Image credits: Nanyang Polytechnic Architecture (IG@nyparch). Student works remain the IP of their respective authors.
Last month, I had the privilege of attending the Year 2 Architecture Final Crit at Nanyang Polytechnic, upon invitation. My thanks for Lin Wei for extending the invitation, and to the faculty—John, Yi Yan, and Michael—for having me. I’m grateful for the warm exchanges during the session, and for the opportunity to learn from the students’ work.
The studio centred on biomimicry—drawing inspiration from natural systems and translating those lessons into architecture—whether at the programmatic, formal, structure, or systemic level. Students were asked to identify their ‘guru’ in nature, and to abstract its principles into design outcomes.
What struck me most was the students’ strength in resolving programmatic requirements. The projects were generally well-resolved in terms of function and delivery. At the same time, it seemed that the abstraction and translation of the ‘nature guru’ into architectural language was often less fully developed. One possible reason—and this is simply my observation—could be that students gravitated towards solving problems within the constraints of time and deadlines. After all, much of our education and professional life conditions us to prioritise resolution and feasibility. What sometimes gets less room is the space for divergent exploration and creative experimentation.
A few other reflections:
- Depth over breadth. Students could benefit from identifying a single key idea or spatial strategy and articulating it with emphasis, rather than spreading effort across too many directions.
- Strategic presentation: Sometimes less is more. Selecting what best communicates the design intent—and crafting a clear narrative—can be more impactful than showing everything to demonstrate effort.
- Range of expression: Many projects converged towards linear or column-slab typologies, while a few stood out with more unorthodox approaches. This suggests opportunities to further nurture variety and creative risk-taking.
Overall, I found the students’ work committed and thoughtful, and it was a privilege to witness their process at this stage of learning. Architectural education is as much about experimenting with ways of seeing as it is about resolving outcomes, and I hope these young designers continue to explore boldly while refining their craft.
