INTRODUCTION
What is the difference between writing in ink and writing in pencil? Pencil can be easily deleted and re-written, while ink is permanent.
In the realm of construction, the choice between writing in ink and pencil becomes a metaphor for permanence versus adaptability. Our cities face the urgent need for transformation in the face of climate crises and escalating carbon emissions. The traditional construction industry, reliant on carbon-intensive materials, contributes
significantly to environmental degradation.
There’s a paradox between the imperative for growth and the preservation of urban and environmental quality.
It is at this point that we as humans realize, that we have been writing our cities in ink. Building under the belief that construction should be long lasting and
permanent. This, has resulted in indestructible structures that cannot be erased.
Urban areas exhibit higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas due to human activities and modifications. This temperature disparity is primarily caused by the
concentration of buildings and infrastructure, resulting in consequences like sunlight blockage, reduced natural ventilation, heat retention, and elevated temperatures.
It is imperative that today we shift to a more sustainable model to build cities, aiming at the possibility of change and adaptation in response to the environmental,
demographic and social changes. Our cities should be conceived under the principles of circularity and in a way that is prepared to be erased and re-written, erased and re-written.
Can we switch from this consolidated and inalterable city model to an adaptative one?
HYPOTHESIS
As a first step, we need to reconsider the materials with which we have been constructing with. In this day and age, the importance of using natural materials in
construction cannot be overstated. Recycling – reusing – repurposing – reconfiguring. Incorporating natural materials into construction practices not only
supports ecological well-being but also sets the stage for a more resilient and harmonious coexistence between human structures and the natural world. We re-
think the concept of time in architecture. We re-imagine our cities from an ephemeral point of view. We explore the potential of natural materials to achieve sustainable urban growth, emphasizing their ability to offer reusability, support temporary structures, and significantly lower carbon footprints—a vital step towards a more ecologically balanced future. What comes from the Earth, goes back to the Earth.
Given the fact that, until now, humans have configured their surroundings by placing the concept of permanence as a priority, we take a step back and observe how other living beings build. Animals, driven by instinct, prioritize adaptability and ephemerality in their construction practices. This prompts the question: How can we unlearn our traditional construction methods and be inspired by those of animals based on instinct? How can a co-creative process between different intelligences (animals and humans) be achieved?
Animals and insects construct and deconstruct their habitats according to their everyday needs, resulting on these ever-changing structures that can be re-
adjusted. Put in another way, they are able to erase and re-write their habitats. If termites will can cut or close openings on their mounds based on environmental conditions, if spiders can increase density on their webs to make them more resistant, if bees can adjust the size of the cells of their combs, can we as humans somehow translate these principles and apply them to our own co-creative model?
Termites
Termites achieve self-ventilating structures by strategically placing opennings on their mounds. We interpret porous architecture as our principle and apply it to our model within an urban scale, thus improving the city’s heatmap, increasing sunlight, and creating urban ventilation
Spiders
Spiders vary their webs’ module, responding to the context where it is located. We interpret variable density as our principle and apply it to our model on the midscale, encouraging densification only when and where it is needed and so achieving modular flexibility and material efficiency.
Bees
Bees can adapt their modular cells to different needs creating heterogeneity, within a seemingly homogeneous structure. We interpret liquid architecture as our principle and apply it to our model on the small scale, proposing units that can fit different uses, enabling addition and subtraction and optimizing space utilization.
Conclusion
Recognizing the necessity of contemporary construction technology, we aim to integrate insights from animal architecture into sustainable practices, a co-creative process between different intelligences. Study-decode-translate-recode and reimplement. An exercise of reflection and imagination.
Without leaving behind the city model that we have already structured and our everyday requirements, we encourage reflection on how adaptability can be achieved and evaluate how to re-purpose our cities with a new paradigm based on the use of natural materials. Given that the requirements of tomorrow are likely to differ from those of today, use our (former) cities as skeletons where new sustainable structures can grow or shrink, move, morph, densify or dilute.
Bibliography
- Andréen, David and Soar, Rupert. (2023). ‘Termite-inspired metamaterials for flow-active building envelopes’. In: Frontiers. Available at DOI: 10.3389/fmats.2023.1126974.
- Hunter King, Samuel Ocko, and L. Mahadevan. (2015). ‘Termite mounds harness diurnal temperature oscillations for ventilation’. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1423242112
- Turner Scott. (2012). ‘Swarm intelligence and swarm cognition in mound-building termites’
- Ramezaniaghdam, Maryam; Nahdi, Nadia D.; Reski, Ralf. (2022). “Recombinant Spider Silk: Promises and Bottlenecks”. In: Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, Volume 10. Industrial Biotechnology Section. Available at DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.835637
- Gu, Yunqing; Yu, Lingzhi; Mou, Jiegang; Wu, Denghao; Zhou, Peijian; Xu, Maosen. (2020). “Mechanical properties and application analysis of spider silk bionic material”. In: e-Polymers. Available at DOI: 10.1515/epoly-2020-0049.
- Qin, Z., Compton, B., Lewis, J. et al. (2015) Structural optimization of 3D-printed synthetic spider webs for high strength. Nat Commun 6, Available at DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8038
- Smith, Michael L.; Napp, Nils; Petersen, Kirstin H. (2021). “Imperfect comb construction reveals the architectural abilities of honeybees”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (31)
- Bolakhe, Saugat. (2021). “The Surprising Architecture in Bees’ Honeycombs”. Scientific American Magazine, Vol. 325, No. 5, November 2021, S. 19. Available at DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican1121-19.
- Forster Robert, Reynolds Thomas. (2018). ‘Lightweighting with Timber: An Opportunity for More Sustainable Urban Densification’. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(1). Available at DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000301
- “City of Melbourne. ‘Heating and Cooling Systems – Council House 2’. Last accessed December 3, 2023. Available at: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/sustainable-building/council-house-2/conserving-energy-water/pages/heating-cooling-systems.aspx.”AskNature. ‘Passively Cooled Building Inspired by Termite Mounds’. Last accessed December 3, 2023. Available at: https://asknature.org/innovation/passively-cooled-building-inspired-by-termite-mounds/.”
Sources Video
- Stock footage: Vox. (2023, April 20).The big problem with cement, and how to fix it [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asLWBGtAhZk
- Audio Effects: Pixabay.com. User: JuliusH. https://pixabay.com/users/juliush-392156
- https://pixabay.com/photos/glass-facade-modern-architecture-2512525/
- https://pixabay.com/photos/termite-hill-termites-termite-mound-266587/
- https://pixabay.com/videos/hong-kong-city-building-2885/
- https://pixabay.com/videos/working-site-construction-site-3992/
