To reach their zero-net energy and water goals, the designers have resorted to a wide combination of techniques: passive heating and lighting design, building mass, geothermal heating and cooling, dessicant dehumidification, smart building management system, photovoltaics and solar hot water collectors, wind turbines, demand controlled ventilation, sustainable materials, green roof, native landscaping, rainwater harvesting and natural stormwater collection and treatment, and constructed wetland sanitary waste treatment.

These techniques embody some of the biomimetic concepts that I have written about in this column: substituting information for energy, in the case of demand controlled ventilation where CO2 levels from occupants trigger HVAC response and therefore prevent the heating of empty rooms; surfing for free, in the case of using geothermal, where the temperature gradient between the ground and air is used to both heat and cool the building; and substituting structure for energy, in the case of all the passive forms, from shading to trombe walls to filtration beds, that harvest light, heat or clean water without the use of power. 

The Omega Center for Sustainable Living (below) in Rhinebeck, New York, will, perhaps, be the first building to be certified a Living Building. It was designed by BINM Architects and was completed in May 2009. The 6,200 square foot building contains a classroom, laboratory, and a 4,500 square foot greenhouse for Omega's living machine, the Eco Machine, which will treat more than 5 million gallons of wastewater annually in a series of tanks, vegetated ponds and filtration beds. 

It is not surprising that both of these pioneering projects were for clients who are in the business of educating their visitors about the very practices that their new buildings will model. For these nonprofit educational institutions the value added was worth the cost of  the increased design and construction efforts. Indeed, officials at the Phipps Conservatory credit the “greenness” of their endeavor with their success at fundraising in an atmosphere of donor fatigue. 

It remains to be seen if this will hold true for the next tier of applicants with more diverse missions, but the conventional wisdom that sustainable construction always has to cost more is being challenged with the clever ways that designers are saving money. For example, the Phipps Conservatory has projected a 30-40 percent reduction in capacity requirements for HVAC systems, which has implications for construction, as well as the more expected 50 percent reduction in energy usage in maintenance and operation.

The importance of integrating building systems was also a shared critical component, and that integration seems, by necessity, to have been forced beyond the buildings' walls. In order to close the loop on water, for instance, one has to both capture it outside from the air and return it to the earth for filtering. Landscape architects and civil engineers were important members of these teams because of their expertise in these kinds of systems. Finally, because of this, the very forms of the buildings themselves were determined by the demands of this integration and the collaborative design process necessary to achieve it. 

While some of the techniques used to achieve certification in the Challenge were clearly using biomimetic concepts, with a few exceptions, such as bio-filtration system design, most have come from a strictly engineering tradition. Nevertheless, the trend toward more bio-innovation is evident. These tactics, however, are being generated by the individual project teams; what about the Living Building Challenge program itself?

To be labeled “biomimetic,” a third-party certification challenge that doesn't recommend specific building methods or overtly promote biological principles might seem a stretch. Moreover, the metaphorical talk of buildings as the reproductive part of a plant might also seem thin, especially to a botanist.

There is that germ of an idea, though, that is growing into a powerful meme. It is this: Why not hold nature as the ultimate measure of our success? It is precisely the same message so assiduously spread by Janine Benyus of the Biomimicry Guild all these years. Holding that idea up as a goal for a common, everyday activity like building is, let's face it, audacious, and, once we think about it, long overdue. I look forward to seeing what clever bio-designers, inspired by this challenge, come up with in the years to come.

Tom McKeag teaches bio-inspired design at the California College of the Arts and University of California, Berkeley. He is the founder and president of BioDreamMachine, a nonprofit educational institute that brings bio-inspired design and science education to K12 schools. 

_{Building with moss - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowbite/ / CC BY-SA 2.0; Building with vines - http://www.flickr.com/photos/magnoid/ / CC BY-SA 2.0}