Biomimetics and biomimicry. Their role as a tool and ideology in contemporary architecture

Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

doi:10.37190/arc240310

Abstract

The aim of the study is to present how biomimetics and biomimicry manifest themselves in the architectural practice on two basic levels: as a tool and ideology. Biomimetics can be perceived as an architectural tool. It takes inspiration from the details of form, structure, and behaviour of living organisms, producing architectural elements of specific functionalities. Biomimicry is a contemporary architecture’s ideology. It means the imitation of biological rules and processes at the ecosystem level. Here, nature provides inspiration at the macro level, the idea of biomimicry is of a synthetic character, based on a holistic view and general laws and principles. The final products are buildings, perceived in a holistic way, and urban complexes. The idea of biomimicry can be implemented either using advanced high-tech solutions (biomimetic tools), or with a low-tech approach, taking inspiration from vernacular architecture or animals’ habitats.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2024

3(79)

Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz*

Biomimetics and biomimicry.

Their role as a tool and ideology in contemporary architecture

Introduction

Biomimetics and biomimicry are two terms that have

become quite popular in architectural discourse in re-

cent years, and in their essence both mean the imitation

(Greek: mimesis) of living organisms. However, these are

not concepts created in relation to architecture, but applied

to it. The term “biomimetics” was rst used in 1957 by

bio-engineer and physicist Otto Schmitt in reference to his

synthetic nerve modelled on the nervous system of an oc-

topus (Chayamoor-Heil 2023, 205). The concept of “bio-

mimicry” was introduced later by Janine Benyus in her

dissertation Biomimicry. Innovation inspired by Nature,

rst published in 1997, and was dened by her as drawing

inspiration from nature to solve human problems (2002).

According to Benyus, nature, with its 3.8 million years of

evolutionary experience in optimizing processes and struc-

tures, should be treated as a mentor, model and measure

in all areas of human activity. The theoretical discussion

on the application of both concepts of biomimetics and

biomimicry in architecture dates back to the beginning of

DOI: 10.37190/arc240310

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

the second decade of this century. Michael Pawlyn in his

work entitled Biomimicry in architecture (2011) dened

the essence of biomimicry as the imitation of not form but

function. The architect’s goal is therefore to dene the de-

sign task in functional categories and analyze how a giv-

en function is implemented in nature. Pawlyn formulated

guidelines for architectural biomimetic design in accor-

dance with the principles of nature. These are primarily the

eciency of resource and material use, creation of regen-

erative closed systems based on solar energy, treatment of

waste as elements in cradle to cradle loops and adaptation

of the design to the specicity of the location. Currently,

the prevailing tendency in the literature on the subject is

to associate the concept of biomimetics with the scientic

translation of natural forms, functions and processes for

the purpose of technological innovation, while biomimicry

results from ecological awareness and means modelling

itself on nature at the level of ecosystems.

The concepts of biomimetics and biomimicry, before

they appeared in architecture, were originally used in other

elds of science and technology. Since architectural design

is not a scientic process in its essence, attention should

be paid to the specic conditions for the application of

these ideas in architecture (Vitalis, Chayaamor-Heil 2022).

* ORCID: 0000-0002-8827-9397. Faculty of Architecture, Cra-

cow University of Technology, Poland, e-mail: jbialkiewicz@pk.edu.pl

Abstract

The aim of the study is to present how biomimetics and biomimicry manifest themselves in the architectural practice on two basic levels: as a tool

and ideology. Biomimetics can be perceived as an architectural tool. It takes inspiration from the details of form, structure, and behaviour of living

organisms, producing architectural elements of specic functionalities. Biomimicry is a contemporary architecture’s ideology. It means the imitation

of biological rules and processes at the ecosystem level. Here, nature provides inspiration at the macro level, the idea of biomimicry is of a synthetic

character, based on a holistic view and general laws and principles. The nal products are buildings, perceived in a holistic way, and urban complex-

es. The idea of biomimicry can be implemented either using advanced high-tech solutions (biomimetic tools), or with a low-tech approach, taking

inspiration from vernacular architecture or animals’ habitats.

Key words: biomimicry, biomimetics, biomimetic tools, ideological biomimicry

94 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

This raises the question of whether biomimetics is only

a specic way of solving architectural problems and is-

sues (primarily structural and material), or whether it can

be considered an independent architectural manifestation.

The authors tend to agree that biomimetics can hardly be

called a “style” or “trend” in contemporary architecture,

which is conrmed by the lack of a consistent and coherent

denition of the features of a biomimetic object. The thesis

of the following review paper is that the concept of bio-

mimetics and biomimicry makes its presence felt in con-

temporary architecture on two basic levels: instrumental

(as a tool) and ideological, which to some extent coincides

with the distinction between these two concepts. In the fur-

ther part of the work, based on the available literature on

the subject, both levels will be characterized and dened

(Fig. 1) and examples of the corresponding architectural

designs and implementations will be presented.

State of research

The issue of “biomimetic architecture” is a relatively

new topic in the literature and – as mentioned – raises some

controversy. It also seems that architectural practice in this

case does not correspond to theoretical discourse, and some

denitions include the statement that the described phe-

nomena occur only in theory. Even before Pawlyn’s work

was published in 2011, Maibritt Pedersen Zari in several

publications, including the article Biomimetic approaches

to architectural design for increased sustainability (2007),

indicated three levels of biomimicry, i.e., imitation of na-

ture at the organism level, behaviour level and ecosystem

level. The author pointed out that the tendency to imitate at

the organism level is dominant, which results in the domi-

nance of individual biomimetic products or materials, rath-

er than holistic buildings. Zari stated that although biomi-

metics at the level of organisms can serve innovation, only

through the imitation of ecosystems can the actual transfor

mation of architecture take place, so that it is able to create

a sustainable and regenerative human environment. In sub-

sequent years, following Pawlyn’s guidelines for designing

in accordance with the principles of nature, some authors

focused on an attempt to dene the features of a “biomi-

metic” architectural object. Petra Gruber (2011) dened

biomimetics in architecture as a discipline providing in-

novative solutions through the use of models from nature.

At the same time, the author expressed doubts about the

term “biomimetic architecture” as the name of a new “style

or genre”, indicating that the term “biomimetic design” is

more appropriate, dening the architect’s method of action

based on the “principles of nature’s design” mentioned

by her. Achim Menges (2012) noted an important distinc-

tion, in his opinion, between biologically inspired building

products and actual “biomimetic architecture”, which is the

eect of imitating nature in the creative process itself. Re-

nee L. Ripley and Bharat Bhushan (2016) pointed out that

in the eld of creative expression, which is architecture,

there should be no mimesis, i.e., imitation – copying nature,

but only drawing inspiration from it. The authors therefore

postulate “bioarchitecture” instead of biomimetics, based

on inspiration that can be drawn directly from nature, also

without the mediation of technology. Also in Poland, an

interesting article by Adrian Krężlik Biomimetyka w kilku

przykładach [Biomimetics in a few examples] (2016) was

published. It refers to Joe Kaplinsky’s text Biomimicry

versus humanism (published in the journal “Architectural

Design” in 2006), whose author stated that biomimicry, by

uncritically recognizing the superiority of solutions based

on biological processes over those proposed by humans, in

a sense rejects the achievements of civilization and ignores

centuries-old cultural codes. Krężlik also perceives biomi-

metics ideologically as an “alternative design paradigm”

through which the contemporary generation denes its

Fig. 1. Diagram of the flow

of inspiration and interactions

between the ecosystem, biology

as an intermediary science

and architecture in the concept

of biomimetics and biomimicry

(elaborated by J.J. Białkiewicz)

Il. 1. Schemat przepływu

inspiracji i oddziaływań

pomiędzy ekosystemem, biologią

jako nauką pośredniczącą

i architekturą w koncepcji

biomimetyki i biomimikry

(oprac. J.J. Białkiewicz)

Biomimetics and biomimicry. Their role as a tool and ideology in contemporary architecture 95

identity. In his doctoral thesis entitled

Elementy biomime-

tyki w projektowaniu architektury w środowisku zrówno-

ważonym. Ewolucja i interpretacja bioniki na przykładzie

polskich i zagranicznych konkursów architektonicznych

[Elements of biomimetics in designing architecture in

a sustainable environment. Evolution and interpretation of

bionics by the example of domestic and foreign architec-

tural competitions] (2019), Jakub Onyszkiewicz dened

10 features of a biomimetic architectural object, broadly

consistent with Pawlyn’s ecological ideas. Based on these

features, Onyszkiewicz formulated criteria (including

formal, functional and structural), according to which he

assessed approximately 200 projects submitted to interna-

tional architectural competitions. The result of this analy-

sis is the statement that only two projects out of 200 meet

all the criteria, in the remaining ones biomimetic elements

are treated selectively by architects. After 2020, there have

been quite a few publications devoted to the issue of apply-

ing biomimetics in architecture, including collective works

Biomimicry in architecture (Verbrugghe et al. 2023), Appli-

cations of biomimicry in architecture, construction and civ-

il engineering (AlAli et al. 2023), or Bio-logic, a review on

the biomimetic application in architectural and structural

design by Saurav Dixit and Anna Stefańska (2023). They

repeat essentially the same statements that biomimetics is

not about reproducing form, but about imitating the rules

and principles of nature’s functioning, and biomimicry is

closely linked to the ideology of sustainability. The dier-

ence is that biomimetics as a method of solving a specic

problem does not have to have long-term goals that guide

the idea of biomimicry in the ecological aspect. Osama

Nasir and Mohammad Arif Kamal also noted in their ar-

ticle Inspiration from Nature: Biomimicry as a paradigm

for architectural and environmental design (2022) that the

term “biomimetic” refers to materials, systems and tools

that imitate patterns from the natural world, while biomimi-

cry is the imitation of biological processes and laws aimed

primarily at the idea of sustainability.

Tool/analytical level – biomimetics

At the tool level, which can also be called utilitarian, we

are dealing with the use of various biomimetic technolo-

gies in architecture, drawing design and inspiration from

the details of the structure and behaviour of living organ-

isms. The aim of innovation is the structural and functional

optimization of individual architectural elements. This is

biomimetics at the micro and medium level, from inspira-

tion from the structure of organisms and natural forms at

the cellular level to the reactions and behaviours of plants

and animals that function in a specic way. Biomimetic

products and technologies are also used in architecture

at various levels of detail, these are primarily materials,

structures, individual elements or systems with strictly de-

ned functionalities that respond to specic architectural

issues or problems. There are two possible approaches in

the design process, which the authors of publications on

biomimetics describe as top-down and bottom-up. The

top-down methodology (problem-based) assumes starting

from an architectural issue, for which a solution is sought

in nature through analogy. The components of this proce-

dure are as follows:

– a dened architectural problem,

– a dened solution in nature,

– abstraction of the principle of solving the problem in

nature,

– abstraction of the method of applying the principle of

nature in architecture.

The bottom-up approach (solution-based) starts from

a specic described phenomenon in the eld of biology, for

which an application in architecture is found. In principle,

the elements of the procedure are the same as in the case

of the top-down methodology, but their order is dierent:

– a dened solution in nature,

– abstraction of the principle of solving the problem in

nature,

– a dened architectural problem,

– abstraction of the method of applying the principle of

nature in architecture.

In both of these methodologies, we are dealing with an

analytical approach – i.e. examining specic issues – the

aim of which is not to formulate general principles, but to

nd a solution to a specic problem. The key and at the

same time most critical element of the process is each time

abstracting the principle dening the essence of a given

natural phenomenon and its translation into materials and

manufacturing processes achievable for humans. Both to

understand the essence of natural phenomena and to rec-

reate it in laboratory conditions, technologically advanced

tools must be involved. Therefore, tool biomimetics can be

called high-tech. Not only in architecture, but in no other

eld of human activity, biomimetics in this aspect would

not be possible without modern digital tools, the increase

in computing power of computers, the development of ma-

terial technologies and additive manufacturing methods.

When we look at examples of architectural biomorphism,

we see supercial inspiration, but also direct inspiration –

the architect empirically experiences nature visually and

imitates observed shapes, colours or textures. He recreates

nature in a way that is accessible to every human from the

level of sensory perception. Hence, every recipient is also

able to read this inspiration. In the case of tool biomimet-

ics, common empirical experience is replaced by scientif-

ic knowledge, accessible to people with the appropriate

knowledge and tools. Nature inltrates architecture not

directly, but through two necessary intermediary factors.

These are biology as a science describing natural phenom-

ena and forms, and technology enabling their translation

into objects and materials useful in architecture. Reproduc-

ing the principles and rules of nature in technology does

not have to entail morphological similarity, moreover, the

source of inspiration is often the structure of organisms or

processes occurring at the cellular level, hence biomimetic

elements in this aspect may be illegible to the general re-

cipients of an architectural work. We are therefore dealing

here with functional-construction inspiration, indirect and

potentially hermetic in reception.

The interdisciplinarity and strong technological depen-

dence of projects using tool biomimetics means that they

require large nancial outlays, hence at the moment they

96 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

et al. 2019).

Among

the numerous innovative biomimetic

elements, there are also lightweight structures with high

load-bearing capacity (gradient, porous), e.g., bricks mod-

elled on the structure of bones (Logan “Continuing educa-

tion…”); polymer composites reinforced with natural bers

(NFRP) (Stefańska, Cygan 2022), the 3D layered printing

technique inspired by the growth of snail shells (Allgaier et

al. 2019); or load-bearing structures modeled on plant sup-

port systems

(Bunk et al. 2019). Among the solutions al-

ready commonly available in construction practice, a good

example of tool biomimetics is façade paint inspired by the

dirt-binding properties of Nelumbo nucifera leaves in rain-

water drops.

An additional distinction should be made here between

synthetic materials and products, but in their essence mod-

elled on the structure and functions of living organisms,

and products using natural materials or elements of nature.

In the latter case, the imitation of patterns from nature is

replaced by the incorporation of nature into a human work,

i.e., instead of producing a product that repeats a given func-

tionality, the organism or element of nature that has it is used

directly. Examples include the aforementioned Silk Pavilion

or installations created by ecoLogicStudio, such as proto-

types of “living” façades, i.e., frames generated using 3D

printing technology and then inhabited by colonies of pho-

tosynthetic algae (Fig. 2) or tarantulas lling modules with

their webs (“Biomimetyzm w architekturze 2.0.” 2019).

Ideological/synthetic level – biomimicry

The presence of the idea of imitating nature in architec-

ture at the ideological level diers in general from what we

have called tool biomimetics, although both of these con-

cepts can successfully coexist and complement each other.

It is the imitation of biological laws and processes, inspira-

tion from nature on a macro scale, i.e., the pursuit of map-

ping the rules and functioning of ecosystems in a building.

While tool biomimetics drew patterns from the structure

and individual functionalities of plants and animals, at the

ideological level the goal is to create a work of architecture

that will “live”, i.e., exist in interaction with the environ-

ment on the same principles as organisms in the ecosystem.

Such an approach, ideologically consistent with the princi-

ples of sustainability, is connected with the concept of bio-

mimicry. The idea of biomimicry in architecture is primar-

ily ethical and ideological in nature. Starting with Pawlyn,

subsequent authors indicate the features of the building, as

well as the principles of the design process itself, consis-

tent with the idea of biomimicry, i.e., consistent with the

way nature functions. The basic principle is to move away

from linear systems that generate waste at the end of the

life cycle (from cradle to grave) in favour of closed loops,

in which each waste is also a raw material (from cradle to

cradle). This applies to both the acquisition and production

of building materials and the way the nished architectural

An example is the columns made of woven carbon and glass

bres presented at the exhibition “Baubionik – Biologie beügelt Ar-

chitektur” (2017/18, Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History).

Fig. 2. The atrium render of PhotoSynthetica Tower Linz 2020,

(courtesy of ecoLogicStudio)

Il. 2. „Photo.Synthetica Tower Linz”, wnętrze lobby, koncepcja 2020,

proj. ecoLogic Studio

(źródło: dzięki uprzejmości ecoLogicStudio)

are mainly concentrated in academic centres with an ap-

propriate budget

. The intermediate stage between scientif-

ic research and solutions available in construction practice

is constituted by experimental demonstration pavilions,

which have been built since 2011, such as the “One Ocean

Build

ing” pavilion at EXPO 2012 in South Korea designed

by SOMA (Oliveira 2019), the Silk Pavilion designed by the

Mediated Matter team led by Neri Oxman (2013), the Ro-

senstein Timber Pavilion in Stuttgart (Kovaleva et al. 2019)

or the ICD/ITKE Research pavilion series (Schwinn et al.

2019). The listed structures present biomimetic structural

solutions, e.g. in the case of the Rosenstein Timber Pavil-

ion, it is an extremely light supporting structure inspired by

crust

acean shells. The Silk Pavilion, in turn, is a 3 m wide

dome made of thread woven by 6,500 living silkworms

on a frame of polygonal panels. Interdisciplinary research

centres conduct research on many diverse innovative struc-

tures, materials and biomimetic fabrication methods. Ex-

amples include kinetic façade systems inspired by plant dy-

namics, which adjust the degree of shading to atmospheric

conditions, such as Flecton and Flectofold

(Saarian

Examples include the Institute for Computational Design and Con-

struction (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural

Design (ITKE) at the University of Stuttgart, and the Media Lab at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The inspiration for the Flecton system was the Royal Strelitzia

(Strelitzia reginae), while Flectofold was inspired by the Vesicular Al-

drovanda (Aldrovanda vesiculosa).

Biomimetics and biomimicry. Their role as a tool and ideology in contemporary architecture 97

object is used. Other guidelines for architects include the

principle of minimizing material, maximizing function and

optimizing form; using local resources; and relying on re-

newable energy sources. According to the idea of biomim-

icry, a work of architecture should be autopoietic, it should

respond to changing external conditions and adapt to them

by modifying its form. Like living organisms, architecture

should have its own metabolism, acquire water and ener-

gy naturally, and produce oxygen instead of emitting CO₂.

Each building is also part of a larger whole – a housing

estate, city, settlement, natural landscape, therefore it can-

not be an “intruder” draining resources, but must function

like living beings in an ecosystem, cooperating in order to

fully utilize the possibilities, but also to maintain the good

condition of the habitat. There is therefore a signicant

change in the approach to the architectural design process

itself, which is no longer about giving the building a ma-

terial shape, but managing material and energy, and thus

creating relationships between the “living” building and

the environment (Januszkiewicz, Gołębiewski 2020).

The concept of biomimicry in architecture is synthetic

in nature, based on the overall picture, in the broadest pos-

sible perspective and inspired by general principles. It is

not individual details that are important, but the overall

eect, i.e., the way buildings or complexes of buildings

function and their interaction with the environment. Of the

three levels of imitation indicated by Zari, tool biomimet-

ics includes the level of organism construction and their

behaviour, while biomimicry – the most general level of

the ecosystem. Hence, the idea of biomimicry should also

be implemented on an architectural macro scale, i.e., in ur-

ban planning. The issue of the impact of biomimicry on

contemporary urban planning will not be discussed, since

it requires a separate, extended analysis.

The concept of biomimicry can be implemented both

using modern high-tech solutions and in a low-tech way,

referring to vernacular architecture and animal habitats

In architectural objects inspired by the idea of biomimicry,

one can often nd elements of biophilic design, which is

based on the concept that broadly understood direct con-

tact with nature promotes human health and well-being

(Contreras et al. 2023). This includes the use of natural

materials, access to sunlight, the physical presence of natu-

ral objects, primarily plants. As was the case with biomate-

rials, this concept assumes the direct use of nature, not just

modelling on it. A popular and frequently used solution

today are rooftop and vertical gardens covering building

façades. In its radical form, the concept of “living” ar-

chitecture leads to experiments such as creating building

structures in trees. An example of this are the projects of

the Terreform ONE group (led by Mitchell Joachim), in-

cluding the Fab Tree House (Fig. 3) – a house constructed

of a tree shaped in a form similar to an igloo, the “walls”

are lled with vines, straw and clay, and the windows are

The Eastgate Centre building in Harare (1996, designed by

M. Pearce), often cited in the literature as an early example of biomim-

icry in architecture, which uses a ventilation system modelled on termite

mounds, is an example of imitation not so much of nature itself, but of

building – animal technology.

transparent panels made of a soy-based material (Vallas,

Courard 2017). Gruber noted that in order to resemble the

way nature functions, architecture should meet the “crite-

ria of life”, among which she listed openness, self-organi-

sation, hierarchy, autopoietics, growth, energy processing

and evolution. According to the author, their architectural

interpretation is possible, but currently mainly experimen-

tal structures are being implemented, so it is not yet the

moment when this type of “living” architecture can exist

on a larger scale and for a wider audience.

Among the features mentioned in the literature, which

according to the authors should characterize biomimetic

architecture in the sense of biomimicry, architects are cur-

rently most focused on solutions for zero-energy buildings,

methods of natural water acquisition and recovery, venti-

lation and the use of biophilic and biodegradable materi-

als. In his doctoral dissertation, Onyszkiewicz formulated

a total of 13 criteria that allow dening a given architec-

tural object as biomimetic. They are divided into groups:

formal, structural, functional and additional (“external”)

criteria. As the author himself noted, architects’ interest in

individual criteria is not equal, and the percentage of build-

ings meeting all of them is very small. Taking into account

not theoretical thought, but current architectural practice,

we can distinguish four most popular aspects, most often

undertaken by designers interested in the idea of biomim-

icry. These are:

Fig. 3. “Fab Tree Hab” 2005, designed by Terreform ONE

(M. Joachim, L. Greden, J. Arbona)

(courtesy of Mitchell Joachim, Terreform ONE)

Il. 3. „Fab Tree Hab” 2005, proj. Terreform ONE

(M. Joachim, L. Greden, J. Arbona)

(źródło: dzięki uprzejmości Mitchella Joachima, Terreform ONE)

98 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

seum complex (2001, designed by S. Calatrava); Esplanade

cultural center in Singapore (2002, designed by M. Wilford

& Partners, DP Architects); 30 St Mary Axe skyscraper in

London (so-called The Gherkin Tower, 2003, designed by

Foster + Partners); The National Stadium in Beijing (the

Bird’s Nest, 2004–2008, designed by Herzog & de Meuron);

the Agora Garden (Tao Zhu Yin Yuan) residential skyscraper

in Taipei, Taiwan (2010–2018, designed by V. Callebault);

the BIQ House apartment building in Hamburg (2013, de-

signed by Splittewerk Architects); and the Bosco Verticale

skyscrapers in Milan (2014, designed by Boeri Studio). In

the Quadracci Pavilion, the most important element from

the point of view of biomimicry are the movable solar

screens, which fold at night and unfold during the day like

a bird’s wings. The Esplanade Theatre also has a kinetic

façade that provides shade while also letting in natural light,

modelled on durian fruit shells. The Gherkin Tower draws

inspiration from a Pacic Ocean sponge called the Venus’

ower basket (Euplectella aspergillum). The sponge’s exo-

skeleton is replicated in the building’s structure, which is

highly wind-resistant while minimizing the amount of ma-

terial used and

allowing for eective ventilation. The Bei-

jing National Stadium imitates a bird’s nest in shape and

structure (it is therefore a reference to animal structures).

The building’s façade consists of a steel skeleton lled

1. The ecological aspect of the functioning of the build-

ing (acquisition and management of energy and water, zero

emission, passivity), associated with this is the value of

adaptability to changing external conditions.

2. The presence of elements taken directly from na-

ture in accordance with the idea of biophilic design. This

is related to the concept of invisible architecture, blended

into the surroundings, e.g., by covering the roof with grass.

3. Departure from the traditional spectrum of schemes

and the standard repertoire of architectural forms, materi-

als and structures. Use of biomaterials, construction sys-

tems modelled on natural, atypical building plans.

4. Biomorphism.

In recent years, numerous innovative and experimental

projects based on the principles of biomimicry have been

created, but many of them remain only in the form of con-

cepts. Some visions are futuristic in nature, e.g., Vincent

Callebault’s designs for cities of the future, with green sky-

scrapers growing like trees – Treescrapers (Vincent Calle-

baut Architectures 2023). Among the completed buildings,

there are several examples recognized in the international

architectural community, the diversity of which is the best

conrmation that biomimicry should be treated primarily as

an ideology, not a stylistic doctrine. These are, in chrono-

logical order: Quadracci Pavilion in the Milwaukee Art Mu-

Fig. 4. Agora Garden (Tao Zhu Yin Yuan) in Taipei (Taiwan), 2010–2018, designed by Vincent Callebault Architectures

(courtesy of Vincent Callebaut Architectures, Paris)

Il. 4. Agora Garden (Tao Zhu Yin Yuan) w Taipei (Tajwan), 2010–2018, proj. Vincent Callebault Architectures

(źródło: dzięki uprzejmości Vincent Callebaut Architectures, Paris)

Biomimetics and biomimicry. Their role as a tool and ideology in contemporary architecture 99

with ETFE membrane panels, which have insulating prop-

erties, allow sunlight to pass through and are self-cleaning.

The Agora Garden skyscraper combines biomorphic, bio-

philic and ecological elements. Its shape resembles a DNA

chain (Fig. 4). It was designed in the concept of a verti-

cal garden, which is particularly popular in Callebault’s

work. The cascading suspended gardens cover the entire

building, and thanks to the huge number of plants, the sky-

scraper absorbs about 130 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

This project is an excellent example of sustainable archi-

tecture, including the integration of bioclimatic passive

systems (natural lighting, ventilation, rainwater recycling

system, low-emission glass, double skin of the façade)

with the optimal use of renewable energy (Szołomicki,

Golasz-Szołomicka 2020). The vertical garden concept

is also implemented by the Bosco Verticale, which house

over 900 trees in total. The BIQ (Bio Intelligent Quotient)

building in Hamburg is notable for its bio-adaptive façade

that uses algae to generate energy (Wallis 2013).

Conclusions

As mentioned, biomimetics is not a “trend” or “style” in

contemporary architecture, which in its essence is charac-

terized by formal heterogeneity and freedom from stylistic

denitions and limitations. In the literature on the subject,

there are various combinations of features of architecture

that can be called biomimetic, and some authors question

the terminology itself, suggesting rather the use of the term

“biomimetic design”, which emphasizes the creative con-

cept itself based on broadly understood modelling on nat-

ural processes. In addition, there is a multitude of terms in

the literature, the concepts of biomimetics and biomimicry

are accompanied by terms such as biophilic design, eco-

mimicry, bio-logical design and sustainable design. Apart

from a certain theoretical chaos that has arisen around

these issues in recent years, in architectural practice, two

basic levels of manifestation of biomimetics and biomim-

icry can be noted, which for the purposes of this study have

been called tool and ideological biomimetics. While in the

case of tool biomimetics, architects obtain, through biolo-

gy and engineering, primarily materials and construction

solutions modelled on the details of the structure and be-

haviour of living organisms, in ideological biomimetics,

identied with the concept of biomimicry, nature “teaches”

designers primarily how to eectively manage resources

and create closed circuits instead of linear systems that are

harmful to the environment. Tool biomimetics usually re-

quires the involvement of high technologies and is devel-

oped primarily in interdisciplinary centres with signicant

funds. The idea of biomimicry, i.e., designing buildings

that function in an ecosystem in a way that is consistent

with nature, can also be implemented with the participa-

tion of modern technological solutions in the eld of en-

ergy eciency, water management or recuperation, but

it can also be combined with inspiration from vernacular

architecture and a return to simple “natural” solutions and

materials. In this comparison, an example of high-tech bio-

mimetics can be advanced kinetic façade systems, while

low-tech biomimetics can be covering a house with reeds

as an excellent insulating material. Tool biomimetics, as

the name suggests, provides tools and materials for bio-

mimicry, which should be treated primarily as an ideology.

Therefore, an architectural object can be ideologically con-

sistent with the concept of biomimicry, even if it does not

use strictly biomimetic technologies. For contemporary

architects, referring to the idea of biomimicry has ethical

signicance, as it is an expression of ecological awareness

and social sensitivity.

Translated by

Joanna Białkiewicz

References

AlAli, Mariam, Yara Mattar, Mhd Amer Alzaim, and Salwa Beheiry.

“Applications of biomimicry in architecture, construction and civil

engineering.” Biomimetics 8, no. 202 (2023): 1–22. https://doi.org/

10.3390/biomimetics8020202.

Allgaier, Christoph, Benjamin Felbrich, Frederik Wulle, Emna Khechine,

James H. Nebelsick, Achim Menges, Günter Reiter, Renate Reiter,

Armin Lechler, Alexander Verl, and Karl-Heinz Wurst. “Snails as

living 3D printers: free forms for the architecture of tomorrow.” In

Biomimetics for architecture. Learning from Nature, edited by Jan

Knippers, Ulrich Schmid, and Thomas Speck, 126–133. Basel: Birk-

häuser, 2019.

Benyus, Janine M. Biomimicry. Innovation inspired by Nature. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.

“Biomimetyzm w architekturze 2.0.” Architektura MuratorPlus, March

10, 2019. Accessed March 2, 2024. https://architektura.muratorplus.

pl/wydarzenia/bioarchitektura-20-aa-YvNa-MQxp-ceTM.html.

Bunk, Katharina, Florian A. Jonas, Larissa Born, Linnea Hesse, Clau-

dia Möhl, Götz T. Gresser, Jan Knippers, Thomas Speck, and Tom

Masselter. “From plant branchings to technical support structures.”

In Biomimetics for architecture. Learning from Nature, edited by

Jan Knippers, Ulrich Schmid and Thomas Speck, 144–152. Basel:

Birkhäuser, 2019.

Chayamoor-Heil, Natasha. “From bioinspiration to biomimicry in ar-

chitecture: Opportunities and challenges.” Encyclopedia 3, no. 1

(2023): 202–223. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010014.

Contreras, Gastón S., Roberto A.G. Lezcano, Eduardo J.L. Fernández,

and María C.P. Gutiérrez. “Architecture learns from Nature. The

inuence of biomimicry and biophilic design in building.” Modern

Applied Science 17, no. 1 (2023): 58–70. https://doi.org/10.5539/

mas.v17n1p58.

Dixit, Saurav, and Anna Stefańska. “Bio-logic, a review on the bio-

mimetic application in architectural and structural design.” Ain

Shams Engineering Journal 14, no. 1 (2023): 1–11. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.asej.2022.101822.

Gruber, Petra. Biomimetics in architecture: Architecture of life and build -

ings. Wien: Springer, 2011.

Januszkiewicz, Krystyna, and Jakub I. Gołębiewski. “Climate change-

-oriented design: Living on the water. A new approach to archi-

tectural design.” Journal of Water and Land Development, no. 47

(2020): 96–104. https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2020.135036.

Kaplinsky, Joe. “Biomimicry versus humanism.” Architectural Design

76, no. 1 (2006): 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.212.

Kovaleva, Daria, Oliver Gericke, Frederik Wulle, Pascal Mindermann,

Werner Sobek, Alexander Verl, and Götz T. Gresser. “Rosenstein Pa-

100 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

vilion: a lightweight concrete shell based on principles of biological

structures.” In Biomimetics for architecture. Learning from Nature,

edited by Jan Knippers, Ulrich Schmid, and Thomas Speck, 92–101.

Basel: Birkhäuser, 2019.

Krężlik, Adrian. “Biomimetyka w kilku przykładach.” Autoportret 55,

no. 4 (2016). https://www.autoportret.pl/artykuly/biomimetyka-w

-kilku-przykladach/.

Logan, Katharine. “Continuing education: Biomimetic materials.” Ac-

cessed March 25, 2024. https://www.architecturalrecord.com/arti-

cles/14288-continuing-education-biomimetic-materials.

Menges, Achim. “Biomimetic design processes in architecture: Mor-

phogenetic and evolutionary computational design.” Bioinspiration

and Biomimetics 7, no. 1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/

7/1/015003.

Nasir, Osama, and Mohammad Arif Kamal. “Inspiration from Nature:

Biomimicry as a paradigm for architectural and environmental de-

sign.” American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 10,

no. 3 (2022): 126–136. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-10-3-3.

Oliveira, Maria João Marques de. “Towards a bio-shading system con-

cept: design methodology.” PhD diss., ISTAR-IUL, ISCTE-Instituto

Universitário de Lisboa, 2019.

Onyszkiewicz, Jakub. “Elementy biomimetyki w projektowaniu archi-

tektury w środowisku zrównoważonym. Ewolucja i interpretacja

bioniki na przykładzie polskich i zagranicznych konkursów archi-

tektonicznych.” PhD diss., Politechnika Wrocławska Wydział Ar-

chitektury, 2019.

OXMAN. “Silk Pavilion I.” (2013). Accessed March 19, 2024. https://

oxman.com/projects/silk-pavilion-i.

Pawlyn, Michael. Biomimicry in architecture. London: RIBA, 2011.

Ripley, Renee L., and Bharat Bhushan. “Bioarchitecture: bioinspired

art and architecture – a perspective.” Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society A, no. 374 (2016): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1098/

rsta.2016.0192.

Saarian, Saman, Larissa Born, Axel Körner, Anja Mader, Anna S.

Westermeier, Simon Poppinga, Markus Milwich, Götz T. Gresser,

Thomas Speck, and Jan Knippers. “From pure research to biomi-

metic products: the Flectofold façade shading device.” In Biomi-

metics for architecture. Learning from Nature, edited by Jan Knip-

pers, Ulrich Schmid and Thomas Speck, 42–51. Basel: Birkhäuser,

2019.

Schwinn, Tobias, Daniel Sonntag, Tobias Grun, James H. Nebelsick, Jan

Knippers, and Achim Menges. “Potential applications of segment-

ed shells in architecture.” In Biomimetics for architecture. Learning

from Nature, edited by Jan Knippers, Ulrich Schmid, and Thomas

Speck, 116–125. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2019.

Stefańska, Anna, and Marta Cygan. “Bionic patterns in search of ana-

lytical models to build structural forms of ephemeral architectural

objects.” In Multifaceted Research in Architecture 4, [INTERFER-

ENCES] design+art+science, edited by Beata Komar, Natalia Bą-

ba-Ciosek, and Beata Kucharczyk-Brus. Gliwice: Wydawnictwo

Politechniki Śląskiej, 2022. https://doi.org/10.34918/84433.

Szołomicki, Jerzy, and Hanna Golasz-Szołomicka. “Agora Green Tower

w Tajpej na Tajwanie – symbol zrównoważonego budynku miesz-

kalnego w futurystycznej formie.” Builder 277, no. 8 (2020): 14–17.

https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.2782.

Vallas, Thomas, and Luc Courard. “Using nature in architecture: Build-

ing a living house with mycelium and trees.” Frontiers of Architec-

tural Research 6, no. 3 (2017): 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

foar.2017.05.003.

Verbrugghe, Nathalie, Eleonora Rubinacci, and Ahmed Z. Khan. “Bio-

mimicry in architecture: A review of denitions, case studies, and

design methods.” Biomimetics 8, no. 107 (2023): 1–29. https://doi.

org/10.3390/biomimetics8010107.

Vincent Callebaut Architectures. “Treescrapers – Climate Responsive Ver -

tical Villages, Towards Net-Zero Future of Mid-Rise Living, New

York 2023, United States of America.” Accessed March 29, 2024.

https://www.vincent.callebaut.org/object/230412_treescrapers/

treescrapers/projects.

Vitalis, Louis, and Natasha Chayaamor-Heil. “Forcing biological scienc-

es into architectural design: On conceptual confusions in the eld

of biomimetic architecture.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 11,

no. 2 (2022): 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.10.001.

Wallis, David. “When algae on the exterior is a good thing.” The New

York Times, April 24, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/

business/energy-environment/german-building-uses-algae-for-heat-

ing-and-cooling.html.

Zari, Maibritt P. “Biomimetic approaches to architectural design for in-

creased sustainability.” Sustainable Buildings Conference (SB07), no.

033 (2007): 1–10. https://www.academia.edu/9509268/Biomimetic_

approaches_to_architectural_design_for_increased_sustainability.

Streszczenie

Biomimetyka i biomimikra jako narzędzie i ideologia we współczesnej architekturze

Tezą opracowania jest stwierdzenie, że koncepcja biomimetyki i biomimikry zaznacza swoją obecność w praktyce architektonicznej na dwóch

poziomach: narzędziowym i ideologicznym. Na poziomie narzędziowym mamy do czynienia z wykorzystaniem w architekturze różnorodnych tech-

nologii o charakterze biomimetycznym, czerpiących wzór i inspirację ze szczegółów budowy i zachowania organizmów żywych, w celu optymalizacji

konstrukcyjnej i funkcjonalnej poszczególnych elementów architektonicznych. Na poziomie ideologicznym biomimikra to naśladownictwo praw

i procesów biologicznych, inspiracja naturą w skali makro, czyli dążenie do odwzorowania w budynku reguł i sposobu funkcjonowania ekosystemów.

Produktem nalnym są kompleksowo postrzegane budynki i zespoły urbanistyczne. Idea biomimikry może być realizowana zarówno z użyciem

rozwiązań wysokotechnologicznych (high-tech) – posługując się biomimetycznymi narzędziami, jak i w sposób niskotechnologiczny (low-tech) – na-

wiązując do architektury wernakularnej i habitatów zwierząt.

Słowa kluczowe: biomimetyka, biomimikra, biomimetyka narzędziowa, biomimikra ideologiczna