A quote by I. M. Pei “Life is architecture and architecture is the mirror of life.” (image: unsplash)Architecture has long shaped our physical world — but what if it learned from UX design’s focus on feedback, iteration, and human experience?Over five years ago, I transitioned from architecture to UX design. At the time, the internet was full of think pieces drawing parallels between the two disciplines: how both are about designing systems for people, how architects shape physical spaces while UX designers shape digital ones. I agreed with all of it — and I still do. The conversation largely focused on what UX can borrow from architecture: structure, planning, conceptual thinking.But now, with a few years of UX experience behind me, I’ve started to see the reverse as well — how architects could improve their design process and their growth as designers by learning from UX.Is architecture about people — or about the architect’s vision?I recently moved into a new apartment. It’s a nice space overall — modern, functional, well-built. But as I’ve settled in, I’ve noticed small things. They’re minor issues, examples of “form over function” — mostly easily fixable design decisions that still affect daily life.Every time I notice one of these details, I find myself thinking: I wish I could tell the architect. Not to complain, and not because I expect anything to change, but because so many of these issues are universal. They’re usability patterns that could be avoided in future projects. I know the process of designing such apartments — I’ve been there. I’ve made the same decisions. As a designer, I’d love to receive that kind of feedback — so why don’t architects seek it?“To simplify, the task of architects is to provide a better living environment for human beings.” — Liu Jiakun (Pritzker Price 2025)“Architecture is generated by people’s needs, both spiritual and material, and that has always been a guiding principle.” — Norman Foster (Pritzker Price 1999)“Every product of architecture should be a fruit of our endeavor to build an earthly paradise for people.” — Alvar AaltoHow can we design something timeless — something truly for people — if we don’t ask them how they experience the spaces we create?Of course, architects rely on standards — both formal and informal. We all remember Neufert’s Architect’s Data (an almost 100-year-old book!) — the go-to reference for proportions, dimensions, and design guidelines. But while standards are a starting point, they’re not a substitute for real feedback. Human needs evolve. Just think of the modern kitchen: now home to a Thermomix, a high-end coffee machine, a smart fridge… and yet many new kitchens are still designed for yesterday’s habits.That’s what I find missing in the architectural process: the feedback loop.The missing piece: Feedback from real usersArchitects working on a project (image: David Baker Architects)In UX, feedback isn’t just helpful — it’s the core of the process. We watch how people interact with our products, we learn from those interactions, and we use that insight to improve the design. It’s not failure — it’s part of the cycle. It’s how we grow as designers and make better things.Architecture doesn’t typically work that way.Yes, there is feedback — but it tends to come from other architects. Awards, critiques, peer recognition. All valuable, but largely focused on aesthetics, innovation, or execution. It’s like getting peer reviews at work without ever hearing from your customers. Rarely does it reflect how someone actually uses the space.The biggest reason for this gap is simple: once a building is finished, it’s done. There are no updates, no versions, no patches. You can’t roll out v1.1 of a floor plan. The industry isn’t set up for this kind of feedback. Developers aren’t eager to admit post-construction flaws. It’s a finished product: market-ready, regulations met, boxes checked. If it sells, it’s a success. Collecting user feedback might seem pointless. But I don’t think it is. This mindset overlooks a fundamental question: What is it like to USE this building? Is it easy to find an elevator? Is it easy to clean? Can you carry groceries through the hallway without bumping into things?Even if you can’t change a project after it’s built, you can learn from it. You should learn from it. If multiple “Users” mention the same awkward window or the same underused shared space, that’s not an isolated complaint — it’s a pattern. And patterns are where design improves. You can improve your future projects, make better decisions, improve budget planning, be more cautious about what you prioritize, and simply grow as a designer.If we truly believe — as architects and designers — that we’re creating environments for people, not just objects for the skyline, then hearing from those people shouldn’t be optional. It should be part of the process, even if informal, even if it doesn’t lead to immediate changes.What could be measured? What value would it bring?In UX, metrics are everywhere. Portfolios and case studies are full of them: reduced customer support tickets by 80%, increased onboarding completion by 45%, etc. These aren’t just performance stats — they’re proof of impact.Could architecture do the same?Architects could benefit from tracking post-occupancy metrics such as:Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT): Are people happy in the space?Retention Rate: How long do people stay in apartments or offices?Engagement Metrics: Are shared areas actually used? Do people spend time in the spaces designed for interaction?Acquisition Metrics: How fast were the units sold or rented? What were the key selling points — or the hesitations?These are just a few examples, my ideas. There could be many more, depending on the building type, function, location, and context. This kind of data could also build the reputation of architectural practices and validate their skills and impact.Of course, not everything should be reduced to numbers. I believe qualitative feedback is even more valuable. Conversations. Observations. Informal interviews. Watch how people live — how they shop, how they host friends, how they work from their couch, how they move between rooms. That’s the kind of insight you can’t get from CAD software or renderings.Why this mattersArchitecture is a slow art. Projects take years to complete. But that’s exactly why we should care more about feedback — not less. The longer the timeline, the more valuable every lesson becomes.Just like in UX, not all feedback leads to immediate change. But it can shape the next iteration, the next version, the next design. Even in architecture — where buildings are permanent — the learning process doesn’t have to stop at construction.Architecture doesn’t have to work like software. But it can still adopt the mindset of continuous learning. It can still ask “How did we do?”. Not just from juries. Not just from the press. But from the people we built it for.Maybe then we’d live in a world without drawers locked inside cabinets — where you have to open the cabinet before you can open the drawer. A small detail, but annoying for someone who cooks a lot, like me.Read moreArchitecture’s UX problem — https://www.fastcompany.com/90151274/architectures-ux-problemHuman-Centered Design: What Architects Can Learn from UX Designers — https://www.archdaily.com/989103/human-centered-design-what-architects-can-learn-from-ux-designersSeek and listen to feedback — https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/client-feedback-learning-and-improvingDesigning for people: What architecture can learn from UX was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.