Architecture is an inward looking discipline. Its history conveys the norms of the discipline to an audience composed mostly of architects, who are familiar with the work of their predecessors-from whom they learnt, or for whom they worked. As such, architecture singularises the multiple processes through which space is produced, excluding difference in the pursuit of coherent narratives to sustain its authority, and does so mainly through the figure of the architect. For a long time now, critics have shown how that figure is principally male. However, little has been said about the fact that the figure of the architect is also white; a racial classification that refers not only to epidermal characteristics, but to their national origin, education, and in most cases their class affiliation.

In the last fifteen years we witnessed a new ethnographic wave of studies that focused on practising architecture. This body of research aimed at grasping the socio-material dimension of architectural practice. They all relied on the assumption that architecture is collective but it is shared with a variety of nonhumans. These “new ethnographies” generated “thick descriptions” of the knowledge practices of different participants in design. This issue of “Ardeth” collects contributions that will address the ecology of contemporary architectural practice, scrutinizing it as involving actors with variable ontology, scale and politics; exploring empirically different formats of design and reflecting on the importance of ethnography for understanding contemporary architectural practices.

In the backdrop of the New European Bauhaus, our time presents the European designer with three pivotal keywords: beautiful, sustainable, and together. The central question that this issue of “Ardeth” seeks to address is how to employ these three keywords in the best possible way. In essence, it grapples with the question of how to use but not abuse the checkpoints they provide us with to truly grasp the intricacies of their intended applications. The aim is to prevent hastening the transition from words to designs and, ultimately, from designs to the artefacts that make up the space of our day-to-day human existence.

Unlike the many magazines that revolve around the architectural world, Ardeth concerns neither with outcomes (architecture) nor with the authors (architects). Ardeth concerns instead with their operational work, i.e. projects. The shift from subjects (their good intentions, as taught in Universities and reclaimed in the profession) to objects (the products of design, at work within the social system that contains them) engenders an analytical and falsifiable elaboration of the complex mechanisms that an open practice such as design involves. Through a process of disciplinary redefinition, Ardeth explores the falsifiability of design hypotheses as the object that allows the project to scientifically confront errors and approximations.

The discussion of architecture, with all the visibility of its objects, tends to downplay the invisible flows of money that sustain its production. It is as if the dependency on economic forces is too much to face up to; better then to celebrate the catalytic genius of the architectural hero and then the glorious outputs, and try to ignore everything else that goes on in between. This issue intends to probe the in-between space of the operations of architecture, examining the intersection of the projects of architecture with economies, and with it their associated social and political contexts and implications. It is only through a better understanding of the way that contemporary economics cut across architectural operations that one can learn to deal with these dominant forces in a resistive and transformational manner.

Architectural institutions are reviewing modes of learning and practice of architecture to reflect the changing professional landscape. Schools confront the ever-acute tensions between critical thinking and the market. The training of architects who will likely be working in different contexts requires new frames of reference and paradigms. What competencies should the practitioner of architecture possess to bridge technical and managerial specializations in light of competitiveness and nuances of culture? How do the practices and performances of the profession take into account the hybrids and collaborations that define the broad scope of projects? The dilemma of competency lies in the rigorous study of the conditions and processes of architecture, configuring and situating skills and capabilities.