Definiowanie biomimetycznej architektury mieszkaniowej: wyznaczniki i wybrane projekty

Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

doi:10.37190/arc260104

Streszczenie

W artykule podjęto temat współczesnych projektów wykorzystujących elementy biomimetyczne w architekturze mieszkalnictwa zbiorowego. Autorka ukazała, w jaki sposób realizacja kryteriów definiujących architekturę biomimetyczną wpływa na kształt, funkcjonowanie i ideę tych obiektów. Przedstawione przez nią koncepcje charakteryzują się dominacją megastruktur i konstrukcji wertykalnej, wielofunkcyjnością, elastycznością przestrzeni oraz dążeniem do energetycznej samowystarczalności. Biomimetyka przejawia się w nich zarówno w zaawansowanych systemach technologicznych, inspiracjach biologicznymi procesami i materiałami, jak i w formach architektonicznych nawiązujących do struktur naturalnych. Na podstawie przeprowadzonej analizy autorka wskazała na potencjał biomimetycznych rozwiązań w poprawie komfortu życia mieszkańców, budowaniu relacji społecznych, zwiększaniu odporności budynków na zmiany klimatyczne oraz w ograniczaniu negatywnego wpływu na środowisko. Jednocześnie podkreśliła, że biomimetyczne mieszkalnictwo zbiorowe pozostaje w dużej mierze w sferze projektów koncepcyjnych, co odzwierciedla zarówno rosnące zainteresowanie tą ideą, jak i istotne wyzwania związane z jej realizacją.

2026

1(85)

Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz*

Defining biomimetic residential architecture:

indicators and selected projects

DOI: 10.37190/arc260104

Published in open access. CC BY-NC license.

Abstract

This article examines contemporary biomimetic strategies in collective housing, showing how the implementation of criteria that dene bio-

mimetic architecture aects the form, functioning, and underlying concepts of such projects. The selected case studies are characterized by the

dominance of megastructures and vertical constructions, mixeduse programs, spatial exibility, and a drive towards energy self-suciency. Biomi-

metics manifests itself in advanced technological systems, biologically inspired processes and materials, and architectural forms referencing natural

structures. The analysis highlights the potential of biomimetic solutions to improve residents’ quality of life, foster social relations, increase climate

resilience, and reduce environmental impact. At the same time, it underscores that biomimetic collective housing remains largely conceptual, reect-

ing both growing interest in the idea and signicant challenges to its realization.

Key words: biomimicry, biomimetics, bioinspiration, biophilia, residential architecture

Introduction

The term biomimetics emerged in the midtwentieth cen-

tury and initially referred to medical engineering solutions

inspired by the structure and functioning of living organisms.

In the 1970s, Werner Nachtigall and Göran Pohl, in Bau-

Bionik: Natur – Analogien – Technik, formulated the con-

cept of biomimetic design as a scientic discipline and

ex tended it to other elds of human activity, including ar-

chitectural design (2013). From that point on, biomimetics

began to be referenced in relation to architecture, along-

side the term biomimicry introduced in 1997. In her book

Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature (1997), Janine

Benyus dened biomimicry as the imitation (mimesis) of

life (bio) in order to seek solutions in nature to problems

arising in dierent elds of human activity. Drawing from

nature can occur at dierent levels – from the micro scale,

where sources of inspiration are individual elements or

functionalities of living organisms, to the most synthetic

macro scale, that is, modeling based on the overall func-

tioning of ecosystems

In the human–nature relationship, architecture is a eld

with a profound impact – both on the natural environment

and on human beings themselves – by shaping the space

of human functioning. The dichotomy between the built

and natural environments is deeply rooted in human con-

sciousness. The concept of biomimicry challenges this by

advocating for abandoning an anthropocentric perspective

and returning to nature as a model, measure, and mentor.

Benyus wrote about achieving true sustainability by mak-

ing cities more like forests, i.e., grounding the functioning

of civilization in strategies that are the only legitimate ones

because they have been developed over millions of years

by nature. The idea of applying biomimicry in architecture

has gained signicant popularity over the past decade and

a half, tting squarely within both contemporary needs

The literature most often distinguishes three levels of mimicry in

biomimetics: emulation of the form and/or function of an organism or

its elements (Organism Level); emulation of organism behaviour and its

interaction with the environment (Behaviour Level); and emulation of

natural ecosystems (Ecosystem Level).

* ORCID:

0000-0002-8827-9397. Faculty of Architecture, Cracow

University of Technology, Poland, e-mail: joanna.bialkiewicz@pk.edu.pl

42 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

(ecology and sustainable development) and technological

capabilities (scientic and technological progress). How-

ever, despite the interest among architects, built works

are primarily individual buildings, most often public-use

structures or experimental pavilions and installations that

demonstrate biomimetic structures or building materials. If

biomimetic architecture is to have a real impact on the en -

vironment of human life, it must create the places closest to

people and their dwellings. The aim of this paper is to pres-

ent examples of biomimetic residential architecture and to

identify the dominant tendencies and dening characteris-

tics of this type of project.

State of research

Among the available publications on biomimetics, there

is a lack of studies devoted specically to residential ar-

chitecture; however, reference should be made to literature

addressing the general issues of biomimetics in architec-

ture. Michael Pawlyn (2011) indicated both the features of

architectural objects and the principles of the design pro-

cess itself, in accordance with the idea of biomimicry. The

fundamental concept is a shift away from linear systems

typical of the industrial economy (from cradle to grave)

towards circular systems, in which every waste product si-

multaneously serves as a resource (from cradle to cradle).

Guidance for architects includes reliance on renewable en-

ergy sources, use of local resources, and form optimization.

As with living organisms, buildings should have their own

metabolism and adapt to change. Siobhan Barry and Greg

Keee (2010) described the concept of Bio-City – a biomi-

metic highrise operating in a closed metabolic cycle, using

green algae that produce biomass subsequently burned in

bioreactors. Maibritt Pedersen Zari has addressed biomim-

icry in urban design in several works. According to Pe der-

sen Zari, the human-built environment must function as

a living system composed of cooperating organisms, rather

than a set of buildings lacking interconnections (Pedersen

Zari 2018). At the core of Pedersen Zari’s theory, further

developed with Katharina Hecht (Pedersen Zari, Hecht

2020), is the denition of ecosystem services – what the

ecosystem provides and produces – and how this can be

mimicked in technology and design strategies for urban-

ism. At the same time, Pedersen Zari noted that there is no

clear denition of biomimetics specically for architects,

and that only an analysis of dierent interpretations of the

concept can help determine which approaches yield the

most eective results. In Poland, Jakub Onyszkiewicz, in

his doctoral dissertation Elementy biomimetyki w projek-

towaniu architektury w środowisku zrównoważonym [Ele-

ments of biomimetics in designing architecture in sustain-

able environment] (2019), dened features of a biomimetic

architectural object – largely consistent with Pawlyn’s cri-

teria – and evaluated around 200 projects accordingly. In

numerous publications after 2020, biomimicry is posi-

tioned as a tool for sustainable design (Ilieva et al. 2022;

Borham, Croxford and Wilson 2024; Ali Hussein, Abbas

Abbood 2024). An attempt to relate biomimetics directly

to residential architecture was made by Mohamed Reza

Akbarian and Mahdis Kolivand Salooki (2025, 50, 51),

who listed key indexes of biomimetic architecture grouped

into categories: mimicking form and structure, mimicking

processes, mimicking ecological systems, sustainability

and energy eciency, harmony with the environment. In

dependently of biomimetic concepts, studies of contempo-

rary residential architecture address the aordable housing

crisis (Fishman 2018), sustainable building (Mazur 2021),

and issues such as the individualization of multi-family

housing (Stoiljković, Petković-Grozdanović and Jovanović

2015), resilience (Paulichen, Leite and Pina 2019), modu-

lar, non-predetermined solutions (Djukanovic, Alegre and

Bastos 2025), architectural recycling of existing structures

(Hernández Falagán 2021), and other proposals to adapt

housing to the needs of a postindustrial and postpandemic

society (Seruga 2014; Klochko 2022). It should be noted

that many of these proposals can fall within the criteria of

biomimetic architecture.

For the purposes of this paper, information on particular

projects and built works was drawn mainly from websites:

architectural studios, competitions (e.g., eVolo Skyscraper),

and individual portfolios.

Methods

The adopted research method is a comparative multi-

ple case study. The set comprises projects with the same

function – collective housing – albeit in most cases it is not

their only function. Due to the relatively small number of

completed buildings, the principal object of analysis is the

design itself, as the material manifestation of an architec-

tural concept. The selected projects, apart from the func-

tional criterion, share the realization of certain criteria that

dene their biomimetic character. The criteria described

below were identied based on an analysis of selected liter-

ature that addresses, in theoretical terms, the application of

biomimetics and biomimicry in architecture. The way each

project meets the adopted criteria is presented descriptively

in a table. Based on this comparison, conclusions are drawn

as an attempt to synthesize the issue in the form of answers

to the following questions:

1. What objectives of residential architecture are served

by the application of biomimetic elements?

2. Which characteristics of contemporary collective

housing projects result from the implementation of criteria

dening their biomimetic nature?

Criteria defining the biomimetic character

of residential architecture

A fundamental issue in establishing criteria that dene

a biomimetic character is the need to clarify the terms “bio-

mimetics” and “biomimicry” in relation to architecture.

Pohl and Nachtigall (2015) refer to the “classical” deni-

tion of biomimetics, according to which it is a scientic dis-

cipline concerned with the adaptation and implementation

of biological structures, processes, and principles of devel-

opment in technology. This corresponds to the denition

formulated in the international standard ISO 18458:2015

(Verbrugghe, Rubinacci and Khan 2023), which states that

biomimetics focuses on functional analysis of biological

Dening biomimetic residential architecture: indicators and selected projects 43

systems, their abstraction into models, and their transfer

and application in technology. In the light of these deni-

tions, biomimetic products are primarily technological in-

novations reproducing biological systems at the structural

level (e.g., biomimetic materials) or process level (e.g.,

a ventilation system modeled on termite mounds). Eec-

tive classication of bio-inspired technological solutions

requires a system that reects their developmental history

and the transfer of knowledge from biology to technology

(Speck et al. 2017). The fundamental indicator of wheth-

er we are dealing with a biomimetic product/object is thus

the transfer of a selected biological principle. Some authors

treat “biomimetics” and “biomimicry” as synonyms; others

distinguish between biomimetics–oriented towards techno-

logical innovation, imitating natural forms and structures

in a de-contextualized way (Mitxelena, Genua 2017) – and

biomimicry, which sees in nature primarily normative prin-

ciples of ecological sustainability. In this view, nature is not

only a source of biological models for technical elds, but

a source of standards that dene the ecological “correct-

ness” of human technological outputs. The aim of biomim-

icry is therefore to emulate natural systems and strategies

in order to create solutions that meet human needs while

simultaneously minimising the environmental impact of

civilisation. In architecture, this means creating a built

environment that is sustainable and potentially regenera-

tive towards natural ecosystems. As Henry Dicks (2016)

emphasized, biomimicry cannot be reduced to copying

nature’s systems without integrating the resulting technol-

ogies into the circular systems characteristic of the biologi-

cal world. Table 1 presents selected denitions of the terms

biomimetics, biomimicry, bioinspiration, and biophilia that

have appeared in the literature over the last ve years. For

the purposes of this study, a synthetic denition is adopted:

biomimetics is an interdisciplinary design process based

on understanding and abstracting biological principles and

transferring them to technology. The concept of biomimic-

ry, according to which nature is not only a model but also

a measure and a mentor (Dicks 2016), adds to biomimet-

ics goals aligned with sustainability and focuses on linking

technological solutions to environmental challenges. The

ideological premise of biomimicry is to renew the human–

nature bond by addressing civilisational problems in ways

that emulate the functioning of ecosystems.

From these denitions of biomimetics and biomimicry,

the following determinants of biomimetic architecture can

be identied (Fig. 1):

1. Transfer of solutions from nature to technology

through an interdisciplinary design process (collaboration

among architects, biologists, engineers, chemists, etc.);

technological innovation creating synthetic counterparts of

biological structures and functionalities.

2. Inspiration derived from a specic biological model.

Structural and functional biomimetics. This includes the

imitation of the form, structure, or functionality of a living

organism (animal or plant).

3. Biomimetic materials (synthetic materials that mimic

the structure and functions of natural ones); biomaterials.

4. The purpose of technological innovation – ecological

functioning of buildings and their complexes:

– minimizing environmental impact;

– designing material cycles and building life cycles

within circular systems, recycling;

– harvesting energy from renewable sources, energy ef

ciency;

– reducing CO

emissions;

– retention and recovery of rainwater;

– natural ventilation.

5. Structures exhibiting biological qualities such as op-

timality, resilience, and adaptability. Autopoietic and kinet-

ic systems enabling buildings to respond and adapt autono-

mously to changing environmental conditions.

In the context of concepts related to architecture, it is

also worth noting the term biophilia, dened primarily as

the creation of built environments that foster and deepen

the human–nature relationship. This is crucial because, un-

like biomimetics and biomimicry, it directly concerns the

user of architecture, aiming at their psycho-physical well-

being. Including biophilic aspects thus seems necessary,

especially in residential architecture, which constitutes the

built environment closest to every person. Accordingly,

the set of indicators is supplemented by biophilic elements

(Uchiyama, Blanco and Kohsaka 2020), such as:

– enabling direct contact with nature;

– introducing plant elements;

– using natural materials;

– the presence of water;

– biomorphic shapes and patterns;

– ensuring optimal temperature and air quality, access

to daylight or its simulation.

Contemporary residential projects can be broadly di-

vided into those that respond to current needs and those

anticipating future needs. Housing – especially collective

housing – struggles with numerous problems arising from

urban phenomena such as urban sprawl, dispersion of de-

velopment, and deepening social and spatial segregation.

Historic centres are emptying, while gated luxury estates

form enclaves accessible only to the wealthiest. Biomimet-

ic architecture – through its innovative, interdisciplinary,

and technologically advanced dimension – requires high

nancial outlays for research, materials, and experimental

implementations etc. Consequently, the few realized resi-

dential buildings that aspire to be biomimetic are typically

high-end and located in the wealthiest urban centres of the

world. Dominant, instead, are futuristic conceptual proj-

ects. The underlying idea is to emulate biological systems

that evolve, adapt, and survive by developing qualities such

as resilience and regeneration. Hence, biomimetic design

features numerous visions of habitats for extreme environ-

ments or able to ensure human survival in the face of vari-

ous catastrophes.

Selected biomimetic

residential projects

The examples of biomimetic residential projects cited in

this paper are divided into two typological groups: urban

high-rises and specialpurpose residential habitats. For se-

lected architectural objects, the implementation of individ-

ual indicators is described in Table 2.

44 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

Ilieva et al. 2022

Gerola, Robaey

and Blok 2023

Sanglier Contreras et al.

2023

Chayaamor-Heil 2023 Sedira et al. 2024

Bijari, Aflaki and

Esfandiari 2025

Akbarian, Kolivand

Salooki 2025

Biomimicry

An interdisciplinary

method for studying

and transferring principles

and mechanisms from

nature to solve design

challenges. Biomimicry

serves both innovation

and sustainability;

its guiding ideas are

biosynergy (renewing

the human–nature bond)

and ecosystem

regeneration.

Focuses on the ecological

sustainability effect.

Nature is a source

not only of biological

models for technology

but also of normative

principles. Three

typologies are listed,

with medium, strong

or very strong

sustainability effects:

normative inspiration,

normative imitation,

normative integration.

Imitating natural forms,

processes, and functions

to solve human (technical)

problems. In architecture,

the goal is to design

buildings and structures

with the qualities

of biological organisms,

such as efficiency,

resilience, and

adaptability.

Biomimicry and

biomimetics are based

on the same methodology

of an interdisciplinary

approach to design

through understanding

and relying on biological

models. Biomimicry adds

to biomimetics the goals

of sustainable

development and focuses

on linking design

and technological

solutions to environmental

challenges.

Learning and emulating

nature’s strategies to solve

human problems; reliance

on “life’s principles”

to achieve resilience and

adaptability characteristic

of living organisms.

The pursuit of

innovative and

sustainable solutions

to human problems

by imitating biological

patterns and strategies

developed by nature.

An innovative design

approach that emulates

time tested natural

solutions to human

problems and challenges;

by studying and emulating

nature’s strategies,

effective and sustainable

solutions for humanity

can be developed.

Biomimetics

Biomimetic design

identified with

the practice of

biomimicry.

Focuses on the

reproduction of innovative

biological functions.

Three typologies are listed

with very weak, weak,

and medium sustainability

effects: technical

inspiration, technical

imitation, technical

integration.

Identified with

biomimicry

An interdisciplinary

design process based on

understanding and

abstracting biological

functions and principles

and transferring them

to technology.

Biology-based

technology. The study

of the formation,

structure, and function

of substances and

materials of biological

origin, as well

as biological processes

and mechanisms, with

the aim of synthesizing

similar products using

technology.

Nature inspired forms

adapted/applied in

architecture in two

ways: as replicas of

natural forms or

by reproducing

a biological process.

Biomimetic architecture

– an innovative

and sustainable design

approach that imitates

structures, processes,

and systems from

the natural world.

Bio-inspiration

A creative design

approach based on

observing biological

principles (unlike

biomimicry, the goal may

be purely aesthetic

or symbolic).

Identified with

biomimetics

– biologically inspired

design.

Using nature as

inspiration in design

without direct copying;

nature provides ideas

and patterns for creative

solutions, often relying

on advanced technology.

Biophilia

Creating buildings and

environments that foster

deep human–nature

relationships.

Architecture focused on

creating a close bond

between building users

and nature.

Table 1. Definitions of biomimetics, biomimicry and related terms (biophilia, bio-inspiration) in the literature after 2020 (elaborated by J. Białkiewicz)

Tabela 1. Definicje biomimetyki, biomimikry i pojęć pokrewnych (biofilia, bioinspiracja) w literaturze po 2020 (oprac. J. Białkiewicz)

Dening biomimetic residential architecture: indicators and selected projects 45

Bioscrapers – Citytrees

– biomimetic residential high-rises

Population growth and its concentration in urban cen-

tres necessitate the intensication of urban fabric, which

can essentially be pursued in two ways: by erecting mixe-

duse highrises or mixeduse horizontal structures. While

garden-city concepts of low-rise development still attract

supporters and promoters today, high-rises are likely to

dominate in the future

. As early as 1964, Warren Chalk

presented the concept of Capsule Homes, i.e., a multi-res-

idential tower grouping modular housing units (capsules)

around a circulation core. Most biomimetic residential

high-rise projects remain conceptual today; however, a few

completed examples can be identied. These include “Ver-

tical Forests” (Bosco Verticale, Fig. 2) designed by Stefa-

no Boeri, which the architect himself describes as “home

for trees and birds, that also houses humans”. The concept

behind the Bosco Verticale denes not only the urban and

technological features of the project but also its architec-

The expansion of linear structures (low-rise development amid

greenery) leads to longer circulation routes, and consequently, higher

operating costs.

tural design and expressive qualities (www.stefanoboeri-

architetti.net). The rst pair of such towers was complet-

ed in Milan in 2014 (Liu 2023). Subsequent towers were

designed for Chinese cities Huanggang (2017–2021) and

Nanjing (2016), Dubai (2022), Lausanne in Switzerland

(The Tower of Cedars, 2015), and Tirana in Albania (2017).

The concept of a residential high-rise with trees and other

vegetation integrated into the façade – undeniably striking

visually – has become popular among designers. Examples

include Tree Tower Toronto (Penda Design, 2017), Tour

Végétale in Nantes (Edouard François, 2011), and Riviera

Tower in Athens (Foster + Partners, 2021–2025). Urban

“tower – forests”, although they meet some biophilic crite-

ria, beyond the general idea of imitating trees, lack a con-

crete, identiable biological model.

More biomimetic are the projects of Vincent Callebaut,

who describes himself as an Archibiotect, pointing to the

characteristic fusion of architecture, biology, and technolo-

gy in his work. Alongside botanical inspirations (e.g., The

Rainbow Tree in Cebu, the Philippines), Callebaut has de-

signed structures that mimic a variety of biological struc-

tures – for example, a DNA-chain-inspired construction

(Agora Garden in Taipei, Taiwan, 2010–2018; Citytrees,

2014) and honeycomb structures (Honeycomb Towers in

Paris Smart City 2050, 2014–2015). Notably, Agora Gar-

NATURE

ARCHITECTURE HUMAN

Technical mimesis

Reproducing

biological structures, processes,

and systems in technology.

GOAL:

Creating innovative solutions

for design challenges

BIOMIMETICS

►Interdisciplinary design process

based on understanding biological

systems

►Technological innovation

►Inspiration from a specific

biological model

►Biomimetic materials

and biomaterials

►Ecological and sustainable

operation of buildings based on

mimicking natural processes:

energy generation from natural

sources, water cycling, recycling,

and designing the building's life

cycle in accordance with natural

circular cycles

►Imbuing buildings with

characteristics of living organisms:

autopoietics, responsiveness,

resilience, kinetic and adaptive

systems

Normative Mimesis

Imitating strategies developed

by nature to create

a sustainable built environment.

GOAL:

A good relationship

between the built environment

and the ecosystem

BIOMIMICRY

►Presence of bioactive greenery

and natural elements in the living

environment

►Natural materials

►Presence of water

►Biomorphic shapes

►Caring for the quality of the

building's internal environment

(air, temperature, natural light),

striving to achieve optimal

conditions for people

Creating a relationship between

humans and nature within

architecture.

GOAL:

Human well-being

and deepening

their connection with nature

BIOPHILIA

Fig. 1. Determinants of

biomimetic residential

architecture based on the features

of biomimetics, biomimicry

and biophilia – diagram

(elaborated by J. Białkiewicz)

Il. 1. Wyznaczniki

biomimetycznej architektury

mieszkalnej na podstawie cech

biomimetyki, biomimikry

i biofilii – schemat

(oprac. J. Białkiewicz)

46 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

Innovation/Technology Biological inspiration

Biomimetic materials

and biomaterials

Ecological functioning

(designed)

Autopoiesis, adaptation,

resilience

Biophilia

The Bionic Tower

(project, Shanghai)

1997–2001

Eloy Celaya, Maria

Rosa Cervera, Javier

Gómez

An innovative structural

system enabling

the construction of a 1228 m

high residential tower

– a technological imitation

of a tree.

The form and structure of

the building are inspired by

the cypress tree – its green part

consists of scale-like membranes

through which wind of any

strength can pass without moving

the tree. The method of anchoring

the building is modeled on

the cypress root system–shallow

but highly branched.

Synthetic materials

modeled on

the structure of bone

and spider webs, with

a thin plastic exterior

imitating the properties

of skin.

A biologically inspired structure

enabling natural ventilation;

energy generated from wind

and sunlight through a turbine

at the top of the tower and solar

panels. Rainwater and seawater

retention.

Tall structure resistant

to wind, vibration, fire,

flood and earthquakes;

ventilation and

air-conditioning systems

self regulate temperature

in response to external

conditions.

The design includes 12 floors

covered with vegetation,

the presence of water,

and internal gardens.

Condo Tower

(New Sky Condos)

(project, Lima)

2013

B+U Architects

Technologically advanced

material solutions. Replacing

load-bearing walls with

a modified concrete shell

that effectively transfers

weight.

The building’s façade is inspired

by the structure of skin, with

pores and hair that open and close

automatically depending on

external conditions. The form

and color scheme of the building

evoke associations with

a biological organism.

A silicone composite

capable of movement

(lengthening,

shortening

and rotation) under

the influence of

external conditions.

Openings in the building

structure surrounded by

composite “hairs” regulate

temperature and sunlight

and absorb air pollutants.

The building adapts

automatically to external

conditions, its form

is dynamic.

Plant elements and gardens on

balconies; biomorphic shapes;

opening glass walls blurring

the line between interior

and exterior; control over

temperature and sunlight

inside.

Paris – Smart City

2050

(project, Paris)

2014–2015

Vincent Callebaut

Innovative technologies for

the construction, acquisition,

storage and processing

of energy by buildings.

The tower structure is modeled

after a honeycomb (Honeycomb

Towers) and mangrove trees

(Mangrove Towers). The solar

shield structure is modeled after

dragonfly wings.

Biomaterial: algae.

The buildings are designed to

generate more energy than they

consume, including through solar

panels and wind turbines.

Rainwater retention and

greywater recycling. Green algae

on the facades produce biofuel

that is processed in bioreactors.

Mechanical ventilation systems,

CO₂ and pollutant absorption.

Buildings adapt their

metabolism to changing

external conditions.

Trees and vegetation on

building façades; interaction

with nature – cultivated

gardens for residents;

biomorphic shapes.

A Living Resilience

(project)

2017

Jack Francis,

Rebecca Beer,

Elina Savvas,

Andrew Waller

Façade “scales”; geometry

based on the Fibonacci

sequence; chitin scales

3D printed.

Inspired by the structure

and function of a pine cone

(morphological inspiration).

Chitin façade

scales–fully recyclable

biopolymer.

A façade system of “scales” that

open and close in response to

the time of day, protecting

against the cold while

maximizing solar energy gain.

A responsive façade

enhances the building’s

resilience to extreme

temperature fluctuations;

an adaptive, dynamic

structure.

Plant elements integrated

within the “scales”; designed

to ensure thermal comfort and

access to sunlight; a space

dedicated to agriculture.

Table 2. Examples of biomimetic residential architecture projects according to selected criteria (elaborated by J. Białkiewicz)

Tabela 2. Przykłady biomimetycznych projektów z zakresu architektury mieszkaniowej, według wybranych kryteriów (oprac. J. Białkiewicz)

Dening biomimetic residential architecture: indicators and selected projects 47

Innovation/Technology Biological inspiration

Biomimetic naterials

and biomaterials

Ecological functioning

(designed)

Autopoiesis, adaptation,

resilience

Biophilia

Wertykalna Oaza

(project)

2019–2021 FAAB

The ECO-DNA system

and the “green skin” system

are managed by residents via

a mobile app. The “green skin”

is an AI-assisted system

– a designed combination of

selected plants and microorganisms.

Developed in collaboration

with specialists in dendrology,

climatology, zoology, and

microbiology.

Mimicking metabolic functions,

the façade is designed to resemble

living skin.

Composition of plants

and microorganisms

on VOS WCC panels.

The ECO-DNA system enables

the conversion of solar energy

into electricity. The “green skin”

regulates temperature, absorbs

and pollutants, produces

oxygen, and also supports

rainwater retention. Natural

transpiration processes help cool

and humidify the air.

Depending on the selection

of “green skin” system

components, the building

can withstand both

extremely low and high

temperatures.

The building’s appearance

evolves with changes to

its biological components.

A vertical garden system

within the façades, designed

to maintain air quality,

regulate temperature,

and reduce indoor noise levels.

Mitosis (project)

2020

GG-loop

The project utilizes parametric

modeling software.

The building volume and

residential cluster layouts are

derived from simulations

of parameters related to

specific site conditions

and user needs.

Inspired by the biological process

of mitosis (cell division)

– the entire concept is based on

modules that can be combined

in various configurations.

Biomaterials;

prefabricated timber

panels.

The selected materials and plants

absorb CO

. The ecosystem

is capable of generating more

energy than it consumes.

The system’s modularity

allows for extensive

adaptability. The entire

complex is designed to

evolve with its

surroundings.

The concept envisions

an ecosystem where residents

live surrounded by plants and

animals. Vertical gardens and

entire forested sections are

integral to the design. Natural

materials (wood), large glazing,

and the feeling of being immersed

in nature from every perspective.

Lilypad (project)

2008–2017

Vincent Callebaut

Prototype technologies for

an amphibious city; innovative

materials.

Inspired by the giant water lily

Victoria Regia amazonica.

Polyester fiber skin

coated with titanium

dioxide–absorbs

pollutants like a plant;

use of biomass.

The building is designed to be

completely self-sufficient

– achieving a positive energy

balance with zero CO

emissions.

It produces oxygen, utilizes

waste, and purifies water.

The structure enables

human habitation in

the middle of the ocean

and can move in accordance

with ocean currents.

The entire structure is covered

with hanging gardens;

the presence of water

(a central lagoon); biomorphic

shapes; spaces designated

for agriculture.

Coral Reef

(project, Haiti)

2011

Vincent Callebaut

A composition of prefabricated

residential modules placed on

an artificial pier constructed on

seismic piles, incorporating

technology for harvesting

energy from water movement.

Inspired by coral reef structure. Local timber

The complex is energy

self-sufficient, composed

of passive residential units.

Hydroelectric turbines beneath

the pier convert the kinetic

energy of the tides into electricity.

The structure is

earthquake-resistant.

The complex can expand

and develop without limit.

The roof of each residential

module is also a garden;

natural material – wood;

glazing, access to sunlight.

Puffer Village

(project, Benin)

2021

Sajjad Navidi

An innovative system for inflating

or filling the substructure

and superstructure of residentia

units with water,

triggered by water level data

from specialized sensors.

The biological model is the

pufferfish – a fish characterized

by its ability to inflate its body

with water or air.

No information

available.

Each residential unit

independently generates energy

from tidal kinetic energy as well

as through photovoltaic panels.

The structure responds to

changes in water levels

during tides and heavy

rainfall.

Each residential unit is

surrounded by a wooden fence

covered with plants cultivated

through aquaponics.

48 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

Table 2 cont. Examples of biomimetic residential architecture projects according to selected criteria (elaborated by J. Białkiewicz)

Tabela 2 cd. Przykłady biomimetycznych projektów z zakresu architektury mieszkaniowej, według wybranych kryteriów (oprac. J. Białkiewicz)

Innovation/Technology Biological inspiration

Biomimetic naterials

and biomaterials

Ecological functioning

(designed)

Autopoiesis, adaptation,

resilience

Biophilia

In Absentia (project)

2021

DADA – Deo

Alrashid Alam

Design Architecture

Innovative energy generator

technologies and “cells” that

convert ocean waste into 3D

printing material.

The designers focused on

the process of creating

an independent ecosystem that

grows organically, starting with

energy production. A biomorphic

element can be noted – the energy

generators are called Energy

Elephants.

The material for

printing residential

units is sourced from

recycled ocean waste.

Energy is generated in power

units from the kinetic energy of

waves and wind. The units,

called “cells” (Nexus), collect

plastic waste and print additional

modules. Each residential capsule

is equipped with a wind turbine,

photovoltaic façade, and a full

waste recycling system.

The essence of the project

is the organic growth of the

development, which

produces its own

components solely using

energy from renewable

sources.

The project envisions the

presence of trees and green

spaces between the residential

capsules.

Home Alive

(project)

2021

Terreform ONE

EML (Engineered Living

Materials) technology. Plants

and microorganisms grow on

parametrically designed

polymeric matrices to form

the structure. The system is

complemented by 3D-printed

clay inserts. Developed in

collaboration with biologists

and microbiologists.

There is no specific biological

model; the project does not so

much mimic biological functions

as it harnesses them through

technology. The concept is based

on “synthetic biology”.

Biomaterials

– plants and animal

microorganisms,

engineering materials

composed of living

cells.

Regenerative bioactive materials

are designed to provide all

“ecosystem services”, actively

filtering air, water, and soil.

A residential structure built

from self-replicating, self-

regulating, and self-healing

materials, responsive to

changing environmental

conditions.

Biomaterials – vegetation

serves as the building material;

biomorphic forms; blurring

the boundary between the

residential unit and nature.

Adaptive Cell

(project) 2022

Karolina

Kosmowska,

Beniamin Walecki,

Anna Wojtynia

Advanced technological

materials and structural

solutions enable the capsules

to move under any conditions.

The shape and structure are

modeled on plant cell anatomy;

the capsule shells feature nodules

inspired by the armor of desert

beetles of the genus Onymacris.

Biomaterial – algae;

a construction material

modeled on

spiderwebs.

The algae harvest solar energy

and produce pulp that serves as

biofuel. The bionic coating

allows for water absorption

and regulates light access.

Thanks to its variable

structure and color, the

capsule adapts to

environmental conditions

(desert, forest, mountain).

The capsule also moves on

water. Thanks to its shell, it

can obtain water in desert

conditions. Single-person

capsules can be combined

into teams.

The mobile residential capsule

allows humans to experience

direct contact with nature in

any chosen biome.

The Corallite

(project) 2023

Chris Soria,

Sharon Mathew,

Steffany Brady,

Stefania Ingaramo,

Aimee Platt,

Chun-Tien Kuo,

Brandon Geiger

Material innovation

– the tower’s exterior cladding

consists of ETFE

and a nanotechnology-based

material with anti-corrosion

properties and energy-loss

prevention.

Inspired by corals (morphological

and functional).

Synthetic materials

with biological

properties.

A skyscraper powered entirely by

a closed-loop system converting

ocean waste into energy.

Seawater is filtered

and desalinated.

Adaptive structure – each

building module can be

detached. The purpose of

the structure is to provide

shelter and sustain

the ecosystem. It features

an extendable external

“shell” designed to

withstand hurricane-force

winds.

Vertical gardens integrated

into the building structure;

biomorphic, rounded forms;

interior gardens; access to

sunlight.

Dening biomimetic residential architecture: indicators and selected projects 49

Fig. 2. Bosco Verticale, Milan, Boeri Studio, 2014 (source: courtesy of Stefano Boeri Architetti, photo by Dimitar Harizanov)

Il. 2. Bosco Verticale, Mediolan, Boeri Studio, 2014 (źródło: dzięki uprzejmości Stefano Boeri Architetti, fot. Dimitar Harizanov)

den is among the few such projects realized

. Callebaut

has proposed entire ensembles of biomimetic towers as

solutions for future cities, including the world’s largest

metropolises such as Paris (Paris Smart City 2050, 2014–

2015) and New York (Treescrapers, 2023). While New

York’s Treescrapers are primarily based on the concept of

high-rises with vegetation-covered façades, the Paris proj-

ect shifts away from the primacy of the biophilic factor to-

wards a more technological biomimicry approach, drawing

inspiration from the structure and functionality of natural

forms. Among the eight proposed tower prototypes are, for

example, Photosynthesis Towers with biofaçades covered

with algae. A similar idea of high-rises using algae to pro-

duce energy appears in the Bioscrapers project for Chicago

(project by Walter R. Hughes, 2020). Close in character to

Treescrapers is Mitosis, designed for Amsterdam by GG-

loop. The Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) panels used by

the architects appear to be among the most popular mate-

rials (alongside synthetic polymers and nanomaterials) for

shaping biomimetic residential buildings.

The vast majority of biomimetic projects are futuristic

visions. Conversely, one may note that a signicant propor -

tion

of visions of future cities are based precisely on bio-

mime tic architecture. An example is “AI × Future Cities”

– a series of images created by architect and designer

The building’s environmental qualities are conrmed by LEED

Gold and Low Carbon Building Alliance certication at the diamond

level.

Manas Bhatia using the AI tool Midjourney. These visions

are dominated by towers with façades covered in algae or

trees. Fascinated by how insects and animals build their

habitats, Bhatia also creates visions of “symbiotic archi-

tecture”, according to which in the future humans might

inhabit growing, metabolizing structures that look and

function like trees. In 2013, the U.S. studio B+U Architects

presented a biomimetic residential tower for Lima (Peru).

In this project, a reduced presence of biophilic elements

can be observed alongside a strong biomimetic component,

namely the concept of replicating natural functionalities in

a synthetic manner. Among the futuristic visions of biomi-

metic residential architecture, there are also works by Pol-

ish architects, such as the Vertical Oasis project by FAAB

Studio (Fig. 3). It is a design of an advanced, technolog-

ically driven biomimetic building combining residential,

oce, and commercial functions, whose metabolic func-

tionality is dened by a “green skin” – a designed compo-

sition of plants and microorganisms. Interesting examples

of futuristic residential architecture concepts are provided

by projects showcased in thematic competitions, such as

24H – organized by the portal if – ideas forward. From the

2017 edition devoted to biomimetic housing comes, for ex-

ample, the commended project A Living Resilience (proj-

ect by J. Francis, R. Beer, E. Savvas, A. Waller) – a tower

that mimics the structure and function of a pine cone. In

futuristic visions, residential towers sometimes reach enor-

mous sizes; an early, pioneering example is Bionic Tower

(project by M.R. Cervera, J. Pioz, E. Celaya, 1997–2001),

50 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

which could accommodate up to 100,000 residents across

300 oors (project by Cervera, Carreras-Solanas). A com-

mon feature of biomimetic high-rises is the integration of

multiple functions, oering residents proximity and easy

access to oces, shops, and service points. Architects also

tend to incorporate publicly accessible communal spaces

that promote social interaction.

Biomimetic special-purpose habitats

In addition to residential architecture whose main goal

is to provide comfortable and healthy living environments

and social functioning, another thread relevant to biomi

metic solutions is special-purpose housing. These are resi-

dential projects that also respond to challenges and threats

such as natural or climate-related disasters or global armed

conict. The guiding idea is resilient and regenerative ar-

chitecture capable of ensuring human survival. Another

desirable natural quality in the built environment is adapt-

ability–the ability to adjust to any, even extreme, living con -

ditions. Hence numerous projects of habitats in “hostile”

ecosystems, e.g., in hot arid climates.

Among futuristic visions of future human settlements,

a recurring concept is oating or on-water housing units.

This responds to threats from climate warming and the risk

of signicant sea-level rise. These visions may take the

form of vertical ecosystems, such as The Corallite (proj-

ect by CannonDesign, 2023), whose structure is modeled

on coral. More frequently, however, we see onwater settle-

ments composed of modular housing units. Examples in-

clude Lilypad by Vincent Callebaut (2008–2017) and In

Absentia by DADA – Deo Alrashid Alam Design Architec-

ture (Fig. 4). A prototype on-water settlement already in-

tended for implementation is the Oceanix for the South Ko-

rean port city of Busan (2022, BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group,

SAMOO) (Fig. 5).

The eVolo Skyscrapers competition entries demonstrate

a striking variety of specialpurpose habitats. They include

residential buildings for war refugees, e.g., Honeycomb Re-

fugee Skyscraper (project by N. Badr, N. Maestro, H. Elah -

mar, 2017); desert-region habitats, e.g., Skyscrapers Forest

for Desert Regions (project by Daonchio & Associates

Architects, 2019); and earthquakeresistant buildings in

seis mic zones – Mega-Bio-Cell (project by M. Fazel,

S. Ad nan Almousa, M. Safari, 2018) and Coral Reef (proj-

ect by V. Callebaut, 2011). As nature adapts to any con-

ditions through evolution, resilient residential buildings of

the future are conceived as evolving–responsive to change,

easy to recongure (which modular construction enables)

or relocate – for example, Xerophyte Tower (project by

A. Lilly stone, S. Mills, 2015). Also relevant are the con-

Fig. 4. In Absentia, concept rendering, DADA (2021) (source: courtesy of DADA – Deo Alrashid Alam Design Architecture)

Il. 4. In Absentia, wizualizacja koncepcji, DADA (2021) (źródło: dzięki uprzejmości DADA – Deo Alrashid Alam Design Architecture)

Dening biomimetic residential architecture: indicators and selected projects 51

cepts of capsules and various mobile modular units. These

are portable homes designed for the scenario in which so-

ciety, due to catastrophe, reverts to a nomadic lifestyle. An

example of such a concept is the Adaptive Cell project by

Ka rolina Kosmowska, Beniamin Walecki, and Anna Woj-

tynia (2022), developed under the supervision of Roman

Czajka. It presents a capsule inspired by the structure of

a plant cell, designed to serve simultaneously as a shelter

and a means of transport for humans. As the authors ob-

served, the pandemic experience, along with the rise of

remote work, has prompted reection that one’s dwelling

could be mobile. An interesting concept for oodprone Af-

rican areas is Puer Village (project by S. Navidi, 2021)

– a set of houses that inate as water levels rise. Among

bio mimetic dwelling units one should also mention the work

of Terreform ONE, e.g., Home Alive and Fab Tree House,

described by their creators as “multispecies living struc-

tures”. The essence of Terreform ONE’s projects lies in en-

gineer-designed “living” materials – built from living cells,

self-sustaining, and capable of growth and self-regulation.

Conclusions

The presented compilation of selected projects that meet

the criteria dened in the study for biomimetic architecture

allows for drawing synthetic conclusions regarding this

type of residential architecture.

What purposes in residential architecture

are served by the use of biomimetic elements?

The following goals of residential architecture can be

achieved through the application of biomimetic forms and

ideas:

Creating a comfortable and healthy living environ-

ment for humans. These qualities are achieved by providing

residents with thermal comfort, clean air, access to sunlight,

a space that can be arranged and adapted according to indi-

vidual needs, as well as direct contact with nature through

the presence of plants and trees within the building’s space.

Building community and creating spaces for interper-

sonal relationships. This is achieved through the arrangement

of shared spaces that foster neighbourhood interactions.

3. Positive impact of human habitation on the natural

environment. A shift away from buildings that drain natural

resources and produce waste towards habitats that gener-

ate energy from renewable sources, operate in closed loops

based on recycling, and are capable of independently puri-

fying the air and adapting to external conditions.

4. Protecting people from the consequences of natural

and anthropogenic disasters; ensuring survival in extreme

situations.

5. Adapting residential environments to unfavourable

and extreme climatic and geographical conditions.

6. Enabling the development of society by ensuring de-

cent living conditions for all social groups.

What characteristic features

of contemporary collective housing projects result

from the implementation of biomimetic criteria?

The presented biomimetic residential architecture proj-

ects exhibit the following characteristic features:

1. In collective housing, a dominance of megastructures

and vertical constructions that occupy limited ground area

yet can accommodate very large populations.

2. Multifunctional buildings, combining residential, of-

ce, and commercial functions, often with cultivated gar-

Fig. 5. OCEANIX Busan, concept rendering, BIG & SAMOO (2022) (source: courtesy of BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group)

Il. 5. OCEANIX Busan, wizualizacja koncepcji, BIG & SAMOO (2022) (źródło: dzięki uprzejmości BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group)

52 Joanna Jadwiga Białkiewicz

dens. This reects the changing lifestyle in a post-industrial

society, where the boundaries between residence and work-

place are blurring.

3. Flexible solutions enabling customization to indi-

vidual needs and arrangements of personalized spaces.

4. Designing residential buildings as autonomous, en-

ergy-self-sucient structures, capable of producing energy,

using mechanical ventilation, water recovery and waste re-

cycling systems, with the model assumption being a build-

ing functioning analogously to a living organism – metab-

olising, reacting to changing environmental conditions and

adapting to them.

5. The use of technologically advanced solutions sup-

porting or controlling the functioning of a building, enabling

the transformation of its structure and adaptation of param-

eters to external conditions, including the development of

parametric design and modern methods of fabricating build-

ing elements (e.g., 3D printing), as well as the search for ex-

perimental, innovative solutions, often going beyond current

technical possibilities.

6. Use of synthetic materials exhibiting properties of

living organisms; integration of biological structures and

forms in the building process (growing trees, algae); popu-

larity of wood in the form of CLT panels.

7. Inspiration from nature, most often expressed by

imitating specic biological functionalities, primarily in

structural and façade systems; morphological imitation is

less common.

8. Morphology shaped by two dominant tendencies:

on the one hand curvilinear, irregular, non-geometric forms

(since right angles and straight lines scarcely occur in na-

ture) and structures imitating organic growth; on the other

hand regularity based on repetitive patterns (modules), ref-

erencing the cellular and atomic structure of the uni verse.

9. Adapting the functionality of the building to envi-

ronmental conditions, with an emphasis on resilience to

climate and natural hazards (e.g., oods, earthquakes).

10. Emphasis on biodiversity. The presence of bioactive

greenery serves a dual purpose: plants incorporated into the

building’s structure regulate interior temperature, absorb

and pollutants, and, by enabling people to directly

interact with nature in their living environment, positively

impact their mental well-being and health.

11. Designing biomimetic residential buildings as a re-

sponse to the specic needs of wealthy metropolises in high-

ly developed countries, cities with high population density

or for particularly neglected areas (e.g., in Africa), with the

simultaneous dominance of conceptual designs often creat-

ed by students and novice young architects, which demon-

strates the simultaneous interest in the idea of biomimetic

architecture and the real diculties in its implementation.

The presented conclusions can be further dissected and

formulated separately for urban architecture and architecture

designed outside urban areas. The analysis of biomimetic

housing can be further deepened by studying a larger number

of cases, enriched by considering the concept of local context

and its impact on biomimetic designs. In the eld of urban

construction, an interesting issue is the re lationship between

contemporary biomimetic architecture (including futuristic

urban concepts) and the existing architectural fabric of cities,

including historic buildings. Another crucial issue, open to

further research and analysis, concerns the problems of con-

temporary collective housing in a social context and how to

address them through the use of biomimetic elements.

Summary

The rst observation that comes to mind after analyzing

the presented material is the clearly visible discrepancy be-

tween the scope of the concept and the impossibility of its

implementation. The presented designs are visionary and fu-

turistic in nature. The architects propose techno logical and

material innovations that require advanced interdisciplinary

research. Even if these technologies were developed, the cost

would likely be so high that their implementation on a larger

scale would be impossible. The ecological functioning of the

designed structures also remains in the realm of plans and

assumptions. We lack any specic gures that would allow

us to properly assess the actual energy and water consump-

tion, carbon footprint, or life-cycle costs of these buildings.

It seems, therefore, that biomimetics remains a concept that

is denitely capturing the imagination of architects, which is

a positive development, but we are still a long way from the

actual implementation of biomimetic residential architecture.

The fundamental challenge facing contemporary archi-

tects is making comfortable and healthy living spaces acces-

sible to everyone. Therefore, housing, especially multi-fam-

ily housing, should be treated as the most important tissue

of the urban organism. Architectural solutions for aordable

housing are urgently needed. In this search, we can certain-

ly draw on some of the ideas emerging from biomimetic

designs, such as modular, prefabricated housing units man-

ufactured using 3D printing. For economic

reasons, it is

crucial to implement sustainable solutions in multi-family

housing, including energy eciency, water management,

and material recycling, while for the health and well-being

of residents, it is crucial to incorporate the elements that

comprise the concept of biophilia. Architects should also

focus on urban recycling, i.e., the revitalization of existing

architecture and the regeneration of damaged areas, such

as post-industrial areas. This is a broad topic that requires

further in-depth analytical and comparative research.

References

Akbarian, Mohamed Reza, and Mahdis Kolivand Salooki. “Explaining the

Model of Biomimetic Architectural Indexes in Sustainable Building

Design in Residential Buildings.” Journal of Urban Manage

ment and

Energy Sustainability 6, no. 1 (2025): 47–57. https://doi.org/10.22034/

ijumes.2025.2048790.1282.

Ali Hussein, Ebtihal, and Oday Abbas Abbood. “Biomimicry as a Sustainable

Solution in Architecture: Analytical study.” BIO Web of Conferences 97,

no. 00015 (2024): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20249700015.

Barry, Siobhan, and Greg Keee. “Biomimetic Architecture: Ecotonic

Transmutations across the Urban Membrane.” In SB10 Finland Sus-

Dening biomimetic residential architecture: indicators and selected projects 53

tainable Community – buildingSMART Conference, 22 September

2010–24 September 2010, Espoo, Finland. Finnish Association of

Civil Engineers RIL, 2010. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/622247/.

Benyus, Janine M. Biomimicry. Innovation Inspired by Nature. William

Morrow, 1997.

Bijari, Maryam, Ardalan Aaki, and Masoud Esfandiari. “Plants Inspired

Biomimetics Architecture in Modern Buildings: A Review of Form,

Function and Energy.” Biomimetics 10, no. 2 (2025): 1–26. https://

doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10020124.

Borham, Omar, Ben Croxford, and Duncan Wilson. “Biomimetic Strate-

gies for Sustainable Resilient Cities: Review across Scales and City

Systems.” Biomimetics 9, no. 9 (2024): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/

biomimetics9090514.

Chayaamor-Heil, Natasha. “From Bioinspiration to Biomimicry in Archi-

tecture: Opportunities and Challenges. Encyclopedia 3, no. 1 (2023):

202–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010014.

Dicks, Henry. “The Philosophy of Biomimicry.” Philosophy and Techno-

logy 29 (2016): 223–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0210-2.

Djukanovic, Mina, Alexandra Alegre, and Francisco Teixeira Bastos.

“Prefabricated Solutions for Housing: Modular Architecture and

Flexible Living Spaces.” Buildings 15, no. 6 (2025): 1–22. https://doi.

org/10.3390/buildings15060862.

Fishman, Robert. “The Global Crisis of Aordable Housing: Architecture

Versus Neoliberalism.” Architectural Design 88, no. 4 (2018): 22–9.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2317.

Gerola, Alessio, Zoë Robaey, and Vincent Blok. “What Does it Mean to

Mimic Nature? A Typology for Biomimetic Design”. Philosophy and

Technology 36 (2023): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-

00665-0.

Hernández Falagán, David. “Review of Design of Collective Housing in the

Century.” Buildings 11, no. 4 (2021): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/

buildings11040157.

Ilieva, Lazaara, Isabella Ursano, Lamiita Traista, Birgitte Homann,

and Hanaa Dahy. “Biomimicry as a Sustainable Design Methodo-

logy – Introducing the ‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ Framework.”

Biomimetics 7, no. 2 (2022): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimet-

ics7020037.

Klochko, Asmik Rubenovna. “Visions of the Future of Post-Industrial

and Post-Pandemic Housing Architecture”. In IOP Conference Se-

ries: Earth and Environmental Science, no. 988 (2022). https://doi.

org/10.1088/1755-1315/988/4/042077.

Liu, Yiqi. “Analysis of the Vertical Forest of Milan in Terms of High-Rise

Architecture and Biodiversity.” Highlights in Art and Design 3, no. 2

(2023): 47–52. https://doi.org/10.54097/hiaad.v3i2.10043.

Mazur, Łukasz K. “Circular Economy in Housing Architecture: Methods

of Implementation.” Acta Scientiarum Polonorum: Architectura 20,

no. 2 (2021): 65–74. https://doi.org/10.22630/ASPA.2021.20.2.15.

Mitxelena Etxeberria, Alex, and Enkarni Gómez Genua. “From Ecological

Architecture to Biomimicry.” Journal of Sustainable Architecture and

Civil Engineering 20, no. 3 (2017): 68–74. https://doi.org/10.5755/

j01.sace.20.3.19295.

Nachtigall, Werner, and Göran Pohl. Bau-Bionik: Natur – Analogien

– Tech nik. Springer, 2013.

Onyszkiewicz, Jakub. Elementy biomimetyki w projektowaniu architektu

ry w środowisku zrównoważonym. Ewolucja i interpretacja bioniki na

przykładzie polskich i zagranicznych konkursów architektonicz nych.

PhD diss., Politechnika Wrocławska, 2019.

Paulichen Luana, Raquel M. Leite, and Silvia A. Mikami G. Pina. “Re-

silience in Architecture: Housing as a Process.” Strategic Design

Research Journal 12, no. 2 (2019): 383–401. https://doi.org/10.4013/

sdrj.2019.123.06.

Pawlyn, Michael. Biomimicry in Architecture. RIBA Publishing, 2011.

Pedersen Zari, Maibritt. Regenerative Urban Design and Ecosystem Bio-

mimicry. Routledge, 2018.

Pedersen Zari, Maibritt, and Katharina Hecht. “Biomimicry for Regener-

ative Built Environments: Mapping Design Strategies for Producing

Ecosystem Service.” Biomimetics 5, no. 2 (2020): 1–17. https://doi.

org/10.3390/biomimetics5020018.

Pohl, Göran, and Werner Nachtigall. Biomimetics for Architecture and De-

sign: Nature – Analogies – Technology. Springer, 2015.

Sanglier Contreras, Gastón, Roberto Alonso González Lezcano, Eduardo

Jose López Fernández, and María Concepción Pérez Gutiérrez. “Ar-

chitecture Learns from Nature. The Inuence of Biomimicry and Bio-

philic Design in Building.” Modern Applied Science 17, no. 1 (2023):

58–70. https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v17n1p58.

Sedira, Naim, Jorge Pinto, Isabel Bentes, and Sandra Pereira. “Bibliomet-

ric Analysis of Global Research Trends on Biomimetics, Biomimicry,

Bionics, and Bio-inspired Concepts in Civil Engineering Using the

Scopus Database.” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 19, no. 4 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/ad36.

Seruga, Wacław. “Architektura mieszkaniowa XXI wieku. Prognozy roz-

woju.” Czasopismo Techniczne. Architektura, 1-A (1) (2014): 209–

39. https://doi.org/10.4467/2353737XCT.14.013.2463.

Speck, Olga, David Speck, Rafael Horn, Johannes Gantner, and Klaus Pe-

ter Sedlbauer. “Biomimetic Bio-inspired Biomorph Sustainable? An

Attempt to Classify and Clarify Biology-derivered Technical Devel-

opments.” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 12, no. 1 (2017). https://

doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/12/1/011004.

Stefano Boeri Architetti. Accessed January 3, 2025, at https://www.stefa-

noboeriarchitetti.net/en/project/vertical-forest/.

Stoiljković, Branislava, Nataša Petković-Grozdanović, and Goran Jova-

nović. “Individualization Concept in Housing Architecture.” Facta

Universitatis: Architecture and Civil Engineering 13, no. 3 (2015):

207–18. https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE1503207S.

Uchiyama, Yuta, Eduardo Blanco, and Ryo Kohsaka. “Application

of Biomimetics to Architectural and Urban Design: A Review

across Scales.” Sustainability 12, no. 23 (2020): 1–16. https://doi.

org/10.3390/su12239813.

Verbrugghe, Nathalie, Eleonora Rubinacci, and Ahmed Z. Khan. “Bio-

mimicry in Architecture: A Review of Denitions, Case Studies,

and Design Methods. Biomimetics 8, no. 1 (2023): 1–29. https://doi.

org/10.3390/biomimetics8010107.

Streszczenie

Deniowanie biomimetycznej architektury mieszkaniowej: wyznaczniki i wybrane projekty

W artykule podjęto temat współczesnych projektów wykorzystujących elementy biomimetyczne w architekturze mieszkalnictwa zbiorowego. Au-

torka ukazała, w jaki sposób realizacja kryteriów deniujących architekturę biomimetyczną wpływa na kształt, funkcjonowanie i ideę tych obiektów.

Przedstawione przez nią koncepcje charakteryzują się dominacją megastruktur i konstrukcji wertykalnej, wielofunkcyjnością, elastycznością przestrzeni

oraz dążeniem do energetycznej samowystarczalności. Biomimetyka przejawia się w nich zarówno w zaawansowanych systemach technologicznych,

inspiracjach biologicznymi procesami i materiałami, jak i w formach architektonicznych nawiązujących do struktur naturalnych. Na podstawie przepro-

wadzonej analizy autorka wskazała na potencjał biomimetycznych rozwiązań w poprawie komfortu życia mieszkańców, budowaniu relacji społecznych,

zwiększaniu odporności budynków na zmiany klimatyczne oraz w ograniczaniu negatywnego wpływu na środowisko. Jednocześnie podkreśliła, że bio-

mimetyczne mieszkalnictwo zbiorowe pozostaje w dużej mierze w sferze projektów koncepcyjnych, co odzwierciedla zarówno rosnące zainteresowanie

tą ideą, jak i istotne wyzwania związane z jej realizacją.

Słowa kluczowe: biomimikra, biomimetyka, bioinspiracja, biolia, architektura mieszkaniowa