What About the WAIzine?

What About It? Part 1 to be released after the Chinese New Year

What About it? Part 1 is a printed narrative in magazine format that includes the production of the first two years of WAI Architecture Think Tank as well as several ongoing projects. The WAIzine would be released after Chinese New Year to commemorate the second anniversary of WAI Architecture Think Tank.

The prints will be on a limited edition.

For more information on availability: contact@wai-architecture.com


  1. What is a "foam idea"? What sets you apart from the multitude of architectural "think tanks" out there? Is it even your aim to be different? How would you describe/define "substantive" architecture? Do you think there is a positive correlation between intelectualization and quality in architecture?

  2. For us, the expression “foam idea” is a wordplay alluding to a double meaning. The “foam” concept comes as a critique of a contemporary culture in which some “research” architecture and high profile practices try to disguise their lack of content behind a massive proliferation of Styrofoam models. As we happen to evolve during this period of imagery overflow we can't help but to notice the intellectual idleness that sometimes hides behind this approach.
    On the other hand we strive to use “foam” as a metaphor to describe our intellectual process. Foam thinking in that sense is an intellectual structure that enhances cognitive connections. In order to understand this argument we can refer at Peter Sloterdijk's foam concept in Spheres III in which he perceives the structure of foam as an allegory to the process of connecting isolations.
    An example of this “foam thinking ” process applied to our practice could be how we strive to integrate to our projects literature, cinema, history, and other kind of intellectual discussions that are not necessarily what is typically considered within the boundaries of architecture. We embrace any discipline that posses the potential to enrich our vision and understanding of the environment that surround us and the multiple variables that conditions it.
    We are not interested in discussing similarities or differences with other “architectural think tanks” more than to discuss the topics that really interest us, and that we address in our practice. Our references have the ambition to go far beyond the profession of architecture and it’s in this universe of possibilities that we find the connections to our work. We are more interested in discussing the possibilities of the work of Saramago, Houellebecq, Tarkovski, Muramaki, Rand, Auster, Conrad, Perec, Tati, Malevich, Dostoevsky, Nabokov, Wittgenstein, Hamsun and Kundera, (just to mention a few), than to compare us with any other redundant practice. In that sense we perceive our work closer to the nature of the intelligentsia that defies the classification of traditional groups or categories.
    We believe in leaving a body of work that is culturally meaningful, intellectually challenging, and aesthetically embracing. We strive to reach that balance with everything we do and everything we will do. That’s our ambition.
    We recognize the need for architecture and every other intellectual activity to keep pushing the limits of what its usually expected from them in order to improve and increase the possibilities of each discipline.