BIOMIMICRY DEVELOPMENT
From the initial stages of the research it was assumed that biomimicry was considered young amongst designers in its stages of development, however according to Michael Pawlyn and Janine Benyus, this way of design and development has to be around considerably longer within the scientific world. It is only through the process of teaching and informing that it is now considered one of the most important areas of interest for designers in their opinion.
As it is still a relatively new area of development, responses have initially proved that it is beneficial but from a designing and manufacturing aspect, the technologies are new and unpredictable. Benyus’ prediction that biomimicry is the future of designing is justifiable, one only has to look to previous examples to see the possibility of outcomes. Benyus’ involvement in the development of a simple yet highly effective website to inform anyone, who has access to the internet, of the possibilities that nature can offer gives a range of people, from young and curious children to fully recognised architects, the ability to include biomimicry within their lives. The idea of a full time biologist on a design team from El-Zeiny is impractical. The concept that there would be someone to immediately answer topic related questions makes sense but with the introduction of Benyus’ website this is no longer needed as an option.
ANALYSIS
Any household can purchase a three-dimensional printer for approximately £300 (XYZ Printing da Vinci Junior 3D Printer) and any person with a basic knowledge of three-dimensional software can design and ‘print’ their thoughts within the comfort of their own home. It seems likely that this process of manufacturing could develop into pre-designed components, such as panels, which could be printed on site for a fraction of the initial cost used to make them.
TEACHINGS OF BIOMIMICRY
To introduce the ever expanding topic of biomimicry to the next generation of designers and architects seems unfeasible with the already demanding criteria that must be met. It would take the world’s leading minds in these fields to demonstrate the effectiveness that biomimicry has to offer, mixed with their contacts in publicity to actively advertise the idea to show the incredible outcomes available.
Even with this concept, biomimicry might only be implemented into aspects not as an entire module. It is worth considering, at what level of education would this be introduced? It might be considered too complex for students at A-levels but with an already structured and focused degree course it would be too much. From the questionnaire, taken by Patrick Lynch, who asked not only current degree students but architects too, it seems a review on the current curriculum needs to be addressed. An aspect of this could be the introduction of biomimicry to demonstrate the already sustainable eco-system humans live in and the inspiration used on architecture taken from nature. It only takes minutes to spark people’s interest in a subject that could eventually influence their design process for the rest of their designing lives.
PRIMARY RESEARCH ANALYSIS: QUESTIONNAIRE
From the responses from the student questionnaire, it is clear to see the confusion between biomorphism and biomimicry from the students. However, the responses from full time designers showed understanding which must have come from self-taught learning, a principle showing that not all knowledge is learnt from the process of an interior architecture degree and continued learning must be applied to gain experience and knowledge. The argument remains that it would be useful to introduce new concepts to students, even on a basic level, therefore encouraging the students to use their own time to develop understanding. As the responses were from a majority of students aged between 18 to 24, younger participants might be more open to the concept of biomimicry as they are in the early stages of their careers compared to an older group of designers who already have years of experience tackling issues such as sustainability. An issue found with the reliability of the questionnaire devised was the participant’s ability to skip questions, which is evident from the pie charts, nonetheless to ignore responses, would produce falsified results.
RISK AND GAIN?
This again falls into the trap that there is no immediate financial benefit of using biomimicry within a building. There are buildings, such as the Eastgate Shopping Centre, that have proved there is a massive financial gain to be had, if only people are willing to take the initial risk.
These risks have been taken with everyday products, for example mobile telephones, “Out of the world’s estimated 7 billion people, 6 billion have access to mobile phones” (Yue Wang, 2013)F mobile phones which people use every single day. People do not know the risks involved in making phone calls or looking at a screen every day because new technology has advanced so quickly that the benefits of having one, to make easy contact to others across the globe, would, according to most, outweigh the health risks.
AESTHETICS VS. BENEFICIAL OUTCOME
Another simple, yet critical aspect affecting the implementation of biomimicry in to modern architecture is the aesthetics. Taking reference from the BIQ algae house and Eastgate Shopping centre, a residential and commercial building, arguably shows a stark and unappealing appearance. By using square and rectangular forms for the majority of the buildings, these show no resemblance to the natural forms, where the inspiration of the function of the building was taken from. With the exception of the bright green façade of the BIQ Algae House, some might even go as far to say that these buildings represent a brutalist form of architecture - bold concrete repetition with little to relate the building to its organic origin. This could be due to the difficulties of including the concept of biomimicry in to a building, with a vast number of aspects to contain in one space; the process of designing may have been given a back-seat to the functional aspects of the services.
With regards to the success of these two buildings, they have set a template for future buildings similar to these. It could give way to future designers having more of an artist licence with the form of the structure, in turn increasing the appeal of biomimicry. These designers have an opportunity to not only change the aesthetics to something more appealing but the possibility of increasing the effectiveness of the functions within.
Furthermore, it might be argued that due to the success of these buildings, in terms of the beneficial outcome, why would they need to be re-designed? These forms might appeal to a large majority of people that do not need it to look nice, but function well. The same building could be replicated as many times as needed, all over the world, to produce the same beneficial outcome.
FINANCIAL RISKS
As buildings that implement biomimicry into the design, such as the BIQ Algae House, need to have a huge financial input within the early stages of manufacturing due to the specialised equipment needed, it seems unlikely that the general population will begin to install algae panels to every façade of their home. However, with the development of Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing, sometimes referred to as CAD/CAM, products are becoming more worldly available.
PRIMARY RESEARCH ANALYSIS: INTERVIEW
From the interview questions given to Conway, it shows an insight in to the issues raised from implementing BREEAM. His response to the first question, discussing additional costs to a residential developer to include sustainable aspects to a residential build, discusses that there is no incentive from the government to implement BREEAM, or something similar, into new builds. An argument could be made for both sides of this problem. Why is it that governments have to give something back to those people who “lost” resources, such as money, land, time etc., implementing a system that would benefit the buyer in the long run?
It is only a matter of time before all the earth’s natural resources are gone. With this in mind, why aren’t the government pioneering a system that would force developers to think more resourcefully about the materials they use and how to improve the sustainability of a development in the long run? This debate is continuing and it is clear to see there is one aspect that will continue to suffer until a resolution is found. With the demand for wasteful new technologies, the earth can only sustain the human race, at this pace, for so long.
Bringing biomimicry into the BREEAM debate, Conway suggested that most biomimicry schemes are non UK buildings and BREEAM is devised in the UK. This statement could suggest that within the UK although the knowledge of the benefits that biomimicry can offer are known, they do not outweigh the risk that would need to be made in order to start-up an architectural biomimicry project. Even if a building had used biomimicry in the very fabric of the building and had become very effective in either the use of materials or resources used, due to the requirements of the BREEEAM scoring system, it might not even qualify to be rated.
The BIQ Algae House - Illustration of Bioreactor Process