Inspired by Nature - A Mutualistic Architecture Framework by katesector

2019

Inspired by Nature A Mutualistic Architecture Framework KATELYN SECTOR

Inspired by Nature A Mutualistic Architecture Framework Kate Sector Program of Environmental Design University of Colorado Boulder Undergraduate Honors Thesis April 19th, 2019

Thesis Committee: Kim Drennan | Thesis Chair Program in Environmental Design Carol Wessman | Outside Member ENVS Program Director - Professor Emily Greenwood | Member Program in Environmental Design

Funded by UROP + AIAS Crit Scholar

1|Page

Acknowledgments This thesis was made possible by the support of many mentors, architects, and others interested in this work. Beyond my thesis committee, other mentors include the following:

SaraDawn Haynes | Outreach and Engagement Coordinator Kristen Dotson | AIAS Crit Scholar Mentor + Sustainability Services Director at The Miller Hull Partnership Neal Evers | Program in Environmental Design Maryanne Fantalis â&#x20AC;&#x201C; For all your writing help! Honors Class of 2018-2019 - For their constant support and encouragement!

Additional funding and support for this project was made possible by: Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) Grant AIAS Crit Scholar Grant Bioneers Youth Scholarship

2|Page

Content Content ........................................................................................... 3 Abstract .......................................................................................... 5 Introduction to Mutualistic Architecture ....................................... 6 The Environmental Impact of Architecture ................................................................................................. 6 Inspiration from Symbiotic Relations........................................................................................................... 7

Achieving Mutualistic Architecture ..............................................11 The Traditional Architecture Process ........................................................................................................ 11 Drawing Inspiration from The Living Building Challenge........................................................................... 12 Drawing Inspiration from Biomimicry: A Tool for Achieving Mutualistic Architecture ............................ 13 Biomimetic Architecture Case Study ......................................................................................................... 14 Integrating Biomimicry Theory into today’s Framework .......................................................................... 15

A Mutualistic Architecture Framework ........................................16 1.

Programming/ “Scoping”: .................................................................................................................. 17

Schematic Design/ “Discovering + Creating”..................................................................................... 19

Design Development / “Creating + Evaluating” ................................................................................ 21

CD, 5. CB, 6. CA, and 7. Closeout ....................................................................................................... 22

Post Evaluation: ................................................................................................................................. 22

Framework Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 25

Framework Application – OSMP Campus Design .........................26 1.

Programming/ “Scoping”: .................................................................................................................. 27

Schematic Design/ “Discovering + Creating”..................................................................................... 42 3|Page

Design Development / “Creating + Evaluating” ................................................................................ 49

Post Design Phase ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Conclusion ....................................................................................54 Bibliography ..................................................................................55 Appendix .......................................................................................60

4|Page

Abstract With continuous rising environmental concerns, many professions seek to leave a positive impact on the environment. I argue that architecture has the potential to have a mutually beneficial relationship with our planet through a framework I have created. This framework builds upon the current architectural design process by incorporating methods from the biomimicry, multiscale approaches, and post-occupancy evaluation. The incorporation of these strategies allows for a process that is circular and leads to regenerative design for not only the site and user scale but at the community and ecoregion scale while meeting the needs of the future. To demonstrate this framework, I applied the first three phases (Programming, SD, and DD) of the framework to a local project for Open Space and Mountains Park Department (OSMP). Through this process, I identified what the key challenges of the site are at multiple scales (site, community, and ecoregion). I then provided one holistic list that could be used by OSMP in the future to help better understand which ecological concerns should be integrated into the project to help achieve mutualism. This resulted in a masterplan showing how one of the ecological keystones could be regenerative by drawing inspiration from the local environment. The final system created theoretically leaves a mutually beneficial impact on the user, site, community, and ecoregion while simultaneously meeting the needs of the future. This framework would be the first of its kind to incorporate biomimicry at a multiscale approach applicable to todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s architectural design process to create innovative strategies that achieve mutualistic architecture.

5|Page

Introduction to Mutualistic Architecture The Environmental Impact of Architecture In a time of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, atmospheric carbon dioxide as high as 400 ppm, and unsustainable population growth, the world faces many daunting climate challenges that need to be addressed immediately (IPCC 2018)(Chinowsky 2016; Workman 2004). According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), designers are expected to see temperatures continue to increase anywhere from to 1.5 °C to 2 °C in the next 30 years (IPCC 2018; Chinowsky 2016). These temperature increases, along with other concerns such as population growth, will have devastating effects on Earths resources and ecosystems that humans rely heavily on to survive (Peacock 1995). As a result, addressing climate change, resource depletion, energy consumption, pollution, and related issues has become important in every profession.

Figure 1- Consumption and Production of Architecture created by Kate Sector- (Denver image: (“Denver” n.d.)

The three leading fields that contribute to these climate challenges are the transportation, building, and agriculture sectors (US EPA 2015). The architecture profession alone has a tremendous impact on the environment and contributes to climate change because of architectures consumption of energy, water, waste, and resources, and the production of unwanted waste and pollution. The building sector consumes 39% of total U.S. energy and consumes 13 % of potable water (US EPA 2015) (IPCC, 2014) (Chinowsky 2016) (Radwan and Osama 2016). Buildings produce 75% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, 38% of the total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and the construction industry alone is responsible for 30% of all waste generated (3XN 2012) (architecture2030 2018). Architecture overall plays a tremendous role in environmental degradation and needs to see an immediate shift if designers want to leave a regenerative rather than detrimental impact. 6|Page

Inspiration from Symbiotic Relations With architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demonstrated environmental impacts, more rigorous design methods are needed that push architects to address climate change issues in ways that work cohesively with the environment (Peacock 1995; architecture2030 2018). This goal calls for a paradigm shift in the way designers see architecture and its relationship with the environment. Specifically, they must consider the environment as a client in the design process as well, not only humans. Such a relationship allows designers to be responsive, even regenerative, to our climate by becoming in tune again with not only their human client and site but with their community, the ecoregion, and the world at large. We can see how this is possible by examining relationships between species that fit under the umbrella of symbiosis (Peacock 1995; Brenner 2018). Within these symbiotic relationships, there are three basic categories that can be analyzed to better understand architecture in a relationship with the Earth: parasitism, neutralism (also known as commensalism), and mutualism (also known as symbiosis)(Brenner 2018; Peacock 1995). Examining these relationships can help designers better understand where designers have been, where designers are now, and where designers move forward to in terms of design.

Figure 2 - Mutualistic Architecture Diagram - (Overall graphic created by me. Earth Image: (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Earth PNGâ&#x20AC;? n.d.)

7|Page

Type 1: Parasitic Architecture Today, many buildings only consume resources and energy and do not produce anything of benefit to the Earth that it takes all its resources from. This type of relationship in ecology is known as Parasitism where one organism uses another to consume what it needs, giving nothing in return (Peacock 1995) (Brenner 2018). This relationship can be seen between humans and mosquitoes for example, where the mosquito is a parasite (Peacock 1995). This type of relationship in architecture is an extremely unstable linear practice. If architects continue down this path it will result in the host, our Earth, dying because designers have used up all the resources Figure 3- Parasitic Architecture Diagram

and disrupted the Earth ecosystems.

How did this happen? When the Industrial Revolution emerged, designers lost sight of a very important relationship between building and land where the buildings adapted, reflected, and respected the environment designers lived in (McDonough 2009). Many refer to this style of design as vernacular. Vernacular homes were always designed to work with nature and local materials in order to create the most livable design for a specific site and ecoregions because it was necessary to do so for survival (Jones and Hudson 1998) (Stein 1977). With modern technologies and systems that emerged from the Industrial Revolution, designers began to ignore traditional vernacular techniques because the technology was allowed designers to design without climate limitations. For example, air conditioning has now allowed designers to build in the hottest of climates, ignoring vernacular techniques because buildings can be cooled with technology (Nye 1998) (McDonough 2009). This lack of focus on regional design has resulted in the homogenization of energy-intensive, unsustainable architecture that is contributing to climate change because of the fossil fuels necessary to power the buildings (Healy 2008)(Berkebile and McLennan, n.d.). Improved systems and technology in architecture has done amazing things for humankind allowing us to build and design in almost any climate. However, these goals are being achieved in unsustainable ways that do not consider basic principles of life and their ecoregion which is why they have led to major environmental concerns and impacts on the planet (Baumeister 2014) (Berkebile and McLennan, n.d.).

8|Page

Type 2: Neutralistic Architecture During the ‘70s humans began to better understand their impact on the environment and put efforts towards more “sustainable” architectural practices such as passive design, using local resources, net-zero design and more (Bay 2010). Net-zero design allows architecture to be more sustainable by producing its own energy instead of consuming it from other sources such as fossil fuels, reducing its carbon output once it is built (Bay 2010; Hootman 2012). This relationship in biology is known as Neutralism where two different species interact but are not affected by each other because they don’t Figure 4- Neutralist Architecture Diagram

directly impact (Peacock 1995) (Brenner 2018).

Today, there are many third party rating systems such as LEED that allow for this type of design to exist (USGBC 2018b; Denzer and Hedges 2011). However, one of the downfalls of these certifications is that they are not always ecoregion sensitive and result in a metric that attempts to fit all ecoregions (Denzer and Hedges 2011). Although these methods have been seen to produce net-zero and net-plus buildings, many of these third party certifications do not require net-plus buildings (USGBC 2018a; Denzer and Hedges 2011). As a result, many of the designers only work to meet the bare minimum requirements to meet certification, rather than striving to achieve an improved net-plus result (Denzer and Hedges 2011). Although these certifications allow for net-zero buildings that are neutral once they are built, I argue that these do not achieve even a true neutralist relationship because net-zero buildings still have an impact before and after they are built. More importantly, although these buildings do less harm, they are not helping the world regenerate by learning from their ecoregion at multiple scales. Architects must strive for a regenerative and positive impact on the planet by shifting towards a mutually beneficial relationship with nature that responds to our local environments.

9|Page

Type 3: Mutualistic Architecture Imagine a home that functions like a plant. It uses local, sustainable materials, and not only does it produce as much as it consumes but can produce more and give back to its community through regenerative processes. In addition, when this building is obsolete, it can deconstruct into either biodegradable materials or ones that are used in other buildings. This concept in biology is known as mutualism, or simple cooperation (Axelrod and Hamilton 1981). Mutualism is a symbiotic relationship where two organisms benefit from each other by giving back(Chow 2014) (Peacock 1995) (Brenner 2018). A simple example of this seen in nature is between a Fig Figure 5- Mutualistic Architecture Diagram

Tree and Fig Wasp. These two species are able to both benefit and provide for each other because the wasps

are able to live in the tree, but in return, they pollinate the tree and allow it to continue its legacy (Axelrod and Hamilton 1981). I define mutualistic architecture as architecture that truly works in unison with the Earth because it is regenerative and benefits not just humans but the Earth itself through closed-loop systems that give back (Peacock 1995) (Brenner 2018). In architecture, this concept is often referred to as net-plus because the building produces more than it consumes (Hampshire College 2019). Although this is typically thought of as relating only to energy, net-positive is also a possible strategy for water, waste, materials, etc. (International Living Future Institute 2018b). If designers genuinely want to improve the way architecture performs today and reverse the mistakes from history, designers need to set their standards higher and move to a design standard that is radically different than what designers have today. I argue that mutually beneficial architecture will only be possible if architects integrate design processes that are inspired by our ecoregion, community, and the building site into our existing architectural framework to create equal consideration for both humans and the environment.

10 | P a g e

Achieving Mutualistic Architecture The Traditional Architecture Process According to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), architecture typically follows a seven phase process from design to construction: Programming, Schematic Design (SD), Design Development (DD), Construction Documents (CD) , Construction Bidding, Construction Administration (CA), and then project closeout (American Institute of Architects ETN 2019; HMH Architects 2017; American Institute of Architects 2013; National Council of Architectural Registration Boards 2015). However, every design firm has their own process that may add or subtract from the standard as seen through an example from HMH Architects (HMH Architects 2017; Darke 1979)(Figure 7).

Figure 6 Design Phases by HMH Architects

This traditional framework is anthropocentrically focused where the human client is the only client in mind. But what about the local ecosystems and planet? Where do they fall into this framework, and are they not equally as effected by the design as the client is? Some newer mention â&#x20AC;&#x153;sustainable designâ&#x20AC;? but do not offer a clear framework and the focus still remains on the human client (American Institute of Architects 2013; National Council of Architectural Registration Boards 2015). With the goal in mind to achieve mutualism in architecture, this framework provided by the AIA does not have a pressing issue on critical multiscale ecoregional site analysis or post-evaluation strategies to ensure mutualism in design. To achieve mutualism, the current architectural framework must set higher standards and language that revolves around the need for regenerative design. To do this we can draw inspiration from the Living Building Challenge and Biomimicry. 11 | P a g e

Drawing Inspiration from The Living Building Challenge One certification program that focuses on regenerative design is The Living Building Challenge (LBC) (International Living Future Institute 2018b). Inspiration for how to incorporate mutualism into our existing framework can be taken from LBC. The Bullitt Center (Figure 8) is a fantastic example of regenerative design by Miller Hull Architects. One of the key elements that stands out is on-site net-positive energy production due to passive and active design strategies in the building. (International Figure 7 Bullitt Center Living Building Green Features by Heather Jones

Living Future Institute 2018a; DEI Creative 2015; Miller Hull 2013). The building also focuses on regenerative rainwater strategies

by collecting and storing water throughout the building and using compost toilet and low-e systems to help reduce water consumption (International Living Future Institute 2018a). Overall, this buildings begins to find ways to leave a positive impact, allowing it to have some qualities of a mutualistic building (Cowan and Davies 2014). However, Living Building Challenge (LBC) is not a design process nor does it use biomimicry; it is a design certification based around 20 imperatives (International Living Future Institute 2018b, 2014). LBC highlights the standards in which to achieve the design but there is no framework that highlights how to achieve them that is widely accessible to students and designers. Overall, these projects take an extreme amount of work, time, and collaboration to complete that often turns many designers away because of the effort it takes to create these. Designers who would like to achieve this type of design could benefit from a design process that helps them to achieve mutualism. Specifically, a design process that takes inspiration from its local ecoregion, community, and site to produce regenerative design that is adaptable for the future.

12 | P a g e

Drawing Inspiration from Biomimicry: A Tool for Achieving Mutualistic Architecture To achieve a mutually beneficial relationship with the planet, designers could benefit by looking for inspiration within natural systems that are local to their project. This method is known as Biomimicry, or innovations inspired by nature (Baumeister 2014; The Biomimicry Institute 2018b). Janine Benyus, the founder of Biomimicry 3.8, says “Biomimicry is learning from and then emulating natural forms, processes, and ecosystems to create more sustainable designs.” Biomimicry looks at the emulation of structure-function relationships found in nature created through 3.8 billion years of evolution and natural selection (Benyus 2009b; Baumeister 2014). “The remarkable diversity in form that exists is testimony to nature’s ability to find an effective ‘design solution’ whatever the environmental context and its restrictions” (Stein 1977). Through the biomimicry method, designers can look to nature to help inform how architecture can help rather than hinder communities through mutualistic design that is regenerative and embraces symbiotic engagement with the project’s surroundings. (Pawlyn 2016) (Benyus 2009a; Pawlyn 2011). Biomimicry is one of the most effective methods available today that has a focus on regenerative methods that are symbiotic with the planet. Biomimicry 3.8 lays out clear steps and provides handbooks that attempt to guide designers through this process while providing resources such as asknature.org to give them access to scientific data. The stages of the process are laid out as “scoping, discovering, creating, and evaluating ” (Figure 8) where designers identify the problem and challenge, find organisms that address the challenge, brainstorm and create solutions inspired by the organism, and finally evaluate the design using life’s principles (Benyus 2009a; Biomimicry 3.8 2018). However, this framework in today’s architectural practice is rarely used. Figure 8- Biomimicry Process by Biomimicry 3.8

13 | P a g e

Biomimetic Architecture Case Study Biomimcry has been explored in architecture through a variety of ways but typically result in theoretical projects over built ones (Pawlyn 2011, 2016). The Eastgate Center is one of the few successful biomimetic projects seen in architecture that has resulted in mutualistic principles. The project challenge for the Eastgate center was to regulate heating and cooling year-round in a passive way in a climate with extreme hot temperatures. In order to do this, the architect looked to termite mounds for inspiration because they are able to regulate their temperatures naturally in such an environment (Garcia-Holguera et al. 2016) (Al-Obaidi et al. 2017; AskNature 2018). This inspiration from the natural environment created a passive design system reduced energy consumption by 90% (AskNature 2018). This reduction also saved 10% of the upfront cost of related to cooling utilities, does not use fossil fuels, and made rent less expensive for the building as well (AskNature 2018). What made this project successful is that it had a clear focus looked to the local environment for how to create an innovative mutualistic design solution. However, this design does not go far enough in mutualistic design because It only addresses one system instead of multiple systems that may be important to the region such as water. I argue these additional ecological concerns would only become apparent while doing an in-depth site analysis of the project location at multiple scales.

Figure 9 - Eastgate Center Image by National Geographic

14 | P a g e

Integrating Biomimicry Theory into today’s Framework The challenge with applying biomimicry in architecture is that the currently existing biomimicry framework is too broad to apply effectively due to the scale, complexity, and focus of architecture. The following key concepts of biomimicry will be integrated into the architectural framework: Scoping: The biggest lesson from the scoping phase is that to help architecture narrow down its focus, it should analyze the unique challenges of the site that leave a regenerative impact today and in the future. I will be implementing a scoping process for architecture that looks at not just the site, but community and ecoregion to identify key challenges. Discovering: To help designers access biology and ecology resources necessary for this very challenging phase, Biomimcry 3.8 launched a search engine called asknature.org that allows anyone to search a design problem and see if their database currently has a researched solution (The Biomimicry Institute 2018a) (Baumeister 2014). However, the majority of the ask nature’s solution are geared towards professions other than architecture. There is also no database that connects species to their ecoregion, increasing the difficulty for architects to find inspiration from nature without a biology background. Ideally, to speed up this process, all 867 ecoregions would be identified with key design points and specific species to draw inspiration from, but that is out of the scope of this thesis. In the meantime, extensive research will be done on one ecoregion for this thesis to better understand one ecoregion’s key design points and what species to draw inspiration from. Creating: Various firms such as HOK’s genius of Biome report and OSMP’s Genius of Place have made visual representations of how to do this process for architecture(Biomimicry 3.8 and HOK Designers 2013; Karen 2015). These two reports highlight how to take a plant or animal already identified and begin to understand what functions to emulate and turn into a design. Many of these ideas will be implemented in the following framework. Evaluating: In the final biomimicry phase, designers evaluate with ‘Life’s Principles’ (Baumeister 2014). However, these life’s principles are difficult to translate into a metric that is applicable to architecture and design. Instead of only evaluating architecture through life’s principles, ideas from Cradle to Cradle, Living Building Challenge, and Permaculture will be compared for a final analysis of the built project. To better address how to incorporate biomimetic, ecoregional, and multiscale strategies in architecture, I have created a framework that applies these strategies to the traditional architectural framework.

15 | P a g e

A Mutualistic Architecture Framework To achieve mutualism in architecture, I have created a circular framework that builds upon the traditional linear architectural framework. This new framework now incorporates strategies of multiscale ecoregional analysis and biomimicry (highlighted in green). The framework proposed is circular instead of linear because design in nature is always a reiterative process, and therefore so should design (Biomimicry 3.8 2018; Baumeister 2014; McDonough 2009). This circular process will continue to happen throughout the life span of a building, making it an applicable process for retrofitting old buildings as well. This process ensures designers will take full responsibility for their buildings before, during, and postoccupancy to ensure there building is designed for not only today but for the future (Craig M. Zimring, Janet E. Reizenstein 1980).

Figure 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mutualistic Architecture Framework by Kate Sector

16 | P a g e

1. Programming/ “Scoping”: For any architectural project, the standard practice is to start by identifying the client’s needs and program requirements. “The owner and architect discuss the requirements for the project … testing the fit between the owner’s needs, wants and budget.” (American Institute of Architects ETN 2019). Client needs bring focus to the initial stage of requirements to highlight what the building itself needs to function (Norouzi et al. 2015; Oak 2009). However, if designers want to achieve mutualistic design, this statement should also ask ‘What is our planet’s needs, wants, and budget?’. This idea is discussed in the identification stage of ‘Scoping’ in Biomimicry where one identifies how the design should function and relate to the environment (Benyus 2009a). The objective thus becomes not to just serve the human client, but our planet as well. Designers should look beyond site analysis to try and understand how the site ties into the community and ecoregion to create mutually beneficial relations with the world at multiple scales. Through this site analysis, Ecological Keystones will be identified. Ecological Keystones are the key challenges each site, ecosystem, or ecoregion faces given their unique location. For example, if your ecoregion has little rain fall, water conservation would be the ecological keystone needed to keep that ecosystem functioning. These Ecological Keystones are compared to each other than combined to into one final Ecological Keystone list.

Ecoregion When looking to set a baseline for Ecological Keystones that can result in regenerative solutions designers should start at the ecoregional level (Olgyay 2015; Heath 2009). There are 867 terrestrial ecoregions on planet earth, each with their own unique characteristics such as amount of rain fall, temperatures, geographical features, and more that will help shape Ecological Keystones (Olson et al. 2001) (World Wildlife Fund 2012). One benefit of ecoregional design is that ecoregions are not anthropocentrically tied and instead reflect ever-changing natural boundaries. Ecoregions allow us to not only design for today but can show designers how to design in the future as climates may be changing and therefore change the boundaries of ecoregions (Kottek et al. 2006) (Chinowsky 2016). However, keystone identification for ecoregions is a challenging process for designers because there are no current written resources that directly allow designers to understand how to build in ecoregions based on the specific climate characteristics. Nor are there any resource lists of flora and fauna that could be used as biomimetic inspiration to help better address these ecoregional characteristics. This thesis intends to identify ecological keystones for one ecoregion that designers could use in the future.

17 | P a g e

Community Community Ecological Keystones refer to the surrounding project site including any ecological impact from a neighborhood to city scale. The community keystone is not necessarily tied by anthropocentric boundaries but instead the environmental and historic characteristics of the community (World Wildlife Fund 2012; Olson et al. 2001). Further climate analysis at the community scale is important because of microclimates that may occur in specific communities within an ecoregion (Karen 2015). This phase should also future climate impact to decide how a community can be to changes that may change over time through climate change(IPCC 2018). Community Ecological Keystones are equally important to ecoregional because they either further enforce keystones identified at the ecoregion level or add ones that may not have seemed apparent due to microclimates, historic events, and future predicted impacts of your community.

Site The final ecological keystone scale looks at the site itself where additional factors will arise due to site-specific constraints. This goes beyond a typical site analysis phase where designers must really focus in on things such as sun and wind patterns, soil analysis, habitats, water, additional microclimate effects, adjacent structures, and more. Projects such as OSMP’s Genius of Place report or many Living Building Challenge projects focus on site and highlight the keystones that often would not have occurred if one had only looked at the ecoregion or community scales (International Living Future Institute 2018b; Karen 2015).

Final Biomimetic Ecological Keystones List Designers can identify a multitude of challenges in design which is why it is critical to address the key components related to them on the ecoregion, community, and site scales. As seen in previous examples, projects that have been successful with biomimicry had a clear challenge to focus on and therefore could use biomimicry to address that challenge. The final step is to combine the three scales of ecological keystones into one synced list designers can focus in on for their specific project to be successful in asking the right questions to achieve mutualism in design. Examples could include ‘water conservation’, ‘passive cooling’, ‘incorporation of wind energy’, etc. This list will highlight the key traits one must include for their unique project to attempt to become regenerative.

18 | P a g e

2. Schematic Design/ “Discovering + Creating” During schematic design, architects begin the initial process of creation based on the client’s needs through rough sketches and concepts (American Institute of Architects ETN 2019; HMH Architects 2017). In Biomimicry this is the “Discovering” and “Creating” phase (Benyus 2009a). When incorporating concepts from biomimicry, based on the ecological keystones discovered, the design now not only has to reflect client needs, but also regenerative strategies that impact both the client and planet. Given that regenerative design can be particularly challenging, a simple approach would be to use the keystone imperative list created and ask how the local environment might solve those challenges.

Discover To find regenerative solutions to the ecological keystones identified, designers can start by translating the ecological keystone list identified into the phrase “How would nature… (insert Ecological Keystone)?”. Designers can then begin to explore flora and fauna that may have already been solving a problem through 3.8 billion years of evolution (Benyus 2009b). However, the discovery phase can often be challenging for designers because of their lack of ecology and biology background. It would be most effective to bring in a biologist or ecologist at this stage to begin identifying the challenge (Benyus 2009b; Karen 2015; Biomimicry 3.8 and HOK Designers 2013). If this is not possible, designers have the option to begin exploring potential ideas through asknature.org , a website provided by Biomimicry 3.8 (The Biomimicry Institut 2017; The Biomimicry Institute 2018a). However, the solutions provided on the site are limited for architectural innovation and does not tie solutions to ecoregion or community-based flora and fauna that would make this process much more effective for designers. Because of this, designers need to do additional research to help discover solutions which I will demonstrate in a future application. However, a solution to the discovery phase is out of the scope of this thesis. Once discovering the mechanism that is local to the environment, one can begin to translate that into a design.

Create Once the initial discovery research has been done the goal of this stage is to create a conceptual idea of how a solution could address the keystone. The creation stage is the phase designers are most familiar. However, it is different because instead of drawing inspiration form other architects, designers, magazines, etc. they should draw inspiration from their local environment. There are a few examples provided by OSMP and HOK architects on how to do this stage (Biomimicry 3.8 and HOK Designers 2013; Karen 2015). For example, in OSMP genius of place report (figure 11) OSMP’s goal was to waterproof a road. They then looked to the American Dipper Bird and abstracted that the mechanism that allows this

19 | P a g e

bird to be waterproof is their waterproof feathers that have a coating of preen waxes from a welldeveloped preen gland (Karen 2015). They then took this idea and said their design concept was: “A surface coating of wax sheds water”. This was brought to the drawing board to start brainstorming solutions on how to integrate that into their needed design goals. This is best done with Multiple discipline at the table through charrettes and cross-discipline work (Karen 2015; Benyus 2009a).

Visualize Visuals and graphics are key to helping designers better understand and convey their designs. To help visualize the process of discovery to creation, OSMP created biology strategy sheets (Figure 11) seen in OSMP’s Genius of Place Report that help clearly layout design concepts and their potential applications (Karen 2015). This visualization shows how the designer first identified their mechanism, produced a design principle from that, and then provided a sketch with potential application strategies to further analyze. Once completed, designers can then start to analyze these concepts through the design and development phases to better understand which would be the most feasible to introduce and invest in.

Figure 11 –OSMP Biology Strategy sheet showing Biology Mechanisms + Design Concept Example

20 | P a g e

3. Design Development / “Creating + Evaluating” Design Development is the part of the design process where more detailed drawings are proposed, and the conceptual design turns into one that is more feasible (American Institute of Architects ETN 2019; HMH Architects 2017). The second phase of creating in biomimicry can be implemented here where concepts that were discovered in SD are then brought into full fruition through design development and then evaluated to ensure they are regenerative (Biomimicry 3.8 and HOK Designers 2013; Karen 2015; Benyus 2009a). These concepts can then be taken into consideration during actual design development based on Priorities, cost, and impact of those concepts (American Institute of Architects ETN 2019). This process of implementing biomimicry ideas in the design development phase is illustrated in HOK’s Genius of Biome report (Figure 12) the process is explained where HOK takes their concept and turns it into a regenerative implementation in design. Additionally, they then evaluate with Life’s Principles.

Figure 12 - Series of Images from HOK's report (Discovery to Creation and Evaluation)

Although creation occurs still in this stage, the primary focus is on evaluating the concept so that is on the right track for regenerative design. One of the downfalls of nature-inspired designs is that they don’t always end up being mutualistic or even worse than what they started with. When paired with modern day technology and chemicals designers this can turn a well-intentioned regenerative design into one that could cause harm to the environment (Heath 2009; Jones and Hudson 1998). Although these design solutions can evaluate through life’s principles as HOK did, if designers want to achieve mutualistic systems, they should, more importantly, be evaluated through five scales from the specific user level to the broad planet level. This evaluation stage ensures the system will perform regeneratively at a multiscale ecological level and impacts not just the client, but site, community, ecoregion, and the planet.

21 | P a g e

4. CD, 5. CB, 6. CA, and 7. Closeout Phases 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Construction Documents, Construction Bidding, Construction Administration, and Closeout) remain relatively the same as the traditional approach once the design has been developed (American Institute of Architects ETN 2019). Some biomimetic ideas to be considered during these phases are continuing to bring in sustainability consultants during construction documents to perform energy modeling and other technical evaluation to ensure the regenerative design will perform as designed. There are many third party companies who can then take this step to the next level through certifications such as LEED and Living Building Challenge to set metrics on the sustainability of the design (USGBC 2018a; International Living Future Institute 2018b). Additionally, during construction, it would be beneficial to include experts from other disciplines such as ecologists to ensure proper care to the site and waste management are handled in sustainable ways. Lastly, during the closeout phase, a manual regarding the regenerative features could be provided to educate the users and ensure proper use of the building’s regenerative features.

8. Post Evaluation: In a traditional design process, post-build evaluation regarding environmental or occupant impact is not required (AIA Colorado 2018; Preiser and Nasar 2008; Craig M. Zimring, Janet E. Reizenstein 1980). However, this final stage is key to making sure all the hard work that has been put in to achieve mutualism is performing as expected post-occupancy and for the rest of time (Craig M. Zimring, Janet E. Reizenstein 1980; Preiser and Nasar 2008). Thus, evaluating the completed design to ensure the product or system is mutually beneficial for not just the user, but for the planet is essential. Biomimcry 3.8 uses ‘Life’s Principles’ to attempt to do this process but they are not easily applicable to architects (Baumeister 2014). To better understand post-evaluation strategies for architecture I have compared concepts from Life’s Principles to 3 other programs who have similar concepts to evaluating mutualism in design: Cradle to Cradle, Living Building Challenge, and Permaculture (Holmgren 2002; McDonough 2009; Baumeister 2014). By comparing these four companies, I produced a conceptual list of key concepts that every mutualistic building must have1. These mutualistic principles aim to allow buildings to function just like a mutualistic plant would: by being adaptable to its location; multifunctional and diverse; passive, and then active; function as closed loop systems; healthy and happy; and finally, be constantly evolving. This evaluation process is conceptual and does not provide an rating metric.

For more information on these companies and the comparison process see Appendix 1.

22 | P a g e

1. Adaptable to Location Location is the key design challenge every mutualistic building should design by if designers not only want to be responsive, but regenerative (Baumeister 2014). Understanding location allows buildings to better perform both passively and actively within their location, using local resources, and having the ability to recover faster (Benyus 2009b; International Living Future Institute 2018b. This includes future responsiveness to ever-changing things such as climate that allows us room to grow and evolve to survive (Benyus 2009b; International Living Future Institute 2018b) (International Living Future Institute 2018b; Holmgren, n.d.; Baumeister 2014). A building will be regenerative and influence the Ecological Keystones if it understands its location and can play an adaptable and responsive role there.

2. Closed-Loop Systems Closed-loop systems ensure there is no waste; everything is stored for later, shared with others, or upcycled (McDonough 2009). “In nature, there is no concept of waste. Everything is effectively food for another organism or system” (McDonough 2009). Everything in the world functions in a closed-loop system that is neither created nor destroyed, and “waste” is not seen as waste but instead usable for other purposes (Bailey 2007). Architecture often ignores this process due to the linear cradle to grave approach (McDonough 2009; Dobbelsteen 2008). If designers hope to be regenerative and help the planet, they must begin thinking about every system including water, waste, energy, and more as a closed loop system In addition, they must not only looking at the own systems, but the embodied energy of systems and equipment being implemented in the building as well (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 2016). Overall, closed-loop systems ensure a mutually beneficial relationship because the process thinks about not only where the design is now, but the process it took to get there, and where it will be in the future (McDonough 2009; Holmgren, n.d.).

3. Multi-Functional and Diverse Almost every design in nature serves multiple purposes within its diverse ecosystem (Holmgren, n.d.; Benyus 2009b). For example, a tree not only provide oxygen for the planet, but shade for plants and animals, habitats and nutrients for others, and much more (Baumeister 2014). If designers want the design to be mutually beneficial, it must not just benefit the client, but the community, and additionally that involves the natural community as well (Holmgren, n.d.; Benyus 2009(Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 2016; International Living Future Institute 2018b)) This can be done by creating 23 | P a g e

buildings that serve multiple purposes. For example, a building that serves a specific function during the day and closes at night, could be rented out to another company at night to continue to utilize that building instead of letting it be wasted space. Diversity and multifunctionally leads to the design having greater resilience and the ability give back.

4. Passive, then Active to achieve Net-positive All systems in nature rely on passive systems that do not need fossil fuels and excessive materials to survive like the current buildings do (Benyus 2009b). Passive first ensure that designers are doing everything designers can do use the least amount of energy and not rely on outside resources when possible (Holmgren, n.d.). For example, designers could look to ways that reduce unnecessary heating and cooling loads in passive form based ways so that designers donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need as many solar panels to provide energy (Baumeister 2014). However, given that designers do have access to technology, it should be implemented, but in more efficient ways to help us achieve net-positive goals of not just energy, but water, and waste (International Living Future Institute 2018b; Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 2016). This process ties directly to regional design as well and the better designers understand the location, the better designers can passively design the buildings and use renewable energy.

5. Health and Happiness The key trick to being regenerative is that whatever designers produce, the design is not only good for humans but good for the environment. This means using life-friendly chemistry and avoiding materials that are toxic for humans and the environment (Benyus 2009b; Baumeister 2014; International Living Future Institute 2018b). On a more social side to design, health and happiness through the lens of mutualism is very important in architecture when designers are creating places that result in not only healthy indoor environments for the clients, but healthy outdoor ones for the local environments and community at large (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 2016; International Living Future Institute 2018b; Baumeister 2014).

6. Evolve to Survive Nature is in a constant state of reiteration to be resilient and find ways to integrate the unexpected (Benyus 2009b; Holmgren, n.d.). Architecture should be a platform for exploration to keep improving and learning (International Living Future Institute 2018b). If architects want to continue to improve, designers must learn from past and current mistakes and embrace that there is never one right answer. It is 24 | P a g e

important to realize there is a lot to learn from history and nature of 3.8 billion years of research and development (Benyus 2009b; Baumeister 2014). Designers must look to do the best and to never settle that one solution is the best solution. The concept of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Learn and Evolveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; allows buildings to be mutualistic because not only are they learning from themselves, but their local environment too which allows them to be adaptable and therefore regenerative.

Framework Conclusions One of the biggest challenges to design is creating long term solutions that will benefit not just humans, but the planet. It is important that after going through this design to construction process, designers ensure that the result are performance-based and go through post evaluation that gets valuable result (International Living Future Institute 2018b; Holmgren, n.d.). This evaluation process is conceptual and does not provide an actual rating metric. Ideally, by applying mutualistic principles, designers will get long lasting result because they are passive and rely on natural systems. Even though designers may have achieved these goals in the beginning, designers need to ensure they effective throughout time, resilient, and ready to face any future climate challenges we may see. My proposed framework makes this achievable because it is solely based on designs inspired by their own local regions and relies on solutions that are tested by time and by nature.

25 | P a g e

Framework Application â&#x20AC;&#x201C; OSMP Campus Design

Figure 13-OSMP Logo

26 | P a g e

The Project | Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) Complex Design: To better explain and test the framework, I chose a local project in Boulder, Colorado. The framework application only applies to the first three phases of design creation (Programming, SD, and DD) due to this being a theoretical design. The application will result in a full Ecological Keystones list for Open Space and Mountains Park Department (OSMP) and a conceptual masterplan highlighting one of those Ecological Keystones through a biomimetic process.

1. Programming/ â&#x20AC;&#x153;Scopingâ&#x20AC;?: Client Ecological Keystones During the programming phase, traditionally the client needs are the primary focus when Identifying the key requirements of the building design. After doing interviews with OSMP I concluded they are looking to do a redevelopment of their current campus at South Cherryvale Rd and South Boulder Road. The new campus will include 3 new buildings: An Office/Welcome Center, a Facilities Storage building for their trucks, machines, and additional storage, and a third Training building to focus on classrooms and conferences with potential seasonal housing options. Although identifying client programming is important, this thesis focuses specifically on ecological influences and less so well-known client process. The masterplan will use the existing buildings and make system suggestions regarding retrofitting or new construction in general.

OSMP Ecological Keystones The following site-specific Ecological Keystones were created through a thorough analysis of the site at an ecoregion, community, and site ecosystem level. Each site-specific Ecological Keystone has a list of the top list of Ecological Keystones to design for and then concludes the top Ecological Keystones the project should address in order to focus on to try to achieve regenerative design.

27 | P a g e

Ecoregion Ecological Keystones: Western Short Grassland

Figure 14- Colorado Grasslands by Alex Burke

Western Short Grassland Ecological Keystones OSMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ecoregional Ecological Keystones are as follows: 1. Water Conservation 2. Wind Collection 3. Solar Protection/ Cooling Loads 4. Solar Collection 5. Temperature Variation

28 | P a g e

Overview: OSMP is in Boulder, Colorado which according to the WWF ecoregional map, is a Western Short Grassland Ecoregion (WSG) (Resolve 2019) (figure 14). Ideally, this ecoregional Ecological Keystone identification process would be done by a team of biologists and architects who would work together figure out the key biological and ecoregional aspects to consider when designing. However, the Western Short Grassland has yet to be evaluated by biologist and architects together and so there is little information on the ecoregion through an architectural Ecological Keystone perspective. The following Ecological Keystones have been analyzed through research on the ecoregion and highlighting key focus points that this ecoregion should address when designing in this ecoregion. In addition, this project is in a high-density ecoregion of Colorado which is why it was a notable example to apply the framework to (Figure 21).

Figure 16 - Western Grassland Ecoregion 1/867 (WFF Ecoregional App Map)

Figure 15Population Per Square Mile Map of Colorado (ArcGIS Data)

Western Short Grassland Ecoregional Research Water Conservation On a global scale, water conservation is becoming more apparent in architecture because architecture on average consumes 13% of available potable water (USGBC 2018b; Center 2015). Water conservation becomes even more crucial in the WSG because it is a semi-arid region which receives only 12-14 inches of rain annually (World Wildlife Fund 2019). Additionally, the WSG ecoregion sees very harsh winds and intense sun which increases wind the chances for drought and the importance of conservation. (Colorado State 2013) (World Wildlife Fund 2019). Keeping water conservation in mind will help a building in the WSG become regenerative with its ecoregion if it is able to use as much water as 29 | P a g e

the local flora and fauna so that it is not being unintentionally water intensive. Specifically, designers could begin to look at how flora and fauna in this area are able to survive with such little water that designers could begin to draw inspiration from to improve the water systems through using less and storing water when necessary (Colorado State 2013; Tileston and Lechleitner 1966). Design inspired by nature has the potential to address these challenges through different ecological inspired system solutions that address water usage in passive ways and can conserve and store strategically.

Wind Collection The geographical characteristics of the WSG region are typically flat and lack of vegetation allowing for wind to often times become very intense, making it an important Ecological Keystone (Colorado State 2013) (World Wildlife Fund 2019; Tileston and Lechleitner 1966). Not only high wind concerns but also particulate matter (PM) as well. However, although protection from wind and PM is important, because of the amount of wind, wind turbines become a practical source of renewable energy collection. Looking at Figure 16, the grassland plains have great wind potential unlike the other ecoregional areas in Colorado. Wind as an Ecological Keystone for the WSG ecoregion can allow designers to look at the regenerative properties of wind power generation to find alternative methods to power their buildings. If buildings can rely on renewable sources of natural power, this will steer designers away from traditional fossil fuel use and allow buildings to be much more sustainable by using their local recourse.

Figure 17 - Colorado Wind Potential - NREL Data

30 | P a g e

Solar Protection + Reducing Cooling Loads Thermal loads such as heating, and cooling are one of the bigger contributors to climate challenges in architecture because of their typical fossil fuel use. 40% of the energy consumed in buildings is largely due to Thermal because of high demand for heating and cooling in architecture (Radwan and Osama 2016). The WSG region is known for high sun intensity which not only impacts water but also cooling loads (World Wildlife Fund 2019). During hot days in the WSG region, buildings will heat up. Instead of relying on fossil fields and air conditioning to mitigate, buildings much learn from their local ecoregion to find passive solar protection strategies to mitigate heat gain in buildings.

Solar Collection A positive side to the sun intensity of the WSG ecoregion is the opportunity for solar collection (World Wildlife Fund 2019). Like wind generation, this is another opportunity for a building to be regenerative by relying only on renewable sources of energy to allow the building to function. Additionally, if the building could produce more than it consumes, this Ecological Keystone would allow for the building to either store or share its excess solar generation to other nearby buildings for example or systems that could allow it to leave a positive impact on the surrounding areas.

Temperature Variation WSG ecoregion is considered to have â&#x20AC;&#x153;warm temperaturesâ&#x20AC;? (World Wildlife Fund 2019). Temperature variation is an important Ecological Keystone to consider at the ecoregional level but becomes impossible to do because of the varying temperatures dependent on much more specific microclimate analysis. When designers look at temperatures across the WSG range, there is variation (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966; Colorado State 2013). This is not enough data to make a correct Ecological Keystone evaluation. Further research should be analyzed at the community level scale

Conclusion: When looking at an ecoregional level for the western short grassland, the key baseline components that will need to be addressed are Water Conservation, Wind Collection, Solar Protection/ Cooling Loads, Solar Collection, and Temperature Variation. This section identifies one of 867 ecoregions in the world and provides designers with an ecological starting point to push their designs to ones that are more ecological sound. Although these are challenges, they are also opportunities for regenerative designs that can be further explored. These ecoregional Ecological Keystones will now be compared to the community scale Ecological Keystones to better understand the site.

31 | P a g e

OSMP Community Ecological Keystones: Boulder, Colorado

Figure 18 Boulder, CO â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Photo by Glenn Asakawa/University of Colorado

The community Ecological Keystones for Boulder, CO are: 1. Water Conservation 2. Flood Mitigation 3. Solar and Wind Collection 4. Temperature Variation - Heating and Cooling Loads

32 | P a g e

Overview Community Ecological Keystones for OSMP will look at the nearby conditions of Boulders microclimate, history, future impacts, and more. The decisions are based on community research and interviews with architects who have years of experience designing in the area. It is especially important to address the community scale because of Boulders unique Climate and Steppe Microclimates within the WSG ecoregion (Bouldercolorado.gov 2018; Karen 2015; Moir 1969). Designers can also look to the past and future to analyze community Ecological Keystones. The future analysis becomes the most important to see how these Ecological Keystones may be changing over time so that these designs can be resilient in the future as well. Boulder, Colorado is one area that is going to be facing more extreme consequences at a 1.5 Â°C change by 2050 because of its high altitude and multiple diverse ecosystems and therefore should be prepared to face these changes (IPCC 2018)(Chinowsky 2016).

Boulder, CO Community Research Water Conservation Boulder is located at 5,328 feet above sea level with a semi-arid climate and receives approximately 15-18 inches of rain a year and is susceptible to droughts (City-Data 2018; Karen 2015; Moir 1969). Compared to ecoregional, this means boulder actually receives 1-3 inch of more rain annually than the ecoregional standard. However, this is still extraordinarily little rain, which keeps Boulder at the same water conservation Ecological Keystone concern. Boulder, Coloradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual snowmelt is predicted decrease and higher rates of evaporation will increase between 2020 and 2049 which leads to increased drought and water challenges. Colorado is heavily dependent upon runoff from annual snowmelt, which provides 70 to 90% of freshwater (EPA Environmental Protection Agency 2013). Because of this, potable water becomes an especially important Ecological Keystone in this ecoregion. Specifically, Colorado ranks top five in water consumption in the country due to agriculture, landscaping, and buildings, making water use in architecture a major concern (Center 2015). Currently, Colorado has a three-pronged approach to water scarcity (or water conservation): promote water efficiency through water-sense products, recycle water, and find new water supplies.(EPA - Environmental Protection Agency 2013). Rainwater management, outdoor and indoor water use reduction and water reuse are the major contributors to water-efficient design. However, this is not enough in times of serious drought and architects could to look to nature to solve the larger water consumption challenges.

33 | P a g e

Flooding One of the biggest changes that occur when designers look at a community scale vs ecoregional for OSMP is water. Although Boulder is still only receiving very little water annually, it comes in very intense storms that result in flooding through the many streams and creek that run through Boulder (Bouldercolorado.gov 2018; Karen 2015; Colorado Division of Wildlife 2003). This can be seen through many past events including the 100-year flood that occurred in September of 2013 (Gochis et al. 2014) (Morss 2015). Additionally, as designers look to the future, Between 2030-2040, there are predicted increases in intense, short-term rainfalls will occur making flood mitigation not only a concern for today, but for future designs as well

Figure 19- 100+500-year flood map of Boulder CO by BoulderColorado.gov

(Chinowsky 2016). When it comes to including flood mitigation in an Ecological Keystone for regenerative mutualistic design, it is important to consider ways that Boulders natural environment handles these intense rainstorms and how architecture cannot only mitigate but begin to find ways to store and share water in ways that are regenerative for the building and the surrounding environments(Karen 2015).

Wind + Solar Passive and Active Collection Boulder, CO is home to an abundant source of renewable energy opportunities. Boulder receives over 300 days of sunshine a year, making it a fantastic candidate for solar renewable energy(Karen 2015). However, when it comes to wind, at the community level, Boulder may not be as great because it is rated low for renewable wind opportunity (Figure 16)(“ESRL : PSD : Boulder Wind Events” n.d.).

34 | P a g e

Not only does this allow for renewable strategies, but passive ones as well for heating and cooling as well as ventilation strategies in buildings that could be inspired by the local flora and fauna of the community (Bouldercolorado.gov 2018; Karen 2015). Given Boulders Wind average of 8pmh, this could be a good opportunity for Passive ventilation instead of renewable for ventilation and cooling.

Temperature Variation – Cooling and Heating Loads In addition to Boulder, Colorado is a very sunny place, temperature variation both seasonally and daily is another key Ecological Keystone to consider when designing in Boulder because of the extreme fluctuations throughout the day and year. Yearly, Boulders temperatures Range from -2 degrees Celsius in the winter 2

to up to 31 degrees Celsius in the summer . Not only does

Figure 21- Yearly afternoon and Evening Temperatures in Denver/Boulder created using andrewmarsh.com

Boulder fluctuate seasonally, but extreme temperature changes shift throughout the day as well (Moir 1969). During both the summer and winter, daily temperature ranges can change by 15 degrees Celsius just in one day as seen in figure 19 during the summer solstice where it could be 16 degree Celsius at night and then 31 during the day. These temperature shifts effect heating and cooling demands not only seasonally but daily as well Currently, 40% of energy consumed in buildings is largely due to Thermal because of high demand for heating and

Figure 20- Seasonal Temperatures in Denver/Boulder. Created using andrewmarsh.com

cooling in architecture (Radwan and Osama 2016). Colorado households consume 15% more energy than the U.S. average, with space heating currently accounting for almost half of that energy use, but air conditioning only 1%(U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2018). Looking into the future, between 2020-2030, architects in Boulder will see an even further increased cooling loads (Chinowsky 2016). By 2050, Colorado will see the full impact of a potential 1.5 °C to 2 °C rise in temperature which includes extreme temperature swings leading to increased heating and cooling loads. (Chinowsky 2016) (IPCC 2018). If architecture wants to be

This data was collected by importing data from Department of Energy's Energy Plus website (“Weather Data | EnergyPlus” n.d.) and then using Andrew Marsh’s app to graphically display the information (“PD: Weather Data” n.d.)

35 | P a g e

regenerative through heating and cooling it needs to take advantage of these changes and look to the natural environment for solutions on how to do so.

Conclusion: When designers look at a community scale, although there are obvious similarities because it is in the identified western short grassland ecoregion, some unique characteristics occur because of the microclimate and projected climate change. For example, when one first looks at water as an Ecological Keystone, water conservation becomes clear because of a lack of precipitation. However, given boulders microclimate, water mitigation and flood control become a bigger issue because of the increased rainfall in the microclimate and intensity of that rainfall. Other conclusions such as wind and solar also change in this process as seen above. Finally, the ecoregional and community scale will be compared to the site scale Ecological Keystones to work towards completing a list of Ecological Keystones for OSMP.

36 | P a g e

OSMP Site Analysis

Figure 22- OSMP Project Site Location (Google maps)

Figure 23- Full joint Site Analysis

Site Ecological Keystones: -

Flood Mitigation Water Filtration/ Wetland and Habitat Protection Highway Pollution Mitigation Solar Collection Wind Collection

37 | P a g e

Flood Mitigation

Figure 24 - Flooding from Arc GIS

Figure 25 Wetland Consideration - Arc GIS

To the west of OSMP’s campus is a major wetland that receives runoff from not only the buildings, but highway adjacent as well (World Wildlife Fund 2019). OSMP needs a system that can control and filter runoff into the wetland, as well as analyzing potential storage options.

Water Filtration/ Wetland and Habitat Protection Given that US 36 is next to the site and there is a wetland on site along with other animals and conservation considerations, filtering water that runs from the highway and through the site will be crucial to ensuring the health of the wetland and plants and animals directly on the site.

Air Pollution US 36 runs next to the site which could be a concern for both atmospheric and water pollution runoff. Due to the atmospheric pollution of cars, being located next to the highway could be detrimental to the health of humans and animals on site (Dijkema et al. 2008; Baldauf et al. 2013). Currently, Boulder is working towards mitigating traffic and pollutants on US 36, but in the meantime, this site has the opportunity to look for alternative architectural solutions (“Carpool Program Seeks to Reduce Traffic on U.S. 36, Improve Air Quality - Boulder Daily Camera” n.d.).

38 | P a g e

Wind Collection The site is in a completely open field with no buildings or major areas that could block wind access, making it a great candidate for both passive wind strategies that could help ventilate the space in combination with the temperature drops at night.

Figure 26- Boulder Wind Rose3

Solar Collection Again, because the site is in a completely open field with no buildings or major areas that could block solar access, making it a great candidate for both passive and renewable solar strategies. As mentioned before, Boulder gets over 300 days of sunshine which would allow for fantastic use of passive strategies to not only heat but cool spaces and added implement solar so that the building could store and share energy itself and other buildings, allowing it to be regenerative. Figure 27- Sun Diagram Boulder, CO4

Conclusion After doing an in-depth site analysis, there are many needing themes such as water, wind, and solar. However, it becomes even more clear certain considerations such as flood mitigation and habitat protection on site is crucial. When it comes to solar and wind, this site has a ton of potential for renewables because of the lack of surrounding buildings. Other unique site characteristics that did not occur on the ecoregional and community level, is the need for conservation and land management as well. There is a large wetland on site, as well as local farm animals and native animals which should be into consideration as well when designing.

3 4

(“ESRL : PSD : Boulder Wind Events” n.d.) (“Boulder, Colorado - Sunrise, Sunset, Dawn and Dusk Times for the Whole Year” n.d.)

39 | P a g e

OSMP Final Ecological Keystone Project list: Ecoregional, Community, and Site Ecological Keystones are nested within each other about their level of importance. As seen in the analysis, most of these Ecological Keystones overlap, but still tend to vary depending on the scale one looks at which is why it is important to not look at just one scale, but all. This multiscale approach is key when concluding where to invest in regenerative design because it allows the design to not only be regenerative at a site level, but a community and ecoregional level as well. These levels also allow designers to better understand future predictions and how regenerative design can be resilient and prepare for those. To conclude OSMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final Ecological Keystone project list includes the following: -

Water (Collection, Conservation, Mitigation, and Filtration)

Heating/ Cooling Loads through Passive and Active

Wetland and Habitat Protection through Pollution mitigation

Water (Collection, Conservation, Mitigation, and Filtration) -

Conserve Water

Mitigate and store water during flooding

Filter water from the highway

Water is the top Ecological Keystone for OSMP because of its complexity and future climate predictions. This Ecological Keystone appeared at all three scales but in vastly diverse ways that show the need for water conservation, mitigation, and filtration. At an ecoregional level, the lack of rain would lead one to assume that water conservation is the key Ecological Keystone, especially given future climate predictions of increased drought (Chinowsky 2016). Although this is true, other Ecological Keystones about water come to surface when designers begin to look at the community and site itself. Given that Boulder is in a steppe condition at the bottom of the foothills, it ends up getting more water. There are also many streams that run through this area of Boulder, including the site which adds flood mitigation and concerns as a major Ecological Keystone (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2003; World Wildlife Fund 2019)(Colorado Division of Wildlife 2003). Lastly, given that the site is next to a highway and wetlands, filtration of water coming onto the site is essential. Overall, for OSMP to start to consider regenerative strategy for water, it should be considerate of conservation, mitigation, and filtration strategies that work water system and not only help the building, but the site around it.

40 | P a g e

Heating/ Cooling Loads through Passive and Renewable Strategies -

Use passive design strategies to help mitigate temperature swings

Implement renewable energy to reach net-plus energy production

Although clear at the site and ecoregional level, As seen in the community level, Boulder is known for extreme temperature variations not only throughout the season but throughout the day. These temperature swings can have an extreme impact on a buildings heating and cooling loads if not designed correctly to take advantage of these temperatures through passive design strategies. OSMP should look to passive strategies that can help the building address these temperature swings. Given the unique conditions of Boulder’s ecoregion and site is flat prairie with no buildings around it, the site gets fantastic solar and wind access. After considering passive strategies from the sun and wind to help heat and cool a building, OSMP could additionally investigate renewable energy strategies that are abundant on the site such as solar and wind. With the combination of Passive and Active strategies by wind and solar, OSMP could easily reach net-plus energy production. This energy production could be stored for peak times or even shared with the other campus buildings so local community buildings that may not be able to produce its own energy, allowing it to be a regenerative building that gives back.

Air Quality + Pollution One Ecological Keystone that occurred that is related to site conditions and not a community or ecoregion, is air pollution due to US 36 and the topography of the site. Given that the project is located right next to US 36, there are now an added Ecological Keystones to consider such as the pollution that may come from runoff or air contamination of all the cars driving up and down that highway. To be regenerative, OSMP could look to strategies that sequester co2 or filter pollutants on site. Additionally, because water is such an important player on the site and there are many sensitive ecosystems such as the wetland, it is even more crucial to pay attention to this Ecological Keystone. This process would help not only the users on the site, but the ecosystem on the site as well. This process of “pollution” mitigation also does not only apply to the highway and site but could be implemented in the way designers filter the own building’s waste and ensure designers are putting both clean air and water back into the environment.

41 | P a g e

2. Schematic Design/ “Discovering + Creating” After identifying the ecological keystones/key challenges, the next step to begin schematic design is to ask “how would nature…” solve these ecological keystones? Given that OSMP is in the Western Short Grassland Region designers can begin to look at flora and fauna found within this ecoregion that has answered these questions already through years of adapting to the location (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966). Boulder, CO itself is home to over 800 species of plants and 400 species of vertebrates(Colorado Division of Wildlife 2003). Drawing inspiration from our natural surroundings, one can begin to brainstorm solutions that could result in regenerative strategies from OSMP. Given the scope of this thesis, only one Ecological Keystone system will be analyzed. Water was the system chosen to explore the biomimetic design process further because of the complexity and future climate impacts. For this ecoregion, due to the lack of water, the challenge is not necessarily being netplus and producing more water but instead the design should focus on using less or no water where designers can. To be regenerative, the design could look at how to filter it into usable water without sending it to a treatment place but instead directly into the landscape to give back to the local environment. One example of a regenerative water systems that occur today can be seen in the Desert Rain project by Tozer Architects (International Living Future Institute 2017). Water is a complicated keystone for this project due to regulations put in place in Colorado about water storage and use. Historically, water storage has been illegal due to lack of water in this ecoregion(P.E. Cabot 2018). However, in recent years small amounts of rainwater collection has been allowed for residential, and now some apartment buildings and complexes are being allowed as long as “100% of precipitation that is captured to be replaced in like time, place, and amount” (Headwaters Corporation 2008). An additional note for other building types is that “Another special circumstance outlined in Colorado HB09-1129 allows developers to participate in pilot projects that harvest rainwater and put it to beneficial, though non-essential, use in the subdivision.” (P.E. Cabot 2018). Due to this challenge, it would only be possible to achieve this through a regenerative pilot system, one that was inspired by its natural surroundings. The following section will highlight now only how regenerative design can impact designs today but help combat future climate predictions as well.

42 | P a g e

OSMP Site Analysis on Existing Water Systems To recap on the needs of the site, a specific site analysis regarding only water systems has been created to reiterate which ecological water keystones should be addressed during schematic and design development:

Figure 28 - Site Analysis of Existing Water Conditions by Kate Sector

43 | P a g e

Regenerative Water System Case Study | Desert Rain: The keystones listed above seem incredibly challenging for this ecoregion given the lack of water and resources. However, one recent pilot water system with a climate like Boulder to draw inspiration from is the Desert Rain project (Figure 28). This project has a net-positive water system and can use water only from what falls on the site. Strategies that allow this to be possible are the water collection and filtration systems where metal roofs direct water into gravel filters and a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Orenco Biotube filterâ&#x20AC;? to help filter and is then is collected into a 30,000-gallon cistern (International Living Future Institute 2017; Desert Rain House 2019). There are also a First flush diverter systems to dispose of contaminated water during rain events. Additional filtration that turns rainwater into potable water is filtered through UV filters. Remaining water is then filtered into a constructed wetland. Finally, the building conserves water by using grey water systems for toilets and dishwasher. They also use a phoenix compost system and a jets vacuum toilet fixtures which has high efficiency. (Desert Rain House 2019; International Living Future Institute 2017)Although these systems have been shown to have an overall regenerative effect on the building, are there additional biomimetic implementations that could have been thought of to allow for more passive strategies or further design innovations? However, if we were to look at water systems through a biomimetic approach for OSMP based on these specific Ecological Keystone requirements that system needs to address multiple challenges that can be explored by asking nature for solutions.

Figure 29 - Desert Rain Photo by the International Living Future Institute

44 | P a g e

Regenerative Design Solutions for OSMP The following water keystone is explored through personal innovations and case studies appropriate for the climate and design inspired by the ecoregion, community, and site. The following systems will look at how OSMP can go from collecting water to filtering it back into the environment through four phases of, collection, storage, conservation, and filtration. This process will overall result in a mutualistic system that is regenerative and gives back to the environment and is resilient for future climate impacts.

Water Collection How does nature…direct/collect rainwater or snowmelt? Due to current and predicted drought increase, water collection becomes a necessary system for this site. This water collection system was influenced by the Soapweed Yucca that is local to the environment and could be mimicked in architecture to look at how to direct water into buildings for collection and filtration uses (McDonald n.d.; Betty 2017; Karen 2015). The specific inspiration comes from the Yuccas form where the leaf shape allows it to “collect water during a rainstorm and divert it to its base.” (Karen 2015). This is crucial to the plant’s survival in an arid climate because it must collect as much rain as possible during storm events, so it can store it for future use when it may not see rain for months. This design could be implemented in a design for OSMP through a roof system (Figure 30). This design helps the system be regenerative by optimizing rainwater collection during the few times it does rain. Boulder Colorado receives on average 88 inches of snow annual showing an enormous potential for water collection during winter months (City-Data 2018). To help collect snowmelt a heating system could be put in place in the interior of the roof to help increase snowmelt during winter months so that snow could additionally melt on the roof and into the collection area.

Figure 30 - Yucca Roof Example by Kate Sector

45 | P a g e

How does nature... collect water from the atmosphere? A recent concept that was created by NexLoop looked to nature to try and understand how to collect water from the (Institute 2017). The design was primarily inspired by cribellate orb weaver spiders and their ability to collect fog from the air (Institute 2017). These ideas were then translated with the help of other species into a fog catching system. Although this idea is a notable example for atmospheric fog collection in more humid tropical Figure 31 - Biomimetic Fog Catcher Idea by NexLoop

areas, it may not be appropriate for Colorado’s

climate. Instead, architects could look at the Thorny Devil Lizard that specializes in collecting water in desert regions where water is not easily accessible (Comanns et al. 2016; AskNature 2018). This lizard has a unique mechanism that uses “overlapping scales… to enable the lizard to collect water by capillarity and transport it to the mouth for ingestion” (Comanns et al. 2016). If designers and engineers took this concept to the design table one solution could be a façade that uses overlapping shingle like pieces that collect evaporating water, redirects it, and then collects it at a center point (Figure 31).

Figure 32- Thorny Devil Lizard Water Collection by Kate Sector

46 | P a g e

Water Storage and Conservation How does natureâ&#x20AC;Ś store and conserve water? In the WSG ecoregion, there are several native succulent plants that can collect, store, and conserve water until use during dry seasons when needed such as the Prickly Pear (Moir 1969; Colorado State 2013). This succulent is able to store and conserve because of its large stem form with smaller pads that act like reservoirs where the succulent can contract and expand depending on the amount of water available (Binns 2006; Colorado State 2013; Tributsch 1982). To prevent from freezing during the winter, these succulents can expel water in the evening when temperatures may get too cold and absorb it back up during the day (Sanders 2018).Reservoir designs have been used before in buildings such as The Kern Center, another LBC project, which used two 5,000-gallon reservoirs adjacent to the building in order to store water (International Living Future Institute 2018c). However, a more regenerative reservoir design (figure 33) could be one that is flexible and can contract and expand like a cactus would. In addition to prevent evaporation of water, the design could be coated with a natural wax similar to a cacti waxy skin to help retain moisture (Binns 2006; KS2 Science n.d.). Lastly, water heating strategies could be implemented in this as well by using a material choice that absorbs heat to help passively warm the water collected if placed outside (Modest 2013). Alternatively, the tanks could be put underground to help keep cool during the summer and warmer during winter months (Hall 2004). The heating and cooling opportunities could help the building be more regenerative by using less energy to heat and cool water through passive strategies. Other existing opportunities to help with conservation of water in buildings are low flow water systems, grey water system, compost toilets, etc (EPA - Environmental Protection Agency 2013).

Figure 33 - Expanding Succulent Storage and Conservation Reservoir Concept

47 | P a g e

Water Filtration How does nature... Filter contaminated water? The ability to reuse water and filter it after use to return to the environment is crucial when attempting regenerative design. In order to achieve this, many have looked to wetlands because of their amazing mechanism that can take polluted water and within several days turn it into clean (Braskerud 2002; Melbourne Water 2017; Cowan and Davies 2014; Staff 2009). This process is able to occur because as water enters the wetland it is processed slowly to remove sediment and pollutants thanks to microorganisms and natural filtration (Melbourne Water 2017; Inhabitat Staff 2008). Not only do wetlands filter water but they also have proven to sequester carbon as well. This design strategy would not only be beneficial or water filtration of runoff from building and highway, but also potential for carbon and improved air quality as well (Biomimicry 3.8 2018). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Living Machineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (figure 34) is a perfect example of net-plus design that show how an idea inspired by nature can result in a functional design strategy to implement in a building (Inhabitat Staff 2008; Staff 2009). The living machine design not only is able to perform a closed-loop water system but also a regenerative waste system that is able to convert waste into fertilizer and biogas that can be used by the building (Pawlyn 2011). It also can control odors and pathogens to completely function in the building without affecting occupants. This design has been implemented in many projects such as the Bullitt Center and has resulted in a 5 gallon per day water use compared to the average office building use of 12 gallons per day (Cowan and Davies 2014; International Living Future Institute 2018a; Miller Hull 2013). In a state like Colorado where water conservation and reuse are crucial, this machine would be a fantastic implementation in a living building that is trying to reach net-plus goals and help address future climate conservation needs.

Figure 34 Wetland Inspired Living Machine

48 | P a g e

3. Design Development / â&#x20AC;&#x153;Creating + Evaluatingâ&#x20AC;? By taking these biomimetic concepts and inspiration from existing net positive systems I created a conceptual water system masterplan that looks at the system at three scales: entire site, campus footprint, and the building system:

Figure 35 - Water Masterplan

49 | P a g e

Figure 36 - Campus Scale Regenerative Water Diagram

50 | P a g e

Figure 37 - Regenerative Water System Building Masterplan

51 | P a g e

Multiscale Regenerative Water System Evaluation Now that the system has been created, it must be evaluated to see if it is mutualistic. The best way to answer this question is simply, how does this building give back to the user, site, community, ecoregion, and future of this place?

User By producing, consuming, and filtering all water on site, it educates the users about the importance of water use and how the process occurs in nature. Additionally, this design gives back by bringing concepts of biophilia into the building through the living waste system.

Building At the building level, this unique regenerative system will save a surplus of water that would have otherwise come from outside sources. It also does not produce additional water waste that would have otherwise had to have been transported to wastewater treatment center. This additionally makes the building resilient for any future climate challenges this site may face regarding lack of water.

Site At the site level, because all water is filtered within the building, what exits the building is water that is healthy and usable by the surrounding site. This influences the hydrological cycles of the site and makes it an appealing space for not just humans but the species that live there. It also protects the nearby wetland system by supplying regenerative water that help keep the wetland thriving instead of putting wastewater into the environment.

Community At the community level, this system is regenerative because all the water that runs off the building and wetland and runs down the streams goes into the northern areas of Boulder

Ecoregion/Planet Finally, these steps influence our planet because all water will end up back in the hydrologic cycle. If we can better filter our water from buildings and site, we can leave a positive impact on the water system.

52 | P a g e

Post Design Phase Due to this application being a theoretical Project, Phases 4-8 that include CD, CB, CA, Closeout and Evaluation are not discussed in this thesis. However, if OSMP were to continue with this framework, the key step to ensuring a mutualistic design would be to ensure proper post-evaluation of the project through the mutualistic. Once the project has been built it should be analyzed through a postperformance analysis is inspired by the Living Building challenge where the innovations explored will be analyzed and tested on 1 after one year of performance (International Living Future Institute 2014). Because this is a theoretical project, it will not be discussed in this thesis. This stage would only apply to a built design. 1. Adaptable to Location over time 2. Closed-Loop Systems 3. Multi-Functional and Diverse 4. Passive, then Active to achieve Net-positive 5. Health and Happiness 6. Learn and Evolve

Concluding OSMP Masterplan Thoughts: Although this masterplan only looks at one Ecological Keystone system, it begins to show the potential innovative design solutions that appear when we set our focus on mutuality beneficial design and use biomimicry and a multiscale approach as a method to achieve it. If all ecological keystones were implemented this project could serve as an overall icon for the City of Boulder and represent the commitment to a new paradigm in design and relationship with our environment through Boulders first Mutualistic Complex.

53 | P a g e

Conclusion Moving towards mutually beneficial design for architecture is possible if architects are given the right resources and a clear process for how to do so. I argue design inspired by our local environment at multiple scales is how designers will achieve mutualism in design. The framework I created takes the existing traditional architecture framework and incorporates strategies from biomimicry, multiscale approaches, and post-occupancy evaluation. The incorporation of these strategies allows for a process that is circular and leads to regenerative design for not only the site and user scale but at the community and ecoregion scale while meeting the needs of the future. To demonstrate this framework, I applied the first three phases (Programming, SD, and DD) of the framework to a local project for OSMP. Through this process, I identified what the ecological keystones are for each scale (site, community, and ecoregion). During this process I also identified one ecoregional keystone list out of 867 potential ecoregions, highlighting the importance of ecoregional design as a baseline for mutualistic architecture. I then provided one holistic list that could be used by OSMP in the future to help better understand which ecological concerns should be integrated into the project to help achieve mutualism. I chose to look at one of the keystones, water, to further explain the design process on how to create one regenerative design system. This step drew inspiration from local flora and fauna to find solutions that left a positive impact on the environment and was resilient for future climate changes. In the end, the system created is a three-phase water system (collection, storage, and filtration) that could theoretically leave a mutually beneficial impact on the user, site, community, and ecoregion while simultaneously meeting the needs of the future. Designers play a key role in facilitating and leading change in the way we impact our planet through design. Within the next 30 years, the world will begin to see the full consequences of climate impact (Chinowsky2016). If designers do not start to immediately push towards mutualistic design, we will not be prepared to face these challenges and will only continue to make them worse. It is in the best interest for designers to understand the environment they design in so that they can not only responsive to these changes, but regenerative in the world. The overall contribution of this thesis is to provide a conceptual framework for architects to make this paradigm shift possible. By taking inspiration from nature, mutualistic architecture can allow designers to leave positive impact on not only design for today but design in the future.

54 | P a g e

Bibliography 3XN. 2012. “Green Solution House.” ArchDaily. January 19, 2012. http://www.archdaily.com/199658/green-solution-house-3xn/. AIA Colorado. 2018. “Call for Volunteers: 2019 AIA Colorado Committees and Task Forces.” AIA Colorado (blog). December 12, 2018. https://aiacolorado.org/call-for-volunteers-2019-aia-coloradocommittees-and-task-forces/. Al-Obaidi, Karam M., Muhammad Azzam Ismail, Hazreena Hussein, and Abdul Malik Abdul Rahman. 2017. “Biomimetic Building Skins: An Adaptive Approach.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (November): 1472–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.028. American Institute of Architects. 2013. Emerging Professionals Committee - Design Development. American Institute of Architects ETN. 2019. “Design to Construction.” 2019. https://www.aiaetn.org/findan-architect/design-to-construction/. architecture2030. 2018. “The 2030 Challenge.” December 14, 2018. https://architecture2030.org/2030_challenges/2030-challenge/. AskNature. 2018. “Eastgate Centre - AskNature.” 2018. https://asknature.org/idea/eastgatecentre/#.XJJGSihKhPY. ———. 2018. “Grooves Gather Water: Thorny Devil.” AskNature (blog). 2018. https://asknature.org/strategy/grooves-gather-water/. Axelrod, Robert, and William D Hamilton. 1981. “The Evolution of Cooperation” 211: 8. Bailey, Robert G. 2007. Ecoregion-Based Design for Sustainability. Springer Science & Business Media. Baldauf, Richard W., David Heist, Vlad Isakov, Steven Perry, Gayle S. W. Hagler, Sue Kimbrough, Richard Shores, Kevin Black, and Laurie Brixey. 2013. “Air Quality Variability near a Highway in a Complex Urban Environment.” Atmospheric Environment 64 (January): 169–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.09.054. Baumeister, Dayna. 2014. Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A Seed Bank of Best Practices. Biomimicry 3.8. Bay, Joo Hwa. 2010. “Towards a Fourth Ecology: Social and Environmental Sustainability with Architecture and Urban Design.” Journal of Green Building 5 (4): 176–97. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.5.4.176. Benyus, Janine. 2009a. “A Biomimicry Primer.” 2009. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1t6t0I8yIE9dfPRpJtBF62FIIascqMTWs. ———. 2009b. BIOMIMICRY: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Perennial. Berkebile, Bob, and Jason McLennan. n.d. “The Living Building: Biomimicry in Architecture, Integrating Technology with Nature,” 8. Betty, Bortnick. 2017. “Southwest Colorado Wildflowers, Yucca.” 2017. https://www.swcoloradowildflowers.com/White%20Enlarged%20Photo%20Pages/yucca%20bacc ata.htm. Binns, Corey. 2006. “How Cacti Survive: Surprising Strategies Quench Thirst.” Live Science. 2006. https://www.livescience.com/4188-cacti-survive-surprising-strategies-quench-thirst.html. Biomimicry 3.8. 2018. “DesignLens: Life’s Principles.” Biomimicry 3.8 (blog). 2018. https://biomimicry.net/the-buzz/resources/designlens-lifes-principles/. ———. 2018. “Habitat Stores Carbon:” AskNature (blog). 2018. https://asknature.org/strategy/habitatstores-carbon/. Biomimicry 3.8 and HOK Designers. 2013. “Genius of Biome Report.” Issuu. May 9, 2013. https://issuu.com/hoknetwork/docs/geniusofbiome/1. “Boulder, Colorado - Sunrise, Sunset, Dawn and Dusk Times for the Whole Year.” n.d. Gaisma. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.gaisma.com/en/location/boulder-colorado.html. 55 | P a g e

Bouldercolorado.gov. 2018. “OSMP Nature & Restoration.” 2018. https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/nature. Braskerud, B. C. 2002. “Factors Affecting Phosphorus Retention in Small Constructed Wetlands Treating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution.” Ecological Engineering 19 (1): 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(02)00014-9. Brenner, Laurie. 2018. “What Is a Symbiotic Relationship?” Sciencing. August 9, 2018. https://sciencing.com/symbiotic-relationship-8794702.html. BULUT, Zohre. 2008. “Permaculture Playgrounds as a New Design Approach for Sustainable Society.” International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences 2 (2): 35-40, 2008. “Carpool Program Seeks to Reduce Traffic on U.S. 36, Improve Air Quality - Boulder Daily Camera.” n.d. Accessed March 20, 2019. http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-countynews/ci_32445569/carpool-program-seeks-reduce-traffic-u-s-36. Center, Energy Resource. 2015. “Which States Consume the Most Water? | ERC.” Www.Erc-Co.Org/ (blog). November 4, 2015. https://www.erc-co.org/which-states-consume-the-most-water/. Chinowsky, Paul. 2016. “The Impact of Climate Change.” https://canvas.colorado.edu/courses/19998/files/1659376?module_item_id=933920. Chow, Joseph Y.J. 2014. “Symbiotic Network Design Strategies in the Presence of Coexisting Transportation Networks.” January 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259923498_Symbiotic_network_design_strategies_in _the_presence_of_coexisting_transportation_networks. City-Data. 2018. “Denver: Geography and Climate.” 2018. http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/TheWest/Denver-Geography-and-Climate.html. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2003. “CONSERVATION PLAN FOR GRASSLAND SPECIES IN COLORADO.” 2003. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Chow5/publication/259923498_Symbiotic_networ k_design_strategies_in_the_presence_of_coexisting_transportation_networks/links/59d8cfb6ac a272e60966c52b/Symbiotic-network-design-strategies-in-the-presence-of-coexistingtransportation-networks.pdf?origin=publication_detail. Colorado State. 2013. “Low-Water Native Plants for Colorado Gardens: Prairie and Plains.” Colorado Native Plant Society. Comanns, Philipp, Philip C. Withers, Falk J. Esser, and Werner Baumgartner. 2016. “Cutaneous Water Collection by a Moisture-Harvesting Lizard, the Thorny Devil (Moloch Horridus).” Journal of Experimental Biology 219 (21): 3473–79. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.148791. Cowan, Staurt, and Brent Davies. 2014. “Optimizing Urban Ecosystem Services: The Bullitt Center Case Study.” ecotrust. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. 2016. “C2C Product Certification Overview - Get Certified Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute.” 2016. https://www.c2ccertified.org/getcertified/product-certification. Craig M. Zimring, Janet E. Reizenstein. 1980. “Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview.” 1980. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916580124002. Darke, Jane. 1979. “The Primary Generator and the Design Process.” Design Studies 1 (1): 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9. DEI Creative. 2015. “Bullitt Center LBC.” 2015. http://www.bullittcenter.org/vision/living-buildingchallenge/. “Denver.” n.d. PuzzleWarehouse.Com. Accessed March 5, 2019. https://www.puzzlewarehouse.com/Denver-71598.html. Denzer, Anthony S, and Keith E Hedges. 2011. “The Limitations of LEED: A Case Study.” Journal of Green Building 6 (1): 25–33. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.6.1.25. 56 | P a g e

Desert Rain House. 2019. “Homepage - Desert Rain House.” 2019. http://desertrainhouse.com/. Dijkema, Marieke B. A., Saskia C. van der Zee, Bert Brunekreef, and Rob T. van Strien. 2008. “Air Quality Effects of an Urban Highway Speed Limit Reduction.” Atmospheric Environment 42 (40): 9098– 9105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.039. Dobbelsteen, Andy. 2008. Towards Closed Cycles - New Strategy Steps Inspired by the Cradle to Cradle Approach. Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Dublin. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. “Saving Water in Colorado.” Watersense, June 2. “ESRL: PSD: Boulder Wind Events.” n.d. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/boulder/wind.html. Garcia-Holguera, Mercedes, O. Grant Clark, Aaron Sprecher, and Susan Gaskin. 2016. “Ecosystem Biomimetics for Resource Use Optimization in Buildings.” Building Research & Information 44 (3): 263–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015.1052315. Gochis, David, Russ Schumacher, Katja Friedrich, Nolan Doesken, Matt Kelsch, Juanzhen Sun, Kyoko Ikeda, et al. 2014. “The Great Colorado Flood of September 2013.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 96 (9): 1461–87. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00241.1. Hall, Loretta. 2004. Underground Buildings: More Than Meets the Eye. Quill Driver Books. Hampshire College. 2019. “Hitchcock Center for the Environment | Education for a Healthy Planet.” 2019. https://www.hitchcockcenter.org/. Headwaters Corporation. 2008. “Rainwater and Snowmelt Harvesting in Colorado.” Beorn Courtney, P.E. of. Healy, Stephen. 2008. “Air-Conditioning and the ‘Homogenization’ of People and Built Environments.” Building Research & Information 36 (4): 312–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210802076351. Heath, Kingston. 2009. Vernacular Architecture and Regional Design. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080939841. HMH Architects. 2017. “Design Phases.” HMH Architecture + Interiors - Modern Architect - Boulder, Colorado (blog). 2017. http://hmhai.com/design-phases/. Holmgren, David. 2002. Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Hepburn, Vic.: Holmgren Design Services, ———. n.d. “A Summary of Permaculture Concepts and Principles Taken from ‘Permaculture Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability,’” 12. Hootman, Thomas. 2012. Net Zero Energy Design: A Guide for Commercial Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. Inhabitat Staff. 2008. “LIVING MACHINES: Clean, Green Waste-Water Recycling.” 2008. https://inhabitat.com/living-machines-turning-wastewater-clean-with-plants/. Institute, The Biomimicry. 2017. “A Water Management System for the Future, Brought to You by Spiders, Plants, Bees, Fungi, and Our Newest Ray of Hope Prize Winners.” Biomimicry Institute. October 21, 2017. https://biomimicry.org/2017-ray-hope-prize-winners/. International Living Future Institute. 2014. LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE. ———. 2017. “Desert Rain | Living-Future.Org.” International Living Future Institute (blog). January 26, 2017. https://living-future.org/lbc/case-studies/desert-rain/. ———. 2018a. “Bullitt Center.” https://living-future.org/lbc/case-studies/bullitt-center/. ———. 2018b. “Living Building Challenge.” https://living-future.org/lbc/. ———. 2018c. “R.W.Kern Center.” https://living-future.org/lbc/case-studies/r-w-kern-center/. IPCC. 2018. “GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 °C.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Lucon O. 2014. “Chapter 9: Buildings In: Climate Change.” Global Warming of 1.5 C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Jones, David Lloyd, and Jennifer Hudson. 1998. “Architecture and the Environment : Bioclimatic Building Design.” 1998. 57 | P a g e

Karen, Allen. 2015. “GENIUS OF PLACE.” CITY OF BOULDER. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/OSMP_GoP_Report-1-201503121559.pdf. Kottek, Markus, Jürgen Grieser, Christoph Beck, Bruno Rudolf, and Franz Rubel. 2006. “World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated.” Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15 (3): 259–63. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130. KS2 Science. n.d. “How Cacti Survive without Water.” BBC Bitesize. Accessed April 18, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/clips/z69rkqt. McDonald, Charlie. n.d. “Soapweed Yucca.” USDA Forest Service. Accessed April 17, 2019. https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/plant-of-the-week/yucca_glauca.shtml. McDonough, William. 2009. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. London: Vintage. McDonough, William, and William McDonough. n.d. “Towards a Sustaining Architecture for the 21st Century: The Promise of Cradle-to-Cradle Design,” 4. Melbourne Water. 2017. “Wetlands | Melbourne Water.” 2017. https://www.melbournewater.com.au/community-and-education/about-our-water/rivers-andcreeks/wetlands. Miller Hull. 2013. “Bullitt Center.” 2013. https://millerhull.com/project/bullitt-center/. Modest, Michael F. 2013. Radiative Heat Transfer. Academic Press. Moir, William H. 1969. “Steppe Communities in the Foothills of the Colorado Front Range and Their Relative Productivities.” The American Midland Naturalist 81 (2): 331–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/2423974. Morss. 2015. “Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions.” Wiley Online Library. 2015. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.12403. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. 2015. “ARE Design Prep - Schematic Design.” National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Norouzi, Nima, Maryam Shabak, Mohamed Rashid Bin Embi, and Tareef Hayat Khan. 2015. “The Architect, the Client and Effective Communication in Architectural Design Practice.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Contemporary Issues in Management and Social Science Research., 172 (January): 635–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.413. Nye, David E. 1998. Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies. Vol. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Oak, Arlene. 2009. “Performing Architecture: Talking ‘Architect’ and ‘Client’ into Being.” CoDesign 5 (1): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802518054. Olgyay, Victor. 2015. Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism - New and Expanded Edition. Princeton University Press. Olson, David M., Eric Dinerstein, Eric D. Wikramanayake, Neil D. Burgess, George V. N. Powell, Emma C. Underwood, Jennifer A. D’amico, et al. 2001. “Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth.” BioScience 51 (11): 933–38. https://doi.org/10.1641/00063568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2. Pawlyn, Michael. 2011. Biomimicry in Architecture V.1. Vol. 1. RIBA Publishin. ———. 2016. “How Biomimicry Can Be Applied to Architecture.” Financial Times. May 6, 2016. https://www.ft.com/content/e2041a1e-0d32-11e6-b41f-0beb7e589515. “PD: Weather Data.” n.d. Accessed February 16, 2019. http://andrewmarsh.com/apps/staging/weatherdata.html. P.E. Cabot. 2018. “Rainwater Collection in Colorado - 6.707.” Extension. 2018. https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/natural-resources/rainwater-collection-colorado-6707/. Peacock, Kent A. 1995. “Sustainability as Symbiosis.” Waterloo Vol. 21, Iss. 4, 16-22.

58 | P a g e

Preiser, Wolfgang F. E., and Jack L. Nasar. 2008. “ASSESSING BUILDING PERFORMANCE: ITS EVOLUTION FROM POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION.” International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNetIJAR 2 (1): 84–99. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v2i1.179. Radwan, Gehan.A.N., and Nouran Osama. 2016. “Biomimicry, an Approach, for Energy Effecient Building Skin Design.” Procedia Environmental Sciences 34: 178–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.04.017. Resolve. 2019. “Ecoregions 2017 ©.” 2019. https://ecoregions2017.appspot.com/. Sanders, April. 2018. “Lowest Temperature for a Cactus.” 2018. https://homeguides.sfgate.com/lowesttemperature-cactus-92007.html. Staff, WIRED. 2009. “Déjà Poo: The Living Machine Sewage System.” Wired, May 22, 2009. https://www.wired.com/2009/05/st-sewagegrid/. Stein, R. G. 1977. “Architecture and Energy,” January. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5024090. The Biomimicry Institut. 2017. “Leaf Shapes Optimize Sunlight : Olive.” AskNature (blog). September 25, 2017. https://asknature.org/strategy/leaf-shapes-optimize-sunlight/. The Biomimicry Institute. 2018a. “Ask Nature.” https://asknature.org/. ———. 2018b. “Inspiring Sustainable Innovation.” 2018. https://biomimicry.org/. Tileston, Jules V., and R. R. Lechleitner. 1966. “Some Comparisons of the Black-Tailed and White-Tailed Prairie Dogs in North-Central Colorado.” The American Midland Naturalist 75 (2): 292–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2423393. Tributsch, Helmut. 1982. How Life Learned to Live: Adaptation in Nature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. “How Much Energy Is Consumed in U.S. Residential and Commercial Buildings?” May 3, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=86&t=1. US EPA, OA. 2015. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Overviews and Factsheets. US EPA. December 29, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. USGBC. 2018a. “Guide to LEED Certification: Commercial | USGBC.” 2018. https://new.usgbc.org/certguide/commercial. ———. 2018b. “LEED Is Green Building.” Veteto, James R., and Joshua Lockyer. 2008. “Environmental Anthropology Engaging Permaculture: Moving Theory and Practice Toward Sustainability.” Culture & Agriculture 30 (1–2): 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-486X.2008.00007.x. Walter, Tyler Lee. 2015. “Biomimicry: Architecture Imitating Life&apos;s Principles.” University of Cincinnati. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1428049232#abstract-files. “Weather Data | EnergyPlus.” n.d. Accessed March 17, 2019. https://energyplus.net/weather. Workman, Vivian Ann. 2004. “Mutualism in Architecture: An Architecture of the In-Between,” 91. World Wildlife Fund. 2012. “Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World | Publications | WWF.” World Wildlife Fund. 2012. https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-ecoregions-of-the-world. ———. 2019. “Western Short Grasslands.” World Wildlife Fund. 2019. https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na0815.

59 | P a g e

Appendix Appendix 1: Mutualistic Ecological Keystones Creation and Company Comparison Biomimicry 3.8 - Life’s Principles Biomimicry 3.8 is an organization that focuses on life’s principles or patterns that have emerged from 3.8 billion years of evolution on planet Earth (Baumeister 2014). Despite the quite different conditions in the world, there are patterns that appear within all organism that have allowed them to survive on this earth through natural selection. Life’s Principles consists of 6 main patterns seen in all forms of nature. These include Evolve to survive, adapt to changing conditions, being locally attended, integrating growth, etc. Although these principles are helpful guidelines that look at the global Ecological Keystone approach I am trying to analyze, they are difficult to directly translate into effective guidelines for architecture and design and therefore also need to be compared to amongst the three other companies.

Figure 38- Life’s Principles made by Biomimicry 3.8

60 | P a g e

Permaculture Permaculture is another design theory that has been around since the 70s and looks to not only find ways to survive, but to go above and beyond and thrive through ecologically sound design principles (Holmgren, n.d.) (Holmgren 2002; Veteto and Lockyer 2008). Permaculture consists of 12 principles that focus on creating design that is sustainable and addresses climate and resource issues.(BULUT 2008; Veteto and Lockyer 2008) (Holmgren, n.d.) (Holmgren 2002). In landscape design, permaculture is defined as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fiber and energy for provision of local needs.â&#x20AC;? (Holmgren 2002). These principles can also apply to any discipline in design and life. Although permaculture makes a claim it can be adapted to architecture, there are few projects that successfully do so.

Figure 39- Permaculture Principles

61 | P a g e

CRADLE 2 CRADLE (circular Design) The major concept in Cradle to Cradle is the idea of regenerative or circular design that functions in a closed-loop system, where nothing is wasted, and products are even upcycled to have a higher quality or performance. Cradle to Cradle is a product certification process inspired by nature that looks to qualitative measure these circular design strategies. Specifically Cradle to Cradle looks to â&#x20AC;&#x153;provide a positive agenda for continuous innovation around

Figure 40- Cradle to Cradle Cycle Diagrams

the economic, environmental, and social issues of human design and use of products and servicesâ&#x20AC;? (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 2016). Inspiration for this comes from biological metabolism and the technical metabolism(McDonough 2009). Although Cradle to Cradle is a certification process designed mainly for products, the design principles can be applied to mutualism in architecture as well by focusing on regenerative processes and incorporating cradle to cradle products. (McDonough and McDonough, n.d.).The categories that will be analyzed to create the global Ecological Keystones are material health, material reutilization, renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship, and social fairness.

Figure 41 - Cradle to Cradle Certification Card

62 | P a g e

Global Ecological Keystones

Cradle to Cradle5

Adaptable to its Location

- “collect and recover scarce resources”

Living Building Challenge6

Permaculture7

-proper regional design response - place petal- uniquely connected to the place, climate, and culture - Regenerate, economy, equitable, FSC materials,

-Use and respond to change in a positive way, what are the possibilities? - Local - “use small, slow solutions – local”

Life’s Principles (Biomimicry 3.8)8 - “Evolve to survive” - “Adapt to changing conditions” - “use readily available materials and energy” - “build from the bottom upcomponent one at a time (room to grow)”

Multifunctional, Connected + Diverse

- “Social fairness” - improving stakeholder relations by encouraging others to get involved in design process - Technical diversity.

- “equity”: Host a charette + invite a diverse group of people - Bringing in the indoors – looking at nature’s patterns

-Social fairness - “use value and diversity – greater resilience” - “greater resilience” “integrate” how things work together - eliminate borders: “use edges- value marginal”

-Multidisciplinary design process - Host a charette + invite a diverse group of people -incorporate diversity” “multifunctional design” -cooperative relationships”

Closed-loop (Net Positive and No Waste)

Health

Keep learning and Evolving Passive first, then active

“biological cycle + technical cycle” “eliminate the concept of waste- designed to be reused over and over again” “Material Reutilization” -Cradle to cradle systems - Water Stewardship – -CO2 Should be sequestered in soil - “material health: materials and products that are safe”

“in nature there is no concept of waste”

Use renewable energy “Renewable Energy and Carbon Management”

“water – no waste” Net pos waste Embodied energy and footprint “water” – redefine waster, must be net positive. On site energy storage

“produce no waste” Catch and store energy

-LBC petal: Health and Happiness -Healthy interiors, EPA and AQI, nontoxic materials -Red list materials - cultural aspects Charrettes with diverse stakeholders

- 12 principles will together allow people to live healthier and happier

“Water solvent”, “popular

“Design from Pattern to detail” and apply to design “accept feedback” – modify dysfunctional “use and value renewables” – reduce dependency on scarce

“Life’s Principles” - all

Net-plus energy and water

“leverage cyclic processes” “feedback loops” “recycle all materials” “closed-loop system”

elements” “bio degradable, embodied energy”

Evolve to survive “Integrate the unexpected” “low energy processes”

(McDonough 2009; McDonough and McDonough, n.d.; Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute 2016; Dobbelsteen 2008)

(International Living Future Institute 2018b, 2014)

(BULUT 2008; Holmgren 2002, n.d.)

(Benyus 2009b; Baumeister 2014; Walter 2015)

63 | P a g e