The present sketch came out of the realisation that the individual models are parts of something whole, like a single organism, and I tried to connect them in analogy with the different organs of the body, placing figurative images of the body parts in a way that emphasises recognition for the viewer. What is missing is The Compendium of Botanicals, here I ask the observer to engage their imagination.
I am looking for ways to accept architecture in its botanical and animal nature, restoring the cultural break with nature as the essence of man. It opens up the perception of architecture as a living being.
The 3D printing process involves smooth lines developing in a spiral, in harmony with the biological structure of humans and wildlife.
Оrganic materials and organic forms are capable of bringing people to a different level of perception of nature and of themselves as part of nature, establishing direct, qualitatively new contact with the environment.
The End of Architecture or Its Rebirth?
(review of Patrik Schumachers article “The End of Architecture”)
The evolution of technology has radically transformed all forms of art, turning them from elitist disciplines into accessible tools for self-expression. Painting, photography, cinema, and design have undergone democratization, allowing millions to engage in the creative process, thus blurring the traditional boundaries between artist and audience, creator and consumer. Now, this wave of change is reaching architecture—a discipline that has long remained isolated, maintaining its status as an exclusive and highly specialized field.
However, if we follow the argument of Patrik Schumacher, what we are witnessing is not just a transformation but the dissolution of architecture as an autonomous intellectual discipline. Traditional architectural discourse has collapsed under the weight of political moralizing, and the profession has been reduced to a fragmented craft, stripped of its theoretical foundation and innovative drive. Architectural education, once a rigorous intellectual domain, has become preoccupied with social activism, diluting the discipline’s ability to respond to the pressing demands of technological and societal evolution.
If in the 20th century, architecture was perceived as an autonomous professional practice shaped by discourse, theory, and innovation, today it faces the challenge of decentralization and potential irrelevance. New technologies such as 3D printing using natural materials, parametric design, and digital collective modeling challenge the monopoly on architectural production. The question is no longer about preserving traditional architecture as a closed system but about integrating new methods of creating habitats, where the architect loses the role of the sole creator and cedes space to a collective, networked process. However, this does not necessarily mean the loss of specialization—rather, it suggests a shift in what specialization means. While AI can generate visually striking spaces, true architectural expertise lies in the careful design that considers ecosystems, human rhythms, and infrastructural necessities.
1. New Technologies as a Tool for Decentralization
The introduction of 3D printing using earth and other natural materials makes it possible to move away from the industrial standard of construction, which relies on concrete and steel. This technology not only reduces costs but also enables local communities to shape their environments independently, integrating architecture into natural ecosystems. The transformation of architecture into a craft accessible to everyone changes the very nature of the discipline: whereas design was once an intellectual practice based on criticism and innovation, it is now becoming a space for cooperation and direct action. However, this does not mean the complete dissolution of expertise—rather, it calls for an educational aspect that allows individuals to engage meaningfully with architectural decisions while leaving technical complexities such as infrastructure, water supply, and electricity to trained specialists.
2. Architecture as a Collective Process
Modern architecture suffers from alienation—it is created by professionals and consumed by a mass audience that has no real influence on the design process. However, AI-driven design technologies, digital simulations, and open-source platforms allow communities to participate in the creation of their built environments, shifting architecture from a domain of specialized knowledge to a space for public dialogue. This is not just a technical update but a paradigm shift: from architecture as an author’s art to architecture as a social process. Yet, this also raises the question: if architecture becomes fully democratized, does it still exist as a distinct discipline, or does it dissolve into a generalized act of construction and spatial arrangement? The challenge is to create an environment where every individual has the right and the opportunity to express their vision for their space while also having a voice in shaping shared public spaces. This is as much a question of politics as it is of education.
3. AI as a Partner in Ecological and Human-Centered Design
The disconnection between humans and the natural world is one of the fundamental problems of contemporary urbanization. Traditional architecture, operating within categories of functionality, aesthetics, and structural logic, often ignores biological and ecological rhythms. Including nature in architectural design from the outset—considering water flow, soil dynamics, animal migration, or tree growth—ensures that environments are not merely artificial but truly alive. Moreover, we must take into account the existing wildlife—animals, insects, and birds that already inhabit these spaces—but also actively design new habitats within our built environments, providing opportunities for cohabitation and ecological balance.
This approach marks a break from the purely anthropocentric vision of architecture, yet it also questions whether architecture as a discipline can still claim to be a human-centric art form. However, artificial intelligence can now take part in this process, helping designers and non-experts alike to integrate ecological, infrastructural, and human-centered considerations into their projects. Instead of replacing architects, AI can act as a guiding system, embedding complex environmental and social data into the design process, allowing individuals to make informed choices while shaping their spaces. This does not mean the disappearance of architecture as a profession, but rather the evolution of architecture as a collaborative intelligence between human creativity and computational power.
4. Vertical Growth as a Necessity
Limited space demands a reevaluation of architectural solutions. The development of vertical ecosystems is not just a utilitarian response to land scarcity but a fundamentally new strategy for constructing living environments. Vertical cities, enriched with natural and social elements, break the binary opposition of „home-city,“ creating new hybrid forms of dwelling, interaction, and cooperation. Yet, without a clear theoretical foundation guiding this shift, does this innovation still fall within the realm of architecture, or is it merely engineering?
5. Architecture as a Tool for Restoring Sensitivity
If artificial environments shape human perception, they must be designed not only for convenience and utility but also to restore the lost connection between humans and the world. Future architecture should not only provide shelter but also cultivate perception, fostering new ways of interacting with reality. In this sense, architecture ceases to be merely a profession or a craft and becomes a fundamental right—the right to an environment that enhances human sensitivity and awareness of one’s place in the ecosystem.
However, this vision is fundamentally at odds with the current trajectory of architectural discourse, which has become entangled in ideological debates that do little to advance meaningful architectural innovation. While sustainability, inclusivity, and community engagement are valuable goals, they have increasingly replaced rather than complemented architectural theory, leading to a discipline that has lost its sense of purpose beyond vague ethical imperatives. If architecture is to survive as a distinct field, it must reclaim its autonomy, re-establish a critical discourse grounded in theoretical rigor, and engage with the technological revolutions reshaping our built environments.
Conclusion
We are not witnessing the end of architecture in the sense of total disappearance, but we are seeing the death of architecture as it was once understood—a discipline driven by discourse, theory, and radical innovation. The advancement of technology, the participation of communities, and the reintegration of nature into architectural design present opportunities for a rebirth, but only if architecture can navigate this transformation without dissolving into mere construction or urban policy. The challenge is not just to embrace change, but to ensure that architecture remains an intellectual pursuit rather than a reactive, fragmented practice. The future does not lie in preserving outdated forms, but in redefining the very essence of what architecture means in a world where its monopoly on the built environment has been permanently disrupted.