Looking to the future, Designing Practice is a series that explores how the practice of architecture can evolve in the 21st century. Framed by contemporary conditions, the series asks architects and designers to consider the discipline’s broader context and imagine new models for moving architecture forward.
In this installment, we talk with architect Evelyn Lee and her views on the integration of business, the profession and the Practice Innovation Lab.
Can you tell us about your background and how you came to work as a design strategist?
When I was 10 I knew I wanted to be an architect, it wasn’t until I became an architect that I realized that I didn’t want to practice in the traditional sense. I have my B Arch and M Arch degrees. I was working on k-12 modernizations and community buildings when I realized that the work I was doing wasn’t as fulfilling as I hoped it would be.
I love this profession, but I think it’s in danger. We absolutely need to figure out a way to maintain social and public relevance.
I had little contact with the end users even on public projects, and I was frustrated with how late architects were brought in to the planning process. I left firm work to serve as the first program manager for the 1+ program of Public Architecture, connecting designers with non-profits in need of design services. I really struggled trying to educate the non-profit organizations on the value that architects deliver that goes beyond a brand-new ground-up building or tenant improvement. To speak their language, I ended-up picking-up a dual MBA/MPA degree. This enabled me to speak quantitatively to the value we bring while also understanding broader organizational management.
During that time, my role as a design strategist evolved into what it is today: ensuring that end users get space that is really meaningful to the outcomes that they want to accomplish and helping larger organizations prioritize their capital asset spend.
Last fall you created the Practice Innovation Lab hosted by the Young Architects Forum. Can you tell us more about the program and its outcomes?
The architecture profession is in a perpetual debate concerning the myriad issues that impact how we practice and how that work can and should impact the world around us. As the chair of the AIA’s Young Architects Forum, I am keenly aware of the problems facing the next generation of practice leaders: inefficient practice models that lead to overworked, underpaid, and highly unsatisfied staff. We hear repeatedly that a seismic shift in the way firms operate is necessary to successfully move the profession forward and retain talent.
In October, the AIA held their first ever Practice Innovation Lab, looking to develop new practice models to raise the value of architects and the services that they provide to their clients with the goal of sparking a new debate that could challenge the status quo in firm management. Ten teams of six were formed with the intent of creating 10 new innovative practice models which would be pitched, “Shark Tank” style, after a daylong hackathon. Attendees then voted on the best practice model for the People’s Choice Award.
The architecture profession is in a perpetual debate concerning the myriad issues that impact how we practice and how that work can and should impact the world around us.
I have been and will continue to be a strong advocate for the necessity for architecture practice to evolve for our profession to remain relevant in an ever-changing economy. If the fate of our firms is continually reliant on the cyclical construction industry, there may be a time when we are unable to rebound as profitably. The timing of the Practice Innovation Lab is critical to expanding this dialogue at a time when we have the ability to proactively think about our next steps, before being tossed into another economic downturn putting architects in crisis mode. While we do not expect any of the participants to go back to their firms and create instant change, we are hopeful that the energy and dialogue created by the Practice Innovation Lab will plant the seeds for those looking to practice on new terms, and spark conversations for more traditional practices on ways to expand viability.
You’ve had a diverse education spanning architecture, administration, and sustainable management. What do you see as a major focus of contemporary design education? How best should we prepare future architects for changes in practice?
I think it would be great if schools offered more electives on business and entrepreneurialism for those interested in learning more in those areas.
I really value the design principles and theories that I got from my architectural education. It is ultimately what creates the value that architects bring to the table – not how well we put together a set of drawings (that side of practice continues to become commoditized). Schools that are giving students access to the latest and greatest in technology are really pushing practice forward in new ways, and I think the real world applications of those technologies should find a way into practice more often. I think it would be great if schools offered more electives on business and entrepreneurialism for those interested in learning more in those areas.
How do you see the relationship between architecture and the act of building changing over the coming decades?
Architects are in a bit of a precarious place right now – I often say that we are three recessions away from becoming extinct. It’s meant to be a provocative statement but there is some underlying truth to it too. We are struggling to find relevance while we sit and complain about General Contractors, Project Managers, and the like also offering our services.
I think there is an opportunity to reclaim the title of Master Builder, but it really means brining even more collaboration into the process and exploring a wider range of services that we provide to the client.
By its nature, architecture is slow to change. Do you believe architects should attempt to maintain social and public relevance?
I love this profession, but I think it’s in danger. We absolutely need to figure out a way to maintain social and public relevance. There are firms like Latent Design who are really doing something different within their communities, they have a different business model, and are thriving as a small firm. We need to actively expand our practices and look at different business models to diversify revenue streams and increase profits.
You’ve experienced architecture from many perspectives: serving the AIA on local, state and national levels, in commercial brokerage at Newmark Knight Frank and Savills Studley, and as a writer and editor for architectural media. How do you see the agency of the architect evolving in the 21st century?
Architects need to take hold of our identities ad multi-faceted problem solvers, conveners, and human-centered design thinkers. I realize at heart, we are builders, but ultimately, we serve those who we design the buildings for and the value we can provide them goes further than construction documents. Architects are subjected to the most predictable economic cycles in history – the construction industry. We need to make sure we are providing value (and being paid) when our clients aren’t building.
From naming a practice to the type of projects an office takes on, architects must often consider legacy. What do you hope is the legacy of your work?
I hope I can inspire architecture firms to continue to evolve – and that the people we serve see us for our true value.
8 Comments
Well done Evelyn, but what conclusions did you reach in your hackathon? What were the most popular "new" business models?
I don't have as varied a background as you but here are my 2 pennies.
Watching software engineers bring antiquated industries to their knees I can tell you that you are correct: the profession as we know it is doomed to extinction in the very near future. See what Wework is doing to workplace design. They are hiring architects by the dozens now but soon their AI will learn enough (from said architects) to not need as many, then comes the start of the ending.
One thing we should all get used to is not practicing "architecture" in the traditional sense at all. Our education gives us a set of skills that are unparalleled in most other disciplines: conceive of an idea, develop a prototype, present that idea, receive criticism, iterate, present again, receive critique, defend that idea, iterate, perfect it, then bring it to fruition. That "idea" may be a building or an exhibition folly...or it could be an software application or a user interface or a new way to do something or a new service. It doesn't have to be limited to something that gets constructed.
If we are to survive this century we will have to evolve the notion of what an architect is and what values they bring to the table. We need to be comfortable not building with 2 x 4s but lines of code or lines of text. Otherwise Wework and the like will drink our milkshake.
^^ This comment wins the archinects. There are too many architects obsessed with the "way we used to do things", while our very existence is being threatened.
Architects have to learn how to create opportunities for great design by imagining structures or complexes that have not been needed until they proposes them. One is the Hollywood Imaginarium, massive, expensive, almost impossible (almost) but an awesome opportunity to create a facility that would move a generation ahead in entertainment, similar to what Walt Disney did by creating Disneyland, and how did that work out?
Disney copied Tivoli Gardens, which opened in 1843 in Copenhagen, for Disneyland.
With all due respect, lines of code won't keep out the rain or hold up the roof. As a retired but still teaching architecture faculty member and founding, retiring partner in a 12 person practice, I find us busier than ever with our role as interpreter of the building industry for clients unfamiliar with it.
It is true, tho, that our forfeiture of the construction phase of architecture practice, degraded to 'observation', has reduced our credibility substantially. This is aggravated by the near absence of education about construction in our curricula. One of the challenges and promises of sustainable construction is the reclamation of real knowledge of how buildings are built and operate - this involves physics, chemistry, mechanical and structural engineering - and of course, data management to improve the way our buildings are built and work.
I hope Practice Innovation might include some of these issues - there are legions of new consultancies who do parts of this work, but architects remain the resource who knows, or should know who to ask and when.
I ended-up picking-up a dual MBA/MPA degree
Did the author go to the grocery store to pick it up? lol
Not only did he not make it as an Architect, but he ultimately fell back to his comfort zone of being a professional student and writer. Outside critics have no place among practitioners. Only practitioners have any valuable insight into the shortcomings of praxis. It is easy to comment on the success (or failure) of others while not having the responsibility of carrying others' salary.
It’s interesting how little of public perception seems to match the reality — almost every architect uses some form of ‘design thinking’ even post-its as a basic organizing tool to organize thoughts on clients, fixtures, materials choices, etc. It’s not just producing drawings and plans, but interaction with clients, politics, history, etc.
the problem is mostly cultural — design must be a shared language between everyday people and experts. Media, government, etc all have to value the entire process — from design development to construction — or everybody suffers, citizens, architects, all.
Its part economic, and part cultural. Economically, architects work for a small portion of the pop. The general population are consumers of the product, not the service. Culturally, we speak a different design language.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.