What makes a good architect is not a question about aesthetics. A portfolio of beautiful photographs tells you what a practice has produced — it does not tell you whether you will have a clear, well-structured experience working with them, or whether the building they design for you will solve the specific spatial problems of your life. The better question is: what does their design process look like, and does it fit the way you need to work?
Process Before Portfolio
The process before style — that principle applies to how you evaluate an architect as much as it applies to how an architect designs. Ask a prospective architect to describe their project phases. How do they structure the progression from first conversation to construction documents? What do they produce at each phase? When do they ask the client to make decisions, and what information do they provide to support those decisions?
A well-structured design process is explicit and documentable. An architect with a clear process can describe their schematic design phase in specific terms: these drawings, these models, at this scale, reviewed with the client in this format. An architect without a clear process will give you a vague answer about "working together" or "staying flexible" — which means the client bears the risk of an undefined process.
The Question Before the Sketch
A good architect asks more questions than they answer in the first meeting. The questions they ask reveal the quality of their design intelligence more clearly than any portfolio image. Are they asking about how you live — what you do in the morning, how many people use the kitchen at once, whether you need acoustic separation between work and family spaces? Or are they already proposing spatial ideas before they understand the program?
In MÉTODO, the conversation phase precedes any drawing. The first phase of engagement is not schematic design — it is a structured exchange that produces a written program document. That document is the brief that design must answer. An architect who proposes spatial ideas before understanding the program is designing for their own interest, not the client's.
Technical Rigor vs. Design Intelligence
Good architecture requires both. A building that is spatially beautiful but technically compromised will create problems within years of occupancy: moisture damage, structural cracking, energy performance failure, material degradation. A building that is technically correct but spatially inert will fail to support the life of its occupants.
The design intelligence of a good architect is visible in how they talk about section: how a building is cut vertically to manage light, ventilation, and spatial experience. The section as narrative is not a technical convention — it is the primary tool through which a skilled architect makes a building that works as both a shelter and a spatial experience.
The technical rigor of a good architect is visible in how they talk about materials. Do they specify materials with an understanding of how those materials age and perform in the specific climate of your project? Or do they select materials for their appearance in a photograph? Stone, wood, and concrete specified for a climate they are suited to will last decades without requiring replacement. Materials selected for aesthetic reasons alone may look correct for five years and become a maintenance problem for thirty.
The Right Number of Projects
A good architect's quality of work is constrained by how many projects they manage simultaneously. This is not a question of talent — it is a question of available attention. When a principal manages more projects than can receive direct design oversight, the work becomes inconsistent. Junior staff take on design decisions that should be made by the principal. The authorship that distinguishes one project from another dissipates.
In MÉTODO, we take four projects per year. That limit is the mechanism by which direct principal involvement is maintained across every phase of every project. It is not a statement about capacity — it is a design decision about the kind of practice we want to maintain.
How to Read a Design Process When Evaluating an Architect
When you are evaluating an architecture firm, look for:
- Clear phase definitions with specific deliverables
- Explicit client decision points — not continuous feedback loops
- A design development phase that confirms material palette, not just spatial organization
- A construction administration service that is not optional
- A portfolio that includes projects under construction and completed projects — not only renderings
Avoid firms that cannot describe their phases specifically, who treat construction administration as an add-on, or whose portfolios consist primarily of renders and visualizations rather than built work.
Next Steps
If you are evaluating architects and want to understand how MÉTODO's design process works in detail, the most useful step is a direct conversation about your project.
Conoce el método de MÉTODO — the complete design process, from conversation phase through construction administration.