Yesterday was my first thesis review of the semester. I met with both my primary and secondary advisers; both of them had generally the same comments about my project so far. Some comments were that because the subject of biomimicry is very broad, it is a good thing that I distinguished between biomorphism (just copying the shape of something in nature) and biomimicry (copying the function of something in nature). The precedents that I had, the Industrial Eco-park, Eastgate, and the Esplanade, weren't at the scale that I seem to be going which is possibly a prototype space. I should find more relevant precedents that are closer to the scale that I want and diagram how they work so that I can glean an insight from them. My primary and secondary advisers gave me different but related ways of thinking of thesis: as a science experiment, where I set up the hypothesis, the givens, the test, and the predicted outcome, and as three questions: What is your specific topic that you are interested in engaging? Why is it relevant? How can you contribute to the topic and through what means?

My trajectory that I am going to work toward for the next review is to:
1) define a specific location, determine the site constraints and research natural processes that are specific to that location,
2) define a specific program, determining the criteria relevant to the program that I choose,
3) contrast the processes and systems of the site and program,
4) find specific precedents that are relevant to my program and scale
As of now, I am considering my program to be an office space, though I am not sure of the location as of yet. Michael Pawlyn has done some analysis of a typical office space and how to make them more sustainable, and I am going to look through his analysis and see if an office space is the program I want to stick with.