Memory has always been central to architectural discourse, particularly in its relation to history and the past as an informative element of design. This can be seen in the memorialization of historical sites and the preservation of diverse cultural styles. We propose that architectural memory also fundamentally defines the future. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological approach provides a theoretical framework for understanding these connections. His concept of the lived body as the primary site of experience and memory challenges traditional Cartesian dualism (Merleau-Ponty, 1962).
When integrated into architectural design, biophilia—first conceptualized by Erich Fromm and later expanded by E.O. Wilson (1984) as “the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes”—provides strong ties to psychological, physiological, and cognitive well-being. This evolutionary adaptation reflects humans’ biological predisposition toward nature, manifesting through various dimensions including aesthetic appreciation, emotional attachment, and utilitarian relationships with natural elements (Kellert & Wilson, 1993).
Contemporary society faces a growing disconnect from natural environments. Increasing numbers of people significantly lack meaningful connection to nature, with potential consequences for their physical and mental health. This separation has been exacerbated by rapid urbanization, technological advancement, and changes in lifestyle (Nwanaji-Enwerem et al., 2024). As Egorov et al. (2025) note, this disconnection may have biological consequences beyond immediate psychological effects.
Recent research in epigenetics provides compelling evidence that environmental exposures can affect gene expression without altering DNA sequences (Sen et al., 2015). These epigenetic modifications can influence health outcomes and may persist across generations suggesting the form of the environment factors into future human health. Specifically, residential greenness has been associated with reduced epigenetic aging (Egorov et al., 2025), suggesting that environmental design may have biological impacts beyond immediate experiential benefits. However, limited nature exposure may contribute to epigenetic marks that influence gene expression, potentially resulting in biophobia—a predisposition toward fear, anxiety or aversion regarding natural environments.
This paper examines the intersection of phenomenology, biophilia, and epigenetics through the lens of architectural design. We hypothesize that biophilic design elements can foster positive embodied experiences that may influence epigenetic patterns that benefit both present and future descendants. Using the Via Verde housing project as a case study, we explore how thoughtful incorporation of natural elements in urban housing can promote health and well-being while potentially influencing biological processes across generations. By intentionally memorializing biophilia in architectural spaces, designers may create environments that not only connect inhabitants to nature but also promote beneficial epigenetic changes that could persist through time.
1. Phenomenology and Embodied Experience
Merleau-Ponty’s seminal work Phenomenology of Perception originally published in 1945 established an imperative approach to understanding memory through embodied experience. Unlike traditional Cartesian dualism, his foundational theory posits that memory is fundamentally embodied in our physical being. How we remember or forget becomes essential to experiencing the built environment around us. Architectural memory must carefully consider its power to affect not just the past and present, but the continuing future. Through memory and embodied experience, architecture extends dynamically in both space and time, shaping our collective understanding of place and belonging.
Central to Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy is the concept of the “lived body” as the vehicle of being-in-the-world. The body is not merely an object among objects but the means through which we engage with our surroundings. As Merleau-Ponty (1962) explains, “The body is our general medium for having a world.” This notion fundamentally challenges the traditional subject-object dichotomy, suggesting instead a chiasmic intertwining. This chiasm is the reversible, intertwining relationship between perceiver and perceived, the sentient and the sensible. These phenomenological insights are present in contemporary architectural scholarship demonstrating how the body mediates both physical and virtual worlds and further supporting their non-traditional design application (Papasarantou, 2020). In his later work, Merleau-Ponty (1968) further develops the concept “Chair” (pronounced shar), the connective tissue of reality, the flesh, the medium through which subject and object, self and world, are intertwined and constitutes that this elemental substance is common to both the body and the world.
2. Merleau-Ponty’s Key Concepts of Memory
In Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, the body plays a central role in the concept of memory. He emphasizes that memory is not solely a mental or cognitive process but is deeply intertwined with bodily experiences and habits. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology offers five critical dimensions of embodied memory that inform our understanding of architectural experience.
First, embodiment and perception establish that memory is fundamentally linked to perceptual experience, with the body serving as mediator between self and environment—integrating multiple senses to understand spatial and temporal relationships.
Second, habit and motor memory reveal how bodies encode knowledge through repeated actions, creating what Merleau-Ponty calls “knowledge in the hands”—a tacit understanding that enables fluid performance without conscious deliberation.
Third, pre-reflective awareness describes our immediate, unfiltered engagement with environments, where affordances are directly perceived without cognitive processing, similar to J.J. Gibson’s affordance theory.
Fourth, spatial-temporal integration demonstrates how bodily movements and spatial interactions structure memories through what Merleau-Ponty terms “retention” (of past experiences) and “protention” (of future possibilities).
Fifth, intercorporeality acknowledges how bodily experiences are inherently social, involving shared histories and collective memories that preserve past interactions and influence present ones.
Together, these dimensions establish memory not as a purely cognitive phenomenon but as fundamentally embodied which reveals how architectural environments are experienced, remembered, and transmitted through a chiasmic intertwining engagement. These embodied memories operate largely pre-reflectively, enabling us to navigate complex environments exclusive of conscious deliberation. As we encounter architectural spaces, our bodies recall past experiences and anticipate possible actions through the body’s inherent directedness toward the world. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology emerges from Western philosophical traditions that often maintain nature-culture distinctions. In contrast, Native American Indigenous cultures and Japanese Shinto traditions emphasize the interconnectedness of all beings and recognize sacred spirits in natural elements. These integrated human-nature relationships challenge Western subject-object dualism. Consequently, biophilic design must consider these diverse cultural frameworks of environmental engagement.
3. Biophilia in Architectural Theory
This embodied understanding of architectural experience provides a theoretical foundation for examining how humans interact with the world.. The biophilia hypothesis, by Kellert and E.O. Wilson (1993) proposed that affinity for nature is not just a preference but an evolutionary trait—that humans have an inherent biological need to engage with nature because it contributed to our survival. The hypothesis argues that our psychological and physiological well-being is deeply linked to natural environments.
The savanna hypothesis provides additional insight into human environmental preferences. When first formalized by anthropologist Raymond Dart (1925), he proposed that open savanna environments with patches of woodland could have selected for distinctly human characteristics. The Savanna perceptual preference hypothesis proposes that humans retain innate, automatic tendencies to prefer certain natural settings that would have provided food, water, and security for our ancestors. Further their research suggested that the preference for park-like landscapes after African savannas experienced a kind of ‘refreshment’ in the Pleistocene (Rathmann et al., 2022). This more nuanced view recognizes that while shifts in habitat were important, they were part of a complex interplay of factors over time.
Similarly, geographer Jay Appleton introduced his habitat theory (1975), which included the prospect-refuge theory. It explores human environmental aesthetic preferences from the standpoint of evolution. He proposed that humans prefer environments offering both prospect (open views that provide ability to acquire information about one’s surroundings) and refuge (places of shelter, protection, and concealment). Appleton also identified hazard (proximity of something which threatens, menaces, or disturbs our equilibrium) as an important third element of safety for the provision of evolutionary endurance. Ulrich’s stress recovery theory originally introduced in 1983, then later developed with his team in 1991, demonstrates that exposure to natural environments impacts psychological and physiological well-being. Humans have an adaptive response to nature and are biologically predisposed to respond positively to non-threatening natural environments. This response includes immediate positive emotions and sustained attention, which is beneficial for survival by allowing individuals to exploit resources like food and water. It’s characterized by a parasympathetic nervous system dominance, leading to heart rate deceleration and relaxation (Ulrich et al., 1991). These physiological responses occur rapidly and often pre-consciously, suggesting deep evolutionary roots to our biophilic tendencies.
4. Integrative Framework: Embodied Experience, Biophilia, and Architecture
The integration of phenomenological and biophilic perspectives offers a powerful framework for understanding architectural experience. Both approaches emphasize the embodied, multisensory nature of human-environment interactions and recognize that these interactions have profound implications for wellbeing – a statement that applies equally to Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and biophilic design principles.
This integrated framework suggests that architectural spaces can function as mediators of embodied memory, particularly regarding our relationship with nature Recent scholarship exploring how, through Bergson’s philosophy, buildings function as ‘aggregates of images’ that continuously integrate past experiences and present perceptions, with memory playing an active role in architectural perception (Rego, 2024). This reinforces our concept of architecture as a mediator of transgenerational embodied memory. When buildings incorporate biophilic elements—natural materials, daylight, vegetation, and organic forms—they may activate ancestral memories encoded in our evolutionary history while simultaneously creating new embodied memories that have the potential to shape future experiences.
Moreover, these theoretical perspectives help illuminate potential mechanisms through which architecture influences health outcomes. The direct sensory engagement facilitated by biophilic design elements may trigger cascading physiological responses that reduce stress and promote healing. Simultaneously, the pre-reflective bodily understanding described by Merleau-Ponty posits that inhabitants experience these evolutionary environments intuitively. This infers that responding to biophilic architectural affordances occurs without conscious deliberation.
Architecture thus becomes more than static structure—it emerges as a dynamic medium that influence experiences across multiple temporalities: the evolutionary past embedded in our biophilic responses, the personal past inscribed in our lifetime embodied memories, and the anticipated future toward which our bodies are already oriented - including our epigenetic memories potentially passed onto our progeny. This temporal assortment undergirds architecture’s capacity to “memorialize” biophilia by creating spaces that reconnect inhabitants with nature, while fostering beneficial patterns of embodied interaction that may persist through future generations. These embodied interactions form the biological foundation for exploring how the built environment can influence future health outcomes through epigenetic mechanisms.
5. Epigenetic Mechanisms and the Environment’s Impact
Epigenetics refers to heritable changes in gene function that occur without alterations to the underlying DNA sequence. These modifications regulate how genes are expressed, effectively turning them “on” or “off” without changing the genetic code itself. DNA methylation—the addition of methyl groups to DNA, typically at CpG sites—represents one of the primary epigenetic mechanisms influencing gene expression (Sen et al., 2015). This process generally represses gene transcription, creating cellular “memory” of environmental exposures.
Environmental factors can significantly impact epigenetic patterns, with potentially far-reaching consequences for health and development. As Egorov et al. (2025) demonstrated, residential greenness is associated with reduced epigenetic aging, suggesting that exposure to natural environments may influence fundamental biological processes. Conversely, limited nature exposure might contribute to epigenetic marks that affect gene expression in ways that promote biophobia—predispositions of fear and anxiety toward natural settings. According to Xu et al. (2021), exposure to greenspace correlates with measurable biological effects, including changes in DNA methylation patterns associated with mental health, metabolic function, and inflammatory response.
These epigenetic modifications can persist beyond the initially exposed individual. Sen et al. (2015) provide compelling evidence of multigenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans, showing that maternal exposure to lead during pregnancy affected the DNA methylation profile in grandchildren’s neonatal blood. This transgenerational transmission occurs when environmental exposures cause epigenetic changes in germ cells that escape normal epigenetic reprogramming during early embryonic development and gonadal sex determination (Nwanaji-Enwerem et al., 2024).
The built environment represents a significant environmental factor potentially influencing epigenetic patterns. A study by Xu et al. (2021) identified methylation differences at several CpG sites associated with greenspace exposure, with affected genes related to mental health disorders, cancers, and metabolic diseases. These findings reveal that architectural decisions incorporating or excluding natural elements may have biological consequences extending beyond immediate physiological and psychological effects.
Importantly, many epigenetic marks demonstrate plasticity and reversibility. Research demonstrates that factors can leave a mark on the genome, but these marks can also be healed through healthier life experiences (Egorov et al., 2025). This dynamic quality suggests that thoughtfully designed environments incorporating biophilic elements might help mitigate negative epigenetic patterns established through nature deprivation, potentially influencing health outcomes across generations. Architectural design thus emerges as a powerful tool for creating environments that not only support immediate wellbeing but may also promote beneficial epigenetic patterns with long-term intergenerational implications.
6. The Convergence of Phenomenology, Biophilia, and Epigenetics in Architecture
The integration of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis, and contemporary epigenetic research offers a powerful interdisciplinary framework for architectural design. These seemingly disparate fields converge around a central premise: our embodied experiences within environments have profound, lasting effects that extend beyond immediate perception.
Merleau-Ponty’s notion of the chiasmic “flesh”"— the medium through which self and world, are intertwined and mutually constituted — finds biological substantiation in epigenetic research. This philosophical concept resonates with epigenetic findings that environmental exposures become literally incorporated into our biological functioning through DNA methylation and other processes (Sen et al., 2015). The environment is not separate from us; it becomes part of our biological makeup. Additionally, embodied memory, which may operate through epigenetic mechanisms, can create a biological substrate for architectural experiences that persists through time.
Biophilia and its associated theories provide the evolutionary context for understanding why certain environments—particularly those with natural elements—might trigger beneficial epigenetic responses. Our species evolved in close relationship with nature, developing innate affinities for specific environmental features that promoted survival and wellbeing (Wilson, 1984). These biophilic preferences appear to correspond with environments that elicit positive physiological responses, including potential epigenetic modifications that influence health outcomes. Egorov’s study demonstrated that green environments are associated with an interquartile range increase resulting in −0.9 to −1.6 years of epigenetic age acceleration reduction or slower biological aging (92% statistically significant). While evidence supports these theoretical connections, direct epigenetic measurement within specifically designed biophilic environments remains limited.
This convergence has profound implications. Architectural spaces are not merely forms or functional constructs but dynamic environments that potentially influence occupants’ future biological functioning across multiple timescales. Elten suggests (as cited in Nwanaji-Enwerem et al., 2024), “greenspace exposure results in exposure to biodiversity that favorably improves systemic immunity” —a finding that supports biophilic design strategies incorporating diverse natural elements.
By consciously designing environments that support positive embodied experiences with nature, architects can potentially influence not just immediate wellbeing but also mediate the biological trajectories of future generations—truly memorializing biophilia in the most profound sense.
7. Case Study - Architecture’s Role in Nature Connection
Socio-Historical Context
Environmental justice research reveals that nature deprivation disproportionately affects marginalized communities, potentially creating cumulative epigenetic disadvantages that biophilic design interventions must explicitly address. Via Verde, located The South Bronx, New York, exemplifies the environmental inequities common in urban settings. The mixed-income multifamily housing sits on a 1.5-acre brownfield reclamation site, includes rental and ownership housing, medical office, retail, and community spaces. This LEED certified pedestrian-friendly project also includes affordable housing units.
Historically, these areas suffer from limited access to quality green space, poor air quality, and high rates of chronic disease (Hacker, 2024). Environmental disparities often follow socioeconomic and racial lines with advantaged groups experiencing a higher frequency of positive interactions with nature, resulting in biophilia-related benefit disparities. These conditions create a challenging context for fostering biophilic connections. This population may already carry epigenetic traumas (adverse epigenetic modifications from environmental stressor of past generations), so environmental deprivation in such neighborhoods may have an accumulated epigenetic implication for residents. The Via Verde project thus represents not merely an architectural intervention but a potential mediator of biological processes with transgenerational implications.
Design Approaches: Biophilic Integration at Via Verde
Via Verde, meaning “The Green Way,” integrates multiple biophilic design strategies to foster meaningful nature connections throughout the complex and multiple terraced levels. "The project operationalizes Wilson’s (1984) biophilia hypothesis supporting our evolutionary connection to nature while facilitating what Merleau-Ponty (1962) conceptualizes as spatial-temporal integration of bodily movements and spatial interactions that structure memories.
Key elements that characterize the project:
Community Gardens. These gardens provide opportunities for residents to engage in gardening and interact with nature. These spaces facilitate procedural or motor memory—the embodied knowledge that develops through repeated interactions with plants and soil. The act of gardening engages habit and motor memory through multiple sensory modalities, potentially creating rich embodied memories that, as Merleau-Ponty suggests, become inscribed in the lived body.
.jpeg)
Tree Orchards. A fruit tree orchard on the 4th floor connects residents with food production cycles. This feature activates what Kellert terms the “utilitarian value” of biophilia—the practical benefits derived from natural resources (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). The seasonal changes visible in the orchard may influence residents’ temporal experience, reinforcing natural rhythms often lost in urban contexts. A Conifer Tree Grove on the 3rd floor adds year-round views of greenery from the building’s interior spaces. The sensory experience of this evergreen element—visual texture, olfactory stimulation, and sound attenuation—engages multiple perceptual systems simultaneously, creating rich embodied experiences that may trigger beneficial physiological responses.
Fitness Garden. The 7th floor integrates physical activity with exposure to greenery. This combination aligns with research suggesting that exercise produces enhanced psychological and physiological benefits and may reduce epigenetic age acceleration (Egorov et al., 2025). The synergistic effect may influence epigenetic expression related to stress response and immune function.
Rooftop Gardens. Its native vegetation serves multiple functions: environmental (building insulation, stormwater management), psychological (restorative views), and social (gathering spaces). Combined, they serve as a community organizing element, reinforcing participation in environmental stewardship through thoughtful design. These multi-layered benefits reflect These carefully integrated design elements function across multiple sensory modalities, exemplifying what Merleau-Ponty (1962) terms synesthetic perception - the rule and not the exception to how we perceive the world.
Amphitheater Garden. The 2nd floor provides space for social gatherings, community events and performances. This design element recognizes the social dimension of biophilia, incorporeality and place-making and acknowledges that nature experiences are often mediated through cultural and interpersonal contexts. This creates opportunities for collective embodied memories to form, potentially strengthening community bonds.
.jpeg)
These biophilic elements are strategically distributed at multiple building terrace levels, creating a “vertical forest” that increases biodiversity, improves air quality, reduces urban heat, and enhances the well-being of residents. According to the ULI case study (2014), residents of Via Verde find it a highly desirable place to live. The community programs, such as exercise classes, the garden club, and social events, are popular among residents and contribute to their positive experience. This approach to biophilic design reinforces the value of nature to simultaneously provide multiple benefits to both the occupant and the environment.
8. Social Impact and Health Implications
Via Verde’s biophilic design approach addresses the “concerning separation from nature’s restorative power” that characterizes many urban environments. By creating diverse opportunities for nature connection, the project potentially influences residents’ epigenetic expression in ways that promote health and wellbeing. As Egorov et al. (2025) demonstrated, residential greenness correlates with reduced epigenetic aging, suggesting that Via Verde’s extensive green infrastructure may confer biological benefits beyond immediate psychological effects.
The project also addresses environmental justice concerns by bringing high-quality nature experiences to a historically underserved community. This community-centered approach reflects broader movements in modern architectural practice toward collaborative and participatory design processes. Contemporary scholarship has identified how crisis-driven spatial interventions can catalyze new forms of community engagement (Ariano, 2021), suggesting that projects like Via Verde represent not merely individual developments but is part of a larger transformation toward more democratic architecture. Via Verde further exemplifies how architectural design can serve as an intervention in multiple systems simultaneously: ecological, social, psychological, and potentially epigenetic. The project demonstrates that biophilic design is not merely an aesthetic choice but a profound architectural strategy with implications for human health across generations.
9. Future Direction
We hypothesize that increased implementation of biophilic environments will systematically improve embodied experience and reduce biophobic epigenetic marks in populations. This hypothesis generates several promising avenues for future research and practice at the intersection of architecture, phenomenology, and epigenetics.
Theoretical and Empirical Research
Future studies should investigate the specific mechanisms through which biophilic design elements influence epigenetic expression. While current research demonstrates correlations between residential greenness and epigenetic aging (Egorov et al., 2025), more targeted studies are needed to identify which biophilic elements have the strongest epigenetic effects. Longitudinal studies tracking epigenetic markers before and after relocation to biophilic environments would be particularly valuable, as would transgenerational studies examining epigenetic inheritance patterns in relation to built environments.
Researchers might also explore the developmental timing of biophilic exposures. Epigenetic modifications appear particularly potent during sensitive developmental periods, including prenatal development and early childhood (Sen et al., 2015). Architectural interventions targeted at these critical periods—such as biophilic design in maternal health facilities, childcare centers, and elementary schools—might yield especially significant long-term benefits.
Professional Practice
For practicing architects, our theoretical framework suggests several immediate applications. First, biophilic design should be reconceptualized not merely as an aesthetic choice but as a fundamental health intervention with potential transgenerational implications. This perspective elevates the importance of natural elements from optional amenities to essential components of responsible design practice. Second, architects should pay particular attention to biophilic elements that engage multiple sensory modalities simultaneously. The richest embodied experiences involve the integration of diverse sensory inputs. Designers might therefore prioritize elements like water features (engaging visual, auditory, and tactile senses) and fragrant gardens (combining visual and olfactory stimuli) to create more profound embodied memories.
10. Policy Implications
Our findings suggest several policy directions to support biophilic integration in the built environment. The architect’s code of ethics could be updated to promote research-based relationship regarding architecture’s impact on human health and well-being. Building codes and zoning ordinances could be revised to require minimum standards for biophilic elements. Health-focused tax incentives could motivate developers to invest in biophilic design within underserved communities where nature access has been historically limited. Local governments and public health agencies should designate biophilic architecture as a designated preventative health intervention eligible for dedicated funding. This approach aligns with emerging research on social determinants of health and could effectively improve population health while reducing disparities in communities with limited access to natural environments.
11. Educational Considerations
Architecture and design education must evolve to incorporate this interdisciplinary understanding. Curricula should integrate biological concepts and phenomenological perspectives alongside traditional design considerations. Studio projects should integrate science research that explores potential epigenetic and other health implications of their designs, encouraging a more holistic understanding of architecture’s biological impacts.
By pursuing these future directions, we can cultivate environments that foster positive relationships with nature, reduce biophobia (especially in young children), and promote psychological and physiological experiences that reduce stress. The architecture we create today does not merely reflect our current values—it actively shapes the biological and experiential possibilities available to future generations.
12. Conclusion
This paper has explored the intersection of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis, and contemporary epigenetic research to understand how architectural design can foster meaningful connections to nature with potential transgenerational implications. By examining the Via Verde housing project, we have demonstrated how thoughtfully integrated biophilic elements can create embodied experiences that may influence both immediate wellbeing and biological processes across generations.
We recognize that environmental perceptions of space are colored by personal experience. Age, gender, and cultural background are influential factors that may be further shaped by social dynamics, privacy needs, and cultural identity. However, despite these complexities our framework and empirical findings still provide valuable insights for designers, developers and policy makers and offers a useful framework for understanding human-environment experience from a theoretical, evolutionary, and physiological awareness. Consistent exposure to natural environments and thoughtfully designed biophilic spaces can potentially enhance comprehensive health outcomes across multiple generations. As epigenetic research continues to reveal the biological mechanisms through which environmental exposures become embodied, architects must acknowledge their profound responsibility.
Given these scientific insights and their profound implications, ethical considerations become paramount. However, Meloni (2016) rightfully warns against the use of science as a political platform. His work demonstrates that the pressure of time and history, along with hard-learned lessons from eugenics (the politically motivated misuse of biological science to justify discrimination and forced sterilization), have created valuable knowledge about biased empirical approaches. We argue that this evolutionary epigenetic knowledge of interconnectedness should be used for the collective benefit of humanity and planet, rather than becoming a mere partisan battle of exclusive positions.
Therefore, our imperative must be to promote biophilia through innovative nature-integrated architecture. This requires collaboration among architects, biologists, phenomenologists, real estate developers, public health professionals, and associated experts. By memorializing biophilia in our built environments, we create spaces that reconnect humans with nature, thus bridging our evolutionary past with our collective future.
