See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227472467

Global Architects: Learning and Innovation through Communities and

Constellations of Practice

Article  in  Environment and Planning A · July 2010

DOI: 10.1068/a4311 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

105 2,761

1 author:

James R. Faulconbridge
Lancaster University
140 PUBLICATIONS   4,091 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovating Next Generation Services through Collaborative Design - Artificial Intelligence in Professional Service Firms (Legal and Accounting View project

DEMAND View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James R. Faulconbridge on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Global architects: learning and innovation

through communities and constellations of

practice

James R Faulconbridge

Geography, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University,

Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK

j.faulconbridge@lancaster.ac.uk

Published as Faulconbridge J R, 2010, "Global architects: learning and

innovation through communities and constellations of practice" Environment

and Planning A 42(12) 2842 – 2858

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1731948

Global architects: learning and innovation through

communities and constellations of practice

Abstract

It is surprising that despite widespread interest in the cultural industries, few

questions have been asked about the geographies of learning and innovation in

architecture. Particularly relevant to global architects are debates about the way

stretched relational spaces and „global‟ communities of practice connect individuals,

firms and regions into networks of learning that „perforate‟ scales. This paper seeks

to apply such debates to the case of global architects and to examine the spatiality of

the practices that allow learning and lead to innovation in their work. It is shown that

global architects participate in „local‟ communities of practice that rely on face-to-face

interaction, talk and „buzz‟. These „local‟ communities are also part of „global‟

constellations of practice constructed by forms of circulation, in particular travel by

architects and the circulation of texts and images in the media, which facilitate

learning through human – non-human interactions. It is, therefore, suggested that in

order to more effectively analyse the geographies of learning and innovation – in

architecture but also other industries - focus needs to fall on (1) the geography of

talk/buzz and communities of practice; but also (2) the geography of human – non-

human interactions that form constellations of practice. Such a focus reveals that

apparently local communities of practice are more often than not connected into

global spaces of learning and innovation through constellations of practice produced

by non-humans.

Keywords:

Knowledge; learning; innovation; globalisation; architecture; communities of practice;

constellations of practice; interviews

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1731948

1 Introduction

Architects from Le Corbusier to Rem Koolhaas have gained worldwide

attention because of their association with iconic and innovative building

design (Jencks, 2006). A number of architecture firms (on which see

Faulconbridge, 2009) such as Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF) and Skidmore

Owings & Merill (SOM) have also attracted similar levels of attention because

of their association with the „skyscraper geographies‟ (McNeill, 2005) that

dominate cities from London to Shanghai. McNeill (2008) calls both the design

„stars‟ such as Rem Koolhaas and the firms such as SOM „global architects‟ in

recognition of the geography of their work and fame.

It is surprising, however, that to date few questions have been asked about

the spatialities of the processes of learning and innovation engaged in by

global architects. Exceptions include the work of Kloosterman (2008) who

reveals how local labour markets provide the talented, innovative workers that

populate the studios of global architects and Olds (2001) who focuses on the

networks and flows of knowledge that underlie the work of global architects on

urban megaprojects. However, there is still much to be done if the

geographies of learning and innovation in architecture are to be better

understood. As Olds (2001, 40) acknowledges, there is a need to overcome

blind spots in understanding caused by the way “narratives are written as if

the flows [of knowledge] were formulated by homogeneous actors (including

developers, architects, planners) who „conceive‟ of space and formulate

objectified representations space”.

3
In this paper I, therefore, consider how existing research can be used to

understand global architects‟ practices and spaces of learning and

innovation.1 I draw on studies using the communities of practice (CoP)

concept (Amin and Cohendet, 2004; Faulconbridge, 2006, 2007; Ibert, 2007)

and in doing so reveal that in order to understand global architects‟

geographies of learning and innovation it is necessary to situate discussions

of communities alongside discussions of constellations of practice, the latter

revealing the important but often under studied role of non-humans in

constructing the spaces of learning and innovation that CoP are part of. In

particular the discussion reveals that architects are part of „local‟ CoP

connected into global constellations of practice as a result of the work of non-

humans, something which means reading off from the geographies of CoP the

spatiality of learning and innovation risks missing the more often than not

multi-scalar spaces of learning and innovation that communities are part of.

The rest of the paper proceeds over five further sections. The next section

explores the way work on CoP has been used in geographical studies of

learning and innovation and provides a framework for the empirical analysis

presented. Section three outlines the research methodology adopted whilst

sections four and five present the empirical material collected and the insights

1
Throughout the paper I follow McNeill (2008) and use the term „global architects‟ to

refer to the architects working for both the „stars‟ such as Rem Koolhaas and firms

such as SOM because of the involvement of these individuals in building projects

worldwide.

4
it provides into the „local‟ CoP and the „global‟ constellations of practice global

architects participate in. Section six concludes by considering the implications

of the empirical analysis for research of the geographies of learning and

innovation.

2 Communities of practice and geographies of learning and

innovation

Appropriation of ideas from the CoP literature has renewed theoretical (Amin

and Cohendet, 2004; Amin and Roberts, 2008; Asheim et al., 2007; Bathelt et

al., 2004; Gertler, 2008; Ibert, 2007; Jones, 2008) and empirical

(Faulconbridge, 2006, 2007; Hall and Appleyard, 2009; Kloosterman, 2008;

Sunley et al., 2008) interest in the practices and spatialities of learning and

innovation. Drawing on the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), Wenger (1998)

and Wenger et al. (2002), studies have defined CoP as:

“…groups of people who share a concern, set of problems or a passion about

a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by

interacting on an ongoing basis. Engineers who design a certain kind of

electronic circuit called phase-lock loops find it useful to compare designs

regularly and to discuss the intricacy of their esoteric speciality... Artists

congregate in cafes and studios to debate the merits of a new style or

technique” (Wenger et al., 2002, 4).

In particular studies suggest CoP are defined by the existence of groups of

individuals who benefit from a trio of qualities, what Wenger (1998, 74-83)

refers to as:

5
  mutual engagement - ongoing interaction as part of collective

involvement in the same task with interaction focussed around regular

conversations

 joint enterprise - common ways of completing a task based on shared

educational backgrounds or firm-specific training

 shared repertoire - use of and reference to the same language, tools,

objects and routines as part of a task and in conversations in CoP.

CoP are said to form organically when groups of individuals with this trio of

commonalities exist, for example in the workplace (although see Benner

[2003] and Wenger et al. [2002] on how CoP might be seeded). Individuals

similarly become „legitimate‟ members of CoP when they develop and share

with other community members the trio of commonalities (see Lave and

Wenger [1991] for more discussion of what „legitimate‟ participation in CoP

involves).

Geographical work has used the importance of the trio of commonalities

outlined by Wenger (1998) to emphasise how, alongside „local‟ CoP in one

office of a firm or in one city, „global‟ scale perforating (c.f. Amin, 2002) CoP

exist when spatially distributed individuals who share a joint enterprise and

shared repertoire interact and learn from one-another through

conversation/talk – what is often referred to as „buzz‟ in geographical

literatures (see Asheim et al., 2007; Bathelt et al., 2004; Gertler, 2008). In

particular it has been emphasised, first, that mutual engagement and the

associated buzz and spaces of sociality are facilitated both by face-to-face

and technologically mediated interactions. Therefore, CoP need not always be

6
made up of co-present members. In addition, second, geographical work on

CoP has revealed the way spatially distributed individuals develop joint

enterprises based on shared membership of the same profession, firm or as a

result of completing the same university degree programme (on the previous

two points see Amin and Cohendet, 2004; Asheim et al., 2007; Faulconbridge,

2006; Gertler, 2008).

Finally, third and less explored by geographers, the way co-located but also

spatially distributed individuals develop shared repertoires has been revealed

through study of the role of non-humans in CoP. In her reflections on Julian

Orr‟s (1996) study of the community of photocopier technicians at Xerox,

Yanow (2006) shows that all learning in CoP is enabled by conversations

informed and shaped by non-humans. Taking an actor network theory

informed perspective on learning (see Latour and Woolgar, 1979; Knorr-

Cetina, 1981), Yanow notes that “practice-relevant knowledge becomes

„available‟ only in and through interacting with the machines, through hands-

on, trial-and-error supported by the wisdom collected over time by the

workgroup” (2006, 1748). What is learned from interacting with machines,

which „talk back‟ through error codes, noises and reactions to engineers‟

tinkering, acts as the basis for the shared repertoire of the community

because it guides and becomes the subject of conversations which allow

negotiated meanings to emerge. Such ideas draw on the work of Dewey

(1916/1997) in relation to the role of „productive inquiry‟ and mean

transcending distinctions between body and mind to recognise how processes

of learning involve a combination of touch, smell, observation, and experience

7
as well as conversation. Similar ideas are developed in Polanyi‟s work on tacit

knowledge (Polanyi, 1967) through the concept of „subception‟, most famously

used to explain the process of learning how to ride a bicycle in which the

cyclist learns „more than he can tell‟ not just by talking to experienced riders

about the technique needed to maintain balance but through riding and

interacting with the bicycle itself.

In terms of the implications for conceptualisations of the geographies of CoP,

the limited work that has taken the role of non-humans in CoP seriously

suggests that the shared repertoire that ties CoP together is produced when

all members, whether co-located or spatially distributed, interact with the

same type of non-humans. For example, Amin and Cohendet (2004, 110)

suggest that the formation of CoP relies on “yes, face-to-face meetings,

sociality, and casual contact…but it also draws on distant objects such as

drawings faxed between offices around the world”. As such, the geographies

of CoP and the geographies of learning and innovation facilitated by CoP are

assumed to be defined by the existence of: (a) stretched spaces of sociality

that facilitate interaction and talking between community members, spaces

which are also; (b) populated by individuals with common profession or firm-

specific ways of working which form the basis of joint enterprise; and (c)

connected into spaces of flows that enable community members to interact

with the same non-humans, something which produces shared repertoire.

Only when all three of these spaces are globally stretched do global CoP and

global geographies of learning and innovation exist.

8
In the rest of the paper I, therefore explore how such understanding of CoP

can explain global architects‟ geographies of learning and innovation. This

means considering the way co-located but also spatially separated architects

interact with one-another and the way mutual engagements, joint enterprises

and shared repertoires are developed and lead to the emergence of CoP.

Questions explored in the paper include: what is the role of sociality and talk

in global architects‟ processes of learning and innovation? Are there forms of

„productive inquiry‟, „subception‟ and non-human „work‟ that render objects,

texts and images important in forming „local‟ and „global‟ CoP? What are the

implications of understanding the role of both sociality and non-humans in

defining the geographies of the CoP for broader understandings of the

geography of learning and innovation?

3 Methodology

The analysis below uses data collected from 49 interviews in total. 37

interviews were conducted with global architects in a range of firms (see table

1) in Beijing, London, New York City, Paris, San Francisco and Tokyo. These

cities were chosen because Knox and Taylor (2005) suggest they are the

cities most worked in and through by global architects. In addition, nine

interviews were conducted with members of the professional associations

representing architects in the UK, France, Japan and the USA. Three

interviews were also conducted with directors of architectural degree

programmes in the UK, USA and Japan. All interviews were recorded and

fully transcribed and followed an interview schedule that explored four main

topics: the interviewee‟s understanding of innovation in relation to building

9
design; the role of the studio and the firm in generating opportunities for

learning and innovation; the importance of presence in major world cities for

generating opportunities to learn about building design; and the global intra-

and extra- firm communities the interviewee participated in as part of attempts

to learn about building design. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes,

with interviewees being selected at random from global firms, professional

associations and architecture schools present in each case study city. All

quotations have been made anonymous to protect the identity of interviewees.

A number of interviews also ended with a tour of the architect‟s studio and

discussion of the sketches and models on display. Documents, books and

webpage addresses were obtained from interviewees when relevant. Some of

these materials are discussed in the analysis below.

[Insert table 1 somewhere here]

An interview based methodology was chosen for this study because of its

strength when used to inform a grounded theory approach to researching the

multiple practices and spaces of learning. Although interviews always provide

a subjective and potentially partial understanding of social phenomenon, the

continual comparison associated with the grounded theory approach

developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) allows interviews to be used to

develop conceptual understanding of the role of the practices and spaces of

learning of the architects researched. Other examples of research taking such

an interview-based approach to develop understanding of the practices of

learning include Hong et al. (2006) and Sousa and Hendriks (2006).

10
It is important, nonetheless, to reflect critically on two of the limits of an

interview-based methodology. First, interviews do not permit the subtleties of

social interactions in CoP to be uncovered. Data only provides

representations of discussions, as perceived by interviewees. As such

complementing interviews with detailed ethnographic work that is more suited

to studying interactions and conversations between community members

would allow a richer understanding of the role of talk in learning to be

developed. Second, and related, interviews also have limitations in terms of

understanding the role of non-humans in producing the shared repertoire of

CoP, providing only second hand interpretations conveyed via words of their

role. It is, therefore, important to read the analysis below as an attempt to

identify the different roles of sociality/talk and non-humans in determining the

geographies of CoP and other spaces of learning and innovation rather than

as an exhaustive analysis of their role. The analysis also provides a basis for

the justification of time consuming ethnographic work which is often hard to

negotiate access for and difficult to obtain funding to support when long

periods of immersion in the field are needed. The analysis shows that such an

approach is invaluable for studying „creative‟ industries like architecture (see

for example the work of Cuff, 1991) and when seeking to reveal the subtleties

of processes such as learning (see for example the insights generated by

Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Latour and Woolgar, 1979).

4 Global architects: learning through ‘local’ communities of practice

11
Interviews revealed that global architects are members of two important CoP.

First, the studio forms an important community. As Cuff (1991) outlines, one

of the reasons for the studio community being important is that buildings are

„collectively conceived‟. Sharing ideas, drawing inspiration from one-another‟s

drawings and models and the competitive tension of the studio are all

important in the design process. The studio emerges, then, as an organic

community in which architects are thrust together to complete design work.

Whether it be through „crits‟ when architects review one-another‟s work,

general chat and gossip about either other studio members‟ work or the work

of architects at rival firms, or studio project meetings when progress on a

project and solutions to design problems are discussed, the studio acts as a

structure for the social interaction that is crucial in CoP. As one architect

noted:

“I think a really good design process is one that evolves into something that

isn‟t what you expected and isn‟t the common conventional solution and then

it does surprise you. That can happen not only through yourself but also

through collaboration with people. That is why architects work in a studio

environment, we are not all just shut off in little boxes, we need to interact and

engage with other people” (Design Director, delivery firm, New York City).

Indeed, the importance of the studio as a community means that in „strong

delivery‟ firms (see table 1) multiple studios exist. Each studio acts as a

community formed around mutual engagement in the design of one particular

type of building (e.g. hospitals, universities etc.). The joint enterprise of studio

members is defined both by their common training as architects but also by

the ethos, values and priorities of the studio leader. In contrast in the „strong

12
design‟ firms run by „stars‟ a single studio exists with joint enterprise defined

by the leadership of the „star‟ founder or, in the case of „strong design‟ firms

with multiple offices, the trusted individuals charged by the „star‟ with running

each office. But it is not just studio-based CoP that are important for global

architects.

All of the architects interviewed were located in major world cities (see table

1) and, perhaps unsurprisingly, interviewees highlighted the benefits of „being

there‟ in relation to innovation or what architects commonly described as

„reinvention‟ and „thinking differently‟ in terms of building design. In line with

the work of Grabher (2001) and Rantisi (2002), architects identified the value

of being in a major world city because of “the community of ideas in which you

can participate in. I mean here we have wonderful opportunities with the

universities and that is a wonderful source of inspiration, to participate in

academic discussion and all kinds of extra-curricula activities” (Architect,

delivery firm, San Francisco).

The communities described by this architect and others interviewed have a

close resemblance to those identified in previous studies of regional CoP (e.g.

Benner, 2003; Faulconbridge, 2007). Multiple architecture CoP form in cities

organically when individuals are drawn to a particular place (e.g. by bars as a

social space) but most commonly through seeding when deliberate attempts

(e.g. by professional bodies) are made to generate a community. For global

architects these CoP are comprised of fellow architects who work at other

„design‟ or „strong delivery‟ firms but also at „non-global‟ firms. Each

13
community forms around fairly specific mutual engagements, such as

designing the same types of buildings (e.g. hospitals) or managing the same

issue in the design process (e.g. sustainability). Community meetings allow

collective reflection on topics such as the latest construction techniques,

materials or regulations. As one representative of a professional association

in San Francisco summarised the role of such CoP:

“there is a new building code coming…so we have asked the building

department to do a series of presentations with architects, engineers and

building inspectors so that they can talk about the changes together and

come to a shared understanding”.

4.1 The foundations of ‘local’ CoP

A number of factors allow studio and city-based collectives to act as CoP that

inform learning and innovation relating to building design. First, all members

are mutually engaged in the same task – designing innovative buildings and

interacting regularly as part of day-to-day work or through occasional face-to-

face meetings that produce spaces of sociality. In addition, all members

participate in a joint enterprise - using a common approach to design, as

prescribed by professional training and, in the case of firm-based

communities, the studio‟s principle. But CoP are, however, not only a result of

mutual engagement between individuals with a joint enterprise and the

resultant sociality and buzz.

As described above, shared repertoire, the formation of which is often

facilitated by non-humans, plays a vital role alongside mutual engagement

14
and joint enterprise in allowing learning through CoP. For example, in the

studio models and sketches „talk to architects‟ (Schön, 1983) and help to form

the shared repertoire of the CoP. Touching, altering and interacting with

models and sketches allows architects to understand design challenges and

the appropriateness of proposed solutions through „productive inquiry‟

(Dewey, 1916/1997) and „subception‟ (Polanyi, 1967). What is learned from

interacting with non-humans then becomes the focus of and shapes buzz

within studios. Reflecting the findings of Law (2002) in relation to aircraft

design, architects talk and argue about theirs and others‟ sketches and

models and use the conflicts or converging logics generated to help develop

interpretations and understandings of design challenges. As one architect

summarised, “the one thing I would say about that dialogue is that it needs to

be focused not just on talking but on drawings and images or things you have

all seen” (Architect, delivery firm, New York City). Indeed, the value of

interacting with and talking about models is seen as being so great that one of

the firms studied listed as one of its design rules the use of “Rough idea

models [that] allow teams to test ideas rapidly…Use these quick studies to

develop, test and critique ideas” (Design Manual, delivery firm).

Similarly, in city-based CoP, interaction with and reference in conversations to

a common set of non-humans is also important and act as the basis for the

shared repertoire of communities. For architects, the museums and art

exhibitions present in cities such as London alongside the new buildings that

are constantly appearing as what McNeill (2005) calls the „skyscraper

geographies‟ of central business districts are reproduced all make interaction

15
on an everyday basis with a common set of non-humans, from paintings to

sculptures to buildings, possible. Such „experiential‟ capital and the insights

gained from „productive inquiry‟, ‟subception‟ and ultimately reflection in CoP

channelled through a focus on non-humans located in the city is relied upon

by architects as part of a constant quest to develop new approaches to

building construction, space organisation, the appearance of building facades

etc.. As one architect described the role of art exhibitions in London in

allowing learning relevant to building design and in facilitating conversations in

CoP, “it‟s [architecture] very visual so places to look are art and nature. Look

at something phenomenal and its physical forms and link that to thinking or

the conversations you have about design” (Associate Architect, delivery firm,

London).

The discussion above reveals, then, that when studying the geographies of

learning and innovation through CoP it is important to focus on the spatiality

of: mutual engagement – i.e. the topologies of spaces of sociality; joint

enterprise – topologies of training, employment and other variables that

produce a community of individuals with a shared ethos; but also shared

repertoire – topologies of spaces of interaction with non-human actors that

allow the formation of a language and reference point for community

members. The role of non-humans is something geographers have

underemphasised to date in existing studies of CoP but it has been suggested

so far that in the „local‟ CoP that architects participate in the ability of all

members of the community to learn from and make reference to the same

non-humans, present in the studio or in the same city, is essential for the

16
formation of the shared repertoire without which a CoP cannot emerge. This

raises the question of whether studying more carefully the way non-humans

help form shared repertoire might reveal additional insights into the non-local

geographies of processes of learning and innovation associated with CoP. It

is to this question the paper now turns.

5 ‘Global’, stretched communities of practice?

It might be assumed that global architects would also be part of CoP that

transcend and perforate scalar boundaries in ways similar to those identified

in other research (e.g. Amin and Cohendet, 2004; Faulconbridge, 2006; Ibert,

2007). After all, global architects worldwide have a joint enterprise as a result

of common training as an architect if not also as a result of employment by the

same firm. Indeed, one architect alluded to the potential importance of such

global CoP when describing how “it is not just San Francisco…for me I

consider architects more of a global community, I look at European architects

as colleagues” (Architect, delivery firm, San Francisco).

It was surprising, therefore, to find that in delivery firms with multiple offices

there is little sociality and interaction between architects working in different

offices. Hence the mutual engagement that is so important in producing CoP

fails to emerge. Architects in delivery firms could rarely name other individuals

working in the firm‟s overseas offices. The only type of interaction involved an

individual literally „flying in‟ to work on a problem. Indeed, when the London

office of the delivery firm KPF broke away (i.e. the partners in the office left to

setup their own firm, taking all the junior architects with them) one of the

17
explanations given was that being part of the global firm brought few benefits

because “offices work largely independently of each other” (Lee Polisano,

KPF President, quoted in The Financial Times [2009]).

Many explanations exist for such a lack of inter-office collaboration and the

failure of CoP to emerge. At one level the competitive nature of architects

tends to encourage the formation of office- or studio-level silos. Individuals are

reluctant to interact with and assist architects working in other offices in case

they inadvertently help solve a design problem and generate intra- and extra-

firm publicity or praise for that individual. As one architect noted:

“there is this creative tension if you will. I keep my group all together. So when

I came here [from New York] they shipped the whole group with me. Our

group sort of formed that bond and we stay together. And an identity grows

out of that within this larger firm identity” (Associate, delivery firm, London).

At another level, and reflecting the argument of both Asheim et al. (2007) and

Gertler (2008), it was suggested that talking about building design using

virtual technologies is incredibly difficult. Architects felt that face-to-face

meetings are the only way to interact. As one put it:

“We are using internet sites to exchange documents, the odd conference call

and video-conferencing. But surprisingly it doesn‟t really happen that much

because you can‟t substitute it for a meeting where we‟re all around the table

and have a concentrated day face-to-face” (Architect, design firm, London).

However, such face-to-face meetings are almost impossible to arrange due to

heavy workloads and because of the vast distances involved in travel

18
between offices. Many delivery firms have only one or two offices on each

continent making inter-office travel long distance, intercontinental and

expensive in terms of lost hours in the studio. Consequently, architects made

little effort to interact with colleagues working in other offices.

A similar situation also exists in terms of extra-firm communities. One of the

findings of existing studies is that hyper-mobility, worldwide fame and

participation in meetings that bring together a transnational elite are the

hallmarks of global architects (Colomina, 1994; Jencks, 2006; McNeill, 2008;

Olds, 2001; Sklair, 2005). However, whilst the charismatic leaders of both

design and delivery firms - individuals such as Rem Koolhaas and Eugene

Kohn of KPF - are constantly mobile and interacting with fellow architects,

developers and politicians worldwide, for most architects life working for a

global design or delivery firms involves long hours in the studio. As a result,

the opportunity to meet, interact with and participate in a global community of

architecture professionals, either through travel or virtual communication, is

limited. This is especially the case for the most junior architects who rarely get

to travel at the firm‟s expense. However, the resultant absence of „global‟ CoP

does not mean that these architects do not still aspire to be part of a global

community of architects and do not learn from the work of distanciated

colleagues.

5.1 Global geographies of learning and the role of non-humans

19
It became clear from interviews that despite the lack of mutual engagement

and global‟ spaces of sociality and talk, and hence the absence of „global‟

CoP, important „connections‟ do still exist between architects in different

offices of a delivery firm‟s network and more generally between architects

worldwide.

First, architects learn from the work of other architects by themselves

„circulating‟ through travel. Power and Jansson (2008) highlight the role of

travel to trade fairs for design professionals because of the learning facilitated

by what Torre (2008) calls temporary proximity – arranged moments of co-

presence with other humans (allowing buzz) but also non-humans (exhibits

that allow „productive inquiry‟ and „subception‟) (see also Bathelt [2007] and

Maskell et al. [2006] on the role of trade fairs). However, as noted above,

global architects rarely have time to leave the studio to attend conferences

and firms are rarely willing to pay the associated costs. More important for

global architects, therefore, is travel at weekends or during once a year

vacations that allows buildings throughout the world to be visited. Whilst

architects are not willing to pay themselves for travel to meet other architects

or to attend conferences, they are willing to pay for what is often referred to as

the „grand tour‟ (Owings, 1973): travel to visit iconic or new buildings and

interact with them through touch, sight, and by spending time in internal and

external spaces so as to „absorb‟ their physical cues and learn through

„productive inquiry‟ and „subception‟. The role of such travel and interaction

with buildings was described by one architect as being “a historical thing for

architects to travel, to look at every possible thing you can so that you fill your

20
mind with a library of solutions”. The first three quotations in Table 2 further

reveal the importance of such travel to architects.

[insert table 2 here]

Ironically, considering the reliance on architects spending their own time and

money to travel and visit buildings, one architect made the following comment

about his firm‟s understanding of the importance of such travel:

“The book [that outlines the firm‟s approach to innovation‟] talks about basic

things like go and travel and look around and see what else is going on, if you

understand the context you can innovate and you can decide the level of

innovation everybody is comfortable with” (Architect, delivery firm, San

Francisco).

Table 3 outlines in more detail how the book referred to by this architect

defines the role of travel in innovation, suggesting that the opportunity it

affords individuals to interact with the work of rivals, learn about their solutions

for particular design problems and then use the experience to shape both

future work and reflection on building design in „local‟ CoP is priceless.

Specifically, visits allow insights to be gained into the way fellow architects

deal with challenges such as ensuring natural light reaches as many parts of

a building as possible. Or the role of particular types of glass, metal or stone

in determining user experiences of a particular space can be understood. The

final two quotations in Table 2 provide further insight into how a number of

architects described the tangible benefits of interactions with buildings in

terms of the learning allowed and innovation inspired.

21
[Insert table 3 somewhere here]

In addition to travel, and secondly, learning and innovation is facilitated by

non-humans that themselves „circulate‟ and are interacted with by architects.

This circulation can be in the form of the physical movement of objects, for

example when a model is shipped between offices of a delivery firm, but also

the virtual movement of non-humans, for example in the form of a building

plan or photograph that „circulates‟ via the internet. Indeed, all of the delivery

firms studied used in-house newsletters and/or „global project displays‟ in

each office to circulate models, images and text relating to buildings designed

by architects within the firm. Often these newsletters and displays become the

focus of „crits‟ within a studio as architects analyse, reflect upon and develop

shared interpretations of the work of others as represented in the models, text

and photographs. As one architect described:

“I think most architectural practices have some sort of internal newsletter that

tells you the latest things they are up to and they‟ll get the team to explain

their designs and they‟ll then get a peer review from within the practice”

(Architect, delivery firm, London).

In addition, just as important in terms of the circulation of non-humans is the

function of the architectural press. The role of the media in the architectural

profession and in the work of global architects has been extensively

documented. Colomina (1994) studies the architect Le Corbusier in the early

20th century and argues that his self-promotion via the media was responsible

for his fame whilst the relative anonymity one of his contemporary‟s, Loos,

22
was a result of his failure to engage with the media. The revolution of

photography, in particular, is highlighted by Colomina (1994) as being

particularly important for generating the fame of global architects such as Le

Corbusier, allowing the worldwide circulation of publicity images and

generating a whole industry dedicated to taking flattering photographs of

buildings. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the architects interviewed were all

obsessed with publications such as Building Design, The Architects Journal

and Architectural Record. As the quotations in Table 4 suggest, these

publications provide a global window on the work of rivals. Similar roles are

fulfilled by books such as The Phaidon Atlas of 21st Century World

Architecture which offers drawings, photographs and text relating to over 1000

building worldwide, as do architecture-focussed Internet sites (e.g.

http://skyscraperpage.com/). As one architect put it, the media allows “you to

know what your contemporaries are doing, you have to be current in the

discourse of the day (Office Principal, delivery firm, San Francisco).

Consequently:

“publications fulfil a need to allow architects not just to see each other‟s work

or clients and potential clients but to feel a building that they may never get to

visit” (Director, Professional Association, New York City).

[insert table 4 somewhere here]

As circulating non-humans, magazines, books and images on internet sites

allow learning through „productive inquiry‟ and „subception‟ because of the

way architects engage with the images and words used to describe a building.

Text and technical diagrams allow architects to begin to make sense of the

23
logic behind a particular design approach whilst photography allows architects

to begin to make sense of the effects of the way particular materials and

geometric forms are used to solve design challenges.

In some ways the discussion here of the role of non-humans reflects the

suggestion of Asheim et al. (2007) that individuals in certain industries (e.g.

life sciences) that utilise „analytical‟ knowledge can learn from non-humans in

the shape of patent documents and scientific papers that circulate via the

internet. However, in the case of architects who do not solely rely analytical

knowledges, it is the fact that visits to buildings and circulating non-humans

such as models and texts shape conversations in „local‟ CoP that is of most

importance. Learning enabled by „productive inquiry‟ and „subception‟ informs

conversations in „local‟ CoP and because the buildings visited and

represented in models, texts and images are often well-known examples of

iconic design they become the topic of conversations in „local‟ CoP. These

conversations allow challenges, such as designing a building façade that is

interpreted by passers-by in a particular way, to be addressed through the

symbolic knowledge produced by sociality and talk. As such, distant and

circulating non-humans help build the shared repertoire of the community. But

what are the implications of the role of such non-humans that allow architects

to learn from the work of distanciated colleagues and rivals for wider

conceptualisations of the geographies of learning and innovation?

24
5.2 Human – non-human interactions and the geographies of learning

and innovation: the role of constellations of practice

Non-humans interacted with through travel that allows buildings to be visited

and as a result of circulating texts, images and models act as bridges that

mean the discourse that allows learning in „local‟ CoP is in part formed by

distanciated sources of knowledge. Or, to use the language of Wenger

(1998), travel and interaction with buildings and the circulation of images,

objects and texts allow „local‟ CoP to become part of a wider „constellation of

practice’.

For Wenger (1998, 126-127) constellations of practice are “too far removed

from the scope of engagement of participants, too broad, too diverse, or too

diffuse to be usefully treated as single communities of practice”. Instead

constellations of practice are configurations that connect spatially dispersed

CoP together. Constellations emerge when connections, or what Bathelt et al.

(2004) would call global pipelines, develop as a result of individuals that move

between communities and, of particular importance here, as a result of the

circulation of non-humans between communities. Wenger conceptualise such

circulating non-humans as „boundary objects‟ (c.f. Star and Griesemer, 1989)

that carry discourses between CoP. For global architects connections to the

work of other architects worldwide formed by non-humans, in the shape of the

buildings visited and the circulating objects, texts and images described

above, mean, to paraphrase Wenger (1998, 129), conversations in „local‟ CoP

allow „styles to spread worldwide as people copy, borrow, imitate, import,

adapt, and reinterpret ways of designing‟. Or as one interviewee summarised:

25
 “we are in a globalized world where everything is interlinked and what

happens in one part of the world effects what happens in another part. So an

architect‟s practices are related to another architect‟s practices and you have

to think like that to be successful” (Architect and Director of Professional

Body, Paris).

But this does not mean that non-humans produce „global‟ CoP. Wenger

(1998) argues that „global‟ CoP only emerge when global spaces of sociality

exist that „perforate‟ scales thanks to either travel or virtual communication.

Despite the fact that the examples above of travel and circulating texts,

images and models might produce „pipelines‟ that connect architects

throughout the world together, the fact that mutual engagement and talk

occurs between architects in one office of a global firm or in one city means

that the CoP participated in by global architects are local. As such, this

justifies geographers‟ focus on mapping talk and spaces of sociality in order to

determine the geographies of CoP. But it also suggests that geographers

adopting the CoP approach need to focus not only on mapping spaces of

sociality if they are to effectively represent the geographical dynamics of

learning and innovation. They also need to focus on the geographies of

circulation and the non-humans that produce shared repertoire and which

themselves shape the broader spaces of learning and innovation „local‟ CoP

are part of.

By spaces I mean the socially but also technologically constructed arenas

which influence processes of learning and innovation as a result of the

sources of inspiration provided. The „local‟ CoP studied here, with the

26
„localness‟ of the community being defined by the geography of the sociality

and talk that allows learning, operate as part of global spaces produced by

non-humans – what Wenger (1998) calls global constellations of practice.

This suggests that potentially all CoP and processes of learning and

innovation operate in global spaces – i.e. are affected by pipelines,

constellations or other stretched spaces constructed by non-humans - even

when the social interactions associated with knowledge production occur at

one site. This makes it problematic to assume any learning can be studied

with reference to a singular scalar fix. The conclusions section of the paper

considers the implications of this role of non-humans for understandings of

the geographies of learning and innovation.

6. Conclusions

The analysis above outlines how, for architects, learning and innovation is

facilitated, firstly, by „local‟ studio and city-based CoP. Such learning is reliant

on the existence of a group of mutually engaged individuals with shared

enterprises and repertories that organically, or through deliberative seeding,

come together and talk about architecture on a regular basis. Non-humans

play a vital role in forming such CoP, allowing the shared repertoire of the

community to be generated through discussions of models, buildings etc..

Surprisingly, however, the analysis also shows that „local‟ CoP are not

complemented by stretched „global‟ CoP. Difficulties in generating the regular

sociality needed for „global‟ CoP to exist, either within or without of firms,

means stretched scale perforating (c.f. Amin, 2002) communities do not form.

27
This affirms the importance of tracing the spaces of sociality/buzz in analyses

of the geographies of CoP, something revealed by previous studies (Amin and

Cohendet, 2004; Faulconbridge, 2006). But this does not mean that the

spaces of learning and innovation that CoP are part of are defined by the

geography of sociality/buzz and the geography of the community itself. I.e.

geographers should not read off from the geography of CoP the spatiality of

learning and innovation associated with that community.

The analysis above reveals that circulating non-humans such as models, texts

and photographs, alongside travel that allows architects themselves to

circulate, perforate scales and learn from non-humans, are equally important

in defining the wider spaces of learning and innovation „local‟ CoP are part of.

Non-humans allow, for example, architects in „local‟ CoP in London to learn

from the work of architects in Beijing and San Francisco. Such global spaces

of learning rely on „productive inquiry‟ (Dewey, 1916/1997) and „subception‟

(Polanyi, 1967) as non-humans visited or themselves circulating shape the

individual understandings which inform conversations in CoP. These non-

humans also become the topic of conversations that allow the negotiation of

meaning in CoP. As a result, the connection of „local‟ CoP in the studio and

city into wider constellations of practice thanks to the „work‟ of non-humans

generates scale perforating global spaces or „pipelines‟ of learning and

innovation.

As such, it would seem that focussing on CoP is potentially limiting if the role

of sociality and buzz is not recognised alongside the role of non-humans in

28
defining the geographies of learning and innovation. The discussion above

suggests that all communities are potentially part of wider spaces of learning

and innovation whose geographies are defined by overlapping human and

non-human influences. As a result, in most cases an analysis that reveals a

bounded „local‟ geography seems likely to be partial and missing important

processes of circulation and connectivity that construct global spaces of

learning and innovation.

The findings of the research reported here, therefore, generate new empirical

questions about the role of non-humans and constellations of practice in

defining the geographies of learning and innovation in different industries. For

example, work on sociality/buzz has highlighted the differing role of face-to-

face and virtual interactions in different industries and the way knowledge

bases affect modes of learning and the structure of CoP (see Amin and

Roberts, 2008; Asheim et al., 2007; Gertler, 2008). It would, therefore, seem

important to examine how the role of constellations of practice and non-

humans vary within and between different manufacturing and service

industries. The research reported also raises empirical questions about the

role of constellations of practice that perforate scales for architects, and

workers in all industries, that are not part of global organisations. For the

global architects examined here constellations of practice in part fulfil a desire

to be part of a global architecture profession. As such, architects working in

non-global firms may not find themselves part of such constellations. But they

may equally be tied into such constellations because of the way they are

constructed by activities (travel) and non-humans (buildings, the media) that

29
all architects can access. Consequently it seems worth further investigating

the role of constellations of practice outside of the world of global architects

and firms, as noted above, preferably through ethnographic studies.

Finally, there is, however, an important caveat that needs adding to calls for

more work on CoP, constellations of practice and their influence on

geographies of learning and innovation. As Amin and Roberts (2008) point

out, approaches to learning and innovation that adopt the CoP approach do

tend to over-emphasise the importance of occupational communities. As

such, the analysis offered here of CoP and constellations of practice is not

exhaustive and does not capture all of the influences on processes of learning

and innovation in architecture because of the exclusive focus on interactions

within the architecture community. This is problematic because, as Larson

(1993) shows, architects operate in a state of „heteronomy‟ with planners,

engineers, quantity surveyors, regulators, clients and broader social trends all

influencing building designs. Studying CoP and constellations of practice

captures, then, one amongst many of the influences on design work and it is

important to view such an approach as only one amongst many useful

approaches for teasing out the multitude of influences on the spaces of

learning and innovation in any industry. Nonetheless, the first step made by

this paper to introduce constellations of practice into the vocabulary of studies

of the geographies of learning and innovation seems to be one useful way of

moving research of the geographies of learning and innovation forward.

30
Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was funded by British Academy grant SG-

43996. The author is grateful for the funding provided and also for the

assistance of the architects and other professionals interviewed as part of this

research. Thanks also to three anonymous referees who provided

constructive feedback on an earlier version of the paper. The usual

disclaimers apply.

References

Amin A, 2002, "Spatilaities of globalization" Environment and Planning A 34 385-399

Amin A, Cohendet P, 2004 Architectures of knowledge: Firms capabilities and

communities (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

Amin A, Roberts J, 2008, "Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice"

Research policy 37 353-369

Asheim B, Coenen L, Vang J, 2007, "Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases:

sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy"

Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25 655-670

Bathelt H, Schuldt N. 2007, "Between Luminaires and Meat Grinders: International

Trade Fairs as Temporary Clusters" Regional Studies 42 853-868

Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P, 2004, "Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global

pipelines and the process of knowledge creation" Progress in Human Geography

28 31-56

Benner C, 2003, "Learning communities in a learning region: the soft infrastructure of

cross-firm learning networks in Silicon Valley" Environment and Planning A 35

1809-1830

Colomina B, 1994 Privacy and publicity: modern architecture as mass media (MIT

Press, Cambridge, Mass.)

31
Cuff D, 1991 Architecture: the story of practice (MIT Press, London)

Dewey J, 1916/1997, "Theories of knowledge", in Pragmatism: a reader Ed Menand

(Vintage Books, New York) pp 205-209

Faulconbridge J R, 2006, "Stretching tacit knowledge beyond a local fix? Global

spaces of learning in advertising professional service firms" Journal of Economic

Geography 6 517-540

Faulconbridge J R, 2007, "Exploring the role of professional associations in collective

learning in London and New York’s advertising and law professional service

firm clusters" Environment and Planning A 39 965-984

Faulconbridge J R, 2009, "The regulation of design in architecture firms: embedding

and emplacing buildings" Urban Studies 46 2537-2554

Financial Times, 2009, "KPF partners looks to split from US founders" The Financial

Times, 20/07/2009.

Gertler M, 2008, "Buzz without being there? Communities of practice in context", in

Community, economic creativity and organization Eds A Amin, J Roberts (Oxford

University Press, Oxford)

Glaser B, Strauss A, 1967 The discovery of grounded theory (Aldine, Chicago)

Grabher G, 2001, "Ecologies of creativity: the village, the group and the heterarchic

organisation of the British advertising industry". Environment and Planning A 33

351-374

Hall S, Appleyard L, 2009, 'City of London City of learning?' Placing business

education within the geographies of finance" Journal of Economic Geography 9

597

Ibert O, 2007, "Towards a Geography of Knowledge Creation: The Ambivalences

between „Knowledge as an Object‟ and „Knowing in Practice" Regional Studies

41 103-114

Jencks C, 2006, "The iconic building is here to stay" City 10 3-20

32
Jones A, 2008, "Beyond embeddedness: economic practices and the invisible

dimensions of transnational business activity" Progress in Human Geography 32

71-88

Kloosterman R C, 2008, "Walls and bridges: knowledge spillover between'

superdutch' architectural firms" Journal of Economic Geography 8 545-563

Knorr-Cetina K, 1981 The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist

and contextual nature of science. (Pergamon, Oxford)

Knox P L, Taylor P J, 2005, "Towards a geography of the globalization of architecture

office networks" Journal of Architectural Education 58 23-32

Latour B, Woolgar S, 1979 Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts

(Sage Publications, Inc)

Larson M S, 1993 Behind the postmodern facade (University of California Press,

Berkeley)

Lave J, Wenger E, 1991 Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.

(Cambridge University press, Cambridge)

Law J, 2002, "On hidden heterogeneities: complexity, formalism and aircraft design",

in Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices Eds J Law, A-M Mol

(Duke University Press, Durham, NC)

Maskell P, Bathelt H, Malmberg A, 2006, "Building global knowledge pipelines: the

role of temporary clusters" European Planning Studies 14 997-1013

McNeill, D. (2005). Skyscraper geography. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1),

41-55.

McNeill D, 2008 The global architect. Firms, fame and urban form (Routledge,

London & New York)

Olds K, 2001 Globalization and urban change (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

Orr J, 1996 Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. (Cornell

University Press, Cornell)

Owings N A, 1973 The Spaces in Between: An Architect's Journey (Houghton Mifflin)

33
Polanyi M, 1967, "The Tacit Dimension" New York

Power D, Jansson J, 2008, "Cyclical clusters in global circuits: overlapping spaces in

furniture trade fairs" Economic Geography 84 423-448

Rantisi N, 2002, "The local innovation system as source of „variety‟: openness and

adaptability in New York City‟s garment district" Regional Studies 36 587-602

Schön D A, 1983 The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Basic

Books, New York)

Sklair L, 2005, "The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in

globalizing cities." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 485-

500

Star S, Griesemer J, 1989, "Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects:

Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-

39" Social studies of science 387-420

Sunley P, Pinch S, Reimer S, Macmillen J, 2008, "Innovation in a creative production

system: the case of design" Journal of Economic Geography 8 675

Torre A, 2008, "On the Role Played by Temporary Geographical Proximity in

Knowledge Transmission" Regional Studies 42 869-889

Wenger E, 1998 Communities of practice: learning meaning and identity (Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge)

Wenger E, McDermott R A, Snyder W, 2002 Cultivating Communities of Practice: A

Guide to Managing Knowledge (Harvard Business School Press)

Winch G, Schneider E, 1993, "Managing the knowledge-based organization: the

case of architectural practice" Journal of Management Studies 30 923-936

World Architecture, 2004 Top 200 practices (Springer, Wien)

Yanow D, 2006, "Talking about Practices: On Julian Orr's Talking About Machines"

Organization Studies 27 1743

34
Table 1. Key ‘global’ firms. Interviews were completed with representatives of firms
highlighted in bold with cities interviews completed in detailed below firm’s name.
Source: Data taken from World Architecture (2004) and firms‟ websites. Classification of
Strong Delivery Firm (Delivery) – a firm which uses experience to deliver modern buildings in
a cost effective manner – and Strong Design Firm (Design) – a firm that focuses firstly on
developing novel iconic architecture – taken from Winch and Schneider (1993).

Firm Country No. No. Key characteristics

of origin Offices architects
(2004)

Gensler USA 28 650 Delivery firm. US-focussed operations targeting

(New York, San repeat business from corporate customers.
Francisco,
Tokyo)

Aedas UK 19 410
(Beijing, London, Delivery firm with multiple worldwide centres of
New York) design

HOK USA 16 646 US-centred delivery firm offering full service with
(London, San many non-city based projects worldwide.
Francisco)

NBBJ USA 8 621 Full service delivery firm.

(London, New
York, San
Francisco)

Skidmore Owen USA 8 477 Delivery firm focussed on USA but operating in
Merill major European and Asia cities out of London
(London, New (full service) and Shanghai (project
York, San management) offices.
Francisco)

KPF USA 3 198 Delivery firm focussing primarily on tall buildings

(New York) and operating mainly through
London and New York design offices.

Foster & UK 1 393 Ideas firm operating worldwide out of London

Partners

Zaha Hadid UK 1 n/a Ideas firm operating worldwide out of London

(London)

Studio Daniel USA 1 n/a

Libeskind Ideas firm operating worldwide out of New York
City

Jean Nouvel France 1 n/a Ideas firm operating worldwide out of Paris

Office for Netherla 3 n/a Ideas firm operating worldwide out of North
Metropolitan nds American, European and Asia offices, all of
architecture which overseen by founder.
(New York)

35
Table 2. Examples of the importance of travel for architects and its conceptual
significance for theorising the role of experience in learning.
Interviewee details
Project manager, design
firm, London)
Architect, Delivery firm,
Tokyo
Partner, delivery firm, San
Francisco
Degree Program Director,
San Francisco.
Design director, delivery
firm New York City
Partner, delivery firm, New
York City
Quote
“When I was younger I used to go on busman‟s holidays all the
time. That‟s all I ever did. I never went on proper holidays for
about ten years, on a beach in a traditional sense”
“I like to go and travel to the States, Europe even some old
countryside you see all the vernacular buildings…I travel with
my family we always complain, you walk around the village and
take a lot of pictures”
“when we were in Seattle [on business] this week we toured a
couple of buildings, we also tour our own [the firm‟s] buildings.
We have a showcase of three top buildings…So yes touring
buildings, looking across the firm and what is going on is vital”.
“We have travel programmes to Mexico, Brazil, Argentina…We
do it with our lecture series and that is part of our own agenda
to look at the excellent work that is going on, particularly in Latin
America. I think it is an interesting question because we are all
embedded in this incredibly global situation”
“there were a couple of car loads of staff who went to [place x]
this past weekend. Now you know, you are kind of exposed to
things in a slightly different way as you travel around to different
cities to work on projects. But…seeing the building, trying to
develop an understanding of how different materials are
detailed, what they do in light you know, all of that stuff. But
you take those things and they become internalised and you try
and generate things from that great backlog of ideas”
“I travel a lot and I try to weave in time to see other buildings to
see what they do with light and detail and materiality, a floor
plan in a magazine is less interesting than walking through and
experience it“
36
Table 3. The two innovation tools of one delivery firm (out of a list of 18 tools) that
emphasise the role of travel.

Source: Deliver firm‟s innovation handbook.

Tool Benefits

Site See (i.e. visit “Step outside. Look past your immediate boundaries to see what‟s
buildings under possible. Go beyond the organization to make critical observations
construction) about your place at all scales – the immediate site, neighbourhood, city,
state, country, world. Uncover potential opportunities, identify
constraints, and unearth secrets. Look at how and when people move
and gather…Search the unique physical and experiential
characteristics of a site…By cataloguing and connecting diverse site
influences, site seeing is a tool that provokes visionary thinking.
Inspiration from these observations can transform a location into a
special place by adding content, meaning and values”

Invest in Travel “Pack your bags and hit the road. Become anthropologists. Together.
Explore the way others inside and outside your field innovation with
their processes and environments – even if it requires travel to a
faraway country. By taking field trips, you gain social proof that can be
leveraged in support of new ideas. Look for examples of solutions that
have worked in parallel situations. Study people‟s activities in these
environments and note the relationship between places and
activities…The journey provides context and background research for
shared discovery, leading to the development of a project‟s vision”

37
 Table 4. Examples of the importance of the media to architects interviewed and its role
in processes of learning and innovation.

Interviewee details Quote

Architect, delivery firm, “Most of my free time and reading time is on journals whether
London. they are technically based or design based. I should imagine that
I read about 10 hours a week and I think that is the norm in
architecture, if you walk along our studio now we subscribe to
about 20 magazines we get another 20 or 30 free”.

Project architect, design “We always try and keep check on what is happening in the big
firm, London. and well known offices and what they are up to because, you
know, we need to keep track on what these guys are up to so as
to see any moves, streams of design moving away in one
direction. And to do that we have quite a few magazines… we are
trying to use them as much as possible”.

Architect, design firm, “Clearly the amount of media sources enables architects to be
Paris. very well informed of what is being built anywhere on the planet.
So they can find sources of material very quickly and that wasn‟t
the case some years ago… I think inevitably seeing another
architects work is inspirational…it is a bit like formula one racing,
seeing formula one doesn‟t make you drive better but it acts as an
inspiration and I think for architects it is the same. Seeing other
people push the limits and barriers keeps everybody‟s standards
up”.

38

View publication stats