The building façade has evolved into a dynamic and integrated part of design over the past years. The building façade is not only presenting a static aspect of the design, which provides shelter anymore. Nowadays, the façade affects the aesthetic, occupants’ comfort, and energy consumption of the building. Various factors influence this change, such as environmental concerns, developments in materials science, and the growing need for adaptable design. As a result, there is growing interest in investigating new façade materials for contemporary design. The new materials are beyond the traditional materials and move towards kinetic, bio-based, and smart materials [1].

Nowadays, the demand for sustainable and energy-efficient buildings is increasing. In this regard, research on materials such as bio-based materials is getting more attention. Bio-based materials have a lower environmental impact. Since they are produced locally, they have lower transportation costs. As an example of bio-based materials, timber can be mentioned. The usage of timber in architecture has a long history. However, recently, due to the adaptability and sustainability characteristics of timber, the increased interest in it is evident [2]. In addition to timber, green walls can be discussed in the same scope. Green walls are environmentally friendly, while they are aesthetically pleasing as well. That is the reason for the growing popularity of these materials [3].

On the other hand, smart materials are changing the façade design from static to dynamic. These materials can change their characteristics in response to environmental conditions. This ability could be achieved due to technological advances. As an example of these advancements, electrochromic windows are worth mentioning. These windows can control the light and heat gain by changing their transparency [4].

In addition to smart materials, kinetic facades are gaining extra attention. Using mechanical or electromechanical elements, they can respond to environmental changes. Due to their adaptability, they can improve ventilation and natural lighting. This ability helps improve building energy consumption [5,6].

Innovative façade materials offer a wide range of opportunities for architectural design. These benefits are beyond practicality. They widely affect architectural expression. The design of the buildings is directly affected by the selection of innovative materials. They affect the form-making and structural properties of the building. For example, smart materials, in response to environmental changes, create a unique architectural expression. To achieve a special aesthetic, these materials can be used [7]. Due to all these advances, the boundaries of what a façade might look like have been pushed.

In today’s architectural practice, understanding the implications of innovative materials is essential. In this matter, a multi-criteria decision-making procedure is needed. This procedure must cover a variety of factors. From energy efficiency to environmental impact and even aesthetic characteristics [4,5,7].

The primary aim of this study is to answer this need. In this regard, this study puts forth a systematic assessment of innovative façade materials. This assessment has been done through meta-analysis and synthesis. The main focus has been given to the tectonic-aesthetic of innovative façade materials.

To provide a comprehensive review of the literature, a meta-analysis was conducted in the first stage to identify correlations among the study’s three core keywords (Materials, Tectonics, and Aesthetics) and the current state of knowledge. The keyword analysis was carried out using VOSViewer to visualize the current landscape of this area of study (Figure 3). A bibliometric examination using VOSViewer uncovers unique research clusters in contemporary facade studies. The visualization shows many important research clusters centered on “buildings”, “energy efficiency”, “performance”, and “design”, with interrelated subthemes. However, the network analysis indicates a significant gap in the literature on the tectonic consequences of innovative materials.

The biggest clusters prioritize performance-related elements, notably energy efficiency and environmental performance. The terms “energy efficiency”, “thermal comfort”, and “performance” form dense networks, showing that these operational factors receive significant study focus. Similarly, material innovation studies, which use terms such as “concrete”, “composites”, and “coatings”, focus largely on technical features and performance characteristics.

Notably, although the network contains words relating to structural features (“strength”, “durability”) and aesthetic concerns (“design”, “architectural innovation”), their linkages are minimal. The limited links between material innovation clusters and architectural expression phrases suggest an underexplored topic in the literature. This result is especially relevant considering that tectonic expression, or the link between material, structure, and architectural form, seems to be on the periphery of the current study. This highlights a need for more integrated research that bridges the gap between novel materials and their tectonic consequences in contemporary architecture.

A parametric analysis of the keyword co-occurrence network reveals several quantifiable patterns that inform the research direction of this study. The network identifies five dominant research clusters, with energy efficiency and thermal performance constituting the largest cluster, accounting for approximately 38% of total keyword connections. Material innovation keywords, including ‘composites’, ‘coatings’, and ‘concrete’, form the second-largest cluster at approximately 24% of connections, yet they remain predominantly linked to technical performance indicators rather than architectural expression. Structural and aesthetic keywords, including ‘design’, ‘architectural innovation’, and ‘tectonic’, represent only 12% of total network connections, confirming their peripheral status in current façade research. Notably, the term ‘tectonic’ appears in fewer than 8% of the analyzed publications, despite its fundamental relevance to architectural design practice. This quantitative disparity between performance-oriented research (62% combined) and tectonic-aesthetic research (12%) provides empirical justification for the present study’s focus and validates the identified knowledge gap. Furthermore, temporal analysis of publication trends reveals a steady increase in façade materials research from 2010 to 2025, with a notable acceleration post-2018 coinciding with growing interest in digital fabrication and bio-based materials. However, this growth remains concentrated in performance-based topics, further reinforcing the need for tectonic-focused frameworks.

To enhance the study, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used (Figure 4). The research used the Web of Science database to identify scholarly publications on the topic (2010-2025). The primary search employed the following Boolean string: (ALL = (Innovative Materials)) AND (ALL = (Tectonic)) AND (ALL = (Façade Design)). To ensure comprehensive coverage, search terms were expanded to include relevant synonyms and variants: ‘facade materials’ OR ‘building envelope’ OR ‘material innovation’ for the materials component, and ‘tectonic expression’ OR ‘construction logic’ OR ‘architectural expression’ OR ‘architectural tectonics’ for the tectonic component. The initial search yielded 175 records, of which 123 remained after language and date filters were applied. In the second screening phase, studies were evaluated based on titles and abstracts using the refined string: (TS = (Innovative Materials)) AND (TS = (Tectonic)) AND (TS = (Façade Design)), reducing the pool to 31 eligible publications.

The literature review shows a lack of studies on the tectonic effect of innovative materials on structures. The recent studies (2010-2025) highlight recent advances in architectural theory and façade technology. The meta-analysis identifies many key topics in the literature of façade design, including:

Through a comprehensive literature review, this study proposed a taxonomy of innovative façade materials. At one point, the proposed taxonomy serves as a framework for a better understanding of current developments in the field. On the other hand, it can be used as a guide for designers to identify future opportunities. The novel taxonomy highlights the complexity and multi-functionality of innovative contemporary façade materials. Additionally, it highlights diverse strategies that can improve building performance and sustainability.

Having such a taxonomy in hand is essential for architects and designers to select appropriate materials for façade design. Each category presented in the following taxonomy (Figures 6-13) presents advantages and challenges. The section of each material depends on the environmental conditions and the project’s goals. With the help of this taxonomy, it is possible to combine different innovative materials to enhance the façade performance while responding to the aesthetic and functional requirements of the project.

Before presenting the taxonomy, it is important to clarify the conceptual boundaries between categories that may appear overlapping. Bio-based Materials and Biomimetic Materials, while related, are fundamentally distinct: Bio-based Materials are defined by their material origin — they are physically derived from biological sources such as timber, bamboo, mycelium, or algae, and their tectonic value lies in their natural properties and sustainable sourcing [7]. Biomimetic Materials, by contrast, are not necessarily biological in origin; rather, they are engineered materials whose design principles, structures, or functions are inspired by biological systems — such as honeycomb structures inspired by bee colonies or self-healing mechanisms inspired by biological tissue repair [55,56]. Similarly, Smart Materials and Responsive Systems represent distinct categories: Smart Materials refer to specific materials with intrinsic properties that enable them to respond to environmental stimuli — such as thermochromic glass or shape memory alloys [27,44] — while Responsive Systems refer to broader integrated assemblies combining multiple materials and mechanical or digital components to achieve adaptive behavior. Understanding these distinctions is essential for architects and designers applying the taxonomy in practice, as each category implies different tectonic strategies, assembly logics, and aesthetic outcomes.

Smart materials introduce a fundamentally dynamic tectonic logic to façade design. Unlike conventional static materials, their intrinsic responsiveness to environmental stimuli — temperature, light, electricity, or mechanical force — creates a new structural language where the material itself becomes an active component of the building envelope [44]. From an assembly perspective, smart materials are typically integrated as surface layers or actuating elements within conventional structural systems, requiring precise detailing to accommodate movement and reversible deformation [27]. Aesthetically, they enable façades that shift appearance over time, challenging traditional notions of architectural permanence and introducing temporality as a design dimension [28,29].

Modified Traditional Materials represent a tectonic evolution of established construction systems, where familiar structural logics are enhanced through technological intervention. Enhanced concrete variants such as translucent and self-cleaning concrete maintain conventional load-bearing assembly principles while introducing new surface behaviors and light-transmitting properties that fundamentally alter façade aesthetics [7]. Advanced glass systems, including vacuum-insulated and bird-safe glass, preserve familiar curtain wall assembly logics while achieving superior thermal performance. Modified metals offer expanded tectonic expression through surface texturing and coating technologies, enabling weathering patterns and visual effects previously unachievable with conventional metallic cladding systems [25,26].

Bio-based Materials offer a tectonic language rooted in natural growth patterns and organic structural logic. Timber and bamboo composites follow grain-based structural systems that express material honesty through visible joinery and connection details, directly linking construction methodology to aesthetic outcome [2,7]. Cork insulation introduces compressible layering assemblies with distinctive textural aesthetics. Engineered bio-materials such as mycelium composites and algae panels represent an emerging tectonic frontier, where biological growth processes themselves become the fabrication method, producing forms and surface qualities impossible to achieve through conventional manufacturing [11]. Their warm organic aesthetic qualities offer a compelling counterpoint to the dominance of industrial materials in contemporary façade design [3].

Composite Materials introduce a hybrid tectonic logic that combines the structural advantages of multiple material systems into unified façade assemblies. Metal composites such as Fiber Metal Laminates and Metal Matrix Composites enable lightweight yet high-strength cladding systems, allowing larger panel spans and reduced substructure requirements that directly influence façade assembly logic and visual composition [25]. Polymer composites including Fiber Reinforced Polymers and Sandwich Panels offer exceptional design flexibility, enabling complex curved geometries that challenge conventional flat-panel tectonic traditions [16]. Aesthetically, composite materials blur the boundary between structure and surface, creating façades where material layering becomes a visible expression of performance — transforming technical necessity into architectural language [26].

Nano-engineered Materials operate at a scale invisible to the human eye, yet their tectonic implications manifest prominently at the building-façade level. Surface-modified nanomaterials such as hydrophobic coatings, anti-bacterial surfaces, and UV-resistance films are applied as ultra-thin layers onto conventional substrates, requiring no fundamental changes to existing assembly systems while dramatically enhancing surface performance and longevity [35]. Structurally modified nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes and graphene composites, offer unprecedented strength-to-weight ratios, enabling thinner and lighter façade assemblies with reduced structural support requirements [25]. Aesthetically, nano-engineered surfaces achieve visual effects such as self-cleaning transparency and iridescent finishes, creating a new category of architectural expression — one where material performance and visual quality are inseparable [7].

Digital Fabrication Materials represent a paradigm shift in tectonic thinking, where the boundary between material, form, and fabrication process dissolves into a unified design logic [50]. Additive manufacturing materials such as polymer filaments and metal powders enable previously impossible geometries — complex lattice structures, gradient densities, and topologically optimized forms — that redefine conventional assembly logic by eliminating joints and connections in favor of continuous material transitions [16]. Programmable and stimuli-responsive materials introduce a fourth dimension — time — into tectonic expression, enabling façades that self-assemble or transform post-fabrication [45]. Aesthetically, computational design materials generate ornamental complexity directly from structural optimization, creating a new tectonic language in which beauty and performance are mathematically inseparable [54].

Biomimetic Materials derive their tectonic logic from nature’s own structural strategies, translating biological principles into architectural assembly systems. Structural biomimetic materials such as honeycomb-structured panels and nacre-inspired composites replicate hierarchical load distribution strategies found in natural organisms, achieving exceptional strength-to-weight ratios that enable innovative façade spanning and assembly configurations [43]. Surface biomimetic materials including lotus-effect coatings and shark skin-inspired surfaces introduce self-regulating performance that eliminates the need for additional maintenance systems, simplifying assembly logic while enhancing long-term durability [48]. Functional and bio-inspired composites such as self-healing and photosynthesis-inspired materials introduce regenerative tectonic principles, in which the façade actively maintains and repairs itself — fundamentally challenging static assumptions of conventional architectural construction [38,56].

Beyond its immediate application in architectural design practice, the proposed taxonomical framework holds broader implications for the standardization of innovative façade materials. By providing systematic classification criteria across material categories, the framework could inform the development of performance benchmarks and testing protocols within building codes and regulatory standards — areas that currently lack structured guidance for innovative materials. This represents a promising direction for future research and professional practice development.

This study addressed a critical and largely overlooked gap in the architectural research landscape: the systematic examination of innovative façade materials through a tectonic lens. Through a two-phase methodology integrating keyword co-occurrence network analysis and PRISMA-based systematic review of 19 peer-reviewed publications (2010-2025), this research demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of existing studies prioritize performance-based research — particularly energy efficiency and thermal comfort — at the expense of tectonic and aesthetic analysis. Quantitative assessment revealed that the average study addresses fewer than 1.8 out of 6 identified tectonic dimensions, confirming a significant analytical deficit in the current literature.

In response to this gap, this study proposed a novel taxonomical framework comprising seven categories of innovative façade materials: Smart Materials, Bio-based Materials, Modified Traditional Materials, Composite Materials, Nano-engineered Materials, Biomimetic Materials, and Digital Fabrication Materials. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this represents the first systematic attempt to classify innovative façade materials explicitly through a tectonic lens, connecting each material category to its structural logic, assembly potential, and aesthetic expression. The framework thus bridges the persistent disconnect between advances in materials science and the application of architectural design, offering both a theoretical contribution to the discourse on architectural tectonics and practical guidance for architects and designers engaged in contemporary façade design.

Several limitations of this study warrant acknowledgment. The systematic review was conducted exclusively through the Web of Science database, which, while ensuring publication quality, may have excluded relevant studies indexed in other academic databases. Additionally, the relatively limited corpus of 19 studies addressing tectonic implications reflects the scarcity of research in this area rather than a methodological constraint, further validating the study’s contribution. The proposed taxonomy is based on current material developments and will require periodic updating as new materials and fabrication technologies emerge.

Future research should focus on empirical validation of the proposed framework through built project case studies, addressing the theory-practice gap identified across 74% of reviewed studies. Further investigation into the multi-scale implications of innovative materials — from component-level assembly details to urban-scale performance — represents a critical research frontier. Additionally, the potential of the taxonomical framework to inform standardized testing benchmarks and building code development for innovative façade materials presents a promising avenue for interdisciplinary collaboration between architectural research and regulatory practice. By systematically connecting material innovation with tectonic expression, this study aims to advance contemporary architectural design towards more adaptive, sustainable, and aesthetically considered building facades.