The Evolution of Designs: Biological Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts

by Philip Steadman

This book tells the history of the many analogies that have been made between the evolution of organisms and the human production of artefacts, especially buildings. It examines the effects of these analogies on architectural and design theory and considers how recent biological thinking has relevance for design. Architects and designers have looked to biology for inspiration since the early 19th century. They have sought not just to imitate the forms of plants and animals, but to find methods in design analogous to the processes of growth and evolution in nature. This new revised edition of this classic work adds an extended Afterword covering recent developments such as the introduction of computer methods in design in the 1980s and ‘90s, which have made possible a new kind of ‘biomorphic’ architecture through ‘genetic algorithms’ and other programming techniques.

Genres: Design

320 pages, Hardcover

First published June 29, 1979

Reviews

[Melih Kamaoğlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favourite books that cover the relationship between nature, biology, evolution and architecture.

[Yokusun Basi]

Evolution of Designs (Cambridge Urban and Architectural Studies) by Philip Steadman (1979)

[Gary Robert Gress · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent history and (mostly) survey on the relatedness and analogy of cultural and technological evolution to biological evolution. Very well researched, in my opinion. (2008 edition).

[Alex Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a sense, what was missing was the philosophy.

Steadman gets so far into the nitty gritty- at times, -- that he seems to lose himself. He has so much he wants to say, that he resorts to, at times, saying "I'll come back to this". This is a problem of organization.

Steadman wants to draw an analogy between biology design and architecture design. He wants to show how the evolution of one in biology was one of changing problems, whereas the one in architecture was also of changing problems. Of course, as architecture developed, technology provided the functional mechanisms to drive architecture along to new heights. Biology merely continued to solve the problems.

At some point, about 2/3 through, Steadman hits upon a novel articulation. He shows how the development of design needs a mediating "plateau" in which the problems and solutions can interact at a symbolic level. Only by having this symbolic level can an alphabet of difference be created that drives higher order. Without this symbolic level, difference for each instance would have to be re-created via independent mechanisms. Without understanding a wheel as a thing, a wheel would need to be invented each time, anew, to solve the same problem. Without understanding a given problem as one that is found in different contexts, we would not be able to address it with a matching "technology".

And so, in this sense, architecture can really grow. I mean REALLY grow because it has technology. It has a "vocabulary". In that sense, the birth of architecture isn't just the birth of buildings. It's really the birth of the language of buildings as modular units that can be rearranged.

Strangely, Steadman doesn't seem to get this. Or, he gets it and he says it. In a kind of roundabout way. But then he forces the conclusion back to his analogy. And basically says, the two are the same because they exist materially, and are besought with problems. So the path they take is really just convoluted. That's not interesting at all.

In fact, he was coming about the gestalt of languages. And then he ends with his crappy analogy.

He seems to be unable to really think his own solution through. I say this because his book is in some sense, a list of things surrounding the topic. He doesn't get at the basic organizational "chunking" that is materially necessary as part and parcel of how the process of solving (and defining) problems can be accelerated.