Software developer turned architecture student. After over 20 years of pressing buttons for a living I finally switched to learning the trade that I want to do when I grow up! Aside from the change from virtual bits n bytes to physical buildings, the two disciplines are incredibly similar: There's a client, who wants a project building, with a list of requirements, and time and budget constraints. There are many rounds of design discussion, and the client is kept in-the-loop throughout delivery.
If there is a theme running through these projects, it is one of connection; each project responds to the ways that pedestrians will move around and through the site. This approach can be seen at its most-straightforward with the Ipswich Maritime Trust, which includes a footbridge alongside the main development. And at its most extreme in Lit - which splits itself in two to complete a missing link between the station plaza and the university.
These all demonstrate my belief that buildings should respond to their context at a ground-level human scale. Often in architectural discourse the conversation can be limited to how a building looks compared to its neighbours; how it responds in terms of heritage, materiality and dimension. Glossy renders are produced of projects from a high altitude; a place where no one will ever stand. But the real lived experience of a building is through the eyes - and feet - of the people that pass alongside and through it.