A Critical Friend: Brief Reflections on the Silicon Architect and its Data-centric Mindset

Abstract

I am at academic odds or should I say mindset odds with Kemkomnerd and Tirapas’ (2025) argument that architecture is transforming towards a data-centric mindset and its influence on the design process. However, before I go into a critical review of their subject matter, I need to position myself within the built environment design world so that the scholar / student / practitioner, may gain an understanding of the lens from which I am conducting this review. I come from an academic background of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, with emphasis on Aesthetics / Community Development. This background is derived from studying and practicing in country settings such as the USA and Australia, and my aesthetic / community development focus comes from co-producing projects with a range of people and students in a variety of Global North and Global South settings (e.g. Colombia, Mexico, Nepal). Critical insight into the Silicon Architect stems from my research and studio work developing a Sensory Urbanism prototype (see Beza & Globa, 2023; Globa et al., 2022). Additionally, in my research / teaching I do not normally refer to professionals within the built environment as architect, urban planner, engineer and so on. Rather, I believe those that influence space(s) through, for example, the use of physical, virtual and/or monetary means are designers. Hence, in this review I will use the term ‘designer’ to refer to built environment professionals / academics rather than apply the siloing term Architect or Architecture.

Interestingly, when I read the piece by Kemkomnerd and Tirapas’ (2025) I immediately was taken back to and reflected on a similar ‘mindset’ discission that took place in the 1960s where designers dealt with data-driven and computer supported inquiry. That discussion took place as a conference titled Architecture and the Computer (1964) and focused on two dimensions of the then emerging use of the computer in design, these were “[...] to provide information about the current use of the computer in architecture and related fields, and [...] to explore the possible relationships of computer use to the creative process of architectural design” (xi). So I ask myself what is fundamentally different to essentially two similar design / data use transition arguments? Off the top of my head, there are clearly differences between an emerging 1960s potential use argument of computers versus a now imbedded use of the digital and artificial worlds in nearly every aspect of contemporary 2025 life. Additionally, the physical and memory size, processing speed, usability, program availability and applicability, transportability, affordability and aesthetic differences, to suggest a few, are ‘yes’ very different. But the computer’s potential use (i.e. mind-set transition) and applicability in design (i.e. data-centric approaches) query remain essentially the same. In the following pages, I address this quandary from a more conceptual and scholarly point of view rather than a line by line discussion of the authors’ ideas.