Combining multiple disciplines – biology, climate science, architecture, technology and building physics – bioclimatic architecture is a field of practice that acknowledges the essential link between buildings and their climate, and then works with this connection to design in support of people’s comfort.

A climate-specific model of design was voiced some two thousand years ago. One inheritor of this view today is a data-driven approach to design which takes into account measurable information about the site’s climate and calculates how a building will behave in response. This data-driven approach might seem relatively recent but has, in fact, been underway throughout the twentieth century. Foster + Partners’ research in Gomera in the 1970s is one example. The field of bioclimatic architecture, which emerged in the decade preceding, is its precursor.

Echoing Vitruvius’ observation that buildings should be differently styled in different locations, bioclimatic architecture argues that a specific climate should guide the form, style, and engineering of a design, to improve the comfort and wellbeing of its occupants.

International style versus the bioclimatic approach: Diverging strands of enquiry

How did bioclimatic approach emerge in the twentieth century? The relationship between climate and architecture was significantly obstructed with the invention of air conditioning in 1903. The integration of mechanical heating and cooling systems in design, and the subsequent endorsement of an international indoor climate, is a well-known architectural narrative of the twentieth century. As early as 1906, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Larkin Building promoted a ‘hermetically sealed’ box that contained a controlled indoor climate; by the end of the century, many new buildings across regions – regardless of external climate – had come to rely heavily on such mechanical systems for temperature control. As architectural critic John Reynolds put it: ‘Let the machinery handle it.’

Followers of the International Style largely endorsed the mechanical revolution as it progressed. In 1969, architectural critic Reyner Banham posited that people could ‘live under low ceilings in the humid tropics, behind thin walls in the arctic, and under uninsulated roofs in the desert.’ By the oil crisis of 1973, however, the energy consumption of these systems came under critique, and more passive measures were beginning to be reconsidered. This was soon reflected in new ways of measuring and testing the energy efficiency and performance of these buildings, with environmental standards such as LEED and BREEAM introduced in the 1990s.

Simultaneous with the bold claims of the International Style and the rise of mechanical systems, the field of bioclimatic architecture, which emerged counter to this dominant culture in the mid-century, sought an alternative approach. It argued that design itself can create a foundation for the regulation of a building’s internal climate, through which mechanical systems can be added to design hybrid systems that are tailored to specific climates in a responsive manner.

The Olgyay Brothers and the Emergence of Bioclimatic Architecture

The work of the Olgyay brothers – twin Hungarian architects Aladar and Victor Olgyay – in the 1950s and ’60s, as well as other practitioners working in different locations, reveals striking parallels between bioclimatic architecture’s initially analogue methods of measuring light, shading, and airflow, and the digital methods that environmental engineers and architect use today.

The Olgyay brothers offers some of the earliest examples of design that systematically integrates localised climate information and calculations into a design workflow, influencing the massing of the structure, facade elements, internal spatial organisation, external layouts, and aesthetic identities of a project. Their illustrations highlight not only these technical aspects of design but also how they link with people’s experience – the ‘comfort’ of the building.

Since the beginning of their careers in Hungary, Victor and Aladar exhibited an intense curiosity about the natural world and its interplay with architecture. The pair designed and built over forty projects in Hungary before World War II that demonstrated a comprehensive application of environmental design and analysis.

One of the brothers’ most popular works was the Stühmer Chocolate Factory in Hungary, which was completed in 1941. This project showcased innovative on-site calculations and design solutions, all accomplished without the sophisticated software available today. The brother conducted extensive daylight model testing to inform the size and location of fenestration under various daylight conditions and to plan the layout while coordinating the facility’s operational needs with environmental conditions. In addition, they designed an ingenious ventilating facade to passively mitigate solar heat gain.

Victor and Aldar were not alone; other architects in different parts of the world similarly adopted a bioclimatic approach that rejected a widespread International Style in favour of more local, vernacular forms.

In Egypt, for example, Hassan Fathy (1900-1989) rejected the international modernist approach, which sought to unify architectural language under a single pattern. Instead, he advocated for incorporating new technologies, ensuring they were adapted to the cultural authenticity and specific climatic conditions of the site. He studied the simple yet effective ways climate shapes architectural forms – specifically in hot and arid climates. For him, architectural form holds meaning only within the context of its environment. Fathy highlighted two key factors in achieving indoor comfort: first, the need for materials in walls and roofs that minimise heat conduction; and second, careful attention to air movement and ventilation. He practised bioclimatic architecture through elements such as courtyards, iwans (three-sided walled halls), malqaf (wind catchers), vaulted ceilings, domes, mashrabiyyas (wooden lattice-filled openings used to reduce glare while allowing breezes to pass through), projecting balconies, overhangs casting long shadows and local building materials. Due to the limited computational tools available at the time, Fathy tested seven chambers with various elements built by using different techniques to evaluate their suitability for Egypt’s climatic conditions. Additionally, the shortages of steel and timber in Egypt after World War Two allowed Fathy to take advantage of local earth as a primary building material, as well as traditional construction methods.

Full article: Bioclimatic Architecture | Foster + Partners