For decades architects have been asking themselves whether or not the very existence of their profession is under threat. In order to address this anxiety, we must understand the context of the architect’s profession, and how easily it is influenced. Due to the inherent scale of their produce, the world around us is the architect’s playground – nothing is more mercurial than that world. Within it reside countless influences, actively colliding, flowing, and informing our practice. The make-up of local culture, sociopolitical relations, anthropology, capital flows and their relationship to local scales of economies and technological developments, all have an impact on that world and thus, inevitably, on the architect's role and field of work. At given times, accompanied by drastic changes, also seemingly altering the self-perception of this profession’s health.
Of all these influences over the ages, technological developments may perhaps have formed one of the most far-reaching challenges. The constant introduction of new materials, construction methods and design tools over time, up to the Digital Age, have irrevocably resulted in dramatic changes in the world of design and construction. Not just changes in the scope of our practice and our ability to practice it, but also our attitude towards it. It can be said, for example, that at the completion of significantly impactful developments, architects were the first to question their ability to become superfluous; as if their profession as they knew it was on a path to extinction.
Two codependent conditions may be drawn from this: the first being that architects are exceptionally insecure and highly pessimistic individuals; significant change disorientates them and plunges them into existential crisis. The second, more optimistically – and of course, more favorable to the consolation of the profession’s image – that architects, through their capacity for critical thought at large, always manage to somehow reinvent themselves. A process, which might in fact be triggered by their periodic insecurity – or that by simple observation, that might be triggered by noticing other architects reinvent themselves. Thus, in addressing the possibility that some may think that ‘the architect is dead’, I firmly believe that we have proven time and time again that we always rise from the dead.
Long live the architect!The necessity to reinvent ourselves and readdress our role has always been a central school of thought at UNStudio, hinged on the perpetual reconsideration of the role of the architect. The nourishment of this thought may be observed from our first monograph MOVE (1999), up to and including our most recent publication, Knowledge Matters (2016), and most symbolically reflected in the renaming of our practice back in 1998, when we became the United Network Studio. For an architecture practice at the time it was a rather refreshing approach, away from the central, authoritarian architectural figure. It had become apparent to us that the architect could no longer operate as the lone ‘master builder’, but must instead cooperate as one of many actors within a network of diverse experts and specialists jointly informing an output.
This was in the 1990s, a time in which the rise of the Internet resulted in the big economic boom. Its resulting prosperity triggered cities’ realizations that architecture could be used as a tool for city making, encouraging a desire for cities, big or small, to put themselves on the map. For architects the possibilities seemed endless. This was the heyday of the so-called ‘Starchitect’ and their imposing iconographic land-marking gestures. At the same time, the development of digital design tools turned the world of the architect upside down. The rise of computational design meant that buildings could seemingly appropriate almost any form. We could shift from box to blob as parametric design completely replaced our traditional design methods.
In MOVE (1999), Caroline Bos and I had anticipated that, “The re-thinking of public imagination, public space and public forces is transforming architects into public scientists (….) The invention of new time-based techniques expands the imagination, explodes the hierarchy of the design process and encourages the input of different disciplines, enabling bottom-up thinking of material organization to be combined with the top down thinking of virtual organization. The architectural studio is being re-organized as a virtual studio (…) Plugin professionalism goes hand in hand with the will to invent.”[1]
The new role for the architect to undertake, as we saw it back then, was to evolve as a co-producing technician, organizer and planner in a highly structured, co-operative process in which clients, investors, users, and technical consultants all took part.
We noticed that network style practice allowed architects to be involved with design, technique, detail and execution by building close working relationships with other experts. Strategic forms of co-operation could include structural engineers, industrial manufacturers and designers, new media and graphic designers, cost calculators, management consultants, process specialists, stylists, photographers and so much more. Made possible by the use of new digital developments, relevant knowledge stored inside all of these disciplines would become available due to a new realm of interconnectivity – a network practice 2.0. It was the architect’s role to draw together all these dispersed elements and to make their interrelations visible through the architectural imagination. Traditional procedures of practice would soon become inadequate and outdated. A phenomenon we called Deep Planning was emerging at the time: a more holistic approach to design which incorporated economics, infrastructure, urbanism, mixed programming and construction in a more integrated way, generating situation-specific, dynamic, organizational structure plans with parameter-based techniques.
In hindsight, it all sounds somewhat retro-futuristic. Perhaps something we have already surmounted. Advances in technology and the information revolution have since augmented these possibilities. Yet the idea of Deep Planning still pertains to today. We could in fact replace the terminology with Big Data, Artificial Intelligence or Virtual Reality, the Internet of Things and the endless possibilities of digital tools that we can apply in designing space. We find ourselves once again in the midst of adaptation to a new revolution that turns the world of architecture on its head, in an opportunity to delve into a world of creation that is data driven by end-users.
In an attempt to further weave architectural thought and practice through these compounding changes in 2018 we launched a new sister company, UNSense; a start-up that is tasked with the research and development of new technologies for application in cities, buildings, interiors and most importantly, all their users. Our aim with this new company is not to develop technology for its own sake, but is moreover based on the premise that new tech can improve the built environment for the end user. The information and data collected (also from the end users themselves) enables us to design healthier environments on multiple levels of aspects these might regard. The key process therefore becomes the ability to measure and quantify, essentially ‘smartifying’ what was a more static built environment which had difficulty engaging with its users and their ever-smartifying and alienating environment. Essentially, a feedback system of information, between the end users’ behaviors, preferences, health, habits, accessories, etc, and the built environment, where these are used to inform the design for them to inhabit, and continue to interact with after with integrated smart systems and accessories. Suddenly, architecture has a before, and after life, that is vitalized by its end users, and a symbiotic network of transactions of information between the two.
At UNSense we are currently investigating emerging technologies that can enable urban data-collection through a sensory digital infrastructure. After analyzing this data we can design positive, personal experiences that improve movement in and around neighborhoods and cities. On the building scale, we are developing new Photovoltaic modules, which combine high performance with a highly esthetic appearance. This enables the application of solar power on a much larger scale; not only as a rooftop coverage, but as a cladding material for the facade or the entire envelope of buildings. The goal in the long run is to smartify facades so that they can become multifunctional urban interfaces. On the product scale, we are currently investigating a follow up to the RESET pods that we prototyped a couple of years ago with SCAPE. These pods provide a fully immersive stress-reduction experience that allows employees to take a break from every day stress; to rebalance, refocus and reset. RESET uses sensors and algorithms to measure the results of the experience and feed this back to the individual experiencing it.
Everything is smart. Everything is measurable. Tech is evolving at an incredible pace, and so are its users’ expectations. Yet architecture is slow. Compared to the car industry and most product-oriented manufacturing industries, architecture has fallen hopelessly behind. It is time for architecture to catch up with technology – to intelligently appropriate it in order to put the user first. In the architectural practice of 20th century, people had to comply with the buildings and thus with the permanent, and inflexible ideals imposed by their architect. In the 21st century the user has become centrally fundamental, and buildings now have to be designed to perform for those that use them. Through new sensorial adaptive design we can make buildings intelligent; create learning machines that understand the needs of their occupants and subsequently adapt to them. This does not mean, however, that we are relinquishing control to the user. The practice has shifted towards a sense of fulfillment of the users’ needs, but these needs still need to be translated through design. But aside from tangible technology (i.e. hardware, accessories, etc), by ease of globalization, the Information Age and inevitably, an ever-growing sense of a knowledge sharing society, there are many more factors that make it necessary for architects to keep reinventing themselves. Timely, our latest monograph, Knowledge Matters, centers on the influence of the knowledge sharing society on our profession.
In the opening essay, ‘A Knowledge Practice Within a Network Model’, we reflect, again – building on our beloved network model – on the expanding role of the architect. We state that “Architects are no longer being trained to make buildings, but also to reflect on the way the world is changing – the culturally diverse milieu affecting the urban fabric of global cities, as well as the long term impact the built world has on the environment.[2] (…)The networks we operate in have become increasingly complex: the climates and contexts more international, the digital communication networks more expansive, and the material supply chains more varied.”[3]
This brings us to the timely recurring question: What is the role of the architect? The conversation needs to shift from defining a fixed role of the architect within a network, to contemplating exactly what sort of knowledge architects should produce. Thus, we must attempt to define and describe the architectural practice as a knowledge-based practice.
In order to find new relevance by expanding their practice, architects need to progress beyond their traditional skills. If we are to be in a position to shape the future, we can no longer simply rely on our reactionary agency within a network; instead we need to invest in the exploration, reception, translation and production of knowledge. This is not to say that the knowledge practice replaces the network model, but that it works within it, enabling a shift towards ever more performative, relevant and anthropocentric design; an update. Architects become knowledge-based workers whose research interests define new modes of practice, collaboration and ultimately, new understandings of an expanded architecture.
As a result of participating in a knowledge sharing society, learning has become a relentless condition. No longer limited to traditional phases of learning, nor to attendance at specialized institutions, learning has become an integral part of our everyday lives. Information is readily available and accessible. Today’s knowledge workers are constantly upgrading their skills and knowledge base to improve their professional proficiency and keep up with a fast changing world. Furthermore, in the knowledge sharing society such learning is also no longer limited to work alone, but has in fact seamlessly seeped into our leisure time. We therefore believe that it is the responsibility of architectural practices to be conversant with a much broader set of intricate relationships; those that drive our physical, digital and social environments. Architectural practice should actively encourage engagement with channels where pertinent information can be mined. The knowledge that is garnered from such sources can then be used to produce new and relevant knowledge for application to design questions that arise as a result of changing societal conditions – and thus safeguard our discipline’s relevance in the future.
In Knowledge Matters we conveyed, that “as our knowledge sharing society struggles to cope with a seemingly overwhelming quantity of information, it is inevitable that more currency is given (literally) to forms of knowledge that can be patented and thus profited from. This can be observed in the architecture industry through the rising influence and importance of building performance as a measurable phenomenon.”[4] To date, much of the performance measured has been centered on environmental concerns; reducing material and energy use. However sensor technology can now enable us to make building performance measurable with respect to improving environments for the people that live and work in them. We can now gather data from the daily habits of the users and employ this data to fine tune or tailor design in order to improve its overall performance for the end user. For example, air-conditioned spaces would cool when sensing someone’s presence, therefore saving energy when the space is uninhabited, as well as being cost efficient. As a basic concept, and at the individual’s scale for example, this can be applied to any qualities of inhabitable spaces that change throughout the day, lighting, broadband use, shading, mobility, visibility, daily activities, sleep schedule, inhabitation and commutation patterns, and so on. By scaling up, we may include traffic, people flows, energy consumption, social congregation, and anything else that is quantifiable. The end user therefore plays a vital – yet most often subconscious – role in the improvement of their surroundings. They are generators of information and knowledge that need to be interpreted, translated, and applied as architecture-making parameters.
In order to be in a position to speculate on future forms of architectural practice, we need to have a broad understanding of emergent technologies and the role these could play in different cultural and political contexts. Furthermore, we need to engage specialists who can – not only develop new technologies – but who can also understand the cultural implications of their application. Developing a body of knowledge that is relevant and that can open conversations about the future of the profession is a collective effort. It requires knowledge workers and specialists with the critical ability to navigate relevant channels of information, translate selective information and use this to produce new and relevant knowledge for application in the built environment. In short, to achieve a knowledge-based practice within the network model, we need to proactively broaden the network.
At UNStudio we have tackled this, not only through the setting up of an independent, specialist Arch Tech firm (UNSense), but also through the reorganization of our practice. In recent years we have focused the core of our practice on research agendas designed to both advance our disciplinary knowledge and research possible new expansions for the profession. In 2008 we introduced four ‘Knowledge Platforms’ to the studio, each tasked with following their own specialist research agenda: new materials, parametric design, sustainability and new organizations. In recent years we also introduced a ‘Futures Group’, whose role it is to research and forecast emerging technologies and the cultural, political, social and economic forces that may affect how we will live, work, move and learn in the future. The role of both the Futures Group and the Knowledge Platforms is not to be directly operative within design work, but instead to inform our design with regard to changing requirements and to initiate collaborations with external parties.
When architects, designers and trainees join our practice, they are encouraged to take part in our Knowledge Platforms or Futures Group so that they may either contribute to the knowledge base, or extract information that will be useful to the projects and collaborations they inform. For the expansion of our in-house knowledge it is very necessary to engage in external collaborations with experts from other fields. Such collaborations – carried out by our research groups – can range from working with neuroscientists, data analysts, sociologists and private companies, to joining consortia with research agendas investigating new construction techniques or materials that are scalable to larger markets. Reorganizing our practice with such a knowledge focus has enabled us to both specialize and to expand. But it has also meant that we have come to a clearer vision of the architect as a Knowledge Worker – as one who is able to access, translate, transform and rethink specialist knowledge in order to anticipate how we, as orchestrators, architects and designers will play an essential role in shaping our future buildings and cities.
As for the central theme of this book, with regards to the provocation that the architect might be dying, we are not worried at all. Our last hour has not struck. Architects never die. At least not forever. We believe in buildings that are flexible and resilient and we should respect those same values as architects in order to futureproof our profession. Architects have reinvented themselves over and over again. And will keep on doing so. Change is inevitable and thus we inevitably change. The architect is by nature of his trade bound to evolve, and thus will continue to do so.
With special thanks to Nick Roberts, Machteld van Hulten and Karen Murphy for their assistance.