Chapter 35

The living building Berkebile, Robert J; McLennan, Jason F . The World & I ; Washington  Vol. 14, Iss. 10,  (Oct 1999): 160-

169.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)  

The architecture of the future will draw inspiration not from the machines of the 20th century but from the

beautiful flowers that grow in the surrounding landscape. "Living" buildings of the future are described.

FULL TEXT  

Headnote

In the rapidly dawning era of environmental responsibility, architecture will flourish if it replaces the haughty

metaphor of buildings as machines with the holistic metaphor of buildings as flowers.

We do not seek to imitate nature, but rather to find the principles she uses.

-Buckminster Fuller

In the future, the houses we live in and the offices we work in will be designed to function like living organisms,

specifically adapted to place and able to draw all their requirements for energy and water from the surrounding

sun, wind, and rain. The architecture of the future will draw inspiration not from the machines of the twentieth

century but from the beautiful flowers that grow in the surrounding landscape.

The building as a machine

The history of architecture in the twentieth century can be seen as one of buildings emulating machines and

technology. Machines such as the internal combustion engine have symbolized progress and mankind's mastery

over nature for the last 100 years. They have allowed us to achieve comfort in any climate, to traverse long

distances in little time, and have revolutionized everything from food production to clothing manufacture.

Machines are the ultimate metaphor for the buildings-both commercial and residential-of today. The great

architect Le Corbusier went so far as to say that "houses are machines for living in."

As machines, our buildings also began to look more and more similar, regardless of culture or climate. With

machines as metaphors, buildings took on the characteristics of clinical assembly-line productions. An office

building in Singapore now resembles an office building in Manhattan, and both share the same "perfect," climate-

controlled indoor environment. At the same time, the loss of regional differences began to undermine the

uniqueness of place, impeding understanding of what local culture and climate have to offer. The twentieth

century has seen the decline of art and "artfulness" in buildings. Engineering and technological solutions have

become dominant factors in design, ensuring that buildings are indeed "machines for living in."

Unfortunately, like the machines of our age, today's buildings use energy and materials wantonly, depleting

resources in ways that are beginning to alter the very climate on which we all depend. According to the U.S. Green

Building Council, buildings consume 30 percent of America's total energy and 60 percent of its electricity while

generating 2.5 pounds of solid waste per square foot of floor space for construction alone. Five billion gallons of

water are used per day just to flush toilets! The root of the problem was the shortsighted belief that technology

combined with a great deal of energy was the answer to any design problem.

And yet, just a few centuries ago there was a different model for buildings and a different relationship with nature.

In preindustrial times, buildings could be compared to living organisms in that they evolved in response to climate

and topography, changing form and composition as necessary to protect what was inside from the elements, while

regulating temperature and humidity to the greatest extent possible. This evolution produced vernacular forms

that differed from locale to locale, just as plants and animals differ from biome to biome.

One need only compare the igloos of the Inuit with the adobe structures of the Southwest to understand how

climate and culture have shaped architecture. Both the igloo and the adobe house were built to temper the harsh

extremes of climate, using only the materials at hand. Neither building type significantly altered the environment,

and both helped define the culture of their builders.

But Western society was never completely satisfied with a close relationship to nature. It was quick to follow the

ideas of individuals such as Francis Bacon, who sought "dominion over nature" using the scientific method. As

early as the seventeenth century, architects began to look to science for technologies that would keep buildings

warm no matter how cold it was outside and cool no matter how hot. Only in the twentieth century, however with

new design freedoms made possible by technologies such as insulated glass, air-conditioning, and central heating

systems, did architecture move decisively away from the model of living organisms toward a model based on the

machines that were making these changes possible.

Unfortunately, in our haste to surge ahead with "progress," architects lost the ability to discern between practices

that were damaging to environmental health and those that were not.

We forgot the hard-learned lesson that how you get someplace is as important as getting there. Amory Lovins,

founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, reminds us that what we want is comfort, not

higher energy bills and oil spills. It isn't our intentions that are wrong but rather the path we chose to get there.

What is needed is a return to the old metaphor, one that respects regional differences and environmental health

while embracing appropriate technologies that can provide the comfort, service, and security we now expect.

Changing the metaphor

"To emulate nature, our first challenge is to describe her in her terms," says computer scientist Michael Conrad in

Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine Benyus. "The day the metaphors start flowing the right way, I

think the machine-based models will begin to lose their grip."

Describing things as metaphors can provide clarity and allow us to understand complex systems quickly, but it can

also lock us into a set way of thinking. For too long now, the machine as the metaphor for our buildings has

implied an exploitative relationship with nature. The machine metaphor implies solving problems with brute force,

using great amounts of energy. It is a nineteenth-century model that is being carried into the twenty-first century.

Architecture has often been described using metaphors, drawing comparisons to things that evoke similar

emotional responses and sum up the intent of the architect's expression. Goethe once said, for example, that

"architecture is music etched in stone." What is interesting with architecture, is that when the metaphor changes,

new sets of rules emerge that can guide the design process. To us the most compelling model for the buildings of

the future can be found growing almost everywhere on the planet: flowers.

Flowers are marvels of adaptation, taking various shapes, sizes, and forms. Some lie dormant through the harshest

of winters, only to emerge each spring once the ground has thawed; others stay rooted all year round, opening and

closing as necessary to respond to such changing environmental conditions as the availability of sunlight. Flowers

are the perfect metaphor for buildings in the future: Like buildings, they are literally and figuratively rooted to place.

In addition, flowers can draw resources only from the square inches of earth and sky that they inhabit. The flower

must receive all its energy from the sun, all its water from the sky, and all its nutrients from the soil. Flowers are

ecosystems, supporting and sheltering microorganisms and insects as our buildings do for us. They are also

beautiful and can provide the inspiration needed for architecture to be truly successful.

In attempting to design buildings based on the design principles that have made flowers successful, we are finding

it useful to measure our designs and innovations against a test set forth in Benyus' Biomimicry: "Is there a

precedent for this in nature?" If so, the answers to the following questions about our designs and innovations will

be yes:

Does it run on sunlight?

Does it use only the energy it needs?

Does it fit form to function?

Does it recycle everything?

Does it reward cooperation?

Does it bank on diversity?

Does it use local expertise?

Does it curb excess from within?

Does it tap the power of limits?

Is it beautiful?

Emerging biomimetic technologies

Many technologies currently in use or being developed are biomimetic in nature and will contribute to making the

living building possible.

Perhaps the oldest biomimetic technology is photovoltaics, otherwise known as PV. Photovoltaics is a solid-state

technology that directly converts solar radiation into electricity that can be stored or used on demand while

producing no pollution. Many people remember the clunky, expensive panels that gained prominence in the

seventies, but the technology has advanced considerably in recent years, becoming more efficient and able to

integrate seamlessly into architecture. Although they were formerly mounted on top of roofs, solar panels can now

serve as the roof material itself, replacing conventional metal roofs or shingles. See also "BNIM Architects:

Designing a Better World," on page 120. Transparent PV panels, now being developed for use as windows and

skylights, will allow daylight to enter a building while still generating electricity. This technological "multitasking" is

integral to biomimetic technologies, which often do several jobs at a time. Photovoltaics will play an increasingly

important role in buildings of the future.

Another electricity-producing technology, the fuel cell, is poised to change the way we power our automobiles,

computers, cell phones, and buildings. All the major automobile manufacturers, including Chrysler, Ford, General

Motors, and Honda, are racing to produce the first commercially viable fuel cell cars, which are expected to be

released as early as 2004. Prototype vehicles today release drinkable water from the tailpipe instead of carbon

dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone. When used in buildings, fuel cells can provide steady, uninterruptible power

with minimal to zero environmental impact. Fuel cells are similar to a battery in that they produce electricity

through electrochemical reactions, but unlike batteries, they never run down so long as a fuel containing hydrogen

is supplied to the system.

As hydrogen runs through a fuel cell, it encounters a semipermeable membrane designed to permit the flow of

protons while inhibiting electrons. The electrons must flow around the membrane to rejoin the protons, thereby

generating an electric current. If fuel cells are run off of fossil fuels such as gasoline or methane, they produce

some pollutant gases. In the future, when they employ hydrogen generated from water using renewable resources

such as wind and solar power, they will be a zero-polluting energy source.

The pattern of cleaning a building's wastewaters by using biomimetic principles is starting to appear and will

become more common. Ecological waste-treatment systems now re-create miniwetland ecosystems using

microorganisms and plants to purify wastewater from toilets or other industrial uses. These systems, first

developed by a biologist named John Todd and originally called "living machines" (an interesting twist on the

metaphor), rely on the power of living systems that view our waste products as food. It is important to remember

that in nature, there is no such thing as waste. Only humankind creates things useless to all other forms of life.

The ecological waste-treatment system is a series of complete and complex ecosystems, which are connected

through gravity flow in such a way that dirty effluent entering from the high end is naturally and progressively

cleaned as it feeds through the tanks containing the ecosystems. Unlike conventional waste-treatment systems,

which use great amounts of energy and harsh chemicals, ecological waste-treatment systems clean water using

only sunlight, bacteria, and plants.

A host of other biomimetic technologies is being developed for all areas of building construction, including

insulation, windows, electric lighting, controls, and mechanical systems. These technologies are also being

designed to be integrated with one another for greater efficiency and comfort. Emerging models showcase the use

of biomimetic technologies and the integration that make them so successful.

A living laboratory for the new century

Many principles of the living building will be tested at a benchmark project called the EpiCenter in Bozeman,

Montana, being designed by an international team of innovators, architects, scientists, engineers, and stakeholders

under the leadership of BNIM Architects. The EpiCenter, funded by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology and the students of Montana State University (MSU), seeks to redefine resource efficiency, including

human resources. The facility will house new centers for integrated, collaborative research, including the Center for

Computational Biology, the Center for the Discovery of Bioactive Compounds, and the National Resource Center, a

research laboratory for "sustainable" building systems.

The EpiCenter is part of a larger architectural movement known as "sustainable design," in which buildings are

designed to minimize energy and resource demands. What is unique about the project is the level of integration

and ways of combining stateof-the-art "green technologies."

The building was envisioned as operating like a living organism, with all systems interconnected for maximum

efficiency and minimum environmental impact. It was designed to generate a significant portion of its power

without pollution, clean all its own wastes on site, and respond actively to temperature changes while maintaining

a comfortable indoor environment. Meeting the EpiCenter's design goals will require development of new

standards and advances in the areas of energy generation, waste treatment, human health, and productivity and

resource conservation.

To test some concepts and generate interest and enthusiasm for the larger building project, MSU and the design

team began work this spring on a $7 million pilot project. Like the EpiCenter, the pilot will contain research and

teaching laboratories for science and a mix of informal student space. Construction will begin on the pilot facility

early next year.

Perhaps the most compelling example of the living-building approach being demonstrated is the Integrated Waste

Treatment System. Here the function of ecological waste treatment is integrated with photovoltaics and fuel cells.

The system works in the following way: Rainwater is collected from the center's roof and stored in a large cistern

located in the basement. This water is then used for nonpotable applications such as flushing toilets or cleaning

lab equipment (water for drinking fountains still comes from the municipal supply). After the water is used, it

travels through the building to the ecological waste-treatment system located in a greenhouse on the buildings

south side. The water is then cleaned by an ecosystem of microorganisms and plant life and returned to the

original cistern for reuse.

A portion of the water is diverted from this path and fed through an electrolyzer powered by the photovoltaic array.

The electrolyzer "cracks" incoming water into its constituent components-hydrogen and oxygenand stores them in

tanks in the basement. The photovoltaics are also used to power the pumps, lights, and aerators of the ecological

waste-treatment system. When there is inadequate solar radiation (such as at night or during extended cloudy

periods), a switch is flipped and the process is powered by fuel cells located within the building.

The fuel cells rely on the pure hydrogen that was stored in compressed form. The pure oxygen that was stored is

fed into the aerobic digesting stage of the wastetreatment system to enhance its efficiency. In this way, several

systems are linked and feeding off each other while producing no pollution at any stage. The system uses only

sunlight, water, and other living organisms and provides clean water and power for the building.

The Montana project is important because it is a step toward the ultimate goal, a future where our buildings are

produced and operated sustainably.

Communities of the next millennium

We see the world piece by

piece,

as the sun, the moon,

the animal, the tree; but the

whole, of which these

are the shining parts, is the

soul.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ironically, most of the world's growing population is rushing to imitate our building and community patterns just as

we are discovering them to hold all the records for consumption, waste, and pollution. As we seek to understand

more of Emerson's "whole," it seems bizarre that our cities are crowded with buildings that struggle to separate us

from nature and community. The buildings of the future may not look like flowers, but they certainly will not

resemble the buildings of today. A new architecture is emerging as an expression of climate and culture while

being shaped by technologies that are biomimetic in nature.

We can imagine whole cities operating like complex ecosystems, processing water and waste while generating

energy. Communities in desert regions will be designed to maximize the ability to collect water and, like the

indigenous plants, to retain and conserve that water. In colder climates, the emphasis will shift to retaining heat

and capturing the available sunlight. The focus will change from region to region, but environmental performance

will be constant.

Institutional facilities will be flexible and durable enough to last more than 500 years, while some facilities for

short-term use (such as exhibitions and public celebrations) will be designed for adaptive use, recycling, or

composting. Building codes and contracts for professional services will become more performance based. The

public of the next millennium will require that all buildings have zero environmental impact and maximum comfort.

Exemplary buildings and communities will be restorative, pedagogical, and inspirational. They will be living

buildings.

Sidebar

The Building as a Flower

The living building will

Harvest all its own water and energy needs on site.

Be adapted specifically to site and climate and built primarily with local materials.

Operate pollution free and generate no wastes that aren't useful for some other process in the building or

immediate environment.

Promote the health and well-being of all inhabitants, consistent with being an ecosystem.

Comprise integrated systems that maximize efficiency and comfort.

Be beautiful and inspire us to dream.

-R.J.B. and J.F.M.

Sidebar

Biomimicry

1. Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes

inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems (for example, a solar cell inspired by a

leaf).

2. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the "rightness" of our innovations. After

3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned what works, what is appropriate, and what lasts.

3. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on

what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it.

-Janine Benyus, Biomiiry: Innovation Inspired by Nature

Sidebar

Changing the Approach

The significant problems we face today cannot be solved by the same level of consciousness that created them.

-Albert Einstein

Prior to the 1990s, architects believed that technology was the primary barrier to creating building designs that

were resource efficient, healthy, and less polluting. We had seen significant advances in glass, lighting, carpeting,

and adhesives, and Amory Lovins was working with Ford, Chrysler, and GM on a "hyper car" [see "The Car of the

Twenty-first Century?" THE WORLD &I, August 1996, p. 149] that would travel across the United States on one tank

of fuel (not necessarily gasoline) without creating pollution. We were convinced that similar advances in building

materials and systems would facilitate dramatic advances in the quality of building designs and the performance

of the built environment.

In this decade, architects have begun to realize that technology is not the limitation. In fact, technology has given

us access to critical information, both local and global, and the tools to develop and analyze more options

efficiently. The reality of our new position in approaching sustainable building designs is demonstrated in

breakthroughs on our projects, including a series of national demonstration projects ranging from "Greening the

White House" to "A Plan for Environmental Excellence in Antarctica." These advances have usually been achieved

in the synergy resulting from the brilliance and diversity of team members working in a collaborative process and

with access to the broadest range of appropriate technologies.

The quantity and quality of the synergistic breakthroughs experienced on projects seem to increase with the

strength and diversity of team members and the quality of their relationship. If the collaborative team has a

pronounced sense of community, clear goals, and an interest in searching for integrated designs that are inspired

by nature, results improve dramatically. Establishing and maintaining this forum for discovery require more

preparation, research, and participation by more people (both users and designers) than conventional building-

design efforts do. More participation means more time and money. Fortunately, a growing body of evidence

indicates that the additional investment delivers long-term benefits for the resulting designs. These benefits

include increases in flexibility, durability, and human health and productivity, with decreases in energy

consumption, pollution, and operating costs. -R.J.B. and J.FM.

Sidebar

On the Internet

BNIM ARCHITECTS

http://www.bnim.com MW

MONTANA EPICENTER

http://www.montana.edu/epicenter/

References

Additional Reading

References

Janine Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, William Morrow and Co., New York, 1997.

Delta Willis, The Sand Dollar and the Slide Rule: Drawing Blueprints From Nature, Addison-Wesley, Reading,

Massachusetts, 1997.

Lester Brown et al., State of the World, WW Norton and Company, New York, 1999.

AuthorAffiliation

Robert J. Berkebile is principal-incharge of BNIM Architects of Kansas City. He is the founding chairman of the

American Institute of Architecture's national committee on the environment and has been the leader of numerous

major sustainable-design projects. Jason F. McLennan is the director of sustainable design at BNIM Architects. He

is a project manager on several "green" projects and is currently researching state-of-the-art "green" technologies

and materials. DETAILS

Database copyright  2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Subject: Architecture; Future; Environment; Flowers &plants; Technology; Design;

Environmental protection

Publication title: The World &I; Washington

Volume: 14

Issue: 10

Pages: 160-169

Publication year: 1999

Publication date: Oct 1999

Publisher: News World Media Development LLC

Place of publication: Washington

Country of publication: United States, Washington

Publication subject: General Interest Periodicals--United States

ISSN: 08879346

Source type: Ma gazines

Language of publication: English

Document type: Feature

Accession number: 04481855

ProQuest document ID: 235866790

Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/235866790?accountid=35812

Copyright: Copyright Washington Times Corporation Oct 1999

Last updated: 2017-11-10

Database: ProQuest Central