Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Biophilic Inspired Railway Stations:

The New Frontier for Future Cities
Phillip Roös

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Biophilic Design Applicat ions: Put t ing T heory and Pat t erns int o Built Environment Pract ice
Phillip Roös

Underst anding and designing nat ure experiences in cit ies: a framework for biophilic urbanism
Maibrit t Pedersen Zari

Incorporat ing biophilia int o green building rat ing t ools for promot ing healt h and wellbeing
zhonghua gou
 Biophilic-Inspired Railway Stations:
The New Frontier for Future Cities

Authors:
Phillip Roös1*, Paul Downton2, David Jones1, and Josh Zeunert1
1 School of Architecture & Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
2
Paul Downton Architects, Parkdale, Australia.

Paper Presented at the

9th International Urban Design Conference
Canberra, 7th – 9th November 2016
Biophilic-Inspired Railway Stations: The New Frontier for Future Cities

ABSTRACT: Globally new metro rail projects are changing the face of our cities and
bringing more commuters to the core of the bustling urban environments and city centre
business districts, as well as interconnecting regional cities and associated key nodes. The
need for improved public transport and railway stations is a result of a current
unprecedented growth in urbanisation, where it is estimated that more than 66% of the
world’s population will live in cities by 2050. Cities and their governance entities invest in
more sustainable public transport systems to aid the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
aid economic efficiencies in goods and people movements in and out and across and within
the cities, provide better forms of transport, as well as in assisting in creating better
sustainable and healthy urban environments aligned to policy and Earth Summit
international agreement obligations.
This paper explores the opportunities that new and existing railway stations and their
associated infrastructure can provide in creating better sustainable and healthy urban
environments, through the lens of Biophilic Design. Kellert and Wilson (1993) defined
biophilic design as the deliberate attempt to translate and apply an understanding of the
human affinity to connect with natural systems and processes, known as Biophilia, into the
design of our built environments. In this instance, this paper explores the application of
biophilia to railway stations. Re-imagining the experience of taking the train in a stressful
city environment, to the possibilities of nature-inspired commuting journeys where enriched
wellbeing can be experienced by spaces (for example) that embrace living green walls with
enhanced natural day-lit entrances to station buildings, forecourts embraced with water
features, shrubs and trees, the authors aim to realise this vision by applying the principles of
biophilic design to a case study project. The paper concludes with recommendations on
biophilia inspired railway station designs that can assist in the advancing of the larger vision
and agenda of ecologically sustainable and smart cities.

Keywords: Biophilia, Biophilic Design, Railway Station Design, Future Sustainable Cities

Introduction
All over the world railway stations, transit centres and transport interchanges are evolving
rapidly from purely functional transit spaces to new urban centres and destinations, resulting
in activity hubs and gathering places. These stations generate high footfall creating life and
vitality, and are the centre of daily routines for many urban dwellers (Roös & Juvara, 2012)
Rail transport infrastructure, especially railway stations, significantly contributes to the
quality of life, sustainability and economy of urban centres. Station buildings play a major
role in efficient and vibrant places, and are at the forefront of innovation and modernity.
Due to the current unprecedented growth in urbanization, cities and their governance entities
invest in more sustainable public transport systems to aid the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, aid economic efficiencies in goods and people movements in and out and across
and within the cities, provide better forms of transport, as well as in assisting in creating
better sustainable and healthy urban environments. Core to these investments are the
upgrades and construction of railway stations. This paper thus explores the opportunities that
new and existing railway stations and their associated infrastructure can provide in creating
better sustainable and healthy urban environments, through the lens of Biophilic Design.

Methodology
This paper follows a structure of exploration in research that includes a review of the
literature relevant to the meaning and application of biophilia, biophilic design principles and
attributes, and secondly the position of this discourse in the global ecological and sustainable
city agenda. The paper first set the principles in place for biophilic design, align its
consideration along the urban environment discourse, and then apply the biophilic design
considerations to railway station design. Thereupon consideration is given to the
contemporary performance of sustainable infrastructure opportunities and the context of
railway stations, and how railway station design addresses biophilic design considerations.
The investigation considers this scope having regard to a typical case study railway station,
and the discussion identifies patterns and key issues, offering design and planning
conclusions for future railway station infrastructure provision.

Biophilia: The Human-Nature Relationship

In the Biophilia Hypothesis (1986), Edward O. Wilson, one of the world’s most acclaimed
biologists, noted that humans needed daily contact with nature to be healthy and gain
longevity, for the simple reason that humans have co-evolved with nature and are part of
nature. More specifically, he noted that biophilia is “the innately emotional affiliation of
human beings to other living organisms. Innate means hereditary, and hence, part of ultimate
human nature” (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). This affiliation with nature continues to be critical
in the modern-day human health and wellbeing literature and practice (Kellert 1997, 2012),
and has been strongly identified as a valid concern by the health sciences. In the research area
of human health and wellbeing, a growing body of research reveals that exposure to nature
continues to result in positive health benefits in a wide range of sectors; at work, home,
recreation, community areas and even within the urban environments where people work and
live (Kellert 2012, Browning et al 2014). This human-nature relationship is further
investigated later in the paper according to the potentialities in the urban environment of
railway stations.
Even though humans may have an inherent affiliation with nature, the benefits as a result of
contact of nature depend on repeated experience. This biological tendency needs to be
nurtured and developed to become functional in our modern-day living circumstances
(Wilson, 1986; Kellert, 2012). One method of nurture to develop this affiliation is to design
built environments that scaffold and facilitate this experience and repeated connections with
(real and surrogate) nature in peoples’ daily lives. Dubos acknowledged this opportunity as
being the need to re-establish an in-depth and loving relationship between humans and
nature:
The relationship between humankind and nature can be one of respect and love
rather than domination ... The outcome ... can be rich, satisfying, and lastingly
successful, but only if both partners are modified by their association so as to
become better adapted to each other ... With our knowledge and sense of
responsibility ... we can create new environments that are ecologically sound,
aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding ... This process of reciprocal
adaptation occurs ... through minor changes in the people and their environment,
but a more conscious process of design can also take place. - Rene Dubos, The
Wooing of the Earth (cited in Kellert & Calabrese, 2015)
The fundamentals of a ‘more conscious process of design’ were identified and validated in
the research of Christopher Alexander as recorded in A Pattern Language (1977), and in one
of the design patterns that was developed by Alexander and his colleagues. For example, the
pattern, ‘Garden Wall’, states:
People need contact with trees and plants and water. In some way, which is hard
to express, people are able to be more whole in the presence of nature, are able to
go deeper into themselves, and are somehow able to draw sustaining energy from
the life of plants and trees and water. - Pattern 173 ‘Garden Wall’ (Alexander et
al, 1977, 806)
Alexander recognised that humans are more ‘whole’, can go ‘deeper into themselves’, thus
psychological benefits are deeply rooted in the connection between humans and nature. The
fundamental benefits of physiological and psychological wellness due to biophilic exposure
are further explored by Kellert (2005) with findings that demonstrate numerous outcomes in
the context of better healing and recovering involving both time frames and fulfilment, fewer
health, social and safety problems, increased worker performance and lower stress levels,
enhanced mental functioning, increased social connections and stronger community structure,
and a better quality of life (Kellert, 2005; Kellert et al, 2008). These benefits can be achieved
if we design and plan our built environments to include the considerations of Wilson’s
biophilia, more specially identifying the structures and patterns that occur in the form-making
processes of the living systems of nature, and design and plan with a regenerative process that
unfolds living environments of place (Roös, 2016; Salingaros, 2013).

Biophilic Design: Creating Living Environments

Undoubtedly since the beginning of the 20th century our building practices have resulted in
unacceptable and unhealthy places. The challenge is thus that a new design paradigm is
needed to address these tangible and intangible deficiencies of modern day building, planning
and landscape practice by establishing a new practice in sustainable design that bases its
fundamental principles upon the processes of nature, thereby reconnecting (or re-
establishing) a healthy relationship between humans and nature (Roös, 2016). Biophilic
design thus must be able to both establish and nurture healthy and living environments.
To establish whether biophilic design can achieve this critical agenda of healing and
wellbeing, we first need to identify and understand the meaning of biophilic design. Biophilic
design is the deliberate attempt to translate an understanding of the inherent human
connection to natural systems and processes, known as ‘Biophilia’ into the design of the built
environment (Kellert, et al, 2008). Salingaros (2013) explains that biophilic design involves
‘deep connections’ to nature that include links to the geometric structures and patterns that
occur in the form-making processes of living systems, resulting in the ‘biophilic effect’
(Salingaros, 2013; 2015, 8).
Further, biophilic design,
… seeks to create good habitat for people as a biological organism in the built
environment that advances people’s health, fitness and wellbeing (Kellert & Calabrese
2015, 6).
Biophilic Design can be categorised into two dimensions, the organic or naturalistic
dimension, and the place based or vernacular dimension, related to the following 6 biophilic
design elements:
 Environmental features;
 Natural shapes and forms;
 Natural patterns and processes;
 Light and space;
 Place-based relationships; and
 Evolved human-nature relationships.

To apply biophilic design to the built environment in its simplest form, Downton, Jones &
Zeunert (2016), drawing upon Potteiger & Purinton (1998) and Browning et al (2014),
propose the following design principles aligned with ‘biophilic patterns’ that can guide
design decisions:

TABLE 1: PRINCIPLES AND PATTERNS OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN

Biophilic Patterns of Biophilic Design
Design
Principles Nature in the Space Natural Analoques Nature of the Space

Design Visual Connection with Biomorphic Forms & Prospect

Narratives Nature Patterns Refuge
Non-Visual Connection Material Connection with Mystery
with Nature Nature Risk & Peril
Non-Rhythmic Sensory Complexity & Order
Stimuli
Thermal & Airflow
Variability
Presence of Water
Dynamic & Diffuse Light
Connection with Natural
Systems
Biophilic patterns attempt to reconnect the inherit attributes that results in biophilia, within
the built environment. The experience of the surrounding environment when the patterns of
biophilic design are applied, need to include the direct experience with nature that includes
actual contact with environmental features; the indirect contact with nature that refers to
contact with or representation with an image, texture, and particular patterns that represents
the geometric forms of nature; and also the experience of place and space that refers to the
spatial and physical features of the natural environment (Kellert & Calabrese, 2015). This
experience of place, more specifically in the public realm of public transport can provide the
conditions of patterns of biophilic design as noted by Beatley (2016): “Well-functioning
transit systems create the conditions for lives spent, at least partially, outside the sphere of
cars. In many ways, then, public transit lays a foundation for more time spent outside, more
walking, and more opportunity to be in and enjoy the public realm” (cited in Downton, Jones
& Zeunert, 2016, 9). Typical attributes that support these biophilic experiences are
summarised in Table 2 (adapted from Kellert & Calebrese, 2015, 10).

TABLE 2: ATTRIBUTES OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN

Direct Experience of Nature Indirect Experience of Nature Experience of Space and Place

Light Images of nature Prospect and refuge

Air Natural materials Organized complexity
Water Natural colours Integration of parts to wholes
Plants Simulating natural light and air Transitional spaces
Animals Naturalistic shapes and forms Mobility and way finding
Weather Evoking nature Cultural and ecological
Natural landscapes Information richness attachment to place
Fire Age, change, and time
Natural geometries
Biomimicry

Green Sustainable and Healthy Cities

In the ever-increased density of cities, the available space for green landscapes becomes
problematic, and the green city agenda tends to focus on ‘sustainability principles’ that
includes the reduction of carbon emissions, water savings, reduction of pollution and a drive
to comply to the sustainable development agenda. This agenda focus on the minimisation of
resource use and barely achieves the critical consideration of regeneration of our natural
environments and ecosystems.
The green cities agenda is underpinned by the definition of sustainable development
discussed in the ‘Brundtland Report’, that states:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It
contains within it two key concepts:
 The concept of 'needs', in particular, the essential needs of the world's poor,
to which overriding priority should be given; and
  The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social
organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.
(World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common
Future; 1987, 43)
However, internationally it is acknowledged that our cities need to go beyond a standard
sustainability agenda, and that an approach for integrated ecological design and planning with
the consideration of urban ecology and biodiversity needs to be implemented to achieve long
lasting sustainable and resilient outcomes. As cities are experiencing the largest growth of
human population, destined to reach 7 billion by the end of the century (ARUP, 2016, 5), it is
necessary for a design approach that can reduce human stress, enhance human creativity and
clarity of thought, improve human well-being and expedite both human and nature’s ability to
heal, adapt and survive.
According to Beatley (2010), the answer lies in addressing the issues in our cities enabling
more sustainable, healthy outcomes through the applicable of his ‘Biophilic City’ concept
(Beatley, 2010). So what are biophilic cities, and what makes the ‘biophilic cities movement’
narrative different from the ‘green cities movement’ narrative? To put it in simple terms,
biophilic cities are cities that elevate and position nature, wildlife and its supporting
ecological systems first in their design, planning, and management aims and activities. The
concept recognises that there is an essential and important need for human contact with
nature as well as the many environmental and economic values provided for both humans and
natural systems, resulting in resilience for both (Beatley, 2010, 45).
Identifying the synergies and potentials of sustainable transport infrastructure with the
biophilic design agenda, Downton, Jones & Zeunert (2016) clearly demonstrated in Creating
Healthy Places that the biophilic cities movement is a novel way to understand our cities and
further embrace the importance of ecological sustainable urban environments. Through the
biophilic cities concept, cities are not disconnected from nature, but are rather integrated and
embedded within nature or nature embedded within our cities (Downton, Jones & Zeunert,
2016). We do then have the opportunity to shape our cities to take into account biophilia, and
in the subsidiary realm of major transport infrastructure projects provide this opportunity in
the context of station design and its surrounding precincts.

Transport Infrastructure – Catalysts for City Shaping

When new transport infrastructure projects are commissioned in cities, especially rail
infrastructure, the impact is large and disruptive. But, on the other hand, such infrastructure
provision provides many tangible and intangible benefits. New rail transportation and mass
transit provides connectivity, a sustainable mode of transport that reduces carbon emissions,
as well as contributing to the quality of human life, and the economic improvement of urban
centres.
More recently we have noticed in Australia and increasing trend that most transport projects
commissioned by (or part/funded by) the Australian Government require project certification
under the sustainability performance tool of the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of
Australia (ISCA), the IS Rating Tool. This tool uses 6 themes and 15 categories to certify a
project (ISCA, 2015, 21). The benefits of biophilic design can be achieved by railway station
design and the railway station buildings and their surrounding precincts that in turn will
support the themes of Ecology [Eco 1-4], and People and Place [Hea-1-3], with supporting
categories Ecology and Community Health, Wellbeing and Safety (ISCA, 2015, 189-206;
215-225).
Informed by such performance criteria, these sustainable transport projects assist in creating
sustainable centres in our cities. Studies on urban societies indicate that communities are
focusing on subjective aspects of ‘Quality of Life’ and well-being, which include sense of
belonging, community and other indicators that point to urban identity (Roös & Juvara,
2012). These indicators are possible through focused ‘Urban Centres’, and of course, they are
key to identity and social interaction: they are the places of encounter and activity; the places
that give their name to whole communities. Strong centres play a key role by creating
necessary focal points at the urban scale, and connect spaces to living communities
(Alexander, 2001-2005).
A new way to sustain urban centres as community places, places with ‘soul’ and places that
provide opportunities for the redesign thinking of our urban environment, involves railway
station design that focuses upon creating station venues or complexes as central urban
environments (and multi-functional and multi-experiential venues). Vaughan (2009) has
concluded in her research findings that the quality nature of suburban centres, from a social,
spatial and historic perspective, is critical to human wellbeing. The literature indicates that
shopping and human interaction at urban centres is often a ‘collateral’ activity, and that
historically centres develop, move or die according to the breadth, energy and range of
functions and activities that they have and (very importantly) perform according to the
transport system that they are supported by and support (Roös & Juvara, 2012; Vaughan,
2009).

Railway Stations – Gateways to the City

Transportation connects parts of cities and helps shape them, enabling movement throughout
the city. Each different type (and variation of different type) of transportation system helps
define the quality and character of cities, and makes them either friendly or hostile to
pedestrians. Additionally, the walking environment that such transportation systems are
nested within and interact with creates human interactions and characterises communities.
The best cities are the ones that elevate the experience of the pedestrian while minimizing the
dominance of other modes of transport. Railway stations are often linked to high-density
urban environments where walkable communities can flourish (Elkin et al, 1991). Railway
stations play a major role in constructing and enabling vibrant places and social gathering
places in cities, and can be the gateways to the city if they are designed to facilitate
sustainable development, as well as initiating and supporting the wellbeing of urbanites.
These railway stations can evolve from conventional transit centres that include functional
spaces, into vibrant, healthy active urban centres and destinations/departure-points/gateways.
Railway stations that support the sustainability agenda include the following key principles
(Roös, 2013, 159):
 Efficiency, supporting station functionality;
 Integration, provide for passenger flows;
 Safety, security and passenger safety;
 Place making, station design and siting character; and
 Connectivity, the accessibility of stations and interchange ability.
To provide more healthier railway station environments, railway station designs could
consider the principles of biophilic design, as described and explored in the next section.

Biophilic Design for Railway Stations

Although it is acknowledged that exposure to biophilic elements is beneficial to the health
and wellbeing of humans, and to a lesser degree the health and wellbeing of terrestrial and
aquatic ecology, fundamental considerations need to be considered to have an effective
outcome. Kellert and Calabrese (2015) have identified these as:
 Biophilic design requires repeated and sustained engagement with ecological
communities;
 Biophilic design focuses on human adaptations to ecological communities that over
evolutionary time have advanced people’s health, fitness and wellbeing;
 Biophilic design encourages an emotional attachment to particular settings and places;
 Biophilic design promotes positive interactions between people and ecological
communities that encourage an expanded sense of relationship and responsibility for the
human and ecological communities; and
 Biophilic design encourages mutual reinforcing, interconnected, and integrated
architectural solutions.
Supportive to the abovementioned fundamental considerations, are the biophilic patterns and
also the underlying systems such as the types of vegetation, soils and water provisions,
materiality of finishes, as well as adequate daylight spaces and surrounding environmental
conditions for the station design.
To be able to achieve the required effective outcomes, the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design
need to be integrated into design narratives to guide design, as concluded by Downton, Jones
& Zeunert (2016) in Table 3:
TABLE 3: BIOPHILIC DESIGN PATTERNS, NARRATIVE AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Biophilic Design Pattern Biophilic Design General Principles
1. Visual Connection with Nature Ensure visual access to real presentations of nature
A view to elements of nature, living systems and throughout the station complexes in preference to
natural processes simulated nature and non-nature representations
2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature Enhance opportunities for sensory connections
Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that (audible, smell, texture, temperature) to nature
engender a deliberate and positive reference to throughout the station complexes, in preference to
nature, living systems or natural processes urban simulated or constructed representations
3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli Instil patterns of nature’s movements and seasonality
Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature throughout the station complexes, using real or
that may be analysed statistically but may not be artistic representations where necessary
predicted precisely
4. Thermal & Airflow Variability Consider sequential changes in thermal and airflow
Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, variability to refresh spaces and to enable
airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that comfortability throughout the station complexes
mimic natural environments
 5. Presence of Water
A condition that enhances the experience of a place
through the seeing, hearing or touching of water
6. Dynamic & Diffuse Light
Leveraging varying intensities of light and shadow
that change over time to create conditions that occur
in nature
7. Connection with Natural Systems
Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal
and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy
ecosystem.
8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns
Symbolic references to contoured, patterned,
textured or numerical arrangements that persist in
nature.
9. Material Connection with Nature
Material and elements from nature that, through
minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or
geology to create a distinct sense of place.
10. Complexity & Order
Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial
hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature.
11. Prospect
An unimpeded view over a distance for surveillance
and planning.
12. Refuge
A place for withdrawal, from environmental
conditions or the main flow of activity, in which the
individual is protected from behind and overhead.
13. Mystery
The promise of more information achieved through
partially obscured views or other sensory devices
that entice the individual to travel deeper into the
environment.
14. Risk/Peril
An identifiable threat coupled with a reliable
safeguard
Use water as a static, dynamic and or variable design
element to achieve multi-sensory experiences
throughout the station complexes
Use mixtures of dynamic, diffuse and changeable
lighting arrangements and patterns (including
illuminance and colour) to evoke movement, time,
seasonality, while maximizing solar access
throughout the station complexes
Use natural systems (weather, hydrology, geology,
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, diurnal and seasonal
patterns) as design inspirations throughout the station
complexes
Ensure biomorphic patterns legibility and interest in
floor/ceiling/.roof/wall places and furniture detail
throughout the station complexes
Consider the richness of material colour, warmth,
authenticity and tactility throughout the station
complex
Prioritise pattern compositional and order use
enabling stimulation, interest and legibility, including
artwork throughout the station complexes
Provide a sense of arrival, prospect, for each portal
‘gate’, concourse level and platform level for the
station complexes
Provide opportunities for retreat, contemplation,
waiting, meeting, refuge, for each portal ‘gate’,
concourse level and platform level of the station
complexes
Provide a sense of journey in pedestrian
environments that ensures sightlines, permeability,
and variability in edges and planes
Lessen personal risk in preference to safety but do
not let safety considerations override Biophilic
Design opportunities and principle execution

These 14 patterns support and can enhance the designs of railway stations according to the Beatley
(2016), stating that “Nature in cities, we increasingly recognize, is not something optional, but
absolutely essential to leading a happy, healthy and meaningful life. And this extends to the design of
every element in the city, including transit stations.” (cited in Downton, Jones & Zeunert, 2016, 9).

Case Study - Flinders Street Railway Station

The Flinders Street Railway Station in Melbourne, Australia, is used as a case study to
identify how biophilic design principles can be applied to the existing structures and in the
application of designs to a new railway station. In 2012, Major Projects Victoria (MPV)
announced the winners of the Flinders Street Design Competition, where more than 100
international and Australian entries submitted visualised an idyllic station for the centre and
iconic railway station of Melbourne. The winning entry, from a consortium of HASSELL and
Herzog & De Meuron, provided a railway station design involved a series of cylindrical
structures and overhead covers including an amphitheatre (ABC News, 2013). The ‘People’s
Choice Award’ for the competition voted for an ‘Eduardo Velasquez + Manuel Pineda +
Santiago’ architecture design that included extensive areas of green-grassed landscape areas,
and the ‘ARM’ Architecture design entry also included extensive vegetation and vertical
green walls. Focused on a more integrated sustainable design outcome, based on key
Ecological Sustainable Design (ESD) principles, a final shortlisted prize-winning, submitted
by John Wardle Architects + Grimshaw Architects included regenerative energy use, net zero
waste and water precinct designs, as well as the promotion of social activities centred around
a central landscaped park that connectively extended the Yarra River / Birrarung Marr
landscape, raised above the railway lines below as indicated in Figure 1. This design included
various principles of landscape design that considers the human-nature relationship,
promoting urban wellbeing. Unfortunately the promised funding from the state government
for this project never realised, and the designs and plans of the competitor teams today lie on
shelves gathering dust in part due to changes in state governance and their differing economic
and policy agendas.

FIGURE 1: LANDSCAPED GARDENS FOR THE RAISED CENTRAL PARK (IMAGE: JOHN WARDLE +
GRIMSHAW ARCHITECTS)

What would the outcomes have been if a biophilic design agenda was used to inform design
formulation the future of this railway station? This paper explores what principles and
patterns of biophilic design needs to be considered (additionally to the initial landscape
design and principles) to the application of railway station design, using as an example the
Flinders Street railway station layout of the competition entry by the John Wardle +
Grimshaw Architects design team.
The key application of biophilic design includes the identification of the 14-biophilic design
patterns and relevant biophilic attributes to the station complexes. Figure 2 indicates the
potential considerations for biophilic design applications to the Flinders Street Station design
lay-out. Even though the John Wardle + Grimshaw design was used as a case study, the 14-
biophilic design patterns framework could be used for any station design to assess and apply
effective biophilia outcomes.

FIGURE 2: BIOPHILIC DESIGN PATTERNS AND ATTRIBUTES FOR FLINDERS STREET STATION

The identification and application of the 14 biophilic design patterns and relevant biophilic
attributes to the station complexes indicates potentialities that can improve the station
environments, re-connecting the human nature relationship within public open spaces. What
are important to consider are also the requirements for providing successful biophilic
environments. These include the types of vegetation, soils and water provisions, materiality
of finishes, as well as adequate daylight spaces and surrounding environmental conditions.
Vegetation
To include nature in the station environments, planting can be considered in the horizontal
plane, and the vertical plane (Jones, Downton & Zeunert, 2016).
The horizontal plane includes:
 Planting at street level with in-ground soils; and
 Planting on slab - external station areas that are on top of structural elements (including
car parks, station buildings).
The vertical plane includes:
 Living green walls - vertical climbing plants (including climbing plants used for vertical
façades and walls; e.g. self-supporting or requiring wire/mesh/trellis systems); and
 Living green walls - sculptured with planting modules (including vertical green walls
created with planting modules/units/structures attached to vertical surfaces that contain
soil, irrigation, nutrient and possibly lighting systems).

FIGURE 3: VERTICAL GREEN WALL SUPPORTING THE BIOPHILIC EFFECT

Materiality
Biophilic materiality refers to the textures, materials, forms, and shapes and finishes that
represent the desired effect of biophilia to be achieved in the built environment. Materials and
finishes need to be also cognisant of railway station character, siting, urban precinct/context
and historical attributes, surrounding environments as well as considering low maintenance,
durability and vandalism-proofing where possible.
The selection and use of materials, textures and finishes need also to be aligned with the
desired biophilic design pattern outcomes. A typical palette of materials, textures and
biomorphic forms need to support the materiality aspects of design as indicated in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4: BIOPHILIC DESIGN MATERIALITY TEXTURES AND FORMS

Daylight
In the context of biophilic design, the availability of daylight is critical, and the provision of
daylight support two aspects of healthy environments; first, daylight use for occupants, and
second, daylight for vegetation growth. Daylight provision is one of the key requirements for
healthy plants, as indicated in Figure 5. The amount light needed depends on the location of
the plant and varies according to each plant species. Plants can adapt to their exterior and
interior settings, and usually are divided into three general categories: those suitable for low,
medium and high light intensities. External plants for vertical walls also need to be designed
according to the orientation and amount of sunlight available within the urban environmental
context.

FIGURE 5: PROVISION OF DAYLIGHT

Water
Water is a key element to be considered in biophilic design, in both its application to achieve
a positive biophilic outcome(s) and in their requirements for water in resourcing the plant
growth depending whether used in various horizontal and vertical vegetation options. In the
context of ecological sustainability and the fact that water is a scarce resource, best practice
water savings and the use of non-potable water are necessary in railway station environments
as part of the urban precincts within the city. Careful design and planning of self-sufficient
vegetation systems can require very little water demands, with current technology available
to support various systems of implementation. Opportunities exist in smart vertical living
walls including hydroponic wall systems that capture and recycle their own water and which
require very little additional water supply. Precinct-wide opportunities include small wetland
systems, rain gardens, Water Sensitive Urban Design solutions that can include bio-swales,
water infiltration systems, and stormwater capturing as part of water features such as ponds,
fountains and constructed waterfalls, as indicated in Figure 6.

FIGURE 6: INTEGRATED WATER FEATURE AS PART OF DESIGN SOLUTION

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper offers a new sustainability design platform demonstrating that biophilic design
brings together the realms of building and applied design science, ecological communities,
and the built environment so that we as humans can experience the benefits and results of
wellbeing enhancement as a result of biophilia. Biophilic design for railway stations provides
opportunities to enhance and enliven urban environments, including the possibilities of the
extensive vegetation, improvement and enrichment of ecological systems and their
communities, and strengthening the connections that humans and nature can experience.
Biophilic design, in this paper, provides for visual, aural, and thermal stimulation(s) at
railway stations in urban environments, whereby such environments can become living
laboratories as exemplars of what healthy city environments could be, and potentially how
railways stations and rail transport infrastructure can be re-positioned and re-constructed to
host new patronage experiences.
However, the designing and planning of urban built environments, including that of railway
stations needs to be undertaken with the awareness that the inclusion of biophilia is not only
limited to the provision of vegetation, that vegetation is the essence of biophilic design
crafting, but that biophilic design is a highly scientifically-informed design method that
involves a raft of variables and attributes including environmental features, natural shapes
and forms, ecological patterns and processes, light and space, considerations of place-based
relationships, and the psychological and physiological evolved human-nature relationships as
part of a holistic design solution.
Key to this achievement is the use of the 14 biophilic design patterns (Browning et al, 2014),
supported by its attributes and the underlying systems for support such as the types of
vegetation, soils and water provisions, materiality of finishes, as well as adequate daylight
spaces and surrounding environmental conditions.

References
ABC News (2013). Swiss team wins Flinders Street Station design competition. Mark
Doman, 8 August 2013. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-08/flinders-st-station-
design-competition-winner-announced/.
Alexander, C, S Ishikawa, M Silverstein, M Jacobson, I Fiksdahl-King & S Angel (1977), A
Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Alexander, C. (2001-2005), The Nature of Order: An essay on the Art of Building and the
Nature of the Universe - Book One Version 11. Berkley, California: the Center for
Environmental Structure.
ARUP (2016). Cities Alive : Green Building Envelope. Arup Deutschland GmbH, berlin,
Germany, Königsdruck Printmedien.
Beatley, T (2010), Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Browning, WD, CO Ryan & J Clancy (2014), 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving
Health & Well-Being in the Built Environment. New York: Terrapin Bright Green.
Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., ... & Singh,
M. (1987). Our common future (\'brundtland report\').
ISCA (2015). Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool Technical Manual, Version 1.0.
Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kellert, S (1997), Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S (2005), Building for Life: Understanding and Designing the Human-Nature
Connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S (2012), Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Kellert, S & EO Wilson (eds.) (1993), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Kellert, S & E Calabrese (2015), The Practice of Biophilic Design. www.biophilic-
design.com
Kellert, S, J. Heerwagen, M. Mador (eds.) (2008), Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science, and
Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Potteiger, M & J Purinton (1998), Landscape Narratives: Design Practices for Telling
Stories. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Roös, PB (2016), Regenerative-Adaptive Design for Coastal Settlements. Unpublished PhD,
School of Architecture & Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong.
Roös, PB & M Juvara (2012), Opportunistic Destinations: Transforming Railway Stations
into Sustainable Urban Centres. Proceedings of the 5th International Urban Design
Conference: Opportunistic Urban Design, AST Management Pty Ltd, Melbourne,
Victoria, September 2012
Roös, PB (2013), Railway Stations: Public Realm Gateways to Sustainable Futures.
Proceedings of the 6th International Urban Design Conference: UrbanAgination,
Urban Design Australia, Nerang, Qld., September 2013
Salingaros, NA (2013), Unified Architectural Theory: Form, Language, Complexity.
Portland: Sustasis Foundation.
Vaughan, L.J. (2009). The Spatial Signature of Suburban Active Centres. Proceedings of the
Seventh International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 113-127). Stockholm: Space
Syntax Symposium.
Wilson, EO (1986), Biophilia: the Human Bond with Other Species. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.