Why Architects Always Start from Zero

A window seal on the west side. Weather side. Rain, wind, the full program. The architect draws a detail. The carpenters redraw it. It gets built. Then water comes in.

That’s not an isolated case. That’s the normal state. In architecture, every detail for every building gets drawn from scratch. Every solution gets reinvented. Not because the problem is new, but because there’s no system for passing on existing solutions.

An architect in Zurich solves a ventilation problem for a building on a hillside. The solution works. It disappears into his drawer. An architect in Porto has the same problem. He draws from scratch. Maybe he arrives at the same solution. Maybe not. Maybe water comes in for him too.

Clients browse Pinterest and see exactly what they want. But they don’t have the plans. The vision is concrete, the detail remains a secret. Between the idea on the screen and the finished building lies a process that starts from zero every time.

Nobody benefits from the status quo. Architects spend hours on detail drawings that others solved long ago. Clients pay for work that didn’t have to be done. And in the end, solutions still fail because they were reinvented under time pressure instead of developed from proven templates.

The question that occupies me: Why is there no marketplace for this?

In mechanical engineering, this has been solved for a hundred years. Nobody reinvents a ball bearing. There are standards, catalogs, standardized components. An engineer in Stuttgart solves a bearing problem, and an engineer in Seoul can specify the same solution without redrawing it.

In software, it’s the same. Open-source libraries, APIs, modules. Nobody programs a login screen from the ground up. You take a solution that works and build on top of it.

In architecture, this doesn’t exist. There’s no platform where an architect can upload his solved window detail, with CAD data, materials list, context description, and others can license, adapt, and use it.

The reason was long technical: How do you protect intellectual property on a drawing? How do you ensure the creator is fairly compensated? How do you prevent simple copying?

When the tokenization trend emerged and IP protection on the blockchain suddenly became possible without complex infrastructure, the situation changed. Smart contracts can automate licensing models. Digital signatures protect authorship. Transactions are traceable.

The technology is there. What’s missing is the shift in thinking.

Architecture sees itself as bespoke. Every building unique, every design a one-off. And yes, the building as a whole is unique. But the details are not. A window connection is a window connection. A solution for sound insulation between two apartments follows physical laws, not artistic freedom.

If architects could make their solved details, constructions, and design modules available as licensable components, a new ecosystem would emerge. The architect in Zurich earns from his ventilation solution even though he’s never seen the building in Porto. The architect in Porto saves weeks of detail planning and can focus on what’s truly unique: the design as a whole.

A global, intercultural exchange of architectural knowledge. Not as copying, but as continuation. Not as replacement of the architect, but as liberation from the Sisyphean work that prevents him from doing what he does best.

Architecture is one of the last major industries that treats its detail solutions like trade secrets. In a world where knowledge is shared to grow, that’s an anachronism. The question isn’t whether this will change. The question is when.