Rachel Armstrong is talking about the future of architectureShe likes architecture because of its scale - it's the biggest things we make. And it's the footprint we leave behind. Architecture has always been a technology. The materials we chose in architecture have been there to wall out nature. This creates belligerent architectures that oppose nature.
Buildings are 40% of our carbon footprint, and are still largely built using Victorian techniques. Sustainable architectures needs to be connected to the natural world. Living systems are in constant conversation with the rest of the world through the chemical processes of metabolisms. Imagine if the surfaces of our buildings have metabolic functions - how much difference could that make to the environment?
Low tech biotech: different from most biotech, which is expensive technology created in sterile laboratories. We don't know what all bacteria in urban landscapes actually do - which of them are actually beneficial? Could bioluminescent bacteria be used to light parts of the cities?
Martin Hanczyc is working with Protocells - organic computers programmed through chemistry. Some of them have architectural features - making physical products. You can make shells, or other shapes. She's showing a demo of what she calls very basic chemistry, as a protocell moves into ferrofluids and creates magnetites...
When they run out of chemical energy or food - they stop. They need very, very narrow environmental conditions. Living technology - contains some, bit not all, the characteristics of living systems. Examples given of pearl-like structures, which consume carbon dioxide. Beginning of a paint for buildings that would absorb CO2.
Could this lead to materials which react to their environment? Could we use it to repair atolls? Could we use it to grow an artificial reef under Venice - make it adverse to light, release it into the canals, it would flee to the foundations, and petrify the supports.
Can we recreate architecture in a way that supports the environment?
