“You call it resilience to avoid saying burnout” — reflections on the Bartlett Summer Show 2026.

Another year. Another Summer Show, this time the 2026 outing. Across six floors, five courses and the work of nearly 1000 students, the diversity of thought, creativity and challenges are truly awe inspiring. 

As a student myself, I can’t help but wonder what will become of the students involved, that such a range of work is the product of one ‘general school of thought’ — architecture. 

At the same time, whilst transitioning into my first placement at a commercial firm, I can’t help but question how such expansive and seemingly limitless thinking translates into an individual who can manage the constraints of the real world: navigating clients, efficiencies, and budgets. 

In two years of Bartlett study I haven’t ever come across essential legislation in industry, relating to fire safety, height, materials, and a number of key topics. It seems intuitive to ask, if an education seemingly doesn’t prepare its students for the ‘real world’ — what is the point?

Whilst I must acknowledge lots of this was fairly easy to learn, I have only scratched the surface of the detailed technical knowledge required to achieve the bare bones level of skill required in architecture, and this does not undermine its significance.

As an architect at the fundamental level you are responsible for the safety and security of people who inhabit your buildings, ever more prevalent in a post Grenfell, Building Safety Act world. 

It somewhat feels dangerous that my first job is the first I have heard of any of this. 

One of my new colleagues offered a different view; that this (in his words) ‘blue sky thinking’ promoted in architecture school was exactly the point. 

In an analogy poached from another source, of which I am almost certainly misquoting, he proposed a theory concerning airplanes, asking an open ended question as to why airplane windows are so small — all anyone wants to do is see out, so why don’t we make the airplane body entirely transparent?

Well that would surely be ridiculous, expensive and extremely difficult to construct. Instead airplanes should be more efficient, a uniform opaque aluminium body, reducing drag and providing ease of construction. 

In reality, both these proposals are at the very least unfeasible, but where this way of thinking excels is it allows us to focus on the key ideas central to a project — views out for comfort, balancing recessed areas on the body with drag and efficiency, and ease of construction for a mass market. 

The ideal balance probably sits, as ever, in compromise. As pointed out by Harriet Harriss of Dezeen, there is a danger in assuming complete control as designers, when in reality the use and life cycle of a building is dictated by its occupants.

There are movements in the right direction, but considering the whole life of a building will be essential to combatting the climate crisis.

Education should challenge this further, and maybe a lack of constraints in other areas fosters new forms of creativity and solutions to the great problems we have failed to combat thus far; the disastrous lack of affordable housing, for one. 

Not everyone is so generous to the current model. Oliver Wainwright of The Guardian argues that the over 50 year old model of architectural education should be torn down in favour of a path that complements industry, rather than opposing it. 

At a time when higher education institutions are under intense financial pressure, it must be students who are the drivers of reform, not even considering the dramatic changes in technology and the advent of AI. 

During a year of study, I have found myself wrestling with these conflicting ideas; the freedom and creativity of architecture school, whilst the engineering aspects of the course offered a more measured, constrained approach. The latter is closer, as my first few weeks of work have confirmed, to industry. 

Whether this is in fact the ‘best’ approach remains a point of contention. 

What struck me in particular about the Summer Show was the students themselves, and how these frustrations I have felt myself manifest in the work produced. 

Credits must go to the students of Architecture and Interdisciplinary Studies, and presumably the tutors who allowed the inclusion of some meaningful but questionable language, for a banner summarising quotes from the programme’s students. 

The most evocative piece of the whole show, that architecture school does in fact prepare the student perfectly; long hours, self-exploitation, and a lack of care for the individuals of a system.

If the Bartlett Summer Show offers something, it is a double edged sword; a group of students so incredibly talented and passionate about their work, coupled with a deep-rooted frustration spanning the way in which they are educated and enter professional practice. I will end with some of my personal favourites:

“Wearing all black won’t make you successful”

“AI saves the time you no longer own”

“Belonging is designed”

“Resourcefulness births the strongest work”