Architecture, And: Design Crises, Past and Future

A Welcome to Practice Disrupted, a podcast where we find ways to create new solutions to current challenges while elevating the value of architects. I'm your host, Evelyn Lee, an architect who spans tech as an angel investor, start up advisor, and founder of Practice of Architecture. Whether you're a seasoned architect or just starting in the field, this podcast is your gateway to think differently about the role architects play within our global community. Hello, disruptors. Welcome back to another episode of practice disrupted. Hold on to your seats because we will be covering a lot of ground with this week's guest, Eric Kessel. Eric and I first met back in what we think was around 2012 at the AIA annual leadership summit, which was previously called grassroots. He was actually the keynote there following the publication of his book Down Detour Road, an Architect in Search of Practice.

A Throughout the years, while our paths never directly cross again, I followed his career from afar. And now that we're relatively geographically close to one another and have met a few times for coffee, I feel like we've become fast architecture friends with similar views and questions about the future of practice. So a little more about Eric. Eric is a designer, educator, writer, and a noted post disaster expert. Having led on the ground reconstruction programs after the Haiti earthquake, the great east Japan tsunami, and super storm Sandy. He was formally trained as an architect, but his work has branched into international development, economics, and foreign policy as they affect the built environment. He holds advanced degrees in architecture and construction management and an MBA from Washington University in Saint Louis. But he says his passion is understanding how design practice must evolve for the future amid trends and technological innovation, climate change, and urbanization.

A So, yes, we are going to be getting into AI in this episode. So welcome to the show, Eric. I'm so glad to have you here.

B Thanks. It's great to be here. Thanks for having me.

A So we usually start off with a little bit of an ice breaker. Your your formal bio will, of course, and your link to your book will be in the show notes. But is there a little something that you'd like to share with our audience that people might not know about you?

B Yeah. I think the thing that surprises people the most is that I'm an optimist. You know, I speak a lot and teach a lot on disaster and rather gloomy things, but my personal world view is that those things are the entry point to bigger and better things. And that by properly understanding crisis, we can move forward with changes that would otherwise be unmanageable.

A Where does that optimism come from?

B I think you have to have it when you work in disaster. I mean, I there there's a lot of truth in that that past statement, but there's also a lot of evidence in in the recovery of disaster. You know? I mean, I've worked many disasters in my life and studied many more than that, and it's amazing to find consistently across all continents and cultures and time periods that, you know, people are at their best when things get to be their worst. So I think that makes one sanguine about any future challenges in humanity because, you know, sometimes things have to get really bad before they get good. But so far, the human species is batting a1000, and and we always figure things out. And, you know, the last 10000 years has been a slow march towards progress no matter how acute and devastating disasters are in the midterm?

A Yeah. I think there's a lot of people that are seeing what's happening in the world right now. And I would say, I I believe a lot of our listeners are seeing what's happening in the world right now and see the need for more of this type of expertise with those in a background in architecture. So I was hoping that we could talk a little bit about your journey to becoming an expert in post disaster experience and how you got there.

B Yeah. Sure. In the moment, it was quite serendipitous, but I think in hindsight, it seems like I might have had some kind of plan. Although, I don't know. My first 5 years were in in commercial architecture. I worked at a couple of firms in DC and and led a very kind of normal architectural life, and then went to graduate school in 2,004 to get my MBA and my m arc. And Katrina happened right while I was in the middle of that, and I I felt compelled to go. I don't think that was that weird.

B Over a 1000000 Americans volunteered in the Katrina recovery. So, you know, at at that point, I had enough maturity as an architect and had also worked in construction management and, you know, grew up on carpentry. So I felt like I had some skills that that might be useful, and I managed to land at the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio under the leadership of David Perks. And, you know, that was really a transformative experience for me. I mean, I think the disaster really convinces you about the value of of design and the value of architecture. You know, once you see how the built environment has been stripped away and everything that is lost in that that process and the trauma that is engendered, you start to get I've always felt like you get an appreciation for the built environment that's not otherwise possible. So, you know, at the same time, I mean, definitely hard, but, you know, it built up my love for for design and and for architecture being able to help people in in that way. So in terms of, you know, what people can can do, I I think, you know, it's an individual decision, but, you know, part of it is just doing it.

B You know? I mean, take a bit of a gamble in getting involved in that sort of thing, but I would ask architects to be confident that their skills have merit and value in those sorts of situations. Subsequently, I was in the lower 9th ward with Architecture for Humanity. I was going back and forth. So I was completing all of my degrees. I added a master's in construction management afterwards, and so I would spend summers down on the Katrina recovery and then the academic year in in Saint Louis completing my degrees. And then graduated in December of 2008 right into the recession, which is when I went wrote down detour road. And then in January of 2010, I was recruited by Architecture of Humanity to lead their Haiti mission, which was an education onto itself. So, I mean, yeah, it kind of snowballed from there.

B I I think the the critical first step is just deciding to get involved. I advise architects to do so with some sort of judgment and to ask themselves, like, are my my skills necessary in this place, in this time? And more importantly, to ask others. You know? I never went anywhere that I wasn't invited. And whenever I sat down with community members, organizations, and that sort of thing, like, that was always my first question. You know? I never made the presumption that that I was necessary somehow. I mean, you gotta wait for other people to surface that request.

A I guess I wanted to back up a little bit because you went back to get your masters, but you also decided to pair it with an MBA and construction administration degrees. And I don't think inherently a lot of architects do that because, one, try to take on a multiple d degree program with the rigor of architecture studio, but even consider, like, oh, I should be getting an MBA on top of this. So what provoked you to pursue all of those things at once?

B Yeah. Well, masochism probably. No. I, you know, I I think I had an experience in my younger years that that most architects would find familiar. You know? I mean, I was I was part of teams with older, more senior, more experienced architects. Well, we would work to design a project over 4 months, 6 months, 9 months, and then, you know, go into some kind of pre final reconstruction meeting. And, you know, there was always some guy there with a spreadsheet, you know, doing last minute editing on the sign and saying, okay. You know, we're we're striking this.

B We're not gonna do that. And I knew I didn't know what I was doing, but, you know, I thought that my my superiors knew what they were doing. I mean, these are very competent, talented senior architects. And know it just it it it alarmed me that someone with no experience in design was actually, like, designing the building effectively. And what does it say about what we do when, you know, a designer's judgment is is so easily and and casually countermandered? So I went to business school principally because I wanted to learn how to speak that language, and I wanted to be able to defend design in the language of business and the language of finance. I never had any aspirations to go into business, whatever that is. But it seemed to me that if those kinds of people, you know, had some kind of authority over the built environment that that was going to supersede those architects, then that's the language that I wanted to know so that I could be more convincing, more effective in my work. I mean, you can argue for design in design terms, and I think all architects learn how to do that.

B But I wanted to learn how to argue for design also in financial terms and in business terms. And the construction management degree was a similar logic. You know? I mean, a lot happens to a design after construction starts. I mean, it's very common and very easy for contractors to, you know, say, okay. Well, we're not doing this. We're not doing that. And, you know, get the ear of the owner and, you know, radically change whatever the the design was. So yeah.

B I mean, I I think both of those degrees were really about a more comprehensive idea of design. You know? I mean, the core of design being architecture kind of right in the middle. The MBA being the stuff that was happening before the design and the construction manager being the stuff that was happening after.

A Yeah. Okay. Now back to my second question and kind of architects playing this role where we're not necessarily stepping in as a know it all, but we do want to be working in partnership with communities in a way that they understand our value and kind of are surfacing the question to us to help us step in to some of those conversations. How do we do that?

B Yeah. I I think you just ask people, and I realize that's an unsatisfying answer. But, no, quite quite seriously. I mean, you have to sit down with people and genuinely, you know, ask questions about what their needs are. I mean, something I always tell people, you know, when they ask when they're contemplating kind of getting into that that line of work is you have to decide what you wanna be more, you know, a helper or an architect. Because there are gonna be times when those come into conflict, not always, but but sometimes. And if you have that straight in your head, then I think you can ask questions rather honestly. And if someone says, like, hey.

B Look. What I really need right now is, I don't know, some cash assistance or, you know, some legal advocacy help or something. You say, okay. Great. Let me see if I can connect you with some of my colleagues who do that sort of thing. I think there's a lot of post disaster architecture that's done badly, and it's principally done because, you know, architects will go in and and the architect wants to be an architect. So the solution has to be a building regardless of whatever the problem is. So, you know, all of my programs really involved a lot of diagnostics.

B I mean, sometimes, you know, months months of, you know, getting to know a community, of building trust, of really understanding at a deeper level, you know, what the needs are and and how you can help alleviate suffering. And, eventually, you usually get around to the idea that there's some sort of, you know, building some sort of architectural expression that can really help people recover from disaster or otherwise help them in their situations. But I think that you need to be sober about the fact that the 2 can can diverge. The answer is not always a design. It's not always a building. So I think that, yeah. I mean, it's it's funny. It's it's still one of the hardest things to teach in my classes is, you know, go out and talk to people and, like, ask them.

B I mean, designers love designing. Right? So it's like you wanna sit down and you wanna start, you know, designing the solution to everybody's problems and and things like that. But the critical first step is really just talking, asking questions, building trust, building relationships. I think that's how you properly frame whatever the problem is and therefore arrive at the right solution.

A Fair. For those who are frequent listeners, I continue to make the argument that we will actually design more of the buildings that we wanna design if we expand our conversation beyond buildings. Right? Ultimately. Yeah. So in preparation of this episode, I went and pulled down your book, which I purchased way back then in Grassroots, and I need to get it signed. 1. But I also began to flip through it and looked at my notes and remember kind of fondly the narrative that you were telling back then. I was really beginning to remember what was so enjoyable about your book, and I want you to humor me for a moment because I found a review from Michael Crosby, who's a professor of architecture at the University of Hartford, but also known for being a frequent contributor to architecture record.

A And he writes, this book is highly unusual for an architecture opus. It is well written. It is funny, and it is wise in so many ways. I literally couldn't put it down. He ended up reading it in one sitting. Kessel finds useful parables for architects and their predicament in the most unusual places. The relationship of bartenders to bar owners, how prostitutes are and are not like architects, and how a good architect is like a fire extinguisher. Kessel offers a unique, refreshing take on the profession.

A So my question for you is, this book was now written over a decade ago at a time where we were obviously coming out of the Great Recession. Has the profession moved the needle? Or are your analogies as true today as they were over a decade ago?

B I think some yes, some no. I mean, I think the profession has made a lot of strides, a lot of progress. I think it's made a lot of progress in diversification, which is good. I think it's made a lot of progress in in, you know, my field of disaster and resilience. And, you know, you look at some of the things that, like, you know, Ilya Azarov are doing and architects architecture has really started to take that stuff seriously. So I think, you know, those are all good things and and represent forward motion. I think, you know, unfortunately, it continues to struggle with with the value question, which was one of the central themes of Down Detour Road. For those who haven't read it, I mean, part of the hypothesis was that, you know, architects have a a difficult time articulating what the value of architecture actually is.

B And that's why, you know, in something like the recession in 2008, I mean, it was horrible for everybody, but it's an absolute disaster for architects because largely speaking, like, people don't really understand the value of architecture or having an architect involved in, you know, this problem or that problem.

A I was gonna say, well, it is definitely hard to

B caring about architecture because architecture stopped caring about people. You know? I mean, we spent the eighties and the nineties designing big shiny things for rich people. And then, you know, lo and behold, society at large doesn't really see what architecture has to do with me and who can blame them. And just to be clear, I put the blame squarely on us. You know? I mean, I think that's a failure of our professional mission, and I don't find fault with the people that that don't understand the value of architecture. I think we've just we've failed to show them.

A So being an optimist and looking at the current landscape of architecture and how technology is moving, Where does the opportunity lie, and what do architects really need to focus on going forward?

B Let's let's address the technology portion first. I mean, I think that, you know, generative AI presents a legitimate potential disaster within the profession of architecture. And, you know, by way of background, like, in disaster studies, the sort of things that I teach is a disaster occurs at the intersection of of vulnerability and some sort of triggering event. Right? So if you have a shaky foundation and there's an earthquake, like, your house is gonna collapse. That seems intuitive. If you have a solid foundation and your house is seismically designed and there's an earthquake, probably no collapse. I mean, obviously, it depends on a lot of factors, but, like, that's the general idea. So it really takes the marriage of 2 things, some underlying vulnerability and some sort of event, some sort of shock to the system to actually create a disaster.

B Earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, those aren't actually disasters. They're just events. Like, it takes our participation to make them into disasters or lack of participation really. So, I mean, I think you could read the great recession in that light. Right? So when other professions were dealing with 5% unemployment, 6% unemployment, you know, I think we lost, like, a third of all architects in the United States. I mean, that's that qualifies as a disaster. And I think the underlying vulnerability in that case is is the value proposition, the value question. So as technology advances, you know, my concern for the last year and a lot of the advocacy work that I've been doing the last year is that this is another one of those triggering events that is going to expose the underlying vulnerability that is our difficult value proposition and our our inaction on on resolving that particular thing since the great recession.

B In terms of what the opportunities are, they're massive. They're amazing because I think fundamentally, you know, AI automation, generative AI, the whole the whole ball of wax is going to speed things up quite a bit. It is going to displace a lot of architectural labor, and I think that we are going to face the question about what what to do instead, like, what to do next. You know, for the last 10000 years, it's always been the case that technological disruption comes. We run out of things to do, and then we find newer, better things to do. So one of the questions that I've been trying to raise is, you know, what's what's next? You know, I think that runs in parallel with the climate crisis, which is, you know, equally bad, but perhaps less immediate than this this AI thing. But, you know, half of the world cities are gonna be, like, underwater by 21100. I mean, we're gonna have to redesign or relocate most of the world's major cities.

B Like, that's a really exciting design challenge or it should be. No. I mean, it's gonna be horrible. Right? I mean, there's gonna be a lot of suffering, you know, associated with with moving some of these cities. But the more proactively we engage that opportunity, the more, you know, architects put themselves out in front. I mean, I think the better the outcomes for everybody else. So I think that it's central to my optimism that, you know, behind every crisis is an ability to build something better than what existed before, and I'm I'm looking at the future that way.

A Can you speak more about what the vulnerability is? So, I I mean, you talked about our inability to communicate our value. Right? But it's bigger than that for me. What are your views on the different vulnerabilities in in the profession?

B Yeah. I mean, I guess, you could look at the whole value question as as part of a meta crisis within the profession of architecture, and I think there's certainly, you know, issues of culture that play play into that create that and then result from that at the same time. And, you know, a lot of things associated with, I don't know, architecture school or the history of architecture. I mean, I think that if I'm being asked to break down, you know, this kind of prices of value, I would point to several things. You know? One is the insularity of the profession. I mean, I think that's one of the meta drivers. The fact that we, you know, lock our students in in studio at at 19 years old, and we fetishize the idea of of living in studio. And, you know, we we graduate people who I don't wanna make generalizations, but I think it it it draws a a wall around architecture as this sort of, like, tribe that, you know, no one outside can understand and no one outside is worth listening to.

C And I'll say that, you know, I think most architects kind of get their head right, you know, by their mid twenties or something like that, but that's still a strong vein in our profession. You know? It's this idea that what's important about what's happening in architecture can be found inside of architecture, and and what's going on outside of architecture is probably immaterial. And I think that's one of the the big problems of the AI crisis as well is that, you know, architects are talking a lot about what AI is going to do within architecture or what kind of architecture they can make with AI, but they're not talking about what everybody else is gonna do with AI and what people are potentially going to do to architecture with AI, which I think is is the larger question. So, I mean, I think the insularity issue would be a big one. I think the exclusivity of it. I mean, US universities are pretty exclusive to begin with, but then you talk about, you know, the time demands and, you know, the very particular rigors of architecture school versus, you know, any other kind of program. And I think it screens out a lot of people that we could really use. You know? I don't know if you knew anybody in school who's trying to get through architecture school while having a family.

B I mean, it's damn near impossible if you've got, you know, kids or even if you have a spouse, like, it's hard because of the way architecture school is is organized and this sort of thing. And I think, you know, those sorts of, what would you call it, proto crises, Maybe they're a driver of the value thing. Maybe they're a component of it. But, you know, I would say that when you get those factors, the kind of lack of diversification, the insularity, you know, on a desert island after a while, everything starts to seem normal. Right? So I think we fail to adapt very rapidly because we keep our own counsel on a lot of ideas. And, you know, there's not enough people at the window, like, knocking on the window being like, hey. That doesn't make any sense, and you should stop doing that. Or when they do, we don't trust them because they're not in the tribe.

B So yeah. I mean, I think all of these kind of roll together to kind of create that that vulnerability. And you see its effects. Right? So, I mean, in 2008, 2009, the effect was massive unemployment because, you know, we we nurture this insularity that prevents us from answering that value question because ultimately, what I wanna answer as an architect is, you know, how much value is my personal architecture to the field? How am I being esteemed within this this tribe of of architecture rather than asking, like, how is architecture esteemed in the world? You know? And, like, how is architecture the idea, like, the general practice esteemed by people who are outside the tribe? And, yeah, the result is wide scale unemployment. And I think we're witnessing something similar now where every everybody is is talking about massive wide scale disruption associated with with AI. And, you know, the IMF and the World Bank are, you know, predicting tens of millions, if not 100 of millions of jobs affected. And, you know, still to a large degree, you know, I talked to architects and their thinking is, well, that's not us. You know? Like, it it can't possibly affect what we do because this is this is architecture.

B And I think that's that kind of tribal thinking that that got us in trouble the last time.

A Yes. So you mentioned that our focus should be on what others can do with AI to affect architecture. And I think when architects think about AIs and other people affecting the work that we do, we're protected, we have our license, you know, to get buildings built that are larger than 2,000 square feet and not residential, like, there is some gatekeeping that we still hold within the industry. So what is the disruptive potential of what others can do with AI when it comes to architecture? Or where do you see that beginning to bubble up and already happen?

B I mean, I think that requires some imagination. And, you know, one of the the curious parts about being a disaster architect, You know, when you practice as an architect to some degree, your role is to help people imagine the best possible outcome. Right? I mean, that's why they call it highest and best use. Right? So you got an empty lot. You wanna do a building. Like, what is what is the best possible version of this ambition? Part of being a disaster architect, it includes that too, but it's also helping people imagine the worst possible thing that could happen and imagining the the collapse of the gatekeeping and the safeguards and and that sort of thing. So it's kind of an act of morbid imagination, but but here's something that occupies my imagination. You know, a large real estate developer that spends a $100,000,000 a year on architecture fees across the country decides that it's really the better business decision to invest $10,000,000 in r and d and build, you know, essentially an AI automated design shop.

B I don't think we have the technology now and probably won't for a while to have something that is exclusively automated. But we have a lot of tools that can automate away a lot of what what an architect does. So they set up their own in house shop, and they hire, you know, a handful of architects because they need someone with a stamp. Right? And they need someone to hang the liability on. But, you know, basically, they just fire all the architects that they've employed for the last 100 years, and they say, you know what? We can do this. And all that design y stuff you guys are always talking about, like, turns out we don't care. So we're just gonna, you know, have our, you know, AI driven in house design shop and a few architects to stamp drawings and and things like that. And, you know, there there goes a huge chunk of the profession.

B Now that doesn't violate any of existing laws, regarding licensor or stamping or anything like that. That's just, you know, economics playing itself out. That seems plausible to me, and I think if I were a large real estate developer, I'd at least be looking at that as a possibility. So, I mean, I I think those are the sort of things that that I'm concerned about and that I worry about.

A Yeah. I'm just trying to ground the bigger thinking and actual potential case studies about why we should have a voice in this. Like, I mean, my biggest concern with architects and how we tend to react to the world around us, short of saying that's not, you know, that's not going to affect us, is that in in doing that, we don't have enough curiosity to say, if it does affect us, what voice do we wanna have in that change, and how do we guide it to a more opportunistic outcome for us by having a voice in the creation of those technologies. Like, I I feel like architects think about AI right now, and they're like, no, it's not there. But we should be saying it could get there. So how are we a part of actually helping it get there so that our voice is included from beginning.

B I think it's that's very legitimate. I mean, I think licensure is a double edged sword. Right? Because it protects the market, but at the same time, it convinces you that that the market is is permanent. Right? And and can't be can't be affected. And I think that's that's incorrect, and I strongly agree that we should be outside the wall and, you know, curious about what's happening, investigating what's happening, and trying to steer it, you know, to your to your previous question about, you know, what is what is a tactical example of this. You know, I spoke with an architect a couple months ago who told me the story of one of their clients doing SDs on on Midjourney. Right? And they had some initial meeting and, you know, it was like, look. It'll cost this much to go through a schematic design process and try and manifest, you know, some of these ideas.

B And the client was like, look. Let me just, like, play around with with Midjourney. I'll I'll come up with some ideas, and I'll, like, bring them to you when we can go into design development. Now we, as architects, know that Midjourney isn't designing buildings. Right? It's just designing images. But because people don't know that, like, they're willing to go through this alternate process where, you know, they're using Midjourney or DALL E to manifest their ideas, whichever then brought to to the architect. And that gets back to the value question. Right? I mean, if you knew the real value of an architect, you would never do that.

B But if you don't, then, you know, mid journey seems just the more valuable proposition. Right? Because mid journey costs what? Like, $20 a month or something. And this way, I don't have to to pay my architect. So, I mean, I I feel like we're we're kinda going down the road. The doctors went down 20 years ago when when Google broke loose. Right? And all the doctors I know hate Google because they gotta spend the first 10 minutes of every appointment.

A WebMD. Yeah.

B Yeah. You know, it's like, okay. Thank you for checking with doctor Google. As it turns out, like, I'm a trained physician. Let's, you know, let's go through an exam. Let's figure out what's actually wrong with you. You probably don't have Ebola, but that's that's that's a value problem too. Right? I mean, if people think that, you know, googling something is actually the same thing as going to medical school for 9 years, it's gonna cause a lot of headaches for doctors.

B And I think, you know, the same is here true with architecture now. You know? I mean, as these tools take shape and they become more robust, it's easier and easier for those kinds of people to believe that there's an equivalency there between, you know, typing some instructions in a program and and getting some results and, you know, the actual experience and wisdom of of an actual architect.

A Yeah. You and I also talked about just data, like, I feel like people say, you know, we have all this data that we can do stuff with, especially if we're in rivet, especially if we're doing in BIM, like, we have data for buildings, like, we're ahead. Like, that's something that we can do generative AI with. And I think both of us kind of, and you definitely had me like questioning, but like, like, what is what is the potential of that data? You know, I guess my question is, how do we get more architects engaged in the conversation in an educational way? You know, I struggle because architects really don't want to learn about these things because it's really about the economics of practice, and it's about thinking beyond the design of our buildings. And inherently, like you said, designers, especially they don't want to think beyond buildings. So what can we do to get architects more excited about this?

B I don't think we have to do anything. I mean, I think that inertia is going to carry us into another unemployment crisis and then people start to get real curious about it. No. I mean, hate to be morbid, but, like, I think that that is the truth, and and it's it's a strangely optimistic truth that comes from my experiences in disaster. Like, people don't necessarily wanna start paying attention to the levy that's got cracks in it until it breaks. And it's at that moment that you capitalize on the attention that the levy now has. Right? So the levy breaks, that's tragic, But then we say, okay. How about we go around and fix all the levies? And in that moment in time, there is, you know, the will, the energy, the curiosity to say, yeah, you know, like, maybe maybe we should do that.

B So one of the things that I I teach my students a lot is, you know, have solutions on the shelf. Right? Have an answer for, you know, what we should do and then, you know, be realistic. Like, you know, you're not necessarily gonna, like, move the the ocean liner before there's some sort of crisis that instigates people's attention. So, you know, that's what I've been trying to do in my work is is to have solutions on the shelf. And I think what's gonna happen shortly is that, you know, some people are gonna start losing their jobs. Hopefully, it's not too bad. And then some of those people are gonna say, hey. You know what? All these new technologies around, what if I just thought of this thing de novo? Right? And what if I went out and started my own firm, but, like, an AI first firm? Like, what can an architect be now that all these technologies are available and and at our disposal.

B I'm not sure if you and I talked about it, but, you know, to me, like, universal translation is one of, like, the biggest ones. I mean, that's crazy to think about that that we can now basically talk with anyone on earth in their own language. I mean, that in itself creates, you know, an enormous amount of opportunities. So, you know, what what could we do to to steer the conversation? I think the same thing that that we're doing and the same thing you do every week on Practice Disrupted, you know, have the conversations, like, be the thought leaders, like, have the information out there, issue the warnings and stuff like that, but, you know, be realistic about the fact that the big push, you know, happens in in in moments of crisis. So, yeah, I think that we have to look at whatever's gonna happen with AI as an opportunity to really push on some of those reforms that let's be honest. Like, we all know the same things about architecture. Right? I mean, the hours are too long, the pay is too low, the path of licensor is too long. You get 10 architects in a room.

B They're only gonna bitch about the same, like, 5 5 things. But inertia is a bitch, and those things are hard to fix. So, yeah, I guess I'm hoping that we can we can do a lot of this work amid, you know, the crises of of AI and climate change and everything that's unfolding.

A Yeah. I guess my question well, yes. And I hope we do it quicker rather sooner rather than later.

B Yeah. That's the dream. You know? I mean, if any if everybody would just start listening to us, Evelyn, then, you know, we could get all this fixed before the disaster happens. You know, I'm not gonna start stop talking. I think that this is a really serious crisis. And, you know, the more that we take something seriously beforehand and design against it, the the lower the eventual impact is. And in fact, like, we don't have a lot of disasters that we used to have specifically because of architects. Right? Because, like, of the built environment and the way that we have learned how to design that.

B And that goes back many centuries, you know, past the enlightenment least. You know, we found ways to to design buildings and design cities that, you know, essentially, obviate disaster and and prevent disasters from ever happening in the first place. So, yes, if we can gather the will to address some of these questions in architecture, you know, we won't have to go through another 2,008. So, yes, maybe if I'm going to be a real optimist, that's the way I should look at it. So thank you for for calling me out on that.

A I hope that we get there sooner than later. I feel like our voice in the conversation needs to be added sooner rather than later. And instead of being reactive, I always go I lean more towards being proactive in order to control what I can control. So we have a lot of young listeners who are like, okay, so Eric's telling me I need to get those ideas and put them on the shelf and be ready for when I need to pull them off the shelf. Any other advice for those that are out there short of rather than being a design first firm, thinking about what an AI first looks like, that you can kind of add on to this conversation as as a way for them to be to be proactive? And, and is there any other opportunities or, you know, how do we begin to ask those questions? To go back to what you, you said way back about disasters and showing up and being asked to come to the table, what advice do you have for the next generation of leaders?

B Yeah. I mean, I think that, you know, the future is so unpredictable at this point. Well, I mean, I guess the future is always unpredictable, but, you know, things are changing so rapidly at this point that what you fundamentally have control over is yourself probably. And I think that makes more true some advice that I've always given to young designers, which is design yourself. You know? Like, design the world that you want to inhabit. I think a lot of young designers make the mistake of thinking that that their design energy, call it that, needs to be focused on a building, that their creativity needs to be restricted to the 4 corners of a drafting board. I mean, metaphorically at this point. You can use all that on everything else too.

B You know? You can be a designer of the world. You know? You can be a designer of your community, and you must be a designer of yourself. You know? You can turn that creative energy and all those, you know, processes and and tactics and judgments that that they teach you in architecture school. Like, those work on other things too. Like, they don't have to be, like, on a building. So not so you shouldn't design buildings. If you love designing buildings, you should do that. But don't feel agency less in your own life because you do have this this superpower called design.

B And, you know, when you turn that towards, you know, other things, the results could be actually pretty remarkable. I wish I had done a better job of designing my life. You know? I think a lot of it kind of came together by by happenstance. But that too, I think, points to the second lesson that I would share. It's just, you know, work from values. You know? Your job's gonna change. Your city's gonna change. Like, freshen's gonna everything's gonna change.

B So you need some sort of anchor point, and I think the best one is, you know, whatever your values are. I think that, you know, a lot of times we talk about architecture in a way that's value agnostic. Right? I mean, it's always struck me as kind of weird that we have this subdiscipline of of social impact design where I spent most of my career. I mean, all design is social impact. Right? I mean, it's just, like, weird that we would, like, give a separate label to that. So I think, you know, when you start off from, you know, whatever your core values are and you say, you know, I'm gonna act out of these and I'm gonna do what's what's necessary to fulfill these things, you know, that that's going to lead to a fuller design life, I think.

A I mean, I think, you know, it's interesting because there is a book out there called Design Your Life written by 2 Stanford individuals that I always refer people to when they no matter where they are in their career, when they're kind of thinking about about what's next And they're they're transformable skills. And I think this inherent worry that as architects, we've carved ourselves into a singular solution for our careers. So I think it's helpful. Hi, disruptors. Thank you for joining us today on an episode of Practice Disrupted. If you like the content for today's show, you can find all of our past episodes over on practice of architecture.com/podcast. Be a part of the conversation by joining me, our speakers, and other disruptors in our community at practice of architecture.com/community. Our social media handle is practice of arch.

A That's practice of a r c h, we'd love to hear from you. So feel free to drop us a DM and say hello. Tune in next week for a new conversation on change in the profession.