The city is changing, it is moving away from traditional notions of being a purely aesthetic creation that relies heavily on a top-down approach to design. An approach that proceeds to try to dictate how cities ultimately function, ignoring site-specific conditions and focusing primarily on defined spatial arrangements, density and form. In order for design to evolve, it must understand that cities, much like any static natural organism are defined by how it responds to its context and the environmental conditions that this context exerts. Cities should be seen as a system of energy distribution between the ever-changing climate and the inhabitants that use them. The way we see cities should shift towards the understanding that they have an intrinsic metabolism and that they are living, breathing super organisms that match natural organisms in both depth and complexity. The ecosystem that we inhabit has had millions of years to develop intricate strategies of self-organisation that are resilient to environmental change.Emerging discoveries drawn from how natural biological systems employ strategies of self organisation and adapt to their environment could prove immensely significant to the architectural profession , and in particular how this emerging knowledge, that understands the ways in which natural structures swarm and organise themselves can be applied to the design of cities. This idea of combining natural and artificial principles of design and organisation has the potential to possibly produce architectural systems that are as harmonious and responsive to their context with that of a living biological system. Thus in taking inspiration from life itself. Understanding natures remarkable ability to adapt to its surroundings, and Applying the principles of swarm theory to our built environment, has the potential to revolutionise the current architectural paradigm and even fabricate dynamic infrastructures that are more resilient and adaptable to change.
Introduction
I will open up this discussion with the concluding Statement proposed in kevin kelly’s book, ‘out of control: the new biology of machines ‘. Here he describes the future as being made up of the synthesis of technology and biology. He invites us to imagine a future in which technology is enlivened by the biological. Where we are heading towards a neo-biological world in which all aspects of technology can adapt, learn and evolve. “We should not be surprised that life having subjugated the bulk of inert matter on earth, would go on to subjugate technology and bring it under its reign of constant evolution, perpetual novelty, and an agenda out of our control. Even without the control we must surrender , a neo-biological technology is far more rewarding than a world of clocks, gears and predictable simplicity.All complex things taken together form an unbroken continuum between the extremes of stark clockwork gears and ornate natural wilderness. The hallmark of the industrial age has been its exhalation of mechanical design. The hallmark of a neo-biological civilization is that it returns the designs of its creations toward the organic, again. ” (kelly, 1994, P.471-472.) He concludes that: “In the coming neo-biological era, all that we both rely on and fear will be more born than made. Future bionic hybrids will be far more confusing, more persuasive and more powerful. I imagine there might be a world of mutating buildings.”[ Ibid] Although this book is written over 20 years ago its significance, is becoming increasing relevant , as it conducts a convincing argument towards a probable future where biology and machine are as one.
1:1 An emerging paradigm shift
Architecture is undergoing profound changes. An interdisciplinary exchange of work methodologies are ever-increasing between the fields of biology, engineering and physics discoveries in these fields are starting to be employed by artists and designers.[ (Cruz and Pike, 2008)] Giving rise to hybrid technologies that are effectively blurring the the boundaries between the natural and the technological. Alluring to a future where unrestrained nature and engineered technology coalesce into the unimaginable, a future in which they become indistinguishable from each other. There has been a paradigm shift in the field of biology over the last 25 years. As new scientific evidence emerges that change our perception and understanding of how biological systems function. This has opened up a profound understanding of the ecosystem and introduced us to new revelations into how natural processes self-organise[ (Asla.org, 2017)]. In our life time there has been a shift towards understanding the ecosystem we inhabit as being flexible, resilient and open-ended away from a mechanistic model of stability and control. Change is fundamental in all living systems they are open systems that behave in ways that deliberately avoid equilibrium, they are constantly changing, dynamic and to a certain extent unpredictable. All ecosystems need to perpetually evolve in order to survive and this is frequently displayed in ways that are disparate and discontinuous. Natural Systems that are recognised by us as being stable are only seen in this way due to our time-limited perception of stasis. Biology- related themes saturate the media with language such a, plastic surgery, cloning, genetic engineering being transposed into the everyday.[ (Cruz and Pike, 2008)] And yet architecture, especially when it is accepted as being solely concerned with the built environment is set in a context that is disparate and fundamentally set apart from emerging phenomena in these other fields. If the architectural profession wants to develop at the same pace as other disciplines, it must completely rethink its perceived parameters with regard to both professional practise and education. It must undergo a change that is not only responds to the way in which we view our body in relation to time and space, but moreover asks the question; how are architects going to respond to a potential future, made up of semi living amalgamations of technology? A future that could see buildings that are hybridised with biological matter that respond to the changing landscape in ways they are characterised as being essentially unpredictable. How will designers react when a final artefact is never reached, how will we define the Architectural profession when design, must involve an understanding of programming, control and maintenance of cellular constructs and their genetic make up, as they grow evolve and eventually mutate to optimise space and function? At the turning point of what may seem an unimaginable future, however t one which highlights real developments in other fields, the Architectural profession is being critically challenged.In a way that not only questions our expertise in the methods we put to practise, but also how we utilise an expanding body of knowledge that between different disciplines , but also forces the profession to rethink the aesthetic intent. In this piece of work I want to explore how the innovative technological advancements in the realms of biology, microbiology and biotechnology [ Ibid.], could prove immensely significant to architecture, and in particular how this emerging knowledge, that understands the ways in which natural structures swarm and organise themselves can be applied to the way cities will be/ could be designed in the future. The line between the natural and the technological is being progressively blurred. [ Ibid.]The integration Of biological processes within the architectural sphere, must be genuinely sustainable. This integration must perform as a biological organism and not just as a metaphor, or as a scaled up construct that is essentially an analogy for the biological, that only acts as a representation of the sustainable. My aim is to explore current conceptual and experimental appropriations that manipulate and explore design as a method to explore and manipulate actual biological material using design as a means to explore biology in physical and appropriate real world applications. In what I understand to be the start of a shift towards a ‘neo-biologicalisation’ [ (Kelly, 1994)]of our reality. Ultimately I want to introduce the idea that changes are occurring in architecture. Changes that demand to be implicated beyond the invisible parameters set by traditional disciplinary boundaries of Architecture.
1:2 A bottom-up approach to architectural design
Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous. - Leonardo Da Vinci The prevalent parameters that define architectural production in the present climate, have remained fundamentally unchanged for generations.[ (Armstrong, 2011)] However the technology that could potentially revolutionise the field of architectural production has been around longer than humans have inhabited the earth. This technology is the very biological structures that make up life itself. The physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) defined living matter as , “that which actively ‘avoids the decay into equilibrium “.(1944)[ (Schrodinger ,1944)] Equilibrium arises when dynamic processes reach their lowest energy state at this point the system becomes functionally inert. In order for living systems to avoid equilibrium they self regulate and optimise their usage of energy, while simultaneously adapting their usage of raw materials over the coarse of their lifetime.[ (Biocab.org, 2017.)] They display an elegant performance in the way they effectively obtain energy from their surrounding and eliminate waste products in a chemical process that is known as metabolism. Organisms have evolved over time to actively resist ‘decay into equilibrium and to put it simply avoid death. Living Organisms have developed to have the ability to disperse into singular units that can act independently away from their constituent material that is observable in time and space. It is imperative to the survival of a living organism to perpetually optimise their chemical processes and even assume variant configurations as they adapt to their changing environment.[ (Roggema , 2012)] Certain lifeforms that grow over an epoch exert interesting and somewhat surprising adaptations of form as their needs change due to factors such as size and complexity. This phenomenon can be observed from something so seemingly insignificant as the slime mould (Latin name).Which has been extensively discussed in (Johnson, 2006), where he explains how the slim mould is highly adaptable to changes in the environment. Through much of its lifetime the slime mould acts as thousands of single cell units that move independently from each other an “it”. When the environmental conditions are optimum, those myriad cells will homogenise into a single, larger organism, the “it” becomes a “they”turns cooler and the mould enjoys a large food supply, “it” becomes a “they”, and can benefit from a considerable food supply. ‘The slime mould oscillates between being a single creature and a swarm’ [ (Johnson, 2006.)](Johnson, (2006), p. 13). How do slime cells trigger aggregation without following a leader? The answer? - They self organize: Self organisation is defined as: “the spontaneous often seemingly purposeful formation of spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal structures or functions in systems composed of few or many components. In physics, chemistry and biology self-organization occurs in open systems driven away from thermal equilibrium.”[ (Haken, 2008).] ( Haken , 2008.) Biology can be understood as a beautifully elegant system that optimises information storage, retrieval and self-assembly. This amazing technology is all around us, and it is within our best interest to draw tectonic solutions from this extensive pool of knowledge that has had millions of years to perfect. At the present moment strategies that speak at a conceptual level to the notion of an ecological and sustainable architecture exist in concepts such as Biomimicry in which biological forms and functions are transplanted onto standard material systems employing a top-down method of design. And as such the resulting architecture is inferior and loses most of the qualities of the original biological system being mimicked. Biomimcry fails to recognise that biology works from interactions at the molecular scale that form the macro scale this leads to unsustainable and expensive solutions and as such Biomimcry acts as more of a representation or an aesthetic formalisation of the sustainable. This calls for an alternative approach to how we employ biological systems within the built environment an approach that contrasts with the architectural tradition of creating a blueprint to enforce a prescribed order on a system. The alternative must act in harmony with its context and be genuinely sustainable. I believe that we can only move towards this ideal if the constituent materials that make up the built environment are designed employing a bottom up approach, that is seen within every natural organisation system. To meaningfully construct a biological architecture that works at a molecular we need to look at the materials at a molecular scale, and utilise the natural flow of energy within these constituents. Biology has been taking on a bottom-up approach to design for millennia. Intrinsic to their survival is their ability to adapt and evolve to their context. This self-organising behaviour is developed through the chemical processes that develop at the molecular scale, creating living solutions that optimise energy flow and distribution that is always harmonious within the ecological context. Recent breakthroughs in the field of biology have allowed for a deeper understanding into biological cell organisation which has yet to be engaged with within the architectural discipline. Combining the two fields of knowledge has the potential to produce architectural systems that are as harmonious and responsive to their context as that of a living biological system.
1:3 The city as a biological system
Cities need to constantly change and evolve in order to remain relevant, just as a the red Queen said to Alice: “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” .’ Caroll, (1871). Here I will draw comparisons between how cities evolve and function with that of a biological system outlining the need for the future of the architectural discipline to design cities that are fundamentally resilient and adaptable to the influences of their ever changing environment. Transcending towards a built environment, that will dynamically modify and optimise its physical integrity to meet these challenges. Thus opening up the question as to how can we design and develop cities that are resilient to change? Neil Leach addresses how the concept of swarm can be applied to urbanism. Critical to the discussion on swarm theory is the concept of emergence. Leach offers a definition in accordance with the therories of emergence that have been brought up by steven Johnson in (emergence, 2009). That describes a city in terms like that of a living organism: “The city operates as a dynamic, adaptive system, based on interactions with neighbours, informal feedback loops, pattern recognition, and indirect control. . . Like any other population composed of a large number of smaller discrete elements, such as colonies of ants, flocks of birds, networks of neurons or even the global economy, it displays a bottom-up collective intelligence that is more sophisticated than the behaviour of its parts. “(Leach, (2009), p58). Adaptive design can be thought of as an approach to design and planning that directly responds to the ecological context. A design strategy that acknowledges that all aspects of design must engage with the immediate ecology and understand in depth the cities relation ship with the living biology that sustains it. In other words adaptive design must approach cities as being fundamentally dynamic organisms[ (Asla.org, 2017)]. Central to this notion is that adaptive design must Critically recognise cities and the ecosystems that define them as being super organisms that are reactive and resilient to change. As a product of this paradigm we must be able to surrender complete control and come to terms with the idea that there is a certain level of uncertainty in how they will eventually behave as they evolve and shift over time. We must come to terms with the idea that how a city will develop is impossible to predict in the planning process, no matter how much research and scientific evidence is apparent.[ Ibid]Understanding the city as a complex living system means we need to allow for them to be unpredictable and beyond complete comprehension. it is then more biologically intelligent for the architectural discipline to move towards a direct and sophisticated integration with biology towards a future of design that celebrates and uncovers the complex biological processes presented in the very ecology that sustains and defines us.[ (Biota-lab.com. ,2017.)] To design a city with ecology in mind There must be interactions between the individual units. That take place at the bottom of the overall system , These individual units can be seen as cells which must change in response to the changes in other cells. In effect acting as a swarm. Swarm theory is deployed by what could be seen as one of the worlds most successful super organisms, (social insects). And why shouldn’t the super-organism of the city be designed with swarm theory in mind?After all, like a swarm cities have proven to be successful in replicating themselves, drawing in migrant populations from around the world, and encouraging- on the whole, higher birth rates and longer life spans from within their periphery .[ (Marshall, 2009)]Cities, like ant colonies, posses a kind of emergent intelligence: an ability to store and retrieve information, to recognize and respond to patterns in human behaviour.[ (Valverde and Solé, 2013)] The Human Subject has a direct relationship with the Urban Object . Thus it is the human mind that shapes the bottom-up evolution of how a city develops and creates spaces that function beyond the top-down functions dictated in the initial design process, but only within the realm of possibility defined by the human mind. This sphere defines what can and cannot be a city.[ (Hillier, 2014)] The human mind understands the complex patterns that make up the organism of a city through the undisclosed relationships and interactions between streets, buildings, transportation networks and how these networks are shaped over time.[ ibid] It is imperative that as with any living system a city must be able to constantly adapt in order to stay alive. In a living organism survival is achieved through the constant regeneration of cells and functions allowing for decay and renewal. In this way a city can also be understood as a living breathing organism that must adapt, grow and evolve. Currently the methods employed in city planning use a top-down approach which has shown to be limited in making accurate predictions in how functional elements evolve in response to environmental changes. [ ibid] In contrast termite mounts which have been revealed to show complex spatial patterns that create elegant and elaborate structural lattices , that demonstrate efficient spatial solutions, with little energy expenditure in their creation. These complex 3 dimensional spatial structures are designed through what could be considered as individual disorder. The termites design by employing bottom-up rules where there is no conscious overall plan. The individual agent self-organises through intricate and adaptable interactions in response to changes in its immediate environment as the structure develops and in turn informing a changing set of rules in which the individual agent responds to.[ (Valverde and Solé, 2013)] This stark contrast between how the collective intelligence of a biological swarm system and its artificial counterpart creates structure is important to recognise, When trying to come up with solutions to the limitations that occur in both systems. It is here where the boundary between technology and biology could merge to counteract such limitations.
Bibliography:
Armstrong, R. (2011). How Protocells Can Make ‘Stuff’ Much More Interesting.
Architectural Design, 81(2), pp.68-77. Asla.org. (2017). Interview with Nina-Marie Lister | asla.org. [online] Available at: https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=31738 [Accessed 17 Dec. 2017].
Barnett, R. (2013). Emergence in landscape architecture. London: Routledge.
Batty, M. (2012). Urban Regeneration as Self-Organisation.Architectural Design, 82(1), pp.54-59.
Biocab.org. (2017). Irreversibility and Equilibrium in Biological Systems. [online] Available at: http://www.biocab.org/Irreversibility.html [Accessed 17 Dec. 2017].
Biota-lab.com. (2017). Hydrogels | BiotA Lab. [online] Available at: http://www.biota-lab.com/?page_id=2630 [Accessed 17 Dec. 2017].
Carroll, L., Haughton, H. and Carroll, L. (2003). Alice’s adventures in Wonderland ; and, Through the looking-glass. London: Penguin.
Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. (2000). The collapse of chaos. London: Penguin Books.
Cruz, M. and Pike, S. (2008). Neoplasmatic Design: Design Experimentation With Bio-Architectural Composites. Architectural Design, 78(6), pp.6-15.
Dorigo, M., Birattari, M., Garnier, S., Hamann, H., Montes de Oca, M., Solnon, C. and Stützle, T. (2014). Swarm Intelligence. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Garnier, S., Gautrais, J. and Theraulaz, G. (2007). The biological principles of swarm intelligence. Swarm Intelligence, 1(1), pp.3-31.
Gordon, D. (1995). In the Ant Colony: A Conversation with Deborah Gordon. The Women’s Review of Books, 12(5), p.18.
Haken, H. (2008). Self-organization. Scholarpedia, 3(8), p.1401.
Hamann, H. (2013). Towards swarm calculus: urn models of collective decisions and universal properties of swarm performance. Swarm Intelligence, 7(2-3), pp.145- 172.
Hamann, H. and Schmickl, T. (2012). Modelling the swarm: Analysing biological and engineered swarm systems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, 18(1), pp.1-12.
Helding, Lynn. (2011). Ants, NATS, and Swarm Logic Journal of Singing, 67 (3), pp. 337 .
Hillier, B. (2014). The Generic City and its Origins. Architectural Design, 84(5), pp.100-105.
Holling, C. S. 2016. Bubbles and spirals: The memoirs of C. S. Buzz Holling. [online] Available at: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2Bkic2Qu5LGNGYwYmVFWXAxc1E [Accessed 17 Dec. 2017].
Huang, J. (2015). Growth Typologies, Localities and Defamiliarisation: Experiments with Artificial Urbanism in Sichuan, Guangzhou and Beijing. Architectural Design, 85(6), pp.70-75.
Jacobs, J. (2016). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Johnson, S. (2006). Emergence. New York: Scribner. Keeffe, G., Radovic, D., Fagan, D. and Satoshi, S. (2012). Urban evolutionary morphology. Leeds: Infra Press, p.88.
Kelly, K. (1994). Out of control. London: Fourth Estate.
Marshall, S. (2009). Cities design and evolution. New York, NY: Routledge.
Miller, P. (2010). The smart swarm. New York: Avery.Miller, P. (2010). The smart swarm. New York: Avery.
Neil Leach, “Swarm Urbanism,” Architectural Design 79, issue 4 (2009), pp. 56-63.
Roggema, R. (2012). Swarming Landscapes: The Art of Designing for Climate Adaptation (Advances in Global Change Research). Springer Netherlands,.
Schrödinger, E. (1992). What is life?. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Steadman, P. (2008). The evolution of designs:Biological Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts. London: Routledge.
Topos. (2017). Topos 90 – Resilient Cities and Landscapes. [online] Available at: https://www.toposmagazine.com/topos-90-resilient-cities-and-landscapes/#!/foto-post-1219-3 [Accessed 17 Dec. 2017].
Valverde, S. and Solé, R. (2013). Networks and the City. Architectural Design, 83(4), pp.112-119.
Winston, M. (2014). Bee time. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Comentários