Architecture & Digital Memory

Digital architectural records are not self-preserving.
Despite widespread assumptions about digital permanence, large portions of architectural knowledge produced since the 1980s are already unreadable, inaccessible, or fragmented. Models no longer open, software environments cannot be reconstructed, and critical design decisions survive only as flattened images or partial documentation.

My work examines this condition as a problem of digital memory rather than simply digital storage.

Digital Amnesia

I use the term digital amnesia to describe a structural condition in architectural practice in which digital abundance coexists with long-term loss. Architectural records disappear not because of negligence but because ordinary professional workflows rely on proprietary software platforms, short software lifecycles, and the assumption that access can always be restored later.

In architecture, this loss has particular consequences. Digital records are not only historical artefacts; they are also legal instruments, professional evidence, and civic documents. When they become unreadable, accountability, maintenance, heritage, and public knowledge are affected. Digital amnesia, therefore, reshapes architectural history at the same time as it alters professional responsibility.

Software Time and Architectural Time

A central concern of this research is the mismatch between software and architectural time.

Buildings operate over decades. Architectural responsibility extends long after construction through use, adaptation, regulation, and care. By contrast, software platforms evolve rapidly through versioning, subscription models, and continuous updates. This temporal misalignment means that architectural records are routinely tied to systems that are not designed to last as long as the buildings they describe.

Understanding this temporal conflict is essential to explaining why digital loss in architecture is systemic rather than accidental.

Emulation and Its Limits

Software emulation plays a critical but carefully bounded role in this work. Emulation can reconstruct access to early digital architectural environments, allowing workflows, interfaces, and computational constraints to be examined again. Used in this way, emulation functions as a historiographic and diagnostic method, revealing how architectural decisions were shaped by specific software conditions.

However, emulation is not considered a comprehensive preservation solution. Contemporary architectural platforms—cloud-based, networked, and governed by subscription licensing—are increasingly resistant to emulation, even in principle. The failure of emulation in these contexts is instructive, marking a threshold beyond which architectural digital memory becomes structurally unrecoverable.

Custodianship Beyond the Office

Architectural firms are not designed to function as long-term memory institutions. Economic pressures, liability concerns, staff turnover, and software dependency make sustained custodianship difficult, even with good intent. At the same time, collecting institutions often inherit digital material that is already fragile, incomplete, or inaccessible.

My work argues that architectural digital memory must be understood as a matter of custodianship, not filing. Responsibility for long-term access cannot rest solely with individual practitioners but must be addressed collectively through institutional partnerships, professional standards, procurement frameworks, and archival infrastructure.

Ongoing Work

This research informs my current book project, Anarchy in the Archive: Architecture, Digital Fragility, and the Future of Memory, as well as related writing on software obsolescence, archival bias, and the ethics of architectural documentation. It also underpins collaborative work with architects, archivists, and preservation specialists concerned with born-digital heritage and long-term access to architectural records.