Old News Renewed: A Profession Redefined By A.I.

The current explosion of artificial intelligent tools has brought back lessons learned many years ago when I started my architectural journey. The role of the architect in the United States, once revered, has witnessed a long series of deteriorations some would argue started around the time of Frank Lloyd Wright. He was said to be an arrogant man who would sometimes disregard his clients wishes and press forward in the spirit of design.

Architects have long wielded tremendous power and influence. They were in the background behind notorious regimes and civilizations to merge design with industry and ideology. The various movements that defined the built environment and the way we interconnect with our built spaces were not instilled by communities, but rather, powerful political figures. These strong men clearly understood the the value and scale of architecture and built structures to inject purpose and meaning into a cause; a meaning a step beyond and more poignant that strategies of design.

Architecture has gone through many fluxuations, but I suspect nothing as all encompassing that would render the craft obsolete and devalued. Architecture’s chief “rival” has typically been the art world, but that is up for debate since many architects and artist regularly collaborate.

Even if there still requires human input, A.I. can easily iterate a programmatic plan and integrate all valid regulatory requirements. A.I. can easily create an architecture in the style of a great movement or architect hero. While this many seem perturbing, if you’ve been in the architectural world long enough, you understand that it is nothing new. Most architects have known about, and understood, this approaching wave of technology.

While in architecture school I was apart of numerous discussions debating the future need of the architect and what the built world would look like without us. Some were ambivalent did not bother to think about it, others took it as a ‘we’ll deal with it when it arrives’ type of attitude. Others did not have the news and do not follow current events closely.

I had a professor who worked on an A.I. type of project back in the 1990’s. He was not startled. He was not concerned about the machines taking over the profession. I believe this was the case because he understood that there are many types of architects that fall along a wide spectrum of skills and interests.

There are architects interested in the artistic aspects of the profession and the importance of unique and crafted architecture as a gauge for society. This architecture is similar to the desire of space travel and how those innovations inspire human-kind. The art of architecture is typically tied to wealthy clients with shared interests or solo architects focused on working and pushing boundaries forward. This type of architecture will use A.I. to augment the process of design and create iterative strategies to enhance the work.

In contrast, there are architects that fall into the spectrum of engineering and service. They are pragmatic and deliver projects that serve our daily needs for space and shelter. The architecture field is many made up of these types of architects and artificial intelligence will peel back many layers and bring these practices into modes of greater efficiency.

The practices that veer towards the arts and crafts world of complex design and structures already operate with much smaller teams than the pragmatists. A large architecture and engineering firm might employ thousands of employees where a artsy company may employ a couple hundred, if that.

Regardless of practice typology, A.I. will be a huge benefit to the development, architecture, and construction industries. We will see project timelines greatly reduced and that efficiency will translate into cost savings in many areas.

Therefore, architecture, like many industries will experience a culling. Architecture schools will adjust and the learning experience will include curriculum incorporating new technologies. The education of the architect has always been very keen on making these adjustments early and disseminating information to students. In many cases these systems were already in play many years prior to the public and designers applying them in their works.

Unfortunately, the complex styles will be much easier to replicate and the understanding of what architecture is will devolve into a lack of understanding on what formal expression is and its actual capabilities beyond simple notions of design. That level of understanding and discourse has always been an advantage that many architects have had especially when engaged in ultra-complex contextual situations. For example, anyone can now generate a design in the style of Gehry and Hadid without clearly understanding the process and meaning behind the concepts and executions. Although, the construction price tags will still remain extremely high, A.I. or not, there will be those that can “copy.”

That notion of copy and replication brings me to my next lesson. One instance that I will always remember is a professor telling me bluntly: “You can’t worry about anyone copying your work; trust me, it doesn’t matter.” At the time I had difficulty understanding what he meant, but in time I understood clearly. Anyone can construct a building. It is not that difficult. You do not need to be an architect to design something awesome and go out and build it. There are plenty of great designers out there that are capable of putting things out into the world. Just like architecture, some are good and effective; others, not so much.

There is a clear case of this in China. Zaha Hadid, one of the greatest architects of our time, designed and built a project and years later a replica was built in China. In the architecture world it cases a uproar and raised significant questions of intellectual property and compensation due to a suspected stolen set of plans. These types of lawsuits can drag on for many years with waning outcomes. The lesson that my professor taught me during our further discussions is that in the architecture world, with projects being at such enormous magnitudes, idea theft could be deemed as an honor. Understanding that the notion of conceptuality and ideations are not tactile or tangible which can therefore be switched on and off at the whim of the individual to always place them on a solid foothold, the copy always carries a unexpressed residue of the original creator. When view under that lens, the example of Zaha Hadid’s project would entail that she was able to design two projects. Sure, it is simply a meaningless way to spin it, but my instructor pointed to what everyone else does anyways. He made a great point and a valid lesson that is especially important in an age where existing ideas can be generated and built by anyone, man or machine.

Another example of this is the idea of architecture that is open sourced. Pritzker Award winning Architect Alejandro Aravena from Chile, has multiple sets of plans for an ingeniously organized and expandible housing platform available for use by the public. Rather than treating a design like a property that needs to be held close, he open sourced the design and highly encouraged the public to utilize them for their benefit. There are even those that modified the designs and only utilized the skeleton structure as a platform.

He was not compensated in any way and will not receive a royalty from it, however, as these things multiply through society, he, and his firm benefit in ways that are not accounted for in the traditional way but fit well within the realm of social integration and ESG where the important notion is whether you are apart of the problem or the solution.

The point is that he did not want or need the credit. This truly takes the practice of architecture and expanded its meaning away from the individualist and arrogant architect and cast it into a new space that resides at another level. Artificial Intelligence is taking these ideas and pushing them forward.

Will Architects be replaced? Some will, yes. Are they still needed? That really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to achieve something that is simply functional and scratches the surface of what design is and can accomplish? Are you trying to push the boundary and craft ultra-intricate complexities because it is important to the work?