Just create better architecture and cut the b.s. post-rational justification of a flawed design.

Create a conceptual and aesthetic set of principles for your work and be rigorous about attempting to meet that set of principles then what you are asking is easy.

Architecture is really closed to art, history and the field of philosophy. I encourage you to enrich the derivation of the concept of your design with those fields. Start with a piece of historical information that may relate to how you style your design, then proceed further to incorporate philosophy to define the aesthetic behind the form. These should be presented to discuss the pre-design stage, just right before the schematic. After the schematic, everything should converge more into technicality.

How did you create your architectural project in the first place if you need to come here and ask how to describe it? What's wrong with people? How can you insert any philosophical, artistic or historical concepts into your project(s) if they didn't form the foundation of it in the first place?

Say something abstract at your review, let the critics tell you what they think it means. Then just keep nodding and agreeing. Bring it up again next time and keep the BS going. Works all the time

don't forget to pin up a colour wheel but don't refer to it at all. Guaranteed to score big points.

There was a story about somebody getting called out for having blood on their model at a review that went around when I was at Tulane. This person said that the blood represented "the blood collectively spilled by New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina" and the critics ate it up.

When in doubt, bleed on your model.

On a dare I worked in "sexual and violent" into my presentation, no one seemed to notice, it was hilarious, and did a lot to enriche my presentation...

@randomised Ideally the form in a project should emerge based on the study in the pre-design stage. However, architecture is not a scientific study where an entity must be described in an algorithmic manner. So a meaning can precede architecture, and it can come after. Just like a painting, whose interpretation is the right one? The painter or the one who see it?

We never dared each other to work specific words into our presentations (kudos Mr_Wiggin), but we did put together archispeak bingo cards for one set of final reviews filled with words like juxtaposition, materiality, interstitial, etc. 

Interpretive dance

Or use the term 'metaphysics of presence' , if possible...

work in "the anthropocene " and  don't forget "Deleuzian"

Also 'Cartesian' or 'Euclidean' to add a little bit mathematics into it, if possible...

Introduce your project with "Basically,"
 

"@randomised Ideally the form in a project should emerge based on the study in the pre-design stage. However, architecture is not a scientific study where an entity must be described in an algorithmic manner. So a meaning can precede architecture, and it can come after. Just like a painting, whose interpretation is the right one? The painter or the one who see it?"

@earth:

That's exactly the  post-rational justification bullshit of a flawed design I mentioned earlier ;)

You can't invent "meaning", the project either has it or it doesn't. The "form" of a project can come from any reason you choose it to come from, in whichever phase of a project  you are at, from algorithms, urban constraints, or a turd you spotted on your way to the office. And obviously the painter's interpretation is always the right one, but viewers can see something else in it if they choose, but they'll be wrong obviously. If I paint a cloud and you see a sheep, you are wrong, but it might look like a sheep and it might be a bad painting of a cloud or a good painting of a bad cloud or not a cloud at all, point is the painter is right, it's not rocket science nor is it brain surgery.

read a bunch of architecture theory and philisophy books, preferably phenomenology.

dumbass noobs think there is a formula to sound more intelligent.  It takes years and decades of reading and critical thinking to reach that level.  Stop being a poser, go read more books for years and let it happen naturally.

"And obviously the painter's interpretation is always the right one, but viewers can see something else in it if they choose, but they'll be wrong obviously."

Now we're getting somewhere interesting. 

If meaning arises accidentally, but it improves the function, why can't that then be the stated meaning? If Architecture is by necessity an iterative process, I'd argue it's more important to be open to the discovery of meaning at any point during the process, and as long as the end product is better, it's irrelevant what the original intent was.

Most of my best designs have solved problems I didn't know I had until I saw the solution. Is it any less genuine to show it off as a solution then? Does it matter?

@randomised "And obviously the painter's interpretation is always the right one, but viewers can see something else in it if they choose, but they'll be wrong obviously."

And yes, this is interesting, the questions seems more like a "trap". When one talks about a painting, its not about right or wrong. A painting cannot be described as right or wrong because a painting has a context. Now if one paint a single point in blank canvas, can we be certain that everyone can tell about  the same thing towards that painting? If one draw a sheep on a blank canvas, then what's right under the sheep's feet? If nothing, is he flying? Or  maybe the painting wants to tell us how lonely is that sheep in the middle of nothingness (the white canvas)? 

So the painting of a sheep on a canvas is not only about the sheep, but the gesture of the sheep, the context of how the sheep is placed, and much more. 

So in this case, the interpretation of an art is endless and varies infinitely. 

What @tduds said is quite true. 

"as long as the end product is better, it's irrelevant what the original intent was."

The product that is resulted may work differently as what was formulated during the design stage. And so that makes the point of the possibility in the difference between the the original design intention and how the totally different meaning can be attached to the product once it is finished, and both are valid. That is to say, the interpretation of the painter and the one who observe are valid in its own way. 

"If meaning arises accidentally, but it improves the function, why can't that then be the stated meaning? If Architecture is by necessity an iterative process, I'd argue it's more important to be open to the discovery of meaning at any point during the process, and as long as the end product is better, it's irrelevant what the original intent was."

That's something different. Improved and added accidental functionality have nothing to do with meaning. Meaning performs on a higher plane than how a building is and can be used.

"And yes, this is interesting, the questions seems more like a "trap". When one talks about a painting, its not about right or wrong. A painting cannot be described as right or wrong because a painting has a context."

Of course you can describe a painting right or wrong. It's not up to the viewer to decide what the meaning of that painting was when the artist made it. You can interpret it your own way, sure, and decide if and how that work has meaning for you as a viewer, but that doesn't make it the right one, just yours.

"Now if one paint a single point in blank canvas, can we be certain that everyone can tell about  the same thing towards that painting? If one draw a sheep on a blank canvas, then what's right under the sheep's feet? If nothing, is he flying? Or  maybe the painting wants to tell us how lonely is that sheep in the middle of nothingness (the white canvas)?

So the painting of a sheep on a canvas is not only about the sheep, but the gesture of the sheep, the context of how the sheep is placed, and much more. "

It doesn't matter if you see in the work exactly what the painter intended or wanted you to see or not see for the meaning of that work for the artist.

"So in this case, the interpretation of an art is endless and varies infinitely."

That doesn't mean that any of those interpretations corresponds with the meaning and intentions of the artist, nor that they should. They are just interpretations, personal interpretations formed by the viewers with their own frame of reference. While there was only one frame of reference that lead to the creation of that work and that one belongs to the artist.

"What @tduds said is quite true."

That's just your interpretation, that carries no meaning for me :)

"That is to say, the interpretation of the painter and the one who observe are valid in its own way."

They can't be compared as they exist in different realities, the work is not an interpretation but an original creation (which can also be an interpretation but that's another discussion).

Difference and Repititon - by Giles Delueze (for earth and randomised)

Please elaborate, or not.