Hey gemini. I’m interested in writing an essay with my friend that would explore and reveal the connections between cell/structural/evolutionary/etc biology and architecture/carpentry.
I’m a structural biologist and my expertise is mostly in dealing with 3d strucutre of biomolecules, microscopes, machine learning models and the philosophy of science that underlies those fields.
My friend is an architecture student with a passion for smart sustainable and robust housing: he is adept at both the materials and building specification of modern buildings, but his deep research interests also extend into the socio-economical aspects of home-building. For example he has a well-developed narrative and theory about how to both design and build whole quarterblocks from the ground up sustainably while providing sovereignty to people who are going to inhabit the resulting building (as opposed to ruthlessly mercantile system that rules in north america in the last 20-30 years with real estate projects being viewed more as a financial asset and the housing crisis and the unimaginative copypasted condominius everywhere etc). He has a very fine grained idea (a lot better articulated than i can here) of how to subdivide both the area and space of the future dwelling into appropriate units as well as how the “pipeline” or the process of acquiring materials, refining budgets, all stages of developed from pouring the concrete foundation to putting finish on the door frames on the last floor, how dynamic this process can be etc. He also has a very good grasp of the problems that plague the architecture and carpentry education and “philosophy” these days.
For my part im just a structural biology programmer.
We had a nice chat a few times where we often stumbled into the basic idea of a building being somewhat like a biological cell: not just in a superficial way of housing other things but in the way that both evolve in a platonic sense (evolution of life and of human’s engineering) and in the singular sense ( the building has many inhabitants that change and bring their cultures, habits, etc), both are embedded in the network of their neighbors, both have a myriad of architectural constituents and parts whose materials are diverse and whose compositions determine the identity of the whole. We are also very interested in methodologies that people use to study and develop their understanding/capacity to engieer both: for example nomenclature of certain in architecture is both very precise, but also varies regionally and between countries. Same in biology for example the nomenclature of new families of proteins and genes is a very pernicious problem that can be both a unifying and consolidating aspect in the collaborative nature of science or a source of discord and misunderstanding. Im not interested in the theoretical and descriptive aspects of these two fields and their subjects however, but also in men’s applied practice of them: the connections/parallels/differences in economical flows ( contractors, acquisition of materials, transportation, construction etc. in architecture) and like (microscopy, genetic engineering, philosophical aspects of the perpetually mapped identity of the cell, the databases that track the multiplicities of biological data). I’m also interested in the anecdotes or facts that point out some quirks in both field that unite both and perhaps also speak to and elucidate the general tendency of human mind to map and subdivide the “problem” of spatial theaters: the ones which inhabit and the other that constitutes us.
This last bit is more or less i guess what i’m going for with this blog/essay.
I need your help pulling and collating info and suggesting directions/topics to explore further, tangible examples to muster and lenses through which to see the following: the act of designing, architecting and painstakingly constructing something as multifaceted as a building, a house, a library, a part of a city and the ease with which humans have come to be abled to do it involve a lot more than just arranging materials in a certain shape. What are the “blind spots” in the methodologies of the fields which embed and inform the act of building itself? (ex. material sciences, sociology, history, politics, economics, logistics, ontology of a given region). In a movement of knowledge inverse to that of architecture, the aim of biology and its subfields is in deconstructing the subject that exists in the world already. A body of knowledge grows by perturbing a cell, reaching deeper into the sub-angstrom scale, mapping more and more rooms and tenats in the gargantuan complex that each cell is (with its ribosomes, tubulins, myriad proteins, their functions and motions etc., like a city). But this would not be possible without the wetlab methods, a whole industry of producing micrscopes reliant on theory of optics and EM radiation, computers and databases and mathematical method to bind, discretize, give meaning and cast the actors and the interiors into words, steal frames from the film of their invisible ceaseless motion deep down and in. How do these fields inform and steer and inadvertaly bind biology in a similar or completely differnet way to architecture and what can we learn, again, about how men have chosen to allocate their resources and down which avenues to send the train of their thought.
A couple of anecdotes
Bridging Worlds: A Bio-Architectural Exploration of Structure, Evolution, and Human Endeavor I. Introduction: The Living Building and the Built Cell
The pursuit of understanding complex systems, whether naturally occurring or human-engineered, often leads to the drawing of parallels across seemingly disparate domains. The conceptualization of a building as analogous to a biological cell, extending beyond mere superficial resemblances, offers a profound lens through which to examine shared principles of organization, adaptation, and human endeavor. This report explores these deep connections between biological systems (cellular, structural, and evolutionary biology) and architectural/carpentry practices, delving into theoretical frameworks, applied methodologies, economic underpinnings, and inherent limitations. Setting the Stage: The Inherent Analogy Between Biological and Architectural Systems
The very foundation of cell biology reveals an early and enduring influence from architectural thought. The term “cell” itself was coined by Robert Hooke in 1665, inspired by the small, honeycomb-like compartments observed in cork, reminiscent of the monastic “cells” or small rooms. This initial structural comparison laid the groundwork for a continuous evolution of the cell metaphor, progressing from a simple “empty chamber” or “building stone” to more complex, functional analogies such as a “chemical laboratory” or a “factory”. In contemporary systems biology, the cell is increasingly understood as a “dynamic network” of interacting components. This progression from static structural comparison to a dynamic, functional, and systemic understanding in biology mirrors a similar trajectory in architectural thought, moving beyond static forms to consider buildings as evolving, responsive entities.
This reciprocal influence highlights a fundamental cognitive tendency of the human mind: when confronted with complex, unfamiliar systems, or tasked with designing novel ones, there is a natural inclination to map them onto familiar, well-understood structures and processes. This means that not only does biology inspire architectural design, but human-engineered and social systems also profoundly shape how biological phenomena are conceptualized and described. This constant cross-domain mapping makes the exploration inherently self-referential and philosophically rich, suggesting that human understanding of the natural world is often filtered and structured by the built world, and vice-versa. Beyond Metaphor: Unpacking Deep Structural, Evolutionary, and Functional Parallels
The connections between biology and architecture extend far beyond superficial likenesses, touching upon fundamental principles of organization and behavior. Structural biology, for instance, is dedicated to elucidating the “architecture of living matter” at the molecular scale, including the intricate three-dimensional structures of proteins, nucleic acids, lipid membranes, and carbohydrates. This field aims to understand how a protein’s one-dimensional amino acid sequence dictates its precise three-dimensional structure, which is absolutely essential for its biological function. This process directly parallels how architectural blueprints, often two-dimensional representations, are translated into complex three-dimensional buildings. The insights gained from structural biology reveal fundamental “design principles of living systems”.
A core concept common to both domains is hierarchical organization, where complexity arises from the assembly of simpler units into progressively more intricate systems. This principle is evident from molecular motifs (e.g., the helix-turn-helix motif in proteins) to organ systems in biology, and from raw materials to entire city blocks in architecture. The existence of these organizational principles at vastly different scales suggests underlying, potentially universal, rules of efficiency and robustness. For example, tensegrity, a structural principle found in both biological structures and large-scale architectural designs, exemplifies how a balance of tension and compression can create strong and resilient forms with minimal material. This demonstrates a principle that transcends vast differences in scale and material composition, pointing towards a limited set of fundamental “design principles” that govern complex systems, regardless of their origin.
The Human Element: How Our Minds Shape and Are Shaped by These Spatial Theaters
Human cognition plays a pivotal role in the interplay between biological and architectural domains. The historical tendency of architects and designers to draw inspiration from biology, not merely for aesthetic forms but for methods analogous to natural growth and evolution, underscores a deep-seated human drive to find patterns and solutions in the natural world. This is notably evident in the rise of biomimicry, where nature’s strategies are emulated for sustainable design , and in the application of genetic algorithms in architectural design to generate and optimize forms.
Furthermore, the concept of “co-evolutionary architecture” directly addresses the mutual influence and adaptation between human culture and the built environment. This mirrors the gene-culture co-evolution observed in biology, where genetic and cultural factors interact over long periods to shape human characteristics. This perspective views built spaces not as static containers but as dynamic entities that both reflect and shape human societies and behaviors. The consistent employment of biological analogies in architectural design and, conversely, architectural and industrial metaphors in biological conceptualization, points to a fundamental cognitive strategy: to understand or create complex systems, the human mind seeks to map them onto familiar, well-understood structures or processes. This cross-domain mapping is a powerful engine for innovation and knowledge transfer, but it also carries the inherent risk of introducing limitations when analogies are overextended or fail to account for unique domain-specific complexities. The inherent human drive to seek and apply patterns across domains is thus a double-edged sword, simultaneously facilitating groundbreaking innovation and creating inherent limitations in understanding, which necessitates critical self-reflection within both disciplines.
- Structural and Organizational Parallels: From Molecules to Megastructures
The fundamental organization of both living systems and human-made structures exhibits striking similarities, particularly in their hierarchical assembly and load-bearing strategies. Understanding these parallels provides a framework for cross-disciplinary learning and highlights shared challenges in managing complexity. Hierarchical Organization: Comparing Biological Hierarchies (Atoms to Biosphere) with Architectural Scales (Materials to City Blocks)
Both biological and architectural systems are fundamentally structured as complex, multi-scale hierarchies. Each level in these hierarchies is composed of units from the level below, and critically, new properties emerge at higher levels that are not present in their constituent parts. This concept of emergence is central to understanding how complexity arises from simplicity in both natural and artificial systems.
Biological organization spans from the most basic units like atoms and molecules, progressing to macromolecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, and ultimately, the entire organism. Beyond the individual, biological hierarchies extend to populations, communities, ecosystems, and the biosphere. At each step, emergent properties manifest; for instance, a cell possesses the ability to carry out all life activities, a function its individual organelles cannot achieve independently. Similarly, an organ system performs integrated functions vital for survival, which individual organs cannot accomplish alone.
In parallel, architecture can be conceptualized in a similar hierarchical manner. It begins with raw materials, which are processed into manufactured components and assembled into elements like walls and beams. These elements form rooms and spaces, which then combine to create buildings. Buildings, in turn, form city blocks, districts, and ultimately contribute to the global built environment. A building, as a system, is composed of subsystems (e.g., structural frame, HVAC, plumbing) and is nested within larger suprasystems (e.g., a neighborhood, a city). Just as in biology, each architectural level exhibits emergent properties: material properties contribute to structural integrity, and the arrangement of spaces creates a unique spatial experience. The aggregation of buildings forms an urban fabric, influencing social interaction and contributing to urban sustainability.
The hierarchical nature of both domains presents a significant challenge in inter-level communication and optimization. Understanding, designing, and optimizing these complex systems necessitates effective communication and coordination across distinct hierarchical levels. In biology, intricate cellular communication and signaling pathways are vital for coordinating activity from molecular processes to organismal functions. The contemporary view of the cell as a “dynamic network” emphasizes these complex, interacting levels and the importance of their coordinated function. In architecture, the multi-scale coordination challenges are evident in the process of subdividing dwelling spaces, acquiring materials, managing budgets, and overseeing various construction stages. A significant limitation in both fields can be the difficulty in translating insights or optimizing at one level to higher, emergent levels. For example, optimizing a material’s properties in material science does not automatically guarantee optimal building performance, which is an emergent property of the entire structure. This underscores the critical need for “systems thinking” that transcends purely reductionist approaches, acknowledging the complex interplay between hierarchical levels.
To illustrate these parallels, the following table provides a comparative overview of hierarchical organization in biology and architecture:
Table 1: Hierarchical Organization: Biology vs. Architecture Level of Organization Biological Example Architectural Example Emergent Property (Biology) Emergent Property (Architecture) Fundamental Unit Atoms Raw Materials Chemical properties Material properties Sub-system Molecules Components/Elements Molecular interactions Structural integrity System Organelles Rooms/Spaces Cellular functions Spatial experience Supra-system Cells Buildings Tissue specialization Building performance Macro-system Tissues Blocks/Neighborhoods Organ function Urban fabric Global System Organism Districts Homeostasis Social interaction Ecological Level Population Cities Evolution Urban sustainability Broader Ecological Community Urban Regions Population dynamics Regional identity Planetary Scale Ecosystem Global Built Environment Interspecies relationships Global impact Tensegrity and Load Bearing: Principles of Tension and Compression in Biological Structures and Architectural Design
Beyond simple stacking or continuous compression, complex systems often employ sophisticated load-bearing strategies that distribute forces efficiently. Tensegrity, a portmanteau of “tensional integrity,” is a prime example of such a principle found across vast scales and diverse domains. This structural concept is based on a system of isolated components under compression (typically rigid bars or struts) held within a continuous network of tension (usually flexible cables or tendons), where the compressed members do not directly touch each other. This unique arrangement ensures that no structural member experiences bending moments or shear stresses, leading to exceptional strength, resilience, and flexibility with minimal material usage.
In biological systems, the human body’s musculoskeletal system serves as a compelling example of “biotensegrity”. Bones provide discontinuous compression, while a continuous network of connective tissues—muscles, fascia, ligaments, and tendons—maintains tension throughout the system. At the cellular level, the cytoskeleton, which dictates cell shape and its response to external mechanical forces, can also be mathematically modeled as a tensegrity structure. This biological application highlights how living systems achieve their remarkable adaptability and robustness.
In architecture, tensegrity principles have been applied to design and construct iconic large-scale structures, demonstrating its practical utility in achieving efficient and resilient designs. Notable examples include the roofs of the Spodek arena complex, the Seoul Olympic Gymnastics Arena, the Georgia Dome, and Tropicana Field, as well as the Kurilpa Bridge, which is currently the world’s largest tensegrity bridge. These structures showcase how the principle of discontinuous compression and continuous tension can create lightweight yet incredibly strong forms.
The application of tensegrity in both biology and architecture reveals a profound structural principle and highlights a potential area of oversight in traditional design thinking. From a conventional architectural perspective, which often prioritizes rigid, continuous compression and mass, a structure where primary load-bearing elements do not directly connect might intuitively appear unstable or fragile. However, the strength of tensegrity lies in its intelligent distribution of forces through a continuous tension network, allowing compressed elements to “float” and distribute stress efficiently. This challenges conventional notions of structural stability and material usage. Embracing tensegrity more broadly in architecture could lead to the development of more lightweight, adaptable, and resource-efficient buildings, aligning with sustainable design goals and potentially reducing overall material consumption. This principle encourages designers to look beyond conventional material and structural paradigms to achieve optimal performance.
Materiality and Composition: Diverse Materials and Their Assembly in Biomolecules versus Modern Buildings
The fundamental building blocks of both living organisms and human-made structures come together through intricate processes to form complex, functional wholes. The manner in which these materials are acquired, processed, and assembled reveals both striking parallels and significant divergences between biological and architectural practices.
In biology, biomolecules like proteins and nucleic acids exhibit a remarkable hierarchical assembly, progressing from primary sequences to secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures, ultimately forming large, intricate complexes. This assembly is frequently driven by “molecular self-assembly”—a spontaneous and reversible organization of components through specific local interactions, occurring without external direction. This inherent ability of biological systems to build themselves from the bottom up, driven by intrinsic properties and environmental cues, stands in sharp contrast to traditional human construction, which is largely a top-down, externally directed process involving the deliberate placement and joining of components.
However, contemporary architecture is increasingly exploring the use of “biomaterials”—materials derived from living organisms or nature—such as mycelium bricks, algae facades, and silk pavilions. These materials often leverage biological processes for their unique properties. For instance, mycelium, the root structure of fungi, can be grown into bricks using agricultural waste as a substrate, forming a self-supporting composite. Similarly, algae can be cultivated in facade systems to generate heat and biomass for renewable energy. Furthermore, the development of “self-healing materials” in construction, such as concrete with embedded bacteria that produce calcium carbonate to seal cracks, is directly inspired by biological self-repair mechanisms. These innovations represent a significant shift in architectural materiality, moving away from inert, static materials towards dynamic, living, or bio-inspired ones.
The emergence of these new materials signifies a fundamental shift in construction from “making” to “growing” or “cultivating.” Many of these new materials leverage biological “growth” or “self-repair” processes rather than purely mechanical assembly. This paradigm shift has profound implications for the entire construction lifecycle, including logistics, waste management, and long-term sustainability. If buildings can “grow” or “repair themselves,” it challenges current linear supply chain models that rely on constant extraction and disposal. Such an approach aligns seamlessly with circular economy principles, where materials are kept in use for as long as possible, waste is eliminated, and natural systems are regenerated. This also exposes a limitation in traditional construction education and practice, which primarily focuses on inert, manufactured materials rather than dynamic, living ones that can adapt and regenerate over time.
- Evolutionary Dynamics: Adaptation, Change, and Design
The concept of evolution, typically associated with biological life, finds compelling parallels in the development and adaptation of human-made structures. This section explores how both biological and architectural systems undergo processes of change, whether in a broad, “Platonic” sense of design principles evolving, or in a more singular sense of individual entities adapting to dynamic environments and inhabitants. Evolution in a Platonic Sense: The Evolution of Life vs. the Evolution of Human Engineering and Design Principles
Both biological life and human-made artifacts exhibit patterns of change and adaptation over time, suggesting a broader “evolution” of design principles. In biology, natural selection, as articulated by Charles Darwin, explains the complex organization and functionality of organisms as the result of natural processes—the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations sorted by environmental pressures. This concept of “design without a designer” brought the origin and adaptations of organisms into the realm of scientific inquiry.
In architecture, a similar, albeit often unconscious, evolutionary process has shaped building forms throughout history. From ancient structures like the Walls of Jericho to the soaring Gothic cathedrals, the evolution of architectural forms can be seen as a continuous development of structural elements (e.g., post-and-lintel systems, arches, vaulting) driven by available materials, tools, and structural considerations. This historical progression, where successful structural innovations and building techniques are retained and refined, parallels biological evolution, which is shaped by environmental pressures, resource availability, and genetic variation.
More recently, this analogy has been consciously applied through “biomimicry,” a formalized approach to design problems inspired by natural elements and processes, explicitly aiming to enhance sustainability and create regenerative structures. Architects and designers have sought inspiration from biology since the early 19th century, not just by imitating forms but by adopting methods analogous to natural growth and evolution. This deliberate learning from nature represents a conscious acceleration of design evolution. Modern architectural design is now leveraging this analogy through “genetic algorithms” and other computational methods to emulate natural evolution for form generation and optimization. These algorithms can generate numerous adaptive solutions and allow for dynamic evaluation criteria, effectively speeding up the design process.
The contrast between the historical, often unconscious, evolution of architectural forms and the modern, conscious application of biomimicry reveals a critical point. While historical architectural styles emerged from practical constraints and incremental innovations, biomimicry represents a deliberate effort to abstract and apply principles from nature’s time-tested evolutionary solutions. This highlights a limitation in traditional architectural education that might over-emphasize historical styles and aesthetic movements without sufficiently exploring the underlying evolutionary pressures and adaptive strategies that shaped them. Conscious biomimicry attempts to accelerate and optimize this evolutionary process in design, but its effectiveness is often constrained by challenges in cross-domain information transfer and fragmented terminology between biologists and architects.
Evolution in a Singular Sense: How Individual Buildings and Cells Adapt to Changing Inhabitants, Cultures, and Environments
Beyond the broad, species-level evolution of design principles, individual entities—be they biological cells or human-made buildings—undergo continuous adaptation and change in response to their dynamic internal and external environments. A biological cell is in a constant state of flux, adapting to its microenvironment, nutrient availability, and internal signaling states. This dynamic responsiveness is crucial for its survival and function.
Similarly, buildings, once constructed, are not static monuments but dynamic entities that interact continuously with their inhabitants and the surrounding environment. The concept of “adaptive architecture” directly addresses this, focusing on designing flexible, responsive, and sustainable spaces that can adjust to changing environmental conditions and user needs over time. This approach recognizes that the needs of inhabitants and the external climate are not fixed but evolve.
“Co-evolutionary architecture” extends this idea further, positing that architecture evolves through a mutual influence and adaptation between culture and nature, life and technology, constantly changing itself. This concept parallels gene-culture co-evolution in human biology, where genes and culture interact over long periods to shape human characteristics. The observation that a building “has many inhabitants that change and bring their cultures, habits, etc.” directly speaks to this dynamic, singular evolution of a built structure. The static design of a building, often envisioned as a final product, stands in tension with the dynamic reality of its use and occupancy.
Traditional architectural practice often culminates in a fixed, static design and construction, aiming for a completed, unchanging form. However, the reality is that buildings are inhabited and used by dynamic human and natural systems. This highlights a fundamental limitation in architectural practice: the underestimation or neglect of continuous, dynamic interaction and adaptation post-construction. Applying biological principles more deeply could lead to buildings designed with inherent flexibility, modularity , and responsiveness, moving away from a system that views real estate as a static financial asset. This also strongly links to the principles of a circular economy, where adaptability, reuse, and regeneration are paramount throughout a product’s lifecycle. Designing for change, rather than for stasis, becomes a critical objective.
Natural Selection in Design: Exploring the “Design Without a Designer” Concept in Biology and Its Implications for Architectural Innovation
The seemingly purposeful “design” of both organisms and artifacts can be understood through processes akin to natural selection, even without a conscious “designer” in the traditional sense. In biology, Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains the complex organization and functionality (“design”) of organisms as the result of natural processes—the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted by natural selection. This concept of “design without a designer” brought the origin and adaptations of organisms into the realm of scientific inquiry, moving away from explanations requiring an “Intelligent Designer”.
This “trial and error” process, where successful variations are retained and propagated, has been analogously applied to the evolution of artifacts and designs. Modern architectural design is now explicitly leveraging this analogy through “genetic algorithms” and other computational methods to emulate natural evolution for form generation and optimization. These algorithms can generate numerous adaptive solutions and allow for dynamic evaluation criteria, accelerating the design process by rapidly testing and refining designs based on predefined parameters.
However, a critical distinction exists between natural and artificial evolution in design: the “fitness function.” Natural selection in biology operates on a complex, multi-faceted concept of “fitness” within a dynamic and often unpredictable environment, leading to emergent adaptations. This fitness is an outcome of intricate interactions with the environment and other organisms. In contrast, genetic algorithms in architecture, while inspired by natural evolution, require explicitly defined “evaluating criteria” or “optimization indexes”. These criteria might include quantifiable metrics such as minimizing steel cost, maximizing solar energy generation , or optimizing structural efficiency.
The disparity lies in the simplification of “fitness” in artificial systems. Real-world architectural “fitness” is not solely about structural efficiency or energy performance; it also encompasses intangible yet crucial aspects such as social equity, cultural resonance, long-term adaptability, human well-being, and ecological integration. A significant limitation in applying evolutionary principles to architectural design might be the oversimplification of this “fitness” concept. While computational evolution can optimize for defined parameters, capturing the full “biological fitness” of a building requires a much more holistic and complex understanding of its interactions with human and natural systems. This suggests that while artificial intelligence can accelerate design, human understanding and ethical considerations remain paramount in defining what constitutes a truly “fit” building in a complex societal and ecological context. IV. Methodologies of Understanding and Engineering: Tools, Data, and Philosophy
The methodologies employed in both biological research and architectural practice, encompassing data management, economic flows, and philosophical underpinnings, reveal shared challenges and unique disciplinary “blind spots.” Nomenclature and Standardization: Challenges and Regional Variations
The precise, yet often inconsistent, language used to describe components and processes poses a significant challenge to effective communication and collaboration in both biology and architecture. This issue is particularly pronounced in interdisciplinary contexts where shared understanding is paramount.
In biology, gene and protein nomenclature presents a “pernicious problem” [user query]. The field grapples with an assortment of alternate names, species-specific guidelines, and names that bear no clear relation to function or structure, a consequence of the historical, piecemeal discovery process. This fragmentation complicates the organization and exchange of biological information, leading to potential misunderstandings and hindering collaborative efforts. For instance, a single gene might encode multiple protein products, or a protein might have several synonymous names across different organisms or research groups.
Similarly, architectural terminology exhibits considerable regional variation and differences between countries. The anecdote regarding “summer beams” illustrates how historical quirks and local practices can lead to terms whose origins are obscure or regionally specific. Other examples of such terminological divergence include “bungalow” (UK) versus “ranch house” (US), or “skirting board” (UK) versus “baseboard” (US). Vernacular architecture, in particular, vividly demonstrates how local climate, culture, and available materials lead to diverse building forms and their associated, often localized, terminology. These regional variations, while culturally rich, can impede standardized communication in a globalized construction industry.
The challenge in both fields lies in the tension between historical legacy and the drive for global standardization. While standardization offers clear benefits for efficiency, data exchange, and reducing ambiguity, the historical and regional variations often embed rich cultural, practical, and environmental knowledge. Arbitrarily imposing new naming conventions can erase this historical and contextual richness, potentially alienating practitioners and obscuring valuable traditional knowledge. This highlights a limitation in the pursuit of purely rationalized, standardized systems. The inherent value of local, historically-derived knowledge, even if seemingly “quirky” or inconsistent, might be overlooked in favor of abstract, global classifications. Both fields must navigate this balance, perhaps through the development of interoperable ontologies or mapping tools that bridge different terminological systems rather than imposing a single, rigid standard. Applied Practice and Economic Flows
The practical execution of both architectural projects and biological research is profoundly shaped by economic realities, resource allocation, and logistical challenges. These external factors often dictate what is feasible, what is prioritized, and ultimately, what is built or discovered.
Architecture: In architecture and construction, building specifications are paramount, serving as the “rules of the game” for builders [user query]. These documents provide detailed descriptions of quality, standards, materials, and procedures, ensuring clear communication, reducing errors, and establishing consistent expectations among all stakeholders, from clients to contractors and suppliers. Construction projects follow a structured pipeline, typically involving initiation, planning, procurement (material acquisition), construction, and closeout stages. This process involves complex economic flows, from budgeting and cost control to managing labor and intricate material supply chains.
However, the construction industry faces significant challenges, including material shortages, rising costs, labor shortages, and complex logistical issues. The North American housing crisis exemplifies how prevailing economic systems can create systemic limitations. The increasing financialization of real estate, where housing is viewed primarily as a financial asset for speculation rather than a fundamental human need for shelter, fuels speculation, consolidates market power, and leads to a severe lack of affordable housing and “unimaginative copypasted condominius”. This demonstrates a critical disconnect between financial models and societal needs in housing. The prevailing economic models in architecture and real estate often fail to prioritize fundamental human needs (shelter, sovereignty) and ecological well-being over short-term financial returns. This calls for a re-evaluation of the “purpose” of building within a broader societal context. Community land trusts (CLTs) offer a tangible alternative by separating the cost of land from the residence, promoting long-term affordability and community sovereignty through community-governed structures.
Biology: Structural biology research relies on sophisticated and often expensive techniques like X-ray crystallography, Cryo-electron microscopy (Cryo-EM), and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Genetic sequencing also involves significant costs. The funding mechanisms for biological research, primarily government grants (e.g., NIH, NSF, UKRI) and philanthropic trusts (e.g., Wellcome Trust), profoundly influence research priorities, infrastructure, and methodology. For instance, decisions like capping NIH grant overhead rates can lead to billions of dollars in losses for research institutions, jeopardizing critical infrastructure and staffing.
Biological data management faces unique challenges, exemplified by the Protein Data Bank (PDB) format’s 80-character limit, a remnant of the punch card era that persisted until around 2014. This anecdote highlights how legacy data formats and historical inertia can inadvertently “bind” and constrain modern research practices, forcing workarounds like splitting larger files. This demonstrates that outdated technical infrastructure and historical inertia can impose significant, long-lasting constraints on scientific practice. Furthermore, funding decisions directly impact the financial viability of research institutions, affecting equipment and personnel. Ethical frameworks and data privacy regulations are not merely guidelines but actively shape what research can be conducted, how data is handled, and what research questions are deemed permissible or fundable. These seemingly external, non-scientific factors (legacy technology, funding policies, ethical/legal frameworks) are not passive background elements but actively “inform and steer and inadvertently bind biology” [user query]. They represent a significant area of oversight if researchers focus solely on scientific questions without understanding the broader socio-technical and economic ecosystem within which their work is embedded. This suggests that the “progress” of science is not solely driven by intellectual curiosity or experimental ingenuity, but is profoundly shaped by economic realities, political decisions, and historical technological legacies. Understanding these “invisible” forces is crucial for both optimizing scientific progress and addressing its broader societal implications and ethical responsibilities.
Genetic engineering, while transformative, raises significant ethical dilemmas concerning biodiversity loss, increased corporate control over food supplies, potential animal suffering, eugenics, safety, access, and the commodification of human beings. The immense volume and sensitive nature of biological data (e.g., genetic information, health records) further necessitate stringent privacy and security measures, as misuse can lead to discrimination and identity theft.
The following table provides a comparative view of economic flows and resource allocation in both fields:
Table 2: Economic Flows and Resource Allocation: A Cross-Disciplinary View Aspect of Economic Flow Architecture/Construction Biology/Research Shared Challenges/Parallels Primary Goal Shelter/Investment Knowledge/Discovery Balancing efficiency with societal good Funding Sources Private investment, Government subsidies Government grants (NIH, NSF, UKRI), Philanthropic trusts Budget constraints Key Cost Drivers Land/materials/labor costs Equipment (microscopes, sequencers)/personnel/data storage costs Supply chain dependencies Resource Acquisition/Supply Chain Complex supply chains, Local sourcing Lab supplies, Specialized reagents Legacy system inertia Production/Construction/Research Activities Project management, Building specifications, On-site construction Experimental design, Data collection, Data analysis Ethical dilemmas/public trust Data/Information Management Building Information Modeling (BIM), Blueprints Data repositories (PDB), Databases Impact of financialization/funding decisions Societal/Ethical Impact Housing crisis, Architectural exclusion, Community land trusts Genetic engineering ethics, Data privacy, Eugenics concerns Need for interdisciplinary collaboration The “Blind Spots” in Methodologies
Both architecture and biology, despite their rigorous methodologies, possess inherent “blind spots”—areas or aspects that are systematically overlooked, undervalued, or rendered invisible by prevailing paradigms, tools, or external pressures. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for advancing both fields.
Architecture: Architectural limitations often arise when “ephemeral (lasting) aesthetics and budgets take precedence over long lasting functionality”. This includes neglecting crucial aspects like human factors, long-term building safety, climate responsiveness, and true sustainability. Critiques highlight how architectural practice can become disconnected from broader public concerns, social justice, and the socio-economic realities of the communities it serves. For example, urban design elements can function as “architectural exclusion,” subtly making places inaccessible to certain groups, a “hidden power” that shapes behavior without explicit awareness. This is not merely a technical oversight but an ethical failure, stemming from a limited scope of responsibility or a narrow definition of “success.” This calls for a broader ethical framework in architectural education and practice that explicitly mandates consideration of the long-term societal, environmental, and political impacts of design decisions, moving beyond immediate client demands, aesthetic trends, or purely economic metrics.
There is also a fundamental “tension between what is predefined and what is experienced” in architectural space, where the dynamic, unpredictable reality of human use often “deforms” or overflows the static, designed form. This highlights a limitation in accounting for the lived experience post-occupancy, a critical aspect that traditional design methodologies may not fully capture.
Biology: Biological research also contends with limitations that stem from the inherent properties of its methods, definitions, or theoretical approaches. For instance, certain research methods may be excellent for quantitative data but less effective at probing underlying reasons or complex causal relationships. The increasing reliance on high-throughput data and computational methods, such as machine learning models like AlphaFold for protein structure prediction or single-cell RNA sequencing for cell mapping , introduces new areas of oversight. These can relate to data bias (e.g., AlphaFold trained on existing PDB structures, which might have inherent biases) , model limitations, or the inherent interpretability challenges of complex algorithms. While these tools offer unprecedented resolution, they can also obscure nuances or create a “digital” limitation if not critically assessed.
The philosophical debate between reductionism and holism in biology highlights a core methodological tension: focusing too deeply on sub-angstrom scales might inadvertently miss the emergent properties of the whole cell or organism. The concept of the cell itself has evolved from simple structural units to a “dynamic network,” reflecting a move towards a more holistic, systems-level understanding. The epistemological limitation of data-driven reductionism is a significant concern. Modern biology’s increasing reliance on high-throughput data and computational models to “deconstruct” existing biological systems leads to profound philosophical questions about “cell identity mapping”. While powerful, this data-driven approach carries risks of “descriptor bias,” “averaging out heterogeneities” in bulk measurements, and potential oversimplification. The “physiological blind spot” in human vision serves as a potent analogy: our sophisticated tools, while revealing much, inherently limit what we can perceive or interpret. This potential for data-driven reductionism to miss holistic, emergent properties or to oversimplify complex biological realities, especially if models are trained on existing (and potentially incomplete or biased) experimental data, is a critical area of oversight. This suggests a crucial need for philosophical self-reflection within biology regarding the inherent limitations of its tools and data-driven approaches. It emphasizes that “mapping more and more rooms and tenants” [user query] does not automatically equate to full understanding, especially if the “map” itself has inherent biases or limits what can be seen. This points to a need for more integrative structural biology and systems biology approaches that explicitly seek to bridge scales and integrate diverse data types for a more comprehensive understanding.
Conclusion
The exploration of connections between biology and architecture reveals a rich tapestry of shared principles, analogous processes, and common challenges. From the hierarchical organization that defines both a living cell and a city block, to the elegant efficiency of tensegrity structures found in both biological and built forms, the underlying “design principles” often transcend disciplinary boundaries. The evolution of both life and human engineering, whether through unconscious adaptation or deliberate biomimicry, highlights a continuous quest for optimal solutions in dynamic environments.
However, this interdisciplinary lens also illuminates critical “blind spots” within each field. In architecture, the prevailing mercantile system often prioritizes short-term financial gains and aesthetics over long-term functionality, social equity, and environmental sustainability, leading to a housing crisis and a disconnect from fundamental human needs. Similarly, in biological research, the reliance on advanced, expensive technologies and the influence of funding mechanisms, coupled with historical data format legacies, can inadvertently shape research priorities and limit the scope of inquiry. The philosophical tension between reductionism and holism, and the potential for data-driven approaches to oversimplify complex biological realities, underscores the need for continuous methodological self-reflection.
Ultimately, both biology and architecture grapple with the profound human tendency to map and subdivide the “problem” of spatial theaters—the ones we inhabit and the ones that constitute us. This cognitive imperative, while a powerful engine for innovation, also introduces inherent limitations. Recognizing these shared challenges and limitations is not a sign of weakness but an opportunity for growth. By fostering deeper interdisciplinary dialogue, embracing systems-level thinking, and critically examining the socio-economic and ethical contexts that shape their practices, both structural biologists and architects can move towards more holistic, adaptive, and responsible approaches to understanding and shaping the complex structures of our world. The lessons learned from the dynamic, self-organizing nature of life offer profound insights for building more resilient, sustainable, and human-centric environments.
Tensegrity:
Examples in architecture: - roofs of the Spodek arena complex, the Seoul Olympic Gymnastics Arena, the Georgia Dome, and Tropicana Field, as well as the Kurilpa Bridge - tarp, fly-tent
Examples in biology: - human skeletal structure - the tension in the cell - tubulin networks as beams
Some examples of ingenuity and discovery in architectural history: ex how a new type of arch or beam was discovered, the part of the identity of the discoverer[s] and the context of the discovery that was instrumental to it.
I guess a big motivating factor in trying to see how much one can apprehend/one-shot about a field this way is the question of total reorganization. That is, if accept that “things have never been so ripe for a change” – then how can a contour of that change look like, what is a better organization? Not from a place of radicalism or vanity, but from a place of making use of the insight and tools that have become available since the long-ago birth or creation of the systems and notions that still rule the day.
“Ultimately, both biology and architecture grapple with the profound human tendency to map and subdivide the”problem” of spatial theaters—the ones we inhabit and the ones that constitute us. This cognitive imperative, while a powerful engine for innovation, also introduces inherent limitation”
It is crucial to recognize this tendency as just that, a tendency. At its most general, - it is not a malicious device to disempower the proletariat by real estate cartels and investing groups and realtors and corporations - it is not an outcome of a few misguided low interest rates policies 15 years ago - it is not “the immigrants” that make it complicated - it is not a lack of materials
All of the above are just manifestations of the human tendency to divide and conquer in other fields and strata of the economy on the craft of the builder and the architect. It seems like one defense against these assaults is to strengthen a vision and a holistic and total understanding of how architecture interacts with these other fields. That is, the solution to housing under assault is not to cure one or two of the political problems and keep building like before, but to upgrade and equip the discipline itself to be able to put an answer to the modern problems. To the architect and the builder, it seems, the relief from without should not be counted on and must come from the strengthening and sophistication within.
Same for biology. It is not like there is a “crisis of imaging” in biology but i feel like the time ripe for another scaffold around around the old one. What we view now as the limits of our discipline must become the formwork surface supporting what ought to be. The virtual cell project, cryoEt, ML and Qchem folding models all warrant greater infrastructure. The immense computational capacities we posses make the current organisation of knowledge, the “rails” on which this train might run, seem ridiculous, stunted and limited.
Architectural/Construction Terms:
Scaffolding & Formwork:
Formwork - temporary structure that holds concrete until it sets (very close to your concept)
Falsework - temporary framework supporting a structure during construction
Centering - temporary wooden framework for building arches/vaults
Shoring - temporary supports for existing structures
The Process:
Incremental construction or staged construction
Nested formwork or recursive scaffolding
Telescoping construction (like extending telescope tubes)
Biological Analogies:
Cellular Processes:
Cytoskeleton - internal scaffolding of cells that gets reorganized as cells grow
Extracellular matrix (ECM) - scaffolding that cells grow on and remodel
Endosymbiosis - cells engulfing other cells, creating nested structures
Tissue engineering scaffolds - temporary frameworks that guide new tissue growth
Growth Patterns:
Coral accretion - new polyps build on existing calcium carbonate scaffolds
Tree rings - each growth season creates a new layer around the previous structure
Mollusk shell growth - spiral growth adding chambers (like nautilus shells)
Key Components:
Primary scaffold/framework - your initial structure
Infill material - what grows within and beyond the scaffold
Secondary containment - the larger scaffold that accommodates overflow
Growth nodes - points where material "pokes through"
Transition zones - areas where one scaffold hands off to the next