Martha explains why architects need to think beyond building design and instead foster an entrepreneurial spirit to innovate in the built environment. She also shares insights into the process of the Pritzker Prize jury. Learn the key skills and criteria that attract the Pritzker Prize jury, and find out how the approval process takes place.

The fields of architecture and design are undergoing great changes due to globalization, technology and their expansion from traditional roles into new areas and ways of working. How does IE University react to that?

We’re at a frontier in architecture, where the profession is changing or must change. If we look at specific periods of history, we can see the moments where such reshaping occurred, such as the Industrial Revolution, and what this meant for architects. Today, globalization is at worst a huge pressure and at best a reality that we must face. Architects are not bound by geographic boundaries. They’re asked to become increasingly international, and so firms need to diversify. We can no longer say, “I’m only going to practice in my hometown or my home country.”

We’re at a frontier in architecture, where the profession is changing or must change.

Major issues such as global warming and sustainability are worldwide challenges; we’re all on this earth together. Other pressures in architecture come from technology. On the one hand, it opens the door to communicate – easily and instantaneously – across geographic boundaries. It facilitates much more meaningful communication within teams and with collaborators, and it changes the relationships that traditional architecture once fostered.

In the past, architectural projects were much more hierarchical in their execution. The architect sat at the top of the pyramid. He would come up with an idea, and then he would engage the engineer, and the engineer would engage other professionals, and then, finally, the building would be built.

With technology, the implementation of BIM, and a changing understanding of the collaborative process, this [architectural] hierarchy has evolved into a much more collaborative process. For this, architects need new skills, and so I think the other vital challenge that we face is rapid urbanization. In the past, architects were seen as authors of buildings.

Nowadays, architects have to go beyond the boundaries of the buildings they’re creating. They have to deal with issues related to rapid urbanization. This is a much more recent phenomenon that forces us to rethink the role of the architect in society and ask: How do we train people for the challenges that we face today and those we’ll face tomorrow?

This ­[architectural] hierarchy has evolved into a much more collaborative process. For this, architects need new skills.

The IE School of Architecture and Design’s architecture program is thus fully accredited by the Ministry of Education. The ministry gives a very tight outline in the polytechnic tradition of the materials we need to cover. What we try to do is use a more practice-led approach, more group projects, and also “blended learning,” which is online teaching for select subjects.

The way in which we teach is quite unique. For elective subjects or post-professional master’s degrees, we add new knowledge areas that are especially important for architects. These areas have to do with how technology influences behavior, and how the architect needs to understand the interphase of space, technology, and behavior.

We also run electives that deal with “alternative practices,” looking at new areas into which architects may want to move: Virtual reality, augmented reality, or other types of technology that will open up new professions to them. We want to provide alternative practice areas that are adjacent to architecture, from landscape architecture to gaming.

We have a Master’s in Real Estate Development, which comprises understanding and studying the city. We teach design in the Masters in Management Program, which is a business school program. Just as the business school comes to us and teaches entrepreneurship, business strategy, and the economic environment, we also go to their school and get them to embrace design.

Do you think that there is a knowledge gap in architecture education today? What are the challenges, and how should schools evolve?

Clearly, technology has had an impact. Technology will have a huge impact on construction in the coming years. That’s where there will be huge changes, and where labor unions will have to adapt. But I also think that the way architecture was practiced just a few years ago has less relevance for many sectors of our society.

If we think of natural and man-made disasters or the fact that 25% of the world’s population lives in informal settlements, we can’t continue to advocate for a standard education where the architect will design a beautiful building for a private client.

This cannot be the only model of value that our profession adds to society; designing something for the minority. Architecture has much more power than that; it has much more ability to change society and contribute to our urban environments.

Architecture has much more power than that; it has much more ability to change society and contribute to our urban environments.

Unless we open those doors to students, we’re telling them that their role is to serve the minority. And I am convinced that young people want to change the world. They are concerned about climate change; they are concerned about democracy and tolerance.

I talked to the recent Pritzker Prize winner Arata Isozaki on the weekend, and he said, “Martha, everything is architecture, and architecture is everything.” And I think he’s right. We have a big challenge to communicate this to society because when people think of an architect, they only think of pretty buildings and monuments.

One of IE’s focuses is “an entrepreneurial spirit.” What are your thoughts on combining architecture and entrepreneurship?

At my school, we understand entrepreneurship in a broad way. We look for opportunities that other people miss or opportunities where other people see challenges. For even our first-year students, we ask them to use an entrepreneurial mindset. If they are given a brief, we ask them to question the why. I teach a seminar on smart cities, and this entrepreneurial mindset starts on the very first day of class.

When students talk about an article they’ve read, I ask them, “Who wrote the article? What is their point of view? What is the motivation behind that?” This critical mindset is a large part of the entrepreneurial spirit. Another part is to start a new business or to consider a different way of working.

Students need an entrepreneurial mindset because traditional architecture offices may not exist exactly the way we’ve envisioned them.

I think our students need an entrepreneurial mindset because traditional architecture offices may not exist exactly the way we’ve envisioned them. UNStudio and Ben van Berkel have established new companies around their traditional architecture. SHoP Architects in New York have not only architecture but also construction and technology.

Those are examples of areas where I hope that students of IE see entrepreneurship taking us beyond boundaries, but it requires a rigorous process. You have to know strategy, evaluate the market, understand the flow of money, get to grips with marketing. You have to know a lot of things, not just how to be a good designer. We try to teach that.

You have a background in city planning. Cities have been a core focus of technology entrepreneurs with a mission to disrupt the built environment. What are your thoughts on the role of architects and designers in that context? What power and impact does design have, and what should the profession do, to avoid disruption?

Alphabet, a Google-created company, has won a competition to build part of The Waterfront in Toronto. These new companies see the city as a place for businesses. That’s fine; a city is a place where we generate wealth, where we innovate, trying new things, educate ourselves, bring people together – I’m not against making money.

The difficulty I see is that leaders are often private companies that have very specific goals or objectives: Implement this technology, sell this product, gather data, test this idea. If these are done without government participation and the knowhow of qualified professionals like architects and designers, then the implementation will be flawed.

Take smart cities and autonomous vehicles. Where are the architects and the urban designers in this conversation? Where will people get on and off? How will we change the signage of the city? It’s not just the question of vehicles without drivers that’s critical. The driverless car will affect absolutely everything around it.
Here’s one difficulty: I drive an electric car, and it’s so quiet that people don’t hear me. This has a negative effect. People don’t see me coming, so there could be more accidents. How do we deal with that? That’s a design problem.

It could have a positive effect in that our cities will become much quieter. If they’re much quieter, we can open the windows; we don’t need so much air conditioning. If we can open the windows, will this change our facades? That could have repercussions on the construction industry. But we don’t get to that point. People talk about electric cars but not where they’ll be plugged in, or the other changes that will occur down the line. Architects and designers have the skills needed to think about these questions.

You are Executive Director of the Pritzker Prize – the Nobel Prize for Architects – and recently announced the 2019 laureate, Arata Isozaki. Could you give us some insights into the process of choosing the winners? What key criteria do architects need, in order to be recognized by the jury?

Throughout the year, I receive nominations for the Pritzker Prize from around the world. Any licensed architect can send me a name by email. If they think that the person or persons are not well known to me or the jury, they can include a CV and a list of their work. These are unsolicited nominations, it’s totally open, and there’s no form to fill out.

It’s very easy – just send me an email. But there are also solicited nominations. From August to early September, I send out about 250 emails to experts in architecture all around the world. They could be bloggers, curators, museum directors, former laureates, and I ask them who they would like to suggest for the prize next year.

The goals of the Pritzker Prize are, first, “The Art of Architecture” and second, “Consistent Service to Humanity.” The jury is independent. They represent themselves, not a company or organization. They seek to answer, “What is the art of this architecture, and what is its service to humanity?”

We get lots of nominations. The jury meets face-to-face; they deliberate on buildings and what they mean. They try to come to a conclusion that relates to a message they feel is the most appropriate.

In the case of Isozaki, nobody can deny that he is a very recognized architect; he’s been practicing for decades. There are incredible examples of his work throughout the world. Why did he win this year? I think the jury appreciated his search for deeper meanings in his architecture and his experimentation with the Avant-garde. He doesn’t follow trends; he tries instead to be one step ahead. He rebelled against Metabolism in Japan. There was a time when you could say his buildings were more postmodern, or when he used technology in a more direct way. But nothing satisfied him; he was always pushing the envelope, and that is something the jury appreciated.

He was also the first Japanese architect to foster a deep dialogue between east and west. This is another message that the jury appreciated at a time of considerable political difficulties worldwide. An architect who promotes dialogue and conversation and tries to reach deeper meanings is what the jury wanted to recognize.

There’s also his generosity. Isozaki was somebody who was always attuned to younger architects with great promise. He was on the jury, I believe, when Zaha Hadid won the competition for the peak in Hong Kong. He had initiatives where he invited young architects from around the world to build in Japan. This example of someone who supports young talent is the third reason the jury wanted to recognize him.

That’s how the Pritzker works. The jury travels together for a week to look at the nominated architects’ buildings. They don’t choose an architect based on photos. They want to experience a sample of the work of the people they’re evaluating. That’s another special aspect of the prize.

You are a big supporter of the extension of architecture and design to other fields and of collaboration between disciplines. We could spin a future scenario of the classic architect’s job profile as steeped in the trends we talked about earlier. How do you think the Pritzker Prize will evolve?

I think it has evolved somewhat. In the very early years, it only went to one person. Three years ago, it went to three people who work closely together. That shows evolution. Recent Chilean winner Alejandro Aravena, for example, was interesting to us because of his contribution to housing and social housing, not just from the point of view of architecture but from making a place at the table for architects. Or Shigeru Ban, who designed disaster relief shelters and experimented with cardboard tubes and wood.

The strength of the Pritzker Prize is through the art of architecture and service to humanity. In my experience, I don’t think that they will change the rules and say, “Okay, one year we’re going to give it to an engineer, the next year a landscape architect, and the next year a technology specialist.” But I hope that the jury continues to push the boundaries.

You are also very involved in supporting the role of women in architecture. What do you think are the challenges for female architects today, and what do you think has to change?

We definitely need more women represented in established awards like the Pritzker Prize because these awards send a message. They have a big voice, after all. If we really want to make a significant change to the profession, it must happen on a professional level, day to day, office by office. What we need are offices to embrace measures of equality. No matter their size, they have to be committed to hiring and promotion policies, salaries, and flexible time.

Some offices are wonderful because they encourage their employees to volunteer in the community and give them so many hours a month to do this. So, change could also mean volunteering or devoting time to relatives who need help or studying. We need to get away from the idea that the architectural profession is twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to one where it is intensive but team-centric.

We need to get away from the idea that the architectural profession is twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to one where it is intensive but team-centric.

There are different guidelines. In Australia, there’s a consortium of firms where men champion equality in the office. The AIA just came out with guidelines for equality and non-discrimination in the US. Achieving equality is also important in the field of education. Sometimes, there is subtle discrimination: Not hiring enough women, or making women teach history and men teach structures. Sometimes, it is more overt. Schools have to institute a culture of equality.

What are your thoughts on the future of cities and the built environment? How can it improve, and what continues to inspire you?

Cities have always inspired me. I live in a city. I can’t imagine living anywhere except in a big city because of its energy and opportunities, whether it’s culture, education, people, food.

Madrid is a safe city. There have been substantial changes and improvements made to public transportation. This has helped a lot of people in terms of mobility. The integrated public transportation system works really, really well. It’s reasonably priced.

The other change that I’ve seen in Madrid is in the river. We used to have a dirty little river but now, thanks to a series of major public infrastructure works and planning, the river is a city resource, it has improved the natural environment and air quality, and that has improved the value of the buildings and housing at its banks.
I’m passionate about cities, then, because of their potential to change. We don’t have to accept the status quo. I would say that hope or optimism about change is what makes me a lover of cities. —

The post The Future of Architectural Education & The Pritzker Prize in a Globalized World appeared first on Archipreneur.

Prior to the birth of Saffron, Jacob worked for nine years at Wolff Olins, where he was part of the team that created the iconic brand Orange. Jacob has worked for almost 30 years in branding and advertising, and in that time has built an impressive portfolio comprising several high-profile clients and projects, including the creation of Vueling, Akzo Nobel, A1 Telekom Austria, the rebrand of Bankinter and Swiss Re, etc.

Having originally studied to be an engineer at Boston University, Jacob is also fluent in English, French and Spanish. When he’s not keeping the lights on at Saffron, he’s often commenting for the media on issues relating to brand and identity. We took some time to sit down with Jacob and learn about the process of branding, the inner workings of his consultancy, Saffron, and his ideas about the power of design.

+2

Could you tell us a little about your background and what made you decide to found Saffron Brand Consultants? Was there a particular moment that sealed the decision for you?

I founded Saffron, our consultancy specializing in brand building and brand management, with Wally Olins about 18 years ago. Prior to that, I worked for his company, Wolff Olins, for about nine years, where I was in charge of our Spanish- and French-speaking clients. I was also a member of the board. And prior to that, I worked for six years in a strategy consultancy. I was educated in the U.S. and did my undergraduate and graduate degrees in engineering.

These days, I run Saffron and teach at IE School of Architecture and Design, where I’m also a member of the advisory committee. I’ve also just written a book on disruptive branding, and frequently write articles on the topic, too.

Founding Saffron actually coincided with the sale of Wolff Olins to Omnicom. When it was sold, some of us didn’t want to work for a network, so we thought, how about launching something ourselves? I was 40 at the time. My wife and I spent a weekend at Wally’s place in the British countryside, near Oxford. I shared my ideas with him that weekend and he said, “Jacob, if you want to start this, I will support you. I’ll invest in the business, and I’ll work with you.” In the beginning, he had said he only really wanted to work two days or so a week, and in the end, he was working seven, with me. So that’s how Saffron was born.

How did you become involved in branding, with a background in engineering?

I studied engineering; I don’t really know why. Maybe in part because I went to a French high school. I was educated in the French system and, at that time, the prevailing idea we grew up with was that if you wanted to be successful, you had to become an engineer. And, if I’m honest, I went for it because of that, and not really because I felt it was my vocation to be an engineer. My true love back then was actually architecture. But at the time, it just seemed to be the done thing to go off and become an engineer.

When I finished my master’s degree, I worked for about four months with Hewlett Packard, in the industrial management unit, but, honestly, I didn’t really like it. The job was exactly the sort of thing I’d studied in my master’s degree, but I found I just didn’t enjoy it. So I left and joined a strategy consultancy, and discovered that I enjoyed that very much. I worked there from ’86 to ’91, but I eventually became frustrated by the lack of space in the job for me to put my artistic skills and interest in architectural design to use. Then, out of the blue, I got a call from a headhunter in London on behalf of a company called Wolff Olins, who spoke to me about corporate identity and brands. And it’s funny to think now, but at that time, I had never even heard of corporate identity. I knew about brands because I bought brands, but that was about it. I’d certainly never heard of Wolff Olins. But I liked the sound of what this guy on the phone was saying. So, after a long interview process of about six months, I joined the company and took my first steps into the branding world. And I’ve been here ever since – so around 28 years now.

What are the typical backgrounds of the people working at Saffron? Do you think it’s possible to study branding?

Yes and no. I mean, there are now master’s degrees in branding, so technically, I suppose you can – but I don’t think that alone is enough. Yes, you can teach students about what brands are, about how to build a brand, or you can write a book about it – in fact, two of my colleagues and I have actually just done exactly that. But I don’t think you can become a respectful brand practitioner and advisor until you’ve really practiced it. I think it’s the same in lots of fields; yes, you can study architecture, advertising, marketing, but you need real, practical experience, too, in order to become really good at what you do.

I like to have a whole range of disciplines within our company: we have architects, psychologists, historians, media specialists. Yes, we have a couple of people with advertising backgrounds too, although that’s not what their roles at Saffron are necessarily about. And, of course, we have a lot of people who studied design. Design, because it’s such an integral part of branding, and I think to be really skilled and competent in that arena, you have to be a real professional who’s studied it, not just in a practical sense but also – crucially – from a strategic point of view.

I like to have a whole range of disciplines within our company: we have architects, psychologists, historians, media specialists.

Of the 75 people that make up Saffron, maybe two have an MBA. To me, a person who’s successful here is a person who is well-read, and who has a sound grasp of what’s going on in the world at the moment, and an interest in things like history, psychology, sociology, consumer behavior semiotics, and, of course, business. Because at the end of the day, you work for businesses. So, ideally, you also have to be the kind of person who’s at ease speaking with company leaders and high-ranking professionals.

But really, there’s no set path one must take in order to end up in the world of brands and to work somewhere like Saffron. It’s more of a combination of different strengths and strands of experience that lead you here.

You recently published a book called “Disruptive Branding”. Could you tell us more about this idea, a concept that you are also practicing with Saffron? How does disruptive branding work and how can designers implement it?

One of the reasons we called the book “Disruptive Branding” was because the publisher thought it was a catchy title, and I don’t disagree with that. It certainly grabs your attention – because anything to do with disruption usually sells very well.

But aside from the catchiness of the phrase, the fact of the matter is that disruption has been with us for millennia. The guy who came up with the idea of the wheel, did he disrupt the world? Can you imagine the world before the wheel? Or the guy that invented the steam engine, which took us to the industrial revolution? Or Edison, with his groundbreaking work in electricity? Yes, I think we can safely say these things caused huge disruption.

And then, of course, you have the more recent stuff. Steve Jobs disrupted our lives with the iPhone, Bill Gates with Microsoft – the list goes on. There are so many examples. One could say that Freud disrupted the way we look at the human psyche, and that Einstein disrupted the way we look at nature. Disruption has been with us forever.

And now, technology and software engineering, and everything that comes with it, has given us limitless potential to develop our ideas, and to make our ideas come to life in a way that has caused huge disruption – disruption to the conventional way of doing things.

This is why, for example, old power companies have been disrupted by new power companies – in fact, even the “new” power companies are now being disrupted by even newer power companies. AirBnb has been a major disruption to the hotel industry. Or look at Apple: the invention of iTunes totally disrupted the way we listen to music and the music industry, but then along came Spotify. And there’ll undoubtedly be another new kid on the block in no time, disrupting things even further on that front.

I see disruption as a metaphor for creativity. It’s saying to yourself: the status quo in this particular industry is this – how do I use my creativity and lateral thinking to shake things up?

The concept of disruption is very attractive and seductive. Because if you’re able to combine IQ and EQ, that is, able to combine creativity with thorough, strategic thinking, you have the potential to cause real disruption. I see disruption as a metaphor for creativity. It’s saying to yourself: the status quo in this particular industry is this – how do I use my creativity and lateral thinking to shake things up?

And if you succeed, you disrupt. If you’re comfortable in the creative world, you should be very comfortable in the world of disruption. From day one, we at Saffron were seen as a brand consultancy that was disruptive. A client once described us as the perfect balance between charm and brutality. Not that we treat our clients with brutality, of course! But that we see disruption as a positive and are committed to achieving it.

If you’re comfortable in the creative world, you should be very comfortable in the world of disruption.

We’ve worked with several clients who’ve found themselves at a point where they really felt they had to transform, because they’d been seriously disrupted by the competition. They come to us to take them through that process. So we’re very much at ease with the idea of disruption, and it very much aligns with how we see our business. That’s why we’re in this industry.

Design-oriented thinking and the process of designing has been picked up and imitated by large global companies in recent years. Big consulting firms are now constantly on the lookout for design agencies. How do you see the power of design in the business world?

Design is a fundamental tool in our world, because it helps make the promise of a brand tangible. Good design makes strategy incredibly efficient. Good design even makes strategy invisible; you don’t even notice the strategy behind it, you just enjoy the beauty of design.

Real buzzwords in our industry at the moment are UX, user experience, and UI, user interface. Take the chairs we’re both sitting on right now: they’re the result of extremely in-depth ergonomics analysis. And the goal of that analysis, ultimately, is user experience – in this case, our experience of sitting on these chairs. This is something we’ve understood since long before the digital age: user experience is fundamental. And this is where design is crucial.

the reality is that, most of the time, your experience with brands is not only digital. It’s both digital and physical. The brand itself doesn’t change between the two mediums, what changes is the way you experience the brand. And the user experience, be it digital or physical, has to be aligned with the promise of that brand. And this is where design, again, plays a fundamental role.

We’re all familiar with super successful industrial designers and architects, not just because of the beauty of what they did, but the function and form and all that stuff. When we talk about brands, we talk about the promise of an experience, which encompasses both UX and UI. For the first 10 years or so after the millennium, there was a huge focus in branding on digital experience – user experience in the digital world. But the reality is that, most of the time, your experience with brands is not only digital. It’s both digital and physical. The brand itself doesn’t change between the two mediums, what changes is the way you experience the brand. And the user experience, be it digital or physical, has to be aligned with the promise of that brand. And this is where design, again, plays a fundamental role.

Design, originally, in the world of branding, was circumscribed to the very limited realm of logos and colors and typography. Typography is, of course, an important tool that designers and branders need to utilize well. Good typography should be both aesthetically appealing and functional; there’s nothing worse than typography that looks beautiful, but that just doesn’t work because it’s in impossible-to-read colors, shapes etc.

In any case, it goes without saying that a good brand requires a good design system behind it, a system that goes beyond just the logo and colors. It has to include the photography style, the iconography style, typography, too. It has to include the way you design every one of the interfaces. It involves a thorough analysis of every one of the touch points that your brand has with its different audiences.

…a good brand requires a good design system behind it, a system that goes beyond just the logo and colors.

And these touch points may be both physical and digital. This is why design plays a fundamental role in the world of building the experience. Architecture is important, too, because a lot of the time, when we’re not experiencing the brand on a digital platform, it’s in a real, physical space. That space sends a message, and that message has to be aligned with the brand and its promise. If it isn’t, then there’s a big clash for the consumer between the promise of the brand and what they actually experience, and that’s problematic.

At IE School of Architecture and Design, we teach a course called ‘Brand as a space”, which I think is very important. You can tell a lot from a space about the brand behind it. That brand could even be you in your home, me and my wife and family in our home, it could be my office, it could be anything.

So it’s in these environments that all the different elements of design come into play. And the beauty of what we do is that we, much like the conductors of orchestras, bring all of this together. We spend our time orchestrating different elements to create something that really works.

Which have been your favorite projects you’ve worked on with Saffron in recent years?

There have been a few really interesting ones. I hugely enjoyed the work we did for an oil and petrol company here in Spain called Cepsa, which is almost 100 years old. They’d had a change of ownership and we helped them with a complete brand overhaul, as well as with the practical side of manifesting their brand. We designed not only the digital user interface, when you can use your phone to pay for the petrol, but also the new petrol stations themselves.

The whole concept behind the project was about a combination of engineering innovation with a real focus on adaptability to the needs of the customer, which we coined “adaptable engineering”. We really wanted everyone who walks into that petrol station to say, “Wow, this really isn’t a conventional petrol station.”

We’ve also worked for airlines, and in the airline industry, what’s really interesting is that, on the one hand, you have a digital approach, because the consumer has the whole online experience of bookings, etc, but on the other hand, there’s also the physical approach, because you spend a number of hours actually inside the plane. And, yes, you could say that most planes are actually very similar, but some airlines do actually spend considerable time thinking about the fact that the consumer’s physical experience in the aircraft can convey the message and ideas of the airline. Right down to the in-flight magazine.

So for us, the really interesting question is: how does the consumer get a sense that a Lufthansa plane is different from a British Airways plane? At the end of the day, they both fly Airbus 380s. Yes, from the outside they’re slightly different, because of their different brand logos. But when you walk in, what makes a British Airways plane different from a Lufthansa plane, or an Air France from a Cathay Pacific? The planes are the same, but it’s the experience that can be totally different. And that’s not just about the service, it’s also the seat you sit in, and the inflight magazine, and a number of other factors. It’s especially fascinating to work for the airline industry because of the challenge to create something which has to be uniquely special and distinctive in a very limited space, as well as in the digital world.

The boundaries between physical and virtual space are becoming more blurred than ever. Where do you see the future of designing spaces for companies and people?

At the end of the day, we have to provide what our clients ask for. And, these days, they’re asking for services that very much reflect this blurring of the physical and digital worlds. So that’s what we’re delivering. At Saffron, we started out in the physical world – admittedly, we’re not natively digital. We’re not a company that was born digital. I was born in 1961 and Wally was born in 1935, so neither of us grew up in the digital world. And a lot of our senior people didn’t either. Some did, of course, but essentially, our company was created in a non-digital world.

Now, of course, the company has evolved and is extremely fluent in the digital realm. And what we will continue doing is providing services that really leverage the power of technology, ranging from research tools, to using AI to interpret results and data analytics, to using architecture to provide a 3D interpretation of a vision. Saffron is becoming a fully integrated physical and digital hub.

Do you have any advice for Archipreneurs who are interested in starting their own company in the field of the built environment?

It really depends on the vision of the founder. If the vision of the founder is to produce work that he or she loves, at the risk of it being irrelevant to the clients, then they may end up with not a lot of work at all, and might face the risk of survival when the going gets tough.

When times get hard, people tend to cut down on what they consider superfluous expenses. These can often be seen as things like graphic design, or funding beautiful ads. If you’re starting an agency and you want to be successful, you need to have a certain degree of flexibility and a knack for forming partnerships, as well as someone in your team with the business acumen and skills to make things happen from a craft and design and practical standpoint, in a way that’s financially feasible.

The last thing you want to give up is your soul, your vision, the spirit that was with you when you started the business.

And there can be a fine line between being financially feasible and selling your soul. The big challenge, one I’ve faced a number of occasions, for example, during the financial crisis from 2008-2012, is: how do I keep my business alive, how do I keep my business feasible and at the same time keep my soul untouched?

This can be extremely difficult when the financial climate is tough and people don’t want to spend or invest as much as they might otherwise. It’s easy to fall into the trap of selling your soul in order to keep yourself financially afloat, and that’s the worst mistake you can make. The last thing you want to give up is your soul, your vision, the spirit that was with you when you started the business. But yes, of course, you can evolve. You can look back on 20, 30 years ago and say, “Oh, I was a romantic then. I’m less romantic now.”

There’s a saying, if you’re not socialist when you’re 20, you don’t have a heart, and if you’re not a capitalist when you’re 40, you don’t have a brain. It’s a bit like that. I think the real trick is to strive for a balance between ensuring the business is financially feasible, and not losing your soul. I think that would be my advice to anyone.

What are your thoughts on the future of cities and the built environment? How can it improve, and what continues to inspire you?

Well, at Saffron we’re very proud to have been working with the world’s most livable city, according to current economic research, for over a year now: Vienna. We’ve been working for the City of Vienna, helping them to rebrand and create a design system that offers a very consistent design experience at every little touch point a Vienna citizen or a visitor has with the city.

Cities, like nations, are very complex entities, and are shaped by a number of things. There’s an analogy between cities and websites. […] There are points of interest and landmarks in a city, just like on a website.

Cities, like nations, are very complex entities, and are shaped by a number of things. There’s an analogy between cities and websites. You have a navigation style in a city, just like you have on a website. This navigation, in a city, is marked by the road signs, similar to what you’d have to assist your navigation on a website. And the way the city has grown and the way the city has been planned, is like a website. There are points of interest and landmarks in a city, just like on a website.

The challenges that cities face nowadays have to do with how to manage things like pollution, air quality, traffic, safety. The governing bodies of cities also have to place real importance on their public spaces, and who they commission to design them. So, as a governing body, when you call a competition for the design of the extension of a city, or for the design of parks, museums or public buildings, it’s very important that you make the right decisions with the right advisors, and find the right designers to do the work. That said, unfortunately, with many cities across the world, that hasn’t always been the case.

When it comes to making cities work better for its dwellers and visitors alike, there are such a huge number of variables to contend with, that are different in every place – the climate, the already existing infrastructure, the culture, the population density… the list goes on. And each of those variables present different challenges. But I see it as extremely important work: making the world an easier, better place to live, city by city. That’s what continues to inspire me.

About Jacob Benbunan

Jacob Benbunan is CEO of Saffron Brand Consultants, which he founded with Wally Olins in 2001. The company works under the principle that a brand should promote the promise of an experience delivered. Saffron believes in a holistic approach, taking into consideration every touch point a brand has with its audiences, both external and internal. Starting with two offices, in Madrid and London, Saffron later opened operations in Istanbul, Vienna and Mumbai and formed strategic alliances in New York, São Paolo, Dubai and Shanghai. Working with brands such as Vueling, Bankinter, EVO, Volotea or Yoigo in Spain, A1, Swiss Re, Akzo Nobel, Lloyd’s, C&A or the city of London, in Europe, Apollo in India, Banco Deuno, Baker & McKenzie and Mabe in the Americas has granted Saffron its reputation.

Prior to the founding of Saffron, Benbunan ran Wolff Olins Spain and was a member of its international Board of Directors from 1994 to 2001. During this period, he led projects for a variety of brands, including Orange, Repsol, Saint-Gobain and Credit Suisse. He also served as Strategic Services Senior Manager at KPMG Management Consultants. He is well known internationally as the author of many specialized articles, and is regularly invited to lecture at conferences and to participate on TV and radio shows.

Benbunan received his Bachelor of Science degree, cum laude, and a Master of Engineering from Boston University. He was the Chairman of Aebrand (Spanish Association of Branding) and member of the Executive Association of Spanish Agencies. Jacob is member of the Advisory Committee to the Communication Master of IE Business School, where he also lectures from time to time, among many other professional and academic activities.

The post Disruptive Branding and the Power of Design with Jacob Benbunan appeared first on Archipreneur.

BIM (building information modeling) is a sophisticated program that allows architects to collaborate better with their teams and clients with real-time design that updates shared instantly in the cloud. It helps architects make better design decisions, alerting them to common errors such as misplaced windows before the first brick has been laid. Clients can use BIM after construction is completed to maintain and reduce running costs thanks to the information it provides. The software is even incorporating virtual reality to allow clients to walk around buildings that don’t exist yet.

Hospitals and universities are already using BIM to make sure these institutions run as smoothly as possible. In fact, BIM optimizes public building use to such a degree that the UK government has made it mandatory for architects to use the software in the design of any new projects.

Juan Lago-Novás, director of the Master in Architectural Management and Design at IE School of Architecture and Design, says BIM software such as Revit, AutoCAD and ArchiCAD is blending the design and management sides of the business seamlessly.

“The biggest advantage of BIM is that it allows you to pre-construct your designs” he said. “It’s like Formula 1, where instead of spending millions on building a car then realizing it doesn’t work as expected, they are able to build it digitally and test it in a simulator.” BIM can detect where there might be problems with an electrical supply or perhaps a rafter that’s going to obstruct something.

BIM is an essential tool in explaining a client’s return on investment and what the running costs of a building might be. Whereas previously it’s been hard to sell a client on the virtues of investing in good design, BIM makes it a simple matter of math.

“You don’t need to be a designer to get information from BIM; it can connect to an app that any building manager can use,” says Lago-Novás, who is also principal of DSC Architecture in Madrid. “It knows the model numbers of machines in the office so it can tell clients what filters, cartridges or maintenance costs they might incur over a given period.”

When teaching the course, Lago-Novás says he likes to encourage his students to think of BIM more as building information management due to how well the software handles the business side of things. However, he envisions that BIM will be fully implemented in the design industry onces BIM stands for Business Information Management.

“An architect begins his design with a pencil, and CAD programs is really no different. A hand-drawn line on paper and a digital vector line on the screen are still just two points joined together.”

The difference with BIM is that it understands that those lines equal a wall. It knows what the wall is made of. It knows if that wall has a skirting board or not. You can ask it how many walls are in the building. This can be very useful when working on larger-scale projects.

Some say there are limitations to BIM, suggesting that it may stifle creativity if an architect no longer needs to come up with novel solutions to design issues. But Lago-Novás argues that while BIM solves a lot of problems, it doesn’t solve design.

He adds:

“The principles of architecture haven’t changed. These tools allow us to design the types of buildings that would have been impossible in the past. But there’s no substitute for a great designer.”

Juan Lago-Novás is director of the Master in Architectural Management and Design at IE School of Architecture and Design. The course is intended for those who see the potential of business opportunities in architecture and the new roles emerging from the industry’s evolution.

The post BIM lets us Design Buildings that were never before possible appeared first on Archipreneur.