Playing architecture chess

Einar Høst

Lightning talk - in English

Architecture, of course, is nothing like chess. In fact, architecture violates pretty much any given characteristic of chess (for instance: chess has two players, whereas architecture has n players, and you don't know what n is.) And yet architecture is quite a bit like chess, in the sense that it is a strategic game where you can move some pieces to improve your standing, while other players also move pieces which could potentially make it worse. When you move your pieces you make trade-offs and considerations, and typically you must plan many moves ahead in order to achieve a goal (which might be getting rid of one of your own annoying pieces, since architecture is nothing like chess). In this talk, I'll argue that architecture is - or should be - more about enabling us to successfully play this game in a dynamic environment than about ideal static end states or structures. We'll take a look at what it means to play architecture chess, a fascinating strategic game with no way to win and plenty of ways to lose, and see how we can go about moving the pieces to our advantage.