Sander Schuur:  Could you tell us about the change from UNStudio to UNS as a restart addressing your goal to look beyond architecture to formulate UNS for the future?  

Filippo Lodi:  There has been a lot of interest from our side to re-evaluate the role of the architect over time. What will be our role - especially with the advent of super technologies that accelerate development? It challenges the very essence of the discipline.   

The training of architects is very specialized and that comes from two routes. One is the very technical - all the technical universities that have populated the field of knowledge; and the other is the arts, where you have a more artistic sense, more aesthetic.   

We need to evolve. Rather than focusing only on one of these two routes, the evolution of the discipline should support more multidisciplinary thinking as this is needed to solve complex problems.  Then you need to address the needs of others, like policymakers, by speaking about topics like longevity, construction, the economy, budget, spatial solutions, psychology, and sociology components.   

This is where the education systems fail because the teaching in architectural schools is not contemporary. It's so outdated even in the best schools that I'm shocked, especially the US schools. They offer such a lousy set of programs that we don't have a match between education and the real world.   

There are so many realms [of knowledge] that we need to include to reposition the architect.  

A lot of the research that our studio has been doing this last year revolves around health. Medicine is in crisis because a lot of the health institutions - or even the countries in the most advanced parts of the world - they're very much reactive. They deal with health by curing something when it's broken. We need a health system that is about prevention.  

How can we rethink the built environment from a holistic perspective, meaning preventive?   

That is the fundamental question that we're working on. We do it in many ways, like participating in research projects and applications. We have a large body of studies about the blue zones of the world. That is research that Ben [van Berkel, founder of UNS] has been doing at the GSD at Harvard.  We've done a project on designing for happiness, and are starting one now about parental well-being.  

“We've done a project on designing for happiness, and are starting one now about parental well-being. We're basically looking at societal issues and how they intermingle with the built environment.”    

We're basically looking at societal issues and how they intermingle with the built environment. To make that research tangible, it needs numbers and data. This is where architects are not very good, to be honest. There are gigantic engineering firms that have a lot more knowledge in this area than we do. But we're much better at the soft side of the equation where you mix and curate knowledge. Architects are good at designing for human and social needs that aren’t easily captured by quantifiable measures. 

Schuur:  Let’s further discuss your point on re-evaluating the role of the architect. In Sweden, I saw a trend in the last 10 years where the reason to build for developers is often purely economic and the challenge you get from the client is often to save money in whatever corner you can find. Do you see a similar trend in in the Netherlands or internationally?  

Lodi:  The economic side of it is central. That's why we have a whole group of economic specialists in our studio who come from the real estate and financing world - to think alongside the developer, the city, or the government.  

Economics is a strong backbone of projects, and we need to be proficient at talking about it [in the design process]. Otherwise, the economics influence all aspects of the design, we are told what to do, and we lose control of the project. In that case, we are no longer viewed as the expert. 

In our work we sometimes stumble on bizarre macroeconomic decisions that governments take that have repercussions on quality of life. One example is from the Netherlands, where the government pays back an amount of your mortgage. It is very good to incentivize buying, right? And to incentivize the stability of the economy. But the more you pay, the more you get back. This makes the prices grow. And the value of the real estate is increasing while other metrics of the economy are not. This means a lot of people cannot afford to buy a home and then rent becomes really expensive. So the macroeconomic tools are having a direct impact on local projects.   

Another example, the big topic in Barcelona now is housing. Their government acts different than in the rest of Spain, as they created a law a few years back to cap rent. Which means property values cannot increase so owners want to sell. But the real estate costs are high, and nobody can afford to buy. This creates empty places that get squatted. So again, the macroeconomic tools have a direct impact on quality of life. Designers should be at the table to have that conversation because we can resolve some of those issues through design.  

For most real estate people this is mind-blowing. They go, what do you mean you can resolve those issues? Yeah, we can because we can think of a new real estate product that you can put on the market that fits the need. They don't think in a multidisciplinary setting themselves. They only see things from an economic perspective, and they see an Excel sheet and their policies and they're stuck. Which means they are behind and they have a lot to learn from us all of a sudden.   

“For most real estate people this is mind-blowing. They go, what do you mean you can resolve it by design? Yeah, we can because we can think of a new real estate product that you can put on the market that fits the need.”  

Catey Gans Kyrö:  Education plays a large role in shaping the architects and stakeholders of the future. What do you see as academia's role in shaping the future of architecture and the built environment? 

Lodi:  There is a strong role for academia to impact the future of the built environment, but we are neglecting it.  We focus now on the things that you can see, the people that you meet within a certain context. Instead, we should require an approach with more multidisciplinary exposure. Institutions can do that because programs such as a masters degrees need to be certified by a body. These bodies should be taking more ownership of the impact that they can have because it will automatically transform the built environment. I would love to have a conversation at that level because that's where the fundamental problems begin.   

In my educational journey, I was interested in problems that were not covered by one field of study, so I had to migrate to different disciplines. I initially studied engineering and realized that the problem is solved by the architect. I studied architecture and realized the problem is solved by economists, so I studied economics. Now I think that the problem is much more about psychology and human health. So that's what I'm focusing on now. We all have our own growth path.  

Schuur:  To include that broad knowledge would be a major challenge for any university.  

I would like to revisit the discussion of the role of the architect. What are the big steps forward and the big challenges on the way? Where do you want to see architects be in society in 10 years?  

Lodi:   As a discipline, architects need to be much more knowledgeable. We must grow what we know so we can really take ownership of the quality of the built environment and its impact on society.  There's so much that affects quality of life and the health of society that we are not fully aware of. If architects were more aware, then we would create much better places.   

“…architects need to be much more knowledgeable. We must grow what we know so we can really take ownership of the quality of the built environment and its impact on society.” 

For example, there is a Swedish institute that does research on paint in submarines because soldiers spend long periods of time inside of submarines. The paints need to be free of volatile organic compounds for them to breathe better air and live longer, but how much of that is actually known? If you look at the data of air quality in our cities and you look at the Netherlands for example, it will blow your mind how bad it is. We're living in a place that is worse than smoking. We should really take this type of knowledge seriously. 

Repositioning the architect is about knowing a lot more than what has been taught in the schools – it's having a broader view and continuously growing knowledge. If I’m asked what job I do, I never say I'm an architect because it sounds reductive. The architect is the one that makes drawings and buildings. The definition of who I am is not encapsulated in the job, and that's why I say let's change what it means because it's wrong by definition.   

Kyrö: I want to know more about the qualities of integrating people into projects and, as an architect, being the person to connect the different disciplines. How do you find the format and space for a multidisciplinary approach in projects?  

Lodi:  By interacting at multiple levels.  As a studio we have been involved in a task force in the Netherlands thinking about principles for urban development in the country. We had a place as part of a government, but as an external expert - that is one level. The other level is that you work as the connector between the different layers – such as with the municipality and a developer.  

Some municipalities have the right departments to interact with. For example, Amsterdam has an interesting department, with Ger Baron as Chief Technology Officer, where they look at technology and the built environment using metrics and data - almost like thinking of a city as a company.  

Companies need technology. So why don't we have a Chief Technology Officer of a municipality who can translate all the technologies coming in from outside and really change our urban environment? All cities need to evolve, and some cities are being really smart about it.  

A one size fits all approach is not possible because countries and cities operate in so many different ways. Navigating this complexity, we often question how we should work, and we try to build a team with experience in the urban context we are working in. Whether it is the Middle East, South America, or North America, we try to bring in a team with experience in living there, growing up there, having the same heritage - but also try to bring a more neutral and unbiased perspective to it. The mix of those two perspectives really helps us to come up with a good solution, proposal, or approach to tackle the problem. We have preconceptions about how things are in certain parts of the world and we need to get past that before even starting.   

For example, we are behaving very different for a project in Austin, Texas because the municipalities and the developers are very technology-oriented and understand user data. So we talk in that language. When we're working in Dubai, the relationship with the city is more economically driven than user focused. So we ask, what are the right metrics for success?  

The people you interact with will require different tools and approaches to yield similar results. Even the vocabulary must change because some countries are more responsive to certain topics. Circularity is a topic that is very effective in Denmark or the Netherlands, but not at all effective in Spain. In Spain, they talk about urban regeneration.   

Kyrö:   Even sustainability is a word that's used in so many different ways and contexts. It would be helpful to have a database of these different terms and how they connect, where they are used and what they mean where.  Have you found anything like that?  

Lodi:   Sustainability is one of the most difficult words to use and have a shared understanding. As a studio we have our own definition. We talk about different aspects of sustainability: social, economic, and technical sustainability. In some countries sustainability is part of the brand of a region, developer, or firm. In other places it's not even mentioned. There's no trace of it. But when you work on a project, it is required. So it's just not described, it's not mentioned, but required. Of course we need a LEED certificate. We need that quality.   

“We need to reposition ourselves as equals in the conversation and be proficient in talking about real estate values and metrics that define the built environment.” 

Schuur:  How does your research connect to everyday projects? How do you communicate findings back to your colleagues?  

Lodi:  We have different knowledge sharing practices at different scales. We have tools like data bank repositories you can search, AI for data that we have created ourselves and that needs to be secure. And there is a lot of human exchange like attending events and taking courses to keep learning.  

So far my team is the only one at UNS that truly functions in a multidisciplinary way. It is shocking for some at the beginning because they're confronted with people that have a different background, that work in a different way. People have to work together and fight through things. Even how they sit in the physical space has to be multidisciplinary.  

This team has now been in place for five years. It grew from five people to almost 70. To grow requires a new strategy because it's not actually a team anymore; it is too large. Now I'm working on multidisciplinary scalability throughout the organization to ensure it doesn't create silos. When it's small you can go for dinner with 15 people, but with a team of 80, there is no dinner place. So that requires a project-based approach where project teams are on a smaller scale.   

Kyrö:  The Pittsburgh Platform brings different actors together to have multidisciplinary conversations. How can we recruit people to participate, to prioritize coming?  

Lodi:  Address the essence of a problem for different disciplines in your discussions, marketing and proposals. For example, if you want to bring in the real estate world, talk about how do we solve the housing shortage?  To tackle fundamental big issues, put them forward from a pragmatic point of view.   

Also, always get to know people. Who are they? What do they need? Every event needs to have a clear purpose and benefit. If I meet somebody, what do I get out of it? The world is very pragmatic.  

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.