A tree.
As designed and implmented a complete violation of the architecture rules. It’s expanded base does not support the large leafy expanse at the top of the device. In fact it is amazing to me that trees don’t randomly give up the pursuit of sunlight and collaspe. Perhaps they do and there is a secret organization of anti-architects that run around propping them back up.
Seriously, trees break all the rules, expansive base supporting 200-300 feet of building that should by rights narrow at the top.
But they don’t narrow – they get wider.
How is that possible?
From a functionality perspective it is exactly what the tree needs. You need an expansive area to collect enough sunlight for energy.
From a requirements perspective the needs are met as well (take up the least amount of space in the forest per tree – expand above and underground.)
There is much to learn from the archtiecture of nature. The concept of matching elegance and functionality with requirements to create a functional form that provides more than planned capacity.
Heck some trees even have apples.
.Doc