1	
  
BEAUTY,	
  LIFE,	
  AND	
  THE	
  GEOMETRY	
  OF	
  THE	
  
ENVIRONMENT	
  	
  
	
  
Nikos	
  A.	
  Salingaros	
  	
  
The	
  University	
  of	
  Texas	
  at	
  San	
  Antonio	
  
	
  
The	
  Athens	
  Dialogues	
  —	
  The	
  Alexander	
  Onassis	
  Foundation,	
  Athens,	
  24-­27	
  
November	
  2010.	
  Published	
  in	
  The	
  Athens	
  Dialogues	
  E-­Journal,	
  Harvard	
  
University’s	
  Center	
  for	
  Hellenic	
  Studies,	
  November	
  2010.	
  Revised	
  version	
  
published	
  as	
  Chapter	
  2	
  of:	
  Reclaiming	
  Beauty,	
  Volume	
  I,	
  Agnes	
  Horvath	
  &	
  James	
  
B.	
  Cuffe,	
  Editors,	
  Ficino	
  Press,	
  Cork,	
  Ireland,	
  2012:	
  pages	
  63-­103.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Introduction	
  
Moving	
  towards	
  sustainability	
  and	
  a	
  greater	
  understanding	
  of	
  how	
  human	
  life	
  is	
  
connected	
   to	
   the	
   earth’s	
   ecosystem	
   goes	
   beyond	
   mechanistic	
   notions.	
   Totally	
  
consistent	
  with	
  the	
  Greek	
  concept	
  of	
  geometry	
  underlying	
  life,	
  increasing	
  evidence	
  
shows	
  that	
  the	
  geometry	
  of	
  the	
  natural	
  and	
  built	
  environments	
  is	
  responsible,	
  to	
  a	
  
large	
   extent,	
   for	
   the	
   quality	
   of	
   human	
   life.	
   Certain	
   geometrical	
   characteristics	
   of	
  
natural	
   and	
   living	
   structures,	
   such	
   as	
   fractal	
   scaling,	
   mathematical	
   symmetries	
  
leading	
   to	
   complex	
   coherence,	
   and	
   structural	
   invariants	
   (patterns)	
   found	
   in	
  
disparate	
   forms	
   seem	
   to	
   be	
   responsible	
   for	
   a	
   fundamental	
   healing	
   connection	
  
between	
  the	
  body	
  and	
  its	
  environment.	
  	
  
In	
  what	
  is	
  known	
  as	
  the	
  “biophilic	
  effect”,	
  we	
  draw	
  emotional	
  nourishment	
  from	
  
structures	
   that	
   follow	
   general	
   biological	
   rules	
   of	
   composition.	
   It	
   is	
   perhaps	
   not	
  
surprising	
   that	
   natural	
   environments	
   should	
   nourish	
   us,	
   but	
   what	
   about	
   artificial	
  
environments:	
  the	
  environments	
  we	
  build?	
  Artificial	
  environments	
  that	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  
healing	
  emotionally	
  and	
  physiologically	
  embody	
  traditional	
  design	
  techniques	
  that	
  
themselves	
  arose	
  from	
  imitating	
  nature.	
  Superficial	
  imitation	
  does	
  not	
  provide	
  the	
  
intended	
  effect:	
  a	
  form	
  (artifact,	
  building,	
  urban	
  space,	
  or	
  city	
  region)	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  built	
  
according	
   to	
   principles	
   that	
   derive	
   from	
   the	
   organization	
   of	
   living	
   matter.	
   This	
  
discovery	
  opens	
  up	
  two	
  major	
  topics	
  of	
  application:	
  (1)	
  validation	
  of	
  older	
  design	
  
techniques	
  as	
  ultimately	
  healing,	
  and	
  which	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  rejected	
  in	
  the	
  interest	
  of	
  
achieving	
  novelty;	
  and	
  (2)	
  applications	
  of	
  the	
  biophilic	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  urban	
  scale	
  to	
  
restructure	
  alien	
  urban	
  environments.	
  	
  
We	
  are	
  thus	
  led	
  to	
  a	
  re-­‐appreciation	
  of	
  traditional-­‐scale	
  urban	
  fabric,	
  with	
  the	
  
added	
   benefit	
   of	
   energy	
   sustainability,	
   since	
   traditional	
   methods	
   of	
   design	
   and	
  
planning	
  necessarily	
  had	
  to	
  be	
  sustainable.	
  Applying	
  geometrical	
  rules	
  of	
  design	
  as	
  
	
   2	
  
derived	
  from	
  the	
  latest	
  scientific	
  findings	
  about	
  biological	
  structure	
  promises	
  a	
  new	
  
beginning	
  for	
  architecture	
  and	
  urbanism.	
  	
  
How	
  can	
  people	
  live	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  is	
  more	
  fully	
  human,	
  engaging	
  all	
  our	
  advanced	
  
capacities	
  for	
  appreciating	
  beauty?	
  Quality	
  of	
  life	
  comes	
  in	
  large	
  part	
  from	
  contact	
  
with	
  nature,	
  and	
  from	
  processes	
  that	
  evolved	
  from	
  our	
  intimate	
  contact	
  with	
  nature.	
  
The	
  unwanted	
  (and	
  unpredicted)	
  effects	
  of	
  industrialization	
  and	
  mass	
  production	
  
have	
   unfortunately	
   led	
   to	
   dehumanization.	
   Confusing	
   humans	
   with	
   machines	
  
represents	
  the	
  negative	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  industrial	
  worldview.	
  In	
  parallel	
  with	
  scientific	
  
and	
  technological	
  advances	
  that	
  raised	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  to	
  unprecedented	
  levels	
  
compared	
   to	
   what	
   humankind	
   had	
   to	
   accept	
   before	
   the	
   industrial	
   age,	
   there	
  
followed	
  a	
  concomitant	
  loss	
  of	
  human	
  qualities.	
  The	
  predominant	
  worldview	
  in	
  the	
  
developed	
   countries	
   now	
   neglects	
   effects	
   on	
   quality	
   of	
   life	
   that	
   come	
   from	
   non-­‐
quantifiable	
  sources.	
  	
  
The	
  machine	
  aesthetic	
  is	
  part	
  and	
  parcel	
  of	
  the	
  machine	
  society.	
  A	
  mechanistic	
  
worldview	
  negates	
  the	
  complex	
  mathematical	
  properties	
  of	
  nature,	
  and	
  in	
  so	
  doing	
  
it	
  reduces	
  nature	
  and	
  detaches	
  us	
  from	
  the	
  biosphere.	
  Increasing	
  efficiency	
  has	
  to	
  do	
  
with	
  industrial	
  production,	
  but	
  nothing	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  human	
  wellbeing	
  directly.	
  Society	
  
by	
   the	
   1950s	
   had	
   accepted	
   the	
   faulty	
   equation	
   linking	
   the	
   quality	
   of	
   life	
  
proportionally	
  with	
  energy	
  expenditure.	
  This	
  relationship	
  is	
  false:	
  it	
  held	
  true	
  for	
  a	
  
brief	
   period	
   in	
   our	
   history,	
   but	
   the	
   effect	
   is	
   indirect	
   and	
   is	
   misinterpreted.	
  
Governments	
   the	
   world	
   over	
   now	
   promote	
   social	
   fulfillment	
   through	
   increasing	
  
energy	
  use,	
  which	
  is	
  catastrophic	
  because	
  it	
  is	
  unsustainable.	
  Following	
  Christopher	
  
Alexander	
  (2001-­‐2005)	
  I	
  will	
  introduce	
  different	
  metrics	
  to	
  measure	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  
life	
  through	
  factors	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  destroy	
  our	
  natural	
  environment.	
  	
  
Re-­‐orienting	
   our	
   worldview	
   means	
   rediscovering	
   our	
   biological	
   connection	
   to	
  
our	
  surrounding	
  sensory	
  space.	
  Certain	
  very	
  specific	
  geometrical	
  properties	
  of	
  the	
  
natural	
   and	
   built	
   environments	
   exert	
   a	
   positive,	
   uplifting	
   effect,	
   which	
   can	
   be	
  
measured	
  in	
  the	
  laboratory	
  (Alexander,	
  2001-­‐2005).	
  The	
  mechanism	
  depends	
  upon	
  
the	
  intimate	
  informational	
  connection	
  between	
  us	
  and	
  nature,	
  emphasizing	
  that	
  we	
  
are	
  indeed	
  part	
  of	
  nature.	
  Therefore,	
  enhancing	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  includes	
  coding	
  the	
  
geometry	
   of	
   the	
   built	
   environment	
   to	
   a	
   considerable	
   degree.	
   This	
   effect	
   does	
   not	
  
require	
   the	
   expenditure	
   of	
   energy:	
   on	
   the	
   contrary,	
   obtaining	
   informational	
  
nourishment	
   from	
   the	
   built	
   environment	
   could	
   replace	
   the	
   present	
   alarming	
  
consumption	
  of	
  fossil	
  energy	
  in	
  the	
  pursuit	
  of	
  a	
  consumerist	
  lifestyle.	
  	
  
The	
  crux	
  of	
  the	
  biophilic	
  effect	
  in	
  the	
  artificial	
  environment	
  is	
  that	
  science	
  has	
  
discovered	
  and	
  demonstrated	
  patterns	
  in	
  building	
  that	
  either	
  objectively	
  contribute	
  
to,	
   or	
   detract	
   from	
   our	
   psychological	
   and	
   spiritual	
   wellbeing.	
   Current	
   Western-­‐
inspired	
  architecture	
  not	
  only	
  lacks	
  such	
  patterns;	
  it	
  teaches	
  architects	
  and	
  planners	
  
to	
  build	
  in	
  such	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  the	
  biophilic	
  patterns	
  aren’t	
  present.	
  The	
  irony	
  is	
  that	
  we	
  
worship	
  an	
  image	
  of	
  science	
  that	
  is	
  misused	
  to	
  eliminate	
  biophilic	
  patterns:	
  this	
  is	
  
not	
  scientifically	
  credible.	
  To	
  make	
  that	
  point	
  clear,	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  set	
  the	
  stage	
  for	
  a	
  
change	
  in	
  consciousness	
  in	
  the	
  reader.	
  	
  
	
   3	
  
The	
   new	
   scientific	
   discipline	
   of	
   Biophilia	
   describes	
   how	
   we	
   connect	
   in	
   an	
  
essential	
  manner	
  to	
  living	
  organisms.	
  Introduced	
  by	
  the	
  American	
  biologist	
  Edward	
  
O.	
   Wilson,	
   biophilic	
   effects	
   are	
   increasingly	
   well	
   documented,	
   and	
   these	
   include	
  
faster	
   postoperative	
   healing	
   rates	
   and	
   lower	
   use	
   of	
   pain-­‐suppressing	
   medicines	
  
when	
   patients	
   are	
   in	
   close	
   contact	
   with	
   nature	
   (Salingaros	
   and	
   Masden,	
   2008).	
  
Biophilia	
   includes	
   the	
   therapeutic	
   effect	
   of	
   contact	
   with	
   domestic	
   animals.	
  
Explanations	
   of	
   the	
   biophilic	
   effect	
   are	
   still	
   being	
   developed,	
   yet	
   what	
   is	
  
incontrovertible	
   so	
   far	
   is	
   that	
   the	
   very	
   special	
   geometry	
   of	
   natural	
   and	
   living	
  
structures	
   exerts	
   a	
   positive	
   effect	
   on	
   human	
   wellbeing.	
   It	
   could	
   be	
   that	
   Biophilia	
  
works	
   largely	
   through	
   a	
   mathematical	
   effect,	
   in	
   which	
   our	
   perceptual	
   system	
  
recognizes	
  and	
  processes	
  special	
  types	
  of	
  structures	
  more	
  easily	
  than	
  others.	
  The	
  
actual	
  biophilic	
  patterns,	
  however,	
  are	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  our	
  biological	
  evolution.	
  	
  
The	
   most	
   basic	
   component	
   of	
   Biophilia	
   is	
   the	
   human	
   response	
   to	
   natural	
  
environments,	
  and	
  surroundings	
  that	
  contain	
  a	
  high	
  degree	
  of	
  living	
  matter.	
  Since	
  
we	
   evolved	
   in	
   living	
   environments,	
   we	
   process	
   that	
   information	
   in	
   an	
   especially	
  
easy	
  manner,	
  and	
  even	
  crave	
  it	
  whenever	
  it	
  is	
  absent	
  from	
  artificial	
  environments	
  
that	
   we	
   ourselves	
   build.	
   Hence	
   the	
   primordial	
   human	
   desire	
   for	
   a	
   garden,	
   or	
   an	
  
excursion	
  to	
  the	
  countryside	
  to	
  restore	
  our	
  internal	
  equilibrium.	
  	
  
An	
   information-­‐theoretic	
   approach	
   to	
   Biophilia	
   would	
   make	
   sense	
   out	
   of	
   our	
  
evolution	
   as	
   it	
   occurred	
   in	
   very	
   specific	
   visual	
   environments.	
   Yannick	
   Joye	
   is	
  
working	
  on	
  this	
  theory	
  (Joye	
  and	
  Van	
  Den	
  Berg,	
  2010).	
  Our	
  neuro-­‐perceptive	
  system	
  
more	
   easily	
   processes	
   a	
   structural	
   environment	
   that	
   embodies	
   fractal	
   properties	
  
and	
   the	
   organized	
   complexity	
   found	
   in	
   nature,	
   than	
   an	
   environment	
   whose	
  
geometrical	
   order	
   contradicts	
   the	
   spatial	
   complexity	
   of	
   natural	
   structures.	
   Our	
  
instinctive	
  ability	
  to	
  recognize	
  unnatural	
  objects	
  through	
  alarm	
  lies	
  deep	
  within	
  our	
  
neurological	
   makeup	
   and	
   is	
   responsible	
   for	
   our	
   being	
   here	
   today	
   due	
   to	
  
evolutionary	
   adaptation.	
   Certain	
   geometries	
   that	
   we	
   perceive	
   as	
   “unnatural”	
  
generate	
   anxiety	
   and	
   alarm,	
   and	
   thus	
   degrade	
   psychological	
   and	
   physiological	
  
comfort	
  when	
  we	
  are	
  exposed	
  to	
  them	
  for	
  too	
  long.	
  	
  
In	
   the	
   thesis	
   proposed	
   here,	
   a	
   major	
   component	
   of	
   human	
   physiological	
   and	
  
psychological	
   wellbeing	
   is	
   directly	
   attributable	
   to	
   biophilic	
   effects	
   from	
   the	
  
environment.	
   Therefore,	
   quality	
   of	
   life	
   depends	
   upon	
   the	
   presence	
   of	
   those	
   very	
  
special	
  mathematical	
  properties.	
  Since	
  a	
  major	
  factor	
  of	
  Biophilia	
  requires	
  having	
  
intimate	
  contact	
  with	
  natural	
  forms,	
  then	
  saving	
  the	
  natural	
  environment	
  becomes	
  a	
  
priority	
  that	
  is	
  distinct	
  from	
  the	
  usual	
  arguments	
  for	
  conservation.	
  Up	
  until	
  now,	
  
Western	
  conservationists	
  have	
  argued	
  that	
  saving	
  the	
  environment	
  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  
maintain	
  biodiversity,	
  which	
  is	
  an	
  explicit	
  benefit	
  for	
  the	
  biosphere	
  and	
  an	
  implicit	
  
benefit	
  for	
  humankind.	
  I	
  am	
  arguing	
  that	
  the	
  natural	
  environment	
  has	
  immediate	
  
benefits	
  to	
  our	
  health,	
  so	
  that	
  saving	
  it	
  provides	
  not	
  an	
  implicit,	
  but	
  an	
  EXPLICIT	
  
benefit	
  for	
  humankind.	
  	
  
	
  
What	
  is	
  Biophilia?	
  
	
   4	
  
Human	
  evolution	
  occurring	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  several	
  million	
  years	
  (from	
  the	
  era	
  of	
  a	
  
common	
  ape	
  ancestor	
  not	
  recognizably	
  human	
  who	
  however	
  possessed	
  all	
  of	
  our	
  
sensory	
   apparatus)	
   determines	
   how	
   we	
   interact	
   with	
   our	
   environment.	
   Living	
   in	
  
nature	
  predisposed	
  us	
  to	
  process	
  fractal	
  information,	
  color,	
  and	
  to	
  interpret	
  spatial	
  
experiences	
  in	
  a	
  very	
  precise	
  manner	
  to	
  guarantee	
  our	
  survival.	
  Our	
  neurological	
  
imprinting	
   then	
   determined	
   how	
   we	
   began	
   to	
   construct	
   our	
   built	
   environment,	
  
mimicking	
   and	
   developing	
   upon	
   prototypical	
   concepts	
   of	
   spatial	
   experience,	
   with	
  
interesting	
   natural	
   details	
   becoming	
   ornament,	
   and	
   color	
   used	
   to	
   enhance	
   and	
  
provide	
  joy	
  in	
  the	
  artificial	
  environment.	
  In	
  this	
  manner,	
  the	
  mathematical	
  structure	
  
of	
   the	
   built	
   environment	
   evolved	
   right	
   along	
   the	
   lines	
   defined	
   earlier	
   by	
   human	
  
biological	
   and	
   social	
   evolution.	
   As	
   in	
   all	
   evolutionary	
   developments,	
   subsequent	
  
adaptations	
  had	
  to	
  rely	
  upon	
  previous	
  elements	
  in	
  place.	
  It	
  is	
  therefore	
  essential	
  to	
  
re-­‐discover	
   archetypal	
   qualities	
   that	
   generate	
   human	
   wellbeing	
   directly	
   from	
   the	
  
built	
  environment.	
  	
  
To	
  apply	
  Biophilia	
  to	
  the	
  artificial	
  environment,	
  consider	
  our	
  sensory	
  apparatus.	
  
We	
   have	
   evolved	
   to	
   process	
   complex	
   information	
   that	
   is	
   of	
   a	
   very	
   specific	
  
mathematical	
  type:	
  organized	
  complexity	
  where	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  information	
  is	
  presented	
  in	
  
terms	
   of	
   detail,	
   contrast,	
   pattern,	
   color,	
   and	
   texture	
   that	
   mimics	
   in	
   an	
   essential	
  
manner	
  similar	
  information	
  already	
  found	
  in	
  nature.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  all	
  of	
  this	
  
information	
   needs	
   to	
   be	
   organized	
   using	
   mathematical	
   techniques	
   such	
   as	
  
connections,	
   symmetries,	
   patterns,	
   scaling	
   symmetries,	
   harmony	
   among	
   distinct	
  
colors,	
  etc.	
  (Salingaros,	
  2006).	
  A	
  delicate	
  balance	
  between	
  the	
  two	
  complementary	
  
mechanisms	
   of	
   increasing	
   information	
   and	
   increasing	
   informational	
   coherence	
  
generates	
  an	
  optimal	
  state	
  of	
  biophilic	
  information	
  in	
  the	
  artificial	
  environment.	
  	
  
There	
   are	
   significant	
   implications	
   of	
   this	
   thesis	
   to	
   the	
   large	
   scale.	
   The	
   original	
  
geometry	
   of	
   human	
   settlements	
   underlies	
   a	
   form	
   of	
   “urban	
   genetic	
   code”,	
   and	
  
subsequent	
   developments	
   in	
   the	
   industrial	
   and	
   electronic	
   ages	
   develop	
   on	
   top	
   of	
  
these	
  original	
  pieces	
  of	
  code.	
  We	
  can	
  discover	
  these	
  early	
  segments	
  of	
  urban	
  code	
  as	
  
“patterns”:	
  buildings	
  enclosing	
  a	
  central	
  plaza,	
  low-­‐rise	
  but	
  high-­‐density	
  occupation	
  
and	
   mixed-­‐use	
   buildings,	
   a	
   pedestrian	
   network	
   connecting	
   distributed	
   plazas,	
   a	
  
vehicular	
  network	
  superimposed	
  on	
  the	
  pedestrian	
  network,	
  etc.	
  (Alexander	
  et	
  al.,	
  
1977).	
  When	
  cities	
  are	
  instead	
  planned	
  according	
  to	
  abstract	
  and	
  formal	
  designs,	
  
then	
  we	
  have	
  rejected	
  the	
  urban	
  code	
  that	
  evolved	
  along	
  with	
  us.	
  Replacing	
  genetic	
  
code	
  in	
  biological	
  systems	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  an	
  unsustainable	
  disaster	
  because	
  evolution	
  
has	
  been	
  violated.	
  That	
  is	
  analogous	
  to	
  species	
  extinction	
  or	
  even	
  genocide,	
  since	
  the	
  
process	
  is	
  deliberate	
  and	
  is	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  humans	
  themselves	
  upon	
  a	
  particular	
  set	
  
of	
  inherited	
  “genetic”	
  information.	
  	
  
In	
  the	
  urban	
  case,	
  building	
  cities	
  according	
  to	
  a	
  code	
  that	
  is	
  neither	
  evolved	
  nor	
  
tested	
  generates	
  one	
  of	
  three	
  situations:	
  a)	
  a	
  dysfunctional	
  region	
  that	
  is	
  abandoned	
  
by	
  its	
  original	
  inhabitants	
  and	
  may	
  later	
  be	
  occupied	
  and	
  transformed	
  by	
  squatters;	
  
b)	
   a	
   dysfunctional	
   region	
   that	
   cannot	
   be	
   abandoned	
   (e.g.	
   social	
   housing	
   blocks)	
  
whose	
  brutal	
  geometry	
  generates	
  rage,	
  crime,	
  and	
  self-­‐destructive	
  behavior;	
  or	
  c)	
  an	
  
urban	
  region	
  that	
  is	
  kept	
  functional	
  only	
  via	
  a	
  tremendous	
  expenditure	
  of	
  energy.	
  
Cities	
   with	
   an	
   urban	
   geometry	
   poorly	
   adapted	
   to	
   human	
   activities	
   can	
   indeed	
   be	
  
	
   5	
  
propped	
  up	
  by	
  extending	
  the	
  normally	
  requisite	
  energy	
  and	
  transport	
  networks	
  that	
  
drive	
  a	
  city	
  to	
  function,	
  but	
  their	
  geometry	
  requires	
  wasteful	
  energy	
  expenditure.	
  
(Philosophers	
   such	
   as	
   Heidegger	
   have	
   already	
   described	
   the	
   notion	
   of	
   fulfillment	
  
versus	
   deterioration	
   in	
   urban	
   environments).	
   Most	
   cities	
   today	
   suffer	
   from	
   the	
  
imposition	
  of	
  such	
  non-­‐evolved	
  urban	
  typologies,	
  misleadingly	
  labeled	
  as	
  “modern”.	
  
Someone	
  pays	
  for	
  showcasing	
  the	
  sculptural	
  geometry	
  of	
  such	
  non-­‐evolved	
  urban	
  
fabric.	
  	
  
The	
  first	
  human	
  settlements	
  defined	
  a	
  connective	
  geometry	
  that	
  enables	
  people	
  
to	
  interact	
  on	
  the	
  pedestrian	
  scale,	
  and	
  to	
  coordinate	
  the	
  many	
  distinct	
  functions	
  of	
  
simple	
  human	
  society	
  within	
  a	
  very	
  compact	
  spatial	
  region.	
  That	
  is	
  the	
  definition	
  of	
  
a	
  city	
  built	
  on	
  the	
  human	
  scale.	
  Contemporary	
  cities	
  are	
  most	
  successful	
  in	
  those	
  
regions	
  where	
  the	
  original	
  “genetic”	
  material	
  has	
  been	
  respected,	
  and	
  a	
  hierarchy	
  of	
  
subsequent	
  developments	
  has	
  been	
  added	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  original	
  code.	
  By	
  contrast,	
  
where	
   the	
   original	
   code	
   has	
   been	
   erased	
   and	
   substituted	
   entirely	
   by	
   twentieth-­‐
century	
   urban	
   typologies,	
   the	
   urban	
   fabric	
   is	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   dysfunctional,	
  
unsustainable,	
   or	
   dead.	
   True,	
   in	
   large	
   metropolises	
   the	
   population	
   forces	
   are	
   so	
  
strong	
  that	
  even	
  dead	
  urban	
  fabric	
  can	
  be	
  kept	
  artificially	
  alive,	
  but	
  the	
  energy	
  cost	
  
is	
   tremendous,	
   and	
   the	
   cost	
   to	
   residents	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   psychological	
   stress	
   is	
   even	
  
greater.	
   A	
   city	
   that	
   welcomes	
   and	
   keeps	
   its	
   dwellers	
   in	
   a	
   self-­‐supporting	
   urban	
  
environment	
  does	
  not	
  conceal	
  reality.	
  	
  
	
  
Quality	
   of	
   life	
   comes	
   through	
   the	
   nurturing	
   environment.	
   Five	
   points	
   for	
  
regeneration	
  	
  
Several	
  factors	
  contribute	
  to	
  a	
  positive	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  for	
  us.	
  I	
  am	
  going	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  
those	
  factors	
  that	
  are	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  immediate	
  environment	
  (and	
  thus	
  relevant	
  to	
  
architecture	
   and	
   urbanism)	
   and	
   ignore	
   all	
   the	
   others.	
   Let	
   me	
   list	
   some	
   of	
   the	
  
necessary	
  points	
  here:	
  
	
  
1)	
  Access	
  to	
  clean	
  air,	
  water,	
  shelter,	
  and	
  living	
  space.	
  	
  
2)	
  Access	
  to	
  biophilic	
  information	
  in	
  the	
  natural	
  environment:	
  plants,	
  trees,	
  and	
  
animals.	
  	
  
3)	
   Access	
   to	
   biophilic	
   information	
   in	
   the	
   built	
   environment:	
   texture,	
   color,	
  
ornament,	
  and	
  art.	
  	
  
4)	
   Access	
   to	
   other	
   human	
   beings	
   within	
   an	
   anxiety-­‐free	
   environment:	
   public	
  
urban	
  space,	
  open-­‐access	
  residential	
  and	
  commercial	
  spaces.	
  	
  
5)	
   Protection	
   from	
   anxiety-­‐inducing	
   objects:	
   high-­‐speed	
   traffic,	
   large	
   vehicles,	
  
threatening	
  human	
  beings,	
  cantilevered	
  and	
  overhanging	
  structures.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
   clearly	
   distinguish	
   between	
   nourishing	
   and	
   anxiety-­‐inducing	
   environmental	
  
information.	
  Although	
  this	
  distinction	
  is	
  fundamental,	
  events	
  in	
  the	
  art	
  world	
  have	
  
	
   6	
  
confused	
  our	
  natural	
  instincts	
  with	
  fashions.	
  Natural	
  instinct	
  is	
  about	
  care,	
  family,	
  
and	
   everything	
   that	
   it	
   takes	
   to	
   enhance	
   our	
   daily	
   life,	
   while	
   fashion	
   is	
   disguise,	
  
indoctrination,	
  and	
  a	
  search	
  for	
  the	
  opposite	
  qualities.	
  It	
  just	
  so	
  happens	
  that	
  much	
  
contemporary	
  art	
  avoids	
  connecting	
  positively	
  to	
  a	
  viewer	
  via	
  visceral	
  physiological	
  
responses.	
   Regardless	
   of	
   how	
   this	
   type	
   of	
   Art	
   may	
   be	
   valued	
   in	
   the	
   art-­‐gallery	
  
circuit,	
  appraised	
  on	
  the	
  art	
  market,	
  and	
  promoted	
  in	
  the	
  press,	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  healing.	
  Any	
  
doubt	
   is	
   resolved	
   by	
   referring	
   to	
   Biophilia.	
   Healing	
   emotions	
   include	
   a	
   set	
   of	
  
physiological	
   responses	
   that	
   reduce	
   distress	
   and	
   empower	
   the	
   body’s	
   natural	
  
defenses	
  to	
  work	
  so	
  as	
  to	
  maintain	
  a	
  healthy	
  steady	
  state.	
  Art	
  that	
  generates	
  healing	
  
emotions	
   uses	
   our	
   senses	
   to	
   induce	
   positive	
   neurological,	
   hormonal,	
   and	
   other	
  
responses	
  within	
  our	
  body,	
  but	
  Art	
  is	
  not	
  healing	
  if	
  it	
  generates	
  the	
  opposite	
  feelings	
  
of	
  alarm	
  and	
  anxiety.	
  	
  
From	
  gallery-­‐type	
  art	
  —	
  objects,	
  sculptures,	
  installations,	
  etc.	
  —	
  we	
  move	
  into	
  
public	
  art	
  such	
  as	
  urban	
  installations	
  in	
  public	
  places:	
  large	
  sculptures,	
  fountains,	
  
monuments,	
  benches,	
  tree	
  planters	
  in	
  plazas,	
  etc.	
  For	
  the	
  past	
  several	
  decades,	
  such	
  
public	
  art	
  objects	
  have	
  also	
  been	
  representative	
  of	
  geometries	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  biophilic.	
  
Those	
   objects	
   tend	
   to	
   range	
   from	
   non-­‐healing	
   (neutral)	
   to	
   anxiety-­‐inducing	
  
(negative)	
   provocations	
   and	
   therefore	
   directly	
   influence	
   the	
   quality	
   of	
   the	
   urban	
  
space	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  placed.	
  For	
  stylistic	
  reasons,	
  very	
  little	
  biophilic	
  structure	
  is	
  
now	
  being	
  erected	
  in	
  the	
  public	
  realm.	
  And	
  yet,	
  our	
  experience	
  of	
  a	
  public	
  space	
  is	
  
determined	
   to	
   a	
   large	
   extent	
   by	
   its	
   public	
   art	
   installations.	
   “Upgrading”	
   an	
   older	
  
public	
  space	
  by	
  inserting	
  non-­‐healing	
  objects	
  destroys	
  the	
  space’s	
  useful	
  biophilic	
  
function.	
  	
  
Every	
   human	
   being	
   responds	
   physiologically	
   in	
   the	
   same	
   manner,	
   and	
   thus	
   is	
  
able	
  to	
  judge	
  viscerally	
  whether	
  a	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  or	
  architecture	
  is	
  providing	
  emotional	
  
nourishment,	
  or	
  its	
  opposite.	
  This	
  is	
  really	
  a	
  key	
  point.	
  In	
  my	
  description	
  above	
  of	
  
what	
  healing	
  emotions	
  entail	
  I	
  assume	
  that	
  psychological	
  conditioning	
  cannot	
  alter	
  
our	
  biology,	
  and	
  our	
  instinctive	
  reaction	
  is	
  the	
  one	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  pay	
  most	
  attention	
  to.	
  
It	
  matters	
  very	
  little	
  to	
  the	
  user’s	
  physical	
  experience	
  if	
  a	
  non-­‐biophilic	
  object	
  or	
  
building	
  is	
  praised	
  in	
  the	
  press	
  and	
  by	
  newspaper	
  and	
  magazine	
  critics.	
  Whenever	
  
persons	
  face	
  such	
  a	
  deep	
  contradiction	
  between	
  emotions	
  and	
  bodily	
  responses	
  that	
  
are	
   antithetical	
   to	
   the	
   authority	
   of	
   experts,	
   the	
   individual	
   goes	
   into	
   cognitive	
  
dissonance	
   and	
   is	
   confused.	
   A	
   person	
   can	
   either	
   remain	
   in	
   cognitive	
   dissonance	
  
indefinitely	
  (itself	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  high	
  emotional	
  and	
  physical	
  stress),	
  or	
  eventually	
  come	
  
out	
  of	
  it	
  by	
  deciding	
  to	
  trust	
  his/her	
  own	
  bodily	
  responses.	
  The	
  anxiety-­‐inducing	
  
objects	
  are	
  supported	
  by	
  an	
  ideology	
  or	
  selfish	
  agenda.	
  	
  
Let	
  me	
  now	
  discuss	
  the	
  five	
  points	
  listed	
  above	
  for	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  life.	
  The	
  first	
  
requirement,	
   Point	
   1,	
   concerns	
   a	
   person’s	
   private	
   domain,	
   the	
   inside	
   of	
   one’s	
  
dwelling.	
   For	
   a	
   large	
   portion	
   of	
   humanity	
   basic	
   housing	
   itself	
   still	
   remains	
   a	
  
problem,	
   because	
   there	
   are	
   not	
   enough	
   living	
   quarters.	
   People	
   in	
   the	
   developing	
  
world	
  have	
  to	
  build	
  their	
  own	
  houses	
  out	
  of	
  scrap	
  material,	
  often	
  in	
  unhealthy	
  or	
  
dangerous	
  terrain.	
  The	
  result	
  is	
  the	
  slums	
  and	
  informal	
  settlements	
  of	
  the	
  world.	
  
Nevertheless,	
  it	
  should	
  be	
  noted	
  that	
  many	
  slums	
  are	
  economically	
  vibrant,	
  and	
  the	
  
quality	
  of	
  life	
  there	
  is	
  enhanced	
  by	
  ornamentation	
  by	
  their	
  owners,	
  something	
  that	
  
	
   7	
  
is	
  forbidden	
  in	
  a	
  state-­‐sponsored	
  social	
  housing	
  block	
  (Turner,	
  1976).	
  As	
  outlined	
  
elsewhere	
  (Salingaros	
  et	
  al.,	
  2006),	
  the	
  forced	
  move	
  from	
  informal	
  settlements	
  to	
  
government-­‐built	
   social	
   housing	
   blocks	
   gains	
   in	
   health	
   but	
   loses	
   in	
   biophilic	
  
qualities.	
  	
  
Point	
  2	
  addresses	
  our	
  contact	
  with	
  nature.	
  It	
  is	
  possible	
  to	
  achieve	
  a	
  balance	
  with	
  
the	
  natural	
  environment	
  such	
  as	
  occurs	
  in	
  traditional	
  villages	
  and	
  cities	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  
too	
   poor.	
   Even	
   in	
   slums,	
   if	
   vegetation	
   is	
   abundant,	
   the	
   residents	
   profit	
   by	
   having	
  
intimate	
  contact	
  with	
  nature.	
  Nevertheless,	
  there	
  are	
  examples	
  of	
  the	
  degeneration	
  
of	
  the	
  natural	
  environment	
  in	
  informal	
  settlements	
  that	
  ranges	
  from	
  dwellings	
  built	
  
among	
  vegetation	
  towards	
  the	
  other	
  extreme	
  of	
  a	
  city	
  built	
  from	
  junk	
  without	
  any	
  
trace	
  of	
  plant	
  life.	
  The	
  need	
  to	
  use	
  wood	
  for	
  heating	
  and	
  cooking	
  can	
  soon	
  destroy	
  
the	
   biophilic	
   component	
   of	
   an	
   informal	
   settlement.	
   On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   the	
  
wealthiest	
   Western	
   societies	
   habitually	
   cut	
   down	
   trees	
   to	
   build	
   suburban	
   sprawl,	
  
and	
  replace	
  the	
  native	
  vegetation	
  with	
  lawn.	
  The	
  grass	
  that	
  makes	
  up	
  a	
  lawn	
  is	
  a	
  
monoculture	
  plant	
  that	
  is	
  non-­‐native	
  to	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  sprawling	
  suburbs.	
  A	
  lawn	
  is	
  
thus	
   a	
   reduction	
   of	
   nature	
   and	
   a	
   cruel	
   joke	
   on	
   people	
   who	
   buy	
   those	
   suburban	
  
houses.	
  	
  
Urbanists	
   after	
   World	
   War	
   II	
   created	
   a	
   city	
   fit	
   only	
   for	
   the	
   car,	
   applying	
   a	
  
fundamentally	
   reductive	
   conception	
   of	
   nature.	
   “Green”	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   or	
   suburbs	
   is	
  
substituted	
   by	
   its	
   superficial	
   appearance	
   from	
   afar,	
   thus	
   lawn	
   glimpsed	
   as	
   one	
  
drives	
  by	
  is	
  judged	
  to	
  be	
  enough	
  for	
  a	
  contact	
  with	
  nature.	
  But	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  deception:	
  
the	
   biophilic	
   effect	
   depends	
   upon	
   close	
   and	
   intimate	
   contact	
   with	
   nature,	
   and	
  
definitely	
  increases	
  as	
  the	
  complexity	
  of	
  the	
  natural	
  environment	
  increases.	
  Human	
  
beings	
   experience	
   its	
   healing	
   effects	
   from	
   having	
   contact	
   with	
   a	
   fairly	
   complex	
  
natural	
  ecosystem,	
  even	
  if	
  that	
  only	
  means	
  a	
  tree	
  with	
  some	
  bushes,	
  but	
  not	
  from	
  
just	
   looking	
   at	
   lawn.	
   Biophilic	
   interventions	
   in	
   hospitals	
   create	
   small	
   complex	
  
gardens	
   inside	
   hospital	
   public	
   spaces,	
   and	
   interweave	
   complex	
   gardens	
   with	
   the	
  
fabric	
   of	
   the	
   hospital	
   wall	
   so	
   that	
   patients	
   can	
   experience	
   the	
   plant	
   life	
   at	
   an	
  
immediate	
  distance.	
  	
  
Point	
  3	
  concerns	
  architecture	
  itself,	
  and	
  underlines	
  a	
  drastic	
  schism	
  between	
  the	
  
architecture	
  of	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century	
  and	
  all	
  architecture	
  that	
  occurred	
  before	
  then.	
  
Ornamentation	
   was	
   banned	
   from	
   the	
   built	
   environment	
   after	
   1908	
   (minimalist	
  
environments	
   becoming	
   a	
   fetish	
   with	
   architects	
   thereafter),	
   so	
   that	
   we	
  
progressively	
  lost	
  the	
  healing	
  effects	
  of	
  ornamentation	
  in	
  both	
  interior	
  and	
  exterior	
  
built	
  spaces.	
  The	
  intensity	
  of	
  the	
  effect	
  is	
  not	
  in	
  question	
  here:	
  studies	
  of	
  Biophilia	
  
repeatedly	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   ornament	
   which	
   is	
   derived	
   from	
   natural	
   structures	
  
induces	
  the	
  same	
  healing	
  effects	
  as	
  actual	
  natural	
  structures	
  themselves,	
  only	
  to	
  a	
  
lesser	
  extent	
  (Salingaros	
  and	
  Masden,	
  2008).	
  Although	
  some	
  architects	
  refer	
  to	
  this	
  
as	
  mere	
  “copying”,	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  believe	
  this	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  case.	
  Yannick	
  Joye	
  argues	
  that	
  the	
  
biophilic	
   effect	
   depends	
   upon	
   the	
   brain’s	
   ability	
   to	
   effortlessly	
   process	
   complex	
  
information,	
  and	
  thus	
  it	
  is	
  irrelevant	
  whether	
  this	
  biophilic	
  information	
  comes	
  from	
  
a	
  living	
  or	
  an	
  artificial	
  source	
  (Joye	
  and	
  Van	
  Den	
  Berg,	
  2010).	
  	
  
Point	
  4	
  forces	
  us	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  destruction	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  pedestrian	
  realm	
  in	
  our	
  
cities	
  following	
  planning	
  practices	
  after	
  World	
  War	
  II.	
  Governments	
  the	
  world	
  over	
  
	
   8	
  
engaged	
   in	
   a	
   frenzy	
   of	
   rebuilding	
   that	
   replaced	
   human-­‐scaled	
   city	
   centers	
   with	
  
environments	
   fit	
   only	
   for	
   fast-­‐moving	
   vehicles.	
   The	
   human	
   pedestrian	
   city	
   was	
  
erased	
   by	
   forces	
   linking	
   the	
   automotive	
   industry	
   and	
   the	
   steel	
   industry	
   with	
  
governments	
   that	
   satisfied	
   every	
   wish	
   of	
   those	
   powerful	
   political	
   lobbies.	
   Just	
   as	
  
public	
   space	
   was	
   erased	
   from	
   the	
   built	
   environment,	
   however,	
   private	
   space	
   was	
  
being	
  offered	
  in	
  shopping	
  centers	
  outside	
  cities,	
  isolated	
  within	
  a	
  car	
  environment.	
  
People	
  still	
  crave	
  personal	
  contact	
  in	
  an	
  urban	
  space,	
  but	
  in	
  many	
  locations	
  this	
  is	
  
only	
  possible	
  in	
  a	
  commercial	
  shopping	
  center	
  or	
  mall.	
  Governments	
  now	
  used	
  to	
  
working	
  with	
  builders	
  and	
  real-­‐estate	
  developers	
  who	
  build	
  such	
  malls	
  promote	
  this	
  
model.	
  	
  
Point	
  5	
  focuses	
  on	
  certain	
  environmental	
  forces	
  from	
  which	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  protect	
  
ourselves,	
  because	
  they	
  degrade	
  our	
  quality	
  of	
  life.	
  The	
  growth	
  of	
  the	
  car	
  city	
  means	
  
that	
   most	
   outdoor	
   environments	
   are	
   now	
   threatening	
   to	
   humans	
   unless	
   they	
   are	
  
protected	
   inside	
   their	
   car.	
   Automobile	
   connectivity	
   and	
   the	
   infrastructure	
   it	
  
requires	
   have	
   been	
   allowed	
   to	
   take	
   over	
   and	
   replace	
   the	
   human-­‐scale	
   city.	
  
Therefore,	
   the	
   vast	
   open	
   spaces	
   in	
   the	
   world’s	
   cities	
   are	
   either	
   psychologically	
  
unsafe,	
  or	
  are	
  fast	
  becoming	
  so.	
  Such	
  spaces	
  are	
  not	
  spaces	
  to	
  live	
  in,	
  because	
  they	
  
are	
  threatening	
  and	
  anxiety-­‐inducing.	
  The	
  actual	
  living	
  city	
  of	
  sheltered	
  pedestrian	
  
experience	
   has	
   therefore	
   been	
   reduced	
   to	
   internal	
   space,	
   whether	
   private	
   living	
  
space,	
   private	
   commercial	
   space	
   inside	
   restaurants	
   or	
   bars,	
   or	
   to	
   equally	
   private	
  
commercial	
  space	
  in	
  shopping	
  malls.	
  	
  
Another	
  aspect	
  of	
  being	
  protected	
  from	
  anxiety	
  regards	
  structures	
  perceived	
  as	
  
threatening,	
  and	
  this	
  can	
  occur	
  for	
  several	
  different	
  reasons.	
  We	
  cannot	
  re-­‐wire	
  our	
  
perceptual	
   apparatus	
   to	
   suppress	
   neurological	
   signals	
   of	
   alarm	
   at	
   buildings	
   and	
  
structures	
   that	
   are	
   twisted,	
   unbalanced,	
   or	
   which	
   protrude	
   towards	
   us.	
   Such	
  
buildings	
  generate	
  feelings	
  of	
  alarm.	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  point:	
  why	
  threaten	
  us,	
  
why	
  attempt	
  to	
  violate	
  our	
  wellbeing?	
  It’s	
  done	
  for	
  reasons	
  of	
  fashion	
  and	
  ideology.	
  
Perhaps	
  those	
  buildings	
  are	
  interesting	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  from	
  afar,	
  but	
  having	
  to	
  be	
  next	
  to	
  
them,	
  enter	
  them,	
  and	
  use	
  them	
  generates	
  psychological	
  and	
  physiological	
  anxiety.	
  
The	
   same	
   is	
   true	
   for	
   sheer	
   impenetrable	
   walls	
   and	
   glass	
   floors:	
   the	
   former	
  
communicate	
  exclusion	
  and	
  lack	
  of	
  escape,	
  whereas	
  the	
  latter	
  generate	
  anxiety	
  and	
  
vertigo.	
   These	
   anxiety-­‐inducing	
   features	
   routinely	
   appear	
   in	
   contemporary	
  
buildings,	
  but	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  change	
  their	
  negative	
  effect	
  on	
  our	
  sense	
  of	
  wellbeing	
  
within	
  the	
  built	
  environment.	
  	
  
	
  
Experienced	
  space	
  and	
  socio-­geometric	
  connectivity	
  	
  
The	
   twentieth	
   century’s	
   scientific	
   and	
   technological	
   advances	
   enabled	
   a	
   whole	
  
new	
  level	
  of	
  living	
  that	
  brought	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  vastly	
  improved	
  medical	
  
care,	
  transport,	
  energy	
  availability,	
  and	
  communications.	
  In	
  our	
  time	
  we	
  have	
  come	
  
to	
   take	
   all	
   of	
   this	
   for	
   granted.	
   Nevertheless,	
   in	
   parallel	
   with	
   these	
   developments,	
  
humankind	
   lost	
   a	
   timeless	
   connection	
   to	
   the	
   world	
   that	
   did	
   not	
   involve	
   science,	
  
because	
   this	
   connection	
   is	
   not	
   quantitative	
   (Alexander,	
   2001-­‐2005).	
   We	
   tend	
   to	
  
forget	
  and	
  dismiss	
  our	
  inherited	
  socio-­‐geometric	
  patterns	
  whenever	
  they	
  cannot	
  fit	
  
	
   9	
  
into	
  the	
  mentality	
  created	
  by	
  advancing	
  technology.	
  This	
  loss	
  of	
  patterns	
  has	
  caused	
  
the	
  loss	
  of	
  essential	
  aspects	
  of	
  our	
  existence,	
  and	
  it	
  has	
  profound	
  implications	
  for	
  
energy	
  use	
  (Salingaros,	
  2000).	
  
Talking	
  about	
  connecting	
  viscerally	
  to	
  a	
  building	
  characteristically	
  makes	
  people	
  
in	
  our	
  contemporary	
  culture	
  uneasy.	
  We	
  have	
  lost	
  part	
  of	
  our	
  sense	
  of	
  attachment	
  to	
  
a	
   place,	
   even	
   if	
   we	
   normally	
   don’t	
   notice	
   it	
   consciously.	
   Effects	
   of	
   friendliness	
   or	
  
hostility	
  are	
  ignored,	
  and	
  they	
  are	
  claimed	
  not	
  to	
  exist.	
  We	
  have	
  grown	
  accustomed	
  
to	
  buildings	
  that	
  emphasize	
  the	
  look	
  and	
  feel	
  of	
  technology:	
  buildings	
  that	
  are,	
  in	
  
fact,	
  little	
  more	
  than	
  an	
  image.	
  How,	
  really,	
  do	
  we	
  connect	
  with	
  a	
  building,	
  with	
  a	
  
space,	
   with	
   a	
   place?	
   How	
   do	
   the	
   parts	
   of	
   a	
   building	
   connect	
   with	
   each	
   other?	
  
Connectivity	
  can	
  be	
  described	
  in	
  mathematical	
  terms	
  through	
  processes	
  occurring	
  
in	
  space;	
  it	
  depends	
  on	
  how	
  we	
  perceive	
  that	
  space.	
  For	
  millennia,	
  our	
  ancestors	
  
built	
  sacred	
  places	
  and	
  buildings	
  that	
  connect	
  us	
  to	
  the	
  location,	
  and	
  act	
  as	
  a	
  catalyst	
  
to	
  connect	
  us	
  to	
  each	
  other.	
  For	
  them,	
  living	
  in	
  a	
  pre-­‐industrial	
  age,	
  it	
  was	
  easier	
  to	
  
understand	
  this	
  connection	
  than	
  it	
  is	
  for	
  many	
  of	
  us	
  today.	
  
We	
  connect	
  to	
  our	
  environment	
  —	
  as	
  distinct	
  from	
  merely	
  reacting	
  to	
  it	
  —	
  only	
  
through	
   coherent	
   complex	
   structures.	
   Coherence	
   and	
   symmetries	
   of	
   form	
   make	
  
possible	
   the	
   continuation	
   of	
   the	
   biophilic	
   effect	
   from	
   living	
   systems	
   into	
   artificial	
  
complex	
  designs	
  or	
  structures.	
  Twentieth-­‐century	
  and	
  contemporary	
  buildings	
  that	
  
have	
  either	
  minimalist	
  or	
  disordered	
  forms	
  cannot	
  connect	
  with	
  the	
  user.	
  The	
  result	
  
is	
  an	
  intentional	
  lack	
  of	
  coherent	
  complexity	
  in	
  the	
  built	
  environment	
  (Salingaros,	
  
2006).	
  	
  
A	
   dramatic	
   demonstration	
   of	
   the	
   principles	
   of	
   Biophilia	
   and	
   human	
   socio-­‐
geometric	
  patterns	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  when	
  they	
  are	
  violated.	
  Failing	
  to	
  respect	
  evolved	
  
architectural	
  and	
  urban	
  typologies,	
  twentieth-­‐century	
  architects	
  and	
  urbanists	
  went	
  
ahead	
  and	
  constructed	
  block	
  housing	
  and	
  high-­‐rises	
  with	
  segregated	
  functions	
  as	
  
the	
  solution	
  to	
  urban	
  problems.	
  These	
  implementations	
  were	
  uniformly	
  disastrous.	
  	
  
Firstly,	
   architects	
   and	
   planners	
   ignored	
   evolved	
   urban	
   codes	
   that	
   had	
   proved	
  
themselves	
  through	
  the	
  centuries.	
  The	
  reason	
  given	
  (but	
  never	
  tested)	
  was	
  that	
  a	
  
new,	
  industrial	
  society	
  needed	
  an	
  entirely	
  new	
  form	
  for	
  the	
  city.	
  Instead,	
  they	
  built	
  
monstrous	
  blocks.	
  These	
  architects	
  showed	
  incredible	
  arrogance	
  in	
  their	
  approach	
  
to	
  design,	
  believing	
  they	
  could	
  force	
  their	
  will	
  on	
  both	
  people	
  and	
  urban	
  functions	
  
and	
   override	
   forces	
   that	
   shape	
   urban	
   form	
   and	
   human	
   use.	
   For	
   example,	
   they	
  
designated	
  the	
  fourth	
  storey	
  and	
  roof	
  for	
  specific	
  commercial	
  activities	
  that	
  never	
  
took	
   place.	
   Socio-­‐geometric	
   patterns	
   of	
   human	
   use	
   preclude	
   such	
   spaces	
   and	
  
locations	
  from	
  ever	
  being	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  imagined	
  manner,	
  just	
  as	
  the	
  “playgrounds”	
  
and	
   “plazas”	
   designed	
   according	
   to	
   some	
   abstract	
   geometry	
   have	
   remained	
  
despised,	
  feared,	
  and	
  unused.	
  	
  
Secondly,	
   architects	
   and	
   planners	
   constructed	
   dwellings	
   and	
   neighborhoods	
  
devoid	
   of	
   any	
   intimate	
   contact	
   with	
   nature.	
   A	
   family	
   isolated	
   inside	
   an	
   immense	
  
block	
  housing	
  project	
  is	
  detached	
  from	
  nature.	
  Their	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  drops.	
  Even	
  the	
  
fundamental	
   pattern	
   of	
   “2	
   Meter	
   Balcony”,	
   which	
   could	
   at	
   least	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   grow	
  
plants,	
  is	
  stubbornly	
  ignored	
  by	
  architects	
  of	
  apartments	
  in	
  high	
  rises	
  (Alexander	
  et	
  
	
   10	
  
al.,	
   1977).	
   The	
   new	
   style	
   and	
   the	
   ideological	
   attraction	
   to	
   its	
   visual	
   vocabulary	
  
overrides	
  any	
  other	
  concerns,	
  and	
  thus	
  architects	
  fail	
  to	
  address	
  these	
  crucial	
  issues.	
  
Having	
   some	
   trees	
   in	
   a	
   vast	
   windswept	
   plain	
   outside	
   the	
   block	
   is	
   totally	
   useless.	
  
Most	
   twentieth-­‐century	
   attempts	
   at	
   living	
   environments	
   have	
   failed	
   because	
   they	
  
contradict	
  all	
  the	
  rules	
  for	
  the	
  traditional	
  design	
  of	
  urban	
  spaces	
  and	
  gardens	
  in	
  the	
  
interest	
  of	
  a	
  “new	
  style”	
  that	
  is	
  image-­‐based.	
  	
  
Thirdly,	
   architects	
   and	
   planners	
   created	
   monofunctional	
   urban	
   segregation,	
  
which	
  violates	
  the	
  most	
  basic	
  urban	
  patterns	
  that	
  make	
  a	
  city	
  grow	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place.	
  
Cities	
   exist	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   connect	
   people	
   with	
   each	
   other	
   and	
   to	
   mix	
   activities.	
  
Incredibly,	
   twentieth-­‐century	
   urbanism	
   took	
   the	
   anti-­‐urban	
   slogan	
   of	
   spatially	
  
separated	
   uses	
   as	
   a	
   starting	
   point,	
   and	
   governments	
   used	
   it	
   to	
   reconstruct	
   their	
  
cities	
   after	
   World	
   War	
   II.	
   These	
   anti-­‐urban	
   practices	
   were	
   legislated	
   into	
   zoning	
  
laws	
  so	
  that	
  it	
  became	
  illegal	
  to	
  build	
  living	
  urban	
  fabric.	
  The	
  problem	
  is	
  that	
  self-­‐
proclaimed	
   experts	
   were	
   offering	
   toxic	
   advice	
   on	
   architecture	
   and	
   planning,	
   and	
  
some	
   of	
   these	
   people	
   held	
   positions	
   of	
   great	
   academic	
   and	
   media	
   prestige.	
  
Politicians	
   and	
   decision	
   makers	
   followed	
   their	
   advice	
   simply	
   out	
   of	
   respect	
   for	
  
authority.	
  There	
  a	
  deliberate	
  obstruction	
  here	
  of	
  the	
  decent,	
  free,	
  equalitarian	
  spirit,	
  
which	
  is	
  replaced	
  by	
  a	
  totalitarian	
  approach	
  to	
  planning	
  (Salingaros	
  et	
  al.,	
  2006).	
  
	
  
Connecting	
  beyond	
  everyday	
  experience	
  	
  
I	
  highlight	
  here	
  questions	
  about	
  connecting	
  to	
  place	
  in	
  a	
  more	
  complete	
  manner.	
  
How	
  far	
  can	
  we	
  intensify	
  our	
  emotional	
  connection	
  and	
  still	
  explain	
  it	
  biologically?	
  
Emotional	
   highs	
   come	
   from	
   love,	
   music,	
   art,	
   architecture,	
   poetry,	
   and	
   literature.	
  
Mechanisms	
  of	
  response	
  are	
  all	
  biological	
  (sensory	
  apparatus),	
  although	
  the	
  most	
  
important	
   elements	
   are	
   still	
   incompletely	
   understood.	
   Connection	
   is	
   achieved	
  
through	
  dance,	
  music,	
  art,	
  and	
  architecture.	
  The	
  common	
  properties	
  among	
  these	
  
creations	
   include	
   patterns,	
   regularity,	
   repetition,	
   nesting,	
   hierarchy,	
   scaling,	
   and	
  
fractal	
   structure.	
   They	
   are	
   demonstrable	
   geometrical	
   patterns,	
   perceived	
   by	
   our	
  
ancestors	
  and	
  more	
  traditional	
  people	
  today	
  as	
  mystical	
  properties.	
  Going	
  further,	
  
the	
   highest	
   artistic	
   expression	
   is	
   related	
   to	
   religion.	
   Bach,	
   Mozart,	
   Botticelli,	
  
Michelangelo,	
   generations	
   of	
   anonymous	
   artists	
   and	
   architects	
   of	
   Islamic	
   art	
   and	
  
architecture,	
   and	
   mystics	
   of	
   the	
   world	
   achieved	
   such	
   profound	
   connection.	
   By	
  
seeking	
   God	
   through	
   beauty,	
   human	
   beings	
   have	
   attained	
   the	
   highest	
   level	
   of	
  
connection	
  to	
  the	
  universe	
  (Alexander,	
  2001-­‐2005).	
  	
  
For	
   millennia,	
   human	
   beings	
   have	
   sought	
   to	
   connect	
   to	
   some	
   sacred	
   realm	
  
through	
   architecture.	
   Though	
   we	
   have	
   as	
   yet	
   no	
   scientific	
   explanation	
   for	
   such	
   a	
  
phenomenon,	
  we	
  cannot	
  deny	
  either	
  its	
  existence	
  or	
  its	
  importance	
  for	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  
human	
  life.	
  We	
  experience	
  this	
  connection	
  —	
  a	
  visceral	
  feeling	
  —	
  in	
  a	
  great	
  religious	
  
building	
   or	
   a	
   place	
   of	
   great	
   natural	
   beauty.	
   The	
   Egyptian	
   architect	
   Hassan	
   Fathy	
  
speaks	
   about	
   the	
   sacred	
   structure	
   even	
   in	
   everyday	
   environments	
   (Fathy,	
   1973).	
  
Christopher	
  Alexander	
  (2001-­‐2005)	
  describes	
  connecting	
  to	
  a	
  larger	
  coherence,	
  and	
  
such	
  a	
  connection	
  is	
  in	
  fact	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  principal	
  factors	
  in	
  enhancing	
  our	
  quality	
  of	
  
life.	
  Nevertheless,	
  we	
  hardly	
  even	
  have	
  the	
  vocabulary	
  to	
  talk	
  about	
  it.	
  	
  
	
   11	
  
Without	
   specifying	
   any	
   particular	
   organized	
   religion,	
   spirituality	
   grounded	
   in	
  
physical	
  experience	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  connectivity.	
  Is	
  this	
  connective	
  mechanism	
  by	
  which	
  
we	
  try	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  our	
  creator	
  the	
  same	
  effect	
  as	
  Biophilia?	
  Maybe	
  it	
  is,	
  only	
  
possibly	
   more	
   advanced	
   and	
   thus	
   a	
   far	
   more	
   intense	
   source	
   of	
   emotional	
  
nourishment	
  (i.e.	
  fulfillment,	
  joy,	
  elation)	
  than	
  that	
  obtained	
  from	
  strictly	
  physical	
  
experience.	
  Can	
  we	
  transcend	
  biological	
  connection	
  as	
  the	
  source	
  and	
  standard	
  for	
  
aesthetic	
   appreciation	
   and	
   enjoyment	
   so	
   as	
   to	
   achieve	
   an	
   even	
   higher	
   spiritual	
  
connection?	
   As	
   opposed	
   to	
   religious	
   experience	
   or	
   a	
   religious	
   attitude,	
   religious	
  
belief	
   itself	
   is	
   abstract,	
   being	
   resident	
   in	
   the	
   mind.	
   But	
   the	
   connection	
   associated	
  
with	
  religious	
  experience	
  can	
  occur	
  through	
  geometry,	
  the	
  physical	
  senses,	
  music,	
  
rhythm,	
  color,	
  etc.	
  Religious	
  connection	
  can	
  be	
  very	
  physical,	
  oftentimes	
  intensely	
  
so.	
  This	
  physical	
  connection	
  gives	
  us	
  the	
  materialization	
  of	
  sacred	
  experience.	
  	
  
Dance,	
  song,	
  and	
  music	
  express	
  temporal	
  rhythm.	
  Classical	
  Indian	
  Bharatanatyam	
  
dance,	
  African	
  shamanic	
  dance,	
  Native	
  American	
  religious	
  dance,	
  whirling	
  dervishes	
  
in	
  Mevlana,	
  Turkey,	
  and	
  Hassidic	
  dances	
  are	
  all	
  mystical	
  dance	
  forms	
  that	
  contain	
  
geometric	
   qualities	
   of	
   periodicity	
   and	
   temporal	
   scaling	
   coherence.	
   Greek	
   culture	
  
historically	
   interlaced	
   mystical	
   dance	
   with	
   musical	
   experience	
   giving	
   birth	
   to	
  
Classical	
  Tragedy,	
  features	
  that	
  evolved	
  into	
  the	
  main	
  emotional	
  component	
  in	
  the	
  
celebration	
  of	
  Christianity.	
  In	
  the	
  West	
  the	
  Masses	
  of	
  Bach,	
  Haydn,	
  and	
  Mozart	
  show	
  
fractal	
   temporal	
   structure	
   —	
   an	
   inverse	
   power-­‐law	
   scaling.	
   Sacred	
   chant	
   in	
   all	
  
religions	
  connects	
  human	
  beings	
  to	
  a	
  story,	
  ritual,	
  and	
  precious	
  cultural	
  reference	
  
point.	
  Holy	
  days	
  are	
  marked	
  by	
  special	
  song,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  Byzantine	
  Easter	
  service,	
  
Passion	
  Plays,	
  Kol	
  Nidre	
  during	
  Yom	
  Kippur,	
  Buddhist	
  ceremonial	
  chant,	
  etc.	
  	
  
In	
   architecture	
   all	
   over	
   the	
   world,	
   the	
   House	
   of	
   God	
   displays	
   the	
   connective	
  
qualities	
   we	
   seek,	
   often	
   to	
   their	
   highest	
   possible	
   extent.	
   Independent	
   of	
   the	
  
particular	
  religion	
  or	
  style,	
  this	
  effect	
  is	
  found	
  among	
  all	
  religious	
  building	
  types.	
  
Architects	
   of	
   the	
   past	
   instinctively	
   built	
   according	
   to	
   rules	
   for	
   generating	
   scaling	
  
coherence.	
   All	
   the	
   examples	
   I	
   have	
   mentioned	
   —	
   whether	
   music,	
   dance,	
   art,	
   or	
  
architecture	
  —	
  have	
  common	
  mathematical	
  qualities:	
  fractals,	
  symmetries,	
  rhythm,	
  
hierarchy,	
  scaling	
  distribution,	
  etc.	
  Deliberate	
  creations	
  by	
  traditional	
  humanity	
  the	
  
world	
   over	
   were	
   trying	
   to	
   connect	
   to	
   a	
   reality	
   that	
   expresses	
   truth,	
   order,	
   and	
  
measure	
  beyond	
  our	
  everyday	
  experience.	
  	
  
	
  
Sponsored	
  disconnection	
  	
  
Within	
  this	
  biophilic	
  framework,	
  some	
  religions	
  have	
  been	
  more	
  successful	
  than	
  
others	
  in	
  fighting	
  against	
  the	
  despoliation	
  of	
  nature	
  and	
  our	
  dehumanization.	
  (This	
  
very	
  crude	
  technology/nature	
  opposition	
  was	
  justified	
  by	
  falsely	
  presenting	
  it	
  as	
  a	
  
condition	
   to	
   economic	
   and	
   technological	
   progress).	
   The	
   more	
   conservative	
   of	
   the	
  
organized	
  religions	
  seem	
  to	
  have	
  fared	
  much	
  better	
  at	
  saving	
  their	
  heritage	
  in	
  recent	
  
decades.	
   Fearing	
   the	
   intrusion	
   of	
   foreign	
   cultures	
   and	
   the	
   exploitation	
   by	
   foreign	
  
commercial	
   interests,	
   they	
   have	
   tried	
   to	
   shield	
   themselves	
   from	
   what	
   are	
   rightly	
  
perceived	
   as	
   consumerist	
   and	
   nihilistic	
   currents	
   in	
   Western	
   art	
   and	
   culture.	
  
Ironically,	
  many	
  established	
  religions	
  in	
  the	
  West	
  have	
  embraced	
  those	
  same	
  artistic	
  
	
   12	
  
trends	
   in	
   an	
   effort	
   to	
   remain	
   “up-­‐to-­‐date”	
   so	
   as	
   not	
   to	
   lose	
   members.	
   We	
   have	
  
concrete	
  examples	
  in	
  recent	
  churches	
  that,	
  far	
  from	
  evoking	
  the	
  love	
  and	
  image	
  of	
  
God,	
  instead	
  conjure	
  the	
  image	
  either	
  of	
  secular	
  neutrality	
  (warehouse/garage)	
  or	
  
an	
  expression	
  of	
  evil	
  (slaughterhouse/crematorium).	
  	
  
An	
  established	
  Church	
  that	
  sponsors	
  and	
  builds	
  religious	
  art	
  and	
  its	
  own	
  temples	
  
in	
   a	
   style	
   that	
   induces	
   anxiety	
   will	
   likely	
   be	
   judged	
   as	
   an	
   accomplice	
   to	
   a	
   global	
  
nihilistic	
  movement.	
  Buildings	
  that	
  generate	
  anxiety,	
  consciously	
  or	
  unconsciously,	
  
compromise	
   the	
   very	
   continuity	
   of	
   such	
   a	
   Church.	
   Anxiety,	
   alienation,	
   and	
  
consumerism	
  have	
  little	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  love,	
  charity,	
  and	
  compassion.	
  Anxiety-­‐inducing	
  
forms	
  are	
  instead	
  associated	
  with	
  power,	
  transgression,	
  and	
  sadism;	
  therefore	
  their	
  
attraction	
  is	
  that	
  of	
  a	
  cult	
  of	
  power.	
  Negative	
  reaction	
  by	
  more	
  traditional	
  religious	
  
authorities	
   against	
   contemporary	
   church	
   buildings	
   in	
   the	
   West	
   is	
   not	
   usually	
  
reported	
   because	
   of	
   its	
   politically	
   explosive	
   implications,	
   but	
   it	
   exists,	
   and	
   it	
   is	
  
damning.	
  New	
  churches	
  that	
  are	
  praised	
  by	
  the	
  western	
  press	
  are	
  condemned	
  as	
  
anti-­‐religious	
   by	
   Eastern	
   religious	
   authorities	
   (who	
   apparently	
   have	
   not	
   lost	
   as	
  
much	
   of	
   their	
   sacred	
   connection)	
   on	
   the	
   basis	
   of	
   the	
   fashionable	
   churches’	
  
geometry.	
  	
  
A	
  State,	
  too,	
  can	
  commission	
  prominent	
  public	
  buildings	
  that	
  through	
  their	
  style	
  
objectively	
  evoke	
  anxiety.	
  A	
  hostile	
  reaction	
  to	
  buildings	
  in	
  a	
  nihilistic	
  style	
  that	
  the	
  
government	
  has	
  sponsored	
  turns	
  into	
  hostility	
  against	
  the	
  government	
  itself.	
  This	
  
does	
  not	
  bode	
  well	
  for	
  political	
  stability	
  in	
  the	
  coming	
  decades,	
  when	
  citizens	
  wake	
  
up	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  public	
  money	
  spent	
  on	
  anxiety-­‐inducing	
  buildings	
  promoted	
  by	
  
an	
  ideological	
  elite	
  drove	
  their	
  country	
  into	
  debt.	
  The	
  past	
  few	
  decades	
  have	
  seen	
  a	
  
building	
  spree	
  of	
  unpleasant	
  structures	
  (museums,	
  art	
  galleries,	
  schools,	
  hospitals,	
  
libraries,	
   government	
   buildings,	
   monuments,	
   etc.)	
   and	
   environments	
   in	
   an	
   ill-­‐
conceived	
   desire	
   to	
   conform	
   to	
   a	
   “contemporary”	
   architectural	
   fashion.	
   These	
  
trigger	
  aggression,	
  visual	
  violence,	
  and	
  embody	
  utter	
  pointlessness	
  in	
  their	
  design.	
  	
  
We	
   have	
   already	
   witnessed	
   foreign	
   reaction	
   to	
   such	
   nonsensical	
   and	
  
psychologically	
   aggressive	
   buildings	
   in	
   the	
   rich	
   Western	
   countries	
   but	
   we	
  
misinterpreted	
   it	
   as	
   hostility	
   towards	
   the	
   West’s	
   economic	
   wealth	
   rather	
   than	
   a	
  
legitimate	
   critique	
   of	
   the	
   architecture	
   proper.	
   Nevertheless,	
   similar	
   buildings	
   and	
  
urban	
   regions	
   built	
   in	
   developing	
   countries	
   by	
   those	
   same	
   “star”	
   architects	
   who	
  
build	
  showcase	
  buildings	
  in	
  the	
  West	
  arouse	
  the	
  same	
  hostile	
  sentiments	
  among	
  the	
  
local	
   population.	
   Don’t	
   be	
   fooled	
   by	
   a	
   superficial	
   biological	
   analogy	
   between	
  
monstrous	
  offices	
  and	
  apartment	
  blocks	
  with	
  beehives:	
  we	
  need	
  entirely	
  different	
  
patterns	
  to	
  live	
  an	
  emotionally	
  healthy	
  life	
  than	
  insects	
  do.	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  a	
  correct	
  
interpretation	
   of	
   the	
   negative	
   reaction	
   ordinary	
   people	
   experience	
   around	
  
contemporary	
   buildings	
   in	
   the	
   fashionable	
   style	
   is	
   based	
   upon	
   its	
   rejection	
   of	
  
biophilic	
   patterns,	
   but	
   the	
   soundness	
   of	
   this	
   negative	
   reaction	
   is	
   conveniently	
  
negated	
  by	
  a	
  powerful	
  architectural	
  establishment	
  that	
  promotes	
  such	
  buildings	
  all	
  
over	
  the	
  world.	
  The	
  accusations	
  of	
  nihilism	
  from	
  both	
  within	
  and	
  without	
  Western	
  
society	
   are	
   deflected	
   onto	
   “foreigners”,	
   while	
   critics	
   of	
   Western	
   fashionable	
  
architecture	
  are	
  deemed	
  not	
  sufficiently	
  “contemporary”.	
  	
  
	
  
	
   13	
  
Spatio-­temporal	
  rhythms	
  in	
  the	
  city	
  that	
  attracts	
  talent	
  	
  
A	
   living	
   city	
   works	
   well	
   because	
   it	
   encourages	
   actions,	
   interactions,	
   and	
  
movements,	
  all	
  of	
  which	
  depend	
  upon	
  certain	
  scales	
  in	
  space	
  and	
  time.	
  Spatial	
  scales	
  
are	
  defined	
  by	
  physical	
  structures	
  from	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  a	
  3mm	
  ornament	
  on	
  a	
  park	
  bench	
  
or	
  public	
  lamppost	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  a	
  city’s	
  region	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  identified	
  as	
  more-­‐or-­‐
less	
   coherent	
   within	
   itself.	
   To	
   achieve	
   a	
   positive	
   biophilic	
   effect	
   requires	
   the	
  
existence	
  of	
  the	
  entire	
  range	
  of	
  scales	
  corresponding	
  to	
  the	
  human	
  body	
  (1mm	
  to	
  
2m)	
  extending	
  into	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  scales	
  of	
  pedestrian	
  movement	
  (2m	
  to	
  1km).	
  With	
  
various	
  forms	
  of	
  transport	
  our	
  spatial	
  experience	
  expands	
  to	
  scales	
  of	
  the	
  entire	
  city	
  
and	
   beyond.	
   Quality	
   of	
   life	
   depends	
   proportionally	
   on	
   how	
   we	
   can	
   experience	
   all	
  
scales	
  in	
  a	
  non-­‐threatening	
  manner,	
  with	
  a	
  priority	
  placed	
  upon	
  the	
  smaller	
  scales	
  
corresponding	
  to	
  the	
  human	
  body.	
  	
  
Twentieth-­‐century	
  urbanists	
  disdained	
  the	
  human	
  scales,	
  turning	
  against	
  them	
  
because	
  smaller	
  scales	
  are	
  a	
  defining	
  feature	
  in	
  traditional	
  urbanism.	
  The	
  complex	
  
spatial	
  rhythms	
  of	
  traditional	
  environments	
  are	
  therefore	
  missing	
  by	
  design	
  from	
  
city	
  regions	
  constructed	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  century.	
  Even	
  when	
  a	
  new	
  environment	
  is	
  
labeled	
  as	
  being	
  a	
  “quality”	
  environment,	
  that	
  label	
  most	
  often	
  refers	
  to	
  how	
  closely	
  
the	
  built	
  structure	
  (building,	
  cluster	
  of	
  buildings,	
  urban	
  plaza,	
  public	
  sculpture,	
  etc.)	
  
follows	
  a	
  minimalist	
  sculptural	
  ideal	
  that	
  eschews	
  complex	
  spatial	
  rhythms.	
  In	
  the	
  
built	
  environment	
  of	
  the	
  past	
  several	
  decades	
  we	
  find	
  scales	
  irrelevant	
  to	
  the	
  range	
  
of	
   human	
   scales,	
   except	
   in	
   those	
   crucial	
   exceptions	
   (restaurants,	
   shopping	
   malls)	
  
where	
   retail	
   overrides	
   design	
   ideology.	
   Our	
   civilization	
   has	
   got	
   into	
   the	
   habit	
   of	
  
subjugating	
   and	
   mechanizing	
   human	
   activities,	
   and	
   forgot	
   our	
   need	
   for	
   biological	
  
scaling.	
  This	
  is	
  definitely	
  not	
  the	
  improvement	
  it’s	
  usually	
  claimed	
  to	
  be.	
  	
  
An	
   even	
   more	
   neglected	
   aspect	
   of	
   urban	
   life	
   concerns	
   its	
   temporal	
   rhythms	
  
(Drewe,	
  2005).	
  Everyday	
  life	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  a	
  complex	
  coherent	
  system	
  of	
  actions	
  and	
  
movements	
   on	
   many	
   different	
   time	
   scales.	
   Some	
   time	
   phenomena	
   are	
   spatially	
  
independent,	
   but	
   many	
   depend	
   critically	
   upon	
   the	
   urban	
   geometry.	
   Again,	
   the	
  
shorter	
  periods	
  affect	
  us	
  most,	
  as	
  they	
  have	
  an	
  immediate	
  correlation	
  with	
  our	
  own	
  
bodily	
  rhythms.	
  We	
  are	
  dependent	
  upon	
  events	
  that	
  occur	
  over	
  times	
  of	
  1	
  sec	
  to	
  24	
  
hours.	
  Quality	
  of	
  life	
  can	
  be	
  positive	
  or	
  negative	
  depending	
  on	
  whether	
  our	
  bodies	
  
interact	
  harmoniously	
  with	
  the	
  temporal	
  events	
  caused	
  by	
  a	
  city	
  and	
  permitted	
  by	
  
its	
  geometry.	
  The	
  temporal	
  dimension	
  of	
  urbanism	
  is	
  a	
  poorly-­‐explored	
  topic.	
  	
  
Time	
  is	
  defined	
  either	
  in	
  abstract	
  intervals,	
  or	
  much	
  more	
  physically	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
body	
  movement.	
  Motion	
  could	
  be	
  a	
  response	
  to	
  a	
  physical	
  need,	
  yet	
  any	
  movement	
  
is	
  constrained	
  by	
  the	
  physical	
  space	
  —	
  furniture,	
  room,	
  corridor,	
  urban	
  space	
  —	
  we	
  
occupy	
  at	
  that	
  moment	
  (Schrader,	
  2005).	
  The	
  geometry	
  and	
  material	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  
physical	
   environment	
   impacts	
   on	
   our	
   possible	
   movement;	
   we	
   perceive	
   spatial	
  
constraints	
  from	
  non-­‐biophilic	
  structures,	
  which	
  limit	
  us	
  from	
  freely	
  designing	
  our	
  
own	
  rhythms.	
  Apologists	
  for	
  such	
  non-­‐accommodating	
  environments	
  falsely	
  claim	
  
that	
  they	
  are	
  necessary	
  for	
  technology.	
  Technology	
  can	
  shape	
  our	
  environment	
  to	
  
suit	
  us,	
  not	
  the	
  other	
  way	
  around.	
  Our	
  daily	
  routine	
  involves	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  movements	
  
and	
   any	
   pattern	
   in	
   our	
   daily	
   activity	
   defines	
   a	
   temporal	
   rhythm.	
   Periodic	
   events	
  
could	
   occur	
   throughout	
   the	
   day,	
   or	
   as	
   once-­‐a-­‐day	
   longer-­‐term	
   rhythms.	
   Some	
  
	
   14	
  
movements	
  in	
  daily	
  routine	
  are	
  necessary,	
  whereas	
  we	
  choose	
  to	
  perform	
  others	
  for	
  
our	
  physical	
  enjoyment.	
  We	
  try	
  to	
  establish	
  such	
  rhythms	
  out	
  of	
  a	
  natural	
  need	
  for	
  
temporal	
  order.	
  	
  
A	
  city	
  wishing	
  to	
  attract	
  new	
  talent	
  has	
  to	
  offer,	
  among	
  many	
  other	
  things,	
  an	
  
urban	
  morphology	
  that	
  accommodates	
  daily	
  life	
  on	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  temporal	
  scales.	
  This	
  
is	
  the	
  “dance	
  of	
  life”	
  (Hall,	
  1984),	
  and	
  like	
  classical	
  dance	
  forms	
  from	
  all	
  cultures,	
  
urban	
  movement	
  has	
  its	
  rhythm,	
  complex	
  fractal	
  structure,	
  and	
  continuity	
  (Whyte,	
  
1988).	
   People	
   may	
   not	
   immediately	
   perceive	
   the	
   effects	
   of	
   this	
   dance	
   upon	
  
themselves,	
  but	
  our	
  life	
  accumulates	
  either	
  the	
  positive	
  or	
  negative	
  effects	
  of	
  our	
  
daily	
  routine,	
  and	
  our	
  body	
  will	
  start	
  giving	
  us	
  signals.	
  Positive	
  signals	
  translate	
  into	
  
wellbeing	
  and	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  cope	
  with	
  unavoidable	
  stress,	
  whereas	
  negative	
  signals	
  
wear	
   us	
   out	
   so	
   that	
   we	
   become	
   decreasingly	
   able	
   to	
   handle	
   normal	
   stress	
   in	
   our	
  
daily	
  environment.	
  Our	
  health	
  suffers	
  because	
  a	
  weakened	
  state	
  of	
  being	
  makes	
  us	
  
prone	
  to	
  both	
  external	
  infection	
  and	
  to	
  internal	
  imbalances.	
  	
  
For	
  example,	
  a	
  commuting	
  trip	
  of	
  over	
  30	
  min	
  generates	
  stress,	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  
means	
  of	
  transport.	
  Research	
  has	
  discovered	
  that	
  people	
  are	
  willing	
  to	
  commute	
  for	
  
up	
  to	
  one	
  hour	
  daily	
  (round-­‐trip),	
  whether	
  it	
  is	
  through	
  walking,	
  private	
  car,	
  public	
  
transport,	
  bus,	
  subway,	
  or	
  commuter	
  train	
  (Newman	
  and	
  Kenworthy,	
  1999).	
  When	
  
this	
   time	
   is	
   exceeded,	
   however,	
   quality	
   of	
   life	
   diminishes.	
   Therefore,	
   the	
   massive	
  
trade-­‐off	
   of	
   enjoying	
   a	
   suburban	
   front/back	
   yard	
   with	
   lawn	
   in	
   exchange	
   for	
   two	
  
hours	
   or	
   more	
   of	
   round-­‐trip	
   commuting	
   is	
   actually	
   not	
   cost-­‐effective	
   as	
   far	
   as	
  
Biophilia	
  is	
  concerned.	
  	
  
Having	
  access	
  to	
  a	
  pedestrian	
  environment	
  (not	
  necessarily	
  strictly	
  pedestrian;	
  
the	
  traditional	
  city	
  with	
  wide	
  sidewalks	
  lined	
  with	
  stores	
  does	
  very	
  well)	
  offers	
  the	
  
possibility	
  of	
  excursions	
  on	
  foot	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  of	
  any	
  duration.	
  A	
  complex	
  connected	
  
pedestrian	
  geometry	
  allows	
  periodic	
  actions	
  of,	
  say,	
  15	
  min	
  (e.g.	
  a	
  trip	
  to	
  a	
  coffee	
  
shop	
   or	
   park),	
   which	
   are	
   unfeasible	
   in	
   a	
   car	
   city.	
   Such	
   trips	
   do	
   not	
   need	
   to	
   be	
  
planned,	
  just	
  enjoyed	
  if	
  the	
  visual	
  stimulation	
  and	
  other	
  factors	
  are	
  positive,	
  and	
  the	
  
duration	
  of	
  trips	
  that	
  are	
  necessary	
  for	
  a	
  specific	
  function	
  can	
  be	
  adjusted	
  according	
  
to	
  the	
  occasion.	
  This	
  flexibility	
  in	
  time	
  is	
  not	
  possible	
  when	
  driving	
  to	
  a	
  destination,	
  
and	
   the	
   situation	
   is	
   only	
   slightly	
   better	
   for	
   public	
   transport.	
   In	
   the	
   Metropolitan	
  
transport	
  of	
  some	
  central	
  cities,	
  a	
  passenger	
  can	
  profit	
  from	
  the	
  commerce	
  located	
  
in	
  and	
  around	
  the	
  stations,	
  but	
  bus	
  stops	
  tend	
  to	
  be	
  located	
  in	
  dreary	
  places,	
  with	
  
stations	
  exposed	
  or	
  in	
  hostile	
  environments.	
  	
  
“Innovation”	
   requires	
   an	
   environment	
   that	
   encourages	
   a	
   state	
   of	
   physical	
   and	
  
emotional	
  wellbeing	
  (Ward	
  and	
  Holtham,	
  2000).	
  The	
  new	
  dematerialized	
  economy	
  
relies	
   more	
   and	
   more	
   on	
   the	
   material	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   immediate	
   surroundings.	
  
Persons	
  who	
  are	
  not	
  dependent	
  upon	
  the	
  physical	
  city	
  for	
  their	
  work	
  still	
  rely	
  upon	
  
the	
  physical	
  city	
  for	
  their	
  wellbeing,	
  demanding	
  an	
  environment	
  that	
  permits	
  spatio-­‐
temporal	
  rhythms.	
  They	
  judge	
  where	
  to	
  locate	
  using	
  spatio-­‐temporal	
  and	
  biophilic	
  
criteria.	
  People	
  who	
  work	
  with	
  ideas	
  and	
   who	
   drive	
   the	
   knowledge	
   economy	
   are	
  
those	
  most	
  able	
  to	
  relocate,	
  and	
  they	
  will	
  do	
  so	
  if	
  repelled	
  by	
  a	
  city	
  with	
  an	
  alien	
  
geometry,	
  towards	
  a	
  city	
  with	
  spatio-­‐temporal	
  attractions	
  on	
  the	
  human	
  scale.	
  Many	
  
	
   15	
  
knowledge	
  workers	
  nowadays	
  occasionally	
  base	
  themselves	
  in	
  coffee	
  shops	
  with	
  a	
  
wireless	
  high-­‐speed	
  internet	
  connection.	
  	
  
It	
  is	
  the	
  wish	
  of	
  almost	
  every	
  city	
  to	
  position	
  itself	
  as	
  a	
  magnet	
  for	
  talent,	
  for	
  then	
  
it	
   can	
   attract	
   knowledge	
   industries	
   such	
   as	
   Information	
   and	
   Communication	
  
Technologies,	
  finance,	
  advanced	
  technology,	
  arts	
  industries,	
  etc.	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  hub	
  for	
  
the	
  “Knowledge	
  Society”	
  (Tinagli,	
  2005).	
  These	
  are	
  occupations	
  that	
  are	
  relatively	
  
“clean”	
  as	
  far	
  as	
  industrial	
  repercussions,	
  yet	
  have	
  a	
  very	
  high	
  value	
  generation.	
  It	
  is	
  
well	
  known	
  that	
  a	
  concentration	
  of	
  talent	
  and	
  educated	
  workforce	
  pushes	
  a	
  city’s	
  
economy	
  up	
  to	
  international	
  standards,	
  with	
  corresponding	
  feedback	
  that	
  benefits	
  
the	
  entire	
  city.	
  Ever	
  since	
  the	
  West’s	
  manufacturing	
  base	
  shifted	
  to	
  the	
  developing	
  
world,	
  industrial	
  production	
  became	
  much	
  less	
  attractive.	
  Even	
  in	
  the	
  developing	
  
world	
  that	
  has	
  now	
  captured	
  industrial	
  production,	
  however,	
  key	
  cities	
  compete	
  to	
  
attract	
  knowledge-­‐based	
  industries.	
  	
  
What	
   attracts	
   the	
   educated	
   and	
   the	
   talented	
   to	
   a	
   city?	
   It	
   is	
   quality	
   of	
   life,	
  
measured	
   in	
   part	
   by	
   the	
   criteria	
   I	
   have	
   outlined	
   here,	
   not	
   by	
   an	
   alien	
   urban	
  
morphology	
  that	
  follows	
  a	
  modernist	
  design	
  ideology.	
  The	
  point	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  highly-­‐
educated	
   workforce	
   for	
   these	
   technologies	
   is	
   more	
   able	
   to	
   value	
   environmental	
  
wellbeing	
   that	
   is	
   described	
   in	
   this	
   paper.	
   Citizens	
   wish,	
   above	
   all,	
   to	
   enjoy	
   a	
  
stimulating	
  and	
  pleasant	
  everyday	
  life,	
  in	
  which	
  normal	
  tasks	
  can	
  be	
  accomplished	
  
without	
  too	
  much	
  stress.	
  Their	
  professional	
  activities	
  reside	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  this	
  basis	
  of	
  
wellbeing.	
   Examples	
   abound	
   of	
   intelligent	
   professionals	
   leaving	
   a	
   “magnet”	
   city	
  
because	
  everyday	
  life	
  has	
  become	
  too	
  stressful	
  or	
  expensive.	
  Much	
  of	
  this	
  has	
  to	
  do	
  
with	
  spatio-­‐temporal	
  scales:	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  case	
  when	
  working	
  and	
  living	
  environments	
  
do	
  not	
  offer	
  the	
  biophilic	
  range	
  of	
  scales;	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  second	
  case	
  when	
  daily	
  life	
  is	
  
skewed	
   towards	
   uncomfortable	
   time	
   periods,	
   as	
   for	
   example	
   a	
   long	
   commute	
   to	
  
work,	
  getting	
  children	
  to	
  school,	
  food	
  shopping,	
  accomplishing	
  regular	
  out-­‐of-­‐house	
  
chores,	
  etc.	
  	
  
I	
  realize	
  that	
  the	
  above	
  thesis	
  only	
  presents	
  a	
  small	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  broader	
  scenario,	
  
and,	
   given	
   human	
   nature	
   and	
   human	
   interactions,	
   we	
   may	
   live	
   in	
   an	
   earthly	
  
paradise	
   and	
   still	
   be	
   stressed	
   from	
   local	
   crime,	
   a	
   corrupt	
   government,	
   or	
   hostile	
  
colleagues	
  at	
  work.	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  deny	
  any	
  of	
  that.	
  What	
  I	
  wish	
  to	
  bring	
  to	
  attention	
  is	
  the	
  
much-­‐ignored	
   component	
   of	
   “pleasantness”	
   that	
   comes	
   directly	
   from	
   architecture	
  
and	
  urbanism.	
  This	
  includes	
  respect	
  for	
  the	
  natural	
  environment	
  so	
  that	
  buildings	
  
blend	
   intimately	
   with	
   nature	
   in	
   a	
   biophilic	
   setting;	
   design	
   of	
   cities	
   to	
   optimize	
   a	
  
pedestrian	
  experience	
  of	
  richly	
  informational	
  buildings;	
  visual	
  variety	
  emphasizing	
  
the	
  scales	
  most	
  responsible	
  for	
  a	
  positive	
  biophilic	
  effect,	
  etc.	
  	
  
	
  
Myths	
  around	
  energy	
  consumption	
  	
  
We	
  have	
  been	
  led	
  to	
  accept	
  the	
  myth	
  that	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  increases	
  proportionally	
  
to	
  energy	
  consumption.	
  While	
  true	
  for	
  the	
  onset	
  of	
  industrialization,	
  this	
  correlation	
  
is	
   also	
   responsible	
   for	
   an	
   unsustainable	
   global	
   economy.	
   The	
   basic	
   premise	
   is	
   a	
  
falsehood	
   that	
   has	
   to	
   be	
   disputed	
   before	
   it	
   can	
   be	
   reversed.	
   Early	
   technological	
  
advances	
  permitted	
  an	
  improvement	
  in	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  life,	
  but	
  this	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  
	
   16	
  
that	
   increased	
   happiness	
   comes	
   from	
   wasting	
   energy	
   and	
   natural	
   resources.	
  
Unfortunately,	
  major	
  world	
  industries	
  have	
  developed	
  that	
  work	
  upon	
  encouraging	
  
consumers	
  to	
  waste	
  energy.	
  The	
  throwaway	
  culture	
  of	
  shoddy	
  consumer	
  materials	
  
in	
  the	
  wealthy	
  countries	
  destroys	
  the	
  environment	
  of	
  the	
  developing	
  countries	
  that	
  
produce	
  all	
  that	
  stuff.	
  	
  
For	
   example,	
   we	
   have	
   developed	
   an	
   entire	
   mythology	
   (motion	
   pictures,	
  
literature)	
  around	
  the	
  pleasures	
  of	
  driving	
  a	
  car.	
  There	
  is	
  undeniably	
  a	
  remarkable	
  
freedom	
  in	
  having	
  a	
  private	
  vehicle	
  that	
  moves	
  us	
  fast	
  on	
  the	
  surface	
  of	
  the	
  earth,	
  
and	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  liberating	
  notion	
  in	
  many	
  ways,	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  terribly	
  expensive	
  action	
  as	
  
far	
   as	
   energy	
   wastage	
   is	
   concerned.	
   As	
   much	
   of	
   the	
   world’s	
   economy	
   entails	
  
companies	
  that	
  extract,	
  process,	
  distribute,	
  and	
  sell	
  petroleum	
  products,	
  it	
  has	
  made	
  
sense	
  for	
  them	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  car-­‐oriented	
  society	
  through	
  movies,	
  media,	
  and	
  other	
  
components	
  of	
  manufactured	
  culture.	
  Just	
  note	
  that	
  at	
  the	
  speed	
  of	
  a	
  moving	
  vehicle,	
  
biophilic	
  effects	
  from	
  the	
  environment	
  diminish	
  to	
  the	
  point	
  of	
  insignificance,	
  except	
  
when	
  one	
  is	
  actually	
  driving	
  through	
  wooded	
  countryside.	
  	
  
Put	
  very	
  simply,	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  depends	
  upon	
  nourishment	
  from	
  the	
  environment,	
  
and	
  not	
  upon	
  energy	
  consumption.	
  The	
  consumer	
  society	
  has	
  done	
  a	
  very	
  thorough	
  
job	
  of	
  convincing	
  people	
  the	
  world	
  over	
  of	
  an	
  imaginary	
  link	
  between	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  
and	
  energy	
  wastage.	
  That	
  conjectured	
  relation	
  has	
  only	
  served	
  the	
  large	
  part	
  of	
  our	
  
economy	
  that	
  runs	
  upon	
  energy	
  production	
  and	
  consumption.	
  Because	
  of	
  both	
  the	
  
size	
  of	
  those	
  related	
  industries,	
  and	
  the	
  present	
  state	
  of	
  globalization,	
  it	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  
be	
  very	
  difficult	
  to	
  reverse	
  the	
  consumerist	
  trend	
  in	
  the	
  near	
  future.	
  Of	
  course,	
  the	
  
world	
   will	
   be	
   forced	
   into	
   a	
   totally	
   distinct	
   mode	
   overnight	
   after	
   an	
   energy	
  
catastrophe	
   (due	
   to	
   shortages	
   because	
   of	
   exhausted	
   supplies,	
   military	
   action,	
   or	
  
disruption	
   in	
   delivery	
   channels),	
   but	
   past	
   experience	
   with	
   transient	
   energy	
  
shortages	
  does	
  not	
  seem	
  to	
  have	
  taught	
  anyone	
  a	
  lesson	
  about	
  the	
  future.	
  	
  
Placing	
   this	
   essay	
   in	
   the	
   broader	
   evolutionary	
   context	
   of	
   humans	
   and	
   human	
  
technology,	
   most	
   of	
   the	
   things	
   we	
   once	
   thought	
   of	
   as	
   solely	
   human	
   —	
   tool	
   use,	
  
language,	
  etc.	
  —	
  are	
  now	
  seen	
  as	
  more	
  common	
  to	
  other	
  animals.	
  We	
  distinguish	
  
ourselves,	
  however,	
  in	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  influence	
  our	
  environment	
  on	
  a	
  massive	
  scale.	
  
At	
   the	
   very	
   heart	
   of	
   this	
   process	
   is	
   the	
   building	
   of	
   settlements,	
   which	
   uses	
   up	
  
tremendous	
  resources.	
  The	
  unsustainable	
  system	
  now	
  in	
  place	
  in	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  world,	
  
supported	
  by	
  a	
  consumerist	
  philosophy	
  and	
  taken	
  for	
  granted,	
  is	
  that	
  development	
  
and	
  Gross	
  Domestic	
  Product	
  depend	
  upon	
  increasing	
  energy	
  use.	
  This	
  system	
  has	
  a	
  
runaway	
  positive	
  feedback,	
  and	
  nature	
  cannot	
  possibly	
  support	
  it.	
  	
  
The	
  discussion	
  of	
  geometry	
  becomes	
  central,	
  because	
  life	
  that	
  depends	
  upon	
  the	
  
geometry	
  of	
  the	
  environment	
  is	
  an	
  emergent	
  system	
  property,	
  which	
  is	
  qualitative,	
  
not	
   quantitative.	
   Certainly,	
   Biophilia	
   is	
   essentially	
   structural	
   —	
   it	
   arises	
   out	
   of	
  
complex	
   structures	
   involving	
   fractals,	
   networks,	
   etc.	
   —	
   but	
   it	
   is	
   not	
   easily	
  
quantifiable.	
  Hence	
  what	
  is	
  basically	
  a	
  totally	
  rational	
  phenomenon	
  requires	
  very	
  
different	
  tools	
  for	
  understanding	
  and	
  managing,	
  and	
  necessitates	
  those	
  who	
  wish	
  to	
  
stop	
   the	
   older,	
   unsustainable	
   paradigm	
   to	
   develop	
   a	
   different	
   worldview.	
   The	
  
profoundly	
  simplistic	
  limitations	
  of	
  our	
  present	
  thinking	
  neglect	
  and	
  consequently	
  
	
   17	
  
help	
  destroy	
  the	
  complex	
  emergent	
  properties	
  that	
  allow	
  life	
  to	
  flourish	
  in	
  the	
  built	
  
environment.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  threat	
  from	
  deceptive	
  high-­tech	
  sustainability	
  	
  
The	
   global	
   industrial	
   system	
   has	
   learned	
   the	
   appeal	
   of	
   sustainability,	
   and	
   it	
   is	
  
applying	
  clever	
  and	
  deceptive	
  techniques	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  perpetuate	
  its	
  world	
  business.	
  
Perhaps	
   the	
   greatest	
   threat	
   faced	
   by	
   human-­‐scale	
   urbanism	
   today	
   lies	
   in	
   the	
  
nightmarish	
   “sustainable”	
   cities	
   and	
   urban	
   projects	
   proposed	
   and	
   built	
   by	
  
fashionable	
  architects.	
  The	
  global	
  system	
  has	
  picked	
  up	
  the	
  sustainable	
  vocabulary	
  
and	
   has	
   used	
   it	
   to	
   re-­‐package	
   their	
   extraordinarily	
   expensive	
   and	
   fundamentally	
  
unsustainable	
   products	
   (glass	
   and	
   steel	
   towers,	
   monstrous	
   buildings,	
   industrial-­‐
style	
  cities	
  in	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  nowhere)	
  as	
  “sustainable”.	
  The	
  trick	
  consists	
  of	
  using	
  
some	
   technological	
   gimmicks,	
   and	
   coming	
   up	
   with	
   numbers	
   for	
   energy	
   saved	
  
through	
  having	
  some	
  solar	
  panels	
  and	
  double	
  glazing	
  on	
  the	
  buildings’	
  glass	
  façades.	
  
But	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  fundamental	
  deception,	
  since	
  the	
  city	
  or	
  country	
  that	
  buys	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  
eco-­‐monsters	
  becomes	
  totally	
  dependent	
  on	
  the	
  consumerist	
  energy	
  system.	
  	
  
As	
  the	
  companies	
  selling	
  such	
  industrial	
  products	
  are	
  the	
  major	
  multinationals	
  
tied	
   into	
   the	
   power	
   of	
   Western	
   states,	
   it	
   is	
   extremely	
   difficult	
   to	
   counter	
   the	
  
publicity	
   effort	
   that	
   is	
   devoted	
   to	
   their	
   promotion.	
   Also,	
   the	
   selling	
   occurs	
   at	
   the	
  
highest	
  government	
  levels,	
  far	
  above	
  any	
  decision-­‐making	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  influenced	
  by	
  
ordinary	
   citizens.	
   The	
   client	
   nation	
   blindly	
   trusts	
   the	
   giant	
   Western-­‐based	
  
multinationals	
   to	
   deliver	
   a	
   sustainable	
   product	
   because	
   that	
   is	
   what	
   the	
   media	
  
promises.	
   At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
   the	
   controlled	
   media	
   acting	
   as	
   a	
   mouthpiece	
   for	
   the	
  
multinationals	
  praise	
  the	
  client	
  nation	
  for	
  its	
  “great	
  foresight”	
  and	
  its	
  adoption	
  of	
  
“progressive	
  urbanism”.	
  Since	
  national	
  pride	
  is	
  involved	
  here,	
  even	
  the	
  most	
  blatant	
  
urban	
  disaster	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  discussed	
  openly.	
  Maybe	
  we	
  will	
  read	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  city	
  that	
  
proved	
   to	
   be	
   totally	
   dysfunctional,	
   or	
   too	
   expensive	
   to	
   run,	
   after	
   several	
   decades	
  
have	
  passed,	
  but	
  certainly	
  not	
  sooner.	
  	
  
Centralized	
   governments	
   have	
   always	
   been	
   enamored	
   of	
   large-­‐scale	
   industrial	
  
solutions,	
   industrial	
   cities,	
   massive	
   five-­‐year	
   building	
   plans,	
   etc.	
   Despite	
   all	
   good	
  
intentions,	
  such	
  projects	
  proved	
  to	
  be	
  totally	
  dehumanizing	
  in	
  the	
  past	
  because	
  they	
  
ignored	
  human	
  psychological	
  needs	
  and	
  the	
  human	
  scale.	
  Such	
  initiatives	
  are	
  now	
  
reappearing	
   as	
   globalist	
   urban	
   applications,	
   but	
   with	
   a	
   newly-­‐polished	
   high-­‐tech	
  
glamour.	
  Many	
  persons	
  continue	
  to	
  support	
  such	
  projects,	
  seeing	
  them	
  as	
  proof	
  that	
  
technology	
  can	
  solve	
  every	
  social	
  problem.	
  Old-­‐style	
  centralized	
  industrialization	
  is	
  
made	
  toxic,	
  however,	
  by	
  skewing	
  everything	
  towards	
  the	
  very	
  largest	
  scale.	
  	
  
By	
   contrast,	
   genuine	
   sustainability	
   uses	
   small-­‐scale	
   technology	
   linked	
   in	
   an	
  
essential	
  manner	
  to	
  traditional	
  socio-­‐geometric	
  patterns	
  that	
  connect	
  a	
  society	
  to	
  
itself	
  and	
  to	
  its	
  place	
  (Salingaros,	
  2010).	
  A	
  genuinely	
  sustainable	
  approach	
  enjoys	
  
the	
   natural	
   kinship	
   of	
   bottom-­‐up	
   entrepreneurial	
   initiatives	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   Grameen	
  
Bank.	
  We	
  begin	
  from	
  the	
  smallest	
  scale	
  and	
  move	
  up	
  through	
  increasing	
  scales.	
  A	
  
peer-­‐to-­‐peer	
  network	
  empowers	
  the	
  individual	
  to	
  work	
  and	
  act	
  within	
  a	
  society	
  in	
  a	
  
way	
   that	
   benefits	
   that	
   society	
   (Bauwens,	
   2005).	
   Just	
   as	
   in	
   any	
   stable	
   complex	
  
	
   18	
  
system,	
  different	
  layers	
  of	
  functionality	
  are	
  added	
  on	
  increasingly	
  larger	
  scales,	
  yet	
  
the	
  working	
  whole	
  requires	
  a	
  balance	
  of	
  mechanisms	
  acting	
  on	
  all	
  scales,	
  interacting	
  
horizontally	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  vertically.	
  The	
  new	
  techno-­‐cities,	
  tragically,	
  are	
  designed	
  to	
  
work	
  on	
  only	
  one	
  scale	
  —	
  the	
  largest	
  scale	
  designed	
  as	
  an	
  abstract	
  sculpture	
  on	
  a	
  
fashionable	
  architect’s	
  drawing	
  table	
  —	
  in	
  which	
  case	
  they	
  may	
  not	
  work	
  at	
  all.	
  	
  
Readers	
   of	
   this	
   essay	
   may	
   accept	
   its	
   premises	
   on	
   Biophilia	
   and	
   sustainability	
  
supporting	
  cities	
  on	
  the	
  human	
  scale	
  and	
  decide	
  to	
  adopt	
  my	
  suggestions,	
  but	
  could	
  
be	
  led	
  astray	
  by	
  imitative	
  contemporary	
  design	
  trends.	
  I	
  feel	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  raise	
  an	
  
alarm	
  against	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  fashionable	
  architect/urbanists	
  that	
  are	
  misusing	
  science	
  
to	
   advance	
   their	
   own	
   agenda.	
   Supported	
   by	
   our	
   top	
   schools	
   and	
   the	
   media,	
   this	
  
group	
  embodies	
  a	
  superficial	
  grasp	
  of	
  popular	
  science,	
  using	
  words	
  such	
  as	
  fractals,	
  
complexity,	
  emergence,	
  etc.,	
  and	
  claims	
  to	
  offer	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  sustainable	
  urbanism.	
  
Ordinary	
  people	
  are	
  attracted	
  to	
  these	
  false	
  promises,	
  because	
  they	
  cannot	
  tell	
  the	
  
difference	
   between	
   true	
   and	
   bogus	
   science.	
   Nevertheless,	
   the	
   purpose	
   of	
   this	
  
movement	
  is	
  entirely	
  self-­‐serving.	
  	
  
In	
  presentations	
  that	
  read	
  very	
  similarly	
  to	
  what	
  could	
  be	
  one	
  of	
  my	
  own	
  texts,	
  
this	
  group’s	
  discussions	
  also	
  introduce	
  the	
  keywords:	
  “diversity”,	
  “unpredictability”,	
  
“accidental”,	
   “indeterminacy”,	
   “optimism”,	
   and	
   “opportunity”…	
   Couched	
   under	
   a	
  
pseudo-­‐scientific	
   cover,	
   however,	
   the	
   message	
   says	
   that	
   there	
   is	
   no	
   science	
   of	
  
urbanism	
  and	
  no	
  shared	
  framework	
  for	
  effective	
  design;	
  therefore	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  build	
  
according	
   to	
   randomness.	
   This	
   assertion	
   is	
   as	
   false	
   as	
   it	
   is	
   irresponsible.	
   Its	
   true	
  
message	
   is	
   the	
   exact	
   opposite	
   of	
   biophilia	
   and	
   sustainability	
   that	
   are	
   based	
   on	
  
scientific	
  knowledge.	
  What	
  this	
  group	
  proposes	
  is	
  the	
  continuation	
  of	
  inhuman	
  ego-­‐
based	
   experiments	
   on	
   the	
   lives	
   of	
   human	
   beings	
   begun	
   by	
   industrial	
   urban	
  
typologies	
  used	
  as	
  agents	
  of	
  social	
  engineering.	
  As	
  if	
  its	
  theoretical	
  statements	
  were	
  
not	
   alarming	
   enough,	
   this	
   group’s	
   marketing	
   ploy	
   always	
   concludes	
   by	
  
recommending	
  its	
  handful	
  of	
  favorite	
  “star”	
  architects	
  for	
  large	
  urban	
  projects.	
  	
  
	
  
Conclusion	
  	
  
It	
   would	
   be	
   a	
   tremendous	
   move	
   forward	
   if	
   people	
   could	
   be	
   divested	
   of	
   their	
  
indoctrination	
  that	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  necessitates	
  high	
  energy	
  expenditure.	
  To	
  replace	
  
the	
   pleasures	
   of	
   daily	
   living	
   now	
   provided	
   through	
   wasting	
   energy	
   resources,	
   I	
  
propose	
  a	
  return	
  to	
  emotional	
  nourishment	
  from	
  the	
  built	
  environment.	
  This	
  is	
  very	
  
easy	
   to	
   accomplish,	
   and	
   only	
   requires	
   re-­‐structuring	
   our	
   built	
   environment	
   to	
  
provide	
   biophilic	
   information.	
   At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
   the	
   proposed	
   restructuring	
  
necessitates	
   a	
   shift	
   away	
   from	
   the	
   energivorous	
   car-­‐oriented	
   society	
   towards	
   a	
  
human-­‐scaled	
   urban	
   fabric.	
   Already	
   in	
   the	
   past	
   several	
   decades,	
   cities	
   are	
  
embarking	
  upon	
  such	
  a	
  program	
  of	
  restructuring.	
  Their	
  motivation	
  has	
  been	
  to	
  save	
  
energy.	
  What	
  I	
  am	
  proposing	
  is	
  altogether	
  different	
  and	
  goes	
  much	
  further	
  towards	
  
improving	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  life.	
  	
  
Biophilic	
  nourishment	
  is	
  a	
  positive	
  experience	
  that	
  can	
  substitute	
  for	
  giving	
  up	
  
the	
  thrills	
  of	
  riding	
  around	
  in	
  cars	
  at	
  high	
  speed.	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  crucial	
  
factor	
  that	
  can	
  make	
  a	
  new	
  sustainable	
  society	
  possible.	
  The	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  people	
  
	
   19	
  
will	
   not	
   give	
   up	
   their	
   present	
   wasteful	
   lifestyle	
   out	
   of	
   an	
   altruistic	
   desire	
   to	
   save	
  
their	
  planet.	
  We	
  know	
  from	
  history	
  that	
  populations	
  would	
  rather	
  proceed	
  towards	
  
their	
  own	
  extinction	
  rather	
  than	
  engage	
  in	
  self-­‐sacrifice	
  for	
  the	
  common	
  good.	
  What	
  
I’m	
  proposing	
  is	
  different:	
  you	
  simply	
  get	
  your	
  pleasure	
  from	
  a	
  different	
  source.	
  And	
  
it	
   works:	
   environmental	
   nourishment	
   from	
   Biophilia	
   has	
   sustained	
   and	
   satisfied	
  
people	
  for	
  hundreds	
  of	
  millennia	
  up	
  until	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century.	
  We	
  are	
  not	
  talking	
  
about	
  an	
  untried	
  experiment,	
  but	
  a	
  return	
  to	
  something	
  that	
  we	
  know	
  works.	
  	
  
Lest	
  critics	
  raise	
  objections	
  about	
  returning	
  to	
  the	
  past,	
  I	
  would	
  advise	
  them	
  not	
  
to	
  worry.	
  We	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  apply	
  all	
  our	
  technological	
  knowledge	
  to	
  solve	
  problems	
  
that	
  were	
  present	
  in	
  urban	
  living	
  in	
  previous	
  times.	
  Clean	
  technology	
  replaces	
  dirty	
  
technology.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  going	
  back	
  to	
  a	
  pre-­‐industrial	
  past	
  of	
  rampant	
  disease	
  unless	
  
it	
  is	
  brought	
  on	
  by	
  economic	
  collapse	
  due	
  to	
  energy	
  depletion.	
  All	
  we	
  are	
  recovering	
  
through	
   Biophilia	
   is	
   the	
   positive	
   emotional	
   experience,	
   not	
   the	
   old	
   problems	
   in	
  
coping	
  with	
  everyday	
  existence	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  now	
  bypassed.	
  	
  
	
  
Acknowledgments:	
   I	
   am	
   very	
   grateful	
   to	
   Jaap	
   Dawson,	
   Michael	
   Mehaffy,	
   and	
  
Sarah	
  Rubidge	
  for	
  their	
  suggestions.	
  	
  
	
  
REFERENCES.	
  
Alexander,	
  Christopher	
  2001–2005.	
  The	
  Nature	
  of	
  Order,	
  Books	
  1-­‐4,	
  Center	
  for	
  
Environmental	
  Structure,	
  Berkeley,	
  California.	
  
Alexander,	
  Christopher,	
  S.	
  Ishikawa,	
  M.	
  Silverstein,	
  M.	
  Jacobson,	
  I.	
  Fiksdahl-­‐King,	
  
and	
  S.	
  Angel	
  1977.	
  A	
  Pattern	
  Language,	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press,	
  New	
  York.	
  	
  
Bauwens,	
  Michel	
  2005.	
  “P2P	
  and	
  Human	
  Evolution:	
  Peer	
  to	
  peer	
  as	
  the	
  premise	
  
of	
  a	
  new	
  mode	
  of	
  civilization”	
  
<http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf>.	
  	
  
Drewe,	
  Paul	
  2005.	
  “Time	
  in	
  Urban	
  Planning	
  and	
  Design	
  in	
  the	
  ICT	
  Age”,	
  in	
  Shifting	
  
Sense	
   –	
   Looking	
   Back	
   to	
   the	
   Future	
   in	
   Spatial	
   Planning,	
   edited	
   by	
   Edward	
  
Hulsbergen,	
   Ina	
   Klaasen	
   and	
   Iwan	
   Kriens,	
   Techne	
   Press,	
   Amsterdam,	
   pages	
   197–
211.	
  	
  
Fathy,	
   Hassan	
   1973.	
   Architecture	
   for	
   the	
   Poor,	
   University	
   of	
   Chicago	
   Press,	
  
Chicago,	
  Illinois.	
  
Hall,	
   Edward	
   T.	
   1984.	
   The	
   Dance	
   of	
   Life:	
   The	
   Other	
   Dimension	
   of	
   Time,	
   Anchor	
  
Books,	
  Garden	
  City,	
  New	
  York.	
  	
  
Joye,	
  Yannick	
  and	
  Agnes	
  Van	
  Den	
  Berg	
  2010.	
  “Nature	
  is	
  easy	
  on	
  the	
  mind”,	
  paper	
  
presented	
   at	
   the	
   8th	
   Biennial	
   Conference	
   on	
   Environmental	
   Psychology,	
   Zürich,	
  
Switzerland,	
  6-­‐9	
  September	
  2009.	
  	
  
Newman,	
  Peter	
  and	
  Jeffrey	
  Kenworthy	
  1999.	
  Sustainability	
  and	
  Cities,	
  Island	
  Press,	
  
Washington	
  D.C.	
  
	
   20	
  
Salingaros,	
   Nikos	
   A.	
   2000.	
   “The	
   Structure	
   of	
   Pattern	
   Languages”,	
   Architectural	
  
Research	
  Quarterly,	
  volume	
  4,	
  pages	
  149–161.	
  Reprinted	
  as	
  Chapter	
  8	
  of:	
  Salingaros,	
  
N.	
  A.	
  2005.	
  Principles	
  of	
  Urban	
  Structure,	
  Techne	
  Press,	
  Amsterdam,	
  Holland.	
  	
  
Salingaros,	
   Nikos	
   A.	
   2006.	
   A	
   Theory	
   of	
   Architecture,	
   Umbau-­‐Verlag,	
   Solingen,	
  
Germany.	
  	
  
Salingaros,	
  Nikos	
  A.	
  2010.	
  “Peer-­‐to-­‐Peer	
  Themes	
  and	
  Urban	
  Priorities	
  for	
  the	
  Self-­‐
organizing	
  Society”,	
  P2PFoundation,	
  26	
  April	
  2010	
  <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer-­‐
to-­‐Peer_Themes_and_Urban_Priorities_for_the_Self-­‐organizing_Society>.	
  	
  
Salingaros,	
  Nikos	
  A.,	
  D.	
  Brain,	
  A.	
  M.	
  Duany,	
  M.	
  W.Mehaffy	
  and	
  E.	
  Philibert-­‐Petit	
  
2006.	
   “Favelas	
   and	
   Social	
   Housing:	
   The	
   Urbanism	
   of	
   Self-­‐Organization”,	
   in:	
   2º	
  
Congresso	
   Brasileiro	
   e	
   1º	
   Iberoamericano,	
   Habitação	
   Social:	
   Ciência	
   e	
   Tecnologia,	
  
Caderno	
   de	
   Conferências,	
   Pós-­‐Graduação	
   em	
   Arquitetura	
   e	
   Urbanismo	
   da	
  
Universidade	
  Federal	
  de	
  Santa	
  Catarina,	
  Florianópolis,	
  Brazil,	
  pages	
  28–47.	
  
Salingaros,	
  Nikos	
  A.,	
  and	
  Kenneth	
  G.	
  Masden	
  II	
  2008.	
  “Neuroscience,	
  the	
  Natural	
  
Environment,	
  and	
  Building	
  Design”,	
  Chapter	
  5	
  of:	
  Kellert,	
  S.	
  R.,	
  Heerwagen,	
  J.,	
  and	
  
Mador,	
   M.,	
   Editors	
   2008.	
   Biophilic	
   Design:	
   the	
   Theory,	
   Science	
   and	
   Practice	
   of	
  
Bringing	
  Buildings	
  to	
  Life,	
  John	
  Wiley,	
  New	
  York,	
  pages	
  59–83.	
  	
  
Schrader,	
  Constance	
  A.	
  2005.	
  A	
  Sense	
  of	
  Dance,	
  2nd	
  Edition,	
  Human	
  Kinetics,	
  
Champaign,	
  Illinois.	
  	
  
Tinagli,	
   Irene	
   2005.	
   Understanding	
   Knowledge	
   Societies,	
   United	
   Nations	
  
publication	
  ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/66,	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York.	
  	
  
Turner,	
  John	
  F.	
  C.	
  1976.	
  Housing	
  by	
  People,	
  Marion	
  Boyars,	
  London.	
  
Ward,	
  Victoria	
  and	
  Clive	
  Holtham	
  2000.	
  The	
  Role	
  of	
  Private	
  and	
  Public	
  Spaces	
  in	
  
Knowledge	
  Management,	
  
<http://spark.spanner.org/documents/Public_Spaces_in_KM.pdf>.	
  	
  
Whyte,	
  William	
  H.	
  1988.	
  City:	
  Rediscovering	
  the	
  Center,	
  Doubleday,	
  New	
  York.