In architecture, most practices revolve around delivering projects to clients. Offices are shaped by deadlines, budgets, and clear briefs. While this structure produces buildings, it rarely leaves space for architects to question broader issues — about how we live, how cities are changing, or what the future demands of design. But alongside this production-focused system, a quieter movement has emerged: studios, collectives, and foundations that prioritize research, experimentation, and reflection. These are the architecture think tanks — spaces designed not to build immediately, but to think first.
The idea of a think tank is not new. Traditionally found in politics, economics, or science, think tanks bring together experts to study complex problems and propose solutions. In architecture, their rise reveals a tension at the heart of the discipline. If architecture is to remain socially and environmentally relevant, can it continue to rely only on client-driven practice? Or must it carve out space for slower, deeper inquiry?
Architecture think tanks challenge the boundaries between theory and practice, building and thinking. They blur roles, mix methods, and redefine what it means to be an architect today. At a moment of overlapping global crises, this shift is not only timely — it might be necessary.
The Need to Research from Within
Architecture has long operated within a commission-based system, responding to client demands, measurable constraints, and defined briefs. But the complexity of today's challenges—from climate change to technological disruption—has exposed the limitations of this model. To remain relevant, architecture must evolve from a reactive profession to a proactive one. Once considered peripheral, research is now emerging as a necessary tool to anticipate and shape change.
Within this shift, some firms have established parallel research units — semi-autonomous platforms for speculative inquiry beyond immediate project delivery. Embedded think tanks like AMO (OMA) or GXN (3XN) exemplify this model, while others, such as Forensic Architecture or WAI Think Tank, operate independently. What unites them is their intent: to explore questions that extend beyond the immediate delivery of buildings. The goal is to influence architecture and urban policy by developing new ideas and knowledge. In other words, they strive to influence practice through research, rather than the other way around. They reverse the usual flow — using research to guide practice, not just reflect it — and create space for architects to ask "What if?" and pursue alternative futures.
These initiatives often blur the line between academia and practice. Many collaborate with universities or receive research funding, allowing deeper exploration of themes like sustainability, technology, or social equity. For instance, the London School of Architecture (LSA) includes "Design Think Tanks" in its curriculum, pairing students with firms to develop research-driven proposals aligned with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.
Architecture must become more anticipatory as the built environment faces growing ecological, technological, and social pressure. The research produced by these groups informs design strategies, influences urban policy, and introduces new practice models. This mode of inquiry can lead to concrete innovation: new building techniques, planning models, or design philosophies that wouldn't have arisen under business-as-usual conditions. Offices are no longer only service providers but also cultural agents. By integrating research, they reclaim agency: the ability to define which questions matter and how architecture might engage them. In this model, innovation is not a marketing term, it is a mode of responsibility.
In-House Research Divisions in Practice
Several architecture firms have established in-house research units that operate alongside their design work. A seminal example is OMA's AMO, founded in 1999 by Rem Koolhaas as a think tank "liberated from the obligation to construct" and free to apply architectural thinking to domains beyond building. This setup allows Koolhaas's office to explore ideas in media, politics, technology, and culture without the constraints of client briefs. Over the years, AMO's interdisciplinary team has collaborated on projects like fashion show sets for Prada and even a proposed new "barcode" flag for the European Union, tackling questions of identity and communication at a continental scale.
Other firms have adopted similar models. Danish studio 3XN, for instance, created GXN (G for Green), a design-driven research studio focusing on strategic sustainability through
Likewise, at Zaha Hadid Architects, the Computational Design (CODE) group operates as an in-house research lab exploring parametric design, geometry, and digital fabrication, contributing advanced knowledge that often finds its way into ZHA's famously experimental structures.
Even large global firms are adopting this model. Firms like Gensler have created internal teams focused on research, analytics, and innovation, operating almost like in-house consultancies. These structures show how commercial practices are formalizing research as a core component. The result is a more iterative and knowledge-rich design process, where bold ideas can be incubated in parallel before informing mainstream projects.
Independent and Academic Think Tanks
Outside traditional firms, many independent collectives and academic institutes operate as architectural think tanks, often addressing the social and political dimensions of space. An example is Forensic Architecture, a research agency based at the University of London that, since its founding, has pioneered the use of architectural skills as a form of evidence-gathering and advocacy. This multidisciplinary group of architects, filmmakers, journalists, lawyers, and scientists investigates human rights violations and state crimes by analyzing spatial data. Through "architectural analysis of imagery", they reconstruct events to challenge official narratives and redefine what an architectural practice can be.
At TU Delft, The Why Factory (t?f), founded by Winy Maas of MVRDV, operates as a hybrid research lab and educational platform focused on the future of cities. Working with students, t?f develops models and visualizations of hyper-dense, automated, or alternative urban forms, bridging academia and practice. Its output — including exhibitions, installations, and the Future Cities book series — positions it as a laboratory for speculative urban futures that actively contributes to public discourse and policymaking. By connecting design education with research-based provocations, t?f exemplifies how academic initiatives can shape architectural thinking at multiple scales.
Operating across cities like Zurich, Caracas, Bogotá, and São Paulo, Urban-Think Tank (U-TT) bridged academic research with real-world interventions, focusing on informal settlements and urban inequality. Their research into the Caracas high-rise squatter community known as Torre David led to an award-winning installation at the 2012 Venice Architecture Biennale – a pop-up Venezuelan arepa café that brought the lived reality of an informal community into the halls of the Biennale. This provocative exhibit sparked important conversations about housing and equity (and later informed actual social housing projects) and how architects engage with vulnerable communities, highlighting both the potential and the challenges of translating lived experiences into architectural discourse.
Similarly, Territorial Agency operates as an independent organization merging architecture, analysis, advocacy, and action on a global scale. Based in London, the group conducts territorial analysis using scientific data and remote sensing to examine the Anthropocene's impact on human habitats. Projects like Oceans in Transformation visualize the effects of climate change in marine regions, aiming to equip communities with the knowledge needed to rethink territory in a rapidly changing world.
A New Wave of Experimental Studios
In the past decade, a new generation of studios and collectives has emerged with research and experimentation at their core. These hybrid practices combine design with theoretical inquiry, expanding architecture's role beyond building. One example is Design Earth, a collaborative practice founded in 2010 that operates between the U.S. and Europe. Through speculative projects — often using drawings, maps, and narrative techniques — they visualize planetary issues such as the geopolitics of oil extraction or the space debris in orbit. By operating independently, Design Earth treats design as a tool for environmental research, contributing critical perspectives on climate change and reshaping how architecture engages with planetary futures.
Meanwhile, in East Africa, Cave_Bureau has been redefining architectural practice by grounding its work in Kenya's Great Rift Valley. Based in Nairobi, the collective explores the intersection of architecture, urbanism, and nature through research conducted within caves, used as both site and metaphor to reconnect with prehistoric, geological, and indigenous narratives. This approach led them to become the first Kenyan firm invited to the 2021 Venice Architecture Biennale, where they presented The Anthropocene Museum, a provocative installation highlighting colonial histories and extraction through the lens of underground spaces.
In Europe, Space Popular explores the burgeoning digital realm, treating virtual environments as extensions of architectural space. The studio investigates how spatial design and urban experience translate into immersive digital worlds, anticipating the convergence of physical and virtual architecture. This demonstrates how emerging practices are tackling digital technology's impact on space, not just by adopting new tools, but by actively theorizing and shaping the discourse on virtual architecture.
Equally experimental, Assemble is a London-based collective founded in 2010 that combines architecture, community engagement, and craft. Operating democratically, the group often initiates projects in collaboration with residents and artists, from transforming derelict homes in Liverpool's Toxteth into affordable housing and a community-run workshop to designing playgrounds and public spaces with local input. As Assemble describes, their cooperative practice "enables built, social, and research-based projects at a variety of scales". Not only do they deliver physical outcomes, but they also engage in research about alternative development models.
Among these initiatives, some are beginning to emerge from within established studios themselves. One example is ECHO, the experimental branch of the portuguese architecture office MASSLAB. Conceived as a think tank embedded in practice, ECHO was created to amplify architectural discourse — its name reflects the belief that ideas should not remain static, but resonate, evolve, and generate lasting impact.
Like Herzog & de Meuron's Kabinett — which explores the archive as an active tool to interrogate and expand architectural thinking, ECHO operates at the intersection of research, design, and documentation. It produces critical, visual, and speculative content that synthesizes spatial observations into provocations rather than conclusions. Bridging architecture with broader cultural, technological, and social agendas, ECHO functions as a space of reflection and reverberation. With the motto "Ideas that Resonate, Knowledge that Transforms", it challenges architectural conventions while informing MASSLAB's design work. Like its peers, ECHO embodies a shift toward research-driven practice, ensuring that architectural ideas echo beyond immediate projects into the wider discipline.
Redefining Practice and Knowledge Production
What sets these think tanks apart is not only what they produce, but how and why they operate. Instead of responding to briefs, they initiate open-ended inquiries, often collaborating with experts beyond architecture — from scientists to community leaders. Their work is disseminated widely: through books, articles, exhibitions, or digital media, many of these groups open-source their knowledge, inviting critique and further development. In doing so, they contribute to emerging forms of architectural knowledge production that are more collective and iterative, offering ideas that can influence policy, technology, and cultural narratives.
These studios and initiatives also reframe the architect's role. Instead of waiting for a brief, think tank architects proactively define the problems worth solving. They may act as facilitators, educators, or activists — roles traditionally outside the discipline's commercial scope. This freedom to speculate and question is essential for innovation. Historically, radical ideas often came from the fringes — today's think tanks formalize that space within and alongside practice. Rather than compete with traditional studios, they complement them: large firms create think tanks to remain innovative, while independent groups rely on practice-based partnerships to test their proposals in the real world.
This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: What Is Future Intelligence?, proudly presented by Gendo, an AI co-pilot for Architects.
Our mission at Gendo is to help architects produce concept images 100X faster by focusing on the core of the design process. We have built a cutting edge AI tool in collaboration with architects from some of the most renowned firms such as Zaha Hadid, KPF and David Chipperfield.
Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us.
