The whole point about using precedent in design is that it isn't like precedent in law.  We don't look for a perfect or even close match.  Many ideas get bound together in design and even when critics think they know where an inspiration comes from they more often wrong than right when you take the trouble to ask the designer.  I'm not sure you will ever find a good answer to your question, at least not a reliable one

If you look at the 'Game of Life', you will see that very simple rules will produce very complex behaviour. If we try to do the same thing as 'nature' is doing, it may be because nature has used a billion years of design refinements to come up with a close-to-optimal solution for a given problem set. For very simple reasons, we may end up with a very similar solution to the same situation.

We tend to build straight, flat walls. Vertically, that makes sense, mimicking trees, and the physical reality that it's better to not bend columns. Horizontally, it makes less sense, because a curved wall is stronger than a straight one. But it's much harder to build a curving wall, instead of using a string line to keep everything in plane. So, we mix a combination of mimicry with construction considerations, to get the designs we have today.

Some people think inside the box (say, traditional building practices) while some people think outside the box (novel or unique building practices). In any give situation, you may find that the box applies, and maybe it's a hold-over to some archaic past. Once you understand why the box was put there in the first place, you can then decide if you need to consider the box at all in your plans.

Biomimicry give us one possible solution to any given problem (actually, likely a complex mix of several problems). If you can find a different one that doesn't require 'being grown by cells', then you will have another solution. Then you can decide which is better in your situation, and why.

Probably, each artist must has his sources of inspiration in nature. They should not be suitable for everyone. Biomimicry - probably, interesting, useful and important for mankind. But I think the direct transfer from the nature to architecture is not the best and at least not the only solution. However, I could be wrong because I am physiologist, not an architect.

In my opinion, rather, the search for our own integral original vision of natural objects and phenomena (their creative submission) can create breakthrough solutions.

Chloe,

Your question is most interesting. 

Nature vs God as the inspiring force. 

What if they are the same thing?  If the actions of nature in the form of science prove the existence of a higher order in the universe then God is nature and nature is god.  Then the question is are all things inspired by this force or order?  Can we expect to only be limited by what we see or is the imagination the manifestation of this order and it has no limit?

I think there is not limit to our imagination.  We already know that we can imagine beyond reality so I think that there is no limit.  Yes many times we are inspired by nature and what we see but that is only the beginning.  We may look at a dandelion seed or a small spider floating on a silk thread in the wind and think of ways to fly but we are not always going to make things like that to motivate our actions.

In stead we think of ways to make this work not a nature makes in work over time but as we need it to work for us.  We are not light like a small spider and we want to travel in groups so we think of ways to make that happen.

By the inspiration of nature and the understanding of nature we build things around use with science to survive better and better all the time.  

Some times the science is not really science but imagination given what we think we know.

One could say that the silk thread that a spider floats on is lighter than air and that is why the spider floats on the wind.  Or one could understand the forces that drag against the thread and realize that when it gets long enough it will float in the correct amount of wind.

Science is stuck in a bad place right now.  It is still living in the past with a understanding that is hundreds of years old and is beautiful in its formulation but it is lacking in understanding.

Homes are my specialty and energy efficiency is the only way I design and build.  Understanding numbers as I do, one must realize that we have only so many things we can use up before we will run out of stuff to build with and this means that building things that are throw away or become useless with time like stick framed homes is only a way to insure our own demise.

Although we can imagine beyond reality we must build and live in a world that exists.

That being said there is much more out there that we have not seen and are not using which can sustain us for centuries as long as we do not destroy ourselves.       

@ Bryan

I understand that I may never get a solid or reliable answer. That reality check often needs to be brought up for that fact that there are things and will always be things that I don't know or will ever know (so, thank you). I can't possibly create a "perfect" solution to any problem. Often we just accommodate or ignore. Nature probably does this as well but our resources are more in the consumption of materials rather than creating it like nature does. What we can create is life. Other than that, we are often manipulating materials already there. However, our ability to create something new our of what we have is the fascinating part about design.

@Douglas

That box may be the perfect description as to what I was trying to find my precious question. The problem I find now is finding the boundary and getting out. What are my limits? Can they be stretched? Is there an opening I don't know about? Its that balance between reality and dreams or laws and the unexplained. 

@Marina

I am not an architect either. I am a designer that is seeking to know and understand the laws of physics and multiple disciplines to create a solid format for my personal goals in design. As an artist, I too find inspiration in nature. I actually prefer nature. I often find myself caught up in the small details rather than the science of it, although that interests me as well. It would also make sense how hard it is to accurately recreate nature in architecture. We can make synthetic leather as compared to tanned hide but the pros and cons changes what is truly effective, especially when applied to a demographic. One interesting concept brought up in the TED Talk was the biomimicry design solution from shark skin to hospitals. Shark skin is apparently very clean, free of bacteria and barnacles, at least for that genus of shark. Even though this shark is a slow moving shark, it still seems to have found a way to combat those difficulties. Scientists have discussed that it is the microscopic formation of the sharks skin with its grooves and scales. They are designing a service mimicking this natural technology to place in hospitals to make the environment more clean and free of the need to  sterilize (as much) and to keep bacteria from growing like shark skin.

@George

I actually personally don't separate God and Nature, or I try not to. The reason why I split it for discussion purposes, is that there are many brilliant minds out there who do not have those particular religious beliefs. I find them very intertwined but it helps some to distinguish other thought processes by making them different even though I will take most of it as the same thing. In a few of my previous questions, my thoughts often went to why we built architecture the way we do, not for our "instinctive purposes" which we seem to lack, but with maybe more divine direction. However, if the two are so intertwined then we would find some evidence of the difference between our natural man vs. the spiritual man. However, there doesn't seem to be much evidence but a lot of theory and interesting speculations. Great for discussion, little help in solid resources. But the comparison with biomimicry may be a way to finding that answer.

The inspiration is not always in from of us.  I see in the side of a mountain that has a cave in it a slope that lets water run down and past the cave to a river.  In the leaves of a tree that let the ground stay dry for a few moments after it starts to rain by shedding the water, in the way that some plants turn there leaves to get more water on the underside of the leaf, in the way that over hangs at river bluffs keep the rain off of you, in the fact that birds may cut a hole in a rotting tree to make a nest that is sheltered from the rain.  

We are part of nature.  We have a mind that transcends nature.  The wounder should be in how nature has the ability to do this in some of its creatures.  The problem is that we are still animals and have to survive the rest of nature.

Some of what we have done in the built environment is not naturally motivated.  A long time ago people developed money to trade for things we needed but could not have to survive and now that system that was used to survive is a system used to motivate building.  Money has become the driver and the system of building has suffered.

George     

I think that is the geometric regularity, symmetry and proportion, which in nature is always given imperfectly.

The man discovered the perfection of the sacred geometry, and he still uses it to create sophisticated artificial environments.

The whole history of the West, particularly science, can be viewed as an attempt to geometrize and to mathematize the world.

@George

It is that kind of animal science I need to look at. There is a sight called asknature.org or something like that, where I can ask how nature does something and it will bring up all sorts of studies and evidences to design from for biomimicry. As my previous question had asked, what is our instinct?

@Francisco

I have been loading my database and shelves with sacred geometry! I have been playing around with the Fibonacci's spiral/golden mean. If it is that perfect, I should be able to design exactly what I am seeking. I just have to discover its secrets. It is the root of my floor plans, the way I gaze and wonder, and the way I use a space. I just have to build it and prove it. 

[[As your current instructor I applaud you Chloe - and I applaud all of the respondents - for the breadth and depth of answers that you keep generating - this RG forum as a platform for quick response that have not been surface-level attended to (that is fast reply with long-term thinking and evidence) seem to be very much helping you focus your thoughts. So thank you all - perhaps asking questions of RG should be an assignment for next years' Environment and Behavior course!?!]]

Thanks Davis! It has been helpful in narrowing down research topics. Depending on the wide variety of responses, I can get a better understanding as to how straightforward my questions are (to help develop a thesis) as well as what kind of interest and people it is reaching. Also, I do have the benefit to connect with professionals, build a network, and have frequent discussions on topics. It's almost like talking to myself, but not. This is much easier than trying to narrow down on my own. By my questions it is still a tendency to include everything.

The Framework for an Ecological Built Environment ("Phoebe Framework" or "Phoebe") is a suite of tools in development at Terrapin that uses ecosystem-based assessment to guide sustainable and resilient development of buildings and communities. Phoebe merges sustainable design with environmental planning, industrial ecology and restoration ecology, evaluating a site within its larger ecological context.

Phoebe has three primary goals: Connect humans to natural systems; establish ecological functions and processes on-site, aligning the built environment to regional ecosystems; and integrate larger ecosystem impacts into planning and decision making. Phoebe’s advantage is that it does not adhere to universal metrics but crafts solutions tailored to a site’s challenges.

Using Phoebe restores local ecosystems, reduces a site’s environmental impact and provides building owners and operators with opportunities to save money through risk mitigation, reduced resource consumption and improved health and productivity.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/tapping-nature-systems-thinking-feeds-inspiration

http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/298/

The current  nature education is environment, technology along with inspiration.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://malmo.se/download/18.6301369612700a2db9180006215/1383643802746/Environmental%2BProgramme%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BCity%2Bof%2BMalm%25C3%25B6%2B2009-2020.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiUzZv4j77LAhWPGo4KHXfuBfs4PBAWCDUwCQ&usg=AFQjCNGNpO90-nRKOQm5sIvY-QSoM3EebA

Dear Chloe

I suggest you to read these websites. 

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/08/17-techniques-for-creating-designs-inspired-by-nature/

http://www.ucreative.com/inspiration/you-be-inspired-10-nature-inspired-architectural-designs/

http://inhabitat.com/finding-design-inspiration-in-nature-biomimicry-for-a-better-planet/

Thank you all for the resources. I will definitely be looking through these.  I also appreciate everyone's contributions. It has been phenomenal to be able to discuss topics and view points. It is a true virtual exploration of the world. Thank you!

So-called 'imperfections' I liken instead to asymmetries in nature may be more functionally perfect than 'perfectly' built symmetric environments, as this article and many other examples demonstrate: http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2016/02/pulling-water-from-thin-air 

To add, without such asymmetries or differentials, 'motion,' relative motions or functions (that are not constant/invariant) would not exist.

I am not a specialist in the field of biomimetics but would like to introduce to you a review article, "The New Trends in Next Generation Biomimetics Material Technology: Learning from Biodiversity," written by the Japanese scientist Masatsugu Shimomura (Professor at Institute of Multidisciplinary Research for Advanced Materials, Tohoku University Advanced Institute for Material Research) on this topic, wishing that you might learn from it some hints for the future study.

http://data.nistep.go.jp/dspace/bitstream/11035/2843/1/NISTEP-STT037E-53.pdf

Chloe,

If you take a physicalist stance on your question, mythical beasts are just a combination of different memories in your brain that are pasted randomly or haphazardly into a composite being. It can also explain the combination of elements that might for example make a modern piece of art or architecture. As discoveries in different patterns and mechanisms that nature uses so will the applications inspired in these techniques. For example, the Gecko's adhesion ability is making headway into new dry adhesives in a more structured way but not without extraordinary creativity involved in the process.

Just a thought

The Biomimicry which is also known as bionics is to imitate the life and inspiration of nature. It is a contemporary discipline that increasingly the scale by combining science, technology and art. As the architect of the gardens I think in an urban environment need to be made for the exotic by widespread gardens (gardens and others) on the building of terraces and clothing all walls with a suitable creeper flora and wall waterfalls, will bring not only a kind of stranded in the city but will have a social impact on people's behavior vis-à-vis nature. Visually, our mother nature brings simple things on geometric effects such as shoulder, framing, window and door effects, the presence of power lines etc ... We can not learn to listen to nature that offers simplicity in visual and complexity in understanding to be able to design simple through a complicated mind. Let's make our cities by bringing a touch of nature and not to disfigure our mother nature is beautiful without artifice

Dear Chloe,

Pondering the question, perhaps the part of nature that should inspire our environment is human. The ancients said "man is the measure of everything," and we have forgotten it.

Rich men build gigantic environments that are totally out of human scale while poor men crowded into refugee camps.

These are disproportions. The human scale is fundamental.

What part of nature is our inspiration for the built environment? 

You are asking the wrong question if you think that something can even be a "part" of a fully interrelated and integrated system that is our natural environment.

We need to create an architecture that does not get between us and nature. It may sometime be useful to have insulation and insolation but never isolation. Sometimes we are inspired by nature and sometimes that inspiration can come from the most unexpected places. 

Integrating a lot of natural materials into designs can help, and using biologically based materials such as straw and low-processed timber that sequester carbon is where the building industry needs to head NOW if we are to deal with climate change in the building industry.  The new slogan will be "building with carbon"    

A nice question.

I suggest first read The Eyes of the Skin by Juhani Pallasmaa. An inspiring text on multi-sensory environments.

Then look up the latest special issue on biomimetic architecture in Intelligent Buildings International 2016 issue 8.1 ISSN 1756-6932 ON LINE particularly the paper by Kellert. published by Taylor and Francis.

Also Chapter 3 in Intelligent Buildings published by ICE in 2013. Lessons from Nature.

We need to go beyond environmental comfort and think of using environmental sensory design as an approach to produce more motivating and stimulating places for people to work and live in .More attention is now being given for the need to create healthier buildings to lift occupants well-being..

Hi,

I would recommend you read this:

N E W C O N C E P T S I N C O M P L E X I T Y T H E O R Y

a r i s i n g  f r o m  s t u d i e s  i n  t h e  f  i e l d  o f  a r c h i t e c t u r e 

a n  o v e r v i e w  o f  t h e  f o u r  b o o k s  o f  t h e  n a t u r e  o f  o r d e r

w i t h  e m p h a s i s  o n  t h e  s c i e n t i f i c  p r o b l e m s w h i c h  a r e  r a i s e d

c h r i s t o p h e r a l e x a n d e r 

m a y 2 0 0 3 

best

DD

I also feel slightly unhappy with the question. First of all it is setting us outside nature, as if we can look in from our other independent world. Human shelter, the origins of our built environment, is driven by the same evolutionary principle, as that of animal shelter - it is the same behavioural response. And it is the same physics that stabilizes the temperature for the ground-burrowing Prairie Dog, as the cave dweller, and the occupier of a modern Eco House where thermal mass has been used to reduce the temperature swings.

Nature is a great supporter of the “good enough principle” – if it works then keep it. And as we all know, in nature success is achieved by the patient and long term process of evolution. Humans have the intellect to short cut that process, by analysis and systematic observation, and even prediction from models, but it is essentially the same process. There is no special silver bullet that we can find in nature. The “good enough principle” is essentially evidence-based, not on adopting a blind principle.

Inspiration from nature has had notorious failures. For the best part of a century man struggled to fly by imitating the bird, but failed dismally, whilst the wheel, or more generally the freely rotating pivot, does not occur in nature at all. This invention, apart from being a major contributor to successful fight in the form of the internal combustion engine, has had an immeasurable influence on our developed world.

My concern is that there could be a kind of romantic belief that a “nature-inspired” solution is automatically better than one derived from rational and scientific argument. Yes, an example from nature may prompt an initial direction of thinking about a design solution, but the final test should be the same – does it work? That is the most important inspiration we can take from nature.

does it work?

unfortunately, the architecture that responds only to this question has failed since last century.

the architecture of the city, and more generally of the built environment has to answer not only that question but if it is in balance with the environmental expectations, economic and social,,,

best

DD

I appreciate your feedback. My personal choice would be to live with nature and in the outdoors with very little walls. That is my personal choice but as a designer, that is not the world's choice. They like privacy and ownership. Plus, advocating for a integrated lifestyle with nature cannot be in huge jumps or it will not get off the ground for longer than necessary. Making innovative projects, such as through biomimicry would be more marketable than something foreign or too far fetched/futuristic/expensive. It is a difficult balance in the relationship with design and the actual usage and image to a consumer. Lifestyle also has a huge effect on how a design is going to work. I may use it but someone else may not. Thus biomimicry would be a way to make someone healthier without exposing them to uncomfortable environments. Another option would be biophilic design. Instead of biomimicry, it just looks natural to bring comfort rather than the imitation of animal sciences. There have actually been many successful projects and a lot of research continuing on integrating nature with our built environment. 

I think you set a good question. This is not about romantic notions of Nature---its beauty, inspiration for poetry and music--- but more understanding the optimisation and  integrating systems which achieve economic scales in terms of materials and energy. There are now many distinguished scientists researching these areas such as Kellert at Yale; Julian Vincent  and Rupert Soar in UK; Torgal Pachero in Portugal; Nocero at Harvard etc.........Let us discover investigate and test not dismiss biomimetics and biophilic design as unscientific and not worth pursuing.

http://treechurch.co.nz/

here is one idea from NZ - grow your building

Talking about how nature have influence on built environment, the "vernacular architecture" came across my mind. Through observation and literature, we could find that our ancient building is greatly inspired by the natural elements, especially the climate.

For instance, the traditional Malay house is constructed by employing sophisticated architectural processes that has been proven to be harmony and successfully maintaining the capacity of the rainforest ecosystem. With a direct dependence on nature for its resources and embodying a deep knowledge of ecological balances, the Malay house is efficiently designed to suit the local climatic requirements using various ventilation and solar-control devices, and low-thermal-capacity building materials. This design-with-nature approach is best reflecting how nature to be the inspiration for our built environment. For further details on the background of the traditional Malay house, please refer to the following papers:

• The traditional Malay house
• Unleashing the potential of traditional construction technique in the development of modern urban mass housing

Those are awesome key terms and resources. Thank you so much for another window!

I believe that the point is how we define the nature. It would be initial to blend the nature into the modernity. Using the nature features in buildings elements looks impossible without the industrialization.

It is well recognised now that there are no boundaries around the knowledge that might be useful and be used in design.  What is inspirational depends upon the way you want to design.  There can never be an answer to this question that is not personal.

Dear Ms Chloe Garcia,

Nature's approach to energy efficiency, sustainability, durability, and even aesthetics is often unparalleled. 

i think the built environment should be based on how God create the universe,world as macro cosmic and human itself as micro cosmic... then the design interconnected to each other, respect and humble....achieving sustainability