Edit this article

Last edited 04 Jun 2026

Six Architecture Firms, Six Design Cultures: Lessons from Global Practice

1 Introduction
2 Shigeru Ban Architects: Architecture Begins with Responsibility
3 Kengo Kuma & Associates: Architecture as Atmosphere
4 SOM: Architecture as an Integrated System
5 Gensler: Architecture as Strategy
6 Aedas: Learning from Density
7 Woods Bagot: Architecture in a Global Network
8 What I Learned About Architecture
- 8.1 About the Author

[edit] Introduction

Architecture students are often taught to view architecture as a singular profession. We learn a common vocabulary of plans, sections, models, structures, and environmental systems. We are introduced to canonical projects and influential architects, and we are encouraged to develop our own design philosophy.

Yet my experience working across six international architecture firms revealed something quite different.

Despite operating within the same profession, many leading practices approach architecture through fundamentally different lenses. They may use similar software, produce similar drawings, and work under similar regulations, but their understanding of what architecture should achieve can vary dramatically.

Over the past several years, I had the opportunity to gain experience within a diverse range of global practices, including Shigeru Ban Architects, Kengo Kuma & Associates, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), Gensler, Aedas, and Woods Bagot. Each office exposed me to a distinct design culture shaped by different priorities, scales of operation, and definitions of success.

What emerged from these experiences was a realization that architecture is not a single discipline. Rather, it is a collection of overlapping cultures, each offering a different answer to the question: What is architecture for?

[edit] Shigeru Ban Architects: Architecture Begins with Responsibility

My experience at Shigeru Ban Architects introduced me to an understanding of architecture rooted in responsibility.

Shigeru Ban's work is internationally recognized for its innovative use of materials, particularly paper tubes and timber systems. Yet what impressed me most was not the novelty of these materials but the mindset behind them. Material selection was never treated as a stylistic decision. Instead, it was approached as an ethical and technical response to a specific problem.

In many projects, structure, materiality, sustainability, and construction methodology were inseparable. The architectural concept emerged directly from an understanding of how materials behave and how they can be deployed efficiently.

This approach challenged a common tendency among young designers to begin with form. At Shigeru Ban Architects, material logic often preceded formal expression. The building became a consequence of construction intelligence rather than an independent sculptural object.

The lesson I took away was simple but powerful: architecture becomes more meaningful when it begins with responsibility rather than image.

[edit] Kengo Kuma & Associates: Architecture as Atmosphere

If Shigeru Ban taught me about responsibility, Kengo Kuma taught me about sensitivity.

Kuma's architecture is often described through materiality, but materiality alone does not fully explain the experience of his work. What distinguishes many of his projects is the creation of atmosphere.

Details are carefully orchestrated to soften boundaries between interior and exterior. Light is filtered rather than simply admitted. Materials are layered to create depth, texture, and subtle transitions.

Rather than imposing a building onto a site, many projects attempt to dissolve architecture into its surroundings.

Working within this design culture highlighted the importance of human perception. Architecture is not experienced through plans or diagrams. It is experienced through movement, light, sound, texture, and memory.

This reinforced an idea that is often overlooked in contemporary practice: environmental performance and human experience should not be treated as separate objectives. The most successful architecture achieves both simultaneously.

[edit] SOM: Architecture as an Integrated System

At SOM, I encountered a very different definition of architecture.

While architectural media often celebrates iconic forms, the reality of large-scale projects is far more complex. Towers, airports, campuses, and infrastructure projects require extensive coordination between architects, engineers, consultants, clients, contractors, and public authorities.

At this scale, architecture becomes a systems discipline.

Design decisions are rarely isolated. Structural strategies influence façade performance. Mechanical systems affect spatial organization. Urban planning impacts transportation networks and public realm design.

What impressed me most was the level of integration. Projects were developed through collaboration rather than individual authorship. Success depended not only on creativity but also on coordination, communication, and technical rigor.

The experience demonstrated that architecture is as much about managing complexity as it is about generating ideas.

[edit] Gensler: Architecture as Strategy

My time at Gensler revealed another dimension of architectural practice.

Gensler approaches design through a strong emphasis on research, performance, and user experience. Buildings are not viewed solely as physical objects but as tools that help organizations achieve broader goals.

Workplaces, for example, are designed not only to accommodate employees but also to support collaboration, innovation, and organizational culture.

This perspective broadened my understanding of value creation in architecture. Architects often focus on aesthetics and environmental performance, but clients frequently evaluate projects through entirely different criteria. Productivity, adaptability, operational efficiency, and long-term flexibility can be equally important.

Architecture therefore operates at the intersection of design and strategy.

The lesson was that successful projects require architects to understand not only buildings but also the people, businesses, and institutions they serve.

[edit] Aedas: Learning from Density

Having grown up in Hong Kong and studied urban environments extensively, I was particularly interested in Aedas' approach to density.

Many contemporary cities face increasing pressure to accommodate growing populations while improving environmental performance and quality of life. Density is often presented as a challenge, yet it can also be a powerful opportunity.

Projects developed within highly urbanized contexts demonstrate how architecture can leverage compactness to support transit-oriented development, mixed-use programming, and resource efficiency.

This experience connected directly with my academic research examining how urban density influences sustainability certification systems. Through both professional practice and research, I observed that dense environments often require greater design ingenuity. Open space, daylight, ventilation, and ecological performance cannot be achieved through spatial abundance alone.

Instead, architects must reinterpret these goals through shared infrastructure, vertical landscapes, hybrid systems, and integrated public spaces.

Density is therefore not the opposite of sustainability. In many cases, it is one of its most important enablers.

[edit] Woods Bagot: Architecture in a Global Network

At Woods Bagot, I gained insight into the realities of contemporary global practice.

Architecture today operates within increasingly interconnected networks. Teams frequently collaborate across multiple cities, time zones, and disciplines. Projects involve diverse stakeholders with varying cultural, economic, and environmental priorities.

This environment requires architects to be adaptable.

Design excellence alone is insufficient. Architects must also navigate communication, project delivery, digital workflows, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

One of the most valuable lessons from this experience was understanding how design ideas evolve through collective effort. The image of the solitary architect remains influential within popular culture, yet the reality of practice is highly collaborative.

The future of architecture will likely depend not on individual genius but on the ability of teams to integrate diverse forms of expertise.

[edit] What I Learned About Architecture

Looking back, the most important lesson was not a technical skill or a software workflow.

It was the realization that architecture contains multiple professional cultures.

At Shigeru Ban Architects, architecture began with responsibility.

At Kengo Kuma & Associates, architecture was understood as atmosphere.

At SOM, architecture functioned as a coordinated system.

At Gensler, architecture became a strategic tool.

At Aedas, architecture addressed the challenges and opportunities of urban density.

At Woods Bagot, architecture operated within global networks of collaboration.

None of these perspectives are mutually exclusive. In fact, the future of the profession may depend on our ability to combine them.

As architects face climate change, urbanization, technological transformation, and increasing social complexity, no single design philosophy will provide all the answers.

The challenge for emerging architects is therefore not simply learning how to design buildings. It is understanding which values, priorities, and professional cultures they wish to carry forward.

Architecture is not one profession.

It is many professions sharing the same drawings.

And that diversity may be one of its greatest strengths.