Membership of Type allows unlimited access to our online library. Join to support new research and writing on the design of the built environment.
You can read more about membership here.
Already a member? Login to your account to avail of unlimited downloads.
Membership of Type allows unlimited access to our online library.
Join to support new research and writing on the design of the built environment.
You can read more about membership here.
Individual Membership Fees
Individual membership is available on a monthly or annual basis.
The fee is €10/month or €99/year.
There are two ways to look at the collision of one's beliefs having pursued an architectural degree, and starting one's first job in architecture. A collision between one's assumptions and reality may not be the nicest experience, yet it can be truly valuable. Such collision, as long as either of the two doesn't change, is inevitable. Such a collision between an architecture graduate's thoughts, and the reality of working in a practice can have positives and negatives – but such an occasionally uncomfortable thing can be beneficial, and in fact broaden a graduate's skillset.
When the two worlds collide
Architecture is mainly taught through a five-year course. Students optionally, and quite often, take ‘a year out’ between third and fourth year to (most often) work in architectural practice, which is likely to be their first long-term and intense experience with architecture as a career. As long as architecture is taught in the manner it is, the collision between a student's assumptions and beliefs, and their real-world priorities is almost inevitable.
Such a collision creates an opportunity to question their real-world priorities, and might possibly lead to their improvement, or at least understanding of their role in practice. This can make following their principles easy, intentional, and sensible. However, such collision can, in reality, prove an obstacle – when the theory and the practice don't align, the theory can often feel like a waste of time. This should, in turn, be an incentive to challenge the theory or even practice, so that students and graduates would feel more familiar with life after graduation – if familiarity is considered the only ‘right’ way to be prepared.
Collision as a benefit and an opportunity
Collision between one's assumptions, beliefs, and priorities, and with every-day architectural practice is inevitable due to the nature of how architecture is sometimes taught. In college, one goes through years of working on various projects in theory to learn how to think when it comes to creating space. For instance, one is expected to pay attention to how the space feels, how it gets constructed and used, about its environmental impact, and last but not least, what it looks like.
Nonetheless, designing in an architectural studio seems to be rarely led by these criteria, although they are hopefully the ultimate goal. For example, affordability, practicality, and buildability most often seem to be more important than aesthetics, comfort, and innovation.
Aesthetics is invariably resolved by manufacturers producing a tested list of windows and doors, bricks, kitchen cabinets, and roof tiles to choose from, which are generally considered aesthetically pleasing, but most importantly buildable. They are mostly prefabricated and rely on certification, and a builder’s familiarity with them. This in turn ensures that they are the most affordable option, a priority – particularly in housing. An attempt to use bespoke windows, with a particular aesthetic in mind, will prove pointless due to the cost of production, testing, and certification. This naturally leads to a question as to whether one can design and construct a thoughtful building whilst almost entirely using prefabricated products. More pertinently, a graduate may wonder whether one can aspire to design aesthetically pleasing buildings at all – these may begin to feel like the naïve remain of the college experience that fades away with time?
Comfort has been (allegedly) defined by minimum sizes of houses and apartments, along with sizing bedrooms, storage spaces, living spaces, balconies, and terraces through housing guidelines – along with often-used typical details of construction elements such as precast concrete floor slabs, or particularly timber frame panels. In this instance, it feels as if there is no need for another Le Corbusier´s ‘Modulor’ studied in the college environment. Here, one was encouraged to re-think what has been established to understand it, and to aspire to improve upon it. Indeed, the fact that something has long been constructed in a certain manner does not mean it is being built in the right way – so how can one be sure that the prescribed and recommended design is ideal, if one is not encouraged to question it?
Innovative solutions are imprisoned between building regulations and cost requirements that are often non-negotiable. One can either view them as a challenge or as a barrier, and given architecture's role in tackling various societal issues and in making our environment a better place, it feels best to see them as a challenge.
In truth, the collision between a freshly college-influenced mind and the architectural world poses several questions which could lead to an improvement of the real-world rules by which we construct spaces, an improvement rooted in not accepting reality as it is. In other words, I believe perceiving all the limitations as a challenge rather than as a barrier is the best way in which to improve our built environment.
Collision as an incentive
Nonetheless, the collision between architectural theory and architectural practice can also be viewed as a wrinkle that needs to be ironed out of a graduate. Resolving this discrepancy can be performed by changing the means by which architecture is taught, by establishing fewer rules, and by making both theory and practice more intertwined.
Architectural courses should enhance one's creative and problem-solving skills, as well as one´s interest in new solutions and techniques. However, in practice affordability and practicality often prove more important than aesthetics and innovation precisely because they ensure people have a roof over their head, and the safety provided by that essentially offers comfort. It can often feel as if there is no use in pursuing one´s creative skills and innovative thinking, as building regulations and design manuals have already tackled various scenarios. In this reality, architectural courses should perhaps be more reflective of the real work environment, and the philosophy of practice.
This collision could be avoided by changing the way architecture is taught. If theory were more like everyday practice, graduates would be provided with a more realistic view of what a career in architecture will be like. In principle, this would allow a student make a more informed decision as to whether a career in architecture is what they aspire to.
Collision as a way to improve
This collision is a good thing because it creates potential for improvement, and disillusion can encourage one to discover a different way to make use of one's skills. It creates space for questioning, understanding, and possibly improving architectural practice and, in turn, our environment – rather than choosing to resign oneself to an inevitability.
Present Tense is supported by the Arts Council through the Arts Grant Funding Award 2025.
n/a
Teenagers may feel they need permission to play. Sometimes they just need space to loiter and talk ,but they are often misunderstood. As Jane Jacobs stated in The Death and Life of Great of Great American Cities “adolescents are always being criticised for this kind of loitering, but they can hardly grow up without it” [1]. Teenagers in county Kildare have said “adults made space for the younger kids but every time teenagers are in a space, they get kicked out or demonised” [2]. Adults have a duty to assist children and teenagers in creating the spaces they desire.
Public and green spaces in Ireland often consist of pitches, MUGAs (multi-use games areas), and skateparks. These large and open spaces often end up being taken over by boys and men who play ball games which results girls feeling left on the periphery. These areas are also usually surrounded by high fences with only one or two narrow exits. UK-based research carried out by Make Space for Girls discovered that 90% of the facilities provided for teenagers consisted of MUGAs, skateparks, and BMX tracks, and that 90% of the users are male. Within the same research, girls were three times more likely to use other facilities (e.g. shelters, swings, tennis courts) but 75% of these ‘other facilities’, which are designed by the councils, are shelters placed facing MUGAs and pitches [3]. This is not to say that these spaces are not valuable to certain demographics. It points to the fact that these spaces are not experienced equally and that girls are often designed out of public spaces intended for their age group. This results in them feeling excluded and uncomfortable. How can we design public space for teenage girls when we don’t listen to what they want?
After decades of cities being designed mainly for men as they went to and from work via car, Vienna was one of the first cities to adopt gender mainstreaming - the practice of accounting for all genders equally in design - as an urban design principle. Since the 1980s, Stadt Wien (City of Vienna) has implemented multiple strategies to diversify their city infrastructure. The widening of over one kilometre of footpaths makes space feel more accessible and less threatening, street lighting improvements provide a stronger sense of security, traffic lights have been altered to favour pedestrians, and the provision of more benches has provided to be the difference between someone participating in public versus staying home [4].
Einsiedlerpark in the Margareten district was redesigned in 1999 based on local feedback from and conversations with girls in the area - they felt that there was nothing there for them. The number of girls using these spaces was decreasing from the age of nine. Hammocks and platforms were placed near the footpaths, described as ‘quick attractions’. Volleyball and badminton courts were added to neutralise the boys’ dominance over the caged basketball courts. A platform was added between the basketball courts simply to divide the large space into ‘sub-zones’ whilst also providing more seating. Lighting and footpaths were improved to encourage girls to linger. These might seem like small additions and amendments, but they can make a huge impact on the lifestyles of teenage girls. Since its completion, it has been enjoyed by many other demographics as well, specifically elderly people and young families [5].
Make Space for Girls is a UK-based charity that campaigns for girls to be considered in the design process of parks and public spaces. They provide workshops and interviews with girls, research precedents, and create design suggestions. They then present this research to councils, developers, and design professionals. They give a voice to teenage girls. From their observations, suitable park infrastructure includes swings, stages, exercise bars, benches with shelter and seating facing each other. Other public space features such as lighting, access, and footpaths are also critical in fostering girls in public areas [6].
In a 2019 survey by Teenspace of 500 teenagers in the South Dublin County Council area, more than 90 per cent of teenagers requested spaces for hanging out and for play and recreation while only 5 per cent asked for more sports facilities. Kildare County Council announced a pilot project in 2024, to design a park in Celbridge while involving teenagers in the process [6]. Both of these initiatives were aimed at teenagers of all genders. In Ireland, only 11% of teenage girls reach the recommended amount of daily physical activity [7]. A Level Playing Field, a not-for-profit, carried out a series of workshops with girls from Dublin between the ages of 12 and 16. Founded by Sarah Flynn in 2022, these workshops identified what made the girls feel unsafe and uncomfortable in public spaces. The girls then sketched their idea of improved public space at Charleville Mall, Dublin 1. These proposals included ‘increased lighting, seating for hanging out and chatting on, and playful interventions such as trampolines embedded in the paving’ [8]. These initiatives are catalysts for meaningful interventions by including girls in the process.
Still, there is not enough being done to facilitate and foster girls in public space in Ireland. Dublin City Council states in their Dublin City Development Plan 2022 - 2028 that the Council will ‘during the lifetime of this Plan complete a study of Women and Girl’s Safety in the public realm in order to identify the factors that make women and girls feel safe and unsafe in public spaces’ [9]. This public research has not been carried out. The current lack of public toilets in Dublin is also a hindrance to girls - and many others. There is now only one public toilet in Dublin at St. Stephen’s Green which is currently planned to close [10]. Girls and women need reasonable access to public toilets for many reasons, specifically for menstruation, breastfeeding, and to care for children.
The only way to create pleasant public spaces for teenage girls is to talk to them and listen to them. The lived experiences of girls deserve to be acknowledged and considered when it comes to the design of public space. Teenage girls believe they are left out due to feeling unsafe, but there are multiple ways to encourage girls to take up space. There is no one prescriptive solution to this matter which is why local research and engagement is vital to suit different contexts and provide meaningfully for women.
In this article, Sinéad Hickey discusses gender mainstreaming in urban spaces through the lense of teenager and women in sport. Sinéad explores the nature of spaces provided for teenagers, the disparity in provision for genders, and the issues affecting teenage girls use of these public spaces in particular.
Read
Every time I move, something has to be rebuilt.
Moving to a new place means setting up a new routine, building a new support network, and re-learning how things work - while leaving behind a version of yourself that you, and those around you, are familiar with. Migration can be described through the act of arrival, but for me, it is equally shaped by the sense of departure, having to establish myself again and figure out what I bring to the table.
I moved to Birmingham as a 17 year old international student from Delhi. While I was studying architecture, I was also learning to navigate a new cultural and academic environment. I was surrounded by new references and different ways of communicating ideas, along with the pressure of developing a design language. For example, from the outside, crit culture is about pinning your work up on the wall. However, it requires confidence and the ability to defend your ideas, to question your own thinking, and sometimes to fail publicly, and, despite that, to have the courage to show up next week.
Sarah Young, in her research on imposter syndrome, describes how critiques, comparisons, unwritten rules of architectural education, and demanding work hours can intensify feelings of self-doubt. In her survey, over 50% of first-year design studio participants reported moderate to intense feelings of being an imposter [1]. As I was still learning and finding my feet in a new country, the question of competency became more heightened, and I started to question if I truly belonged here.
As I moved to Belfast for work, the questions did not disappear. Representation tells us who is present in a design studio or an office. However, belonging is revealed through actions upon entering. As I entered practice, I began considering whether there was trust, whether I was asked about my thoughts, whether I was encouraged to take part in a conversation or given an opportunity to resolve the unfamiliar, or whether I was taking responsibility before I felt ready.
These moments matter as confidence is built through opportunities. Factors such as gender, race, disability, sexuality, and caring responsibilities can often influence whether people are given a chance to work directly with clients, take on complex projects, develop technical skills, or progress into visible leadership roles [2]. For me, being welcomed into the profession and being trusted within it were two very different realities.
Mentorship has played an important role in helping me close the gap. Over the last year, I participated in mentoring schemes across the UK and was matched with three incredible female mentors who had also migrated to the country. Conversations with them helped me navigate progression, build confidence, and manage professional expectations. Most importantly, they challenged my imposter syndrome and helped me recognise that a lack of certainty should not be seen as a lack of potential.
Yet, confidence alone can’t address the wider barriers to entering industry. The route to qualification in the profession remains long and financially demanding, especially for international graduates. At elite universities, international tuition fees can exceed £30,000 a year, yet entry-level roles offer little remuneration by comparison [3]. Recruitment can also reinforce barriers to the profession. The industry still operates through familiar networks, recommendations, and established universities. For people who are trained abroad, have migrated, or have followed an unconventional career path, it becomes even harder to get a foot in the door. For international graduates, there is an added sense of uncertainty alongside professional progression. There is a constant race against time due to visas, work sponsorship, and changing immigration policies.
Similarly, architectural registration remains tied to national systems such as the Council of Architecture in India, the Architects Registration Board in the UK, and the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland in Ireland. Working across countries and navigating new registration processes each time requires translating experience and qualifications to fit a new system.
Having to prove your professional identity and build support networks all over again can seem daunting at first. However, with every move, I learned new ways to understand, communicate, and be resilient. My confidence now comes from knowing I have rebuilt before.
I visited the London Festival of Architecture this year, and the central theme of ‘Belonging’ was explored through connection and participation [4]. It made me reflect that while architecture creates spaces for connection, the profession must also nurture the people entering, support those trying to stay, and create meaningful opportunities for progression. This is why I co-led ‘Portfolio Review and Mentoring Night’ last month with my colleague, Lois Chan, bringing together students and practitioners for portfolio feedback, career conversations, and professional connections. I have immensely benefited from the people around me who helped me to navigate the industry, and I hope to make the routes visible to others.
I am writing this in a time of great uncertainty about my next move. Yet I know with every move, I carry forward the confidence, the generosity of my mentors, diverse perspectives, and unique experiences. My experience is only one of many among the professions increasingly shaped by movement. The question then is, how does the industry recognise, value, and advocate for the talent it attracts from across the globe?
In this article, Ananya Jain reflects on how different educational and professional environments shaped her sense of belonging through her journey from Delhi to Belfast, and the role mentorship, migration, identity, and belonging has played in her navigation of both architectural education and practice.
Read
By the time I turned sixteen, I had already let most of my hobbies fall by the wayside. Art, basketball, ballet, theatre – all of these are things which I used to love but inevitably gave up one-by-one as I entered adolescence. The common denominator being that I felt I simply could not spare the time for these hobbies. But this begs the question as to why a young girl might find herself worrying about time – why did I feel like I was in a time deficit at such a young age? The sad reality of this is that there are a number of things which eventually lead young girls to disproportionately abandon hobbies and pastimes in their adolescence. Social pressure, self-consciousness, and time redistribution toward academics are all contributing factors. However, there was a hidden undercurrent of something deeper and far older as I slowly let go of my hobbies; an internalisation that devoting time and dedication towards the pursuit of something simply for its own pleasure is a luxury which is less available to me as a woman [1] [2].
When the time came for me to choose a career path at the too-young age of eighteen, I weighed my options carefully. The pressure to choose wisely was immense, and there was a massive push for women to pursue careers in STEM. While I was good at maths and physics, I also loved art, music, and languages. Sadly, I dismissed those subjects which might be viewed as more ‘feminine’, such as art or music, feeling that as I was lucky enough to be good with numbers I ought not to waste it [3]. I was conflicted – that part of me which had loved art and drawing was calling out for something more creative, yet I pushed myself towards sciences and engineering. When a teacher suggested architecture to me, it almost seemed too good to be true – the perfect marriage between creativity and calculated logic. And so, knowing almost nothing about the profession, I began my journey through architecture school.
To many, the image of the eccentric, ‘gentleman architect’ is a familiar one [4]. An artist figure, sketchbook in hand, running his hand softly over board-marked concrete. In fact, I might argue that the image of the eccentric architect is a romanticised one, perhaps to the point where it risks becoming comical – the architect who dream-walks through his building at night, scrambling for a pencil in the early hours with a new design in his head. Architects have long been characterised by their sacrifice, passion, and devotion to their craft – their work coming before all else. This attitude continues to permeate through all stages of the profession, from early years in architecture school and late into successful careers.
As I made my way through my undergraduate studies, the years were defined by long days, late nights in the studio, and weekends spent burning the midnight oil in the library. While I loved my time in studio and had a great relationship with my peers, I began to realise that I was struggling to find time for much else other than my studies. Once again, my hobbies took a backseat. Meeting friends and pursuing any extra curriculars become increasingly more difficult. In my early years in university, I worked a part-time job, and I was warned by many older students and even a few tutors that I might need to quit once things got busy. I remember thinking how ridiculous an idea that was, how should I be expected to pay my way without working? The truth is that this attitude stems from a much older and dangerous idea; that architecture is not a job, but instead an avocation, historically accessible only to those who could afford it.
Architecture first developed as a pursuit in the 15th century, divorcing itself from the previous medieval vocation of the ‘master builder’[5]. In the renaissance, architecture positioned itself as a ‘gentleman’s profession’, quickly distinguishing itself from building trades and labour by aligning more closely with intellectual endeavours. Training comprised of extended periods of travel, unpaid apprenticeships, and long periods of study. Thus, architecture was positioned as an artistic calling. Depending heavily on patronage and private income, it emerged as a passion first and a career second. Availability and financial flexibility heavily influenced the profession as it developed, meaning dedication was measured not by only skill, but by a willingness to prioritise the craft. It is these assumptions, then, which resulted in a profession that disproportionately excluded women, as they had less access to independent wealth, educational opportunities, and professional networks.
When I finished my undergraduate studies and entered the workforce, I was eager and enthusiastic to leave the long days in studio behind me. The idea of a ‘nine to five’ seemed a dream and I could not wait to reclaim my evenings and weekends. I am lucky enough to have worked with some amazing women over the last few years, who continue to amaze me in their hard work and dedication within this male-dominated field. However, certain realities of the profession became more apparent to me. As it turns out, the long hours and late nights were far from over. It is true that architecture is a discipline of passion, and the profession today balances being both a cultural contribution, and a skilled trade which sustains the built environment. There is a thin line, however, between admirable devotion and a potentially dangerous culture of sacrifice which risks exclusion.
The road to architecture remains long and expensive. Many years of study are followed by professional experience and further professional examinations. Emerging graduates are offered long hours for low salaries, while entering a world with a near inaccessible housing market and record high costs of living. When sacrifice is romanticised, and long hours are reframed as commitment – an assumed requirement rather than an occasional exception – it begs the question of how sustainable the career is in the long run. The expectation that architects will give more time than they are compensated for still persists, sustained by the belief that architecture is a career driven by passion rather than financial necessity.
As women, we begin to recognise that these expectations are not neutral – that a profession built on constant sacrifice quietly determines who can remain, and who cannot. While my university class boasted an equal ratio of male to female students, female representation in architecture drastically decreases at senior levels. Despite gradual moves towards a more balanced gender representation in architecture, I can’t help but wonder if the avocation mindset plays a significant role. The expectation of constant availability, sacrifice, and prioritisation over all else conflicts with career interruptions such as pregnancy, familial responsibilities, and caregiving duties which continue to disproportionately affect women [6]. I am a young woman at the very beginning of my career, and I would be lying if I told you these concerns had never crossed my mind. The expectation of constant availability and sacrifice reflects an outdated assumption of who an architect is. As I approach my thirties, I find myself worrying how sustainable a career in architecture is for me if I want to have children and raise a family.
These concerns feel increasingly urgent in Ireland today. This mindset which views architecture as a 'gentleman’s profession' risks excluding a diverse range of people who are drawn to it. Framing the profession as an intellectual pursuit discredits a skilled career which is highly technical, as well as socially and culturally valuable. I grow increasingly nervous that architecture might become something I may not have the luxury or flexibility to maintain without sacrificing something important. While I love my field of practice, and am passionate about my chosen career, the truth remains that architecture is not my avocation. My job is not my hobby.
In this article, Ciara O’Connell closes our mini-series ‘Drafting Identity’ which focuses on the experience of women in Architectural Education from both personal and professional perspectives, supporting the FIAE movement. Ciara explores the pressures a career in architecture places on life outside of work, and the significant material impacts that places on women, in particular.
Read
Website by Good as Gold.