ARTIFICIAL NATURE: SYMBIOTIC RELATIONS OF BUILT-FORM AND NATURE IN THE POST-ANTHROPOCENE ARCHITECTURE
Abstract
This study aims to demonstrate a design transformation that demonstrates symbiotic relationship between built-form and nature with the overarching objective of fostering ecological sustainability in the emerging post-Anthropocene epoch. This study can be considered as a direct response to current architectural paradigms that predominantly prioritize human needs and requirements, often at the expense of environmental well-being. Most of our built environment stands on the modes of resource extraction and consumption, frequently relying on finite, non-renewable materials, generating substantial pollutants that disrupt delicate ecological equilibrium. This study begins by exploring the idea of symbiotic between architecture and nature in current design discourse. The exploratory design study follows by establishing potential natural elements that can be accommodated within built-form as living systems. The study identifies three specific roles in the environment as part of the symbiotic programming, which are to feed, to fuel, and to heal. This speculative study further develops architecture proposition as a form of artificial nature through connections of these different programs. By exploring mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships between built-form and natural elements, the study found that artificial nature can create interdependent outputs, where outcomes from feeding can be used for either healing or fueling, and vice versa. This study highlights the need to create architecture that transforms and unfolds as open and collaborative systems. Such discussion informs a systemic form of architecture, where its spatiality enables growth of biological organisms that metabolize the spatial process and its surroundings.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alexander, C. (2005) The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe, a vision of a living world. Berkeley, CA: Center for Environmental Structure.
Aliyah, N. and Dewi, T.R. (2024) ‘Ecotect simulation: Advancing environmental responsiveness in nature-based school conceptual design’, Journal of Architecture & Environment, 23(2), pp. 109–130. doi: 10.12962/j2355262x.v23i2.a22045.
Birch, S.P. (2020) Multispecies archaeology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Collet, C. (2021) ‘Designing our future bio-materiality’, AI & Society, 36(4), pp. 1331–1342. doi: 10.1007/s00146-020-01013-y.
Crutzen, P.J. (2016) A pioneer on atmospheric chemistry and climate change in the Anthropocene. Edited by P.J. Crutzen and H.G. Brauch. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27460-7.
Cruz, M. and Parker, B. (2022) ‘From Anthropocene to Biocene’, in Working at the intersection. London: RIBA Publishing, pp. 52–61. doi: 10.4324/9781003285410-6.
De Caro, V. (2022) ‘Resilience as an investigation of the relationship between architecture and nature’, ARSNET, 2(1). doi: 10.7454/arsnet.v2i1.46.
Ewida, Y.M. (2024) ‘Spatial synergies: Between humans and non-human citizens: A critical literature review’, Journal of Salutogenic Architecture, 3(1), pp. 114–124. doi: 10.38027/jsalutogenic_vol3no1_9.
Flynn, E. (2016) ‘(Experimenting with) living architecture: A practice perspective’, Architectural Research Quarterly, 20(1), pp. 20–28. doi: 10.1017/S1359135516000166.
Forty, A. (2004) ‘Form’, in Words and buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
Frazer, J. (1995) An evolutionary architecture. London: Architectural Association Publications.
Gibson, J.J. (2015) The ecological approach to visual perception. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Gilbert, S.F., Sapp, J. and Tauber, A.I. (2012) ‘A symbiotic view of life: We have never been individuals’, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87(4), pp. 325–341. doi: 10.1086/668166.
Harani, A.R. (2023) ‘Learning from nature: Exploring systems of plants and animals for form generation’, ARSNET, 3(1). doi: 10.7454/arsnet.v3i1.73.
International Energy Agency (2025) The International Energy Agency (IEA) works with governments and industry to shape a secure and sustainable energy future for all. Paris: IEA.
Karpouzou, P. and Zampaki, N. (2023) Symbiotic posthumanist ecologies in Western literature, philosophy and art: Towards theory and practice. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
Le Corbusier (1986) Towards a new architecture. New York: Dover Publications.
Lee, S.Y. et al. (2019) ‘Bioelectricity generation by Corynebacterium glutamicum with redox-hydrogel-modified carbon electrode’, Applied Sciences, 9(20), p. 4251. doi: 10.3390/app9204251.
Lucas, G. (2018) ‘Symbiotic architectures’, in Birch, S.P. (ed.) Multispecies archaeology. 1st edn. London: Routledge, pp. 105–117.
Paracer, S. and Ahmajian, V. (2000) Symbiosis: An introduction to biological associations. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paramita, K.D. et al. (2023) ‘Multispecies contact zones: The entangled interior grounds of domestic livestock keeping’, Interiors, 13(1), pp. 82–106. doi: 10.1080/20419112.2024.2335022.
Pasquero, C. and Poletto, M. (2020) ‘Bio-digital aesthetics as value system of post-Anthropocene architecture’, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 18(2), pp. 120–140. doi: 10.1177/1478077120922941.
Rahman, A., Paramita, K.D. and Atmodiwirjo, P. (2023) ‘Mapping architecture by nature: Investigating rewilding architecture design methods’, Civil Engineering and Architecture, 11(5A), pp. 2886–2894. doi: 10.13189/cea.2023.110804.
Rojas Flores, S.J. et al. (2020) ‘The using lime (Citrus × aurantiifolia), orange (Citrus × sinensis), and tangerine (Citrus reticulata) waste as a substrate for generating bioelectricity’, Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 76(3), pp. 24–34. doi: 10.5755/j01.erem.76.3.24785.
Rojas-Flores, S. et al. (2020) ‘Generation of bioelectricity from fruit waste’, Energy Reports, 6, pp. 37–42. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.10.025.
Schaumann, D. et al. (2025) ‘Buildings as symbiotic systems: Cybernetic adaptation between technical and biological systems in architecture’, in Catalytic interfaces. Hong Kong, pp. 81–95. doi: 10.25442/hku.29365502.
Shaibur, M.R., Husain, H. and Arpon, S.H. (2021) ‘Utilization of cow dung residues of biogas plant for sustainable development of a rural community’, Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, p. 100026. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100026.
Šijaković, M. and Perić, A. (2018) ‘Symbiotic architecture: Redefinition of recycling design principles’, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7(1), pp. 67–79. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2017.12.002.
Suryantini, R., Paramita, K.D. and Ren, X. (2024) ‘Making food: Exploring the indigenous resilience strategy of the Bima communities in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia’, in Vernacular built environments: Towards a sustainable future. Bangkok, pp. 430–447.
Syafriny, R. and Sangkertadi, S. (2019) ‘Contested space in coastal city: A case of conservation, community and tourism development in Manado, Indonesia’, Journal of Architecture & Environment, 18(2), p. 75. doi: 10.12962/j2355262x.v18i2.a3920.
Thomsen, M.R. and Tamke, M. (2022) ‘Towards a transformational eco-metabolistic bio-based design framework in architecture’, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 17(4), p. 045005. doi: 10.1088/1748-3190/ac62e2.
United Nations (2019) The future is now: Science for achieving sustainable development. New York: United Nations.
Zhong, W., Schröder, T. and Bekkering, J. (2022) ‘Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review’, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), pp. 114–141. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2021.07.006.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12962%2Fj2355262x.v25i1.a23006
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Indexing and Abstracting :

Journal of Architecture & Environment is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License






