Rebuilding Biophilia
Brendan Russell Dillon Master of Architecture Thesis 2007-2008
A Thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
May 30, 2008 By: Brendan Russell Dillon Bachelor of Fine Arts in Architectural Design, June 2004 Massachusetts College of Artificial
Committee Chairs: First Chair: George Thomas Bible Second Chair: Elizabeth Riorden Rebuilding Biophilia: Reconnecting Man with Nature through Architectural Design
Biophilic design balances human needs with the value and considerations of natural environments and processes and incorporates aspects and qualities of those elements into architectural design. This serves to reinforce man's instinctual connection and relationship with those systems.
There are two basic, symbiotic, motivations for reinforcing this relationship. First, a strong biophilic relationship with the environment has many beneficial effects on human health on the physical, psychological and intellectual levels. The second reason is that a strong relationship with the environment will result in people acting in a manner that is conducive to the environment’s preservation, as a result of having formed a personal relationship with it and having gained an appreciation of its value.
Biophilic design nurtures these relationships through the use of five basic principles: affiliation & affinity, homeostasis, prospect & refuge, ecological ethics and wellness. These principles can be applied as methods for developing a design, as well as evaluating a design or built project.
Table of Contents Abstract Table of Contents Part 1: Biophilia and a Birth in Nature Part 2: The Way Things Were Biophilia and Evolutionary Psychology Adaptability of Man Psychological evidence Evolutionary History Part 3: The Way Things Are Health and Medicine Childhood Development and Nature Deficit Disorder Workplace Health and Productivity Evidence Based Design Biophilia and Environmental Attitudes Architectural Attitudes Part 4: The Way Things Could Be Deep Ecology and Biophilia's Place in Philosophy Sustainable Design versus Biophilic Design Part 5: Biophilic Design Developing a Biophilic Design Ethic Biophilic Principles Building Elements Methodology Part 6: Design Project Building/Typology Project/Building type: Precedent Analysis Project/Building type: Program Site/Context Current Summary/Implications for Design
Illustration Credits Bibliography
Part 1: Biophilia and a Birth in Nature
I was born in the woods.
I don't say born in the literal, clinical sense. My mother wasn't having labor pains amongst oak trees, or giving birth upon a bed of pine needles and moss with deer, squirrels and birds in attendance.
Rather I was born in the woods in the sense that once upon a time, I was a young boy possessing an impressionable mind and insatiably curious nature, a tabula rasa in the Aristotelian sense, which existed and inhabited my body until the woods and natural landscapes slowly and inexorably etched themselves upon it. My soul was filled up and inebriated on the outdoors. These experiences and memories helped to form the core from which I have developed as a human being and are at the very root of what drives me today as a designer and as a human being.
When I was five years old, I watched as my father built his dream home, a two story, three bedroom log cabin atop a hill in the woods. I vaguely remember visiting the property before they started clearing or building anything and thinking about how far off into the woods we were, there was an amazing feeling of isolation grasping my mother's hand standing on a worn dirt track that was far from being a road, yet one day soon would become our driveway. The oak and pine trees around us seemed to have swallowed us whole, cutting us off completely from anything that resembled civilization. It’s one of my oldest memories that consists of anything more than a vague impression.
The house was in a neighborhood that was somewhere in the gray zone between suburban and rural in the way that perhaps only a neighborhood in one of the oldest towns in New England could be, though it was only loosely connected to that neighborhood by the fact that our driveway began on the same street as those of our neighbors. You couldn’t see another house from a single window in our home nestled on the top of a hill.
Peering to the south through the pine and oak trees that surrounded our house you could see a small pond that held turtles, bullfrogs, pickerel, sunfish and the occasional bass. To the north and east was a cranberry bog and only to the west did we have neighbors, though again the great trees occluded any possible view of these. Even in winter they were often hidden due to the large concentration of pine trees.
Whenever my siblings and I would begin the call to our mother for entertainment “We're boooored!”, a cry most every parent has heard at some point or another, my mother in her wisdom and desire to not hear us whine or complain would shuttle us outdoors. Often though we needed no encouragement or shuttling but instead we found our way outside ourselves. And for good reason... there was so much to do and see outdoors, why would we have stayed inside? There was a pond to fish and explore, a hill to climb, rocks and logs to flip over, snapping turtles and muskrats to seek out and track and flee on those very few occasions we found them, trees to scramble up and forts to build. Winters brought snow forts, snowball fights, icicles, sledding and animal tracks in the snow. We had what felt like our own private forest to explore and we took to that expedition like Lewis and Clark.
In summers we would visit my grandparents at their small cottage in the woods. As isolated as my parents’ house was, the cottage was even more isolated, bordering the edge of one of the largest state forest preserves in Massachusetts. We would sleep with four, five or even six of us in a room, crowded in with cousins, aunts, uncles and assorted guests. During the day we’d chase sunfish while swimming through the clear, clean water, wander the long dirt road and woodland paths picking plump blueberries, watch the birds soaring across the lake and tease and chase the squirrels and chipmunks. My great aunt even trained one chipmunk to sit in her shirt pocket and eat from her hand.
Like so many children, I thought that the life that I lived was common to the lives of others; it was all I knew. I thought that what I had grown up with and experienced was the norm. I knew nothing else to compare it to.
As I got older I realized that the great majority of my friends and classmates hadn't had similar experiences. They didn’t know what a blue jay sounded like, had never seen a heron, and couldn’t tell a bluegill from a crappie or a red pine from a white. A red pine usually has needle in groups of two or occasionally three, a more rounded cone and tends to be taller and less full, while a white pine has a more elongated cone, needles typically in clumps of five and a broader canopy. The needles of a white pine also feel softer than those of a red pine, didn't everyone know that? What surprised me even more though was that most of them had no interest in these things at all. We didn’t have such experiences in common and, as a result, our values were different.
Eventually my siblings and I came to drift towards the type of lifestyle our classmates had. This was partly a result of wanting to fit in with our friends and partly a result of my parents moving. It wasn't long before the three of us were spending much less time outdoors, instead watching more television and playing computer and video games like 'normal' young Americans of our generation.
What kept me rooted and connected was that every summer we still visited my grandparents’ crowded cottage and every time I was there I would reconnect with that childhood spirit that was so steeped in nature.
Once we arrived at the end of our long journey over dusty dirt roads through the woods, I would immediately head down to the pond. The immediate trek to the water was a conscious decision, but one without rationale behind it. My grandfather often joked I was going to check to make sure that the pond was still there, but so far as I could tell I was simply drawn there. Some part of me missed the pond, the fish, the turtles and the bullfrogs without even thinking about it. Once there, I would sit at the end of the short dock, looking, listening, smelling and just absorbing the feeling of being there.
I’d look for the great rock on the opposite side of the pond that my cousins and I had sworn from a distance was a manatee… the half dead, half alive lightning tree which now grew parallel to the ground after being struck by lightning and knocked over. Turtles would climb up the branches that extended into the water to bask in the sun. How many people knew turtles could climb a tree? I’d look for the hawk that I knew nested in a tree on a hill just to the west and which I'd often see pinwheeling slowly in the sky. If I was lucky I'd see it stoop and grab at a fish that had ventured too close to the surface of the water. If I was particularly lucky, I would see the huge snapping turtle that occasionally ventured into our corner of the pond. Any other time his appearance would set us all flying out of the water as our parents had terrified us into thinking he'd take off our whole arm or leg.
I would sit on that decrepit old dock, never really sure how long I had been there and just feel all sense of myself and the barriers between me and the pond, the trees, fish, birds, earth, clouds, sky and all of existence just melt away. The sunfish vigilantly guarding their nests from each other and from the bass and pickerel which roamed the weeds while water striders glided in packs across the surface of the water were as important and as vital as the blue jays engaged in aerial combat over a prime nesting space and my siblings up the hill bickering over who would get which bed for the duration of our stay. A remarkable tide of birth, life and death swirled, flowed and ebbed all around me and I knew that I was a part of it.
My parents, particularly my mother, tried to raise me Catholic, but it wasn’t a particularly successful effort and I was a fairly nonreligious and even occasionally atheistic young individual. Yet during those moments I couldn’t help but feel a connection to the universe which was amazing, frightening and inexplicable but also so primal and basic that I knew that as personal and special as it felt, this connection was open to all humans. That it was touching some very basic essence of my being. Yet it was also a feeling I never experienced during prayer, while reading a gospel, hearing a sermon or sitting in the pew of any church.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” said Shakespeare's tragic character Hamlet to his confidante and school chum after experiencing something that had shaken his being and understanding of the universe to its core. Sitting on that dock, connected in my own way to the environment around me, I would come to feel the full force of those words. As rational as the world, or even the universe, was to me I could feel something that I couldn't explain,or understand or even fully fathom. There was some connection that I couldn't adequately explain either due to lack of experience or lack of sufficient language. I never feel more alive, more human or more in awe of the universe than I do when immersed in nature.
When I got to college and began studying architecture, sustainable design was just starting to come into mainstream fashion. LEED had just been released and William McDonough had not yet published his now famous book, Cradle to Cradle. I found in sustainable design what I felt was a connection back to the values I held as someone who had grown up so close to the outdoors. Here was a value system within architectural design that placed emphasis on the natural environment and its resources, rather than simply viewing architecture as a practice of aesthetics, utilitarianism, esoteric exploration or client pandering.
After several years of architectural education and self-immersion in sustainable design, I began to feel that sustainability wasn't quite what I had been seeking in an architectural design approach. It didn't satisfy my deep rooted concern for the environment. Something was missing from sustainability and from the architectural design in general that I was being taught. The moral imperative in sustainability felt weak, superficial and even occasionally deceitful in ways that I didn’t feel like I could adequately explain. Finally I determined that the emphases at the core of sustainability on materiality and energy systems was not strong enough, not deep enough and entirely too anthropocentric.
Charles-Edouard Jeannerete-Gris famously declared that “the house is a machine for living in” in his Vers Une Architecture, (1923) an idea that had, since the passing of Modernism, been largely abandoned. LEED and sustainability in general make for a cleaner, more energy efficient machine, but no matter how friendly it may be to the limited resources of our planet, that machine is still a synthetic thing, beyond being even inorganic. No machine, however sophisticated, has ever been alive, had a spirit or possessed even a semblance of a soul. Perhaps this was a result of the compromise between economics and environmental ideals that had given birth to the concept of sustainable design in the first place or perhaps it was the absence of some other element in the negotiation of that original compromise. How could the human soul survive, much less thrive, when isolated in an environment that is so different from where we were meant to be?
According to some researchers and philosophers, it cannot. At least not healthily. After finding myself so dissatisfied with sustainability, I came upon the writings of Edward O. Wilson, a renowned American biologist, entomologist, theorist and conservationist. In his 1984 book Biophilia, Wilson put forth the theory that human beings have a fundamental and instinctual need to associate with the natural environment and other living organisms. This instinctual need and the overwhelmingly satisfying feeling that came from sating that hunger were what I had found so early in my life around my parents' log cabin and every summer at the end of that dock. This was the dynamic I had been seeking in sustainability yet found to be so dearly absent.
This is not to say that everything designed sustainably or using LEED lacks the necessary qualities nor fails to reinforce the biophilic relationship. However, sustainable design does not actively pursue that connection . As well meaning, and important, as the methods and intentions of sustainable design are, they're incomplete and need to be rethought and reworked. A building could be designed and built in a very sustainable manner and still be almost completely lacking any biophilic qualities.
Wilson's works and those of other ecologists, eco-philosophers, psychologists and theorists lay the groundwork for a path for architecture to take in having an even greater positive effect on the environment than sustainable design has yet aspired to. While biophilia is not a universal balm to the ecological ills of the planet or even to this nation, and architecture is not a magic bullet for addressing those ills, there is still a great capacity for architectural designers to have a positive impact in this realm.
This separation has interfered with and in some situations severed the biophilic connection and has resulted in the development of what's been coined by Richard Louv as nature-deficit disorder. Louv, in Last Child in the Woods asserts that nature deficit disorder is not a medical diagnosis but rather “a way to think about the problem and the possibilities”.(Louv, 2006) In spite of historic highs in participation in youth sports and activities, children are increasingly obese and spending less time outdoors. The disruption of this connection can be traced to increased apathy towards the state of the environment and failures in the physical and mental health of humans as individuals and as a society. High design, which has moved increasingly away from the organic and inorganic to the realm of the synthetic and virtual is too often making this effect even worse.
The built and written works of architects such as Ken Yeang, Frank Lloyd Wright and Michael Reynolds have in some examples demonstrated that built environments, rather than separating, screening or simply providing views to the natural world, can instead facilitate contact with elements of the natural environment and integrate those elements fully into the design. Not only is this something we are capable of doing as designers, it is something we have an ethical responsibility to do as shapers of the human environment.
This research has contributed to the development of a biophilic design methodology which I hope will serve as a guideline for rebuilding the biophilic relationship man instinctively has with the environment but which is repeatedly repressed every time a person enters a building that cuts the occupants off so totally from the natural world. Built environments do not have to be alien to the natural, but can instead stimulate the senses and expose them to the elements and resources of the natural environment such as air, light, water and organic elements in ways that recall the natural environment humans and satisfy our instinctual needs. Part 2: The Way Things Were
Biophilia and Evolutionary Psychology
Biophilia, which is strictly defined as ‘love of life or living systems’ is a term that was first coined by Edward O. Wilson and which he summarized as “the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes.” (Wilson, 1984) A Harvard professor and renowned entomologist, Wilson’s book Biophilia was as much an expression of his own love of life and natural systems as it is an explanation of what biophilia means. As he describes in fascinating detail the infinitely complex systems functioning around us all the time, the reader is drawn into the sophistication of the world he describes. “Life of any kind” says Wilson, “is infinitely more interesting than almost any conceivable variety of inanimate matter.” (Wilson, 1984) His descriptions draw the reader in, demonstrating his point that “to explore and affiliate with life is a deep and complicated process in mental development.” (Wilson, 1984) “To the degree that we understand other organisms, we will place a greater value on them, and on ourselves.” (Wilson, 1984) This is the heart of biophilia and its value to sustainability and the environmental movement.
Stephen Kellert has written as much on the subject of biophilia as Wilson has. His definition of biophilia in Building for Life cut to the core of the meaning of the term in as specific and concise a fashion as possible. To Kellert biophilia is “a complex of weak genetic tendencies to value nature that are instrumental in human physical, material, emotional, intellectual, and moral well-being. Because biophilia is rooted in human biology and evolution, it represents an argument for conserving nature based on long- term self-interest.” (Kellert, 1995)
Adaptability of Man Wilson observed that the native peoples he encountered in the Amazonian rain forest and the remote islands of New Guinea were far more aware of the qualities, rhythms and inhabitants of the natural environments around them. He also observed that his own affiliation contained certain trends. He found himself drawn on a personal level to certain types of landscapes and natural features. In his observations as a biologist he noted that many animals seek out particular environmental qualities instinctively in their particular choice of habitat. “It is often said that homo sapiens is the one species that can live anywhere – on top of ice floes, inside caves, under the sea, in space, anywhere – but this is just a half truth. People must jigger their environment constantly in order to keep it within a narrow range of atmospheric conditions. And once they have managed to rise above the level of bare subsistence, they invest large amounts of time to improve the appearance of their immediate surroundings. Their aim is to make the habitat more 'livable' according to what are usually called aesthetic criteria. With aesthetics we turn to the central issue of biophilia. It is interesting to inquire about the prevalent direction of this vector in cultural evolution, in other words the ideal toward which human beings unconsciously strive no less relentlessly than flycatchers and deer mice. For if animals choose habitats by orientation devices and prepared learning built in during generations of natural selection, it is possible that people do the same.” (Wilson, 108-109, 1984)
Lisa Heschong, in Thermal Delight in Architecture , writes about that same adaptability of humanity. “Plants and the simpler animals are totally dependent upon the sun and weather to provide the heat necessary for survival. Cold-blooded animals begin to make use of their own body heat to keep themselves warm, and the warm- blooded animals are masters at regulating this internal source. Fire allows human beings a third mechanism.” Heschong goes on to indicate that while many animals make their own micro-climates, such as the intricate nests and bowers of some birds, beaver dams, prairie dog tunnels, bee hives, ant nests and countless others, none go so far as humans as far as the complexity or extent of our constructions. (Heschong, 1979)
Some evolutionary psychologists have begun to prove what Wilson has been suggesting may be possible, namely that humans have instinctual preferences towards certain environments. While some of these levels of preference are based upon the ability of humans to maintain an internal state of homeostasis, such as preferences and needs for thermal and humidity levels, other preferences go far beyond such basic biological needs. Animals have instinctual drives informing their constructions, is it so difficult to believe that humans are subject to the same forces of nature?
Biophilic concepts fall within a variety of disciplines, including the philosophical and psychological. Within psychology it falls most importantly and naturally under the umbrella of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is a field of psychological theory that attempts to explain the mental and psychological qualities of beings, particularly humans, as the result of natural selection, in other words, of evolution. Within the roots of our own evolution we find the seeds of many human aesthetic and environmental preferences. These are the seeds of biophilia.
Psychological Research
While the suggestion of a preference for the natural environment by humans is not novel, the idea that it is somehow genetically ingrained in all humans was initially received with some controversy and skepticism. There is, however, substantial scientific research which supports this theory. Psychologists and sociologists have conducted studies across many cultural and geographic groups and at various age levels which have consistently demonstrated not only that humans instinctively prefer a natural environment to the built environment, but also that they instinctively prefer specific types of natural environments with particular qualities that hearken back to humankind’s primitive origins, instincts and habitats.
Psychologists Stephen and Rachel Kaplan have demonstrated a near universal preference among humans for pristine natural environments over built or cultivated environments. However remarkable, beautiful or awe inspiring a building may be and regardless of how well manicured a lawn or however exotic a garden may be, human beings will overwhelmingly prefer untouched natural environments. What’s more, tested subjects, regardless of age or culture, had a strong preference for particular environments. In one study, subjects were shown images of pairs of environments and asked to choose which they preferred. (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) In another study, subjects were asked to describe how images of different environments made them feel. (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) Repeatedly, subjects preferred images of a certain type: specifically, natural environments which included bodies of water, high ground which overlooked grasslands and sparse trees with high canopies which did not block the view. In short the subjects instinctively preferred views which most closely resembled the savannas of Africa, on which man is believed to have evolved for between five and three million years.
Access to water was and remains critical for man’s survival; high ground gave early humans views of the surrounding area which allowed them to keep watch for dangerous predators as well as passing prey. Grasslands provided the best views and trees with high canopies provided shade without obstructing the all-important views of the surrounding landscape.
When writing about human attention and fascination in his essay “Attention and Fascination: The Search for Cognitive Clarity”, Stephen Kaplan noted “green things too have their special claim on human attention. Gardens (R. Kaplan, 1973; Lewis, 1977), parks, wilderness, even houseplants (Iltis et al., 1970) reflect this fascination. While television seems not to specialize in this domain, efforts to evoke a feeling of tranquility... tend to rely on patterns of natural vegetation.”
In other studies, examining specifically the ages and locales of the individual subjects, researchers found that the younger the subject, the more strongly that individual preferred the instinctual default setting of the savanna over any other setting. As the examined subjects got older, they showed stronger tendencies towards the local natural environments, though still with elements of the savanna and a strong preference for the natural environments over the built.
When choosing between images of different man-made environments, subjects consistently preferred images which had more natural elements such as water, plants, sunlight and views out to natural environments. (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) This included preferences for artwork within the environment. Strong preferences were shown for pieces that demonstrated affinities with the African savanna while other preferences were shown to exist against abstract artwork and sculpture. Researchers Gordon Orians and Judith Heerwagen approached the same issue from yet another perspective, examining the changes in landscapes affected by man. Specifically they examined the work of British landscape designer Humphry Repton, finding that he “regularly added groups of trees to pastures” that “resemble the prototypic trees of the savanna.” (Kahn 12) Repton may very well have been subconsciously recreating an environment which he had never experienced firsthand, but which was ingrained in his, and every other member of homo sapiens , psyche.
Evolutionary History
Primates are believed to be one of the oldest extant animal families, along with bats, with origins eighty five million years ago, synchronous with the last of the dinosaurs. The first hominids appeared much later, approximately fifteen to seventeen million years ago depending on the source cited. Humans, defined as members of the genus homo, first appeared two and a half million years ago with homo sapiens finally appearing on the scene two hundred thousand years ago. For the overwhelming majority of this evolutionary time line, humans had no architecture to speak of. We did not design or shape our habitats as we do now, but rather were designed and shaped by our habitats. The nature of those environments shaped our physiology and instinctual psychology.
When we began to build, as Lisa Heschong observed, “primitive builders consistently used forms and materials that effectively moderated prevailing climatic conditions.” (Heschong, 1979) Materials were indigenous and natural and little, if anything, was wasted. For most of human history we still predominantly built this way, using local materials extensively, wasting very little and living very close to the natural environment around us, very much in sync with the diurnal and seasonal cycles. Humans then were aware of the weather, the seasons and the flora and fauna in our local environment to degrees well beyond what we are today. This is not the way we design or build today though, and it is beginning to effect us in subtle but important ways. Part 3: The Way Things Are
Life, the ecosystem, exists within a delicate state of balance that is ever changing and ever shifting, capable of great movements of self-correction, protection and healing due to its infinitely complex and dynamic homeostatic nature. The planet has seen great catastrophes which resulted in global mass extinctions, yet life has endured. This is our great hope as we face major ecological crises brought on by our unchecked consumption of natural resources. However, two important things should be borne in mind. The first is that such disasters throughout prehistory were the result of singular events and the fallout from those events. The current ecological crisis is not a monochronal occurrence, but rather a diurnal one, with every day bringing continued, incremental, ecological degradation. We have set ourselves up outside the homeostatic balance of the planet and are disrupting it further on a daily basis.
The second issue is that while it is very likely that life will continue to exist in spite of this devastation, there is no guarantee that western civilization, or human beings, will be amongst the survivors.
For millions of years, homo sapiens and his evolutionary predecessors evolved as integral parts of the natural ecosystem and coexisted with it. Even for much of recorded history, humans lived close to and in relative harmony and proximity with the local ecosystem, living and working in buildings which did not seal them off entirely from the environment and which were constructed from materials found very close at hand. It is not surprising then that over millions of years of evolution an instinctual relationship developed between man and the natural environment. The biophilic instinct is integral to human health and well being, both physically and mentally and the built environments which people occupy affect the health of the user and their attitude towards the natural world.
According to estimates by the United States Census bureau from 2003, the United States population is becoming increasingly urban with more than eighty percent of the population living in cities and metropolitan suburbs. Suburban housing tracts and big box retail effectively strip mine the landscape of its natural elements, filling lots with too-large houses, surrounded by mono-cultures of Kentucky bluegrass and asphalt while maintaining a fairly low population density. The unfortunate norm too is that these developments, new and existing, are often isolated from community services and shopping so that in order to get anywhere, one must drive. Sidewalks are becoming the exception in these developments. These suburban developments, and many urban ones, leave no room for the users to experience any aspect of the natural environment unless the user drives to it, which too often leads to simply driving through it. The American experience is becoming one of closed windows and doors, synthetic materials and virtual experiences.
Medicine and Health
As was shown in the previous chapter, there is a strong, well-defined emotional and psychological connection between homo sapiens and the natural environment, particularly the qualities of the natural environment in which they evolved. This relationship does not stop with psychological and emotional health. The mind and the body are intricately linked in ways that still aren’t fully understood. However, it has been shown that more often than not, what affects one inevitably affects the other. Unfortunately, as western civilization has advanced and evolved, we have increasingly separated ourselves from the natural environment, a process which was accelerated in the 19th and 20th centuries as industrialization increased.
Humankind does not merely have a preference for natural landscapes, they are also important to our physical and mental health. Countless studies have shown that regular exposure to natural elements is highly beneficial to mental health, particularly stress reduction. Immersion in natural environments is even more beneficial. Physically, patients recover faster when exposed to images and elements of the natural environment both before and after surgery. Researchers in the United States, Sweden and other countries have consistently found that people with “access to nearby natural settings” are “healthier than other individuals.” (Kahn 15)
As a result, related disorders of the mind and body have started becoming more common amongst humans. Seasonal Affective Disorder, a form of depression linked to sunlight deprivation, is becoming more common as people increasingly spend their time indoors, bathed in artificial light and missing out on natural sunlight. The percentage of the populace which is afflicted with SAD steadily increases the further the area is from the equator. SAD is almost unheard of in tropical climates while as much as 20% of the population of Ireland is afflicted according to a 2007 survey. The most common and effective form of treatment is the regular use of full spectrum light boxes which expose the user to a natural range of light, rather than the limited range which fluorescents typically emit.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, also known as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance and “20th Century Syndrome” have become more common as we construct our environments increasingly out of non-natural materials. MCS is a chronic, recurring reaction to environmental chemicals, typically synthetic, even in low doses. MCS often is the result of prolonged exposure to an irritating agent or a sudden shock of a large dose of such an agent. There are however, some critics who believe that MCS is largely a psychosomatic condition, suggesting that other mental conditions are causing the biological reactions.
Sick Building Syndrome is sometimes cited as a trigger for MCS but while there is some question around the validity of MCS, there is none regarding Sick Building Syndrome. According to a United States Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet released in 1991, SBS occurs when some aspect of a building, typically the air quality, results in a deterioration in the health of the occupants. Specific causes can include mold growth, off-gassing of volatile organic compounds in construction materials, inadequate ventilation, many cleaning products, and poor lighting or acoustics. In a home the resulting symptoms can result in migraines, weakened immune systems and in the workplace an employer may have high rates of absenteeism and employee turnover.
The United Nations' World Health Organization estimates that thirty percent of all new or remodeled buildings may result in cases of SBS. SBS is a direct result of using too many synthetic products and trying to control too closely the indoor environment. Many plants, such as spider plants, bamboo palms, aloe and even poinsettias have been shown to be effective at absorbing the toxins in the air which cause sick building syndrome. (Wolverton, 1990)
Extensive research has also shown that hospital patients recover more quickly when provided with views of the outdoors, plants in their room or even paintings or photographs of natural landscapes. Some facilities have begun displaying such work on the ceilings of preparation and recovery rooms to reduce patient stress. Research has also shown that pet owners suffered mortality rates roughly one third of patients who do not own pets. (Beck and Katcher, 1996)
Childhood Development & Nature Deficit Disorder
The effects of the quality of human biophilic relationships may be most profound on children. There is no doubt that childhood is the most formative period in a person's life. What we experience during our first decade or so on the planet determines to a remarkable degree who we will become. The quality of a child's biophilic experience can affect attention deficit disorders, obesity, depression, diabetes and the way that the child relates to the environment for the rest of their life.
According to Building Systems for Interior Designers a study by Heschong Mahone Group, an energy consulting company, showed that those students studying in classrooms with the most windows progressed significantly faster in math and reading than students in classrooms without windows. Their study in California showed differences of fifteen percent in rates of progress in math and twenty-three percent in reading. In other studies, “students in classrooms where windows could be opened were found to progress 7 to 8 percent faster than those with fixed windows, regardless of whether they also had air-conditioning. Seattle, Washington and Fort Collins, Colorado, studies also showed positive and highly significant effects from daylighting. High daylight levels in classrooms for these districts were shown to produce scores 7 to 18 percent higher than scores from classrooms with the least daylight.” (Binggeli, 2003)
Richard Louv, who coined the phrase nature deficit disorder, has extensively researched the effect of the human-nature connection in children. He cites research that demonstrates exposure to nature can have a powerful effect on children with attention-deficit disorder and depression. Children who have more access to the outdoors and who are encouraged or allowed to make use of that access are more active and as a result more healthy and less likely to become obese a leading cause of Type II diabetes and depression. “As one scientist puts it, we can now assume that just as children need good nutrition and adequate sleep, they may very well need contact with nature.”(Louv, 2006)
Unfortunately, those benefits are becoming harder and harder to take advantage of as children are encouraged to spend more time indoors in controlled environments or are shuttled from one activity to another as well as discouraged from playing outdoors. One child in Louv's Last Child in the Woods was quoted as saying that computers were more important than nature since computers were where the jobs are. (Louv, 2006) Louv also cites examples of children being told to tear down treehouses because they didn't have building permits or being harassed out of climbing trees.
Workplace Health and Productivity
Adults also see significant benefits from stronger biophilic relationships. Employee productivity is much higher in environments with connections to the natural world, particularly sunlight and views to the outside. Employees who have greater connections to the natural world from their workspaces have been shown to take fewer sick days, fewer breaks and to be more likely to remain with the same employer. Genzyme Corporation's new 350,000 square foot LEED Platinum headquarters in Cambridge, MA which was designed by Behnisch, Behnisch and Partner includes street level retail, an employee cafeteria, offices, library, gardens, training rooms, conference center, green roof and cafes. The firm took a design approach that worked from the inside out, with the quality of the employee experience being the driving force. This was as much an economic decision as it was a humanistic one, an office building’s single largest expense isn’t the foundation, building envelope, site or heating bill, it’s the salary of the employees within.
Behnisch and Behnisch went beyond energy and material saving strategies to determine at how the design of the space would effect the physical and mental health of the occupants. The design also provides views out to ninety percent of staff from their workstations and utilizes daylighting in seventy-five percent of the building space.
To achieve this, an emphasis was placed on indoor gardens and bringing as much light into the building as possible, the most significant step in this strategy was the inclusion of a full height indoor atrium which features sun tracking mirrors called heliostats on the roof to reflect sunlight down into the atrium all day long. The atrium also features hanging prisms which fill the void of the atrium and reflect dappled sunlight into the floor plates.
Because of the glazed exterior cladding and the atrium, 75% of the workers are able to work the majority of the day without any artificial lights. The exterior envelope also includes operable windows on every floor, allowing occupants access to fresh air and control of their space. Perforated, automated aluminum blinds automatically close at night to prevent light pollution and rotate during the day to act as miniature light shelves, reflecting light into the building while preventing excess solar gain. Reflective ceiling panels along the perimeter of the building reflect sunlight even further into the building.
As a result of these steps, going above and beyond what is sustainable to considering the human experience in more depth and developing natural elements within the building, Genzyme has seen their employee turnover rate plummet and sick time reduced by five percent compared to their other facilities. (Genzyme, 2005)
Retail juggernaut Wal-Mart found in 1993 that when they placed products under skylights in their experimental “Eco-Mart” trial stores that those departments and products experienced significantly increased sales, regardless of the product or department. Customers were subconsciously drawn to the natural light and the sole connection to the outdoors in an otherwise completely enclosed building. The association with the sunlight made the products seem more attractive regardless of their actual quality or whether they were needed.
As expensive as a building is to build or renovate, most companies will spend far more on staff salaries. Cutting down on absenteeism, staff turnover and potentially increasing sales can quickly recoup the additional costs of building a higher quality building.
Evidence Based Design
Health care facility design has in the last few years begun using empirical data from surveys and productivity reports at existing facilities as well as biophilia related research such as has been done by Kaplan and Kaplan and others to develop better medical facility designs. While medical facilities are not the only facilities which employ evidence based design, they are the most significant and prolific. The concept of applying objective research and building evaluations to architecture may seem like a straightforward and obvious concept, yet most high architecture and much cutting edge theory lacks any such logical scientific backing.
The Center for Health Design has accumulated research and project evaluations on nearly a thousand facilities around the world and has published recommendations for better health care design. These recommendations encompass patient health and well- being, the importance of social support from families, staff stress and efficiency levels, frequency of errors as well as facility fiscal performance. Aspects of biophilia have become important in evidence based design, particularly in aspects of patient and staff stress levels, as addressed above.
Biophilia and Environmental Attitude
Clearly, separation and isolation from the natural environment is not favorable to the overall health of human beings. Encouraging and enabling connections is highly beneficial both emotionally and physically. Perhaps more importantly, this detachment between humanity and our natural environment has led to apathy towards the effects of our actions on the biosphere which creates greater environmental problems, and also antipathy as the natural world world has become alien to us.
By isolating the community from our natural surroundings, we not only place their mental and physical health at risk. By alienating the natural environment, we inhibit the emotional connection to that environment, resulting in a growing disregard for the welfare of that environment. As Wilson observed, “to the degree that we understand other organisms, we will place a greater value on them, and on ourselves.” (Wilson 2) The benefits and considerations which we show toward the environment will enrich our own lives just as much.
“The health of the earth is at stake as well. How the young respond to nature, and how they raise their own children, will shape the configurations and conditions of our cities, homes – our daily lives.” (Louv, 2006)
Architectural Attitudes
Architectural design is as fragmented today as it as been at any point in its history. Arguably the most dominant force in contemporary architecture is Modernism, though not in the way the Modernist dreamers had initially intended. Modernism sought to create a universal design ethic.
Now, contemporary architecture is united most in a rejection of the principles of Modernism. Modernists cast aside ornament, Post-Modernists revived ornament. Modernism was universal and non-contextual, Kenneth Frampton and the Critical Regionalists built their theory around site and contextual sensitivity. Modernism was clean, linear, machinelike and sterile while Blobitecture and Organic Architecture sought flowing, curvilinear forms that recall nature forms and revolve around abstract and complex mathematical equations.
The idealists who set out the design principles which drove modernism and the international style believed that architectural design could solve the ills of society, providing positive spaces and housing for everyone, everywhere, if their principles were applied universally. As noble as their intentions may have been, they did not succeed as they had intended. As a result, Peter Eisenman and some other late- modernists, often citing the failures of modernism as proof positive, claim that architecture cannot affect social change. In his lecture “The New Subjectivity” given at the University of Cincinnati, Eisenman said “Architecture doesn't solve any problems... If you're interested in solving problems, be a sociologist, be a medical technician, I don't know, but don't be an architect. There is only one type of problem that architecture solves and those are architecture problems.” (Eisenman, 2006) Aside from missing the very obvious point that architecture's primary purpose is to address the problem of shelter, a key element in the physiological and safety needs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such attitudes miss, or perhaps intentionally ignore that architecture can have a negative influence on society by creating dismal, sterile, wasteful or ecologically disconnective environments. And if that that is so, then architecture can certainly have a positive effect on society by righting the wrongs of bad architecture.
As our modern post-industrialized civilizations have continued to advance, they have increasingly alienated themselves from the natural world. Throughout the progression of the 20th century, buildings were increasingly built of non-local materials and designed technologically to more effectively seal off the local environment from the space of the building occupant.
Ian McHarg in Design Outlaws addressed the question “Why is architecture oblivious to the environment?” He begins with a succinct summation and critique of Modernism and the International style, which was the dominant force in the 20th century, both in its own application and in the reactions to it. He observes, as so many others have, that the International Style sought to create an architectural design stencil which Modernists intended to be universal and all-encompassing. Instead, what resulted was an architecture that was almost the exact opposite, and was inappropriate to all peoples, anywhere, any time.
McHarg’s issues with Modernism and the International Style stem largely from what he saw as a complete lack of reference to the local ecology, something which much of postmodern architectural design has largely continued to do. Many of the most prominent contemporary architects such as Eisenman and Gehry, continue to demonstrate a Modernist disdain for the natural environment and local context.
What’s more, the prevalence and philosophy of the International Style resulted in students being inadequately instructed and educated in the history and context of architecture. McHarg observes that in every other science, art or discipline, practitioners learn the history and past lessons of that discipline as essential parts of the programs. Yet Modernist architecture completely rejected this approach and such architectural greats as Walter Gropius, under whom McHarg studied, expunged courses in architectural history from their schools, except for the final year of the program, for decades. This is a damage that is still being undone as the disdain for historicity that students were imbued with carried on into their professional careers as practitioners, theorists and educators.
For millennia buildings were constructed of contextual materials, with the local environment in mind. Modernism, as well as a great deal of post-modern theory and design, rejected those contextual traditions which served so well for so long. Instead, primacy has been given over to “the egos… and the signature of the artist,” (Zelov, Chris, and Cousineau, 1997) not to mention abstractions which have absolutely “nothing to do with human physiology, human psychology, and certainly nothing to do with geology, hydrology, rocks, salts, plants or animals” (Zelov, et al, 1997) or any other aspect of the local environment. These are not elements which architects study now or at any point in recent architectural history.
Architects have for too long separated building occupants from the elements of the surrounding natural environment and neglected to observe the potential benefits. However, they have not been the only professionals guilty of this. Kaplan and Kaplan, the husband and wife team which has done so much research into the preferred environments of human, take the self-chastising stance that psychologists have long failed to observe and consider the benefits of plant life and natural landscapes on the mental health of individuals.
Kaplan and Kaplan may have put it best when they made the following observation about the natural environment. “Viewed as an amenity, nature may be readily replaced by some greater technological achievement. Viewed as an essential bond between humans and other living things, the natural environment has no substitutes.” (Kahn, 1999) Part 4: The Way Things Could Be
Deep Ecology and Biophilia’s Philosophical Role
Fortunately, deep ecologists have faith that humans will ultimately treat the environment as more than an amenity or resource. Emmanuel Kant observed that human beings act benevolently either out of feelings of duty or inclination. Actions performed out of duty are sometimes contrary to individual inclinations. Such a behavior is a moral action, which, while known to be right, may go against an individual wish. A benevolent action or behavior is one which is done out of inclination, without prompting or command and such behaviors are those which deep ecologists feel are what will best drive individuals to act benevolently towards nature.
What, though, could cause people to feel inclined to act so beneficently? Philosopher Arne Naess, founder of the ecological philosophy, or ecosophy, known as Deep Ecology is presented by Kay Milton in her book Loving Nature as arguing that what will incline humans to protect the environment is humanity’s ability to identify with and anthropomorphize other living beings. Humans see something of themselves in other living creatures. “Identification makes morality redundant because we care for ourselves, and whatever is a part of ourselves, by inclination, without the need for moral exhortation.” (Milton 2002) Whatever we make a part of ourselves, whatever we make make our own, whether it is a friend, a child, a house, a car or a beloved stretch of woods, people will fight passionately to protect.
The state of western society may lead some to doubt the potential of this idea or to lack faith in its motivational ability. How could alcoholics, smokers and drug addicts who exhibit such a strong lack of respect for their own lives and bodies feel protective of other creatures even if they could identify with them, since they show a lack of concern for their own conditions?
Naess or other deep ecologists would likely reply that it is precisely such behavior which highlights humanity’s separation from the environment. Their plight is a “symptom of a pathological society, whose sense of separation from nature runs so deep that it has alienated us even from our own bodies.” (Milton 2002) While exposure or lack of exposure to the biosphere is not likely to singularly cause or solve such social problems, the problems are so complex that no single approach or action can possibly solve them.
Such a separation is a multifaceted problem with many causes and which would require an approach on multiple levels to remedy. An important starting point would be to reinforce and encourage the natural inclination and identification humans feel towards their environment. While not a solution, it is certainly an important step in the right direction. The simplest way to do begin that aspect of the solution is to expose people to as many elements of that environment as much as possible.
Architectural design decisions of this type would strengthen the connection between the occupants and the environment. This would also contribute to the improvement of the physical, mental and emotional health of the occupants. People who are physically and psychically healthy are more likely to feel empowered and capable of making an impact should they choose to. With a reinforced connection to the environment, such users are going to be much more inclined to work to protect the environment which modernism worked so hard to alienate us from.
As a response to this growing apathy, the development and application of a biophilic architectural methodology which addresses these physical, mental and social issues seems to be in order. Such a methodology should holistically incorporate elements of earth, air, light, water and organic matter in ways that stimulate all the senses. Such environments are of critical importance in places where children live and are educated in order to create a rapport between biosphere and organism that will last long into adulthood.
Sustainable Design and Biophilia
While sustainable design and biophilia may seem closely related, there are many areas in which they don’t overlap or may even be at odds. Sustainability as we know it was first defined by the United Nations' Brundtland Commission as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (United Nations, 1987) While this is a noble and laudable goal, it is most commonly addressed in terms of the conservation and management of resources, materials and energy. Sustainable architecture does not specifically address the emotional and psychological needs which are a part of biophilia. The definition also came about as a result of a compromise between economic pressures and environmental interests and does not address damage already done to the environment.
While biophilic design and sustainable design may seem very similar in many ways, and indeed many biophilic solutions are sustainable and many sustainable solutions are also biophilic, the difference is significant. The goal of biophilic design is one of healthy environments, healthy users and a healthy biosphere. If that is done, then the balance in resource management at the heart of sustainable design will follow.
Biophilic design then, isn’t necessarily the same as sustainable design. For instance when it comes to choosing a site, using a previously developed site which is part of a dense urban area is one of the most sustainable strategies available. This significantly cut down on the amount of driving the occupants will need to do by keeping as many basic amenities as possible close by. From a biophilic standpoint however, this dense urban environment is far from ideal. Preferably the occupants of a building should have easy access to untouched open space, such as virgin woodlands, in order to best nurture the human biophilic instinct.
Unfortunately, such a solution is very unsustainable, not to mention impractical. Not everyone can have a home that opens onto untouched wilderness, this would decimate most of the remaining ecological systems in the country. Wilson pointedly observed that “the natural world is the refuge of the spirit, remote, static, richer even than human imagination. But we cannot exist in this paradise without the machine that tears it apart.” The “machine” which Wilson faults for the destruction of the biophilic paradise is an avatar for technology in general, such as Leo Marx extolled in his 1964 classic, The Machine in the Garden . All these technologies are what make it possible for human beings to maintain the type of first world Western civilization which we have become accustomed to and which so much of the developing world aspires to achieve, yet they are the product and producers of a great deal of devastation of the natural environment. One significant architect who is addressing some of the issues of biophilic design is Ken Yeang. Yeang is a major advocate of the skyscraper as critical built form due to issues of overpopulation but also due to the significant sustainable value inherent in the density inherent in skyscraper design. His emphasis on skyscrapers is so predominant throughout his work in fact, that a book about his non-skyscraper work was titled Groundscrapers & Subscrapers in reference to the significant role skyscraper design has had on his work. Yeang rejects the froufrou aesthetics of Post-Modernists like Eisenman and embraces sustainability with a passion, applying not only technological solutions to his designs, but biophilic ones as well, placing the interaction of humans and nature high atop his list of design goals.
Biophilic architecture is certainly not a cure all, other social and professional institutions can and should make changes as well. Planning is a natural choice since it is so closely related to architecture. Richard Louv has already done a lot of advocacy work as far as trying to change how the education system treats the child-nature relationship. As Stephen Kaplan has pointed out, more can be done in the psychological community not only to come to a greater understanding of the human- nature relationship, but also to apply that understanding to the treatment of those who lack that element in their lives and to work as advocates for change. A unified, holistic approach, across multiple fields and institutions, can lead to a higher quality of life, health, education and human-environmental reconnection. Part 5: Biophilic Design
Developing a Biophilic Design Ethic
Much as sustainability represented a compromise between the conservation ethic and the economic realities of the western world, a feasible biophilic design methodology must also compromise with the economic realities of the modern world as well as function hand in glove with the sustainable design movement. Separately, both are good and noble concepts, together they make a more ethical, healthful and responsible design.
Biophilic design strives to reconnect humans with those natural elements which we have become disconnected and disassociated from.
I have chosen to approach the designed environment by dividing it into five building elements, the Macro-Site, Site, Envelope & Structure, Systems and Building Ecology. While these areas are fairly clearly delineated, they should not be approached as separate elements; all are connected in essential and complicated ways and to consider one without considering the others will adversely affect how it would function.
There are five essential principles of biophilia which can be applied to architecture either for the purpose of guiding the development of the design as well as evaluating its merits: Affiliation and Affinity, Wellness, Biocentric Ethics, Prospect & Refuge and Homeostasis. These principles relate to the elements of building design, some more strongly than others. The biophilic principles are all strongly connected, just as there is truly no clear line between each of the building elements, each affects and interacts with the others, working together to form a cohesive whole. Addressing a single building element or biophilic principle individually, as if within a vacuum, cannot result in a successful design. The whole system, biophilia and building together, must be considered, developed and function together, like a living organism.
Biophilic Principles
Affiliation & Affinity
As we associate more with something and develop a relationship with it, we take it on as part of ourselves and develop a connection, or affinity, for it. This affinity consists primarily of emotional connections which cause humans to attach value to some item. By associating with the natural environment and developing a personal relationship with it, rules, whether they are social mores or governmental laws, become less necessary in protecting the environment.
There are four basic levels of affiliation for developing biophilic affinity. These four levels of affiliation are Contact, Association, Views and Proxy. While each level of affiliation can develop biophilic affinity, the more personal and immediate the affiliation, the stronger the psychological and emotional connections will be.
Contact is the most immediate and most likely to be conscious, this level of affiliation occurs when we associate with elements to the point where they enter our personal space, including physical contact. Such affiliations are more powerful due to the intensity of sensation since the sense of touch becomes involved and the sense of smell becomes more powerfully engaged than at other levels. Every time we sit in a chair stroking a cat, pet a dog or trim or re-pot a plant we are strongly reinforcing our connection to the natural system which we evolved in.
Elements we Associate with are close but not typically close enough to touch, such as elements within the same room or otherwise nearby. They’re also elements that we have some perception of through our senses of sight, hearing and smell.
Viewed connections can still be made to biophilic elements which are far out of reach or otherwise intangible and are likely only sensible through the sense of sight, though hearing does come into play as well at times. The ability to view a landscape from a window can still form strong biophilic connections. Indeed, such conditions have been shown to be very beneficial, such as with stress reduction among employees or hospital patients.
Proxy affiliation occurs when we’re not actually experiencing a natural environment or elements, but rather are exposed to impressions of one through some imitation such as a painting of a landscape, pine scented candles or audio of sounds of natural environments such as thunderstorms, walks through the woods, etc. These affiliations have questionable potential for developing affinity for such environments but often evoke powerful recollections of previously experienced affiliations and generate particular emotions or feelings such as peace or relaxation.
Wellness
As seen in Part Three, our physical, emotional and mental healths are all affected by the quality of our exposure to the natural environment with potentially significant consequences. People who have had more exposure to the environment are healthier in a broad range of ways. They’re less likely to have mental illnesses, develop attention deficit disorders, suffer from excess stress (which causes additional health issues) and are less likely to be obese or overweight, which causes even more health problems.
Biocentric Ethics
The question of what is ethical, even confined to the particular realms of ecology or environmentalism, is a massive and complex question which has been covered in a vast collection of volumes by countless authors. Such questions are of a grand scale and their full exploration is far beyond the scope and intentions of this humble work. A full exploration would subvert the topic at hand. Instead I am going to work at the most basic levels and proceed using some general presumptions.
Ethics are the theoretical or philosophical concepts behind morality, though the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. These concepts developed initially, at least according to some, as an evolutionary product which was built into our instincts and intuitions as vehicles for survival and reproduction of the species over the needs of the individual. The summum bonum, or as we know it the greater or highest good.
Environmental ethics begins essentially with the issue of instrumental value versus intrinsic value. In other words, should environmental ethics consider the needs of the ecosystem because of the relationship that humans have with the environment and the consequences to us for the damage done to the environment. Or, on the other hand, is there an intrinsic value to the natural environment outside of what it means to us as humans?
The most basic issue within ecological ethics is the issue of anthropocentric values versus biocentric values. An anthropocentric belief system places the values of humans over any other creature or interest on earth or in the universe, excepting of course higher spiritual powers. There are many arguments in favor of the anthropocentric perspective, including the religious perspective. "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis, 1:26)
This Genesis passage has been cited by some as spiritual authorization for a carte blanche drawn on the bank of the earth's natural resources. The passage is, fortunately, more commonly read as not simply giving man the Earth as a place to live and dominion over its inhabitants and material, but also making mankind responsible for its well-being and health. In The Creation Edward O. Wilson, a secular humanist who was raised as a Southern Baptist, uses the medium of an open letter to a Southern Baptist minister as a call to common arms in defense of the earth.
Surely we can agree that each species, however inconspicuous and humble it may seem to us at this moment, is a masterpiece of biology, and well worth saving. Each species possesses a unique combination of genetic traits that fits it more or less precisely to a particular part of the environment. Prudence alone dictates that we act quickly to prevent the extinction of species and, with it, the pauperization of Earth's ecosystems – hence of Creation. (Wilson, 5, 2006 )
While Wilson presents his arguments to an audience of an anthropocentric leaning, his own perspective comes through as being far more biocentric or at least of the biocentric persuasion. Biocentrism makes the argument that all forms of life have value, with none taking precedence over another.
Others argue that man's dominion over nature is Darwinistic, a matter of evolution and survival of the fittest. Our wants and needs supersede any others because we have evolved to be superior. There are many reasons for considering the needs of other species as being just as important as our own. The most basic being that evolution tells us that we are all related to some ancient degree. “If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren in pain, diseases, death, suffering and famine - our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our amusement - they may partake of our origin in one common ancestor - we may be all netted together.” (Darwin, 1996)
“Recent studies reported in the journal Science describe how some nonhuman animals compose music. Analyses of songs of birds and humpback whales show they use some of the same acoustic techniques, and follow the same laws of composition, as those used by human musicians. Whale songs even contain rhyming refrains, and similar intervals, phrases, song durations, and tones. Whales also use rhyme in the way we do, “as a mnemonic device to help them remember complex material,” the researchers write. According to their study, whales physiologically have a choice, they could use arrhythmic and non repeating tunes, but instead, they sing.” (Louv, 2006)
Our Biophilic instinct certainly seems to be an aspect of an instinctual ethical system. As such, biophilic design should consider the benefit of the whole, of the greater good, not simply the needs of the individual or a privileged portion of the whole earth's population.
Aldo Leopold, in his seminal work, A Sand County Almanac , wrote regarding ethics and the environment “That land is a community is the basic concept of Ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.” (Leopold vii-ix) “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” (224-225) If developers, planners and architects could keep those two concepts in their heart and in their mind when they design and build, then not much more could be asked for by the environmental movement.
Prospect & Refuge
Human beings naturally seek high ground and shelter for protection and in order to get a better view of our surroundings. The comfort and relaxation we feel looking out over a vista is an aspect of a human survival trait, not simply a matter of aesthetics. The concept of prospect & refuge is the most directly applicable biophilic principle in architectural terms. In fact, it's one of the most basic concepts in good architectural design. Its place within architecture is due to our instinctual needs for refuge and prospect
Stephen and Rachel Kaplan's research in the early and mid 1980's, addressed earlier in this work, established ideal environments and views which humans feel most comfortable with. Theses ideals include a view from high ground of mostly open spaces which include water features such as streams or lakes and populated by trees with high canopies. The high vantage point permits longer views of potential predators as well as prey. This is what is meant by prospect, an extensive, largely uninterrupted view of the goings on which per Prospect represents an element of openness as well as of danger.
Refuge on the other hand is a matter of safety. Refuge is at least partially closed off, even if only in the vertical dimension. Refuge addresses two parts of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is a crucial part of meeting the physiological need for warmth as well as the safety need for shelter, something which prospect plays a role in as well by allowing us to surveyour surroundings for threats or risks. Refuge is our shelter from those dangers, stresses and unknowns. It is familiar and comforting. Refuge is home.
Prospect and refuge are not simply architectural concepts or terms, they are architectural essentials. The need for refuge is what drives us to build in the first place. We feel a need for safety and security as well as shelter from the elements yet also crave a view of our surroundings.
This need expresses itself in many ways and at many scales. At the large end of the scale there is the site selection and construction of early cities such as Rome which was birthed upon the Palatine hill before merging with communities on six neighboring hills to form the seven hills of Rome. Siting the communities atop the hills gave them commanding views of the countryside, protected the citizens from floods and added an additional degree of protection from invaders.
At the smaller scale, the instinct towards prospect and refuge is perceptible in preferences for furniture layout in the average American home. Furniture is set often in corners with those seats often being the first to be occupied. The corners provide greater refuge than a couch set in the middle of the room and also provide a more comprehensive view, or prospect, of the room. While the likelihood of there being a threat in the living room to the occupants safety are very slim, the view of the room gives the occupant a level of perceived control and comfort and minimizes the potential for surprises.
In between are countless examples, from the strategic military value of holding mountains along political borders to the higher property values of homes built on hillsides or cliffs and children's drive to build treehouses in which they plan mock battles against imagined foes.
The need for prospect and refuge is one of our most basic instinctual drives. The instinct to seek shelter with views underlines the source, strength and importance of our biophilic drives while also highlighting the role architecture can play in meeting those needs and drives.
Homeostasis
Homeostasis is defined as “a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group”. Essentially, a system or cycle, such as an organism or ecosystem will naturally seek a state of balance that will allow the system or cycle to perpetuate itself. The natural world exists naturally in a homeostatic, largely self-corrective state. Removing elements from that natural cycle or ignoring the cycle entirely can throw the entire system out of balance and makes the return to homeostasis much harder.
In biophilic design, homeostasis becomes important as a concept for reconnecting humans to the natural cycles which we evolved from. This is important for two basic reasons. The first is that by incorporating our building systems and attitudes
One theory on instinctual needs that came to the forefront in the 1940's was Abraham Maslow's extremely influential theory on the hierarchy of human needs. In his paper “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Maslow proposed a theory based on what he determined to be the most basic human needs which helped lay the foundations for the advent of humanistic psychology. According to Maslow, each layer of needs, physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualization builds upon the prior layers and only when the needs of the lower layers are met, to a basic degree, would a healthy individual begin to consider fulfilling the needs of the next level.
The physiological needs are the most basic and essential for life such as oxygen, food, water, sleep, etc. “Two recent lines of research make it necessary to revise our customary notion about these needs,” writes Maslow when introducing the physiological needs. “First the development of the concept of homeostasis, and second, the finding that appetites... are a fairly efficient indication of actual needs or lacks in the body.”(1945) In this case Maslow is referring to homeostasis as “the body's automatic efforts to maintain a constant, normal state of the blood stream.” Maslow recognized our own physical systems have a state of equilibrium that is remarkably complex, yet is capable of maintaining its own internal balance.
Maslow also recognizes the significance and power of subconscious instincts. In “A Theory of Human Motivation” he refers primarily to the hunger instinct and the ability of that instinct to discriminate between a need for food in general and a need for specific foods to satisfy particular biological imbalances through particular cravings and that instincts role in maintaining homeostasis within the human organism.
The emphasis within the physiological needs is on the internal homeostatic balance, but what of the exogenous systems in which humans are but one piece of a much greater organismic homeostatic cycle? What does not the connection of human instinct to human homeostatic processes on the micro scale suggest about such instincts on the macro scale?
Humans certainly have a place in the greater ecological system and in maintaining its homeostatic state. We evolved within that system and were healthy participants. However, as our behaviors have changed, we have slowly extricated ourselves from that process, existing outside the natural order, leaving not only a gap in the homeostatic cycle, but also developing consumptive systems and behaviors which are not capable of a state of homeostasis.
Our modern habits consume finite natural resources at a pace that outstrips their ability to naturally replenish themselves. At the same time, we produce waste products that are more often disposed of than reused or returned to the cycle. In a homeostatic system, there is no true waste. As William McDonough says in Cradle to Cradle “waste is food”. The concept is off-putting or even disgusting to many first world citizens, yet it's the way the natural world functions at every maintainable level.
By transforming our daily habits and productive methods from consumptive, depletive systems into more homeostatic systems that not only emulate natural systems but also incorporate themselves healthily into existing natural systems we will insure a longevity that is not simply 'sustainable' but healthy and positive.
Building Elements
Building Ecology
The building’s ecology is the life within the building and physical manifestation of the intended program. This means principally the users of the space themselves but also such elements as non-structural or non-skin walls, furniture, biota, décor, etc.
The consideration of the building ecology is one of the greatest opportunities for developing human Affinity for the environment through direct Affiliation, exposing the user first hand to natural elements for developing the biophilic relationship. Indoor atria, planter gardens and the use of organic materials such as sustainable woods and bamboo are all ways of exposing the human occupants of a building to elements of the natural environment.
Systems The systems of a building are those elements which make it fit for human habitation by addressing the qualities of the air, providing light, power, water and maintenance of human byproducts. While many of these systems are addressed separately, many of them are woven intricately together. Air quality and temperature, temperature and energy, energy and water, water and waste are all tied together in complicated ways.
For example, typically human garbage and excrement is viewed as waste to be sent immediately out of sight to ‘someplace else’. Whether that someplace is a septic tank and leaching field in the backyard or to a sewer pipe that sends the waste, often along with storm water runoff, to a far off processing plant for chemical treatments or even occasionally dumped raw into some body of water depends on the local municipalities and the building site. Garbage is typically carted off by massive gasoline devouring trucks to be buried away in a landfill or burned off in an incinerator.
This waste has value though. This value may not be financial, but it has nutrient value to other living organisms such as microbes or plant matter.
A close, critical consideration of building systems is vital to developing a homeostatic living status for human beings and the building within the environment. These systems are also critical in how the building effects the site and greater macro-site of the project. The quality of the air, water and other matter which leaves the building is just as important as what comes into the building. Most modern buildings bring in clean resources, clean air, clean water and usable materials, then export dirtier air, filthy effluent and garbage destined for the landfill.
Envelope & Structure
A building’s envelope and structure provides physical support to the building elements, shelter, and varying degrees of permeability, connection and separation between the ‘interior’ and the ‘exterior’ spaces. Daylighting, natural ventilation, openness of the floorplan, access to exterior spaces and many other factors are all strongly effected by the design of the building's envelope and structure.
Site
The building site consists of those elements of the land and landscape which are immediately affected by the designed and built environment as well as those areas immediately adjacent. The building on the next lot over is just as important in consideration of the site as the building going on the site. Issues to be considered include access to utilities, soil and water quality and local density.
Macro-Site
The Macro site is what exists beyond the confines of the site and its limited considerations. It’s the watershed the building is in, the topography, views, climate and environmental factors of that region and beyond to the consideration of how a building will effect the whole of the biosphere. Political climates, connection to local resources, regional density, mass transit, watersheds, climate, zoning laws, public reviews and connections to wild habitat are just a few of the factors involved in the consideration of the macro-site. The macro-site is the most complicated and arguably the most important element of a building project. Unfortunately, it can also be the easiest to overlook as we often have the least control over it. As designers, we must never forget that what we do is part of a greater context
Methodology
The first, and biggest, mistake one could make is to think of each of these biophilic principles or building elements in a vacuum or in isolation. While I have broken each down here for explanatory purposes it cannot be emphasized too much how important the interweaving nature of each of these concepts is. The image on the cover is a graphic representation of one perspective on this interwoven relationship. Inspired by the imagery and meanings behind Celtic knots and the Buddhist endless knot as well as the infinite, circular, cyclical symbolism of a simple circle, each ring is composed of five woven strands, symbolizing the biophilic principles and building elements. Each ring then weaves itself inextricably into, around and through the other, each element or principle woven together with every other element and principle. This graphic is not a literal representation, but rather a symbolic, visual expression of the complexity of these relationships.
As interwoven and connected as the individual biophilic principles and design elements are, from a practical standpoint, it's all but impossible to develop and design every aspect of a project simultaneously and in concert. The breadth of most projects is simply too great to engage everything at once. However, the biophilic principles can be readily applied to a typical design process, the key to developing a biophilic design is keeping those principles in mind throughout the process and knowing that every decision in the design process is going to have an effect on every other aspect not only of the design, but of the building's relationship to the user, to the environment and the user's relationship with the environment. University of Massachusetts satellite campus at Cordage Park Center for Biophilic Study and Development
Project Typology
This biophilic design demonstration project consists of the rehabilitation and redevelopment of a late 19th century rope factory in Plymouth, Massachusetts known as Cordage Park. The project will consist principally of renovation of the large, brick warehouses and factory spaces for the housing of academic, research and mixed use spaces.
The program has been modeled ofter Wood's Hole, a campus branch of the University of Massachusetts with spaces for psychological and medical research on biophilia which can then be developed in the architectural design school/studio for architectural and real life purposes.
The program is oriented towards the development and testing of biophilic methodologies with the design of the facilities themselves being the first experimental subject for development and study. University of Massachusetts satellite campus at Cordage Park Center for Biophilic Study and Development
Precedent Analyses
Precedent Analysis - Genzyme Corporate Headquarters – Behnisch, Behnisch and Partner Genzyme Corporation is a Cambridge, Massachusetts based biotechnology company. Being based in what has been called ‘The People’s Republic of Cambridge’, Genzyme sought to make their new headquarters the greenest office building in the country for the 900 employees staffing it. By many standards, the attempt was a rousing success. The Genzyme building was the first American office building to achieve a LEED rating of Platinum for the project.
The site, near Cambridge’s Kendall Square, home to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was formerly a coal gasification plant. The remediation of this polluted brownfield is a major ecological move and was a big step in the revitalization of the Kendall Square neighborhood.
Programatically the building includes street level retail, an employee cafeteria, offices, library, gardens, training rooms, conference center, green roof and cafes. The 350,000 s.f. building was designed by Behnisch, Behnisch and Partner of Stuttgart, Germany. The firm took a design approach that worked from the inside out, with the quality of the employee experience being the driving force. An office building’s single largest expense isn’t the foundation, envelope or heating bill, it’s the salary of the employees within.
The Genzyme Center incorporates many biophilic elements. First and foremost is the attention paid to the quality of the experience of the user. This is a space which was designed to be inhabited by people without cutting them off from the world, particularly the natural environment. Green spaces are incorporated throughout the interior, generating gathering and discussion spaces for the employees and experiences beyond the common office plant. Green balconies and a green roof planted with sedums provide further green spaces and help reduce water runoff from the site and reduce the urban heat island effect. The roof also includes 1,650 square feet of photovoltaic panels funded by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s Renewable Energy Trust.
Multiple modes of public transit are within a short walk from the site, including the MBTA’s red line and several major bus lines. Facilities for bicycle storage and showering were also incorporated into the design in order to encourage employees to bike or even run to work. Such activity is not only better for the environment, it builds up the health and energy levels of the employees. The average city dweller is 10 pounds lighter than the average suburbanite, principally due to the tendency to walk from place to place, something which rarely happens in suburbia or less dense cities such as Houston.
The Genzyme Center also uses 34% less water per occupant than the average office building primarily through the use of waterless urinals and low flow toilets. The gardens incorporate water sensors in the soil which prevents over watering or under watering. This increases the lifespan of the flora and conserves water. The ground floor of the atrium features a large water pool which establishes a connection to the environment reflects and scatters light coming down through the atrium and keeps the air from becoming too dry in the winter months.
The use of energy efficient fixtures, roof mounted solar panels and the strong emphasis on the penetration of sunlight into spaces result in the use of 42% less electricity compared to a typical building of its size. Many of the partitions were also made of a translucent plastic which allows ambient light through while still maintaining the privacy of the occupants.
The interior atrium also allows for the building to be cooled by way of the stack effect, naturally venting the warmest air in the building out at the top while drawing in cooler air at the base.
90% of the construction waste was recycled or reused and 75% of the construction materials had recycled content. Over 95% of the wood used in the building was certified as sustainable.
Genzyme has also seen a marked increase in employee productivity as well as a sharp decline in employee turnover. Having such a comfortable, unique and comforting space has motivated employees in a high stress industry to work harder and to stay with the company longer.
Because the building was so innovative in its combination of technologies, its mechanical and energy systems are constantly being checked and evaluated to examine the savings they generate, in come cases resulting in anomalous readings. The steam meter required by the public utility has produced confusing results because it is oversized for the needs of the building which are so much lower than a standard building of its size and function. Precedent Analysis - Earthships – Michael Reynolds
Earthships are a dwelling creation of architect and environmentalist Michael Reynolds. While there are many Earthships and each is unique in its own way since they are individually crafted, usually by the future occupant, they almost all follow a very formulaic design and construction process.
Earthship design follows a very systemically based design formula. Reynolds wishes to reduce the human footprint on the earth. He accomplishes this primarily in two ways. The first is by using waste materials such as old tires, cans and bottles as building materials. By making these waste materials into something useful that will last, they’re kept out of landfills and become valuable resources.
Macro-Site
Earthships are typically located in the American southwest and in isolated regions. This is partly due to the fact that they are intended to be capable of working independently from municipal services such as sewer, water and electrical.
The warmer weather of the southwest also reduces the range of seasonal weather variations to consider in the design in many cases.
Earthships also borrow heavily from the regional architectural techniques of the pueblo and cliff dwellings. These techniques have been tested for centuries in this particular climate and are extremely effective as construction methods and in comfort control.
Site
Most of the buildings are located on the site in such a way that the building is able to maximize solar gain when needed, particularly for photovoltaics.
Earthships are also designed to be incorporated into a large mass, typically to the north of the building, such as a hillside or natural berm. Such a mass provides a great deal of thermal constancy and is less affected by seasonal changes in temperature. This allows the temperature within the Earthship to remain more constant and requires less energy to heat and cool to a standard human comfort zone.
When done well, it is very difficult to tell where the site ends and the Earthship itself begins. A well designed and crafted Earthship is part of the site itself.
Structure
Earthships use the earth itself as foundations and walls, formed around stacked tires which provide form and rigidity to the walls. These walls do the primary load work for the building with timber supports within the cavity of the building. While the earthen walls could still be used, their massive footprint makes them less practical.
Site, structure and skin flow together as a single unit.
Systems Openings as light Photovoltaic panels are positioned to act as sunshades, keeping the worst of the summer sun from penetrating into the building and overheating it, while still allowing ambient light and the cooler winter sun to penetrate and warm the interior. Water from the sky and ground
Electricity is harvested either from the sun by the use of photovoltaic panels or from the wind through the use of wind turbines depending on the conditions of the site and local climate. Hot water can also be generated through the use of solar hot water panels.
Most homes typically produce massive amounts of black water, also known as sewage. What makes this black water is the mixture with urine and fecal matter. In Earthships, the use of composting toilets is strongly encouraged, keeping this material completely separate from laundry, shower and sink water. The compost, when allowed to break down and process, is then usable as fertilizer in non-food producing situations.
Food waste and other compostable materials such as paper or cardboard products are typically composted and used as fertilizer.
When water is used in gray water applications, rather than being dumped into a sewer or septic tank, it feeds into planters inside and outside the building, not only watering the plants, but also providing nutrients from biodegradable soaps, dirt and any food that may be coming from the kitchen sink.
Building Ecology
By inhabiting an Earthship, an individual re-inserts his or her self back into the local ecology. Washing the dishes or laundry provides water and nutrients for plants inside and outside of the structure which, in turn provides food and habitat for local fauna. Using the toilet provides compost for plants as does the waste from cooking. Perhaps the most important thing about the Earthships, is that they emphasize, through necessity, awareness of the environment. The weather becomes a huge factor in daily life as the amount of sun, rain and wind effects how much electricity and water you may have at your disposal. This close relationship with the environment is very biophilic.
Earthship design does have some key limitations. Like McMansions, the Earthships are typically dwellings for a single family unit on a plot of land, often in a fairly isolated region. Economies of scale and proximity are lost and the design and construction processes are not well suited to buildings that are much larger than single family residential units. The buildings also rely heavily on setting a significant part of their mass into the earth for thermal mass benefits which can be very limiting as far as site selection is concerned.
Overall, however, Earthships do an impressive job of integrating all aspects of the building into a cohesive whole which not only functions well, but also incorporates the user back into the natural cycles which we evolved within and does so in ways that the user is conscious of and ways the user is unconscious of. University of Massachusetts satellite campus at Cordage Park Center for Biophilic Study and Development
Program
The Cordage Park complex utilizes two different perspectives on program. There is a typical building use program as well as a biophilic program Biophilic Program/Uses Relationship/Views to Water Bodies Waste Remediation/Wetlands Programmed Green Space Unprogrammed Green Space Interior green spaces Green roofs Uses for demolished buildings? Exterior programmatic paces Balance concentrated green spaces v. scattered green spaces Walking routes balance shelter with exposure to natural elements Parking issues
Center for Biophilic Dev. Psych. & Med. Research Labs Offices Waiting rooms Meeting Rooms Admin Reception Admin Offices Meeting space Biophilic Information Center Cordage Park Museum Dining Space/Kitchen Architecture & Building Tech. Design Studios Materials Labs Model/Mock-up Shop Classrooms Dormitories Mixed Use Development Residential Condos Retail Space Office Space University of Massachusetts satellite campus at Cordage Park Center for Biophilic Study and Development
Site & Context
History of Cordage Park Cordage Park is home to The Plymouth Cordage Company, and founded in 1824._The Plymouth Cordage Company grew to become the world's largest manufacturers of rope and twine._During 19th century, sailing ships from all points of the compass relied on the craftsmanship of the products produced at Cordage Park. In the early 1900's, the company was honored by being selected to furnish all the lines for the country's most revered ship, The U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides). During its 140 years of continuous production, the Cordage Company had a profound effect on the economic and social development of the Town of Plymouth as the town's single largest employer. With company housing, a library, sports teams, social events and its own newspaper, The Plymouth Cordage Company at Cordage Park was a community unto itself. After the closure of the Cordage Company, some of the buildings were converted to retail purposes. Cordage Park at that time attracted mostly outlet or discount type shops and was not a strong retail center. Cordage Park today is also home to a spur of the MBTA Commuter Rail’s Old Colony Line. The line makes four stops a day at Cordage during the week, three per day on the weekends and holidays. In the late 1990’s, not long after the completion of the Commuter Rail station, an attempt to revitalize the area was made by bringing in a Wal-Mart. Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart choked off the business from most of the remaining shops and barely a decade later Wal-Mart abandoned the site for another development, this one consisting entirely of big box retail, decimating hundreds of acres of untouched forests. Recently, some of the old retail space has been renovated to temporary office spaces, a small satellite branch of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, a branch of Quincy College, an outpatient clinic for Jordan Hospital and a few surviving retail shops. The discarded Wal-Mart is largely unused and the vast majority of the buildings on the site are not only unused and abandoned, but increasingly decrepit.
List of Illustrations p.6 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Oklahoma Department of Wildlife. http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/bluegill.htm p.6 Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/black_crappie.asp p.8 Cover of Biophilia printed in Cambridge, MA. Cover art by Joseph Stella, Tree of my Life. 2003 p.13 Painterly Architectonics. Liubov Sergeevna Popova 1916-1918 p.13 Disney's BoardWalk Resort. Author. 2007 p.13 View from Appalachian Trail, Massachusetts. Author. 2005 p.21 Diagrams and photos of Genzyme Center designed by Behnisch, Behnisch and Partner. http://www.genzyme.com/genzctr/genzctr_home.asp p.28 EDITT Tower by Ken Yeang http://www.clubofpioneers.com/blog/blog-from-ross-von-burg/16/ stories/80/ p.29 Enterprise 4 by Ken Yeang from Groundscrapers + Subscrapers of Hamzah Yeang. 2001 p.40 Biophilic Principles and Building Elements Matrix. Author. 2008 p.52 Massachusetts GIS Online. 2008 p.53 Early Masterplan Proposal. Image by Author. 2008 p.54 First generation and Second generation Biophilic Principles & Building Elements Matrix. Images by Author. 2008 p.55 Cordage Park site, Plymouth, MA. Photos by Author. 2008 Bibliography and Notes Not all of the works that follow were cited or quoted in the preceding pages. Those that were not still had a place in the production of the document, even if it was just to point my way to another book, article, journal or concept which helped me find my way to developing this work. As such they deserve mention here. Baudot, Barbara S., and Moomaw, William. 1999. People and their planet : searching for balance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Macmillan Press; St. Martin's Press. Binggeli, Corky. 2003. Building systems for interior designers . New York, NY; J. Wiley & Sons Coates, Gary J. 2007. “Biotechnology and Regional Integration”. In Architectural regionalism : collected writings on place, identity, modernity, and tradition, ed. Vincent B. Canizarro, 351–360. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Cook, Jeffrey. 1996. Seeking structure from nature : the organic architecture of Hungary. Basel ; Boston: Birkhäuser. Darwin, Charles, Glick, Thomas F., and Kohn, David. 1996. On evolution : the development of theory of natural selection. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Day, Christopher. 1990. Places of the soul : architecture and environmental design as a healing art. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England: Aquarian Press. Dunham, Judith, and Zimmerman, Scot. 1994. Details of Frank Lloyd Wright : the California work, 1909-1974. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. Eisenman, Peter. October 11, 2006. The new subjectivity. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH George, Easo P. 1995. Materials for smart systems : symposium held November 28-30, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Vol. 360. Pittsburgh, PA: Materials Research Society. Genzyme Corp. (September 8, 2005) “Genzyme Center Earns Highest Environmental Rating From U.S. Green Building Council”. http:// www.genzyme.com/genzctr/LEED_Platinum_PR.pdf Gissen, David, and National Building Museum. 2002. Big & green : toward sustainable architecture in the 21st century. New York; Washington, DC: Princeton Architectural Press; National Building Museum. Heschong, Lisa. 1979. Thermal Delight in Architecture . Cambridge, MA; MIT Press Goff, Bruce, et al. 1995. The architecture of Bruce Goff, 1904-1982 : design for the continuous present. Chicago, IL: Prestel/Art Institute of Chicago. Kahn, Peter H., and NetLibrary, Inc. 1999. The human relationship with nature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kaplan, Stephen and Rachel.1982. Humanscape: Environments for People . Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ulrich's Books Inc. Kellert, Stephen R. 1997. Kinship to mastery : biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kellert, Stephen R. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kellert, Stephen R. 1995. Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Washington, DC: Island Press. McDonough, William, and Braungart, Michael. 2002. Cradle to cradle : remaking the way we make things. 1st ed. New York: North Point Press. Leopold, Aldo A Sand County Almanac Louv, Richard. 2006. Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Milton, Kay. 2002. Loving nature : towards an ecology of emotion. London ; New York: Routledge. Mumford, Lewis. 1938. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Nowak, Rachel. 2001. Schizophrenia linked to mother's lack of sunlight. New Scientist , July 21 Orr, David W.. 2002. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention. New York: Oxford University Press Parsons, Kermit C., and Schuyler, David. 2002. From garden city to green city : the legacy of Ebenezer Howard. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pearson, David. 1995. Earth to spirit. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. Pearson, David. 2001. New organic architecture : the breaking wave. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sarkar, Saral K. 1999. Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism? : a critical analysis of humanity's fundamental choices. London ; New York: Zed Books. Serageldin, Ismail, Martin-Brown, Joan, and World Bank. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network. 1999. Partnerships for global ecosystem management : science, economics, and law : proceedings and reference readings from the Fifth Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, held at the World Bank and George Washington University, Washington, D.C., October 6-7, 1997. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Serageldin, Ismail, et al. 1999. Culture in sustainable development : investing in cultural and natural endowments : proceedings of the Conference on Culture in Sustainable Development: Investing in Cultural and Natural Endowments held at the World Bank in Washington, D.C. on September 28-29, 1998. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Sergeant, John. 1976. Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian houses : the case for organic architecture. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Simonds, John O. 1994. Garden cities 21 : creating a livable urban environment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Steele, James. 2005. Ecological architecture : a critical history. London: Thames & Hudson. Swan, James A., and Swan, Roberta. 1996. Dialogues with the living earth : new ideas on the spirit of place from designers, architects, & innovators.1st Quest ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Pub. House. Walters, David, and Brown, Linda. 2004. Design first : design-based planning for communities. Amsterdam ; Boston: Architectural. Wilkinson, G. S. Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat. Nature 308: 181-184. 1984 Williams, Melvin D. 1998. Race for theory and the biophobia hypothesis : humanics, humanimals, and macroanthropology. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Wilson, Edward O. 1996. In search of nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Zelov, Chris, and Cousineau, Phil. 1997. Design outlaws on the ecological frontier. Version 2.0 ed. Philadelphia, Penn.: Knossus Publishing.