In the spirit of the event, keep-cups were encouraged, as attendees were greeted with coffee on arrival. A welcome Karakia by Te Aroha Grace and a brief, but powerful reminder of the meaning of Mana set the tone. His original and witty twist on the current hot topic of ‘AI’ or as he likes to call it, ‘Ancestral Intelligence’ in hindsight, fittingly paved the way for a day of reflection and an overarching theme of the need for ‘reciprocity’.

Hosted with warmth and humour by co-founder and CEO of Critical, Rui Peng, the event offered a day of reflection, provocation and practical insights for reimagining the built environment as a living, regenerative ecosystem.

Design as a dialogue with place

Miranda Brown, a biophilic and nature artist laid the foundation for discussions by emphasizing that “we need nature, it doesn’t need us”. A bold and sobering statement to convey the need for reciprocity between people and place. Biophilic design fosters this collaboration with the natural environment and urgently addresses ‘place lessness’; the lack of connection and belonging. People who feel connected, show greater care towards a place ultimately contributing to better wellbeing productivity and economic benefits. Miranda champions sensory rich environments through implementation of fractal patterns, natural light and soundscapes. She asks, “Can we create buildings where people feel a sense of awe and humility?” thereby positioning Biophilia not as an aesthetic overlay but as a relational practice that enhances creativity, community and care.

Designer David Trubridge challenged attendees to “think like a tree” and argued that true biophilic design is not about adding nature at the end but designing with the logic of nature from the beginning. He voiced a sharp critique of modernist architecture, lamenting the homogenised concrete rectangles that replaced local craft and connection to place. For him, such forms represent a “biophobic” approach, imposing uniformity rather than allowing environments to grow organically.

In contrast, Pattersons director, Andrew Patterson defended concrete’s role, arguing that when designed for longevity, concrete structures can be more sustainable across their lifecycles. The discussion highlighted the material’s complexity: while often contested, concrete remains versatile and multifaceted — qualities also acknowledged by event sponsor Nauhria, who brought an important counterpoint to the conversation.

In summary, Trubridge uplifted Indigenous design as one that is sustainable and the direct opposite of modernism. Trubridge left us with one of the most impactful and thought-provoking statements of the day, that if nothing is imposed in nature and it’s allowed to grown is its own way…“is ‘biophilic design’ an oxymoron?”

Healing through design

Dr Debbie Wilson introduced the concept of regenerative healthcare design, emphasising environments that actively heal, inspire and sustain. Referencing Te Whatu Ora design guidance, she showed how natural light, views and green spaces support both cognitive and emotional restoration, making the case for hospitals and clinics as places of recovery not only for the body but for the spirit.

Te Ari Pendergast, associate principal at Warren and Mahoney, captured this responsibility most poignantly. Drawing on Māori concepts of mauri (balance) and rahui (rest), he urged designers to consider how a project can heal land and people alike. “If you cut down a tree, the tree isn’t dying but being transformed,” he said. “Make the transformation meaningful — for the people.” His words reframed material selection as an ethical act: timber or stone is not simply harvested, it is given a second life that must be worthy of its source. Prendergast spoke on “Te Awa Whiria”— the weaving together of different strands of thought — framing biophilic design as a balancing act between diverse relationships and perceptions. He went on to demonstrate how Māori design is inseparable from nature and reflected on the “worlds within words” in Te Reo, further solidifying the importance of reciprocity in design. His challenge to the audience for any future projects is to consider: “How does this project heal the generations of trauma in our land?”

Urban ecosystems and sensory design

Zoe Avery famed biophilia as a powerful tool for transforming cities and reimagining as ecosystems. She highlighted the economic case for biophilia, noting that every $1 invested in nature-based urban design can generate $5.60 in value across health, social, and infrastructure benefits. Singapore stands as a leading example, where residents are never more than a few minutes’ walk from green space. These landscapes double as functional infrastructure: wastewater management systems are integrated into parks and water features, producing significant cost savings compared with conventional city infrastructure. Avery’s expansive research culminates to a simple truth: the urban environments we create profoundly shape both our wellbeing and the planet’s future. Therefore, cities should no longer be seen as disconnected from ecology but as ecosystems themselves — living, adaptive and regenerative.

Tricia Love urged the audience to shift the conversation from sustainability to regeneration, reminding us that “we designed ourselves into this, we can design ourselves out of it.” For Love, design must embrace the truth that “we are nature — so we must design as nature.” She drew on the Living Building Challenge, which uses a flower as its guiding metaphor. The ‘beauty’ petal, a precursor to care, is not decorative but essential, “Without beauty, we don’t care,” thereby reinforcing the intrinsic relationship between people and their environments. Love affirms that focus is needed on the sensory realm — the vital space between engineering and visual expression. By holding the tools of certification lightly, practitioners can avoid the trap of box-ticking sustainability. Get to know your people and communities so you can design with and for them. She concludes, “if you make something beautiful; it makes you beautiful.”

Panel discussion

The panel was a lively discussion on the realities of applying biophilic design.
See the takeaways from each panelist: 

• Brad Crowley Believes that when embedded at the start of a project lifecycle, biophilic design is both cheaper and more effective.
• Laura Hamilton-O’Hara defined biophilic design as creating “conditions that create conditions for life.”
• David Trubridge reminded us of the urgency: emissions must be addressed now, not in 100 years.
• Arnya Karaitiana spoke to the richness that emerges when multiple voices contribute: “Our role as designers is to give multiple perspectives.”

Takeaways:

Discussing the event, Stack designer Sarah Hansford said, “Amidst the inspiration, one challenge kept resurfacing: client buy-in. Designers, artists and industry professionals may champion biophilia, but persuading clients to allocate budget for natural systems, regenerative processes, or simply a more time-intensive consultation can be difficult.”

A participating designer said, “We all believe in it, but convincing the people who sign the cheques is another story.”

Hansford continues, “Next year’s conference could powerfully build on this theme — sharing strategies for demonstrating long-term value, from health savings to increased property resilience, and offering language that resonates with decision-makers focused on immediate costs.”

Other takeaways included:

• The more voices that contribute to the conversation, the richer it is.
• Biophilia doesn’t literally/always refer to plants and greenery.
• We need to have Reciprocity with nature: biophilic design is not just about wellbeing
  metrics or economic benefits, but about fostering humility, belonging, and healing.
• Design should be a multisensory experience: what we see, hear, feel moving through a
  space.
• Attributing meaning to words and things, fosters ownership, creates care and let’s one see the beauty — “without beauty we don’t care”. Therefore, Indigenous design is more sustainable and the direct opposite of modernism.
• If we want sustainability in the workplace, we should continuously strive to create “conditions that create conditions for life” — quote by Hamilton-O’Hara when asked what Biophilia means to her.

Hansford summarises, “For architects and designers, the takeaway is both inspiring and sobering. Biophilia is less about adding plants than about cultivating relationships: between people and place, material and meaning, present and future. To practice it is to accept that every decision — down to the fate of a single tree — carries weight. Our challenge, and the conversation we must continue next year, is ensuring that clients understand the profound return on investing in those decisions.”