The fourth year of Intermediate 12 positioned architecture as a strategic act. Following three years of work that examined time, event, and series, this brief shifted from studying how architecture changes to designing how change itself can be structured. Titled Strategic Design for Future Building, the year explored how architects might define agendas, construct futures, and operate with intention across political, social, and environmental conditions.

The question at the centre of the brief was how architectural thinking could anticipate the forces shaping the world to come. Rather than treating design as reaction, the unit approached it as foresight, a means to choreograph conditions before they occur. Architecture became a tool for defining futures: speculative, tangible, and lived.

The year began with a study of experimental communities and visionary architectures in the American Southwest. Students visited and analysed Arcosanti, Taliesin West, and Biosphere 2, projects that attempted to redefine the relationship between architecture, environment, and society. Each served as an example of how built form can articulate an agenda, turning architecture into an instrument for cultural and ecological speculation.

Through this research, students identified different modes of strategic practice: environmental, technological, political, and social. Each was examined not only for its architectural language but for the systems of thought, production, and collaboration that sustained it. The result was a taxonomy of approaches to future-building, mapping how vision translates into structure.

The design phase brought these insights back to London, using the city as a testing ground for speculative yet actionable proposals. Students developed projects that combined spatial, social, and systemic thinking, interventions that were both pragmatic and visionary. Some explored architectures of resilience, others developed frameworks for collective living, adaptive reuse, or cultural infrastructure. Each project began with a clear position: a defined agenda that guided decisions at every scale.

Representation and communication were treated as part of this strategic process. Students produced diagrams, timelines, and scores that described not just what their architectures looked like but how they worked over time. Drawings became instruments for negotiation and projection, mapping networks of influence, operation, and legacy. At the AA, small-scale constructed tests allowed ideas to be enacted physically, reinforcing the relationship between thinking and making.

Throughout the year, teaching emphasised that strategy is not abstraction but practice. Each student was encouraged to clarify their role as a designer within the ecosystem of their project, identifying collaborators, communities, and agents of change. The unit operated collectively, sharing methods of research and representation to develop a common language for architectural strategy.

Strategic Design for Future Building marked a synthesis of the unit’s four-year inquiry into time, event, and transformation. It established the architect as an active participant in shaping futures rather than documenting them. The work demonstrated that strategic design is both analytical and creative, a process of understanding how systems operate and inserting architecture where it can have lasting effect.

The year’s projects revealed that futures are not abstract speculations but constructed realities built through decision, dialogue, and design. By treating the city as a test site for possible worlds, students showed how architecture could organise relationships between people, environment, and technology with clarity and purpose.

This final year completed a cycle of investigation that began with the fleeting event and expanded into the systemic and strategic. Across the four years, Intermediate 12 developed a framework for teaching architecture as a discipline of intelligence and intent, one that designs not only buildings, but the conditions through which they might evolve.

‍