Evolution
ELEMENTAL SPHERES
Dedicated spaces
As graphically illustrated, each elemental sphere is placed within a cube for easier representation through the subsequent stages. The metric serves as a thought experiment, where each element is represented by its color. In terms of functionality, the spheres are understood as dedicated spaces for the elements.
This dedication of space means, for example, that if a sphere is designated for the protagonist of the bee, therefore representing fauna, it does not preclude the presence and interaction of other elements like flora, water, and human. However, the space is primarily dedicated to the bee, and as such, it cannot contain a structure entirely meant for human purposes, such as an enclosed room.
The inclusion of other species from the same element, and different elements, is crucial for the ecosystem to develop itself. A single species, single element, or single protagonist cannot sustain itself without co-existing and sharing its world with others.
The spheres, graphically expressed as cubes, are counted throughout the evolutionary process and set in relation to one another, illustrating the interconnectedness and interdependence of all components within the ecosystem.
Introduction of system metric
As the ecosystem concept represents an abstract, programmatic placement on the site, it lacks measurable indicators for how the four different elements—water, flora, fauna, and human—will be represented. To address this, it is necessary to solidify the ecosystem concept with a measurable metric that can serve as a conceptual model on the site.
The decision for a scale must be sensible and directly related to the place itself. The scale of our built environment contrasts with that of a bee; the scale of a grown tree is 200 percent larger than the size of an average water droplet. Employing different metric systems for each element seems counterintuitive for creating a holistic and equally expressed cohabitation. Furthermore, the scale and system should be comparable and measurable to one another to maintain the conceptual matrix’s clarity and adaptability across multiple scenarios.
The choice of one scale in the overall evolution matrix is derived from the concept of the human scale. The urban environment already consists of an agglomeration of these scales, represented in streets, buildings, and public spaces, making this scale the most adequate interface between the elements. It will be articulated differently throughout the process. With a 3-meter diameter, the matrix sphere symbolically stands for a spatial allocation where a human could find a sense of place and comfort.
While the ecosystem concept is a theoretical adaptation of a program, the new metric provides direct spatial relations on the site. It offers indications of where the elements will be situated and how they relate to one another. It is crucial to understand that the spheres are not a finished applied structure or design but a thought experiment. This experiment opens up possibilities for future implementation of design strategies that adhere to the metric guide, fostering a unique and equal translation of the elements and their protagonists.
The matrix elements frame the ecosystemic growth of the subsystems into the larger ecosystem, artificially stimulating individual growths and the connectedness of the subsystems, as well as their individual parameters and the relationships of the protagonist elements—flora, fauna, human, and water. The simulation aims for an ideal situation where all four elements are equally represented on the site, utilizing real-life-based growth algorithms and data simulated with the aid of artificial intelligence.
After this simulation, further conceptual developments, designs, or strategic applications can be initiated. At multiple steps during the strategic processes, there must be a reference back to the matrix and the ecosystem concept to ensure qualitative synergies and equal co-habitation. Both conceptual points are of equal importance to the project and shape its uncommon and unique outcome.
RELEVANCE OF TIME
how the `co` evolves
A lifecycle assessment is crucial in architecture for understanding the longevity of structures. This longevity has evolved with the advent of modern construction techniques that prioritize speed, though not always sustainability or durability. On average, new buildings exist for only 57 years before demolition, often being outlived by the average human lifespan.
In contrast, vernacular practices have proven to be more resilient, sustainable, and often regenerative towards their environments. These older structures can withstand time and unforeseen conditions, much like ecosystems. Biomes around the world have persisted for centuries, evidenced by trees that average 300 years of age globally. Ecosystems host a vast range of lifecycles, from such long-lived trees to moths that live only about 10 days.
Populations within ecosystems adapt and evolve their abilities, habits, and resilience over time. They are not initially complex but develop complexity within their limits and at varying rates.While a single organism has a set lifespan influenced by external biotic and abiotic factors like climate and disease, a population can sustain itself through these challenges with the aid of symbiosis within its community and the broader ecosystem.
The relevance of time and the adaptability of species over their lifespans, through inherited instincts and knowledge, is critical to the success of an ecosystem. What modern buildings often lack is this type of resilience, which is supported by an overarching system. The ability for an ecological concept to self-develop is rare in modern architecture. Building time restrictions, immediate spatial needs, and generally short lifespans of built and social structures often result in greenwashing or simulated nature that cannot sustain itself and thus fails to thrive in an urban environment.
When given the opportunity, conceptual ecosystem strategies could emulate the conditions of mature habitats, forming more natural relationships with their environment and enabling a functional coexistence of elements. Time provides margins for error, adaptation to unpredictable changes like weather conditions or food scarcity, and allows systems to reach their full complexity and potential. Time is essential for the functioning coexistence of all elements.
The initial iteration of ecosystem development, marked as year 0, commences with the original implementation of the subsystems. As these systems begin to develop from the introduction of new, adapted, or added elements on the site, the protagonists immediately assume their designated roles.
Existing structures on the site, primarily industrial heritage buildings and the new vehicle storage, which is adapted into collaborative spaces, facilitating animal-aided design. This structure is the largest, with the most set spheres at the start, followed by the significant human structures of subsystems 02 and 08.
The diagram of the metric data highlights the initial unequal distribution of the subsystems and the total division of elements. Human elements comprise the largest number of spheres at 35 percent, while the element of water starts the evolution with only 10 percent of the total amount.
The subsequent pages detail the evolution phases of the individual subsystems over the years, starting from point 0, progressing through year 3, and culminating in a fully cohesive and connected ecosystem by year 10.
Visually, the subsystems are coded in two different ways: first, with the ecosystem concept hatch for each subsystem, and secondly, with the individual color representing the element within the subsystems.
After 10 years of fostering resilience, utilizing resources, and developing complex relationships within the subsystems and extending into the local urban environment, the ecosystem has integrated to its full complexity on the site. The metric reflects this potential growth as a colorful, diverse, and overlapping mass.
While in Evolution Phase I the systems were yet to engage with their neighbors, by Evolution Phase II (year 3), the beginnings of these relationships were already evident in the metric calculations. Year 10 marks a state of nearly equal representation of the elements, recognizing that the system can and will continue to grow both systemically and spatially in the coming years.
The diagram presents metric data illustrating how the numbers have evolved from Phase I to Phase III. It is evident that the growth in flora is a dominating element in nearly all the systems, spatially expressed through dense green spaces. Fauna, as the second largest element, shows significant co-dependency with flora. The symbiotic relationship between these habitat components creates ideal conditions for growth; however, it is noted that the spaces dedicated to fauna are more sprawled and less dense than those for flora, aligning with the specific real-life habitat needs of certain species.
The element of water only sees a slight increase, as, given its nature, the metric simulation considers that not necessarily more water will be present at the site in 10 years. Despite this, with the inclusion of wetlands and other water management measures, the number of water spheres still increases. In the thought experiment of dedicated space, the metric considers wetlands and renaturalized floodplains, even if dry, as dedicated spaces for water.
In the theory of the artificial simulation, human spheres would have increased even more, given projections in population growth and spatial needs. This larger growth is regulated within the thought experiment of dedicated space, allowing humans to be part of other elemental spheres. Due to the complexly woven ecosystem concept, humans are adapted to co-habitation and are a welcomed part of other elemental spheres.
The spatially largest four subsystems, with the most extensive growth, contain entirely non-human protagonists. They underscore the strength and potential of these non-human protagonists and how they can thrive in an urban environment as long as they are not restricted by artificial human regulation.
Now, the ecosystem concept, with its eight subsystems, is positioned on site as a simulated growth metric for co-habitation. The next step involves translating both conceptually relevant ideas into a strategic adaptation for the design process. The following principles will provide the framework for transforming the abstract notions of the four elements—human, flora, fauna, and water—within their eight subsystems into a strategy for co-habitation design, always reflecting on the initial concepts.