Why did you and your husband Alun want to start your own practice?

We met as architecture students. We were both on the Master‘s course and I think we felt very quickly that we had a similar way of thinking about things, and we started the conversation that‘s still going on today.
I had a clear set of role models of working couples who had architectural or other creative practices. That was really helpful because it was a way of thinking about how you could live your life and do this job and make it work in all aspects of life. The ­famous ones like Charles and Ray Eames and the Smithsons and Lucienne and Robin Day combined creative practice with living working together. That was my inspiration, really.

How did you start?

We were both working for other practices, and then a combination of things happened. One was that I became pregnant, and we also were given two really great projects through a family member. And so, I did a year of working part-time at my job, and part-time starting our office, and then when our first child was born I did our projects in the time I had. I think it was that change in my work, on maternity leave and deciding not to go back, that gave me the opportunity to take the risk as it were. Two years later Alun joined me. We always sort of told ourselves if it didn‘t work, or if we ran out of work, then he would get another job or eventually we‘d both get another job. But luckily, that didn‘t happen. I think that‘s how we sort of cushioned ourselves, by telling ourselves we‘d see how it went.

“We always sort of told ourselves if it didn’t work, or if we ran
out of work, then he would get another job or eventually we’d both get another job.”

Why did becoming an entrepreneur appeal to you as a new parent? How does running your own practice make it easier to balance personal and professional life?

I found it very freeing. I felt that lots of new and exciting things were happening to me and it gave me a great sense of conviction that was liberating.

I was really struck by the Women in Architecture Awards shortlist this year, in that all four of us work with our life partner and I think most of us have children. It‘s not a very fashionable thing to talk about, but I thought it was quite revealing of the innate problem that it’s hard combining parenthood with a working life which is demanding of your time.

I think that working together and making it a kind of a shared enterprise is really helpful because you have somebody who shares your greater interests at heart, which is harder to do if you‘re representing yourself individually.

Certainly as being a parent running my own business, it has given me the freedom to decide when I need to be at home more, and when I need to be in the office more, and be in charge of that decision.

How did you go about finding clients at first?

At the beginning, it was a word of mouth. We did quite small-scale things. One of the first two jobs that we were given was a new house in Suffolk, which was a really amazing job and we didn‘t realize how few of those would come along in terms of being completely new-build projects. We then did a refurbishment of a large London house, and they were both projects for my sister. We were incredibly lucky and they were very supportive of us and generous in trusting us to do it.

While we were doing those, we did much smaller things as well. They were quite lean times at the beginning. There was one year before Alun joined me, when we designed three bathrooms and a kitchen. That wasn‘t such a good year! But the work sort of slowly built up.

Then, we started looking for public projects and responding to competitions as well as doing lots and lots of domestic projects. Our view is you can learn from everything. We saw everything as a potential way to develop our language and to build up our experiences.

“Our view is you can learn from everything. We saw everything as potential way to develop our language and to build up our experiences.”

In 2007, we won the Garden Museum (Phase I) pro­ject which was an invited shortlist and it opened in 2008. That was really fantastic and was a step up and really changed things for us.

When we started our practice, you had to complete work and have it published in order to have any kind of voice, but I think an advantage for young practices now is that you can use social media as a way of being part of the debate, which I think is very liberating. You don’t need anyone’s help to make that happen.

Did you establish your practice with business goals and a plan for growth? Was that important to you?

We‘ve always seen our practice as a long-term project rather than something that you immediately want results from. My experience is that generally architecture is like that. The sorts of projects that we want to do more and more are public and cultural projects which take a lot of time to develop, take a lot of time to fundraise for and get stakeholder backing for. They‘re not being done on a purely commercial basis where it‘s about speed of delivery. I find taking that time with a project really satisfying.

I think we‘re lucky that our pre-conception of our business model is that we can spend time on things. Of course, it would be nice to be more commercially successful, but for me that‘s not the only measure and in terms of creative satisfaction, we‘re very happy.

How have you grown your team and shaped the office culture?

We‘ve fairly deliberately kept ourselves quite small, so we‘re eight people at the moment. For a while, we worked from home just the two of us and we didn‘t have any staff. Then we had one member of staff – James Grayley – who stayed with us for 10 years and he was great. He then went on and started his own practice.

I think we particularly felt when we had our office at home that we had to have boundaries, so we always stopped work by 6:30. That was nice for us, but important for our staff as well. We‘ve always felt that working life should be nice and it should be hard work, but then you stop and you go home and you have other parts of your life. I think that‘s always been an important boundary for us.

When we worked from home, we always made lunch for everyone and ate together, and I think that was very nice. Now, our office is down the road from where we live. That‘s fantastic because we don‘t have to commute and most of our staff live nearby. We still don‘t work long hours; the working day stops at 6:00 or 6:30. We just try and make it a nice place to be and give people responsibility as well. I think what‘s interesting is that nearly everyone who has worked for us has since set up their own practice.

You and Alun remain actively engaged as design and pro­ject leaders, but you divide your responsibilities and lead projects individually. Why?

That was something we learned really early on. When it was just the two of us and we had small projects, we both used to work on everything together. One time we made a silly mistake, in which was one of us agreed one thing with the client and then forgot to tell the other person, and it had more serious repercussions and so after that, we decided that in terms of design, the conversation would be between both of us and that would happen in the office, but only one person would be the point of contact with the client. That meant that there was a clarity about what we were saying and what the client was saying to us. We‘ve always stuck to that since then.
In addition to your responsibilities leading the practice, running projects, being a parent, you have also taught. Why was it important for you to educate?

As new parents we were both working part-time in the practice, and Alun taught for a long time at various schools. I joined him teaching for a few years and we loved it. It gives the opportunity to have a much wider conversation, without the constraints of a real project. I find it incredibly stimulating.

I also was amazed by discovering how much you learn from your students – that was delightful. I remember my first-year architecture teacher saying that, and I thought it was kind of nonsense, but it‘s astonishing. I suppose it‘s not surprising really because all of these things are conversations and you learn from everything, but I wasn‘t expecting it in such a tangible way.

Then we had a year with three big projects to develop and we decided that we had to focus on the practice. Since then we‘ve been external examiners, both of us at different places, but we haven‘t yet returned to studio teaching.

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

I think we always try to not specialise, to be open to new projects and not see ourselves just in one bracket. What we have found to be increasingly the case and frustratingly limiting is that so many projects that we‘re bidding for now are for clients who want to see examples of something we’ve done which is exactly the same thing. It‘s as if the risk management world is limiting what you‘re creatively capable of. I think that‘s a disappointment because I think we could all be doing, learning and contributing to more things than those which seems practically within our reach. But I suppose what Alun and I always find most interesting is the idea of what culture is and what it comes back to do. That‘s always evolving and it‘s hard to know where that‘s going. You just always want to be able to be part of the conversation. —

About

Biba Dow

Biba Dow is a director of Dow Jones Architects. Current projects include a new building for Maggie’s Cancer Care in Cardiff, St Mary Magdalene Living Heritage Centre in Paddington and the redevelopment of Bevis Marks synagogue in London. She writes about architecture, is an external examiner at Kingston School of Architecture, a design review panel member, competition judge and was shortlisted this year for the Architect of the Year in the Women in Architecture Awards for the Garden Museum.

The post Design for Life: How to Balance Your Creative Practice appeared first on Archipreneur.

There are several approaches to starting out. Whether you choose to go off on your own straight after university or after a long career working in an established office, founding your own business is very different from studying or practicing architecture, and architectural education rarely prepares students with the business development skills to manage this process well.

Here is a general list of practical things you should keep in mind and questions you should ask yourself when setting up a new, lean office structure for your first few years.

Starting an Architecture Firm: Are You a Lean Starter or a Pro Starter?

First, consider your path. Are you interested in becoming a solo­preneur, starting from home and operating in the leanest way possible, or are you preparing for a full office set-up with a designated workspace and professional equipment? This will help guide your decision making when prioritizing how to invest in your business.

Where Are You?

The process of starting an architecture firm differs from country to country. The costs of incorporation, liability insurance and public financial sponsorship opportunities will vary depending on your location. Are there practical advantages to starting a business elsewhere? Where do you want to do the majority of your work? For the non-European digital nomad looking to work across Europe, consider looking into the Estonian e-Residency program.

Business Development Strategies for Architects

Start with Hardware

Computer hardware is the essential starting point of your ­office. If you’re buying a new hardware set up, first consider your minimum requirements. What software do you plan to use, and what are the hardware requirements of those programs? What were the specifications of your last computer? Hardware costs depend on a number of factors: size, speed, age, operating system, brand, desktop or laptop. Laptops are popular with new founders who benefit from working on the go and bringing a computer along to a client presentation.

New or refurbished?

For the lean starter, an all-in-one printer/ scanner could be enough in the beginning. Consider a model which prints A3 sheets for presentation drawings and pay attention to the cost of replacement toner cartridges before selecting a printer— ink can add up!

TIP: For best value, consider refurbished laptops. There are several refurbished Lenovo Thinkpad laptops on Amazon and an online Apple store specifically for refurbished models. Summertime is usually the most affordable time to invest in a new computer, when prices are low before the release of new computer models in the early autumn for new students.

There is also a secondhand market for used printers online, and many co-working spaces provide printing services – unlimited printing could even be included in your membership.

Alternatively, founders can start by printing at a local copy shop instead of purchasing a machine. If your work style isn’t very paper-heavy and only the occasional final drafts of drawings are printed in hard copy, this could be a sensible option. Copy shops often give you access to top of the line printing equipment and papers to bring your designs to life.

Many large architectural offices have their own A1 printers which can be useful for printing planning and construction drawings. These larger printers and plotters can be leased or bought.

TIP: If you’re considering investing in a new expensive printer, see if service plans are available. There is nothing more frustrating than your printer having an issue when you need it most. It can be very reassuring to have printer issues serviced by a professional for a nominal annual fee.

Select Your Software

Be mindful that software and web services costs can add up significantly and are often one of the largest recurring expenses when starting an architecture firm. Today, most software and web services are available on a monthly or annual subscription service. This was a welcomed shift for startups without substantial startup capital, but don’t let the low investment cost trick you into unnecessary subscriptions and licenses. Be pragmatic from the start and only subscribe to the programs you need the most. There is always the opportunity to add more software and ­services later on.

If you have worked in a larger office before you may be used to a package of smoothly running programs set up and maintained by a technical team. When starting on your own, the installation and maintenance of your software is likely down to you, so start with programs you’ve used before and that relate to types of work you have first. Ensure you’re able to produce high-quality 2D drawings and images before springing for 3D capability.

Don’t forget to sign up for a cloud-based backup and file storage service like Dropbox from the start. There’s nothing like pulling long hours to impress a new client and then having a computer crash. Set up automated backups from the start and you won’t regret it!

Take A Seat

The cost of furniture will vary depending on your start-up approach. For those starting lean and working from home, a co-working space or from a small, furnished office space this may not be a concern. However, for the new office starter, sensible startup furniture is comfortable, great value and looks professional, well-designed and welcoming for you, your colleagues and your clients. Remember that furnishing your own office should be a creative task and representative of your ­aesthetic as a practice.

Tools of the Trade

Don’t forget to invest in office supplies in the beginning: the right pens, paper, tracing paper and folders can boost productivity, help you stay organized and feel positive. If you know what you like, consider starting an online account for office supplies which can be easily reordered. While supplies won’t be your largest expense, these materials are fundamental to your workflow. Make sure you have what you need.

Be Reachable

If you’re not interested in using your personal mobile phone for business use, but a landline feels too outdated, consider getting a second mobile for work. You can often get a new device when you start a monthly contract with the service provider.

Alternatively, if you are looking for a new professional number but you don’t like the idea of having two phones in your pocket, consider services like Google Voice and Grasshopper VoIP in the US or fonial.de and sipgatebasis.de in Europe which will help to set up a VoIP landline and you can conveniently redirect incoming calls to your mobile phone.

Protect Yourself

Insurance for your business is crucial—you want to protect yourself and your work in any new business venture. In most countries it is mandatory to have a professional indemnity or liability insurance when you are starting an architecture firm. The cost will vary from country to country and depending on whether you have any employees and the types of services you provide regularly. Reach out to insurance brokers who have helped start up architects before and will be eager to help you find the best policy and rate, or get at least 3 different quotes from insurance companies specialized in architect insurances. The price ranges of the companies are often very wide spread, so you will want to compare to find the best rate. If your buildings and tasks become larger, you may need to adapt the scope of your coverage, which is easily done.

Pay the Professionals

Business consulting advice is a great idea and valuable expense for first-time founders. Start by liaising with a lawyer, accountant or a business consultant who will help you fill in any gaps in your knowledge or understanding of the business start-up process.

Different corporate structures or types of businesses will have different incorporation and legal setup costs in the beginning. This will also vary drastically from country to country. In the US you could form an LLC, and in the UK an Ltd. Is a relatively simple and low-cost option. In other countries forming a company can be more expensive.

If you are starting lean in many countries, you can start as a sole proprietorship, or a partnership when you start as a team of founders. It might make sense to create incorporation documents to clarify the ownership levels of stakeholders or to protect the founders as private individuals in a legal company structure from liability issues.

Remember that as a new business, it is important to put systems in place to carefully track and pay your business taxes. This can be a particularly stressful area for architectural founders so if you don’t feel particularly proficient in this area, consider hiring a bookkeeping service for your annual tax filings so you can focus on your core asset, designing buildings.

You’re A Professional Too

Before you are starting an architecture firm you will need to register and pay for your architectural license which will cost a yearly fee charged by your architecture association of your country. Again, this fee will vary from country to country or in the US from state to state.

Promote Yourself

Your website is your business card. At the beginning you may not have many projects to show, but it’s more important that you have a professional online presence. You can achieve it with a simple one-page website if necessary.

If you’re in a hurry, consider using web hosting and design services like Squarespace. Prices are affordable and there are many attractive web templates to choose from.

If you are interested in designing your website yourself, you can lay out your pages with Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator and then partner with a web developer to publish your design online. You can find freelance web developers at websites like Upwork. You will need to buy a domain and pay for recurring web hosting from a site like GoDaddy or Bluehost.

The same is true for corporate identity and branding. As a lean starter you may be enticed to design your own logo, email signatures and title block. However, for a pro-started consider hiring a professional graphic designer, web designer or agency to design your corporate identity.

Business cards may seem old fashioned. For example, handing out cards really comes in handy when you’re focused on networking and presenting your new enterprise in the best possible light.

TIP: Moo.com is a great resource for contemporary business cards.

In conclusion, this is only the lean backbone for starting an architecture firm. Your real work will be to find your clients. In addition, getting your first projects and build your portfolio as your expand your practice. Here is a practical checklist for starting an architecture firm:

Lean Design Startup Checklist

General

• Decide on your location
• Decide on your practice name
• Determine your starting budget
• Register as a practicing architect

Business

• Schedule appointments at lawyer, accountant & business consultant (and take notes!)
• Choose your form of organization
• Set up an business bank account
• Get your professional liability insurance

Office

• Buy necessary hardware
• (laptop, monitor, all-in-one printer/ scanner)
• Decide on necessary furniture and office supplies
• Subscribe to the software solutions your need for the start
• Set up mobile phone and landline if you need it

Marketing

• Register domain name
• Setup lean website and email addresses of founders
• Setup social media accounts
• Print business cards

Go find clients!

The post Starting an Architecture Firm: Practical Steps for Taking The Leap appeared first on Archipreneur.

WHAT IS ARCHITECTURAL THINKING?
“Architectural thinking focuses on what ought to be, and less on what is possible or market proven. It embraces complexity, challenges the existing state and works prospectively on an alternative desired one, against contradictions. With a prototype-mindset it constantly moves between problem and solution space while analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating an ­approach. The architects’ ability for synthesis relates to the real world, it seeks for application as a new whole. Architects are used to think at different scales from abstract masterplans to concrete details in 1:1. They reflect-in-action visually with sketches, diagrams, drawings and models – whether for a building to develop, a system or an organization. Thinking of relations in space and time, architects have to imagine and consider the implications and consequences when a design is going to be built – a truly holistic approach with a long-term perspective.”

Christos Chantzaras

As technology accelerates into every professional industry, it’s crucial for architectural education to pro­gress from teaching only a traditional building design process. At Technical University of Munich (TUM), a new research department is focusing on the interdisciplinary development and research competencies in ­architecture. We talked to Dr. Gerhard Schubert and Christos Chantzaras, two of the initiators of the Architectu­ral Research Incubator (ARI) about their idea, mission and the future goals of their new platform approach.

Research and Collaboration in Architecture

The Architectural Research Incubator (ARI) was created with the aim of strengthening research competencies in architectural education. “Traditionally, architectural education is focusing on the building design process rather than research. Students are mostly confronted with this topic, but there are also students who will actually not build an opera house or want to become a starchitect” says Gerhard Schubert, Director of ARI. In addition to teaching the traditional curriculum, Schubert and Chantzaras believe it is fundamental to pursue experimental research and interdisciplinary exchange to open up opportunities for architecture to interface with other industries.

When establishing the ARI, the first step was to encourage collaboration among the existing faculty. Within the university, research-focused departments collaborated with design-focused departments to form a network. The goal of this network is to think broadly about new ­opportunities for multidisciplinary research with architecture and urban design.

“We want to promote research in ­architecture and connect architecture students with other disciplines, to engage with topics that are not ready for market yet, but which are at the ­interface between university and industry. We want to create new solutions through architectural thinking”, says Christos Chantzaras. With a background in architecture and ­management, Chantzaras operates the ARI in connection with his doctoral research on the impact of architectural thinking for designing companies at a strategic level.

The ARI’s approach to creating a collaborative, multidisciplinary architectural research program has two phases. The first objective is to empower the researcher as an individual and research-driven teaching at the faculty level of architectural education. The second aim is to encourage a stronger connection across disciplines in order to produce new innovative solutions through design research. “The topics our students are investigating are not monofunctional, but holistic. They are exploring questions beyond the building design process, like ‘what does work mean today? And, what is sustainability?’. These topics are also explored with the help of technology through simulations, software and architectural informatics”, explains Gerhard Schubert.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Prototyping

Forming interdisciplinary teams of students is an important aspect. To ensure these ­partnerships are made, for example between ­architecture and computer science students, requirements for internships are ­formulated. The research groups, also called labs, gain practical experience by working on a complex task from real-life environments. The groups created through ARI since 2017 have produced several prototype solutions stemming from ­research-focused collaboration:

Urban Micro Climate Canopy

Urban Micro Climate Canopy is an innovative plant-technical composite structure that opens up new possibilities for improving the microclimate in our cities. The robotically manufactured lightweight construction contains climbing plants and mosses. This project was developed by a team of architects, landscape architects and engineers from the Technical University of Munich (TUM), and it is the first experimental structure of a research cooperation between the Chair of Green Technologies in Landscape Architecture (TUM), the Chair of Building Technology and Climate-Friendly Building (TUM) and FibR GmbH from Stuttgart.

Repetitive Structures

Repetitive Structures is an ongoing research project at the Chair of Structural Design (TUM). aiming to simplify the construction of doubly curved support structures. The interdisciplinary team of architects, mathematicians and engineers is investigating the curvature behavior of surfaces and networks with the goal to design and construct gridshells with repetitive geometric parameters.

Through physical and computational experiments, the team demonstrates new possibilities for an intelligent symbiosis of form, structure and fabrication. One key strategy is the elastic bending of initially flat elements into a curved geometry in order to achieve a double curved shape and thus a highly efficient load-bearing behavior.

The INSIDE\OUT pavilion is the first ­architectural prototype of this research. It utilizes so-called asymptotic curves on a minimal surface, which allows for a homogenous network with repetitive nodes and straight developable strips.

While the design process relies heavily on computational tools to optimize the surface geometry and find the network curves, the construction itself becomes very simple. The flat and straight lamellas are slotted together by hand and can be deformed into their design shape without formwork. All joints are identical and rectangular allow the use of standardized parts.

The 90m² large pavilion is located at the central campus of the Technical University of Munich. It was constructed from steel lamellas with a thickness of only 1.5mm. The pavilion spans up to 9 m with a surface weight of only 18 kg/m². It is a symbol for new technologies and lightweight construction and is used as a venue for the 150th anniversary of the TUM.

CDP // Energy 3

Preliminary decisions in the early stages of an urban design project can have a significant influence on the thermal and energetic performance of proposed buildings on a site. However, the impacts of factors such as Solar Potential, District Heating Networks and Wind, e.g. are often not adequately considered in the early stages of planning, particularly at an urban development level.

The Collaborative Design Platform (CDP) is an urban development-oriented computer platform designed by the Chair of Architectural Informatics (Prof. Dr.-Ing. Frank Petzold) . Through cooperation with the Chair of Building Technology and Climate-Friendly Construction (Prof. Thomas Auer), the CDP has been expanded to enhance the urban planning, energetic and spatial optimization of projects in the early planning phase. This research approach combines the evaluation of exterior spatial quality, interior quality and energy efficiency at an urban development level, by seamlessly integrating this data into a creative computer-assisted interdisciplinary design and planning process.

The CDP research group is led by Dr. Schubert, an experienced researcher at the intersection of computer science and architecture. Schubert’s research focus is on Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and interactive design tools for urban architectural design, including the creation of an interactive planning tool as a table device which supports architects in the urban design process.

Architectural thinking and its potential for the future

Now that several ARI research groups have been formed and have launched prototype solutions for various academic research ­projects, the next step is to introduce the ARI to industries across creative, consulting, real estate, manufacturing and automotive fields, and explore a further direction: how can architectural research and reasoning help companies find creative solutions to complex tasks within their organizations. This will challenge the traditional practice model for architects and test new ways of applying architectural thinking to other disciplines.

Schubert and Chantzaras believe “the core asset of architects is the ability to solve complex problems with their skillset.” One aspect of the architectural skillset involves ­design thinking, a term recently marketed and popularized by the industrial design sector. The iterative part of the industrial design thinking process aims to produce better product solutions for market fit by integrating the client or customer’s feedback and learning from it. The ARI is working out the differences between ­architectural and industrial design thinking, and how architectural thinking is better positioned to help companies seeking for better solutions.

Legendary British architect Denys Lasdun (1965) explained the theoretical nature of architectural thinking: “Our job is to give the client … not what he wants, but what he never dreamed he wanted; and when he gets it, he recognizes it as something he wanted all the time.”4 In this way, architectural thinking goes beyond the commonly understood notion of design thinking by imagining and anticipating the wants and needs of the client before their feedback is even available.

Design thinking, which is driven and reiterated according to customer feedback, can be considered a capitalistic approach. Since true innovation is not always determined by consumers and market preferences, architectural thinking has the power to find solutions beyond building design, an approach which could be valuable for large companies too. Interfaced with technology, this can be a powerful tool to create change in organizations. The ARI is now partnering with several industry leaders as from automotive in which researchers are carrying out their doctoral project with a specific use-case application or implementation.

The ARI is also testing new collaborative workshop formats as a creative business game called ‘Start-Up Architecture’. In this two-day workshop, students from architecture, design, management and informatics work together with consulting firms and medium or large sized architectural practices to tackle big questions: Can architects transform their potentials into new competitive advantages in the future? What processes need to be changed? What will architectural offices look like in the future and how will they integrate new technologies? How will the built environment industry be disrupted by augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI)?

“Consultants are jumping into the construction industry and intersecting fields right now, but this seems to pass by the architects”, Christos Chantzaras says. The ARI´s mission is to actively drive change by connecting research and education in architecture with creative industries and businesses – a challenging, but necessary process to engage architects in complex business realities of the future and raise the awareness for the potentials of architectural thinking.

The post How Architectural Thinking and Research Collaboration Brings Value to Creative Industries appeared first on Archipreneur.

Over recent decades the built environ­ment and architecture industries have maintained an inward-looking attitude, keeping themselves outside of relevant conversations with other and overlooking opportunities and new territories to conquer. The future of the built environment will require leaders with an expanded and renewed vision of the field: leaders with the sharpness and skills to identify real-world problems coming from a wider range of sources, who are able to transform them into innovative and impactful business opportunities that connect better with society and add more value to it.

The omnipresence of technology, but also factors like demographic pressure, mass urbanization or environmental threats are transforming how we plan, understand and interact with space: how we live. Dealing this ­conundrum requires evolving faster than our context. Built environment professionals represent a rare and talented group, composed of great system-thinkers, minds that blend ­creativity with analytical capacity, and exceptional strategists. Leveraging this talent through a much wider perspective does not mean forgetting the role we have performed traditionally, but it does require questioning the status-quo constantly: like a growing tree, the higher and wider we aim for, the deeper our roots must dig down. Keeping in mind the following simple ideas can play a relevant role in guiding us through this exciting work.

Management: The balance for design innovation

The greatest creative processes are often divergent and unstructured. However, the companies that make them possible, and the world that they aim to impact require a deep understanding of management, strategy, business communication and development, among other fields. Giving importance to these matters in the built environment realm connects design professionals to fundamental tools for better channelling the potential of their work, understanding and implementing positive working dynamics in the field. Nowadays, fundamental design innovation can only take place as a result of simultaneous approaches from both ends: design itself, and the principles and opportunities of a business-aware attitude.

Spatial design is a polivalent skill

Even today, the terms architecture, design and planning are associated with the production of principally tangible “brick and mortar” spaces. We are failing in our mission to communicate the power of the complex problem solving skills implied in spatial design, which are directly applicable to many contemporary and complementary fields. Technology is opening some of the many opportunities, from data applied to the city, to the system-thinking that is required in platforms and other digital business models, or the need for convincing solutions that blend spaces, services, data, clients and experiences: a mix that will define many markets and companies in the coming years. Companies such as UNStudio, with it’s spinoff UNSense, are leveraging their capacities with well-identified opportunities midway between technology, sensorial experience, and physical space. If we expect to create and respond to new opportunities, we must first understand that we are the right professionals for it, and why. With this perspective in mind, our approach to design and our work become wider, which is an important step to better connect with society.

Impact vs authorship

Evolving faster than our context, leading in ­today’s environment of change, requires a shift from an authorship-based model to an impact-oriented one. Putting impact at the top of the scale of values in our organizations drives us toward a more solid and transdisciplinary collaboration, an enhanced workers’ ownership over what they do, a more efficient use of resources and more responsive structures capable of growing and adapting to innovation and facing complex challenges. This ends up empowering more creativity: teams ­generally push back prejudices or boundaries much more than individuals, which again, brings work closer to society, which is diverse above all. In this approach, authorship and creation essentially belong to teams and are valuable to the extent that they empower organizations with a more significant role.

Wider communication and partnering

The impact-oriented approach also allows greater freedom to conceive what it means to create value and how it can be delivered. We should expect more than passively receiving previously delimited silos or problems to work on (i.e. buildings to be built in a plot), or to remain limited to collaborations with a set of disciplines in established ways (i.e. classic consultants). This is a valuable part of our work, but we should also aim to orchestrate wider and more diverse systems, opportunities and actions. Companies like Design Intelligence, Shop Architects and UNSense are working along these lines with different teams and approaches ranging from business research to real estate or technology development. This more ambitious positioning pushes organizations to “speak new languages” and communicate better at the peer-to-peer, professional and public levels. We must devote attention to communicating ideas to audiences that conceive and solve problems in very different ways to us. We should collaborate closer with them. The challenge resides not only in translating our thoughts, but also in learning to think like they do to some extent, and to incorporate them into the daily work of our organizations.

Entrepreneurial mindset

Considering the exponential transformation of the built-environment industry, there are multiple opportunities ahead. The entrepreneurial mindset is partly an attitude of constant search for those opportunities in our daily work, combined with the mastery of a series of principles of business and management that make us more effective. Creating value depends on identifying industry problems and solving them. We must define both qualitatively and quantitatively what is the value we are delivering if we solve a certain problem, and how we can create companies around this, by capturing a portion of that value. Great companies in all industries are founded on the basis of a well-framed problem and a brilliant execution of the solution. IKEA for instance, identified a number of issues related to the traditional experience of buying domestic furniture, like the difficulty of transporting already-assembled pieces, or the lack of a single place where customers could find everything they might need. Brilliant execution came through attractive designs at affordable prices packed in flat boxes that fit within regular cars: the rest is a longer story, but the principle of problem and opportunity framing is the same across different industries, and we are no exception.

Iterative innovation

Since the entrepreneurial mindset implies setting out into the unknown to some extent, contemporary entrepreneurship has adopted lean approaches to increase efficiency and improve value creation and market fit while pursuing business opportunities (Expanded understanding of design example: read our interview with Flissade as one great example). This consists of testing value propositions through incrementally complex product or service iterations, and it allows numerous trial and error processes in which refinements are incorporated every time. This experimental way of working, which is part of the “learning by doing” philosophy, is also part of the DNA of designers. We need only to better understand the methodologies involved to use it with a less inward looking perspective, and a more business and client-oriented one. Training professionals and incorporating these methods in our organizations is fundamental to raise the speed of innovation in our industries.

Scalability and problem framing

One of the most exciting possibilities of entrepreneurship is finding a problem that affects many people in one industry. Creating a solution that is easily applicable to all consumers, regardless of their subtle differences, is an important part of scalable businesses. This requires a systemic approach: the innovator needs to understand how the specific problem affects one specific user that s/he might be interacting with, as well as the shared core of the problem for the most representative type of user— this can be the base of a company’s value-proposition. The extended consultancy model in architecture and design companies for so long –in which the value corresponds to a capacity that is measured by the sum of individual solutions to specific problems—could be complemented by this approach in two ways. Firstly, to communicate better: companies can reflect about the connection and the shared value between their individiual solutions to problems –projects—and deliver a more solid message about what is their essential value proposition. Secondly and more importantly, it can help them to enter territories in which case-by-case action is not applicable. These precisely tend to be situations that impact the field more systematically, and are one of the key territories to understand if we want to remain relevant, control our own industry and again, innovate faster. Recent initiatives like Architizer Source of Material Bank represent well this systemic approach, to tackle the problems of material sourcing and sample distribution efficiency.

Developing leadership and talent

As the complexity of our contexts and organizations increases, the more important it becomes to excel at finding and managing the right talent. Under a vision in which partnering for impact is fundamental, we must strive to map and define what capacities and attitudes are most needed to transform the built environment and how they can complement each other, besides the traditional and most extended profiles. This is part of the task of understanding what built-environment professionals are required to be. As leaders of our organizations, we must design structures that empower a sense of ownership, initiative, flexibility and collaboration. From the education side, we should work to enhance multicultural and interdisciplinary collaboration, but also pursue holistic leadership by devoting time to professional self-awareness and strategic vision, which are key to establishing open organizations with clear goals where people can excel.

A global perspective

Returning to where we started, training leaders with an expanded understanding of design away from idealistic approaches requires adopting a global perspective when framing and implementing business and design ideas. Impact at the local level also depends on this exercise, which can throw light onto opportunities that professionals centered on their immediate environments often neglect. Bringing in diverse voices and working alongside institutions from architect associations to global economic players such as development banks or leaders in technology and data is fundamental to acquire this realistic global vision. For instance, the latest Survey of the Architectural Profession of the Commonwealth Architect’s Association presents concerning facts about the substantial gap between the presence of architects and the need for their expertise in many regions of the world. This situation that is not only an opportunity if we think strategically, but more importantly raises flags about the potential consequences of the lack of planning in mass urbanization in these regions.

The ideas introduced here are deeply interconnected, as well as with other many facets of design and management that are not the focus of this article. The questions that they raise are part of a natural redefinition of our field. Despite being solidly rooted in other industries, built environment designers have left them aside for too long. Leading this process of redefinition is an exciting commitment, and I can’t think of a more privileged position for these times of change and opportunity than the one of educators.

About

Jerónimo van Schendel

Jerónimo van Schendel is a Spanish-Colombian Architect, graduated from ETSAM in 2011 and Master in Architecture (M.Arch II) with Distinction, from Harvard University Graduate School of Design since 2016. He has worked with some of the most renowned architects in Spain, such as Cruz y Ortiz, Rafael Moneo or AS+, and is an IDEO SF CoLab Fellow 2016 (Iot & Blockchain Innovation Lab). Jerónimo currently serves as Office Manager at Abalos+Sentkiewicz AS+, with several projects in Spain, China and Latin América. His independent work is focused on identifying scalable entrepreneurship opportunities in the intersection of design, AEC, and technology, mainly through platform business models.

Expanded understanding of design examples from Archipreneur:

Minimal, Modular & Mobile: Cabin One is a New Way of Flexible Living – Cabin.one

Architectural Sketching: Teaching a Skill and Building a Business with David Drazil

Transforming Practice: Chris Precht Represents a New Generation of Design Entrepreneurs

Automating Construction: Improving On-Site Logistics through Robotics and Data Analytics

Sensors for Cities: Ben van Berkel Explores Technology-Integrated Urban Design

Bimarium Objects: A New 3D BIM Platform That Helps Architects Create Better, Smarter Designs

How Morpholio Apps Revolutionizes the Creative Design Workflow

The post Thinking Ahead: Towards an Expanded Understanding of Design appeared first on Archipreneur.

+6

Why did you decide to found CO-Office?

There are two reasons why we started CO-Office that are interconnected.
My business partner, Simon, and I both worked for very well known, established design firms prior to starting our company, and in our previous work experiences, we both found that our engagement with the client and particularly with the end user was sorely lacking.

I think this was a condition of the traditional architectural design process, in that it’s not really there to engage the client and end users in a truly meaningful or productive way. As a designer, you’re more often than not stuck in a kind of endless design optioneering cycle, where the process isn’t there to intelligently gather insights, take feedback from clients and end users, and make it useful.

Both because we wanted solve this missing piece of the puzzle, and because we thought we could make the process of design in architecture more efficient and effective, we decided to go off on our own to test these ideas.

Why did you name your company CO-Office?

It’s about working collaboratively. That’s where the CO comes from. We are very open to working, often joint-venturing with other designers and professionals on projects. Being in New York City, and part of an ecosystem where many people are also starting up their own practice and going through the same pains and challenges, it made sense to partner up rather than work in silos in order to share expertise, minds and talents.

I would say, in general, people who are starting businesses right now are very open to this idea of working. This wasn’t always the case, but I think people are more open to it now because of the increasing competition in the city, and also because the nature of creative practice necessitates this way of working together. You can’t deny the collaborative and the productive value of having other minds think about the same problem. We found it can only achieve better results.

At CO-Office, you practice “UX Design for space.” What does that mean?

We had an intuitive idea that to have a successfully designed space you have to first understand how the end user is going to use it. Whereas traditional design typically started at program and form, we were instead interested in starting at human behavior.

We didn’t have a sense at the start of how this could necessarily translate to a business idea, but it was more of a sensibility towards the way that we wanted to design and practice.

For one of our first projects, we were approached by a real estate broker who wanted us to design an office space in New York City. We conducted an intensive period of research with him and his real estate agents and found out that on average, they only used their office space about 15% of the time during the work week. When we presented this finding to the client, he was shocked and then the question became, what can we do about the other 85% of time when the space wasn’t being used?

We proposed to turn the office space into a co-working space that is able to generate additional revenue. Then we discovered that our client was also very involved in the art world and that Harlem has an increasing population of artists but only limited space to show their work, so we decided that rather than having a dull reception space which nobody would have used anyways, to turn that into an art gallery instead.

“I think this project is a good example of how a different design process can positively affect the end product, and how understanding human behavior and patterns, can create opportunities for smart design.”

To this day, we have had over a dozen shows and have featured over 50 artists. The space has become a destination in the community and coincidentally, if you can afford to buy art, you can also afford to buy a townhouse so it has also supported the real estate business. As for the co-working space, we actually decided to move in shortly after construction, along with a developer and real estate attorney. By joining the client and his brokerage team, there is now this eco-system that didn’t exist before, which was only possible through our early discovery. I think this project is a good example of how a different design process can positively affect the end product, and how understanding human behavior and patterns, can create opportunities for smart design.

When you compare the design processes of UX designers and architects, what do you think the architecture world could learn from the UX world, or vice versa?

Architecture and UX design processes are similar in the sense that they both end with human engagement. The difference is that UX design also fundamentally starts with human engagement as well, utilizing a more lean and agile, bottom-up approach, whereas the traditional architecture design process works the other way around where you start with a set of master-planning principles, then develop that into program and massing ideas and so on.

The problem is that in this top down approach, the end-user typically gets lost in the process or is often completely left out altogether. After a lot of the formal characteristics of a building get baked in, typically there’s no longer the opportunity to understand how the design of a space can positively support or create new opportunities for the people who will use it.

I think architects can learn from the UX world by taking on more of its human-centered design principles: let human behavior and patterns dictate form and interface, be more agile and open to unforeseen possibilities, and develop leaner design processes that can quickly gather information and convey results.

After a building is completed, how can user data be fed back into an architectural design refinement process?

That’s both the challenge and the opportunity. UX design processes are developed for digital products which will never involve the amount of materials and professional services required compared to a building, therefore the ability to gather feedback, prototype, and then re-deploy is possible at a much faster rate. But, that’s also an opportunity for the building industry to learn from the tech world. It does however require a fundamental re-thinking about how we design, but maybe more importantly, about how our buildings are built.

How do you integrate user data into your work?

We recently finished a project for a flagship optical retail and medical office in New York where we found out during our early ­discovery process that patients were waiting 45 minutes on average for every appointment. That’s crazy when you think about what the customer satisfaction level must be like. We also discovered that a doctor’s insurance payout for each patient visit is in part directly based on value-based metrics, with customer satisfaction being one of those key metrics. Additionally, the lack of focus on patient experience also had a negative impact on the retail side of the eyewear business, and furthermore in attracting new patients.

When we discovered this, we knew we couldn’t just ignore it. The question was then how can we design something that is beautiful and improves on the user experience and bottom line of the business? In our pre-occupancy analysis, we found out that a large part of the problem had to do with the way the existing reception space was set up: uncomfortable plastic chairs, fluorescent lighting, packed and inaccessible display cases, and a general lack of flow and circulation. Staff sat behind large kiosks which further distanced human-to-human interaction.

Knowing that we had to solve the reception space before anything else, we focused our efforts and came up with a concept to transform the waiting room to a kind of living room, opening up space around a central lounge area and creating a series of recessed arcades along the perimeter of the room for the eyewear displays. We then carried this design language through to the rest of medical office and staff spaces, and carefully selected finishes and lighting that would create a comfortable yet elevated experience.

To reduce patient wait times, we worked with our client to implement organization and behavioral change in two different ways: one was to eliminate any behind the desk interaction so that patients engage with staff face-to-face without a physical obstruction. In this sense, the patients were thought of as guests and the staff as hosts. To make this type of interaction possible without it being a logistical nightmare, we also helped the staff transition to a mobile booking and POS system. This way, the staff no longer needed to be stationary in order to do their jobs.

Since the office reopened, our client has reported astonishing results: eyewear sales were up about 30% in just the first month, the practice has started to attract younger patients (20’s – 30’s) while retaining its core patients (30+), and most importantly, the staff have reported that patients in general feel happier and more satisfied with their experience. We’re still waiting on the results of how this will eventually impact the insurance payouts, but that will be part of a larger post-occupancy study we will do 6 months later.

What projects are you working on currently?

We’re working on a multi-phase office design for a super cool cybersecurity company that’s been backed by the CIA and the Department of Defense.

We’re working on a hotel in Chicago with our amazing hospitality partner, John Perez, who’s based in Miami.

We’re working with a developer to draw tenants to a very beautiful and historic building in a tough neighborhood.

We also have three townhouse projects in New York in various stages of design and construction, and we are about to start on two mixed use projects in New York City.

How do use VR technology in your design process? Is this service being specifically requested by your clients or is it a preferred tool for your practice?

VR is something that clients don’t typically ask for, and party because they don’t know it will be useful for them as it’s still a relatively new technology. The way that VR became a core aspect of our design practice was actually by sheer coincidence. We thought it was a really cool thing when it first came out, so Simon and I got the DK2, the development kit for the first Oculus Rift and we just started playing with it.

We didn’t really intend to use it as a design tool, but we found that it was incredibly helpful in communicating ideas and experiencing our designs at scale. So, we started to test it with some of our earlier clients and it was really impactful in the sense that it helped them make decisions much faster and it got us away from having to do design options in the sense that we could have the client inhabit our designs in real time.

Part of the job of architects during the design phase is to convey the experience of the space as well as possible, right? It’s always very difficult to do that through two-dimensional means. Not ­everybody understands a plan or a detail or a section, but everybody understands the experience of space, so the ability to immerse somebody immediately into that allows them to tap into the design process in a way that was never before possible. Now VR is part of our core design process. We use it internally as much as we use it with our clients and at this point it’s pretty ingrained.

What technology or programs are you using for VR?

This depends on a couple of different use cases. We use every­thing from the Google Cardboard for an experience that’s much faster and more agile, to the HTC Vive, which currently offers the most immersive experience. We’ve been working with IrisVR since they were a very young company and they’ve now grown into a very successful one, so they’ve been really good to us and we continue to use their software. We also do more customized experiences depending on what the client may want, but whether the intent is to move the design to the next stage, or for marketing purposes, I think VR is invaluable to the design process.

How does the VR software integrate with your 3D modeling?

IrisVR actually plugs directly into our modeling software. We use BIM (Building Information Modelling) in all of our designs. With BIM, the concept is that you’re able to embed construction metadata into your design, modelling, and drawing process, so it’s very useful and efficient going directly from that kind of design process into VR because it allows you to connect the construction experience to the design experience.

What advice do you have for architects who may be reluctant to use VR?

I see VR as a different way to think about your design and design process that is completely liberating. When you create a 2D rendering, as a designer you have a lot of control over the image. Often times, architects can get too caught up in creating a perfect image. In a 2D image, you can’t turn around and see what’s behind you, you can’t look up and you can’t look down. In VR, everything is exposed, so there’s this degree of transparency that a lot of architects may be uncomfortable with, but we see it as a productive aspect because it allows a complete understanding of the project.

This is the case not only from the client side but also with our consultants, engineers and contractors. It’s really a tool that in some ways levels the playing field and allows everybody to speak the same language. We really embrace it, knowing that once you turn around, something may not necessarily be completely resolved, but that’s okay. In our experience, clients are okay with it as well. They appreciate the transparency and it actually makes for a more productive design conversation.

How should more quantitative information be used during the initial design process, before there is a completed building or product?

Simon and I once did a study with our long-time collaborator George Valdes where we asked a really simple question: can something as mundane as the height of a ceiling affect the way that somebody thinks in a space?”

In looking to see if anyone had done a similar study, we found a 2007 paper from Rice University where two researchers had built two test environments: one with a taller ceiling height, one with a lower ceiling height and they tested different cognitive responses. They found that the space with the lower ceiling height was more conducive to analytical, item-specific thinking, while the space with the higher ceiling height was much more conducive to relational and creative thinking.

However, we weren’t completely satisfied with the qualitative way the researchers had approached these experiments and so we wanted to see whether or not we could prove this through more quantitative means. We turned to BCI technology, which is short for brain-computer interface.

We conducted a very similar type of experiment, but all through simulation. Our subjects were hooked up to a BCI computer which measured their brainwaves. We were using a piece of technology called NeuroSky, which was one of the few kinds of commercially available BCI technologies available at the time. NeuroSky essentially measures the alpha, beta, theta, and delta waves of your brain and it categorizes them into two pools, one which is attention, the other which is meditation. The meditative brainwaves (alpha, theta, delta) correspond to creative thinking processes, whereas the attentive brainwaves (low to high beta) correspond to more analytical thinking.

I wish I could see design and business together in a sentence more often.

Our test subjects went through a process where they were asked to solve a difficult problem in two different virtual environments, one with a lower ceiling height, one with a higher ceiling height. We were then able to measure their brain waves during this process, and to our surprise, we found that the data actually correlated with the Rice study! When people were in the taller space, we saw higher readings of meditative brain states whereas in the shorter space, the attentive states took over. In the debrief sessions afterwards, subjects were asked to share their thinking in each scenario and almost all said that while they resorted to more item-specific methods such as counting in the shorter space, they were able to come up with much more creative solutions in the taller space.

I think the implication of our study is that wherein traditionally a designer or an architect might say, “Hey, wouldn’t it be great for this conference room to have a 15-foot ceiling?”, now we can actually prove that having a 15-foot ceiling in a creative meeting setting would be productive for the type of activity that’s happening there. From a design perspective, understanding the data around how people use space can only make design better and it’s not at the sacrifice of design really, rather it’s something that can help to support and enhance it.

The challenge here is that we don’t have the tools yet to collect all of the data we want, so increasingly architects also need to expand their skill sets, and look for tools outside of the industry.

Do you think the title “architect” limits the scope of architectural work today?

I think that’s a very relevant and important question. I’m not sure if I have a great answer for that. I do think that calling somebody an architect does have certain limitations and I think those limitations are set by the industry and also by the profession in that there’s a traditional expectation of what architects can and should do. And then there’s also the legal requirements around licensing and professional certification which are meant to protect the profession. It’s hard to divorce that association with what an architect does which goes beyond those responsibilities.

Perhaps the idea is not to reinvent the title of “architect”, but to change the perception around its associations. The title itself is quite broad when you think of it in relation to the tech world, but I think within our industry’s perspective, it’s actually quite narrow. Maybe the way to change the perspective is through the process of design and its impact on the product or the building. If your process is different enough that it takes you outside of your typical professional roles and responsibilities and you are able to produce a better product at the end, then you can take that and say, “look, I did this totally new thing and it created something meaningful and better than what it would have been otherwise”.

Is good design good business?

Absolutely. For us, good design isn’t just about beauty and ­function. It’s also about creating meaningful experiences. People often talk about their Return on Investment, but we always like to ask what about your Return on Culture?

To break that down, I like to think of Return on Culture as the net productive social capital gained from the operationalizing of an organization’s core values. Social capital is therefore human-centric by nature and can be measured through things like: personal and collective happiness, individual and team productivity, and social and economic resiliency. These factors are often left out of the traditional architectural design process and so what happens? Businesses fail because they can’t diversify their products and services, and companies lose employees and clients because they’re dissatisfied. Once you’re here, it doesn’t matter how much money you have spent on your space because it might not stick around with you.

I wish I could see design and business together in a sentence more often.
What advice do you have for other designers who want to start out?

Take a business course. There’s a lot about starting a business that’s not so exciting that they don’t teach you at architecture school and that’s a persistent problem in the U.S. You could also work at a firm like ours which gives you exposure to the business side of the practice. Or, if you’re working at a larger firm, I would ask your project leader or the administrative partner directly to get some business experience.

I would also speak to everybody you know who has personal experience starting a company. There’s always a lot of trial and error, but there’s never a point in making the same mistake twice if you can avoid it.

What does the future of architecture look like?

When I think about the future, I inevitably think about the past. If you look at the ‘60s to the ‘80’s, the transition from hand drawing to CAD technology led to the liberation of the architect from the means of production which was huge because for the first time, we had more time focus on the thing that produces the most value: design. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, there was computational design, and Frank Gehry is the perfect example here along with the design of Guggenheim Bilbao, which I visited recently. It’s amazing to go there and see this building as something that was built the ‘90s. What made this building possible was Gehry’s use of Catia, which at the time was primarily a design tool for aerospace engineers. By adopting this technology, Gehry and other designers like him set the precedent for all of computational design today. Then of course we get to the 2000’s which was the advent of BIM technology, which a large majority of the industry has now adopted and which is still continuing to grow in intelligence and complexity.

I think architecture has always benefited from the evolution of technology which have allowed architects to focus more on the things that they like to do, but it’s also allowed them to better connect with other professionals: computational design with engineers, and BIM with construction managers. I see VR and AR (augmented reality) as technologies in this lineage that are helping architects, engineers, and other professionals connect more closely with the client and end-user, and I think technology has and will continue to have a really important role for architecture.

From the building perspective, sensory technology is starting to play a big role. The ability to gather and analyze user data in order to modulate the building environment, and to create feedback loops between the user, designer, and the building will be huge for how we think about design. I think we will increasingly rely less on anecdotal or qualitative answers to answer questions and more so on quantitative data.

“For now, design is still very much a human-centric process, and we as designers should celebrate that.”

The biggest challenge I see facing architects and other professions as well is our increasing move towards automation. There are many aspects of an architect’s role that can both benefit from and be completely upheaved by automation. How much of our current roles and responsibilities we will eventually retain or will ultimately be automated remains to be seen, but one thing I do know is that at least for now, design is still very much a human-centric process, and we as designers should celebrate that. —

About

David Zhai

David Zhai is a co-founder and the Director of Design and User Experience at CO-Office, a spatial design consultancy based in New York City working at the intersection of live, work, and play. David leads research, strategy, and design for collaborative work environments, experiential retail, hospitality, and community-driven residential projects.

Prior to this role, David was the BIM and computational technologies lead for the design of World Trade Tower 2 at Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), where he also led research and development in virtual reality.

David is a recipient of the Graham Foundation grant on his research into company and organizational culture and its effects on workplace environments, domestic life, and urban transformation.

David holds a Master’s of Architecture from Columbia University GSAPP, where he was the recipient of the Kinne Fellowship Award, the Lowenfish Memorial Award, and the Design Excellence Award, and where he has taught in the Master’s program since 2012.

Simon McGown

Simon McGown is a co-founder and the Director of Design & Development at CO-Office. Simon leads acquisitions, new business, and project management by combining user-centered design with business development and real estate expertise.

Simon is also a licensed real estate agent with Compass focused on developing joint venture and investment opportunities that benefit the social bottom line in the New York City region.

Prior to cofounding CO-Office, Simon was a project designer for the Bloomberg Center for Cornell University’s new Roosevelt Island campus and for the Bill & Melinda Gates Hall for Cornell University’s Ithaca campus at Pritzker Prize award winning architecture studio, Morphosis Architects in New York City.

Simon is a recipient of the Graham Foundation grant on his research into company and organizational culture and its effects on workplace environments, domestic life, and urban transformation.

Simon holds a Master of Architecture from Columbia University GSAPP, where he was the recipient of the Kinne Fellowship Award and the prestigious Housing Studio teaching assistantship. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from Texas Tech University where he graduated summa cum laude with Honors and was the valedictorian of his class. He currently teaches as an adjunct instructor at NJIT’s School of Architecture and Design Fifth Year Architecture Studios and is a guest critic at Columbia University, Pratt Institute, and Texas Tech University.

The post UX for Space: Creating Meaningful Engagement through Data-Driven Design appeared first on Archipreneur.