All organisms that exist do so because they fulfill a specific role in a niche of the natural world.
The role that they perform, however small or seemingly insignificant, is performed as a necessary part of a larger system.
Architecture should bear this responsibility as well by becoming a symbiotic part of our environment, not parasitic.
Symbiotic, as it pertains to architecture and the environment, can mean simply being a zero net energy building.
However, architecture has the opportunity and potential to provide significant and necessary functions that will improve the state of the natural environment.
Buildings could also repair the damage that has been done to the natural environment already, in addition to its other programmatic requirements.
Finding new uses for Pittsburgh's old and factories and mills could be an interesting way to explore these ideas.
Adapting these structures to what we need now, reusing these relics as urban farms to make organic produce locally, is a symbiotic use these buildings.
Most buildings today can be considered parasitic, drawing resources from the environment but not putting anything back.
Buildings could start to do even more than generating elecricity or growing food, for instance they could sequester carbon or clean the environment around them of pollutants.
More important than what the buildings would look like, are the types of functions they could provide, the connections or processes they could facilitate.
What are the consequences when you require that architecture be integrated into the systems and processes of the natural world?
Symbiotic, as it pertains to architecture and the environment, can mean simply being a zero net energy building>>>>symbiotic means more than just this.
ReplyDeleteMore important than what the buildings would look like, are the types of functions they could provide, the connections or processes they could facilitate>>>>can't they be both?
Interesting start though....
What is architecture to you?