Architects: it's time to put down your ego, and follow the evidence

Cities are built on layers of decisions – some deliberate, most accidental. We masterplan, we plan, we argue about aesthetics, but how often do we check the real receipts – how places perform, where people go, what they avoid?

We need to mine data to design better, not more. That means streets and architecture that work because they are designed for how we behave, not how we wish we would.

Every day, our cities generate countless data points: foot traffic patterns, energy use, public space utilisation. Yet most end up in digital landfills. Data doesn’t care about your vision statement or awards, it just records what’s happened. Right now, we’re ignoring it: an inefficient, irresponsible practice.

Architects exist to shape cities as places for living. That’s why campaigns for active roles of city architects – synthesisers, bridging the gap between policy, data, design and lived experience – are gaining traction. 

Architecture still celebrates the lone genius sketching visions, while the world moves on to evidence-based design

Architecture is always slow to adopt new tools. We still celebrate the lone genius sketching visions, while the world moves to evidence-based design. Part of this is tradition, but part is that it’s easier to rely on intuition than to collect real usage data, admit when data contradicts your assumptions – or change course. To break the cycle, there is a role for an architecture figure, who leads across municipal boundaries and could apply data in key ways.

Treat data as a design material
Not as an afterthought or marketing bullet point. If you’re designing a school, you’d better know how current schools are used, not just when new, but after five years of kids using them.

Measure what works
The tech industry calls this ‘instrumentation’ – building systems that track their own performance. Why don’t we do this with physical spaces? If a new park isn’t getting used, we should know why within weeks, not years.

Democratise the data
Councils gather reams of information, while citizens use apps to circumvent bad design every day. Look at how people modify cycling routes in apps like Strava – that’s free urban planning research we’re ignoring. We could be documenting how residents modify social housing, mapping where pavement repairs cluster in cities, and studying how building materials actually age in different climates.

As we prepare to launch our 2025 RIBA report on AI, my plea is that we use it to interrogate the evidence. Trainee architects need to work with data as they would a material to shape, test and iterate. Decision-makers must hire people who prize evidence above ego.

At the same time, we can’t worship data blindly. I’ve seen planners justify bad decisions because ‘the numbers said so’. Data illuminates, it shouldn’t dictate. 

We must ask better questions:

• Not ‘how many people pass through here?’, but ‘why do they hurry through this section?’
• Not ‘is this space occupied?’, but ‘what kinds of activities happen here?’
• Not ‘does this building meet regulations?’, but ‘do people thrive here?’

We don’t need more data. We need the will and skill to use it. That means teaching data literacy in architecture schools; requiring post-occupancy evaluations for public projects; and creating simple tools for small practices to gather insights. Rewarding designs that work, not just look good. 

The technology exists. The knowledge exists. What’s missing is the professional courage and capacity to say: ‘This isn’t working – let’s fix it.’