Research is revealing an increasing number of positive effects of nature for humans. At the same time, biodiversity in cities, where most humans live, is often low or in decline. Tangible solutions are needed to increase urban biodiversity. Architecture is a key discipline that has considerable influence on the built‐up area of cities, thereby influencing urban biodiversity. In general, architects do not design for biodiversity. Conversely, urban conservation planning generally focuses on the limited space free of buildings and does not embrace architecture as an important discipline for the creation of urban green infrastructure. In this paper, we argue that the promotion of biodiversity needs to become a key driving force of architectural design. This requires a new multi‐species design paradigm that considers both human and non‐human needs. Such a design approach needs to maintain the standards of the architectural profession, including the aim to increase the well‐being of humans in buildings. Yet, it also needs to add other stakeholders, organisms such as animals, plants and even microbiota. New buildings designed for humans and other inhabitants can then increase biodiversity in cities and also increase the benefits that humans can derive from close proximity to nature. We review the challenges that this new design approach poses for both architecture and ecology and show that multi‐species‐design goes beyond existing approaches in architecture and ecology. The new design approach needs to make ecological knowledge available to the architectural design process, enabling practitioners to find architectural solutions that can facilitate synergies from a multi‐species perspective. We propose that a first step in creating such a multi‐species habitat is the design of buildings with an ecolope, a multi criteria‐designed building envelope that takes into account the needs of diverse organisms. Because there is no framework to design such an ecolope, we illustrate how multi‐species design needs to draw on knowledge from ecology, as well as architecture, and design computation. We discuss how architectures designed via a multi‐species approach can be an important step in establishing beneficial human–nature relationships in cities, and contribute to human well‐being and biodiversity conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

This perspective paper explores the concept of multispecies design in architecture, focusing on the building scale. Historically, architects have prioritized human needs, neglecting nature’s integration in urban settings, leading to environmental and social challenges. To address these issues, a new multispecies approach that promotes the integration of ecological knowledge into architectural design has evolved. This paper aims to map existing concepts, challenges, and gaps in this novel multispecies approach, focusing on the building scale design process and suggests a roadmap for its implementation. This paper analyzes the existing literature and current architectural practices. This analysis is complemented by the findings from an architectural design studio that have highlighted real-world challenges not readily apparent in the literature. By promoting a multispecies architectural paradigm, this research not only underscores a transformative approach to building design but also positions multispecies design as an essential strategy in combatting the challenges of declining biodiversity and escalating climate change.

Here we report on a pilot study of the Living Root Bridges (LRBs) in the Indian State Meghalaya, which are grown with aerial roots ofFicus elastica, a facultative hemiepiphyte developing abundant aerial roots. Locals use these aerial roots to build living bridges, which strengthen themselves over time due to adaptive secondary growth and their capacity to form a mechanically stable structure via inosculations. An extensive inventory of LRBs in Meghalaya including data of location, altitude, approximate age and bridge length was performed in field studies. Root morphology was characterised by measurements of cross-sectional area and shape-related parameters and analysed in relation to the orientation of the roots. LRBs are found to occur mainly in the mountainous limestone rainforests whereF. elasticamay be native or traditionally cultivated. They cover an altitude range of 57–1211 m a.m.s.l. and display a length of 2 to 52.7 m. Some bridges are several hundreds of years old. Horizontally and vertically trained roots differ significantly in shape and cross-sectional area when approximately even-aged roots are compared. The results are discussed from an interdisciplinary perspective, considering the adaptive traits in the natural life cycle ofF. elasticaand possible applications in living architecture (Baubotanik).

Living root bridges (LRBs) are functional load-bearing structures grown from Ficus elastica by rural Khasi and Jaintia communities in Meghalaya (India). Formed without contemporary engineering design tools, they are a unique example of vernacular living architecture. The main objective of this study is to investigate to what extent LRBs can be seen as an example of regenerative design. The term "regenerative" describes processes that renew the resources necessary for their function. Whole systems thinking underpins regenerative design, in which the integration of human and non-human systems improves resilience. We adapted the living environments in natural, social, and economic systems (LENSES) framework (living environments in natural, social, and economic systems) to reflect the holistic, integrated systems present in LRBs. The regenerative / sustainable / degenerative scale provided by LENSES Rubrics is applied to 27 focal points in nine flow groups. Twenty-two of these points come from LENSES directly, while five were created by the authors, as advised by the LENSES framework. Our results show 10 focal points in which LRBs are unambiguously regenerative. One focal point is unambiguously sustainable, while 16 are ambiguous, showing regenerative, sustainable, and degenerative aspects. User perspective determines how some focal points are evaluated. The contrast between a local, indigenous perspective and a global, tourism-focused perspective is demonstrated by the results.