in thoughtful planning for spaces and experiences, theory often envisions balance among human needs, environmental limits, and cultural context assuming in part controllable variables. yet reality introduces entropy, implementation reveals friction—unforeseen behaviors, material realities, or shifting priorities. do you feel there is a realization of the gap and , and what do you think could be done?

Yes absolutely. I think everyone who has been through this process would see this gap. Both during the design, development and build process where ideas and aspirations change due to the factors you mentioned, and also post occupancy where the intended use and function of spaces is not what it was intended. I always like this quote from Rem Koolhaas, “A building has at least two lives – the one imagined by its maker and the life it lives afterward – and they are never the same.”

I think this process and the realities of especially large scale complex projects will always be prone to this design creep. There might be a nirvana where such things don’t occur but a more pragmatic view is to put maximum effort into limiting the downside of these project realities. Functional processes and good technology help a lot, but at the end of the day projects that prioritise excellent teaming and working culture are the ones that do best, something that is hugely undervalued and often times completely ignored.

planning meaningful spaces and experiences requires balancing diverse forces while navigating practical constraints such as budgets, regulations, and timelines. often, we a clash between micro-level sensibility and macro level systems that favour efficiency over experience.  what are the core challenges in this process today?

This tension has inherently existed in every type of design. Although it can be argued that good design is good for business, efficiency or costs, but at the same time design is here to challenge the norms, to explore the new (and sometimes fail). So this challenge is not new. What has changed is an expectation for things to be done faster due to both the use of technology (currently being turbocharged with AI tools) and where many areas are highly regulated. For the latter it means that adherence to set requirements, passing approvals and ultimately design by template overrides the more fluid sensibilities of what makes a good design, or indeed valuing experience over other demands.

To solve this we need to recalibrate priorities. We need to connect the values and needs of the end beneficiaries with those of the developers or owners. This would mean the introduction of new types of measures of success beyond cost targets, efficiencies or meeting deadlines.

project and clients often prioritize innovation, efficiency, or narrative depth in spaces and experiences, while the public may seek simplicity, inclusivity, or intuitive comfort. how do these differing expectations create tension in planning, and what role does thoughtful dialogue play in reconciling them to produce designs that truly serve?

In principle, a client’s drive should be inherently aligned with the end user or public the project is intended for. So if we talk about innovation, narrative depth and experiences then the definition of those should be totally aligned with trying to deliver on end user needs (within the business and logistical constraints of the project of course). The key here is to use methods like empathic qualitative research of end user needs and translate those into relevant design interventions. Where there is ambiguity, building both physical and digital prototypes is a great way to help address the conundrum that Rem Koolhaas talked about.

public feedback often highlights persistent issues like inaccessibility, disconnection, or unmet needs. for instance, exclusively digital portals intended to streamline access can unintentionally exclude elderly users or those less familiar with technology. why do these gaps endure, and how can thoughtful planning interrupt cycles of dissatisfaction to build more enduring trust and relevance?

This is a topic I am personally very passionate about. Mainly as a designer with a desire to see good design applied to solve real needs (and maybe because I am ultimately making sure there are better solutions for my future older self!). One simplistic answer is that many of our digital systems are designed by 20 something developers in California! I think there’s some truth in that, but in principle, if you apply the design process rigorously, then the aspects I talked about previously of empathic research and later through proper user testing with the right target groups would ensure that we can truly create inclusive and age friendly design – something our high tech world at the moment is moving further and further away from.

in recent years, planning discourse has sometimes become self-referential celebrating its own innovations, aesthetics, and internal references more than external lived realities. how does this insularity affect the ability to plan meaningfully, and what risks does it pose when addressing complex human and planetary needs?

I’ve always pointed out how many architectural projects are presented from an aerial bird’s eye view. Although a useful perspective to show off the design, ultimately in real life, we never experience the development from that view but rather from the ground at the human scale. Many creative industries, whether advertising, product and visual communication and indeed architecture tend to award prizes based on their own established parameters and values. Arguably that could have a knock on effect in steering mindsets and incentivising this kind of thinking and design approach; will my design win an award or be celebrated by my peer group.

Needless to say that if those values are not aligned with human and planetary needs then it indeed becomes a self-serving exercise. It’s worth noting though that as humans in general we are attracted to the sensational and surprising, even though it may not be practical or meeting human and planetary needs. Sensible, quiet and practical (aka boring) designs rarely make the news!

there’s a growing global discussion about whether the era of ‘star’ designers dictating designs everywhere is ending.  renowned egyptian architect Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil, a proponent of new classical architecture, believes architects should work only in places and cultures they truly understand—grounding designs in local traditions and the natural environment to preserve spiritual and cultural identity. he warns that abandoning tradition weakens identity.

at a time where sameness in products and services is noticeable, do you agree with this view, and do planners and service designers need firsthand, direct experiences of places or sector operations—their daily workings, rhythms, and unspoken dynamics—to plan effectively?

Absolutely – what differentiates designers (and Architects) from engineers fundamentally is the lens from which we see and solve problems – those of the user. Not to say that engineers don’t solve real world and human related problems, but there is a tuning in to empathy and walking in the user’s shoes that is innate in the practice of design and architecture. We are living in an increasingly globalised world, where knowledge, ideas and processes are globally accessible. There is a bright and dark side to both globalisation and protectionism.

The bright side is this spreading and sharing of knowledge while at the same time it risks this sameness that we start to see across many of the world’s international cities. One of my favourite examples are the “country living” housing developments we see in hot tropical places like Malaysia, with design typologies designed for north European climates. I still remember the story presented by the late William Lim of W-Architects who explained that one of his clients at a loss on what to do with the fireplace that was built in the living room of one of those developments, decided to pump the air conditioning through it!

So yes a reference to local culture, local norms and also local climates is essential to bring back not only a sense of place and identity but also a rational sensibility on a planetary basis for the built environment. See that as a form of positive protectionism. The ‘star’ designers have a unique power that clients come open to their ideas and ready to break boundaries. This advantage needs to be applied in ways that indeed resonate with local context and is inclusive with the end user in how it is evolved. In other words a ‘star’ designer without an ego!

do you believe we need to move beyond “design” as a standalone discipline—toward broader, more open conversations that prioritize listening over assertion? what might this shift look like in practice, and how could it lead to more humble, responsive outcomes?

There are two camps in design. The traditional design practice of designer as guru who knows best and designer as empathic explorer who listens and learns before taking action. The latter approach is sometimes perceived that you are asking the end user to figure out what the design should be. This is a key misconception of this approach and methodology. The designer’s experience, interpretation and discernment is still essential here to interpret needs into ideas and concepts.

So is the element of expanding the co-creative boundaries beyond even the creative disciplines. Today’s wicked problems can only be solved by bringing together diversely thinking minds and having them work towards a new set of values that prioritise human agency over capitalists profiteering and growth.