Architects’ Guide: Writing Project Descriptions That Actually Explain the Architecture

Architizer's diverse jury of global experts is currently reviewing submissions to the 14th A+Awards! Sign up to receive updates on Public Voting and spring winner announcements.

Ask any AI platform to write an architectural concept statement, and the result will feel strangely familiar. Vague phrases such as “the building establishes a dialogue with the landscape”, “the façade acts as a porous urban threshold,” or “the structure serves as a catalyst for community interaction” appear in most architecture texts — from competition entries and awards submissions to press releases and project descriptions. Yet, after reading them, it is often impossible to answer a simple question: what does the building actually do? And, for that matter, what role did the architect play in making design decisions?

Paradoxically, artificial intelligence exposes this problem rather than causing it, simply reproducing the empty language it has learned from architects themselves.

How did architectural writing become so abstract? Competition culture encourages impressive, often ostentatious language, while academic influence introduces theoretical vocabulary that is not always accompanied by the rigor or references that originally gave it substance, and — from a market point of view — PR agencies frame projects through flamboyant storytelling instead of providing more practical narratives. To some extent, AI mirrors this writing practice, but it also reveals a very interesting dynamic: in order to generate a text that is freed from clichés, architects must provide a clear prompt, a clear idea and a clear objective.

In other words, a clear brief is the strongest communication tool in the architect’s arsenal and yet is oftentimes the most overlooked. Pulling three projects (and their descriptions) from the Architizer Database, we will explore how strong texts define as well as produce architecture that can be explained clearly, answering the questions of:

• The Brief – What problem needs solving?
• The Constraint – What made the project difficult?
• The Design Move – How does the architecture respond?
• The Result – What the building actually does.

Weishan Chongzheng Academy Bookstore of Librairie Avant-Garde

By Trace Architecture Office, Dali, China

Jury Winner, Commercial Renovations and Additions, 13th Architizer A+Awards

The Brief: The project’s aim was to repair and renovate the historic Chongzheng Academy in Weishan Ancient Town, turning it into a multifunctional bookstore that includes spaces for exhibitions, a theatre and a café. Additionally, this intervention intends to revitalize the surrounding area and reactivate the cultural life of the town.

The Constraint: The site includes a 500-year-old academy, a 330-year-old banyan tree, and a 1960s iron factory with a preserved wooden structure. Consequently, any design gesture needed to preserve and protect these historic elements, while introducing new spatial connections between the new and the ancient town.

The Design Move: The project conserves the historic walls, the wooden structures and the surrounding vegetation while inserting two lightweight Book Galleries that reconnect the academy’s courtyards and create spaces for reading and cultural events. The intervention strategy is surgical and strategic, working closely with the existing context.

The Result: The academy is reactivated as a public cultural destination that supports the community and takes advantage of the history and the “artifacts” found on site. The architecture becomes an agent of preservation, insertion and connection, creating a multifaceted civic space.

Fog Bridge

By Art+Zen Architects, Rongcheng City, China

Popular Winner, Unbuilt Transportation, 12th Architizer A+Awards

The Brief: As part of the renovation of the Sangganhe Botanical Garden in Rongcheng, the project required a new bridge to connect the two sides of the Sanggan River. Apart from the bridge acting as a transitional circulation space, the aim was to create a structure that would incorporate a park and support community gatherings.

The Constraint: The bridge design had to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle circulation, without disrupting the botanical garden’s vegetation and views. In parallel, the structure needed to cover the span of the river using as few supports as possible in order to not to disturb the natural landscape.

The Design Move: The project transforms the bridge into a hybrid infrastructure that simultaneously shapes space. Separate lanes organize bicycle and pedestrian circulation, while a spiral path links the bridge to the café below and to a viewing platform above the river. Structurally, a wooden truss system stabilized with metal cables allows for a large span with minimal piers.

The Result: The project reframes a simple infrastructural requirement and turns it into an opportunity to expand the area’s public space. Consequently, a bridge that usually functions solely as a crossing becomes a connection as well as a horticultural destination.

The Perch

By Nicole Blair, Austin, Texas

Finalist, Residential Renovations and Additions, 12th Architizer A+Awards

The Brief: The clients, a hairstylist and a landscape designer, needed a flexible studio space that could accommodate work, guests and occasional living. At the same time, they wanted to preserve their backyard landscape and avoid relocating during construction. Consequently, the design had to be a compact addition and minimal intervention that could expand the functionality of the existing bungalow.

The Constraint: The project had to overcome several issues such as preserving the mature backyard landscape, comply to local building regulations and limiting construction disruption. Furthermore, the addition had to be lightweight and occupy a small footprint while providing sufficient, flexible space for multiple uses.

The Design Move: A compact 660-square-foot (61 square meter) structure is designed above the existing bungalow. To preserve the surrounding vegetation, the addition rests on four steel columns – three of which pass through the bungalow walls to stabilize the structure – allowing the ground-level landscape to remain largely untouched. The plan follows a split-level organization combined with vaulted ceilings to create a sense of spatial generosity, while integrating ample amounts of storage. Finally, multiple building components were prefabricated off-site to minimize construction disturbance.

The Result: By concentrating the building footprint and lifting the program above the roofline, the project expands the home’s capacity without sacrificing the landscape that initially defined it.

What Architects Can Learn From This Exercise

Across these briefs, a clear pattern emerges: strong projects often begin with a clearly articulated problem, and a successful design brief makes the logic of the architecture immediately legible. What happens, though, when architecture has no problems to solve? What about all the luxury villas or the iconic buildings, whose aim is primarily aesthetic dominance or imposing status? In these cases, the brief serves as justification rather than articulation, and this perhaps is why architectural language has drifted towards metaphor.

Not every project needs to solve a problem. However, the ones that are grounded in clear briefs and real constraints tend to produce the most substantive architecture. And the best part? AI tools may promote this kind of thinking by exposing the ideas that lack specificity. Because AI is remarkably good at repeating architectural clichés and remarkably bad at hiding them.

Architizer's diverse jury of global experts is currently reviewing submissions to the 14th A+Awards! Sign up to receive updates on Public Voting and spring winner announcements.

The post Architects’ Guide: Writing Project Descriptions That Actually Explain the Architecture appeared first on Journal.