When Speed Undermines Architecture
- mojgan aghamir
- 5 days ago
- 2 min read
The difference between efficiency and shortcuts
Speed is often framed as a virtue in architectural practice. Fast turnarounds signal competence, responsiveness, and momentum. In many cases, efficiency is essential. Projects have real constraints, and architects must work within them.
The problem arises when speed replaces judgment—when moving quickly becomes more important than moving deliberately.
Efficiency is not the same as acceleration
Efficiency is about reducing waste. Acceleration is about reducing time, regardless of consequence.
An efficient process removes redundancy, clarifies decisions, and aligns work across disciplines. A rushed process compresses phases, defers resolution, and relies on assumptions to maintain pace.
From the outside, both can look similar. The difference becomes apparent only later—when conflicts surface, and the cost of correction rises.
What gets sacrificed first
When schedules tighten, certain types of work are consistently deprioritized.
Coordination across disciplines
Testing of early assumptions
Resolution of interfaces and tolerances
Documentation clarity
These tasks are rarely visible to clients, and their absence is not immediately felt. As a result, they are often the first to be reduced or postponed. The impact, however, is cumulative.
What is skipped early reappears later as rework, RFIs, and compromised outcomes.
Speed shifts work downstream
One of the less visible effects of rushing is the redistribution of effort.
Decisions not made during design do not disappear. They are simply transferred to documentation, to consultants, to the contractor, or to the site. Each transfer increases cost and reduces the architect’s ability to shape the result.
In this way, speed does not eliminate work. It relocates it to phases where it is more disruptive and less controllable.
The illusion of progress
Rapid drawing production can create a strong sense of advancement. Sheets accumulate, models look complete, and deadlines are met. But progress measured by output is not the same as progress measured by resolution.
Drawings that advance faster than decisions embed uncertainty into the project. Once issued, those uncertainties are treated as facts. Correcting them later requires negotiation rather than design.
This is how architects lose influence without realizing it.
When speed erodes design quality
Design quality is not only about aesthetics. It is about coherence—between intent, system, and execution.
Rushed processes tend to favor:
Familiar solutions over appropriate ones
Repetition over evaluation
Expedience over clarity
Over time, this erodes not only the project but the architect’s role. The work becomes reactive rather than intentional.
Closing thought
Architecture benefits from momentum, but it depends on judgment.
True efficiency is not achieved by moving faster at all costs. It is achieved by resolving the right questions at the right time and protecting space for decisions that matter.
When speed is allowed to override process, architecture becomes fragile. When speed is aligned with clarity and discipline, it becomes resilient.
Comments