Traditional urban planning often overlooks the diverse animal populations that share our cities, assuming a human-exclusive occupancy. However, observations across regions like India and Southwest Asia reveal a complex urban tapestry where animals such as dogs, monkeys, and birds are integral to daily life, utilizing various urban structures from streets to rooftops. While modern architecture frequently inadvertently excludes wildlife, historical buildings demonstrate a capacity for multispecies accommodation, suggesting a need for contemporary design to embrace this reality for more sustainable and biodiverse urban futures.
For a considerable period, urban planning has predominantly addressed the presence of animals either as mere infrastructural challenges or as subjects of ecological concern, framing their existence within discussions of sanitation, conflict, conservation, or public health. Rarely have they been acknowledged as legitimate inhabitants of architectural spaces. Nevertheless, millions of animals navigate the same urban pathways, thoroughfares, courtyards, parks, and structures as humans. In India alone, official figures indicate a free-ranging dog population exceeding seventeen million. Researchers have consistently argued that these animals are not peripheral to urban life but are profoundly integrated, adapting their behaviors to intricate patterns of traffic, waste management systems, established neighborhood territories, and daily human routines. The vibrancy of urban life, therefore, arises from an interwoven network of relationships encompassing people, animals, diverse flora, waste infrastructure, water systems, and the built environment.
This dynamic coexistence becomes vividly apparent through everyday observations. A street dog seeking repose beneath a market stall is instinctively responding to the availability of shade, the proximity to sustenance, and social familiarity within its environment. Pigeons invariably gather under building overhangs, finding shelter from inclement weather and potential predators. Monkeys adeptly traverse walls, balconies, and electrical conduits, exploiting the city's continuous network of elevated routes. Even scavenger species play a critical role in complex urban ecosystems. Recent studies focusing on Indian cities have documented intricate interactions among dogs, crows, mynas, kites, and other animals, whose behaviors are closely intertwined with patterns of waste distribution, vegetation, and human activities. These relationships constitute an ordinary, yet often unrecognized, aspect of urban existence, profoundly influencing the daily functionality of cities.
Conversely, historical architectural contexts frequently reveal a distinct approach to animal integration. Such environments often accommodated animal life not through explicit ecological design, but through the inherent characteristics of their construction. Features like thick masonry walls, deeply recessed openings, towering structures, enclosed courtyards, and integrated water systems naturally provided opportunities for nesting, roosting, foraging, and shelter. Religious architecture, particularly across India, offers numerous examples. Temple towers, shaded colonnades, and temple tanks have historically supported diverse populations of birds, bats, fish, and insects. These species were seldom considered external elements; rather, their presence was an intrinsic part of the everyday occupation of these sacred spaces.
In some instances, architectural practices transcended mere accommodation, actively designing structures with other species in mind. Across Iran, historical pigeon towers, known as Kabootar Khaneh, were specifically erected to house thousands of birds. Their interiors were ingeniously designed with intricate systems of nesting cavities, creating highly specialized habitats that simultaneously supported agricultural practices and local ecosystems. These monumental structures were organized around avian occupancy on an architectural scale rarely observed in contemporary design. Rather than excluding animals, the architecture itself was sculpted around their specific needs, placing birds at the very heart of the architectural brief.
A similar philosophy was evident in the Ottoman Empire, where elaborate birdhouses were seamlessly integrated into the facades of mosques, schools, libraries, and civic buildings. These miniature palaces, projecting from the structures, offered permanent nesting sites while symbolizing a broader cultural acceptance of coexistence between humans and animals. Despite their physical modesty, these birdhouses were incorporated into some of the empire's most significant civic edifices, demonstrating that accommodating other species was once a comfortable and integral part of architectural ambition.
In contrast, contemporary buildings frequently create an environment that inadvertently excludes wildlife. Modern architectural trends favor sealed facades, smooth, unyielding surfaces, meticulously controlled access points, and highly regulated landscapes. While these design choices are seldom intended to directly deter wildlife, they often significantly diminish opportunities for animal habitation. Nesting sites vanish, habitats become fragmented, and species that once naturally occupied architectural spaces are relegated to residual areas and neglected territories. Animals continue to inhabit cities, but they are increasingly confined to overlooked spaces, utility corridors, fragmented natural elements, and environments that fall outside deliberate design considerations.
The contradiction inherent in modern urban planning becomes particularly evident when considering free-ranging dogs. Across India, regulations pertaining to these animals increasingly acknowledge the inevitability of human-animal coexistence. Under the Animal Birth Control Rules, dogs are sterilized, vaccinated, and typically returned to their original territories, implicitly recognizing them as permanent urban dwellers. Yet, architecture often proceeds as though their presence is either temporary or coincidental, with planning frameworks embracing coexistence while architectural designs rarely incorporate it spatially.
The gap between policy and practice becomes even more pronounced in discussions surrounding urban biodiversity. While biodiversity is often addressed through environmental policies, conservation targets, or landscape management, many of the conditions supporting it are fundamentally architectural and spatial. Habitat connectivity, for instance, relies heavily on how landscapes are linked. Opportunities for nesting arise from material depth, cavities, ledges, and roof conditions. Pollinators depend on strategic planting, water availability, and microclimates shaped by shade and surface temperatures. These crucial conditions are direct outcomes of design decisions concerning materials, vegetation, water management, shade provision, and spatial continuity.
Few modern settings exemplify this principle more effectively than expansive urban campuses. In Bengaluru, the campus of the Indian Institute of Science serves as a vital ecological sanctuary, enveloped by one of India's most rapidly expanding metropolitan regions. Its rich biodiversity is not the result of a singular conservation initiative but has evolved from decades of sustained spatial continuity. Mature tree canopies, interconnected green spaces, natural water bodies, and relatively low levels of habitat fragmentation have collectively created conditions conducive to supporting diverse populations of birds, insects, reptiles, and mammals within a dense urban context. This campus vividly illustrates how the persistence of various species is often contingent upon long-term spatial consistency and thoughtful environmental integration.
Animals are already an undeniable part of our urban fabric; they require no formal introduction. The real challenge lies not in inventing new forms of coexistence, but in acknowledging and embracing them as active participants in urban space rather than mere interruptions. Emerging architectural strategies are increasingly pointing towards this possibility. For example, facades can be designed to integrate habitats, offering nesting opportunities directly within building envelopes. Native planting schemes can support pollinators and bolster urban bird populations. Wetlands can be reimagined as essential ecological infrastructure rather than purely decorative features. Wildlife crossings can be implemented to reconnect fragmented territories, facilitating animal movement. Most of these physically modest interventions fundamentally alter the underlying assumptions of design, establishing coexistence as a foundational principle of urban life.
Designing for diverse species is not a separate endeavor from creating climate-resilient cities or enhancing urban quality of life. In numerous instances, the same strategies effectively achieve all three objectives. For example, providing shade benefits both humans and animals, improving comfort and mitigating heat stress. Biodiverse landscapes not only bolster ecological health but also reduce urban heat island effects. Connected green networks enhance wildlife habitats while simultaneously enriching public spaces for human enjoyment. Many of these synergistic relationships are already embedded within existing concerns related to climate change, landscape architecture, and the development of vibrant public spaces.
For generations, architectural thought has largely envisioned the city through a predominantly human lens. Yet, urban life has never been exclusively human. Dogs navigate intricate territories shaped by streets and structural thresholds. Birds inhabit towers, rooftops, and building facades. Insects animate gardens, courtyards, and wetlands with their presence. Monkeys, bats, and countless other species participate in urban environments in ways that are both readily visible and often overlooked. The city has always been far more populous and complex than our architectural drawings typically suggest. The primary challenge, therefore, may not be to pioneer entirely new models of coexistence, but rather to recognize and integrate the forms of shared occupancy that are already deeply embedded within the fabric of urban space.
