Bio Mimicry: Nature As An Architectural Metaphor: Khaled Mohamed Dewidar

Bio mimicry: nature as an architectural
metaphor
Khaled Mohamed Dewidar1
Department of Architecture,
British University, Egypt.
Abstract
“Architecture is considered as a form of life, subject like the natural world to
principles of morphogeneres” John Frazer
The collision and the relationship between architecture and biology rely largely
on the visual comparison between animals and buildings. Freed from the
constraints that favoured rectilinear modernists’ designs, architects are
celebrating the eruption of wild forms that go beyond the merely organic
concepts. There are new materials and a new bravado among structural engineers
that allow forms imagined on a computer screen to be actually constructed. This
new architecture provides on emphatic answer to the recurrent question: “In what
style shall we build?” Labels have been proposed such as “biotechnical and
techno-organic,” but these imply a restrictive dependence of biological forms
upon technological means. Biomorphism a term coined during the Art Nouveau
Period, remains more specific than organic, but suggests that it is only the shape
that matters, whereas it is also patterns and mechanism of buildings and
operations derived from biological matters that interact us. This research focuses
on Bio-mimic architecture or zoomorphic architecture; animal forms are
employed for symbolic and metaphoric reasons, sometimes because nature
inspires an idea of structure skin or building function. These projects provide the
most astonishing examples of this new trend, and the most persuasive evidence
of architecture’s has turned to nature.
Keywords: Biomorphic, symmetry, organic, biology, metaphors.
There is a long-lived tradition of representing natural forms in human culture;
we find that it is not entirely by chance that animals and buildings share some of
their most basic characteristics. One trait that buildings and animals often share
is bilateral symmetry. In the 16th century Georges Vasari laid out his conceptual
plan for an ideal palace on anthropomorphic lines. The façade was analogous to
the human face, the courtyard to the body and finally the stairways to the human
limbs. The only symmetry that such a design possesses is the bilateral symmetry.
The bases for such symmetry were laid by the 18th century architectural theorist
Jean- Nicolas Louis Durand’s concept of the principle and secondary axes proper
to architectural compositions.
Figure 1 Antonio Gaudi Examples of Art Nouveau Era.Spain
The fondness for bilateral symmetry has persisted from the classical period
through the Gothic and Renaissance and has even extended to a surprising
degree in the villas of Le Corbusier. But bilateral symmetry is just a start.
Perhaps, as Greg Lynn suggests, it is merely the cheapest form of beauty. There
was a lull in organic forms interest following the demise of Art Nouveau that
was made possible by the developments in concrete construction as much as Art
Nouveau was by the use of steel and glass. Engineers as Nervi, Gio Ponti as well
as Oscar Niemeyer exploited concrete’s structural potentials. The triumphant
projects of this decade were Eero Saarinen’s TWA terminal, and John Utzon’s
Sydney Opera House.
Figure 2 TWA Terminal, by Eero Saarinen, New York
Figure 3 Sydney Opera House, by John Utzon.
Nature has never triumphed over machine either in architectural metaphor or in

fact. But as knowledge increases of biological form and function, so many
analogies and metaphors from living organisms commend themselves. At the
same time, our comprehension of biological grows more detail led and
mechanistic. It is how becoming evident that a new strand of biomorphism is
emergency where the meaning derives not from any specific representation but
from a more general allusion to biological processes. A central Figure in the
direction is the biologist D’Arcy Thompson, who in 1884 published his seminal
work “On courts and form” showing that the shape of living items has a physical
and a mathematical bases and thus, form as a diagram of flowing forces.
Figure 4 Body and Classical Structures.

Figure 5 Dancing Tower by Frank Gehry, Prague.
Figure 6 Museum of science by Santiago Calatrava, Valencia.
In this research, architecture was favoured where the whole building has a kind
of equivalency with a whole organism because it offers the most persuasive
evidence of biomorphism. Le Corbusier Ron champ Chapel suggests a bird
metaphor. I have chosen animal architecture and excluded the plant kingdom and
the human body.
Figure 7 Ron champs Chapel, Le Corbusier.
Firstly, plant forms in architecture are so often reduced to mere ornaments on

the building exterior and interior. Although man is a talking animal, I have also
omitted all anthropomorphic architecture (discussed before during the
renaissance era).
I think it is a new architecture style surfacing among many. It is rather a
significant, fertile and authentic manifestation of a continued and a revived
modernism, which has the potential to connect with the public.
Art Nouveau failed because it required too much design time, expensive skills
and custom components, and the same should be said for concrete expressionism
of the late fifties. Computers promise to alleviate these difficulties. It is clear that
taking natural forms as models can lead to lighter structures and more efficient
use of materials as well as novelty of style. With greater dialogue between its
scientific and architectural disciplines will conic the prospect of other
improvements in thermal performance, weather protection and sensory
responsiveness that are the subjects of investigations in the emerging field of
biomimetics. This no moral imperative for this new architecture, but as Aristotle
once said. “If there is a better answer to a problem. Then nature has probably
found it.” It is now up to architects. Biologists, technologists and engineers to
find those answers.
Animals by Function-Statics
Animals are a more or less familiar means of representing abstract ideas. A

century ago, classical paintings were deeply comprehended because people knew
that the animals they depicted represented episodes in the Bible and myth and
legend the butterfly emerging from its shell represented the soul departing the
dead body, while the ape represented the devil. While the scorpion signified
hatred, envy and the dove was indicative to lust and holy issues. As for painting
no for building according to Paolo Portuguese: “The symbolism attributed to
animals by numerous cultures has made it possible for the architect to use
symbolic imitations to communicate ideas to confirm collective values. While in
psychology, the self is often represented by an animal”.
The Fish has become a symbol for Frank Ghery and has served as a symbol for
his early work and collaboration with the sculptor Richard of Serra. The fish has
appeared at the 1992 Olympic village in Barcelona. This use for the symbolism
of the fish was due to the functional appeal to forms with structural flexibility.
While the slipper form of the fish served as a piece in DC Bank in Germany
making a transition to computer aided design programming by using CATIA
program.
Figure 8 Olympic Villages in Barcelona, Frank Ghery.
Another example is the 40 storey UK headquarters of the major reinsurance

company of Swiss Re bank designed by Norman Foster. It is claimed to be the
first environmentally progressive office building. Most of the load of the 180 m
cylindrical tower is carried by an external diagonal grid of steel beams stiffened
by horizontal beams. This matrix has allowed the architect to insert light wells
that spiral up the building and break up each floor’s circular plan into smaller
areas. These wells permit air to circulate naturally, assisted by the aero dynamic
envelope of the building, thus reducing the final energy consumption. The
circular shape of the tower streamlines the winds Flow. The final building form
is close to that of a sea-sponge (anemones meaning a hole hearing or a perforated
creature) that affix itself to the sea-bed.
The delicate external frame of this sponge is sufficient to support and protect
the enclosed soft body of the organism. The analogy between the structures is
evident. Its shape ameliorates the wind flow just as the sponge’s shape helps
water to flow around it. Internally, the natural ventilation systems find a
precedent in the way that sponges feed, sucking in water through the external
membrane and expelling it through the top opening.
Figure 9 Swiss Re bank having the form of a sea-sponge, Norman Foster.
It is also obvious to state that one of the major differences between buildings
and animals is that the later are capable of movement, while the former are
rooted to the ground. As buildings incorporate ever more moving parts, used for
environmental control and other purposes, it is clear that there are wider lessons
to be learnt, not only from the static structures of living organism but also from
the mechanism by which they and their parts are able to move. Beyond this lie
buildings capable of movements.
It seems that digital technology is capable of unleashing this fluid and dynamic
concepts in the architectural domain, where architecture for these digital
architects is considered a form of life that is subjected, like the natural world to
the principles of morphogenesis, replication and selection.
Architectural design that is the product of genetic algorithms is modelled on

natural processes of evolution. I think it will be the answer of a new trend of
digitally built architecture on the basis of natural and biological ideas.
Today there is a wide spread interest in buildings that respond actively to their
environment which indicates a deeper relevance of biological similitude to their
function and behaviour as well as their appearance. While the environment may
alter, buildings tend to stay the same living organisms are both adapted to their
environment over the long term by evolution and are capable of responding in
various ways to its change. Similar adaptation is one of the main goals of those
pioneering the emerging field of biomimetics. We would like the intelligent
buildings of the future to react to the surrounding environment. The zoologist
Julian Vincent defined biomimetics as the abstraction of good design from
nature. It is not the slavish imitation of nature at any cost, but the judicious
selection of observed properties and their subsequent development into
sophisticated artificial technologies.
The attraction of biomimetics for architects is that it raises the prospect of
closer integration of form and function, in this light. Bio mimetic architecture is
seen as an extension of modernism. The urge to build in closer sympathy with
nature is as Dr. George Jeronomodes of the centre of biomimetics at the
University of Readings, a genuinely biological and not merely Romantic urge.
These inspirations will undoubtedly lead to new materials and technologies. The
building as an organism is a seductive vision.
References
[1] Williams, H., zoomorphic: new animal architecture, Laurence King

Publications. London, 1988.
[2] Thomson, D., On Growth and form, Harvard University Press. Cambridge,
1971.
[3] Pawley, M., Architecture&Biomomecry, MIT Press. Boston, 2008.
[4] Portuguese, P., Nature and Architecture, Skira, 2000.
[5] Maizels, J., Fantasy Worlds, Taschen, 1999.
[6] Pearson, D., New Organic, Taschen, 2001.
[7] Steadman, P., the Evolution of Designs: Biological Analogy in Architecture
and the Applied Arts, Routledge, 2001.
[8] Nostrand, V., Architecture: Form, Space, and Order, Routledge, 1979.
[9] Benyus, J., Bio mimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, Harper perennial,
2002.
[10] Kolarevic, B., Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality,
Routledge, 2005.
[11] Richardson, P., New Sacred Architecture, Laurence King Publishing, 2004.
[12] Richardson, P., The organic approach to architecture, Laurence King
Publishing, 2004.
[13] Phillip, C., The organic approach to architecture, Academy Press, 2003.
[14] Weintraub, a.., Organic Architecture: The Other Modernism, Gibbs Smith,
2006.

Bio Mimicry: Nature As An Architectural Metaphor: Khaled Mohamed Dewidar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bio Mimicry: Nature As An Architectural Metaphor: Khaled Mohamed Dewidar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bio Mimicry: Nature As An Architectural Metaphor: Khaled Mohamed Dewidar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bio mimicry: nature as an architectural

Figure 1 Antonio Gaudi Examples of Art Nouveau Era.Spain

Figure 3 Sydney Opera House, by John Utzon.

Nature has never triumphed over machine either in architectural metaphor or in

Figure 4 Body and Classical Structures.

Figure 6 Museum of science by Santiago Calatrava, Valencia.

Firstly, plant forms in architecture are so often reduced to mere ornaments on

Animals are a more or less familiar means of representing abstract ideas. A

Figure 8 Olympic Villages in Barcelona, Frank Ghery.

Another example is the 40 storey UK headquarters of the major reinsurance

Architectural design that is the product of genetic algorithms is modelled on

[1] Williams, H., zoomorphic: new animal architecture, Laurence King

You might also like