The colour theme of this issue is a warm shade of mauve, a hue historically prevalent in interiors, textiles, and traditional architecture. Prominently featured in Renaissance and Baroque paintings, artists such as Rembrandt and Caravaggio employed warm browns and deep reds in their chiaroscuro techniques to create dramatic contrasts of light and shadow, enhancing human emotion and the connection between people and nature. The chosen colour not only reflects its artistic significance but also resonates with the rich tones found in traditional pottery and indigenous art, where natural pigments have long been used to convey stories of ancestry and survival. Additionally, the palette has a presence in modern art, notably in Monet’s ‘Houses of Parliament’ series.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION:
PEOPLE, PRODUCT & PROCESS
Alistair Brierley
HEAD OF DESIGN RESEARCH UNIT
PROCESS:
LIFE SCIENCES - PROCESS-DRIVEN BUILDINGS
Ross McWatt
PROJECT DIRECTOR & ARCHITECT
PRODUCT:
AVIATION - REMOVING THE PROCESS FROM THE PROCESSOR: RETHINKING THE AIRPORT TERMINAL
Jack Williamson & James Smith
ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT & ARCHITECT
PRODUCT:
FILM STUDIOS - BEHIND THE SCENES ‘LIGHT, CAMERA, ACTION’
Jason Lebidineuse
DIRECTOR, HEAD OF DCMS
PROCESS:
RESIDENTIAL - SUSTAINABILITY: A PROCESS-DRIVEN APPROACH TO MATERIALITY AND CARBON REDUCTION
Olga Mikhaleva
PROJECT DIRECTOR
PROCESS:
PRACTICE - HANDMADE IN CLAY: AN ANTIDOTE TO GENERATIVE AI
Timothy Watts
ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
PROCESS:
PRACTICE - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT: UNLOCKING A MECHANISM FOR CHANGE
Bruce Armstrong
ARCHITECT
PROCESS:
COLLABORATION - ‘DREAMING IN DIGITAL: AN ARCHITECT’S DIARY
Adam Najia
ARCHITECT
PROCESS:
DIGITAL ELEMENTS IN ARCHITECTURE
Ana Matic
DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT
CONCLUSION:
CROSS SECTOR COLLABORATION AT ONE SCOTT
BROWNRIGG
Alistair Brierley
HEAD OF DESIGN RESEARCH UNIT
People, Product and Process
INTRODUCTION:
People, Product and Process
People, product and process are intrinsically linked when it comes to breaking down barriers, improving outcomes and ensuring business success and longevity. Here, Alistair Brierley introduces the theme and explores some of the strategies and innovations that have ensured Scott Brownrigg remained relevant over the last 115 years.
The architectural profession has traditionally separated itself into typology specific practices, each governed by its own design expertise, regulatory demands, client expectations, and associated user behaviours. Whilst this approach encourages and supports expertise, it can also create silos that may limit innovation. Lateral consultation can disrupt this model by encouraging architects to draw on knowledge from outside their immediate field of expertise.
At Scott Brownrigg, the instigation of lateral connectivity between centres of expertise or sectors has
been ongoing for some time, a conscious decision that has helped to thaw the stasis of hard boundaries between typologies. Whilst there are potential risks associated with this strategy, the benefits in terms of people, product and process have been evident and allowed the business and the individuals within it to expand their knowledge base and horizons leading to heightened curiosity and agility. The ability to contribute to a design led conversation between different knowledge banks has for the most part positively disruptive across a wide range of variables. This lateral dynamic has been built into the
cross-studio collaboration that is part of the strategic One Scott Brownrigg model. Cultural differences now enable and play their part with conversations and design exercises carried out between Singapore and London, or more locally between London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff. Technology has supported this initiative via remote online consulting, where teams can communicate and exchange relevant expertise with an immediacy that was not available even ten years ago.
Following on from the recovery after the Covid pandemic, the resonance and legacy that was experienced during lockdown has meant that ‘real studio time’ is freely available once again, and the positive interaction between colleagues working together in three-dimensional proximity is demonstrable. This is not to say that studio time is a universal solution to the best outcomes, and it seems likely that the hybrid model will remain, offering flexibility to staff. Meanwhile in terms of interaction between people, it is recognised that generically, offices and studios have become more static and silent places in terms of communication. The relative silence does not mean that
people are talking less, it is just that they may be in calls with others from their own desk space. Evidence shows that time spent in meetings is now far more prevalent than previously, and the amount of time spent in them could perhaps be reduced, particularly as when viewed as part of an iterative process they are resource heavy in terms of specific outputs.
Another important variable here is the size of the Scott Brownrigg business in terms of technical and support staff, where there has been a growing recognition that there is an appropriate (optimum) size or cohort in terms of defined numbers offering a shared pool of expertise. The
finite head count needs to be viewed through the lens of shared and individual experience. Diversity lies at the heart of this ethos, and a calibrated and dynamic mix of staff is usually able to rise to the varied challenges of both short and long-term resourcing.
In our aviation team for example, the architects design for complex circulation systems, applied security layers, and international regulatory frameworks. By bringing these spatial and data-based insights into healthcare or life sciences, firms can optimize and compare patient flows, improve infection control pathways, and reframe how large-scale functionality is designed around human
behaviour. Conversely, the emphasis on well-being and user experience in residential and hospitality sectors can be invaluable when applied to cold, utilitarian spaces such as data centres or some defence facilities. Integrating these softer design elements ensures that even the most secure or tech-driven environments do not neglect humancentric design.
DIGITAL TWIN & DATA-CENTRIC DESIGN: A SHARED INTELLIGENCE LAYER
Although not a specific sector, the introduction of digital twins (virtual models that mirror the behaviour and performance of real buildings) further enhances the value of lateral thinking. Originally emerging from advanced technology and industrial sectors, the digital twin paradigm is now increasingly relevant across all typologies, including amongst others, aviation, education, commercial offices, and life sciences. Here the ability to simulate spatial performance, energy usage, and user interaction now enables architects to shift from intuition-based to evidenceled design, or somewhere in between. Lateral application of these tools across typologies can democratise this intelligence, allowing lessons from a high-tech data centre to inform energy optimisation in a university building or adaptive workplace.
As we move forward the digital twin has enhanced lifecycle thinking, enabling shared values and insights by blurring distinctions between sectors, and encouraging collaboration, not just during design, but throughout operation, maintenance, and adaptive reuse.
DISRUPTION THROUGH MATERIAL, PROCESS AND SYSTEMS TRANSFER
Lateral consultation is also allowing us to share material strategies and construction innovations. The modular and prefabricated construction techniques often used in defence or infrastructure projects can be reinterpreted in affordable housing or education, accelerating delivery without compromising on spatial quality. Similarly, the redundancy planning and mission-critical systems fundamental to hyperscale data centres can be applied to hospital design, where uptime and resilience are equally vital. This type of cross-sector fertilisation ensures that valuable lessons learned in one high-performance environment inform others that may be less technologically advanced, but equally dependent on efficiency.
NEW TYPOLOGIES FOR A HYBRID WORLD
Now we are increasingly designing for hybrid environments that blur work, living, leisure, and transit. The traditional sector boundaries no longer apply when a rail station incorporates co-working spaces, retail, and health pods, or when residential communities double as remote work campuses. Lateral design consultation allows architects to envision new hybrid typologies that reflect these lived realities. Insights from commercial workplace design (such as acoustic zoning, digital integration, and ergonomic flexibility) can dramatically reshape approaches to education or cultural spaces, where users now expect similar levels of comfort, adaptability, and connectivity.
In a similar manner, for media spaces and film studios, (where design must accommodate creative unpredictability), flexible infrastructure becomes a blueprint for future-proofed educational or office spaces. Crosspollination enables architects to more successfully anticipate change, rather than react to it.
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP AND THE ROLE OF THE DESIGN RESEARCH UNIT
The role of the Design Research Unit (DRU) in lateral consultation at Scott Brownrigg is fundamental. As an inhouse incubator of ideas, the DRU serves as a convergence point for different sectors to interrogate familiar challenges including climate resilience, social equity, digital transformation through collaborative design research. By drawing on input from all sectors, the DRU has become a living repository of innovation, generating thought leadership, prototypes, and design frameworks that benefit not just clients, but the broader architectural community. For example, it can test how a circular material strategy from a residential project could inform a life sciences lab, or how community co-design methodologies used in education might reshape stakeholder engagement processes for a transportation hub. In this sense, and through its output, the DRU has enhanced the firm’s thought leadership outputs, positioning architecture not merely as a service, but as a discipline that questions, experiments, and leads. In the broadest sense the DRU is seen as the design conscience of our architects and is a place to advocate for disruption and curiosity.
RISKS AND MITIGATIONS OF CROSS-SECTOR DISRUPTION
While the benefits of lateral consultation are compelling, they should always be pursued and implemented strategically. Dilution of design expertise may become a potential risk if cross-sector work is not grounded in specific domain knowledge. This can be mitigated by structuring design teams with embedded sector champions who aim to ensure contextual integrity while remaining open to outside input. Similarly, intellectual property and client confidentiality must be respected, especially when transferring innovations from sensitive sectors like defence or data centres. Clear internal protocols and compartmentalised knowledge-sharing are needed to protect both innovation and confidentiality.
Perhaps the most significant risk here is cultural inertia. Architects deeply embedded in sector silos may resist cross-sector dialogue. Overcoming this requires active leadership and a studio culture that rewards curiosity, experimentation, and collaborative thinking. This can be difficult to unlock and recognise and is always in a state of flux based on the range of problems to be solved, and the individuals involved. For instance, a highly expressive and symbolic built typology (such as an airport terminal or a tower) may be better served by a team of individuals with a considered and low volume approach to architectonics and vice versa for the muted language of hyperscale data centres.
GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY
Scott Brownrigg’s geographic model with its largest studios in London and Guildford and regional and international studios in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Amsterdam, New York, Riyadh and Singapore, adds another critical dimension to the benefits of lateral communication, cultural diversity, and international perspective. This global footprint positions the practice not just as multi-sectoral, but multicultural, with each location offering unique sociopolitical contexts, design traditions, regulatory frameworks, and climate imperatives. When intentionally connected, these regional insights act as catalysts for creative disruption, challenging assumptions, and enriching design responses across sectors.
For example:
• Singapore’s dense, vertical urbanism and climateconscious masterplanning offer lessons in compact, integrated development that may influence urban
residential and data centre typologies in European cities.
• Amsterdam’s heritage-driven placemaking paired with its futuristic emphasis on design and circularity provides a model for adaptive reuse in sectors such as culture, residential, education, data centres and commercial offices.
• New York’s hybrid infrastructure culture - where retail, transit, public space, and residential uses intersectbrings relevant and comparable insights to projects in rail, aviation, and life sciences seeking urban connectivity.
• Cardiff and Edinburgh, (rooted in civic tradition and landscape integration), provide fertile ground for testing community-led approaches to design in education, healthcare, and defence infrastructure.
In terms of location, it has become increasingly evident that the London studio’s position at the crossroads of global capital and UK policy allows the practice to act as a
convening hub, drawing lateral intelligence from both local and international collaborators. This trans-regional collaboration has enabled a design culture that is contextually sensitive but globally fluent - an essential quality in addressing today’s cross-border challenges including climate adaptation, housing inequality, and digital infrastructure. The presence in diverse cities also supports lateral innovation through varied procurement models, client expectations, and urban typologies. A civic strategy developed for a Welsh town might inform community masterplanning in Singapore, while a net-zero workspace in Amsterdam could set benchmarks for office retrofits in London or New York. Ultimately, Scott Brownrigg’s geographic diversity enables cultural agility, (which when combined with sectoral fluidity), ensures that its architecture is not only typologically responsive but culturally resonant and globally informed.
CONCLUSION: TOWARD A FLUENT AND ITERATIVE ARCHITECTURE OF INTELLIGENCE
Global HQ / UK Studios
Global Hub
Regional / Affiliated Studio
In the evolving landscape of architectural practice, the firms that thrive will be those that combine deep sectoral expertise with the ability to learn, borrow, and adapt across disciplines. Lateral consultation is not a detour from architectural rigour, it is its expansion. For example, by breaking down boundaries between transportation, residential, advanced technologies and education, innovative and positively disruptive processes, can deliver designs that are more holistic, resilient, and visionary. These outcomes can be captured and disseminated through platforms like the Design Research Unit and tools like Digital Twins, to transform accumulated insight into design intelligence, shaping not just better buildings, but more insightful practices and informed societies. Thus, by embracing lateral disruption, architectural teams can move beyond crafting and making buildings into leading and shaping our physical and cultural futures �
Continual experimentation and improvement are key to ensuring laboratory buildings are flexible and adaptive enough to keep up with the fastchanging needs of the life science industry. Ross McWatt provides some insight into how this can be achieved.
PROCESS
My journey working within the life sciences sector at Scott Brownrigg started almost a decade ago. Over the years I have been involved in the process of developing a range of life science masterplan scale schemes building by building, applying key learnings from one scheme to the next. This process of continual experimentation and improvement underpins our design approach at Scott Brownrigg and enables us to ensure the product remains flexible and adaptive to keep up with the ever-evolving needs of the life science industry. A process that has also enabled us to push the boundaries of life science design and develop a code of guidelines for high profile life science campuses across the UK, including Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our design process focuses on flexibility, enabling us to cater to the varying needs of current, and possible future tenants, and making our projects as future-proof and adaptive as possible. When designing buildings for prospective tenants, we consider the common themes of functionality, flexibility, adaptability, sustainability and efficiency.
Functionality
Logistics and Deliveries: from a scheme’s inception, the management of logistics and deliveries through the site, into the building and direct vertical transfer to floor plates need to be carefully considered.Consolidated service routes on one-way road systems around the site help to avoid congestion and maximise external space in the public realm and if well planned can free up internal lettable area.Separation of service zones to support laboratories from front of house and office areas also needs to be planned in when locating access points and wider connectivity between buildings.
Flexibility
Suitability: We accommodate for a range of office-lab splits when configuring a lab building, giving tenants the freedom to cater their space without the need for structural and building fabric interventionsto ensure a flexible space that will suit most tenants. The building tenancy has a wide ranging impact on the Structural, MEP and Architectural Design. Our buildings are designed to serve a single and multiple tenancy split at the same time.
Efficiency
Façade: Rationalisation of an elegant and unfussy façade offers many benefits for the occupants. Such as consistent thermal and permeability performance as well as opportunities for floorplate façade access. The integrated design of louvre panels through some of the facade
modules allows lab extraction directly through the facade allowing tenants to plugin anywhere along the perimeter of their own floorplate.
Adaptability
Vertical space: floor to floor heights are heavily influential in designing flexible spaces. This is one area of the design where planning in future flexibility and adaptability needs to be fully appreciated to remove any retrofit consequences down the line.
Sustainability
All of the above elements have some consideration between each giving a particular outcome and process route. However, they all tend to have an effect on sustainability or vice versa in a profound way. Sustainability over the past decade has had the biggest impact upon decision making as developers become more aware and stakeholders start to be held to account for their investments.
To fulfil these requirements, elements tested and developed during the design process often gravitate around building serviceability, facade flexibility, building grid and floor to floor height. Each of these elements can connect in various ways to produce varying outcomes for the building product, depending on end user need and goals.
PEOPLE
It is important to first understand how tenants use their buildings to support efficiency in operation, encourage collaboration, and provide spaces that successfully connect and integrates with the public realm. A laboratory building cannot be completely serviceable from all sides. Understanding what utility stores need to be easily accessible from the lab to improve efficiency is also important.
Placement of lab gases and Cryogenic liquids are another important consideration for speculative life science tenants, especially for multioccupancy and when tenants may differ in size. Transportation of large and bulky equipment through the building needs to be well planned and minimised if possible. Gas stores with direct piping to tenancies help to reduce safety risks and the disruption of transporting cylinders.
For regular deliveries, extensive access points and dual-facing goods lifts on the ground increase delivery efficiency and reduce disruption to operations. But, for larger pieces of equipment, demountable facade access points are needed to allow equipment to be delivered directly to the tenant’s floor plate.
The architect is just one of a wide range of stakeholders that can offer expertise and experience in developing a life science building or ‘product’ to meet end requirements. Collaboration is key to create truly socially, environmentally and economically sustainable life science environments.
With the opportunity to work on multiple projects with the same contractor and developer, comes the ability to learn where efficiencies have worked or failed, and where ‘what if scenarios’ have been realised or over provided. This accumulative experience of learning from previous schemes becomes particularly valuable when designing speculative buildings without knowledge of specific end user need.
Making provisions for facilities and specialisms with a speculative tenant where the lab servicing specifics are unknown can be challenging, and overcautious design can be both expensive and unsustainable. Whereas under provision of necessary infrastructure could lead to significant retrofit costs after practical completion.
PRODUCT
Ultimately the product must encompass the right ingredients to promote better research, improved innovation, greater interaction and improved campus life, with new parks helping to stimulate greater opportunities for local community involvement and employment. The key challenge is how to make life science buildings truly sustainable. Understanding how the building is likely to be used, catering for specific and highly controlled spatial requirements without over designing for flexibility, while allowing provision for adaptability is key to driving down embodied carbon.
A large portion of embodied carbon generated in the construction of laboratories comes from the building’s structure. If total floorplate flexibility can be compromised, a hybrid structure can be used, with a heavier concrete frame adjacent to structural cores and service zones to support laboratory use and a more lightweight timber frame for office use. If ground floorplate slabs are set lower than their cores, additional concrete can be added to top up the thickness to improve vibration sensitivity locally later during fit out.
Another consideration is floor heights and the rationalisation of services. Generally, laboratory buildings do not need raised access floors so there is an opportunity to combine the raised access floor zone within the ceiling void. They are also best delivered to the market as shell and core, which helps to reduce waste and unnecessary carbon from ripping out the initial installation only to be replaced by the tenant’s fit out.
CONCLUSION
Designing for prospective tenants in an ever-evolving industry creates expected challenges that can only be solved through expertise, collaboration and careful consideration on large and small scales.
Being able to design for flexibility and adaptability for future uses that we are unable to conceive, makes speculative designing in life sciences an exciting prospect for which I feel lucky to be a part of. �
PRODUCT:
Aviation: rethinking the airport terminal
An airport terminal is often referred to as the ‘processor’—the place where passengers have to pass through a series of processing facilities including check-in, security, emigration, boarding, transfers, immigration, and customs/ border controls, which are quite stressful and requires large spaces for staff to operate, people to queue, and be checked. Modern technologies including biometrics, face recognition, security
and CT scanning have improved many of the processing facilities, making the journey through the terminal faster and more comfortable, but what if we are to remove some of the processing facilities from the terminal? What if some of these functions were to be decentralised, freeing terminal design to become more efficient, adaptive, and passenger-focused? Jack Williamson and James Smith explore further.
BAGGAGE HANDLING
Traditionally, passengers check luggage at airline counters or kiosks. While self-service check-in and bag drop options have marginally reduced space requirements it has yet to improve throughput and congestion remains. A better model involves remote check-in and offsite bag drop—at hotels, transport hubs, or dedicated city check-in centres. Bags are couriered securely to the airport, screened, and loaded onto aircraft. While we pioneered this on Medina airport 10 years ago, this was limited to Hajj charter flights, which represents 305 of the hajj travellers only. The Red Sea airport currently
under construction have taken this a step further and are treating it as a luxury offering where all luggage is collected from the passenger home ahead of their journey and their bags are also delivered to their resort, thus eliminating baggage reclaim hall and customs upon arrival. What is so significant of this shift is the ability to relocate the baggage handling facilities from the terminal building to a simpler shed like construction that only deals with baggage screening and sorting prior to delivering them to the aircraft. The other significant improvement, apart from a reduction to the built area of a terminal, is the elimination of complicated
interfaces between a complicated baggage conveying system and building architecture and services
Removing this process from the main terminal will have a great impact on large, busy terminals and will be to the benefit of all from passengers to operators making the terminal a place to roam in freely and a destination to enjoy.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION
Physical passport controls often lead to queues, especially during peak times, and is subject to complex visa and entry requirements. While biometric systems with facial recognition and fingerprint scanning help streamline this process with passengers being identified against secure databases in seconds, reducing delays and fraud, it can still be challenging when faced with system failures. This can result in significant queues and delays if no resilience is put in place to deal with such occurrences that we all have experienced in the advent of new technologies. What may be a game changer for faster, and a more seamless process is the reliance on AI facial recognition where preregistered passengers will only need to walk through a smart route equipped with cameras that can identify and register your entry in a speedy efficient way. While such systems exist, it is still early days to determine their success and for it to be rolled out for busy airports where immigration and border control can be better managed. What we may see becoming wider spread is the American style pre-clearance for passengers travelling from certain countries where customs and immigration checks are carried out at the originating airport. Thus, clearing international travellers to become domestic travellers at their arrival airport and reducing the pressure on immigration and customs.
This is particularly important for airports such as Medina, where a significant amount of chartered religious flights place severe pressure on international arrivals processing facilities. So much so that officers from Saudi are stationed at certain countries to process passengers at their point of departures.
THE TERMINAL AS A DESTINATION
As processing moves offsite or becomes automated, terminals no longer need to dedicate vast areas to checkin or screening. This shift opens up the terminal to become a more commercially valuable and experience-driven space. Retail, leisure, and wellness services can take centre stage, increasing non-aeronautical revenue and turning the terminal into a destination in itself.
SMALLER, MODULAR, ADAPTABLE TERMINALS
With less need for static processing areas, future terminals can become smaller, more modular, and scalable. Rather than investing in fixed infrastructure, airports can build flexible spaces that adjust to seasonal demand or technological shifts. Mobile processing units and prefabricated materials can enable quick reconfiguration and reduce long-term construction costs.
Multipurpose zones can shift from check-in areas to retail lounges based on need. Digital tools—from mobile apps to AI assistants—can guide passengers in real time, reducing demand for staff and physical signage.
Business facilities, co-working spaces, and hotels could be integrated into the terminal footprint rather than isolated around it. Retail and dining could appeal to the wider public, not just travellers, allowing the airport to operate as a civic space—where travel, commerce, and culture intersect.
Modular terminals also support sustainability and resource efficiency. Smaller footprints and flexible layouts mean airports can scale responsibly while still enhancing the passenger journey.
SECURITY
Security screening remains a critical yet invasive, stressful, and can occasionally become a time-consuming aspect of air travel. Today, passengers must place their carry-on items in trays, remove laptops and liquids, and sometimes
undergo manual inspections, often causing long waits during peak times. An advanced approach employs automated, fully integrated screening systems. Walkthrough scanners using artificial intelligence and computed tomography (CT) can analyse baggage in 3D without requiring item removal. These scanners more accurately differentiate between harmless and prohibited items, reducing manual checks and expediting passenger flow. Additionally, AI-driven risk assessment tools can flag potential threats in real time, maintaining high security while minimizing disruptions. By adopting these technologies, airports can offer a safer and more efficient security screening experience.Additionally, AI-driven risk assessment tools can flag potential threats in real time, maintaining high security while minimizing disruptions. By adopting these technologies, airports can offer a safer and more efficient security screening experience.
BOARDING
Boarding still relies on document checks, often creating congestion and delays. Biometric boarding replaces this with facial recognition—passengers are scanned and
cleared in seconds, no documents required. Airlines like Delta and Lufthansa have reduced boarding times by up to 30% using this approach, freeing staff to focus on other priorities and improving on-time performance.
CUSTOMS
On arrival, customs clearance can be unpredictable due to manual declarations and random inspections. Biometric scanning combined with real-time data exchange between airlines, customs, and border agencies enables smarter screening. AI baggage scanners assess luggage without physical inspection, while flagged passengers can be targeted based on travel data and what the inline baggage screening may reveal. This together with the preclearances mentioned above create a faster, more secure customs process without compromising border control. These process changes—remote check-in, biometrics, AI screening—help reduce constraints and create a smoother, more secure journey. They also reduce reliance on staff, enabling scalability and flexibility as passenger volumes fluctuate.
For passengers, decentralised processing means fewer queues, less stress, and a more intuitive journey. Offsite bag drop removes the hassle of checked luggage at the airport. Biometric immigration and boarding reduce wait times. However, privacy concerns may arise with increased biometric usage, and less tech-savvy travellers might need extra support adapting to these systems.
SECURITY STAFF
AI-powered scanning allows staff to focus on risk detection, not repetitive tasks. With fewer manual checks, the role of security shifts toward monitoring and analysis. This will require retraining and a mindset shift, especially around trusting automated systems. While efficiency and safety improve, staff will need time and support to transition.
GOVERNMENTS
Governments gain stronger border control and better fraud prevention through biometrics and real-time data sharing. These tools support both national security and smoother legal travel. But they also raise challenges around data protection and surveillance. Transparent governance, clear policies, and robust cybersecurity will be essential to maintain public trust and meet regulatory standards.
AIRLINES
Faster processing improves punctuality and reduces disruption-related costs. Airlines benefit from smoother operations and better customer experience. However, integration requires significant investment in systems and cross-compatibility with airport infrastructure. Airlines must also engage with passengers on privacy and biometric data use, ensuring trust and compliance.
RETAILERS AND CONCESSIONS
With passengers clearing formalities faster, dwell time patterns shift. Some may spend more time post-security, offering increased retail potential. Others may arrive closer to departure, reducing browsing windows. Retailers must adapt with smart layouts, digital ordering, and strategically placed outlets - especially near gates and relaxation areas. The terminal becomes a curated environment, not just a passageway.
A SPACE FOR TRAVEL, NOT PROCESSING
The terminal of the future is designed around the journey, not bureaucracy. With check-in, screening, and immigration managed offsite or automated, terminals become places for connection, comfort, and commerce. Relaxation lounges, immersive experiences, cultural spaces, and integrated hotels offer something for every traveller—whether they’re there to fly or simply to meet, work, or explore. Airports evolve into urban nodes— dynamic hubs where travel, business, and community overlap.
This shift requires collaboration across airlines, regulators, airport authorities, and tech providers. It’s not just a design challenge but a cultural one—rethinking what airports are for, and who they serve.
CONCLUSION
By removing some process from the processor, we can radically rethink what the airport terminal is—and what it could become. Decentralised, data-driven processes enable faster, safer, and more seamless travel. Terminals can be smaller, more adaptable, and more commercially vibrant.
Passengers benefit from stress free processing. Governments improve oversight. Airlines and operators gain efficiency. But to realise this future, stakeholders must align on infrastructure, investment, and user experience. The airport of tomorrow isn’t just a point of transit—it’s a destination in itself. The next step from the back of this article is to do some further research and provide a more detailed look at a conceptual future terminal design �
Film Studios: Behind the scenes ‘Lights, Cameras, Action’
Here, Director and Head of Culture, Media and Sport Jason Lebidineuse provides insight into his unique approach and personal experience of designing the UK’s largest new build film studio campus to date.
PEOPLE
Weekends were carefree as a child. My sister and I would wander down to the ABC Cinema in Stoneleigh for Saturday Morning Pictures. I loved the theatre of visiting a cinema; the dark room with incredible acoustics, the huge screen, the communal hush and whispers before the Pearl & Dean music boomed out to start the performance, and of course the smell of popcorn.
We can all recall our favourite moments of cinema. Mine was the opening scene in Star Wars, being blown away by the size of the Star Destroyer that just kept on going. Big blockbuster moments designed to challenge reality. Also, how the music score transcends a film, in the case of Star Wars it was the magician, John Williams.
Fast forward 40 years and while working as an architect at Scott Brownrigg, I’m presented with the opportunity to work in the film industry by providing architectural assistance to improve parts of Longcross Studios. Subsequent introductions to key people within the industry snowballed into the opportunity to design what would become the largest new-build studio campus in the UK to date.
With the appointment to work on Shinfield Studios, all of those nostalgic memories of cinema came flooding back. I was determined to create a new sub sector within the practice and turn studio design into a sustainable part
The first step in creating a new media campus was to challenge all the preconceived ideas about how a film studio was designed. We asked a lot of “why?” questions, which must have felt tedious for the client at the time, because what they did worked, so why change it.
The Television and Film Industry is constantly in a state of flux as highly creative content creators find new ways to make the unbelievable believable. There is an increasing juxtaposition between analogue and digital as traditional craftmanship and skills like stone masonry, period dress and horror makeup have had a resurgence, against the backdrop of the impacts of AI and possibility of where quantum computing might take the industry. The drive for faster, and better screen and camera technology and the production of high and ultra definition imagery is transforming output, yet increasing the pressure to ensure that sets, clothing and makeup can be believed.
Studios must be regularly rethought to ensure they can facilitate continual innovation in ideas and technology. They need to be flexible and adaptable to support the drive for faster, better technology while also allowing traditional methods of film making to flourish.
My approach to design is all about listening, learning and challenging; it’s fluid and I embrace fast failure methodology to get to the root of the concept. The process of design constantly moves between the macro to micro, addressing issues such as the climate emergency and listening to changes in legislation, so that these facilities stay relevant for decades to come.
Creating a series of large and silent industrial buildings like those at Shinfield Studios sounds simple, doesn’t it? Although it’s not quite as easy as it may seem. The success of these ‘sheds’ and how well they can conceal the significant noise and level of activity generated within is often based on how we deal with site conditions, transportation and weather.
These sheds require high levels of insulation in order to remove all external sound and minimise reverberation and are therefore expensive to build. The demand for space also creates a need for column free spans of up to 80 metres long with clear heights of 15 metres. It’s about providing a blank canvas to facilitate the process of content creation and innovation, supported by huge adaptable workshops and office space.
The challenge for architects is to create a facility which is essentially a machine for making content. Which jars with me, as we are place makers. While the product
has to be fit for purpose, the collection of buildings can be positioned together around a place where people can collaborate, relax and re-energise – the beating heart of the scheme.
Secrecy of the estate is vital. And trust in the operator and their security team is a must. The detail of designing the way fences, buildings, landscape and people integrate to make the studio to feel both welcoming and secure.
The unexpected consequences of how people use our buildings becomes very exciting in the film industry. Before Shinfield Studios opened in April 2024, the campus had already been home to the creation of Queen Charlotte for Netflix, the Acolyte for Disney Star Wars and Ghostbusters for Sony. Since completing, Shinfield Studios has been full of a number of exciting productions over the last year. I know what has been filmed, but sworn to secrecy, which just adds to the magic…lights, camera, action! �
Residential: SustainabilityA process-driven approach to materiality and carbon reduction
Every material decision we make plays a pivotal role in shaping a sustainable future. Olga Mikhaleva explores some of the challenges the industry faces and provides insight into processes that can help architects and designers make more informed material choices throughout a project's lifecycle.
As architects confront the urgent need to reduce global carbon emissions, every material decision plays a pivotal role in shaping a sustainable future. The built environment accounts for nearly half of the UK’s national carbon emissions - with construction activities contributing 25% ofglobal emissions and 10% from construction alone. This underscores the importance of rethinking not only production processes and supply chains but also the material selection process itself.
In our evolving design discourse, embodied carbon is no longer viewed solely as an abstract metric; it is a narrative that reflects the full environmental history of a material - from raw resource extraction to its final installation. Each material we select carries with it a story of energy use and emissions, influencing not only the building’s lifecycle but also how we experience and interact with our constructed environment.
This awareness encourages us to engage with materials in a more holistic way, where tactile qualities, performance, and sustainability converge to create spaces that are both environmentally responsible and rich in sensory appeal.
METHODOLOGY AND INDUSTRY CHALLENGES
The article explores methodology that aims to provide a comprehensive process framework for architects and designers to reduce embodied carbon in buildings by making informed material choices throughout a project's lifecycle. It also looks into industry challenges, barriers and areas where adjustments are yet to be made to facilitate the process.
Recognising that every material carries a carbon footprint, the process begins with selection, where early decision-making is crucial in mitigating emissions associated with extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and installation. However, challenges such as incomplete data and regional material availability require architects to establish clear sustainability criteria, engage with suppliers, and consider the full lifecycle impact of materials from the outset. Embodied carbon assessments, while increasingly standardized, remain inconsistent across regions, making it difficult to set definitive benchmarks.
Comprehensive, standardized reporting on embodied carbon should be mandated at national and international levels, ensuring architects work with verified data rather than marketing claims.
Once sustainability benchmarks are set, the focus shifts to choosing materials that align with performance needs while minimising environmental impact. Commonly used materials such as concrete, steel, and brick are highly carbon-intensive, making alternatives like recycled metals, low-carbon concrete, sustainably harvested timber, bio-based materials, and green composites essential for reducing emissions.
Each alternative presents unique advantages and challenges, from supply inconsistencies to durability concerns, necessitating careful vetting, collaboration with material scientists, and optimised sourcing strategies.
To ensure that material decisions lead to measurable environmental benefits, Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) is used to quantify a material’s impact from extraction to endof-life. LCA helps identify carbon hotspots, enabling architects to refine choices based on scientific data rather than assumptions. Despite challenges such as incomplete datasets and the complexity of impact assessments, standardised protocols and expert collaboration can enhance accuracy and drive more sustainable outcomes.
Many LCAs fail to account for hidden emissions in the supply chain, and results are often used to justify minor improvements rather than transformative change. LCAs often being used as tools for optimisation, and architects must push for materials that are not just "less bad" but actively regenerative - sequestering carbon, restoring ecosystems, and eliminating reliance on extractive industries.
After selection and analysis, the next critical phase is implementation, where sustainable materials must be effectively integrated into design and construction. Success at this stage relies on coordinating supply chains, ensuring quality control on-site, designing for material reuse, and fostering collaboration among architects, engineers, and contractors. Since construction practices often dictate a building’s long-term environmental footprint, strategies such as designing for disassembly and ensuring material longevity play a pivotal role in minimising future waste.
Even when sustainable materials are selected and analysed, implementation remains a major barrier. Construction supply chains are entrenched in conventional methods, with contractors prioritising cost, availability, and ease of use over environmental benefits. The push for prefabrication, modularity, and design for disassembly is promising but still the exception rather than the rule.The construction industry operates on short-term cost efficiency rather than long-term sustainability, making the adoption of new materials and methods slow and inconsistent. New approaches bring risk which needs to be managed and priced in. Industry-wide education, and regulatory frameworks, should ensure that sustainable practices the default rather than an optional.
Beyond construction, a building’s sustainability continues through its use phase, where maintenance, durability, and adaptability determine the long-term carbon footprint. Materials must not only be chosen for their initial sustainability benefits but also for their resilience over time, requiring ongoing performance monitoring and planned maintenance strategies. Future adaptability, including the ability to re-purpose or upgrade materials, ensures that buildings remain functional and environmentally efficient throughout their lifecycle.
Sustainability does not end with construction, so consideration for how materials will perform over decades is critical. Materials will require maintenance, replacements, or specialised care, and without robust testing, architects risk specifying materials that ultimately contribute to waste rather than reducing it.
At the end-of-life stage, planning for deconstruction rather than demolition allows materials to be recovered for reuse or recycling, reducing landfill waste and lowering embodied carbon in future projects. Many traditional construction methods make material recovery difficult, emphasising the need for modular construction, standardised connections, and early end-of-life planning.
Despite all the talk of sustainability, the vast majority of buildings are still designed for demolition. End-of-life considerations, such as disassembly, reuse, and recycling, remain secondary concerns, if they are addressed at all. This is largely due to lack of infrastructure to support a circular economy. Circular economy principles are often discussed, yet demolition remains the default, with valuable materials sent to landfills due to poor design choices made decades earlier.
The final step, circular economy integration, shifts the focus from sustainability to regenerative design, where materials are continuously reused rather than discarded. This involves strategies such as modular design for easy disassembly, supplier take-back programs, remanufacturing, and product-as-a-service models, which keep materials in circulation rather than entering the waste stream. While transitioning to a circular economy poses challenges - such as adapting supply chains, ensuring quality control, and addressing economic feasibilitycollaboration between industry, policymakers, and researchers can help scale these initiatives. Sustainable design remains focused on material selection at the front end rather than strategic planning for reuse at the end-oflife stage, industry should move towards design for disassembly as a default, requiring architects and developers to account for material recovery from the outset.
CONCLUSION
Reducing embodied carbon in the materials we build from requires a holistic, process-driven approach that spans every stage - from early material selection to the integration of circular economy principles at end-of-life. The materials we build with are not merely resources; they are expressions of our relationship with the environment - records of energy, time, and impact. To reduce embodied carbon in the built environment is not just a technical challenge but an ethical one, a call to adjust our practices with climate crisis. It demands a shift in perspective: from extraction to regeneration, from disposability to circularity
SELECTION
Strategies
Set Clear Criteria:
• Establish benchmarks that prioritise low embodied carbon
Supplier Engagement:
• Engage with manufacturers and suppliers who provide verified sustainability credentials and detailed lifecycle data.
Preliminary Lifecycle Considerations:
• Factor in the full lifecycle of the material to set realistic expectations for material performance and environmental impact.
Challenges
Data:
• Inconsistent or incomplete data on the embodied carbon of materials can impede early decision-making.
Market Variability:
• The regional availability of sustainable materials often varies, leading to uncertainties in preliminary screening.
CHOICE
Low-Carbon Materials Recycled and Reclaimed Materials:
• Materials such as reclaimed bricks, recycled glass, and reclaimed wood reduce the need for virgin resources and minimise waste.
Recycled Metals:
• Using recycled steel and aluminium can lower embodied carbon significantly; for instance, recycled aluminium requires only 5% of the energy needed for virgin production.
Low-Carbon Concrete:
• Concrete is a major carbon emitter primarily because of Portland cement. Low-carbon concrete uses supplementary cementitous materials (SCMs) like fly ash or slag to reduce its carbon intensity.
Sustainably Harvested Timber:
• Timber products - such as cross-laminated timber (CLT), laminated veneer lumber (LVL), and glue-laminated timber (glulam) - offer low embodied carbon and even sequester carbon over their lifecycle.
Bio-Based Materials:
• Options like hempcrete, rammed earth, and compressed earth blocks are made from renewable resources. They often offer very low, or even negative, embodied carbon and can sequester carbon during their lifecycle.
Natural Fibre Insulation:
• Material’s such as cellulose, sheep’s wool, cork, and wood fibre offer renewable, biodegradable insulation alternatives. Green compsitescombining bio-based resins with natural fibres - and mycelium-based materials
Methodology
ANALYSIS
Key Steps in an LCA System
Definition:
• Identify the product, set system boundaries, and establish a functional unit to enable accurate comparisons between material choices.
Data Collection:
• Gather life cycle inventory (LCI) data that covers extraction, production, transportation, and installation phases.
Impact Translation:
• Use characterisation factors to translate LCI data into potential environmental impacts across categories such as global warming potential, ozone depletion, and resource depletion.
Result Analysis:
• Analyse the impacts to provide a holistic view and identify areas for improvement. Ensure robustness in conclusions by identifying data gaps
Challenges
Data Availability and Accuracy:
• Detailed LCA data may not be available for every material.
• Adopt standardised LCA protocols and collaborate with environmental consultants to fill data gaps.
Complexity of Impact Translation:
• Converting raw data into actionable insights requires expertise.
• Utilise established impact assessment methodologies and sensitivity analyses to ensure robust decision-making.
IMPLEMENTATION
Strategies for implementations Installation:
• Establish clear communication channels with suppliers, contractors, and engineers to ensure proper material handling and installation.
Quality Assurance:
• On-site variability can affect the performance of low carbon materials.
• Rigorous quality control measures and on-site performance testing to maintain standards is required.
Designs for Disassembly:
• Design with disassembly in mind,
Challenges
Supply Chains:
• Construction supply chains are entrenched in conventional methods, with contractors prioritising cost, availability, and ease of use over environmental benefits.
Quality Assurance:
• On-site variability can affect the performance of low-carbon materials.
Design for Disassembly:
• The environmental impact of
END OF LIFE IN USE
Long-term Performance and Adaptability:
• A building’s environmental impact continues well beyond construction. The durability, maintenance, and eventual deconstruction of materials all play a role in the long-term carbon footprint.
Challenges
Durability and Maintenance:
• Some low-carbon and particularly bio-based materials may require more frequent maintenance or specialised care.
• Prioritise materials with long-term performance and plan for routine maintenance to ensure lasting durability.
Performance Monitoring:
• Ongoing oversight is needed to confirm that materials continue to perform as expected.
• Implement monitoring systems to track material performance and adapt maintenance plans based on real-world data.
Future Adaptability:
• The ability to reuse or recycle materials at the end of a building;s life is crucial for reducing embodied carbon.
• Design for flexibility and disassembly, ensuring that components can be efficiently repurposed or recycled, thus extending their lifecycle benefits.
End–of-life Strategies:
• The final phase of the lifecycle is recycling - the process of recovering materials at the end of a building’s life to be reused or repurposed. The stage is essential for reducing waste, conserving resources, and lowering the embodied carbon of future projects.
Challenges
Design for Disassembly:
• Many traditional materials and construction methods do not lend themselves easy to disassembly and recycling.
Quality Retention:
• Ensuring that recycled materials maintain sufficient quality for reuse can be difficult.
Solutions
Integrated End-of-Life Planning:
• Incorporate recycling and disassembly considerations into the initial design and material selection processes.
Standardisation:
• Use standardised components and connections that facilitate easy separation of materials.
Supply Chain Development:
• Work with recycling facilities and secondary markets to establish robust pathways for recovering and reusing materials, thereby reducing landfill waste and lowering future embodied carbon.
CIRCULAR ECONOMY
Creating Closed-Loop Systems
Designing for Disassembly and Reuse:
• Adopt modular design and standardised components that allow building elements to be easily disassembled, reused, or repurposed in new projects.
Take-Back Programs:
• Establish partnerships with suppliers and manufacturers for the take-back and refurbishment of materials, ensuring components are reintroduced into the supply chain rather than discarded.
Material Recovery and Remanufacturing:
• Develop processes that maintain the quality of recovered materials, enabling them to be remanufactured into new products with minimal degradation.
Product-as-a-Service Models:
• Explore leasing or service-based models for building components, ensuring that materials can be efficiently recovered and reused over multiple lifecycles.
Life Extension Strategies:
• Implement maintenance and refurbishment protocols that extend the useful life of building components, delaying the need for full material replacement.
Benefits
Resource Efficiency:
• Maximises material usage and reduces reliance on virgin resources.
Waste Reduction:
• Closes the loop by turning end-oflife materials into valuable inputs for new projects.
Economic Opportunities:
• Fosters new business models and markets centred on material recovery, re-manufacturing, and reuse.
Environmental Impact:
• Lowers overall carbon footprints by preserving material value and reducing emissions associated with
Challenges
Infrastructure and Systems:
• Existing construction practices and supply chains are not aligned with circular principles.
• Collaborate with industry partners, policymakers, and research institutions to develop supportive frameworks and incentives.
Quality and Standardisation:
• Ensuring recovered materials meet performance standards is critical.
• Implement rigorous testing, certification, and standardisation processes throughout the recovery and reuse chain.
Economic Viability:
• Transitioning to circular models may involve higher upfront costs and market adaption challenges.
• Government incentives, research funding, and cross-industry collaborations required to scale circular economy initiatives.
An antidote to generative AI Practice: Handmade in clay -
As we become increasingly digitally focused, how can we continue to embrace the unique qualities and character associated with more traditional methods of design and making? Here, Timothy Watts explores how the imperfection of tactile materials can add a sense of unpredictability, texture and depth to the digital world.
Over the last 25 years I’ve witnessed software and hardware evolve, ever hungry to emulate the physical world with simulations of light, geometry and material qualities helping us to envisage a product before we begin manufacture.
The joy of new technology is that it has transformed the design journey, providing an ability to more easily explore a variety of options with almost unlimited possibilities in outcome. The results can be almost immediate, and can contribute towards achieving a paperless, mess free office.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the latest leap in technology and has been widely debated for having both transformative and destructive capabilities when used
within the context of design. Driven by the desire for automation, the act of design is being redefined where we become the curators of production, rather than being involved in the act of creation itself. As efficient as this may be for economic benefit or to facilitate proliferation of ideas, there is arguably something lost as we become increasingly detached from the more traditional methods of design and making.
The beauty of the handmade is often reflected in the time lavished on these objects and the ‘joy of mess’ they create. In the practice of architecture, model making is our handmade discipline, providing the opportunity to test ideas and to collectively gather around and interact with a physical object. Although still celebrated, the process of handmaking is now often lost as digital tools become more efficient, and in-person communication lost to video calls and emails.
Different materials and mediums enable us to design in different ways. In architecture digital platforms are often used to achieve precision and facilitate repetition, whereas materials with fluid properties such as clay can be used as a tool to explore unique form, often by embracing imperfection. Imperfection and mess are not naturally occurring properties of the digital environment, yet
I’ve been exploring ways in which the handmade can converge with digital as a design process. With a focus on clay, we explore how the imperfection of tactile materials can add a sense of unpredictability, texture and depth to the digital world.
The use of tactile materials, such as clay, activates more than our minds, as it requires us to use our bodies to manipulate the form. The use of tools to ‘mark make’ opens opportunity in the same way a new algorithm allows parametric design to create what may have otherwise been too timely or complex.
Coupling the use of clay with photogrammetry allows us to capture these early stages of form finding. When transferred into digital, these qualities and their imperfections bring a level of detail and randomisation which can be timely to simulate when designing digitally.
Painting the clay, either through sponging, airbrushing or simply pouring watered-down paint over the surface enhances its versatility. As the flowing paint cascades down the clay, it brings to mind how long a fluid simulation would have taken to create the same effect. A superb reminder that the digital tools we have are a simulation of what actually exists, and therefore we should not forget to go back to the origin of what inspired these digital tools in the first place.
With a digital scan of the clay, we can delve further into the detail and imperfection of the form. Using image software to manipulate and bake properties such as diffuse textures, specular reflection and transparency onto the form creating opportunities to change the colour and metallic qualities. A process not too dissimilar to that of firing clay in the kiln.
There’s no getting away from it though. Sheet material naturally lends itself to model making for architects. So, part of the experiment becomes preparation of clay for this task. Dried slab sections allow for more traditional forms to be considered with the additional benefit of being able to blend new material or to carve into the leather surface.
We can see the benefit of creating physical prototypes in a variety of industries including construction. These prototypes show us structure, scale of form and emulate some of the forces these structures will have to endure once commissioned to the final product. As a material susceptible to both moisture retention and cracking, designing in clay provides a reminder to consider the longevity of our design decisions at concept stage.
All new technology goes through experimentation, application failure and version releases to improve process and output. This process is still very much in a state of flux. With experimentation enabling an understanding of the materials’ behaviour and the tools which can be developed to facilitate their use.
Reducing material waste from any process is key to sustainability. If we use less, then inevitably, there is less carbon in the process. This is the beauty of clay in comparison to traditional model making materials such as card, plastic and timber. If the clay does not undergo a traditional firing process, it is able to be re-processed to become malleable for many further explorations �
Unlocking a mechanism for change Practice: Research & Development -
As an architect, the quality of our work is defined by how innovation is weaved into our everyday processes and the engaging nature of the discourse that surrounds it. But where do opportunities for research come from in architecture, and how do we define it to disseminate it for the benefit of the wider industry? Bruce Armstrong explores further.
As architects, the quality of our work is defined by how innovation is woven into our everyday processes and the engaging nature of the discourse that surrounds it. The road map to future innovation is underpinned by the conducting of design-based Research & Development (R&D). The importance of R&D in driving innovation and positive change is widely recognised and supported by the UK Government who actively encourage engagement in this area. But where do opportunities for research come
from in architecture? What are the boundaries that define it, and how can we align it with our values as a practice? These are important lines of enquiry if we are to fully take charge of our R&D and therein our capacity as agents of change within our profession. There are different types of R&D in architecture, some of which are familiar and easy to understand, and others can come across as having blurred boundaries.
DEFINING R&D
As Research and Development Lead at Scott Brownrigg, my role is to champion R&D that align with the values and vision of the practice. Working with project leads to identify opportunities for R&D and look for ways in which we can both enhance and disseminate this work for the benefit of the practice and wider industry.
This involves an intense period of retrospective reflection where we study the work produced in the previous year and effectively hunt for valuable knowledge
SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY
SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT SOUGHT
SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
BOUNDARIES OF R&D
A project starts when the first uncertainty is identified, and it ends when the last uncertainty is clarified. All the stages in between are measured through either identification of new uncertainties and/or iterations of the resolution process for each of the uncertainties.
and advancements, we as a practice have generated. Helping us to establish a datum for where were we stand, where we’ve come from, and clarify a clear trajectory for the future.
To help identify ‘true’ R&D, we first establish if the three questions below are applicable to a given body of work. These questions are part of an accepted industry standard definition concerned with defining the boundaries of R&D relevant to science and technology.
1. Is there a scientific or technological uncertainty?
2. Is there a scientific or technological advancement being sought?
3. Was this approached using a systematic approach, appropriately documenting the research?
These lines of enquiry are entirely applicable to defining all R&D. Its adaption is straight forward, omit the specificity, and we are left with the beginnings of a definition. Lastly,
and more importantly the process exposes the full breadth of architectural research topics including those we collaborate on with others.
THE POWER OF COLLABORATION
Collaborative R&D is more effective, wider reaching and can act as a metaphorical ‘rising tide that lifts all ships’, motivating all UK industries and professions. No profession is an island and research and development, on its best day, is a unilateral endeavour with as few boarders as possible. It’s very likely, especially in the construction profession, that part of a company’s R&D is tied to the involvement of other disciplines. This is great not only because of the breadth of our profession, but our project work can be used to push boundaries and break into new areas of research and innovation.
FALSE AS A RESULT OF UNFORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCES / EVENTS ON SITE
TYPES OF R&D – PRE-EMPTIVE AND REACTIONARY
R&D in architecture is almost always tied to a project. R&D tied to a project takes many forms some of which have clear boundaries, start in a premediated fashion and are result of a brief for an ambitious or investigative undertaking. An example of this type of project could be to establish a guide or framework for the future design of schools necessitating investigative research. Another common example are projects with often ambitious and/or large-scale masterplans setting out a vision for the future of a given city or industry hub.
For both examples we anticipate the need for R&D to meet the requirements of the brief. The areas of research are identified early and often developed in earlier work stages. The result is that the R&D is weaved into the strategy of the project, allowing us to appropriately resource and prepare for it. The origins and boundaries of
this kind of R&D and project are clear, and the process is controlled and methodical.
This kind of architectural research closely aligns with a stereotypical perception of what research is as its added value is clearly outlined at the outset i.e. the opportunity to test new design hypotheses, sometimes on a grand scale. This is very similar to an exaggerated stereotype regularly conjured when discussing research of the archetypal laboratory, full of white coats huddled around microscopes. They identify the potential R&D and test their hypotheses in controlled environments. These environments are free from external influence and separated from the real world around them. This process could be understood using the diagram to the left.
This stereotype provides a fitting backdrop for understanding the more reactionary types of R&D that are inherent within professions such as ours. We conduct both types of R&D but the defining principle between the two would be how we work predominantly with and within the real world without separation. We are resultantly subjected to an array of external influences competing for our attention which adds to the complexity and richness of our work. We must juggle these considerations, manage risk and deal with the competing influences of employer’s requirements, programmes, buildability, budgets, planning restrictions, health & safety laws and other statutory requirements.
The chaos of the real world is challenging but hidden within rising to that challenge are unique opportunities for testing new ideas and this results in reactionary R&D. It only requires the alignment of a few of those considerations to collide with the right circumstances before traditional or off the peg solutions are no longer applicable. Examples of these alignments could be complications on site or changes in regulation. It’s at this intersect when reactionary R&D is necessary and our adaptability, inventive and visionary skills as architects are needed the most as we embark on a road less well travelled.
In addition to those skills, the process for exploring untested ideas is the necessity to be able to proceed with care and to systematically and effectively manage the needs of the project. Our work is therefore imbued with a sense of serendipity and therefore so is the process by which we conduct research. The diagram for this process is very different to the stereotypical previous shown and looks a lot more like this the above diagram.
Both types of work are equally deserving of the pedestal of R&D if they meet the criteria of our adapted definition. The reactionary typology however can be harder to spot due to its serendipitous nature in often-pressured environments, and therefore maximise its efficacy.
Contrasting reactionary research with examples we are more familiar with, it’s easy to see why we can define boundaries on some projects and why we might be desensitised to other examples. But it would be worth exploring the contributing factors in more detail as they give us clues on how to elevate the work produced into more impactful R&D. This ensures we don’t overlook our own ingenuity and not reinvent the wheel more than we need to.
It is important not to lose sight of the value of R&D, however reactionary. When contrasting with the grander research-based projects, reactionary research might seem more incremental but it’s also more numerous owing to the nature of its origins. It may be the result of applying our trade in a widely accepted form but the produce of aggregating this research could be very impactful. Resultantly we could be fashioning standalone project breakthroughs into stronger themes of research and innovation that can be more easily curated and reinvested as valuable knowledge. Constructing research themes is a
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
Project Work
good way of combining research from different projects, regardless of type, until they become something greater than the sum of their parts. Standalone research projects are a lot like individual building blocks. Without a plan or vision for their wider application is like building a wall with no design.
The power of this knowledge is the accumulated size of its granularity, concretised into milestone achievements with the wider immediacy of their potential application. Engaging with other disciplines and with collaborative discourse could widen the application and further elevate aspects of our work.
Work conducted by Technical Leads and wider design team during the financial year. To be reviewed by Financial Team, R&D Lead and Consultant to determine the nature of any R&D undertaken.
RESEARCH
Period of review of project work from Financial Team, R&D Lead and Consultant any R&D undertaken, collate relevant report for submission to HMRC. Part of stand alone R&D topics that emerge from multiple projects. These R&D topics make potentially evolve into other useful outputs DRU team.
The diagram for understanding this process could be envisaged as the following, see below diagram.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the intersection between research and architecture is particular to professions such as ours who feed off and interact with the world around us. This which defining the boundaries to research difficult, but this is something that is easily remedied by keeping our sights on future applications of the work we conduct every day. Identifying opportunities for R&D at the early stages of a project enhances the design process, fosters a collaborative and innovative culture with room for
experimentation and continuous improvement, and enables us to share valuable learnings and expertise with the wider industry.
Architects are at both the micro and macro level, agents of continual research and development by default as our projects demand us to be. Let’s take full advantage of that fact �
THEMES
previous financial year by Consultant to determine the nature of information and generate a this process entails spotting from R&D conducted on one or make a stronger claim and can outputs to be driven by the wider team.
R&D Lead to provide summary of R&D conducted during financial year, in particular stand alone R&D topics which could be fertile ground for the creation of R&D Themes. These themes could potentially evolve into useful outputs but also be used to help drive the company in a given direction of development.
How can we break free of the norm and create truly inspirational and thought-provoking imagery that inspires blue-sky and visionary thinking for the future? Here Adam Najia documents his journey of learning how to work with Artificial Intelligence to convey early-stage concept ideas to clients.
MONDAY, 26TH OF FEBRUARY 2024
Technology is developing at an exponential rate and meaning we need new infrastructural projects to provide support for this development. Automation is becoming critical to the function of society, AI is being used at an extremely technical level as well as being integrated into our daily lives, digitisation continues to increase as people seek to rid themselves of physical possessions and climate change requires us to consider new approaches to farming to ensure food security across the world. These are the changes and developments that the Advanced technologies sector at Scott Brownrigg seek to explore.
As part of understanding how these topics may manifest themselves into architecture I was involved in conversations explored the potential need for hyperscale data centres, city centre drone ports, robotically automated vertical growing farms and biodiversity hubs within the sector - my mind began to whirr. Insightful discussions regarding the direction of the Advanced Technologies sector are interesting to talk about however can be difficult to imagine or visualise.
What is the best way to create a series of visuals that could communicate the vision of the future of the Advanced Technologies sector? I keep my skillset relevant and updated constantly exploring new creative digital tools that could be useful both in and out of the architectural world. After some research into the best available AI visualisation tools available, I started to visualise one of the concepts we had discussed as a team. The idea revolved around a Biodiversity sponge like tower that could help clean the air in cities whilst providing a safe biodiversity area for wildlife to flourish within the city.
I was astounded by the first image it had produced, and immediately felt excited, contemplating the potential impact this could have on the industry. This loose concept had been immediately visualised in front of my eyes in a matter of seconds. I pushed on and began iterating this image, tweaking the prompt, changing the context city to London, and inputting specifics to show more of the organic structure.
While still impressed at the imagery that this tool was producing, I began to sense its stubborn nature. Regardless of the prompt, it would struggle to achieve all the specifics I was hoping for. I would end up reverting back to the very first image produced which was the closest to my vision.
I continued this process for other future Advanced Technology sub-categories and within a few hours, I had a series of compelling images to that could connect people to these futuristic ideas in a way that would generate excitement within them.
RIGHT
Biodiversity Hub. Image generated using DALL-E, by Adam Najia.
PROMPT:
“Aerial view of a city, dense jungle in the form of a tower block in the centre of the frame.”
GENERATE
THURSDAY, 18TH APRIL 2024
I was tasked to create compelling visualisations for a new conceptual vertical greenhouse tower to present to a client. The concept was simple but unique and I needed to produce a visual output quickly so we could review and discuss different design approaches. I turned to my good friend AI to help me with this task and began describing the concept hoping it would return the perfect image as it had done in the past.
Presented with images of giant tomatoes I felt like the AI was mocking my lack of prompting skills. I asked AI to arrange the towers in a linear array providing much more specific instruction and slowly but surely, prompt by prompt, I was able to tame the wild dreamlike approach AI reverts to. It’s like having a conversation with an incredibly gifted toddler.
After a lengthy conversation with AI I finally had a few options ready to review that explored the different design approaches the design team had discussed. Armed with Ai imagery, we were able to make a quick decision about which approach was most appropriate for the design. I was astounded at the speed at which we could go from initial discussion and sketch work to a visual output that represented the quality you might have seen previously weeks of work. With a design approach somewhat agreed, we could start thinking about how these towers might logistically be built at a much earlier stage, allowing us to spring straight into detailed modelling and testing of functionality.
2024
FRIDAY, 7TH JUNE
It was a warm Friday in June and the end of the day was drawing near. I could almost smell the weekend as time in the working day began to close. At around 4:30pm one of colleagues in the interiors team asked if I had a moment to help produce a visual for a brand-led reception experience to show a potential client. I had just an hour to create an image that would accurately convey the vision and generate excitement. I quickly did some brand research and launched straight back into conversation with AI. This was not what I had in mind, half an hour of back and forth, using a combination of brand reference, office styles and playful language I eventually began to use the creativity of AI to my advantage. I allowed the whimsical in, and soon had a series of exciting images that nailed the brief. My colleague was over the moon, and the images were presented to the client the following week. It was at this point I felt the creative power of this new technology.
ABOVE
LEFT
Development of conceptual vertical greenhouse tower. Image generated using DALL-E, by Adam Najia.
Brand-led reception experience. Image generated using DALL-E, by Adam Najia.
PROMPT:
“Visualise an innovative concept where the urban jungle tower in the heart of Central London is entirely composed of living plants, without any visible structure”
GENERATE
TUESDAY, 10TH SEPTEMBER 2024
We decided to further develop the concept of the Biodiversity Sponge by creating a new higher quality more specific image that depicted a future scenario in London where these hubs sprawled across the city skyline. This time I decided to use a different AI tool I had been testing in the background. I had taken a base photo the previous week and had the task of blending AI Imagery and reality to show this concept in one image that could hopefully spark a conversation on social media.
I was once again amazed at the visual clarity and realism that AI could produce. Whilst the new platform
couldn't dream as wide as previous, I felt as though the accuracy and detail was far superior. I built up a library of different tower options and assets that allowed me to produce this visual and its supporting documentation without having to use a single stock asset. After creating AI generated asset library, I used traditional photoshop and presentation skills to create this complex visual to communicate a vision for enhancing biodiversity in the city.
A high-profile residential project opportunity required an immediate design response. We needed to explore different facade types and produce compelling concept imagery in a short space of time. I was drafted in to help contextualise and develop some of our precedent research and ideas through the production of AI imagery. Using reference images and more specific prompting I was able to produce a series of design options that were utilised within presentations and resulted in positive client buy-in early in the process, providing more time to craft the details of the design. It was a harmonious blend of AI and human design input to get the project moving in a mutually agreeable direction gaining the trust in our design direction from the client.
MONDAY, 16TH DECEMBER 2024
A large vision design piece was coming to a close and the final imagery was being produced. I had created some detailed modelling and began to render images using traditional rendering packages. I crafted compositions, placing assets and adjusting the focal length of my virtual camera however, as I struggled to make the images feel real and convincing in the short amount of time available. They had drama and magic but were missing the gritty imperfections of reality. I turned to an AI image upscaler to test its capability. This transformed my rendered images from high quality visuals to convincing photograph-like images of this potential future development. From dirt collecting in corners and waves softly rolling onto the sandy beach. I felt an irony that this robotic AI tool was bringing a life-like human touch to a series of images that would otherwise feel uncanny.
From the early days of wrangling loose dream-like concepts to more recent attempts to refine controlled imagery, it has been present throughout different stages of the design process. I feel as though both my skills and the AI tools available are like a blade, slowly being sharpened. I look forward to seeing what the next 12 months holds. Whilst the work shown in this article in concept stage AI tools are becoming increasingly more functional and available and the signs of the being useful across all the RIBA stages are beginning to show. The full impact of AI within the architectural process are yet to be seen but I see it being critical moving forward in both enhancing the creative process as well as streamlining the documentation of construction drawings �
From testing of concept ideas and embodied carbon tracking to digital prototyping, the complex process of designing buildings and infrastructure creates a range of biproducts that are rapidly evolving. Ana Matic sheds light on how this iterative digital-physical feedback loop is fundamental in ensuring architecture is not only visionary but also buildable and contextually and environmentally responsive.
PRODUCT OF OUR ENVIRONMENT
Architectural practice generates a wide range of ‘products’. The assumption is that the ultimate product is the constructed building or a place, an inhabitable product. In some way, these are the most important ones, the ones which will span generations and enable or affect many lives.
However, as the density and speed in which we build increases, and with buildings becoming smarter or even
sentient *1 we find that the complex process of designing buildings and infrastructure in itself creates products. From testing of concept ideas, brief definition and embodied carbon tracking, through to digital prototyping to achieve efficiencies on site, the process of architectural design creates a range of convergence *2 products that are rapidly evolving. This iterative digital-physical feedback loop is fundamental in contemporary architecture, ensuring designs are not only visionary but also buildable and contextually and environmentally responsive.
In this article, we explore a number of current ‘digitalphysical’ (and bi-directional) design workflows implemented on recent Scott Brownrigg, Design Delivery Unit and Digital Twin Unit projects, including parametric modelling and simulation, physical prototyping and fabrication, modelling for safety and the co-existence of physical and digital assets.
Use of parametric modelling in architecture design is wellestablished and most of architectural ‘originator’ tools are nowadays parametric. Some offer simple sets of predefined elements which can be adapted to suit specific project requirements, others are algorithmic and provide ‘nodes’ of pre- designed code to allow design exploration and refinements based on pre-defined (fixed) parameters. The Energy Carpet concept was developed for a masterplan project in Central Asia, proposing a continuous canopy carrying photovoltaic panels across the coastal path, providing shading and shelter whilst generating electricity for the new development.
Design work combined traditional sketching and modelling, iterative development of the parametric model in Rhino with Grasshopper and generative design of the path of the photovoltaic canopy responsive to the environment. During early, concept stages of the design, Scott Brownrigg teams work in a wide range of digital tools and applications combined with technical prototyping and expanding solution by using AI enhancement or exploratory applications. This is a cyclical, iterative process with a repertoire of digital techniques which are constantly adapting.
The Energy Carpet design was a rapid, competitionlevel response to a specific coastal environment with the aim of creating a modular system for a canopy which would both provide shading and protection whilst generating electricity for the developing coastal masterplan.
An ability to work across AI and parametric platforms whilst progressing technical design in traditional architectural tools, enabled our team to generate a dynamic concept design with sophisticated level of
For complex residential projects with unitised components which need to perform both aesthetically and environmentally, our teams work directly with fabricators and suppliers to develop full scale prototypes whilst simultaneously developing digital components which are coordinated as part of the federated BIM Models.
Federated BIM Models are centrally hosted on Cloud environments allowing rapid development and collaboration with design consultants and subcontractors. They are used for coordination, quantification and environmental assessments whilst the fabrication models become the central location for exploring details, fixing and connecting junctions. International teams work globally, developing and updating digital and physical prototypes in parallel:
• Testing physical prototypes for durability, environmental performance and installation methods
• Digital prototypes are updated to calculate free areas for ventilation and plan storage transportation, lifting and installation of the final modules.
• Testing reports are exchanged regularly to progress final designs of unitized façade modules.
DESIGN DELIVERY UNIT
New regulatory requirements established as part of the Building Safety Act are generating significant changes in the way projects are coordinated with a focus on data operability and digital coordination. Specific attention is given to fire safety elements in buildings with requirement from the whole design team to coordinate locations, sizing and proprietary specification of fire-stopping products throughout the building. This level of specification
determines a number of collaborative engagements from the members of the design team as well as early engagement of relevant subcontractors and suppliers.
Vertical, horizontal and cladding penetrations are coordinated in BIM originating tools as positive elements representing the voids. These ‘void elements’ are given unique reference numbers and become schedulable elements which carry a range of information parameters. BWIC void parameters are then specified, checked and tracked by the whole design team and delivered as part of BSA Gateway 2 deliverable. Some of this process is automated but due to the complexity of required information, several activities are still performed manually. Pre-coordination to this level of detail is challenging as it requires that the whole design team follows a strict digital protocol with sufficient time to exchange model information, iteratively update BWIC information and perform automated validation checks.
This is a process which appears to be purely digital but in fact requires a whole range of design scope, procurement and collaborative team relationships to be established on the project for the information to be delivered on time and with valid specification.
The original concept of the ‘Golden Thread of Information’ stipulates that key data about fire stopping products is finally delivered to the Client / End User of the building. How this complex data is safely delivered to the client in a readable, updatable format is still being developed across the industry.
TOWARDS SENTIENT BUILDINGS - SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS WITH ABILITY TO LEARN AND RESPOND
To add a final ‘wrap-up’ to the concepts of inter-dependent relationships between physical spaces and building elements and their digital replicas or Digital Twins (DT).
Scott Brownrigg’s Digital Twin Unit is developing DTs at a range of levels. Operational twins are gradually developing to become predictive twins with elements of machine learning. But what if buildings could operate with a next level autonomy? With an ability to reason and act on behalf of their users, utilizing trained, generative AI.
What would be the benefit of creating ‘sentient’ buildings? A term coined by Hoare Lea’s applied research department. We have worked with Hoare Lea teams on a number of projects and have collaborated on the development of DT and smart building technology. Integrating cognitive systems into building operational systems is not a new idea. However, due to the wide variety of how buildings are used and maintained, this area of DT technology is only just emerging as a viable business use case.
An effective bi-directional data flows between monitored building environment and an intelligent system enabled by machine learning, is already used on large, advanced technology buildings to create energy saving opportunities and optimise performance across seasons and fluctuating demands.
Future airport departure areas could, for example, be automatically expanded or reduced to adapt to passenger
flow and seasonal and environmental pressures. Educational and healthcare buildings will benefit from selfregulating mechanical and environmental systems and the ability to selectively manage parts of buildings to minimise energy use.
The future of sentient homes is even closer, with private owners rapidly implementing new technologies due to relatively low cost and instant benefits.
Architecture is not just the production of buildings, but the shaping of experiences, environments, and cultures. The triangulation of people, process, and product offers a powerful framework for understanding the deeper layers of architectural design. It challenges us to look beyond the object and interrogate how we work, whom we design for, and what values we embed in the final built form. Alistair Brierley
Architecture, at its best, is not just the production of buildings, but the shaping of experiences, environments, and cultures. The triangulation of people, process, and product offers a powerful framework for understanding the deeper layers of architectural design. It challenges us to look beyond the object and interrogate how we work, whom we design for, and what values we embed in the final built form.
The architectural discipline has historically oscillated between top-down visions and human-centric responsiveness. In today’s increasingly complex and pluralistic world, the “people” aspect has never been more critical. Users, communities, and stakeholders are no
longer passive recipients of architecture, but co-authors of space.
Designing individual buildings, masterplans and individual products requires rigour, focus, attention to detail, as well as a visionary streak and the ability to distil and refine a concept into something that at once becomes inevitable and fit for purpose. Attempts to standardise an approach to architectural problem solving have been brought forward over the centuries and applied in certain instances by their protagonists.
By its nature process suggests something scientific or at least based on logic and sequential steps. Linear thinking and investigation may work in terms of the purely descriptive, but this methodology cannot rise to the challenge of unlocking the three-dimensional problem as described in the tabulated data or brief for a school, a hospital, or an apartment block. Here we need to understand that a variety of concurrent workstreams or threads require simultaneous investigation and
interrogation. The variables are many and need to be analysed and approached in such a way that progression is based on a clear and overarching vision or concept.
Iterative disciplines suggest that a meandering journey where the route map will split and bifurcate through multiple gateways is part of the process. A specific site with unique coordinates, topography and morphology is normally the starting point, unless the commission involves the application of a set of generic principles that could be applied to a modular construction system or something for mass production.
Assuming the vision or concept is apparent and understood at the outset it may be possible to work towards that end via a series of moves and strategies. There are however a legion of reasons why after further design investigation has been undertaken that the concept is flawed or not aligning with what is practical and deliverable.
For the sake of this discussion when referring to product, a building or group of buildings is being referenced, rather than a piece of industrial design such as a tap or a washing machine. This widens the breadth of the challenge and the associated steps and patterns of choreographed investigation that will need to be pursued and either discarded or developed.
In a purely binary world where components, elements and their resultant juxtaposition are measurable in a finite way, the design problem can be captured within set parameters and controlled and understood by an individual or team. As such a simple example would be the written brief for a family dwelling with a carefully detailed area schedule referencing room sizes and their geometric ratios, juxtaposition and linkages within the composition. So far so good, but what about the subjective issues of architectural expression and style. How should this dwelling appear as an object and how will it be constructed
and maintained? Traditional or vernacular architecture was (and is) a product of accessibility to materials, a response to climate with the potential for integrated gestures or moments where the character and status of the building could be signified and expressed overtly to the outside world.
Where style and function intersect and coincide there is an understanding that the qualitative and quantitative systems exist in balance and harmony, and all details and gestures are blended seamlessly into the resulting composition. The co-existence of the pragmatic and the poetic strands of architectural process has long been part of an ongoing debate that addresses both form and function.
The early twentieth century saw ‘modernism’ gather momentum, where assimilated vernacular styles were decried, and abstract simplicity was revered. This coincided with the advent of the ‘First Machine Age (Reyner Banham) where advances in manufacturing techniques and new materials freed architects from load bearing walls with the advent of the frame building. Corbusier described the house as a ‘machine for living in’ and the Austrian architect Adolph Loos coined the notorious phrase, ‘ornament is a crime’ although seldom adhered to his own dictate and often wore English tweeds and decorative leather brogues.
This was a time in the evolution of architectural design where the Avant Garde were eager to impress and impose their theories and methodologies across society.
Manifestos were published by the likes of Marinetti and the Futurists, Walter Gropius at the Bauhaus, and Le Corbusier with ‘Vers un architecture’. Communication in the written and pictorial form was expressed clearly and simply, and a manifesto captured simple ideological rules and methods that could be employed. For instance, Corbusier introduced his ‘traces regulateurs’ alongside other principles that he viewed as universal.
Centuries before Corbusier and his contemporaries appeared and changed the direction of both process and product, others had sought to offer advice in the forms of scholarly texts. The Roman architect Vitruvius is well known for his ten books (De architectura), as is the renaissance Architect Leon Battista Alberti alongside his contemporary Brunelleschi. Andrea Palladio followed on in this tradition in the sixteenth century and has left a significant legacy in terms of both process and product. His four books, the Quattro Libri can be distinguished from earlier architectural treatises by the prominent discussion of his own works and by the use of terms familiar to his contemporaries. His clear precise prose is enhanced by extensive woodcut illustrations that include plans, sections, and elevations of the buildings under discussion, as well as images of details. Figures and scales are used to indicate proportions and to provide a sense of the absolute dimensions of each building, giving the reader a new visual ability to comprehend each work. As one of the last great architects of the high Renaissance, Palladio translated the language of classical antiquity into a flexible
and distinctive vocabulary that is still referenced and relevant today. It is worth noting that Palladio trained as a stone mason before engaging with the complexities of proportion and composition, and this enhanced his understanding of tectonics, modularity and buildability.
This range of approaches underscores that “process” is not a monolith or a universal. Whether it is rooted in material experimentation, participatory engagement, or analytical dissection, processes reflect a practice’s values, ambitions and culture.
In terms of designing with empathy and inclusion Alvar Aalto is a more contemporary and powerful reference. His architecture is deeply humanistic, emphasising user comfort, natural materials, and investigates how people move through space. Aalto’s design for the Paimio Sanatorium (1933) was not just about form, it was about how the environment could support the healing process. From the angle of the light fixtures to the placement of windows for optimal views of nature, the patient was central to every design decision. In contrast, Alejandro Aravena, known for his work with Elemental, has redefined the role of the architect in community-driven projects. His “half a good house” concept, allowing families to complete housing projects according to their own needs and resources, is a radical
rethinking of architecture as a social process - one where people shape their own built environments.
The architectural process is often mythologised via the story of the lone genius sketching out and imagining grand visions. Meaningful architecture however arises from a layered, iterative process that balances intuition with analysis, constraints with creativity, and theory with practice. On the one hand a slow, meditative process (architecture seen as a tactile and temporal art), emerging through careful consideration of material, memory, and atmosphere.
Buildings may be born from deep site immersion, an understanding of craft, and a patient unfolding of ideas. The product is inseparable from the process - each gesture carries the trace of inquiry and reflection.
Conversely a hyper-analytical, often research-heavy process is used as exemplified by OMA. Their early projects were defined by diagrams, programmatic overlays, and conceptual clarity, provocative, and full of contradictions yet always anchored by intellectual rigour.
PRODUCT; - BEYOND THE BUILDING
The final product in architecture is not just a building. It is the sum of spatial experience, environmental impact, social engagement, and cultural resonance. A building’s
success should be measured not only in awards or aesthetics, but in how it lives in the world - how it is used, adapted, and remembered. Tadao Ando’s Church of the Light (1989) in Osaka is a case in point. Stripped of ornament, it becomes a spiritual space defined by light and silence. The “product” here is not the concrete box, but the profound emotional resonance it creates. It is an architecture that transcends its materiality.
CONCLUSION: TOWARD A HOLISTIC PRACTICE
As we face pressing challenges, from climate change to housing crises, to digital transformation, architecture must continue to evolve beyond stylistic statements. Embracing the people-process-product model allows us to situate architecture within a broader ecosystem of impact. This trio pushes us toward empathetic engagement (people), rigorous and adaptive workflows (process), and meaningful, lasting contributions to the built environment (product). Architects have always known this. The challenge now is not simply to produce good buildings, but to build better ways of practising with ethics, conscience, curiosity, and care �
