What Would Nature Ask of This Building?

Biomimicry, biophilia and circularity in conversation.

A historic renovation project has me thinking about how biomimicry, biophilia and circularity can inform one another. While the project itself remains confidential, the questions it raises are worth sharing. These ideas are still taking shape, and I offer them as a provocation for discussion and feedback.

An existing building brings its own history, materials and relationships to a design conversation. As we consider its next chapter, three perspectives offer useful starting points.

• Biomimicry asks: What can we learn from living systems?

• Biophilia asks: How can this place strengthen our connection with nature?

• Circularity asks: How can we meet the building’s needs while keeping materials in use and supporting the regeneration of nature?

Together, these questions invite us to consider the building’s relationships with people, ecological processes and material flows.

Biomimicry: Learning from living systems

The Biomimicry Institute describes an approach that learns from and emulates biological forms, processes and ecosystems to address human challenges.

Through this lens, we begin with function. What does the building need to do? Manage heat? Move water? Respond to changing conditions? Which organisms or ecosystems perform comparable functions, and how?

Before reaching for a familiar solution, we can investigate a biological strategy and explore its potential through collaboration among architects, engineers, and other project partners. The challenge is translating biological principles into practical design strategies that meet the building's performance, construction, and operational requirements.

In this historic renovation, it raises another question: How might strategies found in nature help an existing building adapt to new demands while working with, rather than against, what is already there?

The provocation is simple: What might we discover if biological research became as integral to the design process as studying architectural precedents?

Biophilia: Strengthening our connection with nature

Biophilia brings attention to the people who inhabit the building and their relationship with the living world.

Terrapin Bright Green’s biophilic design framework includes direct experiences of nature, references to natural forms and materials, and spatial qualities such as prospect and refuge. It offers a vocabulary for exploring that relationship throughout a building.

In this historic renovation, we want to look closely at what is already present. Where does daylight enter? What can people see through the windows? How do existing textures and spaces shape their experience? Then we can ask where someone might pause, notice changing light or find shelter with an outlook toward vegetation. How can these experiences be woven throughout the building so they are accessible to everyone?

What if connection with nature became a guiding consideration in how we plan spaces, shape circulation, and support everyday experiences?

Circularity: Keeping materials in use

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation identifies three principles for a circular economy: eliminating waste and pollution, circulating products and materials at their highest value, and regenerating nature. Maintenance, reuse and refurbishment are central strategies.

For an existing building, we begin with what is already here. What can remain, be repaired or be adapted? If something must be removed, could it serve another purpose here or elsewhere?

The opportunity extends beyond preserving materials. How can we reimagine existing spaces to accommodate evolving programs, improve functionality, and support new ways of using the building while making the most of the resources already invested in it?

New design introduces another consideration: design for deconstruction. How can we design new assemblies and connections so materials can be maintained, repaired, separated, and reused as needs change?

Supporting nature's regeneration also asks us to examine material health and sourcing, prioritize materials that can retain their highest value through future cycles of use, and consider whether construction materials can safely decompose and return nutrients to natural systems.

What if we designed every intervention with equal consideration for what it contributes today and what it could become tomorrow?

Bringing the questions together

Imagine redesigning an existing building to create healthier, more comfortable spaces while reducing its environmental impact. How might these three perspectives shape the design conversation?

• Biomimicry could inspire us to investigate how termite mounds regulate temperature and airflow, and whether those principles might inform a more passive approach to the building's ventilation and cooling systems.

• Biophilia could help us examine how the proposed design influences daylight, views, and people's everyday connection with nature.

• Circularity could challenge us to retain and adapt existing materials while designing new components for maintenance, repair, and eventual reuse.

Each perspective reveals something another may have left unresolved. Together, they also expose tensions: material retention, building performance, human experience, and ecological goals will not always point toward the same choice. That is what makes the conversation useful. These lenses help us identify what deserves closer investigation, weigh competing priorities, and revisit our assumptions as the design develops.

Where have you found these approaches reinforcing one another, and how have the tensions between them helped clarify design priorities and outcomes?