Melissa Sterry
Design Scientist and Futurist Champions the Frontiers of New Science

Melissa Sterry’s Design Truth

“What humankind considers a force for destruction, nature considers a force for creation.”

About Melissa Sterry

Design scientist and futurist Melissa Sterry is known as a champion of new science, technology and thinking that serve to make the world a better place. Her work is concerned with researching and developing a vision of what successful change may look like and supporting others on a journey towards it. For more than a decade, Melissa has worked to integrate pioneering sustainability thinking into mainstream business and society. A recipient of several innovation, creativity and enterprise awards, including the Mensa Education and Research Foundation International Award for enhancing intelligence that benefits society, Melissa divides her time in equal parts between research, development, enterprise and communication. Having migrated from designer to design scientist, with a career heavily focused on emergent technology and its applications, Melissa has worked with leading-edge innovation for more than two decades, of which the past fourteen have been at executive board level.

Listed in the Future 100 next generation entrepreneurs in 2008, further accolades include being a ’40 over 40 Women to Watch’ 2014 honoree and inductee of the Global Women Inventors and Innovators Network Hall of Fame in 2009. A visiting fellow, visiting lecturer and guest critic at several leading European architecture and design research institutes including Ravensbourne, SOBE, IaaC, The Bartlett and AA School, Melissa is published in over 60 international titles, including the Global Innovation Science Handbook. Melissa has contributed as a keynote speaker, panelist, panel chair and/or workshop host at more than fifty leading international conferences, seminars, festivals, awards ceremonies, and product launches in regions including UK, USA, Europe and Russia.

An MPhil/PhD researcher at University of Greenwich, her interests in science, technology and design converge in the Bionic City®, which posits the potential of the city as a complex regenerative and adaptive system that mimics biological resilience strategies. Underway since January 2010, Bionic City engages a global community of interest through media including workshops, talks, publications and social media, including its Flipboard magazine, which has over 127,000 readers.

Who has been the biggest influence on your approach to using bio-mimicry principles in design?

Leonardo da Vinci. While I frequently cite a great many pioneers in my various works, da Vinci is by far and wide the single greatest influence on my approach to design. Those familiar with the man and his legacy will know only too well that a life-long study of the natural world, both living things and the various environments they inhabit, were the foundation for his many inventions.

However, above and beyond this, da Vinci’s observations of fauna species endowed him with such insight, understanding, compassion, and kindness so as to be extraordinary. Da Vinci was a truly beautiful man; a man that fully grasped the value of life and that perceived the world about him from the widest possible perspective.

How has your work evolved over time?

The central themes of my work have remained more or less the same throughout much of my career, and indeed since childhood, as has my personality. Aged three years old, I was using more or less everything about me as a canvas, from drawing all over my books, to painting a mural on newly hung wallpaper, even creating a collage made of cooking fat on the kitchen carpet!

While, thankfully, chip fat is no longer my creative medium of choice, experimenting with diverse media remains central to my creative expression. Likewise, my interest in ecology and the Earth Sciences stretches back beyond even my earliest memories, as illustrated in my sketches from that time.

However, it is only relatively recently that I have come to understand how fundamentally important freedom of expression is to both my work and well-being. While I take a passing interest in the memes of the moment, my ongoing concern is with the development of new schools of thought and with the possible causes, components and impacts thereof.

This invariably involves critique, as well as creativity, and not only when attempting to decipher that which retains its relevance and that which doesn’t within my own work, but within that of my peers, past and present. Therein, both my perspective and, in turn my work, has become more critical.

Above all, my work is becoming more creative. Despite having worked on a great many art, design, and media projects this past twenty odd years – a number of which were ground-breaking in one or another respect – circumstances, be that professional, financial or both, hindered my capacity to create, such that I invariably felt compromised in some way.

Creativity needs space, both physical and psychological. Creating space means creating boundaries, which is of course why so many writers choose to go to retreats to pen their most challenging works. Over the past few months, I’ve firmed up my boundaries, carved out space, and feel much better for it. Not surprisingly that translates to my work.

How is your work received internationally?

The international response to my various works has been reassuringly good. Since inception, Bionic City has attracted interest and support from far and wide. Indeed, almost all of its collaboration partners are based overseas. Likewise, the community of interest in my other design science works – be that in academia, industry or the public domain, is worldwide.

Most of my clients are overseas organisations – as has been the case for several years. This isn’t really surprising, since the research themes I explore, and the possible applications and impacts thereof, are global. The same appears to be true for many of my peers, and, in my experience, the leading-edge of research has been a truly international affair for some considerable time now; be it biomimetics, particle physics, astronomy or otherwise.

You wrote an article for URBNFUTR entitled: “Building the Bionic City: The Ultimate Smart City”. Why isn’t Bionic City only a provocative idea?

Quite honestly, in the initial instance, Bionic City was just that – a provocative idea. However, within just three months it soon became apparent that both its hypothesis and general concept had captured the imagination of a significant number of parties, both in academia and industry.

However, while I took the precaution of registering the brand across several trademark categories early on, I was keen not to rush into any formal commercial agreements. Bionic City was conceived as a life-long project, therein something outside of conventional budgets, timelines and vested interests. Seeking to answer the question “how would nature design a city?” is no small undertaking and will, I envisage, take decades, not years, and certainly not months, to answer.

My vision is not to manifest its outputs in the building of a real-life metropolis. Bionic City is an evolving virtual entity that is expressed across wide-ranging media, both traditional and digital – as befits the activities underway at any given moment in time, and the audiences thereof. To date, that media has included talks, lectures, workshops, articles, artworks and its magazine.

All the while, research, both in the UK and overseas, has been ongoing, almost of all it yet to be published. Works currently underway include publications, namely papers and an e-book series, further artworks using both traditional and experimental media, together with participation in a series of international collaborative laboratories that explore the potential for biomimetics within the built environment. Thus, while not ring-fenced by any specific geographical, economic or even temporal boundaries, Bionic City has become an entity with real-world influence.

If your interest in Bionic City’s hypothesis, and wider issues as relate unto it, is casual, you might drop by its Flipboard magazine now and then. If your interest is rather is deeper, you might follow its Twitter account to keep abreast of any forthcoming talks, publications or other developments, and links thereto. If Bionic City has direct relevance to your work, you might get in touch to discuss the possibility of co-creating a research or creative project.

The biggest compliment so far has been several researchers and creatives expressing the fact that Bionic City inspired them to create their own research and/or creative projects exploring various facets of bio-informed design, be that biomimetics, or something else. While it’s too early to tell if we can, or even should create cities built on behaviours within flora and fauna species, my findings to date indicate there’s most likely something of significance in the idea. Therein, I’m delighted that others have drawn inspiration from the project and hope that future works will be equally inspiring.

Between the objectivity of science and the subjectivity of mental states and our personal and social beliefs, emotions, hopes, ambitions, etc. what should we be worried about when this idea gets out of the lab into the natural word?

Whatever their form, all past innovations of any note have created unintended consequences. Sometimes, these unexpected events turned out to be positive. For example, where a solution designed to tackle one problem could in fact be migrated to tackle others too. However, this is of course, not always the case.

Therein, it stands to reason that in attempting to design a city, as would nature, we could unleash unforeseen problems. But, on balance, with the exception perhaps of the splitting of the atom, we could argue that even when past innovations caused unanticipated problems, they were on the whole beneficial to humanity. We know that life, or more specifically, its characteristics, behaviours, relationships, and systems, work. We know that because we have 3.8 billion years of data to assert the fact that some of these have remained more or less consistent throughout.

While some promote ‘Biomimicry’ as being a new ‘meme’, mimicry of other species not only predates the existence of Homo sapiens, but is also a commonplace behaviour within flora and fauna species worldwide; we know that some facets of our existing design paradigm are no longer fit for purpose. For example, we know that we cannot keep stripping Earth’s resources at the current rate, because many of these resources are finite, or relatively speaking.

We also know that other species employ different approaches to resource management, and indeed to habitat management, than we do. We additionally know that on whole these strategies work – not least because many of them have been applied for millennia. Therein, I think it’s not so much a case of what should we ‘worry about, as ‘what should we be aware of and why?’

Of the various ‘bio’ fields we can apply within the built environment, I think biotechnology presents the greatest possible risks. Take for example the various genetic engineering projects that migrate bioluminescence to plants that have no existing use for it, such as trees and shrubs.

The first obvious issue is that by introducing bioluminescence to these flora species we are adjusting their use of resources. Given that both flora and fauna species are universally genetically optimized to use the least amount of energy possible to survive within their particular biological niche, this rings alarm bells. A question we might ask is “in tinkering with these species are we reducing their inherent environmental resilience?”

Secondly, light pollution is one of the greatest problems of this, the urban age. Artificial light levels during night-time hours are now so high in many towns and cities as to pose an extinction risk to some nocturnal species, such as fireflies, which are dependent on darkness for their very existence. But it’s not just bugs that are affected by this issue. Substantial data indicates that many species, including our own, are experiencing significant adverse health impacts as a direct consequence of light pollution.

We need think long and hard about how we use light in the environment, and particularly so given the current growth in cities, and in the global distribution of technology. Perhaps had we given the matter a little more thought, we may have anticipated that sleep deprivation, and the myriad serious adverse health impacts it causes, would be an unintended consequence of the widespread distribution of street lighting.

Certainly, there’s no disputing the fact that the bioluminescent plants illustrated in the nocturnal scenes in James Cameron’s film Avatar looked beautiful. But, we’re not living on Pandora, and the implications of widespread genetic modification of flora to incorporate bioluminescence here in the real world, on Earth, could be disastrous.

Does that mean that we should boycott any use of living technology within our towns and cities? No, it doesn’t.

There are ample, as yet relatively unexplored, possible useful and safe applications for the migration of bioluminescent flora and fauna to our cities. For example, Biopop’s ‘Dinopet’ living lamp is powered by naturally bioluminescent dinoflagellates. An oceanic species that is contained within the device itself, it’s improbable that these creatures might escape to pose any invasive threat to other species. Therein, I consider the ecological risk presented by Dinopet to be minimal at most. Might we responsibility upscale the use of dinoflagellates in the built environment, i.e. create street lighting with it? Yes, absolutely.

How do you think that the power of new technologies – cyber, bio and nano – can help humans to be more human?

Arguably, the way in which many humans have been forced to exist in the Post Industrial Revolution era is at odds with the way that we are biologically and psychologically designed to act.

Evidence of this comes in such forms as obesity statistics, which starkly illustrate that modern day lifestyles are contributing to a health crisis of pandemic proportions. While I support research into the various factors that contribute to obesity, I am in no doubt that the primary cause of the problem is really very simple: many people are eating more calories than they are burning.

Presently, many people are reduced to acting like machines; i.e. they are static much of the time. Ironically, though technology generally plays a central role in the relatively sedentary lifestyle that many people now lead, it could, and likely will be the solution in some way, shape or form.

For example, one of the primary factors preventing many people from getting enough exercise is a mobility issue, such as joint problems and/or back pain. A new generation of medical bionics is tackling this problem head-on, be it in the form of advanced prosthetics, exoskeletons, or otherwise.

Within a generation, few if any, will be permanently wheelchair bound and, if research continues at the current pace, neuroprosthetics should eliminate most, if not all joint and back pain. Possibly, even accounting for DIY Bionics, economies of scale may prevent some such technologies from reaching some markets. However, I anticipate medical bionics coming into common use, and in doing so helping tens, if not hundreds of millions of people worldwide, to live a more active lifestyle, and in doing so have a far better quality of life.

Furthermore, I anticipate a general trend towards active design, wherein architects, designers, technologists and planners work together with scientists to create environments that encourage and support a more active lifestyle. Obvious ways in which this trend has already manifested in the built environment include design for walkability, more cycle lanes and rentable bike schemes, as are found in London, Boston and Chicago.

But, the next phase is now coming into play, with the likes of climbable building interfaces and gradients embedded into corridors and paths. One of the nations at the forefront of this design movement is Japan, which is pro-actively investing in various ways and means to keep its ageing population moving and healthy. Given physicality is central to Japan’s cultural and social identity, in such forms as martial arts, the nation’s interest in active design is an entirely logical development.

Essentially, what all the above have in common is that they are subtle, intuitive adaptions of our existing surroundings and behaviours. What they are most certainly not is technology for its own sake. Nor are these solutions, or their genre, presenting themselves as the elixir of life – they can potentially increase your lifespan and the quality of life you live therein, but they are not going to enable you to live forever.

There are a lot of technological gimmicks, which though presenting themselves as useful, are arguably rather pointless. For example, none of the fittest people that I know use such things as apps, smart bands or even ‘smart trainers’ to monitor their exercise routines. Every fit person that I know monitors his or her level of physical excursion using a time-tested indicator, sweat. Sweat works. It’s free. It’s portable.

Your body is a lot more sophisticated than an app – your skin is naturally ‘smart’, and so much so that a great many material scientists are researching how to mimic its behaviours! Technology presents some, but not all, of the ways in which we can become more human.

You say that humanity “is a fresher at the University of Life”. How important do you think it is to decode nature before coding technology?

In my experience, a sizeable quantity of that which is positioned as a ‘solution’ to a current or anticipated future problem is flawed, and sometimes deeply so. Often the flaws are technical, as, for example, with a great many ‘green building’ proposals that involve sticking trees on balconies and roofs. How can I be so sure of that statement? Rewind to the 1960s and to Sir Basil Spence’s ‘solution’ to the slums of Gorbals – which, at the time, were some of the worst housing conditions in Europe.

Spence had originally conceived of the many balconies within his high-rise building schematic as presenting an opportunity for residents to grow their own, be that flowers, fruit or vegetables. However, as one such resident pointed out in a televised debate of the era, these balconies proved ineffective growing spaces. Had appropriate wind engineering studies been undertaken, or even just some rudimentary observational studies of the topography and regional weather patterns, Spence would have surely realized that the wind speeds would be too high for vegetation on the balconies.

Five decades later and the same mistakes are being made. Not only that, but we’re arguably seeing even greater levels of ignorance in regard of science – for example, whereupon a tower block covered in trees is referred to as an ‘urban forest’. Forests, as anyone with any knowledge of ecology knows, are not merely a collection of trees. They are complex systems comprising myriad above and below ground species, some inherent, others migratory, but all interacting in symbiotic relationships that are fundamental to their own, and to the collective’s existence.

We didn’t see the likes of Filippo Brunelleschi and Sir Christopher Wren making this genre of mistake. Why? Firstly, both these architects, and indeed many notable past architects, were both architect and engineer in equal measure; the arts and humanities went hand-in-hand with science and technology. Secondly, Brunelleschi and Wren did their due diligence, and in doing so were able to build-up from the foundations of knowledge already laid, rather than repeat errors made by predecessors.

Sizeable though our current body of knowledge about Earth’s biodiversity might be, this knowledge is still modest when compared to we have yet to learn: Oceans cover 70% of our planet, yet, to quote oceanographer Dr. Paul Snelgrove “we know more about the surface of the Moon and about Mars than we do about [the deep ocean floor]”.

It’s anyone’s guess as to how many unknown species may exist on this planet. The more we find out about those species of which we already know, the more surprised we are. Yet, humanity is destroying biodiversity like it’s going out of fashion. Some even casually remark that we will be able to bring species, including long extinct creatures such as mammoths, “back from the dead”.

Based upon current knowledge of simple organisms, I think bringing back such things as microorganisms to be realistic. However, to consider mammoths and other macro species as mere biology is naïve to say the least. Such species are as much a sum of their culture – the knowledge passed from parent, and in some instances a family group, to offspring, as they are biology.

There is a potentially infinite amount that we might learn from flora and fauna species, and not least given they are constantly evolving. But sadly, given the rate at which humanity is currently destroying biodiversity, the duration in which we might learn is fast becoming finite. This is one of several reasons why I am so very vocal in my outright condemnation of the ilk of poaching, over-fishing, illegal hunting, canned hunting and wildlife trading, and of the various other activities pushing many species the very brink of survival.

I think we have so very much to learn from nature, and that – if we are humble enough to set aside our assumption that we have it ‘all worked out’ – we’ll come up with rather more effective built environment and societal solutions than trees stuck atop balconies and roofs. Those that are taking a considered and inspired approach to ecology and design, such as Claudia Pasquero and Marco Poletto at ecoLogicStudio are coming up with altogether more sophisticated and interesting ideas.

Today technology leaders are becoming more humanistic. How is the Bionic City project engaging a symbiotic relationship between theory and practice?

Bionic City’s activities comprise approx. 70% research and development; 15% practice; 15% communications. The time dedicated to communicating both its outputs and those of peer projects is important, I believe.

The problems facing humanity now, and in the near future are colossal. Several times I’ve come across people launching various projects relating to building a sustainable society that think their project is going to single-handedly “save the world”. While I’m too diplomatic to point it out, when I come across such people my thought is “get over yourself, your ego is bigger than your capacity”.

I believe some of my ideas have potential. However, I’m very much aware that it takes a movement, and a movement of scale, not a man, or a woman, to change the world for the better. By communicating Bionic City, and other works, I harness the potential of that trusted academic process, peer review, be it formally or informally. Sometimes, people have invaluable insights to offer; insights that get fed back into the project, and vice versa.

I think it’s perfectly valid for researchers and creatives to work on entirely theoretical projects that are designed to challenge and/or inform current and future practice. Much of the work I cite is theoretical, and many of the past and present projects I most admire likewise. In some instances, over time, theoretical works can be many times more powerful than practical work, as, for example, we see with the body of research created in the Sixties and Seventies around smart cities and components thereof.

However, I choose to integrate practice into some of Bionic City’s activity, and do so for two reasons. Firstly, the project, together with my PhD research program, was conceived in response to the extreme natural hazard scenarios presented by climate change. While launched in January 2010, the project was conceived in 2009.

Back then, while compelling data pointed to the possibility that climate change was already impacting upon global weather patterns, this past few years we’ve seen a growing body of evidence to support that hypothesis. Furthermore, the changes currently manifesting are at the far end of the near-time worse case projections, which doesn’t bode well for the intermediate and far future. I believe some of the research and ideas under development may be useful now.

The second reason why practice is integrated into Bionic City’s activities is that as a creative that spent several years in art and design school, gaining my first degree in Design Practice, together with many years working in the creative industries, I enjoy working with my hands, be that sketching, painting, modelling, sculpting, building or something else. There’s a relative immediacy to the satisfaction to be gained from making, in that whereas theoretical ideas can take a lot of time to take shape, even experimental works in the flesh have tangibility.

Additionally, much as diagrams and other technical drawings can help explain a theory, in my experience, the more visual the communication of an idea, the better. A picture, as the saying goes, tells a thousand words.

Ultimately, if you can build it, within reason, everyone ought to be able to understand it, therein decide if it’s something of relevance and use to him or her. All in all, practice has a role in my work, but research comes first and foremost.

You said that Bionic City was born of the convergence of three of your passions: Ecology, Design and Resilience. Is this co-existence a new solution that will change everything?

The convergence of ecology, design, and resilience thinking is certainly making notable changes within several central areas of human activity, and will, I believe, continue to do so. However, while the impact is manifesting globally, its distribution is anything but consistent and widespread. Some of the industries that are embracing this triptych of disciplines are materials science, architecture and planning. Geographically the distribution with regard to research is more or less that which you would expect it to be, i.e. Boston, San Francisco, New York, London, Singapore, etc.

Some cities and, indeed, some nations are more forward thinking than others, therein less conservative in their theoretical approach. Practice-wise, the map is much more varied. Again, the reasons are predictable. A city like London can amply meet most theorists’ needs. However, the United Kingdom is not only laden with laws that generally prohibit the creation of the most experimental applied work, i.e. building, but there are relatively few spaces to build ‘anew’. This is one reason why developing world nations across Africa, Asia and South America are home to many of the most radical practitioners, such as Brazil, which is known for its inherently experimental approach to architecture. It comes back to my point above; you cannot create without the space to do so.

Change has always been distributed. It’s why civilisations rise and fall. Some think of 21st Century society as a whole. Historically speaking, it’s not. Competing communities are vying for dominance and for all they share in common there are startling differences between them. The convergence of ecology, design, and resilience thinking is and will continue to radically change some communities, while having little, if any notable impact on others.

If history is anything to go by, it will be the more pioneering communities that are most likely to secure a future, and the least pioneering that will ultimately fall. But, the process will be messy, and the winners and losers not always clear-cut. Geographically, while those in the more progressive thinking parts of the world might, in some instances, be considered advantaged intellectually and creatively, they may well face environmental challenges of such proportions as could ultimately make whole regions uninhabitable, be it by desertification, flooding or something else; whereas, some less progressive communities could be advantaged by their locality, i.e. relatively limited variances in environmental conditions.

Given wide-ranging data suggesting that approaches that embed ecological and resilience considerations would benefit all humanity and biodiversity, I believe the more that we engage this approach the better. But, I don’t anticipate universal acceptance, or even interest, in interdisciplinary approaches. I am very much aware that the historical precedent in respect of resource shortages is human conflict, both civil and inter-nation. Sadly, and with tragic consequences, we’re seeing evidence of this today, in regions including the Middle East.

From a design innovation perspective, how important is collaboration around processes between designers and non-designers?

Having talked a lot about theory, I’m going to focus on practice regards this question. What does a designer need to create their best work? I’ve already highlighted how space is one critical component, but what else? A great brief is arguably vital. Anyone who’s ever run a creative practice knows that there’s little more exciting than a thought-provoking brief that both points to a clear problem to solve, while allowing for creative freedom. Throw in sufficient resources, i.e. time, materials, budget, and you’re nearly there.

However, in my experience, there’s one further item that ignites the imagination, and that’s discovery. Da Vinci was persistently discovering, because he was continuously exploring the world about him. Taking a leaf out of his book, I utilize an array of scientific equipment – microscopes, telescopes and such like, to discover new insights about the physical world about me. In this day and age, it’s easy to establish if those insights are in some way original, thanks to the ilk of browsers and online research libraries. However, in the end result, it doesn’t really matter if the insights are always new to science, or just new to me, because the effect they illicit is the same; a feeling of wonder, and subsequently inspiration.

However, much as it’s possible to gain some new insights of your own accord, be that with or without scientific equipment and techniques, in teaming-up with others, and in particular they that have already studied an area of interest, one can potentially fast track discovery. Furthermore, if those individuals are scientists that are passionate about their field of research, that passion is infectious. Team that together with the fact that while both designers and scientists are innovators they employ some very different methods and approaches, and further insights and ideas tend to emerge. Certainly there can be challenges in bringing designers and non-designers together, not least regarding language. But, the benefits, in my experience, are well worth any extra effort.

More and more countries seem to be homogeneous, more and more the aroma of the specific seems to evaporate. Does the hypothesis underpinning Bionic City support or reject this trend?

Bionic City’s hypothesis most certainly rejects the trend to homogeneity in design and architecture. In all my studies of ecology, both at a species and ecosystem level, it’s evident that heterogeneity is the norm, wherein species, and in turn ecosystems, may have common traits, but are adapted at a local level. Indeed, heterogeneity is so central to the physicality of living things as for it to be expressed at the individual level, as we see in our own species. It’s not coincidental that humans all look different; our features hint at our ancestral past and were born of practical evolutionary adaptations to our surroundings. This is one of the reasons there is such great variance in the biodiversity of the world.

Therein, the hypothesis I’m working with assumes that whether at the building or the city scale, all places, to a lesser or greater degree will be heterogeneous in the Bionic City. However, while the causation of this heterogeneity is practicality, the results would arguably be more aesthetically interesting than a mass production approach to design. Subjective though that statement may be, it is backed up by millennia of data on cities and their cultural and social interfaces. Individuality is central to the human condition; we like to differentiate ourselves as individuals and as groups. In that respect modern man is no different to our tribal ancestors.

There is growing evidence that many a developer’s notion of progress is at stark odds with that of the communities that live in the places where significant amounts of new development is unfolding. Take for example my observations when I was in India earlier this year. Most of the visual representations of India’s future cities were acutely homogeneous in design and looked much the same as other plans for other cities about the rest of the world; all towering straight lines, glass and occasional balconies, with the odd patch of greenery dotted about ground level.

From a functional perspective, many of these building types are less efficient than some of the centuries old architecture about the region. While ‘passive’ heating and cooling, and rainwater harvesting are thought by some to be the ‘new’ thing, their origins stretch back millennia. Ecologically, the developers’ designs are most often equally, if not even more obnoxious, presenting little, if any opportunity for indigenous and migratory insects, birds and mammals to utilize the architecture, which is not the case with the traditional Indian architectural styles.

Socially and culturally most of the new development proposals fail in equal measure, for while some may chirp that the developers are ‘giving the people what the people want’, the on-the-ground interviews my colleague and I conducted indicate otherwise. Whether interviewing slum dwellers or staff and students at the most prestigious regional institutes, rickshaw drivers or shopkeepers, mechanics or engineers, citizens wanted cities that accommodated their cultural and spiritual needs, including a close relationship with nature and places for contemplation and worship, amongst other things.

The men and women that we interviewed felt left out of the decision making progress – ignored and abandoned, and some were understandably angry with this. I made many other observations during the trip, however, the long and the short of it is that a great many of the new urban developments that I witnessed were more out-dated in their thinking than that of some of the ancient architectural ruins I visited.

Humans, just like other animals, have many different physical, cultural and social needs. Shoehorn us into places that don’t meet those needs and you unravel a hornet’s nest of problems. Some try to frame a love of nature as psycho-emotional babble. Science says otherwise.

Umpteen studies indicate people are happier and healthier in an around nature. Is homogeneity merely a result of poor research and ignorance on the part of some developers? This is a possibility, though I think a more significant factor is the current economic model. Most developers buy a plot of land, stick something on it and flog it to whomever will buy it, and upon doing so, retain no long-term responsibility regarding how effective the building performs at a social, cultural, ecological and/or resource level. There are exceptions to the rule, and the UK and Europe is generally performing fairly well in this regard, as illustrated by the strategies being employed by companies like Skanska.

The heterogeneity inherent in the Bionic City approach is one of the reasons that I have not yet sketched the city, only facets thereof. Its hypothesis isn’t seeking to present a prescriptive design aesthetic, as did Modernism. It’s instead concerned with behaviours, characteristics, relationships and the systems these form. Of course, I consider how Bionic City’s genetics may express themselves in physical form. However, for now at least, I’m working with the basic building blocks of the city – its early evolutionary stage. Attempting other than this would be pure speculation, not science. Luckily I like the idea that rather than single-handedly sketch the city, as did Frank Lloyd Wright with Broadacre City or Le Corbusier with Ville Radieuse, it’s a collaborative process. Again, reverting to the point above on discovery in design, co-creating a city with like-minded souls presents more opportunity for surprise, and that’s a very attractive prospect!

What couldn’t you live without if stranded on a desert island?

I’d certainly need my scientific equipment and creative tools, as I’d want to investigate the island and facets thereof, and harness any creative expression it inspired! Necessities aside, I’d also want a very large and varied supply of olives, nuts, chocolate, Hendricks gin and tonic. Throw in some scuba gear, my favourite albums and a device to play them on, and I might well hide out of sight when the rescue team came searching for me, or for several months at least!

What is your personal motto?

Value Life. Protect Life. Love Life.

INTERVIEW

23th February 2015
Interview by Michela Ventin