One of my favorite things about context is knowing the history isn't enough.

Understanding it isn't enough either.

Even respecting it falls short.

Because context isn't just about what came before, it's about what's coming next, what surrounds it now, and who experiences it all.

Ask any architect who's designed successfully in a protected area, and they'll tell you it's complicated. Sure, there are guidelines and best practices, but...

Those only get you to the starting line.

I mean, yeah… sometimes you have a site that "speaks for itself" because the heritage is so powerful — but you still have to listen correctly.

What layers matter most, which threads to amplify, when to step back...

Then there's interpretation.

And when you factor in decisions like contemporary expression vs. historical mimicry, community pride vs. tourist appeal, and regulatory approval vs. design vision… there are thousands of ways to get it right.

Or wrong.

Because there's never just "one way," is there?

If everyone followed the same conservation manual, our cities would be museums.

Now yes, there are definitely principles that make design better. Research helps, precedent studies matter, but they mostly give you vocabulary, not sentences. I mean, even if two architects stand on the same site, they'll see different opportunities. Maybe a material relationship or a spatial rhythm… something the other couldn't spot from their angle.

And that little shift makes all the difference.

Plus, there's the meaning each architect brings vs. what the community carries. Those will differ based on training, cultural background, personal experience.

Design technique is just the final expression.

But it's how context becomes architecture.

Because the way design decisions emerge from context is often more impactful than the context itself.

Last week, I wrote about why so many talented architects freeze when designing for heritage sites. The fear of judgment, the analysis paralysis, the doubt about relevance.

But understanding context deeply — truly seeing what others miss — provides clarity. Because that knowledge of layers, relationships, and invisible threads between past and future becomes the lens for confident decisions.

It's how architects develop their signature approach.

The ones whose designs make officials say "one of the best we've seen" and clients ask "how did you even come up with that".

The ones who get approvals without endless revisions because they understand the system, the community, and the context as a living system.

And it's OK to want to be that architect.

This is exactly what Context Intelligence teaches — how to read the invisible, decode the complex, and transform context into design confidence.

Not as a formula. As a way of seeing.

I've been developing this framework for early-career architects who want to design
pro-context but don't know where to start. The ones who have talent but lack the contextual literacy to unlock it.

If that resonates, I'll be sharing more about Context Intelligence in the coming weeks.

It might change how you see every site forever.

David

P.S. If Future Heritage has helped shift how you think about context, design, or heritage — I'd love to hear about it. Would you mind sharing a quick testimonial on Senja? It takes 2 minutes and helps other architects discover these insights.
→ Future Heritage experience

P.P.S. And if you leave feedback, I'm offering free 30-minute consultations to talk through a specific design challenge. Whether it's analysis paralysis, convincing clients, or navigating heritage approvals — consider it a thank you for helping grow this community.