Architecture in new συνthesis| marios antoniou | diploma thesis

Architecture in New ΣυνThesis ARCH 541 - Thesis |UNIVERSITY OF NICOSIA-Architecture Department |Fall 2013 Lecturer:Angela Petrou, Pavlos Philippou | student name: marios antoniou

Architecture in New ΣυνThesis ARCH 541 - Thesis UNIVERSITY OF NICOSIA-Architecture Department |Fall 2013 Lecturer:Angela Petrou, Pavlos Philippou student name: marios antoniou

--

--

Acknowledgment Special Thanks to, my Family, my Tutors, my Classmates.

Dedicated to my Father, to my Mother

--

--

Table of Contents Introduction

p.7

Chapter I

p.9-17 II. The need for Utopian Thinking

I. Biology in architecture

Abstract

III. The Vision

The environmental problems in combination with the socio-economic problems create the need for questioning and change in the planet. Architecture, having a share of responsibility, is called to reconsider its practice, change the production model and to be transformed into a more ecological procedure. This proposition for changing occurs through a field of Biology, the technology of Synthetic Biology and it is called Living Architecture.

This dissertation investigates and presents the proposition of Synthetic Biology, which concerns Living Architecture. It is a technology through which Architecture will turn from an inert into a living mode. This ‘Living’ Architecture will catalyze the limits between natural and technical and will redefine the relationship of the human being in regard with the natural and artificial environment.

Fig: 1

What does Living Architecture mean and how will it change the life of humans?

Fig: 3

Chapter II

p.18-26

I. The Technology of Biosynthesis

Through a scientific and analytical method, this study has searched the definition, the application methods and the perspectives both of Synthetic Biology and Protocell Architecture – an architecture suggested by the technology of Synthetic Biology. The material of research derived from books, articles, documentaries and presentations both from the fields of Architecture and Science. This dissertation will present statistics, analysis, the historic background and three case studies (two theoretical and one practical case study in real conditions).

Can Synthetic Biology change the practical implementation of Architecture?

Fig: 2

Fig: 4

Fig: 5

Chapter III I. Understanding the Proposition: the Hylozoic Ground Project

Do we really need it and why?

II. The New Living Architecture

Fig: 6

p.26-34 II. Through the Illogical III The Interpretation of Living

1+1=4 Fig: 7

Conclusion

p.36

References Bibliography List of Illustrations

p37-44

Introduction Subject and Aim The subject of this dissertation is Synthetic Biology, a new technological proposition, which has already intruded architecture and intents to create a new relationship between humans and the natural/living world.

Synthetic Biology upgrades the relation of Biology with Architecture and becomes the principle for designing and implementation of a New, Living Architecture which is completely interwoven with the natural environment; proposing in this way integral solutions to problems of sustainability.

The main goal of the research is to present a complete picture of bio-synthetic architecture by describing how it is applied. Moreover it intends to describe how this “new” architecture can define solutions for the confrontation of environmental problems but of other architectural issues as well.

in other words the model of pollution and waste, even if we improve it, the best result we can achieve is a less bad model.

that could respond in full to the present but also to the future demands of humans’ life by creating a harmonic balance to the natural environment.

By the end of 2013 the population of our planet reaches seven billion people, continuing with an increasing pace, and in combination with the stride progress of technology and the abuse of natural resources, it creates huge consequences to the natural and social environment. At the same time the enormous development and extent of the artificial environment replaced, on a large scale, the natural environment and therefore the consequences of design principles are becoming more and more important. The redesigning of these principles creates the need of revision and redefinition of Architecture’s role in a wider sense.

The supporters of this proposal consider that the implementation of a bio-sceptical architecture based on Biosynthesis will help discover methods for a safer preservation of the biodiversity of the natural environment. Architecture can react vividly by minimizing the negative consequences to the natural environment. Parallel to this, it will acquire the ability to create a positive result through environmental, social and economic solutions.

Biology in architecture can become the medium that will allow the vision for a more naturally human environment to take flesh and bones (Pawlyn, 2011).

According to some opinions, the holistic redesigning of the existing model of production is being characterized as necessary.

At the same time the proposal of biosynthetic architectural research will project solutions and conditions which govern and define over time the architectural evolution and course and its relations with the human being; relations such as the relation between architecture and technology, the relation between technology and utopian/imaginary thinking, the relation between socio-political crisis and architecture, and how these relations and conditions can be expressed through an architectural implementation.

Questions 1. What is Biosynthesis and how can it create new conditions by being implemented in Architecture?

2. What changes in Architecture based on the proposal for a New Living Architecture?

What are the problems that will have to be resolved?

3. How will a potential application affect human life in regard with the environment but also with Architecture as well?

Introduction – General Many scientists and specialists claim that if we remain attached to the existing model of production, -7-

This redesigning should be done in a way that assures the durability and appropriateness of any new production model, through a process that will have zero negative consequences to the natural environment. The Bio-thinking can provide to Architecture the designing palette with which the creator (architect) can change the model by creating a new one, which will be directly compatible with nature but also humans (Pawlyn, 2011).

Case The new biologic approach in Architecture takes the theory of Biomimetics to a more evolved level, conveying to Architecture the combination of genetic features of different organisms, through a new synthesis. The practical implementation of Biology in Architecture, by using Biosynthesis, is expected to generate innovative architectural solutions that will be able to help minimize the consequences of the construction industry on the environment and the quality of life in general.

However the main ascertainment at the present time is that all the investigations/testing/estimations, about what will be feasible in the near future, are still confined within laboratory environments and not tested in real life conditions and scales.

The principle designing rule of this biologic approach in architecture has as primary goal the achievement of a sustainable and ecological design

Structure · In the first chapter of the study, the discussion will define the environment through which the proposition/vision of Biosynthetic Technology occurs and how it concerns a New Living Architecture. At the same time, through a gnoseological content which presents the historic evolution of society, architecture, technology and utopian thinking, the study discloses the relationships and interactions between them, which define and affect over time the evolutionary course of Architecture.

The presentation of technology occurs through the vision, the implementation techniques and the research/case studies that describe the application method of technology in Architecture.

Following the first part of chapter two, a new architectural proposal is introduced through the Manifesto (A Manifesto for Protocell Architecture: Against Biological Formalism, (Armstrong, 2011)), as it was submitted by, the leaders and visionaries, Rachel Armstrong and Neil Spiller along with the approach of the new proposal in matters of designing and implementation. · In the third chapter, the “Hylozoic Ground Project” is presented, which is probably the only practical implementation of Biosynthesis, in real conditions, in the field of Architecture. The “Hylozoic Ground Project” is an effort to provide a bodily experience of this new architecture to people (visitors of the installation), in order to help the better interpretation and comprehension of it.

The discussion then attempts to scientifically, analytically and philosophically decipher the project in order to clarify its underlying attributes; a process that undoubtedly prompts further questions as well as even confusion in regard with this new architectural proposal.

The section continues with observing the need as well as the conditions for radical change (Living Architecture), which has been generated by the socio-political and environmental problems and the proposition results from profound thinking and vision. This vision allows the architect/designer/ scientist to “escape” from the limitation of logic and to approach solutions that can be even characterized as utopian; solutions that could fabricate concrete foundations for innovation that usually result from a new technology, in this case from Biosynthesis. · At the second chapter of the research, through a more scientific approach, the study observes the technology of Biosynthesis and the method in which its application in Architecture produces the condition for a complete change in the architectural approach, thus creating a proposition for a new architecture, known as Living Architecture/Protocell Architecture.

-8-

The presentation of the aforementioned installation is framed by the prehistory of the theoretical background, through similar approaches that were generated in the past, as well as through a description and analysis of both the design process and the spatial individuality of the New Architecture.

Additionally the discussion addresses the role of the architect and portrays the relationship of the visitor/ user to the installation The primary goal of this dissertation is to offer an opportunity to the reader to acquire a more comprehensive opinion about the relations that presuppose the new architectural proposal and the way they define its evolution but probably our lives too, if and when it is applied.

I.

be implemented in bio-industry, medicine but in other fields as well (Benyus, 2009). This scientific methodology and technology, is also known by the terms biomimicry, bionic, bio-inspiration and biognosis.

Biology in Architecture

—Buckminister Fuller “Organisms create what they need. There is a notion of sufficiency. It is one of life’s principles that we call optimizing rather than maximizing” (Benyus, 2009).

Historically, the copy and adjustment of the natural elements on building facades were the first biomimetic applications. Two thousand years back, the Roman architect Vitruvius implemented a new dimension in Biomimetics by comparing the proportions of temples with the ones of the human body while in his architectural practice he focused on the motifs of nature.

The natural environment can be considered as an ideal model of design and scientific applications.

A million years development, of a complex system through which the living organisms, plants and animals, have been created and survived under adverse environmental conditions.

The development of Biology in the 2nd half of 20th century created a new approach by the term Biomimetics (or Biomimicry) which introduced Biology officially in Architecture. Nevertheless, the history of biology in architecture goes way back then. Practically, although there is no official proof, some support that the first domes were inspired by the egg, a supposition which proves that Biomimicry is not that recent as a scientific method as some people tend to support. In addition to this, it is historically documented that architects, in their effort to design the artificial environment, they used the know-how of natural environment either as an inspiration source or as a discovery source for resolving intractable issues (Pawlyn, 2011).

Chapter I

I. Biology in architecture

Eight hundred years ago, among the rural populations of China, in the Hongcun village, the first bionic architects designed their village in the outline of a cow, while they created a hydrologic system which imprints its digestive system (Guillot 2008 in Elghawaby, 2010).

II. The need for Utopian Thinking

-9-

III. The Vision

Biology was implemented in Architecture mostly through Biomimetics. It appeared in scientific bibliography in 1962 as an observation and study method of biological species in their living environment. This method presupposed the copying of nature’s mechanical models with the purpose of improving their functionality and the possibility of reproducing of forms, materials, biological processes and their expression behaviour with artificial means.

The word biomimetics is a compound word from the Greek words βίος (bio) that means life and the word μίμηση (mimetics) that means imitation. Ms J. M. Benyus (biologist, innovation consultant, and author of six books, including Biomimicry) defines Biomimetics as the technical term, which is used in biochemistry, mechanics, pharmaceutics and in science of materials. The term Biomimetics, expresses the effort of research through observation and scientific analysis, the specifications of natural and living organisms with the purpose to

The main expressionist of Biomimetics during the 15th century was believed to be Leonardo Da Vinci who could be considered the pioneer in biomimicry and bio-survey. By adopting the technology of biomimetics he managed to distinguish from the scientists/artists of his time, from his works but from his visions as well, which were hundred of years ahead of his time (fig1).

Fig: 1

-10-

The copy of forms and motifs continued as an expression and implementation of biomimetics in architecture until the 18th century. The industrial revolution though added a new dimension in the application of biomimicry, creating the possibility of producing a large number of construction plans.

‘The Lily House in Strasbourg and the Crystal Palace in London designed by Joseph Paxton are examples for such inspired constructions (Guillot 2008 in Elghawaby, 2010).

& Son Inc. Administration building (with its mushroom columns,fig.3), and The Price Tower (imitates the structure of the tree) were created (Elghawaby, 2010).

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, passing the message that when biology is at the correct kind of habitat with the proper support of substructures is extremely powerful, resistant and in position to function on a wide scale in Architecture.

(Armstrong, 2012)(fig.5).

Fig: 2

Fig: 3

Fig: 5

In the 19th century, Antonio Gaudi, having the biologic drivers as main creators and expressions of his own unique architectural style, had a different approach as to the investigation of natural and chemical specifications of materials.

During the construction of the Cathedral Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain, he suspended the clay from the hanging baskets and left the natural powers of gravity and chemistry to give birth to the primitive forms, which have created this unique character. In contrast with most architectural implementations, which follow a top-down procedure where the form overrules the matter, Gaudi reversed the conventional procedures and left the shapes of clay to define the final appearance of the building. This bottom - up approach in the architectural design and construction has become the “characteristic organic style” of Gaudi (Armstrong, 2012)(fig2).

Visionary designers, like the Buckminster Fuller defined Biology as the main axon of development and supported that the key to utilization of life’s capacities is through the definition of their biologic drivers. Buckminster Fuller in order to comprehend these new powers used mathematical methods that he applied in geometry and digital calculation (Armstrong, 2012)(fig.4).

In the middle of 20th century, Robert Le Ricolais, a French professor at the University of Pennsylvania, created new structural models by copying biologic structures, which were drawn by the German biologist called Haeckel during the 19th century. During the same period, many architects and engineers like Frei Otto, Frank Lloyd Wright and others, were designing their building by copying natural structures and shapes, keeping their natural proportions. As a result, impressive works like the Munich Olympic Stadium, Guggenheim Museum, S.C. Johnson

Fig: 4

This research of knowledge, through observation and understanding of the mechanisms, which define the way the living organisms operate, has created in parallel artistic, social, political and economic movements. The movements had and have nature as an inspiration source, and over the years they have also created a space of innovation in the field of design and architecture.

Biomimetics, with the research, study and its performance, is connected gradually with all the scientific sectors and is being transferred towards implementation in the field of technology and industry(fig 6,7).

Nevertheless, biology is called to continue the evolution of its history and to escape from the simple imitation of natural systems. Biology needs to take theory and practical application a step forward either through biomimetics or some other application of it. The bio-form as a result, it might look as something that succeeds the biologic thinking and application, but it is not what is happening, in reality. And if it happens, it occurs on microscale through aesthetic resemblance and probably through some correspondence in mechanical behaviour. In reality, the architectural approaches, which result from the combination of biologic shape and the function of biomimetics, do not alter radically the way buildings are constructed nor do they change their material nature. As a result the architectural practice remains an energy spending procedure which needs to be revised.

The beginning of 21st century, finds the humanity living in a world of modern and advance technologies like the nano technology, artificial intelligence, cognitive science and genetics.

These technologies create the conditions and the pressure for evolution in the use of Biology in Architecture, which is called again to give solutions in contemporary environmental but also socioeconomic problems which directly or indirectly are connected to architecture. Definitely biology can nowadays, as it did in the past, offer again the vision but also the solutions to architecture, through which many problems and needs will be solved even if at the beginning will seem as a Utopia (Elghawaby, 2010).

Fig: 6

In our days, in modern cities Biology is not used only through Biomimetics but it participates actively in creating “green” areas which are placed in unusual locations like on the walls and the rooftops, as an effort for heat insulation and protection of interior spaces from the loss of thermal energy. At the same time these green areas are used as a medium of absorption of -11-

Fig: 7

Fig: 8

-12-

II.

The need for Utopian Thinking

Once we fully understand the exact nature of how our world makes us and indeed, how it sometimes kills us, we will be able to make true architectures of ecological connectability (Spiller in Armstrong, 2012).

Our time is characterized by a series of changes in the environment and atmosphere where they result from the alteration of natural environment caused by human action (anthropisation). The consequences of these changes are expanding in other sectors beyond the environment, like the economy, politics and of course the society, having direct impact on peoples’ daily life. Therefore, through public discussions and scientists’ statements, the need for protection and preservation of the natural environment, for research and discovery of “clean” sources of energy and the need for development of green chemistry and economy, arise as the main focus points for the 21st century (Ternaux, 2011).

Some predictions tend to support that if the model of the human living does not change effectively by the middle of 21st century, there will be important changes in sectors like the global ecological and socio-political map(fig.1,2,3): 1. These changes will be caused by: a) the climate changes, b) the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, c) the loss of biodiversity and d) the increasingly high possibility of exhaustion of mineral energy resources. Consequently, 2. Around 2/3 of the global population will abandon their homes and immigrate into cities due to economic problems but also because of labour laws and policies. As a result of this movement, more than thirty megacities will be created. Therefore, 3. The placement of the population in cities will create a vast urban landscape which will be compressed more and more in order to house more than ten million people in each megacity. As a consequence, 4. The cities will spread uncontrollably, acquiring bigger and bigger part of the free land, since the urban development will be primarily a result of random improvisations by businessmen and civilians, without any overall urban planning. Thereafter,

Fig: 1

-13-

Fig: 2

Fig: 3

removes the possibility of establishing radical and effective changes, rendering in this way a bad model just less bad .

Therefore because of all the predictions about the future it is necessary to change and revise our prejudices as to what architecture is, and to revise our expectations as to what we demand and what architecture can offer us through modern and new technologies(Armstrong, 2012).

5. The continuous increasing needs of a population that keeps multiplying will set the contemporary urban formations as incompetent to adjust, having as a result their development to be characterized by poor neighbourhoods full of criminality, pollution, traffic and garbage (Armstrong, 2012).

As the present model of modern cities has the very likely possibility to be proven as incompetent to meet the aforementioned needs and consequently to become disastrous, it is necessary to revise the bound tactics which were established during the industrial revolution and in architectural practice in general.

The architecture we are living in is primarily the product of a mechanical, industrial and structural process which is functionally inert, and at the same time it is indifferent and detrimental before a continuous changing environment. Buildings are responsible for 40% of the carbon dioxide emissions globally and the contemporary architectural practice principles continue over-consuming the energy resources, minimizing biodiversity, increasing waste production and at the same time reducing fertile land, in quantity and quality.

Even though the policy and consequences of the industrial technologies and architectural practice have been revised and adjusted based on the principles of sustainable development, as it was defined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 (it defines the sustainable development as the management of resources in a way that the present and future generations will equally benefit from them) and by the principles of ecological design (zero carbon dioxide emissions), ultimately very few have changed in the final architectural implementation. Consequently, architectural practice remains attuned to the existing system which

“What could have happened if we tried new ideas that belong to the realm of imagination in order to solve intractable problems? What would have happened if all cities started to function as they were living organisms? What would it meant for the citizens something like that? How the relation of the civilians would change according to their surrounding space?” (Armstrong, 2012).

The realm of the imaginary, besides naturally being a way out, it has always been a valuable source of solutions even if people were always suspicious with anything imaginary, not real, new, “utopian thinking from crazy people”! But how many times this imaginary, utopian thinking led the way to the future and how many times a Utopia became reality?

Utopian thinking, through the realm of the imaginary, is not something unknown to art, literature and architecture. It usually originates from the need of expression of the disappointment of the artist, the designer and the architect opposite the political and economic conditions which affect all daily aspects and usually have a critical attitude or express hope messages which are mentioned in a hypothetical ideal society.

The utopian as an expression of the well-intentioned, the impossible and the ideal has been used several times to show a trajectory, a vision through which it could generate an uprising against what exists and

-14-

an indication towards the possibility of transcending existing conditions; whereas “cold logic” can only see a dead end.

The Utopian thinking and architectural proposal, seem to be historically equivalent concepts, since it can be noticed from the past that each period and each era not only manifested proposals based on utopian thinking but in some cases the utopian thinking affected or even defined the evolutionary course of architecture, both at that present time but also in future times.

Historically speaking, during the period of neoclassicism the appearance of Piranesi was notable, as well as the urban visions of Boullée with the “Cenotaph of Isaac Newton” and Claude-Nicolas Ledoux(fig4) with the “Ideal City of Chaux” during the 18th century, the utopian proposals presented by Robert Owen και Charles Fourier at the beginnings of 19th century, as well as Ebenezer Howard with his concept “Garden City” and Tony Gamier with his proposal “Industrial City” somewhere at the end of 19th century.

Movement received by TeamX in the last CIAMX (for that time) that was held in Dubrounic in 1956. These two utopian urban proposals were conceptually based on the belief that advanced high technology would be a fact in the future, so their proposals under this appreciation were considered potentially feasible.

Fig: 4

Fig: 5

Moving on to the 20th century, during the peak period of Modernism, historical figures of Architecture mark their presence with their utopian propositions. The urban scale proposal of Le Corbusier for Algiers (largest city of Algeria) in 1930 and later Buckminster Fuller with the geodesic dome (down town Manhattan,(fig.5)) in 1962, introduced a new style in utopian visions. At the same time, Japanese Metabolism (an architectural movement) with its visionary mega structures during the 60’s is also in line with the spirit of the era(fig.7).

In the modern history of architectural utopia, what governs and develops the utopian thinking is technology and its evolution.

Fig: 6

In the 50’s, the technological evolution and industrial development triggered the appearance of a climate of optimism in Europe, although it was under reconstruction, after the disasters of 2nd World War(fig.6). Somewhere in 1956, two utopian urban proposals appeared, based on the idealization of technology, the utopian proposals of Yona Friedman“Spatial City”(fig.8) and of Constant Nieuwenhuys the “New Babylon”(fig.9), occurred as a result from the enlargement of the dialogue in architecture and from the deliberation of the rational perception of modernism; a result coming from the severe criticism the Modern -15-

Fig: 7

At the beginnings of the 60’s, the technological development established the law of production and consumption, creating a society which even unconsciously accepted this law, and was turned into a consuming society. In this framework, there are clearly ironic reactions - opposite the social structures that the media formed- mostly by the Pop Art movement from which originates the English architectural team Archigram which by supporting its opinions in the project of the architect Buckminster Fuller, suggested neo-futuristic proposals based on high technology(fig.11). And yet, somewhere there the negative consequences of technology started to appear.

The Cold War between America and the Soviet Union, the crisis in Cuba, the Vietnam War created a cycle of instability somewhere in the middle of the 60’s. This instability in combination with the conservative spirit of the time caused the massive reaction of society, which was expressed mainly through young people, the Hippies movement and sexual deliberation (fig.10).

The disturbances in society continued and as a result the private and public life changed almost radically. The technology and the consuming culture were taken under doubt and therefore the utopian proposals were received negatively, criticizing the value which was given to materialism and consumption of their time; something that was expressed around 1968 through the proposals of the Italian architectural teams Superstudio and Archizoom(Wikipedia, 2012).

In our days, the economic crisis, the big socio-political problems, the destruction of the environment but also the rapid rise of the technology, surely creates, for once again, a scenery which needs probably more than ever, utopian way outs. These way outs can occur either through a negative attitude and critique on the existing conditions, or they can consist of an optimistic approach through which there will be a revision or even a complete restructuring of the current situation.

-16-

Fig: 8

Fig: 9

Fig: 10

Fig: 11

Fig: 12

III.

The Vision

History proves that the relationship between utopian thinking and technology empowers the architectural thinking, by defining new parameters and directions.

Certainly architecture is in absolute need for utopian approaches and the contemporary conditions could be creatively favourable.

Through this setting arises a vision for a New Architecture that results through the technology of Biosynthesis and suggests an architectural practice which has the ability to fix and construct itself, an architecture that forces the human and the “artificial environment” to be found in a direct cooperation with the processes of the natural environment(Armstrong, 2009).

The group of Rachel A. is focusing on the radical revision of the structure of the architectural practice, through an architecture, in which the constructions constitute part of their natural environment and being part of it they are being transformed and change alongside with the environment. In opposition with the Metabolists, who envisioned levitated metropolis, Armstrong’s team’s proposition is based on the close relation of architecture with the earth and its geological times, through biochemical and geological alteration. Architecture becomes one with the ground through complex procedures which unite the natural with the artificial and concludes to a mutual beneficial cooperative practice.

The vision of R. Armstrong and her team surpasses the Victorian consideration and the architectural practices of Industrial revolution, and suggests a pliable architectural space through an open practice (with the sense of open-ended) which is subjected and exploits the processes of natural environment on a molecular level and the biosynthetic technological innovations (Armstrong, 2009).

The main expressionist of this vision is Rachel Armstrong(fig.1), member of the Architectural School of Barlett of the London University. Rachel Armstrong is a professor with a Phd in NonDarwinian theory of evolution. Her research is revolving around the meeting point of medicine, biology and architecture.

The vision of Armstrong and her group can be considered, at some point, the succession of the work of Japanese Metabolism architects, as it defines the development of architectural practice as a changing process, similar to the procedure of the metabolic circle. The metabolism of living organisms will be the primary transition system of the architectural materials and later on of the entire city. Using this system the city will be on a constant changing dynamic balance, theoretically similar to the one that defines the Manifesto of the Metabolists (Armstrong, 2009).

Rachel Armstrong does not see biotechnology as another set of “green” methods which are simply integrated in the current condition of existing systems. For Rachel Armstrong biotechnology is at a stage of development, able to define architecture’s history and evolution. Synthetic Biology is now considered as a real architectural principle from theory to practice. Until now, the implementation of biology in architecture passed through various terms like the “Organic Architecture” or the “Architecture of Biomimetics”, but at this current point technology allows architecture to move beyond the bio“mimesis” of inactive materials and to move to the direct cooperation with the natural environment and to set the design and the production basis, on a new synthesis1.

Chapter II

I. The Technology of Biosynthesis

II. The New Living Architecture

Team 10, just as often referred to as “Team X”, was a group of architects and other invited participants who assembled starting in July 1953 at the 9th Congress of C.I.A.M. and created a schism within CIAM by challenging its doctrinaire approach to urbanism(Wikipedia,2012).

Fig: 1

1 http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/featureleaf-review-living-buildings-biotechnology/ -17-

-18-

I.

The Technology of Biosynthesis

Synthetic Biology is a new field within the science of biology, which is a result of the advances in biotechnology during the last 30 years and is based on the principles of Biomimetics and creates the conditions of a more active participation of the biologic principles in the architectural design process. Synthetic Biology combines research in the field of biology with principles of engineering, with the main aim to design and build (synthesize) new biological figures and systems, which are governed by controlled functions.

The vision for the synthesis of new biological organisms was born somewhere in 1900, when the Dutch botanist Hugo Marie de Vries, along with some other botanists - inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution and by the work of Gregor Mendel, which was based on the law of inheritance - have set the question whether it could be possible, through laboratory conditions, to study and control the evolutionary mechanisms of biological species and whether it would be possible to create new species of life with new properties.

Although many distinguished researchers and scientists, like the French biologist Stephan Leduc and the German physiologist Jacques Loeb, approached particular/special issues of Biosynthesis, synthetic biology managed to truly emerge just in the last three decades of the 20th century through the progress of genetics and other parallel sciences and through the experimental studies of the Nobel prize winning scientists Herber Boyer, Wernar Arber, Daniel Nathans and Hamilton.

At the beginnings of the 21st century, the presentation of the BioBricks theory, which allowed the standardized construction of systems by using biological parts of different functions from Tom Knight of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), brings finally Synthetic Biology to the forefront of the scientific community’s interests.

Historically though, the demarcation of the launch of synthetic biology was done through the convention of Synthetic biology which was held in 2004 at the MIT. (Ternaux, 2011).

What changes practically in biology through the method of biosynthesis – something that (will) affect also architectural practice and implementation – is that now Biology will not be constrained in research, -19-

description and duplication of the natural and living world, but through biosynthesis biology as a science will now be able to design, reformulate and create by itself, existing and new species of living organisms (Armstrong, 2012).

The practical implementation of Biosynthesis and the construction techniques of living systems through its practice are: Α.1: The Modification of Organisms by Changing their Environment Maybe the oldest method of modifying living organisms, with practical implementations in gardening and tillage.

A.2: The Direct Modification of Organisms (Nongenetic Methods, top-down) Biological systems can be modified directly through simple methods, like vaccination and pruning. These techniques can easily give shape and direction to the growth of a tree or a bush, by creating different shapes e.g. a fence, a bridge, etc. Using the technique of direct modification of organisms, morphological techniques of designing can be created, worthy enough to draw the architectural attention (Armstrong, 2012)(fig.1-2).

Β: Genetic Methods (top-down) Many times, Synthetic Biology is being equated with the modification of biological systems through a procedure, which reduces to the minimum the luck factor. It is now possible, through fabricated genetic code DNA, to make a specialized alteration in the way a gene is read, and consequently inducing specific changes to the cell functions of biological systems. This method increases the possibility of an artificial “evolution” of species and the ability of people to achieve specific characteristics through the “biological designing”.

Through this technique, the biotechnologist J. Craig Venter created the first synthetic genome with the name “Synthia”. The invention of “genomes” is considered to be an important achievement, which started a new era in synthetic biology. With the genomes, scientists can now fabricate also new genetic species based on specific designing and mechanical specifications. The biological structures, from now on, can inspire completely new methods of construction and they can also constitute the fundamental materials of a construction (Armstrong, 2012).

From an industrial point of view, genetic modification is not yet possible at a large scale, since it is much more expensive and the resulting “living” material is theoretically still exposed to any infection and viruses. In general, in terms of public health and the rules of hygiene and security, the genetically modified organisms raise social and moral worries, especially when it comes to danger that results from the possibility to infect the natural environment (Armstrong, 2012).

Case Study: The Method of Genetic Modification – “The Meat House” (Terreform One) Based on this method, the interdisciplinary architectural design practice “Terreform One”, found in New York, introduced a study proposal called the “Meat House”(fig.3), through which they envisioned the creation of a new organic leather material which as a structural construction material could be applied and establish a building construction method(fig.4).

The leather will be created through three-dimensional printers and will be composed by modified pig cells.

This large-scale three-dimensional printer will create originally the structural frame at the desired shape/ form and size, where later on the frame will be coated by the leather tissue and the necessary preservatives.

Its biodegradation nature will exclude any need for “demolition”(fig.5). Its technical fabrication though, will be prohibitively expensive – about $1000 per 3cm of leather – but its importance lies in the fact that it demonstrates the alternative approaches that synthetic biology offers (Armstrong, 2012).

Fig: 1

Fig: 3

Fig: 2

Fig: 5

Fig: 4

-20-

C: Chemical “Lifelike” Systems such as Protocells (bottom-up)

yet. Thereby, the danger of exposing protocells in natural systems has not been defined, although this will depend primarily on the chemical synthesis of protocells (Armstrong, 2012).

Protocells are artificial unities that are captured and created in laboratory environments and they are chemically programmed to produce crystal microstructures, which are consisted of soap, magnetite and calcium carbonate.

Case Study: The Method of Chemical “Living” Systems – “The Future Venice” (of Rachel Armstrong and Neil Spiller)

They are microscopic auto-organised and evolutionary unities, consisting of organic but also inorganic parts and they constitute the simplified chemical models of natural cells. Protocells are formed by some dozens of molecular types which are found in abundance, they are easy to find, resistant and have low complexity.

They present abilities such as metabolism, movement, duplication, information and evolution, without being necessarily alive, while they remain joint between them by retaining a chemical dialogue through which they create a mutual recognition/ identification and form ensembles – communities.

As an ensemble they are stimulated by positive phototaxis or by external chemotaxis. The presence or absence of these stimulations from the protocell environment, can define their behaviour.

Protocells are an example of Living Technology(this term was invented by the Initiative for Science, Society and Policy) because some of the specifications of the living systems are being used for problem solving. The living technology includes a unique ensemble of consistent features, which embody the direct consequences of implementation of the living technologies. In comparison to the digital technologies, the living technology produces a useful work but with a different way because the living technologies are not that predictable or trustworthy as far it concerns their programming, as the digital technologies are. In protocell technology, the sensors, the data processing system and the effectors are embedded in the complicated molecular systems.

The protocells are produced in a very restricted quantity due to the fact that they are fabricated manually. Chemically they need oil or water to function and they have a short life cycle, which ranges from some minutes to some months. There are no studies as for the interactions between protocells and existing organisms and therefore their environmental toxicity has not been examined

Beyond the positive approach found in the theoretical backbone of the project, which in summary is the modification of the mineral elements of the lagoon in a calcareous protective exoskeleton, in terms of the possibility of actually reducing the pollution of the natural and water environment and preventing the sinking of the city – through friendly and enriching procedures to the environment – there are questions raised about the capacity to precisely predict the evolutionary procedure, the features and specifications of protocells, as well as the accuracy of the design possibilities in all stages of the process.

Moreover, the detection of design and spatial issues is raised before the theoretical study and architectural practice (Kotsanis, 2012).

Rachel Armstrong and Neil Spiller suggested their own corrective solution against the corrosion of the foundations of Venice, through the project named “Remedial Environmental Interventions”(fig.7).

Their proposal is based on the protocell technology through which they expect to design and create coral reefs which will be developed under/in the foundations of the old city.

Light-sensitive protocells (Fig 6,9), with an internal mechanism of light aversion, will be canalized in the waters of the lagoon, which is also the medium needed for the achievement of biochemical reactions, and will be headed towards the darkest places of the sunken area of Venice where they will begin the procedure of excretion of calcium carbonate which will be transformed into a calcareous exoskeleton. The formation of these underwater structures will protect the foundations from the mineral elements that are deposited at the base of the foundations, destroying in this way their stonework as well as the wooden parts by the constant corrosion. The visual management of the project will be done with an identical method of the rural cultivation because the protocells that are released in the lagoon will not be let in chance but they will be cultivated in an environmental time frame in order to be shaped based on the initial design and the expected desired result(fig.8).

Fig: 6

-21-

Fig: 7

Fig: 8-9

-22-

There is no doubt that Synthetic Biology, even if it is found in an embryonic stage, has already shown the first signs of its proposal, both through architectural implementations but also through other fields of research and implementation such as medicine, pharmaceutics, food production, etc.

The leaders of this field, the biotechnologists, observe a redesigning and expansion of biotechnologies and genetics through synthetic biology. The main goal is the designing of biologic systems under the standard and stable conditions that are able to process information, and through which they will produce useful molecules that will help in creating new polymers, medicines, food and even construction materials.

the possibilities but also the procedures which are required for the implementation of biosynthesis, under the form of technological innovation in architecture. It is necessary, that any change of model and any transition in methodology of a practice should be done through foregone frameworks and conditions in order to outline the appropriate foundations but also the proper knowledge of the technology. Historically, it has been proved that the most important thing in the invention of a technology is not to conceive the idea but to find a way and a reason to implement it. Undoubtedly, there are still so many questions regarding the technology itself as well as the method of introducing it to architecture and even about the necessity of using it in architecture.

II.

“We do not wish to imitate nature, we do not wish to reproduce nature, we want to produce architecture in a way a plant produces its fruit. We do not want to depict, we want to produce directly, not indirectly, since there is no trace of abstraction. We call it Protocell Architecture”.

“A Manifesto for Protocell Architecture: Against Biological Formalism” -Point 6- (Armstrong, 2011).

Rachel Armstrong and Neil Spiller through a declaration of 15 points, they submitted the Manifesto for Protocell Architecture; their declaration was about A New Architecture “Against Biological Formalism”. The vision for a new architecture finds the route of implementation with the progress and application of Biology through Synthetic Biology. Rachel Armstrong and Neil Spiller with this manifesto, determined the framework of this new architectural expression and they defined the limits and methods of its action. It is based on Protocell Technology and expresses the vision and the way that it can be implemented as well as the expectations, which are opened through this new architectural movement.

The innovative biologic systems can constitute new forms of energy, allow the modification of different chemical elements and can create a new synthetic chemistry. The development of synthetic biology can open a window of hope for proper management and improvement of the natural environment (Ternaux, 2011).

The approaches of synthetic biology change also our expectations in architecture. Through an inert architecture an interactive architecture could emerge that will react in different chemical and natural stimuli. The biosynthetic materials will not only concern the development of new and unique material properties, but they will also affect the existing artificial environment with possible applications of remedial work to problematic buildings, where the molecular interaction could detect and heal the problematic areas, by creating “cures” on micro scales. These new future practices will not act competitively with the existing ones, but on the contrary, they will cohabit (with each other) with the purpose to reform the problematic conditions.

Biosynthesis, through the innovations it offers, based on the vision of a new generation of architects, is expected to impel architecture in a new era – through a new (living) architectural practical perception – where the artificial and natural environment will coexist and co-develop, co-ordinately as one entity, creating in this way new architectural experiences (Armstrong, 2012).

This manifesto refers to a vision for an integral change of the world using minimal means (point 1). A creation of another aesthetic based on the models of surrealism (point 2), which through a subversive technology will replace the conventional technologies (point 3). An architecture through which, the spectrum of processing of the real world will be construed and reflected (point 4) and will give the chance to the architect to participate and determine the same evolutionary procedure (point 5).

A technology that will be chemically programmed to function according to the organizational principles of Physics and Chemistry (point 7), through a dynamism that will be caused by a continuous movement (point 8), and through an accessible biotechnology which will be found everywhere and be financially approachable (point 9). A desire to define blurred boundaries (point 10), which will be defined as spontaneous through a living processing adjusted to the natural and social conditions (point 11). The protocell technology will convert and transform the existing construction materials (point 12), through which it will create a new architecture that will constitute a natural space for the existence of human beings (point 13). The implementation of

Fig: 1

In parallel with the vision and scientific research, it is necessary to also appropriately question the potential development of this new technology.

Firstly, what is needed is the proper estimation of -23-

The New Living Architecture

-24-

protocell architecture will help the understanding of even the meaning of Life (point 14), and it will be in constant communication with the environment through a series of chemical interactions, which are called “metabolism” (point 15), (Armstrong, 2011).

A dynamic and aggressive manifesto, which is not only characterised by vision but also by obscurity.

The change of scale, regarding the method of biosynthesis is implemented and expressed, and the modification of biosynthesis into a new architectural movement as it is formed through this manifesto, on the one hand is encouraging and hopeful – since it shows the willingness and faith which is expressed by the leaders of this declaration – and on the other hand it creates the background for scepticism through a positive review and questioning regarding the necessity, usage and practical implementation, as well as the aesthetic expression of this new proposal that besides innovative it could also be characterized as an extreme proposal. What are the features of this new architecture? What is the design process? What is the architect’s role?

According to the proposal for a biosynthetic architecture, some of the initial implementations of synthetic biology in architecture, might emerge by using some high performance materials; but the evolution of the implementation of synthetic biology is considered to have reached that point in the future where probably architects will have the ability to program the DNA of some decomposing seed which will grow into a tree and turn out as a building, according with the research study of John M. Johansen & Mohamad Alkayer,the “Molecular House”(fig.2) (Pagliacolo, 2011). The

Fig: 2

inform biologists about how habitats develop but the contrary as well.

Simultaneously, this architecture as a living part of the global habitat will interact with the neighboring environmental systems and consequently the distribution of resources and the environmental consequences will be possibly improved by the surrounding architectural habitats. If for example, there is lack of energy or water, then, through the living systems, architecture could detect these deficiencies and will be able to create water, solar systems which will cover the needs. If the air is polluted, then, accordingly it could create systems that will filter and clean the atmosphere.

fabrication of the building as a biological machine, is expected to change also the role of the architect who will no longer create through sketches, plans and sections, nor he will organize matters that govern the construction process, since the new construction process will be based on the use of nutrient ingredients of the earth and the ecosystem.

The architect’s role will be to “define” the rules with which this seed will be developed while growing, and to “synthesize” the performance and specifications of the new material (Pagliacolo, 2011).

Space, based on the principles of biosynthetic architecture, will be able to be subjected autonomously into structural morphogenesis, as a consequence of specific stimuli, which will originate from its interior but also from its exterior. Maybe that looks like a a common scenario in conditions of virtual reality, but it is far from capturing the idea as it was applied through conventional and current technologies.

The most important is, that the execution of such structural morphogenesis, according to biosynthetic architecture, will originate from the evolution and implementation of architectural design which will also be applied by interactive, familiar, tangible but also intelligent materials; something that, according to Leroy Cronin (Regius Chair of Chemistry in the Department Chemistry at the University of Glasgow, UK), pushes the boundaries of what is currently understandable in materials science and technology.

Particularly important is also the perspective to combine the specifications of living technology with the contemporary engineering in the field of construction materials - since the approaches of designing and evolution will be combined with the idea of the autonomous and the adjustable material.

Consequently, the potential to implant computer data into the biosynthetic material –so the material would be even more intelligent – would be a very interesting approach, especially for the idea of control and production of the cellular materials which could be calculated and adjusted in command.

But maybe, the deepest metaphysical aspect of the fabrication of living materials would be the position of the designer/architect. The architect will no longer design – create a rigid space like in the past, but he will now design, through a micro scale, an adaptive, living, morphologically transitional space which will be created over time in a more flexible way.

The architect’s imagination will no longer be static; it will be evolved in such a way that the decoding of its structure will modify his/her role, from an architect to a creator. (Defining New Architectural Design Principles with Living Inorganic Materials), (Armstrong, 2011).

The construction of materials and systems able to imitate the living ones, will have a particularly important application in exemplar energyautonomous buildings. Through the programming of their cellular structure, these materials will be able to produce energy, to self-repair and through a nervous system they will be able to communicate and interact with environmental changes and even regulate the atmosphere, the internal temperature and humidity of the space. As a result, these functionalities will create an extremely interesting perspective for architecture, through the formation of adaptable environments.

The new architecture will operate based on the biological systems which were developed and evolved based on the global principles of evolution, which defines entirely the development of the environment. At the same time, this architecture will function as a means of study, understanding and transition of a collective of data which could -25-

Fig: 3-6: The droplets are a kind of proto-cells, inorganic but capable of a form of chemical communication. These react with their environment to form a biofilm.

-26-

I.

Understanding the Proposition: the Hylozoic Ground Project

Fig: 1

Chapter III I. Understanding the Proposition: the Hylozoic Ground Project

II. Through the Illogical III The Interpretation of Living

1+1=4

The architect Philip Beesly along with a group of artists, architects and scientists, submitted, through the Canadian participation in the Architecture Exhibition of Biennale di Venezia in 2011, their own proposition – “manifesto” for a living architecture, called the “Hylozoic Ground Project”. It is probably considered to be the first practical implementation of Biosynthesis in Architecture. It was a flexible meshwork construction where suspended sections were supported by interactive relations like the dynamic flow of material and technologies that represented features of life through their interaction with the user – visitor(fig.1).

The Hylozoic Ground Project, part of a construction series, called the Hylozoic Series, attempted through the proposition to redefine the relationships between the user and the structured environment.

Its proposition involved changing the existing relation between architecture and human, between the user and the object, by transforming it from oneway to two-way relationship, through a powerful interaction. As a consequence of the realization of this proposal/relationship, the building will not be able to live without the human, who on one hand will constitute the living variable of the building’s life and evolution, and on the other hand he/she will not just be the user of an object but he/she will constitute as a functional part of this object.

-27-

-28-

The project is consisted of an ensemble of mechanical but inert (on a material level) parts and of an ensemble of active chemical, “synthetically living”, elements which are called protocells and chells. The installation self-organizes and reacts through the collection and process of data received from the mechanical system, the Arduino processors and the chemical programming of protocells and chells.

The general form of the installation could be associated to a giant lung, which breathed in and out around its users/visitors, consisted of tens of thousands parts – digitally fabricated components, microprocessors and proximity sensors which reacted to the human presence. The proximity feeling created the stimulus through which the cycle of breathing/ reacting began. The installation, sensed being approached by the user/visitor, activated the elastic parts of the breathing columns which started to send upwards a wave of air and humidity. The wave, after reaching the breathing pores, continued its course upwards and passed through the thick concentrations of plastic transparent whiskers which through slow circular movements they were sending the air downwards. In parallel with the breathing cycle, another function was activated, the swallowing columns, which were set to operate with mechanisms (found in the internal side of the swallowing columns), contracting the entire section

Of course, at the same time, some foretold questions set by this technology but also by its evolution in architecture continue to exist, like the “design process” of protocells, their fluctuation caused by their life duration, even the limitation of their life span, as well as consequent spatial issues (in the present and future) to be forming through the “evolution” of the living construction; issues that probably the human logic is not yet able to understand and therefore accept.

Fig: 2

Fig: 3

The instant exchanges between the visitors and the installation produced a living interactive environment which as a system of “shape-memory” abilities of the installation, imprinted the traces of the user/visitor’s presence through the deposition (Venizelos, 2011-12). By walking through the of colour crystals on the surface of protocells. The installation, the visitors realized that the construction slow chemical reactions to the environment of parts responded to their presence, creating in this the installation created an opposition which was way a special experience through reactions of functioning as a counterweight in the fast reactions movement, convulsion and undulation(fig.2-3). of the cybernetic mechanical system. They embodied instantly some contrasts between their relations, like Based on the chemistry and protocell technology, the relationship between fast and slow, liquid and the installation could interact with material parts of dry, organic and inorganic; relations that at some the cybernetic machine but also with the chemical point embodied the paradox of life’s approaches in microclimate of the exhibition space, creating general(Venizelos, 2011-12). thus, an environment that not only could move through mechanical automations but could also be The Hylozoic Ground enabled “protocell transforming gradually in time by recreating itself. architecture” to be tested in a procedure of practical This mutation resulted through the living chemical design and implementation, in real conditions. technologies that were contained inside its tissue, Through this installation and the applied protocell creating, according to R. Armostrong, a synthetic technology, the user/visitor had the opportunity ecology traversing through a powerful evolution. of multiple spatial interactions and the possibility for learning through an environment that beyond The passage of the users/visitors activated the action its spatial morphogenesis had intense elements of of protocells that reacted with carbon dioxide, to be biology, technology and perception, which formed found in peoples’ breathing exhaled air, transforming symbiotic relations through a life experience. it into an insoluble carbonate. At the same time, the protocells were connected to the activity of Definitely, the H. G. project can be considered as a the cybernetic nervous networks, which, as a design tool with direct environmental applications in consequence of the nervous activity, created light the built environment. For example, with its possible and heat emissions through an LED system. This implementation on exterior interactive building process accelerated the metabolism of protocells surfaces, then these surfaces through the chemical which created a layer of colour crystals around their reactions of living technologies could react directly surface. to environmental stimuli like the heat, the wind and even the pollution of the atmosphere.

-29-

Fig: 4

Fig: 5

The search for autonomy in architecture and for interaction between the architectural space, the environment and humans, was a principle that was also investigated in the past. The theoretic background of the Hylozoic Ground could have been considered as a succession of previous approaches, like the ideas of Nichola Negroponte, founder of the Media Lab of MIT, which were expressed through his book “Soft Architecture Machines”(fig.4).

N. Negroponte might not have suggested a living architecture, but through his proposal he approached directly the matter of interaction; a “soft architecture” that could change its shape, selfreorganized in space and time, using a theoretical background similar to the one of Hylozoic Ground.

The information programming via a scripted code and the chemical programming via using an intelligent material, were the means through which Negroponte’s architectural proposal was implemented; applied through a circular process of constant creation and destruction of its elements.

These were approaches that did not depend on conventional approaches of architectural design, like in the case of the Hylozoic Ground proposal. The soft and the circular could be characterized as chemical concepts, since the first one (soft) refers to the modification/mutation of the material, and the second one (circular)

indicates the chemical reactions through which the composition and decomposition of the materials are conducted(Venizelos, 2011-12).

The architect Wolf Hilbertz had a similar approach.

Influenced by the cybernetics technology and knowing that, the living organisms through years of evolution, were sources of accumulation and integration of knowledge, he wanted to achieve the implementation of an architectural system which after having taken advantage from these sources of knowledge, it would have had immediate benefit.

His proposal, called “Cybertecture” (fig.5)– consisted of the words cybernetics and architecture – was very similar to the proposal of Negroponte and very close to the designing principles of the living world. What he proposed did not only concern the designing of elements but the reactions as well, which would have resulted through their correlation.

He considered the living organisms as congenital architects of themselves but also of the environment, whose architecture as a hereditary “gene” was something that evolved over the years and became more and more completed. The ability of the living organisms to distribute matter through complicated processes was the main axis of his proposal, which concerned an architecture through which the method of distributing matter would have meant at the same time the creation of space and consequently the creation of functions/uses (Venizelos, 2011-12).

Through this philosophy cybertecture tried to materialize, with architectural terms, the ability of matter distribution, by using organic procedures.

By creating a construction composed by a computer brain, which was coordinating a centre of subsystems: a) a material distribution and reclamation subsystem and b) a sensing subsystem, in which the computer brain was functioning as a metabolic mechanism, Hilbertz suggested a procedure of reproduction of the model by using chemical processes, which had as result the distribution of material into the space. The sensors, after having detected the functional needs of the installation, sent the information to the brain, which modified and adapted the material distribution to the model. Cybertecture suggested a material ecology close to a natural reality, which was similar to the one suggested by Synthetic Biology and its proposals like the Hylozoic Ground and the Venice Project. The two abovementioned proposals, the “soft architecture” by Nichola Negroponte

-30-

and the Cybertecure by Wolf Hilbertz, could be considered as the foundation for configuring the Synthetic Biology proposals, which in their effort for materialization, they were depicted by similar means.

II.

The building/construction, composed by a large number of moving parts and joints, it was very cumbersome and its movement demanded large amounts of energy; something that could have consisted the main negative argument for the followers and supporters of the chemical approach.

(Venizelos, 2011-12).The supporters of the chemical approach could argue that the implementation of adaptability, through the level of molecular approach and of chemistry, could achieve an easier and coordinated overall movement that in terms of energy consumption would be by far more effective than the one with the assembly of kinetic mechanical parts.

The new method of designing that was suggested by the Hylozoic Ground Project, in its simplest interpretation, is a classic parametric design exercise since it needs a full description of its parameters, which will define the architectural quality but also the kinds of relations that will be possibly developed among these parameters, defining in this way the network of interactive parts.

The space is not in a specific form because it is not defined by a linear process of design, but by a parametric processing which is designated and developed through the evolution of time. Therefore, the time becomes a constant variable that does not stop with the materialization of the initial design specifications, as it occurs in classic parametric design, but it continues, defining in this way the evolving procedure of the system(fig.1). Clearly, for once again at this point a question arises about the control of the design process itself, but also about the control of the self-initiating properties and autonomy of the construction. The answer to these questions is that the parameters, which (will) define the design development but also the construction behaviour, they (will be) are the object of designing by the architect. The architect will set the limits which will be determined through a field of values and not specific values, and therefore he will have the control and development of the construction space.

Time

A similar effort for an architectural implementation, based on the concept of adaptability through mechanical means, was the proposal of the architect Cedric Price with the project Fun Palace in 1964.

Through an implementation, based on mechanic knowledge and applications instead of chemical ones, and without the architect’s reference for a biologically-living building, he tried to render the concept of adaptability through the movement and the transposition of architectural components; a movement and transposition that were the main parameters of the design of the project(fig.6).

Although the proposal was considered to be pioneering and definitely innovative for that time, was proved to be unsustainable.

Through the Illogical

Fig: 1

-31-

inert materials, as they cannot allow the realization of the required processes.

The parametric development in the form of the space through a constant reproduction, demands an active materiality which will have the synthesis and features that are required in order to follow this successive evolution. Therefore for an active materiality of space to become obtainable, the application of two methods is required: 1. Through a mechanical system, as it was suggested by Hilbertz, an example that proved to be awkward, restrictive and inadequate, and 2. Through the implementation of a chemical design and a technologic material, which seems to be the most appropriate(Venizelos, 2011-12).

Design Mutation

Stimulus

Through this evolving process, the space (will be) is a structure which (will be) is being constantly modified, by receiving various stimuli to which the installation (will be) is exposed(fig.2). Contrary to structured space, which is a mass of inert material with very limited, up to minimal, possibilities of modification, the new space is a living structure.

For the implementation of a living architecture, the activation of its material hypostasis is a necessary condition because the continual of ‘designconstruction-use’ could not be materialized through

Fig: 6

Fig: 2

Fig: 3

The settlements of the material are basically successive chemical reactions which occur in space and they are defined by some natural laws(fig.3,4,5).

This activity is a design process able to support the progression of ‘design-construction-use’ because of its definition through natural laws, and at the same time it can be considered as the most energy efficient and secure choice for the balance of the ecosystem.

-32-

This chemical designing can occur in two ways: 1. Through an intelligent material, whose physicochemical abilities contain a designing method and information that distributes matter according to these abilities; consequently, its behaviour as a material is definitely predesigned, and 2. Through the protocell technology and their chemical programming, through which they will execute the manufacturing processes, based on a redistribution of material in space.

The difference between the second method from the first one is that, the protocells require a second supportive system that will also determine the space in which the protecells will be applied.

Fig: 4

Fig: 5

Nevertheless, the most difficult design parameter will be definitely given to the architect who will be called to design an “abstract/ aniconic” space, which will not only be defined by its forms but also by designing the system that will determine the development of these forms. A fundamental transition in the way of thinking, since so far the design practice as we know it, through the conception and implementation of an image, will be considered as inefficient and will not be able to attribute, forcing the architect to turn into a more mathematical design process. At the same time, the planning of models of the living systems requires an interdisciplinary approach of the subject matter, that in order to be attainable, the architect’s knowledge and educational fields must expand. The consequent design, will occur through the cooperation of scientific fields which until nowadays were considered to be discernible and irrelevant between them, but probably also with architecture itself(Venizelos, 2011-12). Even though the “behaviour” of the space will arise as a result of a controlled design, there could be a speculation before the possibility of a potential diminution of the architect’s role but of the design process control as well.

III. The Interpretation of Living

was applied on the body, it acquired the ability to reproduce itself and therefore, be determined as living.

At the same time, Philip Beesley, through the living experience that he offered to the visitor/user, he also created the prerequisites though which he forced in a way the visitor /user to confront it (fig.1,3).

“The insane interprets the world through his (strangely) consistent logic. How can we declare if our logic is paradoxical or not, considering the fact that we only have our logic to judge it?”( Kurt Friedrich Gödel).

Fig: 1

As the visitor/user entered into the installation/ structure/body, the permeability of the material created the feeling of being in the insides of a living organism rather than in a “traditional” architectural building space, by putting the logic in a controversy with the reality(fig.2). While the material expressed its living nature, the logic could not accept such possibility and as a result the visitor/user was in a constant state of confusion and doubt, which occurred through the effort to define the limits between living and non-living, between himself and his environment (Venizelos, 2011-12).

The interpretation of the Hylozoic Ground experience, both the spatial and the conceptual, underlines and brings at the spotlight the importance of human being and the role he has to play in the artificial environment, built or not. Certainly, the rise of technology and what might come out of it, either in architecture or in other application fields, has always been and always will be welcomed, since The transformation of the architectural process, from primarily it results with good intentions and has the purpose to improve human life. inert into active is certainly a shift of limits which A lot has been written historically for the role and primarily generates interest and curiosity but also application of technology in architecture, since it had doubt and confusion. The definition of a “living” always determined almost completely not only the entity presupposes predominantly the existence of architectural evolution but the general evolution and two components: definition of human life.

Maybe the most paradoxical, but in parallel the most significant thing in R. Armstrong’s proposal, as it was implemented through the Hylozoic Ground Project, is the effort for understanding and interpreting the logic within the framework of living architecture which governs the design proposal, rather than the actual proposal itself.

1. The existence of a body, which can be determined as the spatial distinction between the “organism” and the environment, and 2. The existence of a metabolic process, through which the living organism, the body, the spatial distinction, can raise resources from the environment which after their transformation into structural units, this process will use them to be recreated and preserved(Venizelos, 2011-12) (fig.4,5).

The Hylozoic Ground consisted of the “body” (even though its form and material were different in regard with the conventional buildings), and it also consisted of the metabolism, whose catalyst was the human presence itself. Consequently, through the metabolism and chemical network, which

The technology of Biosynthesis and its implementation in architecture, through biologic terms as well, still lies in a stage of conception.

The matters that could question the future course of Biosynthesis are definitely many, since beyond the basically undocumented refinement/completion of the technology (suggested as an architectural tool), and beyond the theoretical approaches, there is no clear definition on how this proposal will manage many of the basic architectural principles and values; like the subjects of culture and civilization but even matters of performance, security, flexibility, reliability, usability, durability but ethics as well.

Initially the conducting of this research was inspired by the manifestation of a technological innovation

-33-

Fig: 2

Fig: 3

Fig: 4

Fig: 5

and how it evolved into a new architectural “movement” through its proposal for a living architecture. But the importance and essence of this proposal is not only the uniqueness of the technology, but it concerns the necessity for redefining the human’s role in regard with his relation with architecture, the artificial but also the natural environment.

The implementation of the proposal as a new architecture might take many years to mature or it might never be done, maybe it is just a Utopia. What really matters though is certainly a reflection on the questions, which are posed. Þ Is it really the time to redefine the one-way relationship between human and architecture? Þ Is it in fact the right moment; is there a real need for architecture to redefine its application and look beyond the industrial model of implementation, by applying a new model? Þ Is it really enough what architecture is trying to change through the employment of sustainability principles? Þ Does the human being define through his life patterns the architectural evolution, or does the architectural evolution define human life?

Certainly, these questions could be characterized as eternal-timeless and they could have resulted without this research presentation. But, the proposal for a living architecture, beyond the material and spatial proposition, provides a new way of thinking which revises and even negates many of the dogmas and stereotypes known and accepted until now. Perhaps even merely this revolutionary reconsideration could be considered enough as a first implementation.

-34-

Conclusion Undoubtedly, the planet needs changes on a socio-political, economic but also environmental level. Through this study, predictions were presented regarding future problems and changes, which impose at least fundamental questioning.

Architecture seems to have a big enough share of responsibility regarding the creation and development of environmental problems, mostly as a result of its implementation and operation methods.

The effort to resolve these issues, especially through the redefinition of architectural tactics based on sustainability principles and ecological design principles, does not seem to be sufficient in order to modify effectively the current development of problems.

Nevertheless, architecture gathers big hopes for changing and improving the existing model of production but also the way of living in general.

What is primarily needed is a vision for change and the means through which this vision may possibly become reality.

The implementation of biology in architecture mainly through biomorphic architecture, has constituted the source of inspiration and knowledge for the confrontation of various problems, however it seems unable to follow the continuously increasing needs of sustainability.

The proposal for a living architecture, even if it can be characterized as utopian, certainly presents the vision and faith for a real change through the technology of Biosynthesis. It upgrades the role that biology can play in architecture, both in the application of logic and also of practice.

The logic of living architecture, undoubtedly poses many questions, and its approaches revise the established positions of architecture. Nevertheless, it proclaims confidently that its application will give solutions to the eternal problems that architecture faces in regard with its relations with the environment but also the human being.

At the present stage what really matters is the proper evaluation of the issues which result through this research. The implementation of Biosynthesis in architecture might seem as a far away utopian scenario, even non-existent/fictional. But the issues Living Architecture addresses, supporting that they can be resolved through biosynthesis, are timeless and need to be immediately at least revised.

-36-

References

Bibliography

Armstrong, R. (2009, October). Architecture that Repairs Itself? Retrieved from TED Global: http://www. ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_repairs_itself.html

Armstrong, R. (2012, February). A Trip to the Living City of the Future. Retrieved from Fast Company: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679275/a-trip-to-the-living-city-of-the-future

Armstrong R., Spiller N. (2011, March - April). Protocell Architecture. AD Magazine , Vol. 81 (No.2).

Armstrong, R. (2009, November). Living Buildings. Retrieved from Slide Share: http://www.slideshare.net/ Grayanat/towards-sustainable-cities

Armstrong, R. (2012). Living Architecture: How Synthetic Biology can Remake our Cities and Reshape our Lives (Kindle ed.).

Benyus, J. (2009, August). Biomimicry in Action. Retrieved from TED Global: http://www.ted.com/talks/ janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action.html Elghawaby, M. (2010). Biomimicry: A New Approach to Enhance the Efficiency of Natural Ventilation Systems in Hot Climate. International Seminar Arquitectonics Network. Barcelona.

Kotsanis, I. (2012, June). Towards an (over)materiality. (I. Kotsanis, Ed.) Retrieved from http://www.greekarchitects.gr/site_parts/doc_files/44.12.2012.07.pdf Pagliacolo, E. (2011, March). David Benjamin and the Future architecture. Retrieved from Azure: http:// www.azuremagazine.com/article/david-benjamin-and-the-future-of-architecture/ Pawlyn, M. (2011). Biomimicry in Architecture. RIBA Publishing.

Armstrong, R. (2012, July). Synthetic Biology as an Open System for Architectural Design. Retrieved from Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/6058 Arzumanyan, A. (2005, July - August). Design Through Making. AD Magazine , Vol. 75 (No. 4).

C. Eric Hodgman, M. C. (2011, September). Cell-Free Synthetic Biology: Thinking Outside the Cell. Retrieved from US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC3322310/ Chiotis, T. (2012, January). Rachel Armstrong - Architecture that Repairs Itself. Retrieved September 2013, from TEDx Athens: http://blog.tedxathens.com/rachel-armstrong-%E2%80%93-architecture-that-repairsitself/#more-831 Clear, N. (2009, September - October). Architectures of the Near Future. AD Magazine , Vol. 78 (No. 6).

Ternaux, E. (2011). Industry of Nature - Another Approach to Ecology. Amsterdam: Frame Publishers.

Cronin, L. (2011, September). Making Matter Come Alive. Retrieved from TED Global: http://www.ted. com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html

Venizelos, D. (2011 - 2012). Life - A Method of Designing and Construction. Synthesis of Technologic Peak - Construction Section. National Technical University of Athens - School of Architecture.

George Church, E. R. (2012). Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves . Basic Books.

Wikipedia. (2012, December). Utopia and Architecture (Outopia kai Architektoniki). Retrieved from Wikipedia - Greek: http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9F%CF%85%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%AF%CE %B1_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B5%CE%B A%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE

Group, N. H.-L. (2005). Synthetic Biology - Applying Engineering to Biology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Hanczyc, M. (2011, November). The Line Between Life and Not-Life. Retrieved from TED Global: http:// www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html Jones, W. (2004, October). Heidegger, Corbu, and the Aliens. Retrieved from http://www.jpaessays.info/ heid-corbu-aliens.html Jones, W. (2009). LIM (n) IT: Notes on the Next Best Thing. Retrieved from http://www.jpaessays.info/limnit_nbt.html Jones, W. (2002). Newerness. Retrieved from http://www.jpaessays.info/newerness.html Mackenzie, A. (2009, November). Design in Synthetic Biology. Retrieved from Academia.edu: http://www. academia.edu/2718507/Design_in_synthetic_biology Manlutac, R. (2008). Biomimicry and Architecture. Retrieved from Helloro: http://www.helloro.com/work/ ROANNAMANLUTAC_2009ESSAY1.pdf Marcos Cruz, S. P. (2008, November - December). Neoplasmatic Design. AD Magazine , Vol. 78 (No. 6).

Pia Ednie-Brown, M. B. (2013, January - February). The Innovation Imperative - Architectures of Vitality.

-37-

-38-

List of Illustrations

AD Magazine .

Price, C. (2012, March). Cendric Price & The Fun Palace. Retrieved from CITYMOVEMENT: http://citymovement.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/cedric-price/ Price, C. (2003). Re: CP. (H. U. Obrist, Ed.) Basel - Boston - Berlin: Birkhäuser.

Salingaros, N. A. (2003). Towards a Biological Understanding of Architecture and Urbanism: Lessons from Steven Pinker. Retrieved from Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Texas at San Antonio: http://www.math.utsa.edu/~yxk833/pinker.html Sant’Elia, A. (n.d.). Retrieved from Manifesto of Futirist Architecture: http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/ architecture.html Tassel, D. (2011, January). Luminescent City. Retrieved from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/17883342

§ Cover page Fig: tim-burton-alice-in-wonderland-chatty-flowers Source: http://www.bryozoans.nl/microscope/lophopus_crystallinus/1.jpg § Table of contents Fig1:1.white-egg source: http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/white-egg.jpg Fig2:2.heaven-or-hell source: http://www.theology21.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/heaven-or-hell.jpg

Tassell, D. (n.d.). Battersea Experiment. Retrieved from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/24870658

Fig3:3.wz_bring_the_light_back_5326246430-803730 Source:http://dark.pozadia.org/images/wallpapers/wz_bring_the_light_back_5326246430-803730.jpeg

They Live: Synthetic Biology in Architecture. (2012, September). Retrieved from Designbuild Network. com: http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/featureleaf-review-living-buildings-biotechnology/

Fig4:4 Source:http://www.bryozoans.nl/microscope/lophopus_crystallinus/2.jpg

Walker, S. (2013, September 16). From Breathing Buildings to Illuminated Highways. Sensor-embedded architecture and design is opening up a world of interactive possibilities. Retrieved from Azure Magazine: http://www.azuremagazine.com/article/from-breathing-buildings-to-illuminated-highways/

Fig5:5 http://www.bryozoans.nl/microscope/lophopus_crystallinus/1.jpg Fig6:7.14843-2560x1440 Source: http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/14843-2560x1440.jpg Fig7:8.HylozoicGroundinstallationinprogressatMeduse Source: http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/images/image%20gallery/hylozoic%20ground%20the%20 project%20and%20the%20team/the%20project/hylozoicgroundinstallationinprogressatmeduse.jpg § Introduction Fig(background):49.Neil Spiller. For some early twentieth century commentator source http://archimorph.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/neil-spiller-image.jpg?w=630 § Chapter I § Biology In Architecture Fig1:10.Design for a flying machine- Leonardo Da Vinci source : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Ailes_battantes_Luc_Viatour.jpg Fig2: 11.Sagrada Familia Inside source: http://ideasconnectus.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sagrada-familia-inside.jpg Fig3: 12:AD Classics- S.C. Johnson and Son 11. Administration Building / Frank Lloyd source: http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1290194481-the-great-room.jpg Fig4: 48.The Montreal Biosphère by Buckminster Fuller, 1967 source http://www.spatialagency.net/2009/08/24/buckminsterfuller_1-960x607.jpg

-39-

-40-

Fig5: 13.The Nanyang Technological University’s School of Art, Design, and Media in Singapore source : http://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/113.jpg Fig6: 16.Mercedes-Benz bionic car skeleton source : http://www.asknature.org/images/uploads/strategy/547dbeb778bd94c5d78eb0d18d39ccdc/459057_ 779381_4992_3328_89348305c2545_86.jpg Fig7: 15.Kingfisher-with-Train-e1340055296858 source : http://static.biomimicry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Kingfisher-with-Train-e1340055296858. jpg Fig8: 17. seashell source: http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/seashell.jpg § II The need for Utopian Thinking Fig1: 20.overpopulation source http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/3949/overpopulation.png Fig2 : 21.cityscapes-architecture_00428624 source http://wallpoper.com/images/00/42/86/24/cityscapes-architecture_00428624.jpg Fig3: 18. 18.earth-deforestation source http://ordinarysilence.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/earth-deforestation.jpg Fig4: 22.“Cénotaphe à Newton”, 1784 design for a cenotaph for Isaac Newton source http://i.imgur.com/61QNU.jpg Fig5:25.Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome was proposed with the best source http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18sjicwi3elarjpg/original.jpg Fig6: 35.Reconstruction in Germany after the Second World War. Source http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00660/news-graphics-2008-_660162a.jpg Fig7: 26.Kisho Kurokawa was a leading member of the Metabolist movement in Japanese .. source http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oIa9uH7EPfM/SpGS2q5taLI/AAAAAAAABOI/3hOWm_qKstY/s400/c-in-theair.jpg Fig8: 27.Yona Friedman, Spatial City (Paris) source http://theredlist.fr/media/database/architecture/sculpture1/yona-friedman/016-yona-friedman-theredlist.jpg fig9: 28.Constant Nieuwenhuys. New Babylon ... source http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HVfpe8sGXAo/ULzSdGFnw2I/AAAAAAAABRY/3oPNSS_Z0wY/s1600/ new+babylon3.jpg

-41-

Fig10: 34.Hippies source http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0e2cbGnCowo/Te3kx3YyiTI/AAAAAAAAzlo/928EtxOezwU/s1600/ My%2BPictures1.jpg Fig11: 29.a walking city archigram source http://archipressone.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/87_2lg.jpg Fig12: 36.Homeless-007 source http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/18/1305717031093/Homeless-007.jpg § III The Vision Fig1: 30. Rachel Armstrong source http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/80vwVSkXXWM/maxresdefault.jpg

§ Chapter II § I The Technology of Biosynthesis Fig1: 38.the patient gardenter’ by visiondivision source http://www.designboom.com/architecture/visiondivision-the-patient-gardener/ Fig2: 37.dezeen_The-Patient-Gardener-by-visiondivision-04 source http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2011/10/dezeen_The-Patient-Gardener-by-visiondivision-04.jpg Fig3-5: 39-40-41.meat_house_terreform1_c source http://www.terreform.org/projects_habitat_meat.html Fig6 : 45.future-venice source http://undertomorrowssky.liamyoung.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/rachel-armstrong-venice.jpg Fig7: 44.future-venice source http://static.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/imagelibrary/Venice_2009%20lowres06.jpg Fig8: 42.future-venice source http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pictures/636xAny/3/2/6/1313326_future-venice.jpg Fig9: 46.future-venice source http://www.aramplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Venice1.jpg

-42-

beesley.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1327611222442

§ II The New Living Architecture Fig1: 47. Rachel-Armstrong-Living-Architecture-2 source http://www.australiandesignreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Rachel-Armstrong-LivingArchitecture-2.jpg Fig2: 50.Molecular_House source http://www.ona.vg/images/690_Molecular_House.jpg Fig:3-6:51.1,2,34 Bütschli droplets source http://www.architecturenorway.no/questions/cities-sustainability/armstrong/

Chapter III § I Understanding the Proposition: the Hylozoic Ground Project Fig1: 52.Beesley_Hylozoic-Series-Sibyl_2012_PU source http://www.arts.nsw.gov.au/index.php/arts-in-nsw/2013-sector-and-regional-snapshots/ Fig2-3:59-60: sectional diagrams Venizelos, D. (2011 - 2012). Life - A Method of Designing and Construction. Synthesis of Technologic Peak - Construction Section. National Technical University of Athens - School of Architecture.

Fig4: 57.softarchitecturemachines source http://hermenaut.org/2011/06/page/13/

Fig4: 53.Beesley_Hylozoic_detail_Feb1310 source http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/images/image%20gallery/hylozoic%20ground%20the%20project%20 and%20the%20team/the%20project/beesley_hylozoic_detail_feb1310.jpg?mh=400&mw=600 Fig5: 62.hylozoic_ground_01 source http://www.urbanspacegallery.ca/sites/default/files/exhibit/hylozoic_ground_01.jpg?1301691813 § III The Interpretation of Living Fig1: 65. huylozoic ground source http://thisisalive.com/the-hylozoic-ground-project/ Fig2: 54.dzn_Hylozoic-Ground-by-Philip-Beesley-8 source http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2010/08/dzn_Hylozoic-Ground-by-Philip-Beesley-8.jpg Fig3: 55.18th-Biennale-of-Sydney-Philip-Beesley-Hylozoic-Series-Sibyl-009 source http://www.boudist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/18th-Biennale-of-Sydney-Philip-Beesley-HylozoicSeries-Sibyl-009.jpg Fig4: diagram, By the author Fig5: diagram, By the author § Conclusion

Fig5:56.Toward Cybertecture (1970) Wolf Hilbertz source http://asd-ddrs.org/arrash-again/files/2013/11/2013_70-469x713.jpg Fig6: 58. Cedric Price Archive at the CCA (The Canadian Centre .. source http://restance.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/02.jpg

Fig: 66.Alice in wonderland giant mushrooms accessed source http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4M_USYau7Fk/TpQuM395oXI/AAAAAAAAACM/BS60eP4W79Y/s1600/Alice +in+wonderland+giant+mushrooms+accessed+11-10-2011+12-43pm.jpg

§ II: Through the Illogical Fig1: Diagram By the author

Fig2: 61.hylozoic3 source http://meonline.hu/wp-content/gallery/hylozoic/hylozoic3.jpg Fig3: 63.hylozoic ground_beesley source http://www.designundersky.com/storage/2012-dus-images/january/neo-wilderness/hylozoic%20ground_ -43-

-44-