Why Architecture Needs More Research Studios
Architects: Want to have your project featured? Showcase your work by uploading projects to Architizer and sign up for our inspirational newsletters.
In a recent article titled “To Make is to Think”, we discussed how architects can take advantage of the process of making not only to create buildings but to produce knowledge as well. Currently, architectural research is conducted primarily within universities, think tanks or non-profit organizations; a rather internal process that appears mostly in biennales, academic journals and speculative architectural competitions. But are there any places within the industry where such methods can also exist?
When we look at contemporary practice, large architecture firms such as Morphosis and MVRDV have established dedicated research studios within their firm – The Now Institute and The Why Factory, respectively. They tackle speculative projects without necessarily producing conventional architectural “products” in the end. What happens, however, with smaller firms? The ones who don’t have the resources to sustain a parallel research arm alongside their core practice. For these studios, research cannot exist as an internal luxury; it must operate as a practice in its own right.
1. The “Research Studio” as a Missing Business Model
Eilís Finnegan | Editor’s Choice Winner, Architectural Visionary of the Year, 2025 Vision Awards
Traditional architecture practices are still evaluated through a single outcome, the design and construction of a building. “Success” is measured against cost, timelines and ease of construction, without necessarily addressing more urgent issues that impact the wider site or city. Frankly, today’s pressing spatial questions do not need a singular architectural solution as an answer.
This leaves a gap in the industry that can be filled by research studios that operate in-between academia and practice, without the obligation to build. Perhaps they could adopt the role of a strategic consultant for cities or NGOs. They could also participate in cultural production works such as exhibitions or publications, and even take on commissions for studying specific urban scenarios. Rather than asking “what can we build?” these research studios could pose questions like “what spatial knowledge is missing?” or “what futures need to be tested?” Grants, fellowships and institutional partnerships could be the way to fund this work, suggesting a parallel economic and business model for architecture that adds value through research and speculation rather than square footage.
2. Research Studios as Foresight Engines
Growing Rowhouses by Ho-gyeum Kim | Jury Winner, Vision for House, 2025 Vision Awards
From Coal to Core by Wei Feng | Editor’s Choice Winner, Vision for Renewal, 2025 Vision Awards
Admittedly, the construction process is quite slow. It takes years to go from design to implementation, especially for large-scale projects that hold the most impact in relation to their context. For that reason, traditional architectural practice almost always fails to keep up with contemporary urgencies (climate change, urban inequality, etc.). Research studios, on the other hand, could function as foresight engines, developing strategies that can predict future needs and buy some time for conventional practice to respond.
Some key research ideas could be long-term climate scenarios, migration-driven urbanism, post-extractive landscapes, as well as infrastructural afterlives. By working with these topics, research studios essentially map potential futures and create responses that allow architecture to act rather than react. They take the form of visionary architecture that, instead of projecting distant, fictional worlds, engages with near futures based on grounded data and sociopolitical realities.
3. The Rise of the “Speculative Deliverable”
Exoskeleton by Cheng Wei Lee | Editor’s Choice Winner, Vision for Nature, 2025 Vision Awards
Yet, the most important shift that has to happen within the market is treating (and paying) a speculative deliverable as an equal to an architectural output. These deliverables might take the form of atlases, catalogues, drawings, narrative diagrams, model prototypes, fictional briefs and even laws that shape the built environment.
Unlike traditional deliverables, these “artefacts” are used to open up frames of inquiry, reframe conversations and expand the boundaries of what architecture can do, without having to be blueprints for construction. While architecture struggles to justify its usefulness and relevance in the contemporary world, such outputs could perhaps help the discipline to operate upstream, creating questions before solutions are even requested.
Currently, the common perspective is that research studios are “nice to have” but not essential – viewed as an afterthought and as a practice that operates in the periphery. But this framing misses the point. The ability to research and speculate is architecture’s most valuable skill, since it is a discipline that touches various fields and actors that shape our world. Consequently, instead of treating architectural research as a luxury or a prelude to “real work”, the profession needs to acknowledge it as a legitimate and critical practice that moves architectural thought forward. If to make is to think, then research studios are where architecture learns how to think in advance.
Architects: Want to have your project featured? Showcase your work by uploading projects to Architizer and sign up for our inspirational newsletters.
Featured Image: Flatiron & NoMad Streetscape Plan by OSD (Office of Strategy + Design) | Jury Winner, Vision for Cities, 2025 Vision Awards
The post Why Architecture Needs More Research Studios appeared first on Journal.
