CAN ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS DO MORE THAN PROMOTE THEMSELVES?

https://www.archpaper.com/2026/06/large-architecture-firms-promote-themselves/

This article by Sean Joyner outlines how architectural firms today have large PR sections that promote them office, and suggests that they might better use these advertising sections to explain the impact of architecture on the community in the hope that a better and more informed public will mean improved architectural and planning outcomes for all. Might this be possible?

One knows about the promotional material produced by architectural firms as one is in presented with examples of this blurb every day, with projects published along with the note: photographs and text provided by the architect. The texts usually appear to struggle to include every exotic word and concept possible - in order to sound learned? - see, e.g.: https://architectureau.com/articles/the-forest-by-woods-bagot/; the New Farm project: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/05/greenlit-new-farm-rainforest.html; and Heatherwick: https://www.dezeen.com/2026/06/19/alula-manara-space-observatory-heatherwick-studio-saudi-arabia/ - with what looks like an attempt to prove the quality of the work, and justify its appearance/resolution, suggesting that there is a rich depth of thought and feeling that lies behind its making. This approach has been critiqued, but it continues.

Sean Joyner’s argument is persuasive and interesting. He notes that while the PR sections of architectural firms will never be critical, because the idea is always to create a particular office image and reputation in order to get jobs, there could be a role for these promotional teams to adopt a different approach that might highlight the impact of architecture on everyday life, and, in this way, educate both those who employ architects, and the general public, in the hope of providing a better appreciation of the profession and its ‘real-life,’ everyday benefits that go unnoticed.

One recalls that some years ago, there was a fad that encouraged what was then called Post Occupancy Evaluations, or POEs. These were formal reviews of projects undertaken a year or so after completion in order to report on what has worked and what hasn’t, involving general inspections and discussions with the stakeholders, with the idea being that issues, problems, and failures could all be recorded and acted upon. It could be said to work on the basis of learning from one’s mistakes and successes. It was a feedback idea that sought to improve real outcomes in the future. Alas, as with all of these fads – remember the hoo-ha about QA, Quality Assurance, with the regular, documented workplace meetings, formal, third party file inspections, and frequent reports?# - POEs fell out of fashion, with this expertise morphing into the distraction of some newer computing or practice/management matter; but what Joyner seems to be suggesting is just what POEs sought to achieve, without the bad bits being publicised.

Could firms actually produce such studies for the public to read, understand, and be ‘educated’? Considering the current output, one could easily see such a transformation taking place, but alas, one fears that this might only be a reorientation of the current thrust of the hyped texts. Might any firm fund something less than or different to the current promotional material, no matter the subject or the format, and the public benefit? It might sound well-meaning and idealistic, but promotion material always seeks the same outcome irrespective of the means. A truly independent third party needs to be involved here if this outcome is to bear fruit.

What remains important is critical review. We cannot really trust firms to articulate what is effectively a POE that might not reveal its ‘genius.’ Such an approach will very likely only be more of the same of what we are getting today – look how clever we are/have been! What is necessary is critical review. As with POEs, such reviews always need to be carried out by others. In the world of commerce, self-regulation has nearly always shown to be a weakness, or to have a lack tenacity and candour. We need reviews of projects that can highlight the impacts of architecture in a way that can reveal both the good and the bad qualities; the successes and the failures, if we are to maintain a rigour in thinking about future possibilities.

Without this, we are indulging in a world of ‘positive thinking’ that has only been shown to engage in the promotion of fake matters for the feel-good outcomes desired, using spin to muddle realities into phantoms of perception that only fabricate false hope. Criticism needs to be clear, unedited, and honest if it is to be useful. One cannot really expect anything but positive glories from any architectural firm. The problem is that even publishers today fear tough criticism for its impacts on distribution and sales, as commerce shapes its own preferences and ambitions to suit itself.

Without good criticism, we are lost in a void of hopeful, misguided fancy, spun into what we are led to believe are reasoned and reasonable presentations. Accepting the latter outcome causes us unknown and undocumented complexities that cloud understanding with misguided, mangled muddles and messes that manufacture only maladies.

#

. . . and the time and money spent on the Y2K fad that predicted 'the end of the world'?

AI Overview

Y2K originally referred to the "Year 2000" computer bug, a widespread technical flaw where older systems abbreviated four-digit years to two digits, risking critical data corruption. Today, the term is also widely used to describe the nostalgic fashion, design, and cultural aesthetics of the late 1990s and early 2000s.