Thoughts and elaborations on Biological Organisms and the Metabolist movement
Architecture is many different things depending on the company one keeps. To some it is a trade, to others an art, and to others still, a science. All are apt assessments and yet I think that architecture can be thought of in different terms; not as a profession or expression of culture, but as something much more basic, natural even. While radical, this is not a new idea by any means. We have been referencing nature as long as we have been erecting buildings, and I could go as far as the primitive hut and its many interpretations to make my point that architecture is something that grew from a natural context. Even so, I think that the concepts necessary for comprehending the potential of our future built environment have their roots much later in the canon of civilization. More specifically during and after the scientific revolution. This period marks a fundamental shift in the way we perceive our world and impress our will upon it, and in doing so, laid the groundwork for the field of biology which through its study of the seemingly infinite complexities of nature offer us the unique perspective needed to think of architecture in this radically different way.
Before one can grasp the application of architecture to nature or vice versa, one must first understand a fundamental principle that governs the proliferation of life. This is a lot to ask of a short-written account, I know, but just as structures must rest on their foundations so must a theory rest on a sound premise and in this case that premise is an environment of constantly increasing complexity. The evolution of life as we have observed it on Earth can be understood as an extremely intricate system of moving parts that are all synchronized with their environment and other organisms that compete for resources within those environments. This is a result of millions of years of evolution and it is no small feat that we were able to carve out a place within this environment. To think of ourselves as the masters of this domain would be a mistake however. We are every bit as dependent on our environment as the other animals that share the planet with us, and because of that mutual dependence we are all effectively part of the same gargantuan organism that covers the surface of our world, seeps into its depths, and claws at the vacuum that encapsulates it. Ironically it is self-actualization that leaves us blind to the near total ubiquity of life in general. It is not only unnatural to think of ourselves in these terms, but threatening to our identities as autonomous entities. It is ironic that a being that evolved through the collaboration of mutually beneficial biological functions is so resistant to recognizing its own reliance on such functions. But I digress.
I will be the first to acknowledge that the notion of the global organism is by no means a casually accepted principle. It is in fact one that I expect will encounter a fair amount of resistance. That is why, whether addressing those that are skeptical or otherwise, I believe it is important to recognize some of the precedents that establish a framework for this argument. The first of these precedents is the common mathematical language that all biology has in common. Mathematics is a method that was developed for understanding something that had already worked itself out naturally, but having a quantifiable relationship to point to is helpful for elaborating on this point.
The quantifiable relationship that I speak of is none other than the natural number and divine proportion, Phi. More commonly referred to in architectural circles as the golden ratio or golden mean, phi is the numeric representation of the ratio and is significant because it governs everything from seed packing patterns to planetary orbits and the arrangements of stars within galaxies. I will not go into the intricacies of the relationship in this essay, but the basic derivation of the ratio comes from dividing a line segment such that the ratio of the longer segment (B) to the total length (A) is the same as the ratio of the shorter segment (C) to the longer segment (B). When you divide, the number you end up with is 1.618… or alternatively .618… if you reverse the ratio. The number itself is less important than the implications of it appearing so frequently in our universe. This relationship is essentially the string that ties everything natural together, which will continue to be a theme as we move forward and can help us to understand a general trend in nature.
This trend can be loosely described as the path of least resistance for any natural organism to follow to most efficiently survive and reproduce. That is not to say that organisms make a conscious decision about what would be the best course of action to take in order to ensure their immediate safety and longevity. Consciousness is a tool reserved for only the most advanced organisms in our ecosystem. It is more accurate to say that basic organisms that exhibit useful randomly acquired genetic mutations are more likely to survive and dominate their microclimates. In this case the illusion of conscious intention is really a lucky quirk the organism developed that worked out for the best. The antithesis of this process is what we call consciousness. (Origins) After all, what randomly occurring genetic process could be more efficient than one that wasn’t random. It is with human intervention that the global organism was first able to make intentional decisions that would directly further the goal of biological proliferation. At first these decisions were made only in the short-sighted interest of humans, but as soon as we recognized our codependence with nature we began adapting our approach to benefit our surroundings as well as ourselves.
I recognize that in the present this is a laughably optimistic assessment of the current state of environmental affairs, but even recognition of a tragic shortcoming is an example of humanity correcting for a fault in its approach towards progress. This is a topic that has been surfacing frequently over the past couple of decades with the work of William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their groundbreaking book, Cradle to Cradle, and other initiatives within the architectural industry such as the 2030 challenge and ecologically focused architectural institutions such as LEED. Critical assessment followed by reallocation and fine tuning of energy and recourses is our way of adapting from the roll of conqueror to sentinel, (McDonough and Braungart)
Environmental consideration abiding, once the global organism mentality is set as the frame of reference we can begin to understand the role that architecture plays in the global ecosystem. To think of man-made as separate from natural is the basis for the false conclusion that architecture is merely a product of human ingenuity rather than a direct extension of the entire human species. Let us assume that there was no difference between the built and natural environments, that a building and an organism are simply common appendages to the same global ecosystem. Apart from being a rather jarring comparison to make this perspective also appears to just be flat out false. How could one compare such completely different things as a being that thinks and feels to something as inert and emotionless as a man-made structure. This is the dilemma until you consider that our structures are inextricably tied to us. Our built environment is a means for adapting to our climate to optimize, first survivability, and then comfort and productivity. So, when viewed as an extension of the human organism, the extant structure goes from being an uninspiring arrangement of crudely assembled molecules and other dead biological material to an increasingly more complex version of the global organism.
One of the most compelling arguments made for a biological comparison to architecture was made by the Metabolists, a group of architects that grew out of an increasingly densifying Japan during their massive economic growth in the sixties and seventies. It was at the beginning of this timeframe during the 1959 meeting of CIAM that Kenzo Tange first presented a selection of student work to the international community regarding the concept of a building designed with a natural system of relationships as a solution to urban densification. (Lin) The movement would soon grow in collaboration with many other mostly Japanese architects into a full-fledged movement that would influence the design of many large-scale projects within Japan during the height of its economic boom.
Two of the most notable examples of this branch of architecture are the Yamanashi Press and Broadcast Center, by Tange himself, and the Nakagin Capsule Tower, by Kisho Kurokawa. The capsule tower is often cited as the poster child for the Metabolist movement and is famed for both its timely ambition and its untimely dilapidation. The tower is most notable for its implementation of a system of fully interchangeable capsules that could be uninstalled rearranged and replaced as needed. (Ouroussoff) Actually doing so would be both prohibitively expensive and seemingly arbitrary however, so of course, none of the capsules have ever been replaced, what’s more, the building has interred a state of dilapidation as the malleable connections necessary to allow for the projected interchangeability of the units have since become numerus infiltration points in the building envelope resulting in leaks that have wreaked havoc on the building’s interior. This created an environment of mildew heavy air accompanied by large voyeuristic port holes that expose nearly all of the unit’s interior as a sort of era specific expression of exhibitionism. Many of the portholes are unceremoniously covered today adding to the perceived state of deterioration. There has been recent effort to preserve this historic icon of Japan’s urban environment, but as of now the future of the tower is precarious at best. The capsule tower is a useful summation of metabolism, because its own fate seemingly followed that of the movement. It rose to prominence on the heels of an economic boom that would soon decline with the impending energy crisis in the 1970s that crippled much of the industrialized world, and would serve as a symbol of unrestrained wasteful optimism that resonated in the tone of the period. It has survived just long enough to be recognized as one of the few remaining symbols of a distinct period of architectural history, and for that reason alone it may withstand imminent destruction. It is my understanding that it is now an air B&B hotspot, (“Nakagin Capsule Tower”) so maybe this new age of mass appealing specificity and the rise of a forgotten urban legend will provide a way for the people who appreciate the structure to continue supporting its longevity.
While an interesting case study, the tower is more of a symbol of a past era than a future blueprint for architecture as a natural system. Just as much of the space-age design of the nineteen fifties seams campy and odd today, I believe that the Metabolist movement in general drew too direct an interpretation of architecture’s role as a natural process, and in doing so raised skepticism even during its heyday.
The things that make a building natural, as Vitruvius would say, are the things that make it functional, buildable, and delightful. We need not force the direct blueprint of a natural system onto an architectural construct to make it evoke nature. The things that make good architecture in biology are different from those that architects must implement in their buildings. However, it is the direct relationship to our own existence and being that makes architecture natural. And so, it must be that the genetic code of buildings is one that has and will continue to be written by those who depend on them, furthering the global organism in a proxy relationship to a specific organism (us) that is the brains behind the operation. It is in this way that we individual human beings act as something of a neural network that spans over the entire planet when our cumulative actions combine with each other. One must merely observe the Earth from a distance to see this, the connections are clearly visible and visibly intentional.
Citations:
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010.
Lin, Zhongjie. Kenzo Tange and the Metabolist Movement: Urban Utopias of Modern Japan. Routledge, 2010.
Ouroussoff, Nicolai. “Kisho Kurokawa’s Future Vision, Banished to Past.” The New York Times, 6 July 2009. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/arts/design/07capsule.html.
“Nakagin Capsule Tower.” Wikipedia, 24 Oct. 2017. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakagin_Capsule_Tower&oldid=806902652.
“Origins: How Life Began — NOVA | PBS.” n.d. Accessed January 27, 2019. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/origins-life-began.html.