Upstream Design — An Evolution of Architectural Practice namely concerns the following hypothesis; that to address the complex challenges we as individuals and designers face today, the practice of architecture needs to undergo transformation. The specific transformation that I’m proposing is one of moving upstream, to enact systemic change whilst upholding the value of the profession in the process. I’m not alone in proposing this – at this year’s National Architecture Conference, one of the underlying themes was securing a seat at the decision-making table. What’s often left out of this vision are the steps required to get there and what one might do once they have arrived.
This, in essence, is what my Jack Hobbs McConnell Travelling Fellowship seeks to explore. Through the use of applied ethnography, including a series of interviews with twelve international experts, ¹ my hope is to apply the learnings from these conversations to the current South Australian context and identify the opportunities that exist for upstream design as a means to address the complex challenges we as individuals and designers face today.
Excerpt from Malcolm MacEwan’s 1974 essay, ‘Crisis in Architecture’ which covered topics ranging from the environmental impacts involved in construction, to public disenchantment with architecture and the sense of low self-esteem within the profession. Given many of these topics are still highly contested fifty-one years later, the need for transformation in the face of global and professional crises is now.
To those outside the architecture industry, the value in having architects at the decision-making table may not be obvious. Dan Hill (Director, Melbourne School of Design) shares a similar sentiment within his book, Dark Matter and Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary,
of design?”
Hill claims that designers’ strengths lay in their ability to work across contexts, rapidly absorb content, and ask the unspoken “obvious” questions as the outsider, to reveal the underlying architecture of a problem.
Research by Dr Harriett Harriss (Professor, Pratt Institute) supports this notion of adaptability. Architecture’s Afterlife: The Multi-Sector Impact of an Architectural Qualification, an Erasmus+ funded research enquiry between 2019 and 2020, sought to better understand what an architectural education is good for if not a career in architecture — a question prompted by the Royal Institute of British Architects’ finding that only 66% of architecture graduates become practicing architects. The research idenitifed that, in addition to skills and competences, architecture graduates reveal a certain behaviour — mindset and modus operandi — that allows them to develop new professions or to work in completely unrelated sectors where they contribute their architectural skills.
A prime example of this is Helsinki Design Lab (HDL), the world’s first strategic design unit established within government, thanks to Sitra, The Finnish Innovation Fund. What is unique about this unit is that all core staff members were architects, introducing an architectural modus operandi to the public sector. Within one of HDL’s many publications, the team dissects how architecture could be considered a Third Culture of knowledge² — sitting between science and the humanities, blending the constraints of reality with the best of human intentions to create balanced and opportunistic outcomes.
In a nutshell, these cases demonstrate how architects are well positioned to move upstream through their agility, modus operandi and ability to probe the limits of our current reality whilst creating new ones — so why hasn’t this been seen at scale yet?
“The third culture kid builds relationships to [multiple] cultures, while not having full ownership in any.”
David C. Pollock and Ruth E. Van Reken, ‘Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds’ (1999)
A reoccurring theme among many of those working upstream is strategic design. Whilst this phrase may take on a different meaning to each person, in the context of my research I have adopted Helsinki Design Lab’s definition of strategic design as the application of select traditional design principles to ‘big picture’ systemic challenges like health care, education, and climate change. “Strategic design redefines how problems are approached, identifies opportunities for action, and helps deliver more complete and resilient solutions. Strategic design is about crafting decision-making.” In comparison to traditional definitions of design, which focus on creating “discrete solutions — be it a product, a building, or a service,” it is evident that strategic design’s roots are inherently upstream.
In addition to principles borrowed from traditional design, strategic design possesses its own set of principles and core competencies unique to strategic designers. Whilst this research aims to explore both the mind and skill set of the strategic designer in more detail, my initial readings suggest there is much for architects to learn from these fellow designers. The following quote from Sir Geoff Mulgan (then CEO, NESTA) back in 2011, summarises this idea rather well,
The challenge for the profession, however, lies in our ability to adopt and apply the tools of strategic design to evolve architecture beyond traditional downstream design practice, towards more upstream design approaches. Without such evolution, we will continue to remain in the 5% problem space as identified by Victor Papanek four decades ago:
Victor Papanek, ‘The Design Problem’ (1975)
“The real problem” lives within the other 95% — along with upstream designers. Strategic design offers to equip architects with the necessary skill set to move upstream and address the complex challenges we as individuals and designers face today.
Exactly what form upstream practice takes, is slightly harder to define. If upstream practice is concerned with enacting systemic change, it is relevant to understand the nature of the problems we are dealing with today.
The pursuit of knowledge in the 20th century namely involved the construction of isolated and specialised disciplinary silos to ‘own’ problems. However, in the 21st century today, many of the problems that exist are so complex that no single disciplinary silo can take ownership of them. Helsinki Design Lab best describes this predicament,
This is where the positioning of architecture as a Third Culture of knowledge may offer some assistance. Broadly speaking, between the discipline of science and the discipline of humanities, sits architecture — the product of many disciplines. Given that architects take the middle path between these two disciplines in everyday design practice, why could they not apply this same approach to systemic challenges upstream?
The space between the silos is where I believe the opportunity lies for architects looking for more impactful, responsible and resilient ways of practice. How this practice manifests beyond the bounds of the studio or the building site remains a question this research seeks to answer.
Fundamentally, this research is about the role architects can play in enacting widespread system change. This idea however, is reliant on the ability of the profession to reevaluate and transform the way in which it traditionally practices.
The Design Speaks Architecture Symposium in August of this year raised the prevalent question of “what’s next for practice?” — whilst many participants expressed uncertainty about where the profession is headed, some alluded to working in the space between disciplinary silos. Given that the challenges of today will continue to grow in complexity, so too will the space between the dots and the importance of working between them to enact change.
Now is the time for architectural practice to evolve, for change is inherent and to remain relevant, it is in the profession’s best interest to get better at dealing with it. For what seems like a large and looming task ahead, the following quote may provide some reassurance,
Adam Grant (Professor, Wharton School)