The argument is based on a clear tension: spaces can foster new dynamics, but when professional practices, leadership styles, and organizational cultures do not change, innovation does not take root in everyday use.
When an education system wants to show that it is changing, it usually starts with the most visible aspects. Open spaces, movable walls, flexible furniture, more light, and more technology seem to immediately signal a new era.
However, Cardellino warns that buildings change much faster than institutions, and that this difference explains why, often after the opening, day-to-day operations continue to follow familiar patterns.
When the building changes, but the institution does not
The column describes a scene that is as familiar as it is revealing: inside those very buildings that promised something different, the movable walls remain closed, the open spaces are once again being rearranged into conventional classrooms, and practices remain, in essence, the same. The problem, Cardellino argues, is not the building itself, but the belief that innovation consists of building something new.
This approach is linked to what are known as “Innovative Learning Environments,” which in recent years have spread across various educational systems based on a compelling idea: if the world needs collaboration, autonomy, and critical thinking, then the traditional, closed classroom seems to belong to another era.
The column takes up that aspiration, but it also sets its limits:
A new space does not, in and of itself, equate to a new pedagogy.
At this point, the reflection becomes particularly fruitful for architecture, because it shifts the focus from the physical form of the building to its relationship with institutional culture and professional practice.
Institutions, Cardellino writes, have habits, unwritten rules, and ways of working that are unlikely to change simply because the physical environment changes. When the infrastructure changes but the culture remains the same, the space ends up adapting to existing practices.
- You might also find it helpful to read: “Educational Architecture and School Well-being: What Can We Learn from Finland’s Example?”
A problem that also affects organizations
The author emphasizes that this phenomenon is not limited to education. In the business world, many organizations redesign their offices with the intention of fostering collaboration and creativity, but months later, teams continue to work in isolation and organizational silos remain intact.
This observation broadens the scope of the column and shows that the problem lies not only in the type of building, but in the gap between design, use, and work culture. That is why one of the text’s strongest assertions is also one of the simplest: changing the space can facilitate new work dynamics, but it cannot impose them.
Professional practices, leadership styles, and organizational cultures, Cardellino points out, carry much more weight than a building’s design when it comes to bringing about real and lasting change.
- You might also be interested in reading: “Architecture and Mental Health: How the Design of Spaces Impacts Our Psychology”
In this way, the column brings to the forefront a discussion that goes beyond the physical aspects of the project. It is not enough to design spaces that are flexible, well-lit, or technologically up-to-date if those spaces do not engage with the way people learn, work, and make decisions.
At that intersection between architecture and use, the project ceases to be an exclusively technical response and becomes part of a broader institutional process.