor region, nor state. Personal and
political motives and incentives with a vast chasm of ethics abound within
organizations and between competing groups. Marketing and social popularity is
unfortunately taking a front seat to science, perhaps because of the escalation
of opposing scientific opinions. There is little evidence of published reports
that objectively compare these different standards, not by the company’s that
represent the individual standards, nor by third party organizations. Another
reason for so many competing standards is probably the long time it takes for
an organization to agree and make improvements to their owner standard.
Consequently, people simply start a new special interest group and create their
own standard. Economic and financial incentives are a key factor to a
standard’s success and yet another reason for the conflict.
In addition, most standards do not incorporate architecture
biomimicry. I have not recently reviewed the details of all these standards as
a comparative analysis – this is outside the scope of this research paper. Cradle-to-Cradle
is now integrated as a Key Element of LEED. However, it is unclear how
integrated architecture biomimicry or The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute is with LEED.
This is not to pick on LEED anymore than Passive House Institute or Home Energy Rating Index (HERS). In addition, to be objective and reiterated, each of
these standards has a particular focus and intent, about which architecture
biomimicry is not covered.
Furthermore, some standards like “Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design” or LEED, based in the
United States, have a history of law suits where scientists have proven that some
LEED certified buildings are using more energy than their neighboring buildings
which are many years older. To their credit, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Council has
updated its standard requirements to include post-occupancy monitoring and
analysis to verify their certification standards. Simultaneously, how can a
new building earn a LEED certificate and be praised as “sustainable” when it
cheats the system by building a football field of solar panels – the purpose
for which is to maintain the exploitive use of the building’s electricity
demand for large mechanical heating and cooling systems and more electric
lights? In other words, the building could have been more intelligently
designed by an architect to take advantage of daylighting and natural air
circulation. A one-time cost of more insulation could reduce the size and
frequent use of a mechanical heating and cooling system. Whereas, a mechanical
system has a certain end of life that will require purchasing a replacement.
Shaded windows by exterior awnings, louvers, or deciduous trees would reduce
overheating from direct sunlight and the need for larger air conditioning system.
These are only a few examples, yet it is very clear that these standards fall
short of honest building sustainability and environmental conservation. Perhaps
the standards themselves are not to blame, but it is our individual integrity.
Obviously we cannot create laws to compel everyone on every behavioral or
construction detail. Regardless, the facts surrounding these types of
circumstances do not help our environment nor the building standards.
What is different about architecture biomimicry compared
to these standards? Most standards are almost myopic in their focus on reducing
fossil fuel energy consumption, or some other facet. That is an excellent
goal. However, it is only a small fraction of the environmental and ecosystem problems
caused by our current building methods and product manufacturing – much of
which is poison, not biodegradable, nor recyclable. “As William
McDonough and Michael Braungart argue in their provocative, visionary book “Cradle-to-Cradle:
Remaking the Way We Make Things” … why not take nature itself as our model” (Braungart and McDonough)? In addition to the above
definition of architecture biomimicry, the short answer is “nature is the
standard”. In the words of Janine Benyus, biomimicry is “Consulting Nature as
Model, Measure, and Mentor” (Benyus). Architecture biomimicry is a valuable
tool that fills the gap and builds a bridge between nature, people, and
architecture where these other standards have limited effectiveness or fall
short.
The most important reason architecture biomimicry is a valuable
tool is because there are an increasing number of successful implementations. The following is a partial yet
respectable list of successful products and solutions from several key sources
that clearly show the positive results of discovery and invention between
ecologist, biologist, and architects. Let us begin at the University
of California Berkeley College of Environmental Design 50th Anniversary:
Visualizing the Future of Environmental Design. Janine Benyus presented
Biomimicry in the Build World: Consulting Nature as Model, Measure, and
Mentor. Here are some of her examples referenced from that transcript and the
Biomimicry 3.8 Institute website, www.AskNature.org.
“How do we use Mother Nature’s polymer architecture to
think about new materials? The natural world uses five very simple polymers to
create everything. Organisms take these very simple five building blocks and
add design, structure, and architecture to matter. Then they are able to
recycle or upcycle that material into something else very easily” (Benyus, Sustainability in Seven: Janine Benyus on Biomimicry). People have created 350
polymers or plastics that clog landfills because they are not recyclable nor
biodegradable, and some are poisonous. The challenge is to make products out
of five polymers so that they are all less expensive and recyclable. One
company has taken on that challenge and has learned that all the colors in the
peacock feather come from one color, brown. The peacock feather colors are
created by layered structures that bounce light back to create multiple colors
to our eyes. The company, Qualcomm created a new monitor with layered pixels
that do the same thing with no backlighting and less power than traditional
monitors. Wow, that a great success story about architecture biomimicry.
How does nature use co2 or Carbon dioxide? Can you
imagine making cement the way coral does it, out of thin air? Organisms do not
think carbon dioxide is a poison. Sea coral thinks carbon dioxide is a
building block. Cement usually emits a ton of carbon dioxide for every ton of
cement manufactured. Calera Carbon Sciences, a cement manufacturing company in
the United States, used the coral reef recipe or blueprint and now uses carbon
dioxide to make cement. They take the waste product carbon dioxide out of
smoke stakes, combine it with seawater, and make the raw materials for concrete
or cement. By this process, they are sequestering a half-ton of carbon dioxide
for every ton of cement manufactured. Concrete is the building material most
used around the world. Six to eight percent of all carbon dioxide comes from
manufacturing concrete. Obviously concrete is a vital element of buildings and
architecture. This is an excellent example of a successful and profitable
incorporation of architecture biomimicry (Ask Nature).
Is water without wells possible through fog
or water vapor harvesting? The company, QinetiQ is using hydrophobic and
hydrophilic squares next to each other to mimic the Namibian beetle that
collects water from fog. “Several prototypes of these beetle-inspired
materials have been created thus far, and have shown to be more effective than
"net harvesting" and other traditional methods for collecting water
from fog” (Ask Nature).
The architecture company Grimshaw, founded in 1980 is a pioneer
of high-tech architecture. Among a long list of successful projects, they are
well known for the famous Eden Project, plus their design of the award winning Southern
Cross railway station, recipient of the Royal Institute of British Architects
Lubetkin Prize. They are exploring the concept of surface structures that harvest
water vapor from fog off the coast of Spain (Grimshaw
Architects). Though this work is still in the exploration stages, it is a good
example how more companies are venturing to apply architecture biomimicry.
Envision building structures with high strength yet
without bulk or heavy weight. MIT is developing materials and shapes based on
the Toucan bird’s beak. The Toucan has a very large beak that is lightweight
with an amazing material to strength ratio. “The Toucan's beak measures
one-third the length of the bird but accounts for a mere one twentieth of its
weight (Acta Mater. 2005, 53, 5281)” (Ask Nature). This idea has direct
implications to building structures of all types and therefore fully supports
the theory of architecture biomimicry.
Professor Claus Mattheck has studied tree biomechanics
for thirty years. He discovered that trees try to equalize stress along all
surfaces. He also discovered that human bones try to equalize stress by taking
away material from areas where it is not needed and putting it where it is
needed. Mattheck created one software program to mimic trees and another
software program for bones. The results of both software programs were
combined to optimize the structure for the Mercedes-Benzes concept car. The
structure of the car is a lightweight frame that uses a minimum amount of
material to provide the maximum protection. Building products and structures
require earthquake stress tests and standards. This example of structure
optimization software based on biomimicry is further evidence of the value of
architecture biomimicry.
Professor Joanna Aizenberg from Harvard is a material
scientist in the biomimetics world. She
studied the skeleton of a Sea Sponge to discover it has filaments that are like
fiber optic waveguides. She also studied the structure to discover it is very
delicate yet very strong on many different levels. Her team conducted a study
and discovered the Sea Sponge uses seven construction methods currently used in
building. The structural elements of the Sea Sponge are unexpectedly similar
to the Swiss Re building in London (Ask Nature). In addition to structure, the
possibility of transmitting daylight into interior spaces via fiber optics to
reduce the need for electric lighting is another reason architecture biomimicry
is advancing.
Imagine living buildings that respond without motors.
Imagine buildings that are responsive and adaptive, and aware of the climate
seasons: the height and direction of sunlight, the speed temperature and
direction of the wind. The building would automatically close the awnings or
open the windows. A building that responded like a leave or a flower that
opens and closes in response to the sunlight would be the Holy Grail of
architecture.
From Inhabitat.com, Design Will Save the World, Abigail Doan published an
informative article about the Eastgate Centre in Africa. Harare,
Zimbabwe in Africa has an annual high temperature
range from 70-83 degrees F. This is low for the tropics because of its high
4,865 feet elevation and prevalence of cool southeast winds. Nonetheless, can
you imagine gigantic mid-rise building with no air-conditioning or heating
system? The Eastgate Centre has five-thousand-six-hundred square meters (5,600
m2) of rental space and twenty-six-thousand square meters (26,000 m2)
of office space, plus parking for four-hundred and fifty (450) cars. This is
the country’s largest office and shopping complex recognized around the world
as an “architecture marvel because of its use of biomimicry principles” (Doan). Architect Mick Pearce and engineers from Arup Associates designed the Eastgate
building mimicking the air circulation of tall aboveground self-cooling mounds
of African termites. While temperatures outside the mound range from 35 to 104
degrees F, the termites maintain an exact 87 degrees F required for their food
supply of fungus to grow. The building uses an astonishing 10% less energy
than conventional buildings its size saving the owners $3.5 million dollars.
This savings has trickled down to the tenants whose rent is 20 percent lower
than the cost of surrounding buildings. The Prince Claus Award was given to
Pearce in 2003 for his architecture design work on the Eastgate. This is an
exceptional and very profitable initiative about architecture biomimicry that
“typifies the best of green architecture and ecologically sensitive adaptation”
(Doan).
Eastgate,
Harare, Zimbabwe; Archnet. http://archnet.org/media_contents/19152
On TED, Doris Kim
Sung spoke about “Metal that breathes”. She was a biology major before she
studied architecture. Imagine glass skyscrapers with spectacular views that
use less energy to cool because of smart material shades that require no motors
or human interaction. Sung “works with thermo-bimetals, smart materials that
act more like human skin, dynamically and responsively, and can shade a room from
sun and self-ventilate” (Sung).
Architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart
joined to articulate a new manifesto of radical change, away from the current
cradle-to-grave pattern and towards a Cradle-to-Cradle standard – which is a
close relative to architecture biomimicry. They explain why current methods
and programs like "reduce reuse recycle" are really “Less Bad”
which is “No Good”. They discourage downcycling
and encourage upcycling when a product that reaches its end of life. Products
or their minerals, become either "biological nutrients" that safely
re-enter the environment, or "technical nutrients" that are
recyclable and remain within closed-loop industrial cycles. More
importantly, they practice what they preach. Their book is not made of paper, but safe synthetics created from
plastic resins and inorganic elements that are upcyclable. In addition, to
help other companies reach the high the Cradle-to-Cradle standard, McDonough
and Braungart analyzed thousands of chemicals down to parts-per-million and
identified 38 safe chemicals for manufacturing. They published their findings
so designers can make products that are people and ecological healthy. Furthermore,
McDonough cites product and buildings examples that
follow the Cradle-to-Cradle principles. A company takes back its worn out
carpet and remanufactures it into new carpet. Nike offers shoes that are
polyester and recyclable plus the souls are biodegradable. They designed a
building in Oberlin College that makes more energy than it uses. They saved Ford
35 million by designing a new manufacturing plant with a green roof and imitating
nature’s water purification process. To be objective, Peder Anker
criticized William McDonough’s Ford building because it used poor materials
that did not reach the high Cradle-to-Cradle standards. Finally, the president of China commissioned McDonough’s company to
design twelve Cradle-to-Cradle ecological and biological cities. Some goals
include making sure everybody in the city will have fresh air and clean water,
direct sunlight in every apartment at some point during the day, plus everyone
will be within a five-minute walk of mobility. In addition, the cities will utilize
completely recycled sewage in a fertilizer factory to make their own natural
gas.
These examples provide ample evidence to articulate how
ecologists, biologists, and architects have collaboratively discovered new and
profitable products and building solutions. These examples represent more than
hope, they are positive progress and profitable results.
In conclusion, you can see that although architecture biomimicry
comes with a high cost, it is a valuable tool for two main reasons. First, it
fills a gap where some current methods have limited effectiveness or fall short and do not
solve the root cause to our building problems and natural ecosystem. Second
and most importantly, there are an increasing number of successful
implementations. So
what are you going to do about it now? People have been asking this question
in every field of science and engineering for centuries. However, that is not
the right question. The question is: What is impossible to do, but if it could
be done, would fundamentally advance architecture (Barker)?
In the
context of all this information regarding the good and bad points about the
theory of architecture biomimicry, starting with the “Pig” and “Sow”
name-calling, I submit the choice of what you hear is up to you. Will you utilize
the tool of architecture biomimicry or ignore it. Finally, ponder this insightful
thought from Albert Einstein: “Problems cannot be solved by the level of
awareness that created them” (Wikiquote).
REFERENCES
Anker,
Peder. The closed world of ecological. Number 5. Vol. 10. Comp.
http://www.academia.edu/1264775/The_closed_world_of_ecological_architecture?login=mj8rybin@gmail.com&email_was_taken=true&login=mj8rybin@gmail.com&email_was_taken=true.
The Journal Of Architecture, 2005. April 2014.
<http://pederanker.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the-closed-world-of-ecological-architecture-the-journal-of-architecture.pdf>.
Architecture 2030.
"Energy." n.d. Architecture 2030. April 2014.
<http://architecture2030.org/the_problem/problem_energy>.
Ask Nature. 2008-2014. The
Biomimicry 3.8 Institure. April 2014. <http://www.asknature.org/>.
Barker, Joel. Paradigms,
The Business of Discovering the Future. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
April 2014.
Barr, Alfred H. Cubism
and abstract art: painting, sculpture, constructions, photography,
architecture, industrial art, theatre, films, posters, typography. Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 1936.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=03_uAAAAMAAJ>.
Benyus, Janine.
"Biomimicry in the Built World: Consulting Nature as Model, Measure, and
Mentor ." CED 50th Anniversary - Visualizing the Future of
Environmental Design . UC Berkeley , Feb 2010. April 2014.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVHtAjQoWmg>.
—. Sustainability in
Seven: Janine Benyus on Biomimicry. April 2011. April 2014.
<http://www.core77.com/blog/sustainability_in_seven/sustainability_in_7_janine_benyus_on_biomimicry_18942.asp>.
Braungart, Michael and
William McDonough. Cradle-to-Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.
1st edition . North Point Press, 2002. April 2014.
Doan, Abigail.
"BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURE: Green Building in Zimbabwe Modeled After Termite
Mounds." November 2012. Inhabitat. April 2014.
<http://inhabitat.com/building-modelled-on-termites-eastgate-centre-in-zimbabwe/>.
Grigson, Geoffrey. The
Arts Today. DIANE Publishing, n.d. April 2014.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=m-2GjJ0BjpMC>.
Grimshaw Architects. Grimshaw
Architects. n.d. April 2014. <www.grimshaw-architects.com/>.
Haddock, Vicki. Back to
Nature. Nov 2008. April 2014.
<http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/november-december-2008-stars-berkeley/back-nature>.
Mueller, Tom. Biomimetics:
Design by Nature. April 2008. April 2014.
<http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/biomimetics/tom-mueller-text>.
Pawlyn, Michael. Biomimicry
in Architecture. Oct 2011. The RSA. April 2014.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijIfdswvh5U>.
Sung, Doris Kim. "Metal
That Breathes." May 2012. TED. April 2014.
<https://www.ted.com/talks/doris_kim_sung_metal_that_breathes>.
The Cooper Union. Lessons
from Modernism. January 2013. April 2014.
<http://cooper.edu/events-and-exhibitions/exhibitions/lessons-modernism>.
U.S.D.E. U.S. Department
of Energy - Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2007. May 2013. <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/eisa.html>.
Wikipedia Gaudi. Antoni
Gaudi. n.d. April 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Gaud%C3%AD>.
Wikipedia Sustainability. Sustainability.
n.d. April 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable>.
Wikipedia Sustainable
Architecture. Sustainable Architecture. n.d. April.
Wikiquote. Talk:Albert
Einstein. n.d. April 2014.
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein>.
Michael P. Rybin~۩~
Architecture is a wonderful life ™
Copyright © 2014-2016 Michael P. Rybin All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment