By TREVOR HOGG Images courtesy of Chocolate Tribe. Nosipho Maketo-van den Bragt, Owner and CEO, Chocolate Tribe After initially pursuing a career as an attorney, Nosipho Maketo-van den Bragt discovered her true calling was to apply her legal knowledge in a more artistic endeavor with her husband, Rob Van den Bragt, who had forged a career as a visual effects supervisor. The couple co-founded Chocolate Tribe, the Johannesburg and Cape Town-based visual effects and animation studio that has done work for Netflix, BBC, Disney and Voltage Pictures. “It was following my passion and my passion finding me,” observes Maketo-van den Bragt, Owner and CEO of Chocolate Tribe and Founder of AVIJOZI. “I grew up in Soweto, South Africa, and we had this old-fashioned television. I was always fascinated by how those people got in there to perform and entertain us. Living in the townships, you become the funnel for your parents’ aspirations and dreams. My dad was a judge’s registrar, so he was writing all of the court cases coming up for a judge. My dad would come home and tell us stories of what happened in court. I found this enthralling, funny and sometimes painful because it was about people’s lives. I did law and to some extent still practice it. My legal career and entertainment media careers merged because I fell in love with the storytelling aspect of it all. There are those who say that lawyers are failed actors!” Chocolate Tribe hosts what has become the annual AVIJOZI festival with Netflix. AVIJOZI is a two-day, free-access event in Johannesburg focused on Animation/Film, Visual Effects and Interactive Technology. This year’s AVIJOZI is scheduled for September 13-14 in Johannesburg. Photo: Casting Director and Actor Spaces Founder Ayanda Sithebe (center in black T-shirt) and friends at AVIJOZI 2024. A personal ambition was to find a way to merge married life into a professional partnership. “I never thought that a lawyer and a creative would work together,” admits Maketo-van den Bragt. “However, Rob and I had this great love for watching films together and music; entertainment was the core fabric of our relationship. That was my first gentle schooling into the visual effects and animation content development space. Starting the company was due to both of us being out of work. I had quit my job without any sort of plan B. I actually incorporated Chocolate Tribe as a company without knowing what we would do with it. As time went on, there was a project that we were asked to come to do. The relationship didn’t work out, so Rob and I decided, ‘Okay, it seems like we can do this on our own.’ I’ve read many books about visual effects and animation, and I still do. I attend a lot of festivals. I am connected with a lot of the guys who work in different visual effects spaces because it is all about understanding how it works and, from a business side, how can we leverage all of that information?” Chocolate Tribe provided VFX and post-production for Checkers supermarket’s “Planet” ad promoting environmental sustainability. The Chocolate Tribe team pushed photorealism for the ad, creating three fully CG creatures: a polar bear, orangutan and sea turtle. With a population of 1.5 billion, there is no shortage of consumers and content creators in Africa. “Nollywood is great because it shows us that even with minimal resources, you can create a whole movement and ecosystem,” Maketo-van den Bragt remarks. “Maybe the question around Nollywood is making sure that the caliber and quality of work is high end and speaks to a global audience. South Africa has the same dynamics. It’s a vibrant traditional film and animation industry that grows in leaps and bounds every year. More and more animation houses are being incorporated or started with CEOs or managing directors in their 20s. There’s also an eagerness to look for different stories which haven’t been told. Africa gives that opportunity to tell stories that ordinary people, for example, in America, have not heard or don’t know about. There’s a huge rise in animation, visual effects and content in general.” Rob van den Bragt served as Creative Supervisor and Nosipho Maketo-van den Bragt as Studio Executive for the “Surf Sangoma” episode of the Disney+ series Kizazi Moto: Generation Fire. Rob van den Bragt, CCO, and Nosipho Maketo-van den Bragt, CEO, Co-Founders of Chocolate Tribe, in an AVIJOZI planning meeting. Stella Gono, Software Developer, working on the Chocolate Tribe website. Family photo of the Maketos. Maketo-van de Bragt has two siblings. Film tax credits have contributed to The Woman King, Dredd, Safe House, Black Sails and Mission: Impossible – Final Reckoning shooting in South Africa. “People understand principal photography, but there is confusion about animation and visual effects,” Maketo-van den Bragt states. “Rebates pose a challenge because now you have to go above and beyond to explain what you are selling. It’s taken time for the government to realize this is a viable career.” The streamers have had a positive impact. “For the most part, Netflix localizes, and that’s been quite a big hit because it speaks to the demographics and local representation and uplifts talent within those geographical spaces. We did one of the shorts for Disney’s Kizazi Moto: Generation Fire, and there was huge global excitement to that kind of anthology coming from Africa. We’ve worked on a number of collaborations with the U.K., and often that melding of different partners creates a fusion of universality. We need to tell authentic stories, and that authenticity will be dictated by the voices in the writing room.” AVIJOZI was established to support the development of local talent in animation, visual effects, film production and gaming. “AVIJOZI stands for Animation Visual Effects Interactive in JOZI [nickname for Johannesburg],” Maketo-van den Bragt explains. “It is a conference as well as a festival. The conference part is where we have networking sessions, panel discussions and behind-the-scenes presentations to draw the curtain back and show what happens when people create avatars. We want to show the next generation that there is a way to do this magical craft. The festival part is people have film screenings and music as well. We’ve brought in gaming as an integral aspect, which attracts many young people because that’s something they do at an early age. Gaming has become the common sport. AVIJOVI is in its fourth year now. It started when I got irritated by people constantly complaining, ‘Nothing ever happens in Johannesburg in terms of animation and visual effects.’ Nobody wanted to do it. So, I said, ‘I’ll do it.’ I didn’t know what I was getting myself into, and four years later I have lots of gray hair!” Rob van den Bragt served as Animation Supervisor/Visual Effects Supervisor and Nosipho Maketo-van den Bragt as an Executive Producer on iNumber Number: Jozi Gold (2023) for Netflix. (Image courtesy of Chocolate Tribe and Netflix) Mentorship and internship programs have been established with various academic institutions, and while there are times when specific skills are being sought, like rigging, the field of view tends to be much wider. “What we are finding is that the people who have done other disciplines are much more vibrant,” Maketo-van den Bragt states. “Artists don’t always know how to communicate because it’s all in their heads. Sometimes, somebody with a different background can articulate that vision a bit better because they have those other skills. We also find with those who have gone to art school that the range within their artistry and craftsmanship has become a ‘thing.’ When you have mentally traveled where you have done other things, it allows you to be a more well-rounded artist because you can pull references from different walks of life and engage with different topics without being constrained to one thing. We look for people with a plethora of skills and diverse backgrounds. It’s a lot richer as a Chocolate Tribe. There are multiple flavors.” South African director/producer/cinematographer and drone cinemtography specialist FC Hamman, Founder of FC Hamman Films, at AVIJOZI 2024. There is a particular driving force when it comes to mentoring. “I want to be the mentor I hoped for,” Maketo-van den Bragt remarks. “I have silent mentors in that we didn’t formalize the relationship, but I knew they were my mentors because every time I would encounter an issue, I would be able to call them. One of the people who not only mentored but pushed me into different spaces is Jinko Gotoh, who is part of Women in Animation. She brought me into Women in Animation, and I had never mentored anybody. Here I was, sitting with six women who wanted to know how I was able to build up Chocolate Tribe. I didn’t know how to structure a presentation to tell them about the journey because I had been so focused on the journey. It’s a sense of grit and feeling that I cannot fail because I have a whole community that believes in me. Even when I felt my shoulders sagging, they would be there to say, ‘We need this. Keep it moving.’ This isn’t just about me. I have a whole stream of people who want this to work.” Netflix VFX Manager Ben Perry, who oversees Netflix’s VFX strategy across Africa, the Middle East and Europe, at AVIJOZI 2024. Netflix was a partner in AVIJOZI with Chocolate Tribe for three years. Zama Mfusi, Founder of IndiLang, and Isabelle Rorke, CEO of Dreamforge Creative and Deputy Chair of Animation SA, at AVIJOZI 2024. Numerous unknown factors had to be accounted for, which made predicting how the journey would unfold extremely difficult. “What it looks like and what I expected it to be, you don’t have the full sense of what it would lead to in this situation,” Maketo-van den Bragt states. “I can tell you that there have been moments of absolute joy where I was so excited we got this project or won that award. There are other moments where you feel completely lost and ask yourself, ‘Am I doing the right thing?’ The journey is to have the highs, lows and moments of confusion. I go through it and accept that not every day will be an award-winning day. For the most part, I love this journey. I wanted to be somewhere where there was a purpose. What has been a big highlight is when I’m signing a contract for new employees who are excited about being part of Chocolate Tribe. Also, when you get a new project and it’s exciting, especially from a service or visual effects perspective, we’re constantly looking for that dragon or big creature. It’s about being mesmerizing, epic and awesome.” Maketo-van den Bragt has two major career-defining ambitions. “Fostering the next generation of talent and making sure that they are ready to create these amazing stories properly – that is my life work, and relating the African narrative to let the world see the human aspect of who we are because for the longest time we’ve been written out of the stories and narratives.”

Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One. By Jay Stobie Visual effects supervisor John Knoll (right) confers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contact (1996) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) propelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generations (1994) welcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s (Patrick Stewart) crew to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk (William Shatner). Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018), The Mandalorian (2019-23), Andor (2022-25), Ahsoka (2023), The Acolyte (2024), and more. The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif. A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). A Context for Conflict In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design. On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) and Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival. From Physical to Digital By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical models (many of which were built by ILM) for its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphics (CG) models, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001. Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com. However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.” John Knoll (second from left) confers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Legendary Lineages In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.” Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet. While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got from [equipment vendor] VER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.” The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: Paramount). Familiar Foes To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993), creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin. As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.” Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.” A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Forming Up the Fleets In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics. Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs (the MC75 cruiser Profundity and U-wings), live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples (Nebulon-B frigates, X-wings, Y-wings, and more). These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’s (Carrie Fisher and Ingvild Deila) personal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography… Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized. Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Tough Little Ships The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships” (an endearing description Commander William T. Riker [Jonathan Frakes] bestowed upon the U.S.S. Defiant in First Contact) in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001! Exploration and Hope The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire. The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope? – Jay Stobie (he/him) is a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy.

These annual rankings were last updated on June 13, 2025. Want to see your firm on next year’s list? Continue reading for more on how you can improve your studio’s ranking. New Zealand is a one-of-a-kind island in the Pacific, famous for its indigenous Maori architecture. The country has managed to preserve an array of historical aboriginal ruins, such as marae (meeting grounds) and wharenui (meeting houses), despite its European colonization during the 19th century. Apart from the country’s ancient ruins, New Zealand is also home to several notable architectural landmarks like the famous Sky Tower piercing the Auckland skyline to the organic forms of the Te Papa Tongarewa Museum in Wellington. Renowned architects like Sir Ian Athfield, whose works blend modernist principles with a deep respect for the natural landscape, have left an indelible mark on the country’s architectural legacy. Being home to a stunning tropical landscape, New Zealand architects have developed eco-friendly residential designs that harness the power of renewable energy as well as visionary urban developments prioritizing livability and connectivity. A notable example is Turanga Central Library in Christchurch, a project that exceeds all eco-friendly design standards and benchmark emissions. Finally, concepts like passive design are increasingly becoming standard practice in architectural circles. With so many architecture firms to choose from, it’s challenging for clients to identify the industry leaders that will be an ideal fit for their project needs. Fortunately, Architizer is able to provide guidance on the top design firms in New Zealand based on more than a decade of data and industry knowledge. How are these architecture firms ranked? The following ranking has been created according to key statistics that demonstrate each firm’s level of architectural excellence. The following metrics have been accumulated to establish each architecture firm’s ranking, in order of priority: The number of A+Awards won (2013 to 2025) The number of A+Awards finalists (2013 to 2025) The number of projects selected as “Project of the Day” (2009 to 2025) The number of projects selected as “Featured Project” (2009 to 2025) The number of projects uploaded to Architizer (2009 to 2025) Each of these metrics is explained in more detail at the foot of this article. This ranking list will be updated annually, taking into account new achievements of New Zealand architecture firms throughout the year. Without further ado, here are the 30 best architecture firms in New Zealand: 30. CoLab Architecture © CoLab Architecture Ltd CoLab Architecture is a small practice of two directors, Tobin Smith and Blair Paterson, based in Christchurch New Zealand. Tobin is a creative designer with a wealth of experience in the building industry. Blair is a registered architect and graduate from the University of Auckland. “We like architecture to be visually powerful, intellectually elegant, and above all timeless. For us, timeless design is achieved through simplicity and strength of concept — in other words, a single idea executed beautifully with a dedication to the details. We strive to create architecture that is conscious of local climate (hunker down in the winter and open up in summer) and the environment (scale and relationship to other buildings and the natural environment).” Some of CoLab Architecture’s most prominent projects include: Urban Cottage, Christchurch, New Zealand The following statistics helped CoLab Architecture Ltd achieve 30th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 29. Paul Whittaker © Paul Whittaker Paul Whittaker is an architecture firm based in New Zealand. Its work revolves around residential architecture. Some of Paul Whittaker’s most prominent projects include: Whittaker Cube, Kakanui, New Zealand The following statistics helped Paul Whittaker achieve 29th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 28. Space Division © Simon Devitt Photographer Space Division is a boutique architectural practice that aims to positively impact the lives and environment of its clients and their communities by purposefully producing quality space. We believe our name reflects both the essence of what we do, but also how we strive to do it – succinctly and simply. Our design process is inclusive and client focused with their desires, physical constraints, budgets, time frames, compliance and construction processes all carefully considered and incorporated into our designs. Space Division has successfully applied this approach to a broad range of project types within the field of architecture, ranging from commercial developments, urban infrastructure to baches, playhouses and residential homes. Space Divisions team is committed to delivering a very personal and complete service to each of their clients, at each stage of the process. To assist in achieving this Space Division collaborates with a range of trusted technical specialists, based on the specific needs of our client. Which ensures we stay focussed, passionate agile and easily scalable. Some of Space Division’s most prominent projects include: Stradwick House, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Space Division achieve 28th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 27. Sumich Chaplin Architects © Sumich Chaplin Architects Sumich Chaplin Architects undertake to provide creative, enduring architectural design based on a clear understanding and interpretation of a client’s brief. We work with an appreciation and respect for the surrounding landscape and environment. Some of Sumich Chaplin Architects’ most prominent projects include: Millbrook House, Arrowtown, New Zealand The following statistics helped Sumich Chaplin Architects achieve 27th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 26. Daniel Marshall Architects © Simon Devitt Photographer Daniel Marshall Architects (DMA) is an Auckland based practice who are passionate about designing high quality and award winning New Zealand architecture. Our work has been published in periodicals and books internationally as well as numerous digital publications. Daniel leads a core team of four individually accomplished designers who skillfully collaborate to resolve architectural projects from their conception through to their occupation. DMA believe architecture is a ‘generalist’ profession which engages with all components of an architectural project; during conceptual design, documentation and construction phases.  We pride ourselves on being able to holistically engage with a complex of architectural issues to arrive at a design solution equally appropriate to its context (site and surrounds) and the unique ways our clients prefer to live. Some of Daniel Marshall Architects’ most prominent projects include: Lucerne, Auckland, New Zealand House in Herne Bay, Herne Bay, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Daniel Marshall Architects achieve 26th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 2 25. AW Architects © AW Architects Creative studio based in Christchurch, New Zealand. AW-ARCH is committed to an inclusive culture where everyone is encouraged to share their perspectives – our partners, our colleagues and our clients. Our team comes from all over the globe, bringing with them a variety of experiences. We embrace the differences that shape people’s lives, including race, ethnicity, identity and ability. We come together around the drawing board, the monitor, and the lunch table, immersed in the free exchange of ideas and synthesizing the diverse viewpoints of creative people, which stimulates innovative design and makes our work possible. Mentorship is key to engagement within AW-ARCH, energizing our studio and feeding invention. It’s our social and professional responsibility and helps us develop and retain a dedicated team. This includes offering internships that introduce young people to our profession, as well as supporting opportunities for our people outside the office — teaching, volunteering and exploring. Some of AW Architects’ most prominent projects include: OCEAN VIEW TERRACE HOUSE, Christchurch, New Zealand 212 CASHEL STREET, Christchurch, New Zealand LAKE HOUSE, Queenstown, New Zealand RIVER HOUSE, Christchurch, New Zealand HE PUNA TAIMOANA, Christchurch, New Zealand The following statistics helped AW Architects achieve 25th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Finalist 1 Total Projects 9 24. Archimedia © Patrick Reynolds Archimedia is a New Zealand architecture practice with NZRAB and green star accredited staff, offering design services in the disciplines of architecture, interiors and ecology. Delivering architecture involves intervention in both natural eco-systems and the built environment — the context within which human beings live their lives. Archimedia uses the word “ecology” to extend the concept of sustainability to urban design and master planning and integrates this holistic strategy into every project. Archimedia prioritizes client project requirements, functionality, operational efficiency, feasibility and programme. Some of Archimedia’s most prominent projects include: Te Oro, Auckland, New Zealand Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki, Auckland, New Zealand Hekerua Bay Residence, New Zealand Eye Institute , Remuera, Auckland, New Zealand University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Archimedia achieve 24th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 25 23. MC Architecture Studio © MC Architecture Studio Ltd The studio’s work, questioning the boundary between art and architecture, provides engaging and innovative living space with the highest sustainability standard. Design solutions are tailored on client needs and site’s characteristics. Hence the final product will be unique and strongly related to the context and wider environment. On a specific-project basis, the studio, maintaining the leadership of the whole process, works in a network with local and international practices to achieve the best operational efficiency and local knowledge worldwide to accommodate the needs of a big scale project or specific requirements. Some of MC Architecture Studio’s most prominent projects include: Cass Bay House, Cass Bay, Lyttelton, New Zealand Ashburton Alteration, Ashburton, New Zealand restaurant/cafe, Ovindoli, Italy Private Residence, Christchurch, New Zealand Private Residence, Christchurch, New Zealand The following statistics helped MC Architecture Studio Ltd achieve 23rd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 2 Total Projects 19 22. Architecture van Brandenburg © Architecture van Brandenburg Van Brandenburg is a design focused studio for architecture, landscape architecture, urbanism, and product design with studios in Queenstown and Dunedin, New Zealand. With global reach Van Brandenburg conducts themselves internationally, where the team of architects, designers and innovators create organic built form, inspired by nature, and captured by curvilinear design. Some of Architecture van Brandenburg’s most prominent projects include: Marisfrolg Fashion Campus, Shenzhen, China The following statistics helped Architecture van Brandenburg achieve 22nd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 1 Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 21. MacKayCurtis © MacKayCurtis MacKay Curtis is a design led practice with a mission to create functional architecture of lasting beauty that enhances peoples lives. Some of MacKayCurtis’ most prominent projects include: Mawhitipana House, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped MacKayCurtis achieve 21st place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 1 Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 20. Gerrad Hall Architects © Gerrad Hall Architects We aspire to create houses that are a joyful sensory experience. Some of Gerrad Hall Architects’ most prominent projects include: Inland House, Mangawhai, New Zealand Herne Bay Villa Alteration, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Gerrad Hall Architects achieve 20th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 2 Total Projects 2 19. Dorrington Atcheson Architects © Dorrington Atcheson Architects Dorrington Atcheson Architects was founded as Dorrington Architects & Associates was formed in 2010, resulting in a combined 20 years of experience in the New Zealand architectural market. We’re a boutique architecture firm working on a range of projects and budgets. We love our work, we pride ourselves on the work we do and we enjoy working with our clients to achieve a result that resolves their brief. The design process is a collaborative effort, working with the client, budget, site and brief, to find unique solutions that solve the project at hand. The style of our projects are determined by the site and the budget, with a leaning towards contemporary modernist design, utilizing a rich natural material palette, creating clean and tranquil spaces. Some of Dorrington Atcheson Architects’ most prominent projects include: Lynch Street Coopers Beach House, Coopers Beach, New Zealand Rutherford House, Tauranga Taupo, New Zealand Winsomere Cres Kathryn Wilson Shoebox, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Dorrington Atcheson Architects achieve 19th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 2 Total Projects 14 18. Andrew Barre Lab © Marcela Grassi Andrew Barrie Lab is an architectural practice that undertakes a diverse range of projects. We make buildings, books, maps, classes, exhibitions and research. Some of Andrew Barre Lab’s most prominent projects include: Learning from Trees, Venice, Italy The following statistics helped Andrew Barre Lab achieve 18th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 17. Warren and Mahoney © Simon Devitt Photographer Warren and Mahoney is an insight led multidisciplinary architectural practice with six locations functioning as a single office. Our clients and projects span New Zealand, Australia and the Pacific Rim. The practice has over 190 people, comprising of specialists working across the disciplines of architecture, workplace, masterplanning, urban design and sustainable design. We draw from the wider group for skills and experience on every project, regardless of the location. Some of Warren and Mahoney’s most prominent projects include: MIT Manukau & Transport Interchange, Auckland, New Zealand Carlaw Park Student Accommodation, Auckland, New Zealand Pt Resolution Footbridge, Auckland, New Zealand Isaac Theatre Royal, Christchurch, New Zealand University of Auckland Recreation and Wellness Centre, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Warren and Mahoney achieve 17th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 2 Total Projects 5 16. South Architects Limited © South Architects Limited Led by Craig South, our friendly professional team is dedicated to crafting for uniqueness and producing carefully considered architecture that will endure and be loved. At South Architects, every project has a unique story. This story starts and ends with our clients, whose values and aspirations fundamentally empower and inspire our whole design process. Working together with our clients is pivotal to how we operate and we share a passion for innovation in design. We invite you to meet us and explore what we can do for you. As you will discover, our client focussed process is thorough, robust and responsive. We see architecture as the culmination of a journey with you. Some of South Architects Limited’s most prominent projects include: Three Gables, Christchurch, New Zealand Concrete Copper Home, Christchurch, New Zealand Driftwood Home, Christchurch, New Zealand Half Gable Townhouses, Christchurch, New Zealand Kilmore Street, Christchurch, New Zealand The following statistics helped South Architects Limited achieve 16th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 6 15. Pac Studio © Pac Studio Pac Studio is an ideas-driven design office, committed to intellectual and artistic rigor and fueled by a strong commitment to realizing ideas in the world. We believe a thoughtful and inclusive approach to design, which puts people at the heart of any potential solution, is the key to compelling and positive architecture. Through our relationships with inter-related disciplines — furniture, art, landscape and academia — we can create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. We are open to unconventional propositions. We are architects and designers with substantial experience delivering highly awarded architectural projects on multiple scales. Some of Pac Studio’s most prominent projects include: Space Invader, Auckland, New Zealand Split House, Auckland, New Zealand Yolk House, Auckland, New Zealand Wanaka Crib, Wanaka, New Zealand Pahi House, Pahi, New Zealand The following statistics helped Pac Studio achieve 15th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 8 14. Jasmax © Jasmax Jasmax is one of New Zealand’s largest and longest established architecture and design practices. With over 250 staff nationwide, the practice has delivered some of the country’s most well known projects, from the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa to major infrastructure and masterplanning projects such as Auckland’s Britomart Station. From our four regional offices, the practice works with clients, stakeholders and communities across the following sectors: commercial, cultural and civic, education, infrastructure, health, hospitality, retail, residential, sports and recreation, and urban design. Environmentally sustainable design is part of everything we do, and we were proud to work with Ngāi Tūhoe to design one of New Zealand’s most advanced sustainable buildings, Te Uru Taumatua; which has been designed to the stringent criteria of the International Living Future Institute’s Living Building Challenge. Some of Jasmax’s most prominent projects include: The Surf Club at Muriwai, Muriwai, New Zealand Auckland University Mana Hauora Building, Auckland, New Zealand The Fonterra Centre, Auckland, New Zealand Auckland University of Technology Sir Paul Reeves Building , Auckland, New Zealand NZI Centre, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Jasmax achieve 14th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 21 13. Condon Scott Architects © Condon Scott Architects Condon Scott Architects is a boutique, award-winning NZIA registered architectural practice based in Wānaka, New Zealand. Since inception 35 years ago, Condon Scott Architects has been involved in a wide range of high end residential and commercial architectural projects throughout Queenstown, Wānaka, the Central Otago region and further afield. Director Barry Condon (ANZIA) and principal Sarah Scott (FNZIA) – both registered architects – work alongside a highly skilled architectural team to deliver a full design and construction management service. This spans from initial concept design right through to tender management and interior design. Condon Scott Architect’s approach is to view each commission as a bespoke and site specific project, capitalizing on the unique environmental conditions and natural surroundings that are so often evident in this beautiful part of the world. Some of Condon Scott Architects’ most prominent projects include: Sugi House, Wānaka, New Zealand Wanaka Catholic Church, Wanaka, New Zealand Mount Iron Barn, Wanaka, New Zealand Bendigo Terrace House, New Zealand Bargour Residence, Wanaka, New Zealand The following statistics helped Condon Scott Architects achieve 13th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 17 12. Glamuzina Paterson Architects © Glamuzina Paterson Architects Glamuzina Architects is an Auckland based practice established in 2014. We strive to produce architecture that is crafted, contextual and clever. Rather than seeking a particular outcome we value a design process that is rigorous and collaborative. When designing we look to the context of a project beyond just its immediate physical location to the social, political, historical and economic conditions of place. This results in architecture that is uniquely tailored to the context it sits within. We work on many different types of projects across a range of scales; from small interiors to large public buildings. Regardless of a project’s budget we always prefer to work smart, using a creative mix of materials, light and volume in preference to elaborate finishes or complex detailing. Some of Glamuzina Paterson Architects’ most prominent projects include: Lake Hawea Courtyard House, Otago, New Zealand Blackpool House, Auckland, New Zealand Brick Bay House, Auckland, New Zealand Giraffe House, Auckland, New Zealand Giraffe House, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Glamuzina Paterson Architects achieve 12th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 5 11. Cheshire Architects © Patrick Reynolds Cheshire Architects does special projects, irrespective of discipline, scale or type. The firm moves fluidly from luxury retreat to city master plan to basement cocktail den, shaping every aspect of an environment in pursuit of the extraordinary. Some of Cheshire Architects’ most prominent projects include: Rore kahu, Te Tii, New Zealand Eyrie, New Zealand Milse, Takanini, New Zealand The following statistics helped Cheshire Architects achieve 11th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 3 10. Patterson Associates © Patterson Associates Pattersons Associates Architects began its creative story with architect Andrew Patterson in 1986 whose early work on New Zealand’s unspoiled coasts, explores relationships between people and landscape to create a sense of belonging. The architecture studio started based on a very simple idea; if a building can feel like it naturally ‘belongs,’ or fits logically in a place, to an environment, a time and culture, then the people that inhabit the building will likely feel a sense of belonging there as well. This methodology connects theories of beauty, confidence, economy and comfort. In 2004 Davor Popadich and Andrew Mitchell joined the firm as directors, taking it to another level of creative exploration and helping it grow into an architecture studio with an international reputation. Some of Patterson Associates’ most prominent projects include: Seascape Retreat, Canterbury, New Zealand The Len Lye Centre, New Plymouth, New Zealand Country House in the City, Auckland, New Zealand Scrubby Bay House, Canterbury, New Zealand Parihoa House, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Patterson Associates achieve 10th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 5 9. Team Green Architects © Team Green Architects Established in 2013 by Sian Taylor and Mark Read, Team Green Architects is a young committed practice focused on designing energy efficient buildings. Some of Team Green Architects’ most prominent projects include: Dalefield Guest House, Queenstown, New Zealand Olive Grove House, Cromwell, New Zealand Hawthorn House, Queenstown, New Zealand Frankton House, Queenstown, New Zealand Contemporary Sleepout, Arthurs Point, New Zealand The following statistics helped Team Green Architects achieve 9th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 7 8. Creative Arch © Creative Arch Creative Arch is an award-winning, multi-disciplined architectural design practice, founded in 1998 by architectural designer and director Mark McLeay. The range of work at Creative Arch is as diverse as our clients, encompassing residential homes, alterations and renovations, coastal developments, sub-division developments, to commercial projects. The team at Creative Arch are an enthusiastic group of talented professional architects and architectural designers, with a depth of experience, from a range of different backgrounds and cultures. Creative Arch is a client-focused firm committed to providing excellence in service, culture and project outcomes. Some of Creative Arch’s most prominent projects include: Rothesay Bay House, North Shore, New Zealand Best Pacific Institute of Education, Auckland, New Zealand Sumar Holiday Home, Whangapoua, New Zealand Cook Holiday Home, Omaha, New Zealand Arkles Bay Residence, Whangaparaoa, New Zealand The following statistics helped Creative Arch achieve 8th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 18 7. Crosson Architects © Crosson Architects At Crosson Architects we are constantly striving to understand what is motivating the world around us. Some of Crosson Architects’ most prominent projects include: Hut on Sleds, Whangapoua, New Zealand Te Pae North Piha Surf Lifesaving Tower, Auckland, New Zealand Coromandel Bach, Coromandel, New Zealand Tutukaka House, Tutukaka, New Zealand St Heliers House, Saint Heliers, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Crosson Architects achieve 7th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 1 A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 6 6. Bossley Architects © Bossley Architects Bossley Architects is an architectural and interior design practice with the express purpose of providing intense input into a deliberately limited number of projects. The practice is based on the belief that innovative yet practical design is essential for the production of good buildings, and that the best buildings spring from an open and enthusiastic collaboration between architect, client and consultants. We have designed a wide range of projects including commercial, institutional and residential, and have amassed special expertise in the field of art galleries and museums, residential and the restaurant/entertainment sector. Whilst being very much design focused, the practice has an overriding interest in the pragmatics and feasibility of construction. Some of Bossley Architects’ most prominent projects include: Ngā Hau Māngere -Old Māngere Bridge Replacement, Auckland, New Zealand Arruba, Waiuku, New Zealand Brown Vujcich House Voyager NZ Maritime Museum Omana Luxury Villas, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Bossley Architects achieve 6th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: Featured Projects 6 Total Projects 21 5. Smith Architects © Simon Devitt Photographer Smith Architects is an award-winning international architectural practice creating beautiful human spaces that are unique, innovative and sustainable through creativity, refinement and care. Phil and Tiffany Smith established the practice in 2007. We have spent more than two decades striving to understand what makes some buildings more attractive than others, in the anticipation that it can help us design better buildings. Some of Smith Architects’ most prominent projects include: Kakapo Creek Children’s Garden, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand New Shoots Children’s Centre, Kerikeri, Kerikeri, New Zealand Gaia (Earth) Forest Preschool, Manurewa, Auckland, New Zealand Chrysalis Childcare, Auckland, New Zealand House of Wonder, Cambridge, Cambridge, New Zealand The following statistics helped Smith Architects achieve 5th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 6 Total Projects 23 4. Monk Mackenzie © Monk Mackenzie Monk Mackenzie is an architecture and design firm based in New Zealand. Monk Mackenzie’s design portfolio includes a variety of architectural projects, such as transport and infrastructure, hospitality and sport, residential, cultural and more. Some of Monk Mackenzie’s most prominent projects include: X HOUSE, Queenstown, New Zealand TURANGANUI BRIDGE, Gisborne, New Zealand VIVEKANANDA BRIDGE EDITION Canada Street Bridge, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Monk Mackenzie achieve 4th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 4 Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 17 3. Irving Smith Architects © Irving Smith Architects Irving Smith Jack (ISJ) has been developed as a niche architecture practice based in Nelson, but working in a variety of sensitive environments and contexts throughout New Zealand. ISJ demonstrates an ongoing commitment to innovative, sustainable and researched based design , backed up by national and international award and publication recognition, ongoing research with both the Universities of Canterbury and Auckland, and regular invitations to lecture on their work. Timber Awards include NZ’s highest residential, commercial and engineering timber designs. Key experience, ongoing research and work includes developing structural timber design solutions in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes. Current projects include cultural, urban, civic and residential projects spread throughout New Zealand, and recently in the United States and France. Some of Irving Smith Architects’ most prominent projects include: SCION Innovation Hub – Te Whare Nui o Tuteata, Rotorua, New Zealand Mountain Range House, Brightwater, New Zealand Alexandra Tent House, Wellington, New Zealand Te Koputu a te Whanga a Toi : Whakatane Library & Exhibition Centre, Whakatane, New Zealand offSET Shed House, Gisborne, New Zealand The following statistics helped Irving Smith Architects achieve 3rd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 6 Total Projects 13 2. Fearon Hay Architects © Fearon Hay Architects Fearon Hay is a design-led studio undertaking a broad range of projects in diverse environments, the firm is engaged in projects on sites around the world. Tim Hay and Jeff Fearon founded the practice in 1993 as a way to enable their combined involvement in the design and delivery of each project. Together, they lead an international team of experienced professionals. The studio approached every project with a commitment to design excellence, a thoughtful consideration of site and place, and an inventive sense of creativity. Fearon Hay enjoys responding to a range of briefs: Commercial projects for office and workplace, complex heritage environments, public work within the urban realm or wider landscape, private dwellings and detailed bespoke work for hospitality and interior environments. Some of Fearon Hay Architects’ most prominent projects include: Bishop Hill The Camp, Tawharanui Peninsula, New Zealand Matagouri, Queenstown, New Zealand Alpine Terrace House, Queenstown, New Zealand Island Retreat, Auckland, New Zealand Bishop Selwyn Chapel, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped Fearon Hay Architects achieve 2nd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 3 Featured Projects 8 Total Projects 17 1. RTA Studio © RTA Studio Richard Naish founded RTA Studio in 1999 after a successful career with top practices in London and Auckland. We are a practice that focuses on delivering exceptional design with a considered and personal service. Our work aims to make a lasting contribution to the urban and natural context by challenging, provoking and delighting. Our studio is constantly working within the realms of public, commercial and urban design as well as sensitive residential projects. We are committed to a sustainable built environment and are at the forefront developing carbon neutral buildings. RTA Studio has received more than 100 New Zealand and international awards, including Home of The Year, a World Architecture Festival category win and the New Zealand Architecture Medal. Some of RTA Studio’s most prominent projects include: SCION Innovation Hub – Te Whare Nui o Tuteata, Rotorua, New Zealand OBJECTSPACE, Auckland, New Zealand C3 House, New Zealand Freemans Bay School, Freemans Bay, Auckland, New Zealand ARROWTOWN HOUSE, Arrowtown, New Zealand Featured image: E-Type House by RTA Studio, Auckland, New Zealand The following statistics helped RTA Studio achieve 1st place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in New Zealand: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 6 Featured Projects 6 Total Projects 16 Why Should I Trust Architizer’s Ranking? With more than 30,000 architecture firms and over 130,000 projects within its database, Architizer is proud to host the world’s largest online community of architects and building product manufacturers. Its celebrated A+Awards program is also the largest celebration of architecture and building products, with more than 400 jurors and hundreds of thousands of public votes helping to recognize the world’s best architecture each year. Architizer also powers firm directories for a number of AIA (American Institute of Architects) Chapters nationwide, including the official directory of architecture firms for AIA New York. An example of a project page on Architizer with Project Award Badges highlighted A Guide to Project Awards The blue “+” badge denotes that a project has won a prestigious A+Award as described above. Hovering over the badge reveals details of the award, including award category, year, and whether the project won the jury or popular choice award. The orange Project of the Day and yellow Featured Project badges are awarded by Architizer’s Editorial team, and are selected based on a number of factors. The following factors increase a project’s likelihood of being featured or awarded Project of the Day status: Project completed within the last 3 years A well written, concise project description of at least 3 paragraphs Architectural design with a high level of both functional and aesthetic value High quality, in focus photographs At least 8 photographs of both the interior and exterior of the building Inclusion of architectural drawings and renderings Inclusion of construction photographs There are 7 Projects of the Day each week and a further 31 Featured Projects. Each Project of the Day is published on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Stories, while each Featured Project is published on Facebook. Each Project of the Day also features in Architizer’s Weekly Projects Newsletter and shared with 170,000 subscribers.     We’re constantly look for the world’s best architects to join our community. If you would like to understand more about this ranking list and learn how your firm can achieve a presence on it, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at editorial@architizer.com. The post 30 Best Architecture and Design Firms in New Zealand appeared first on Journal.

If you’ve ever flown through outer space, at least while watching a documentary or a science fiction film, you’ve seen how artists turn astronomical findings into stunning visuals. But in the process of visualizing data for their latest planetarium show, a production team at New York’s American Museum of Natural History made a surprising discovery of their own: a trillion-and-a-half mile long spiral of material drifting along the edge of our solar system. “So this is a really fun thing that happened,” says Jackie Faherty, the museum’s senior scientist. Last winter, Faherty and her colleagues were beneath the dome of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, fine-tuning a scene that featured the Oort cloud, the big, thick bubble surrounding our Sun and planets that’s filled with ice and rock and other remnants from the solar system’s infancy. The Oort cloud begins far beyond Neptune, around one and a half light years from the Sun. It has never been directly observed; its existence is inferred from the behavior of long-period comets entering the inner solar system. The cloud is so expansive that the Voyager spacecraft, our most distant probes, would need another 250 years just to reach its inner boundary; to reach the other side, they would need about 30,000 years.  The 30-minute show, Encounters in the Milky Way, narrated by Pedro Pascal, guides audiences on a trip through the galaxy across billions of years. For a section about our nascent solar system, the writing team decided “there’s going to be a fly-by” of the Oort cloud, Faherty says. “But what does our Oort cloud look like?”  To find out, the museum consulted astronomers and turned to David Nesvorný, a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. He provided his model of the millions of particles believed to make up the Oort cloud, based on extensive observational data. “Everybody said, go talk to Nesvorný. He’s got the best model,” says Faherty. And “everybody told us, ‘There’s structure in the model,’ so we were kind of set up to look for stuff,” she says.  The museum’s technical team began using Nesvorný’s model to simulate how the cloud evolved over time. Later, as the team projected versions of the fly-by scene into the dome, with the camera looking back at the Oort cloud, they saw a familiar shape, one that appears in galaxies, Saturn’s rings, and disks around young stars. “We’re flying away from the Oort cloud and out pops this spiral, a spiral shape to the outside of our solar system,” Faherty marveled. “A huge structure, millions and millions of particles.” She emailed Nesvorný to ask for “more particles,” with a render of the scene attached. “We noticed the spiral of course,” she wrote. “And then he writes me back: ‘what are you talking about, a spiral?’”  While fine-tuning a simulation of the Oort cloud, a vast expanse of ice material leftover from the birth of our Sun, the ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ production team noticed a very clear shape: a structure made of billions of comets and shaped like a spiral-armed galaxy, seen here in a scene from the final Space Show (curving, dusty S-shape behind the Sun) [Image: © AMNH] More simulations ensued, this time on Pleiades, a powerful NASA supercomputer. In high-performance computer simulations spanning 4.6 billion years, starting from the Solar System’s earliest days, the researchers visualized how the initial icy and rocky ingredients of the Oort cloud began circling the Sun, in the elliptical orbits that are thought to give the cloud its rough disc shape. The simulations also incorporated the physics of the Sun’s gravitational pull, the influences from our Milky Way galaxy, and the movements of the comets themselves.  In each simulation, the spiral persisted. “No one has ever seen the Oort structure like that before,” says Faherty. Nesvorný “has a great quote about this: ‘The math was all there. We just needed the visuals.’”  An illustration of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud in relation to our solar system. [Image: NASA] As the Oort cloud grew with the early solar system, Nesvorný and his colleagues hypothesize that the galactic tide, or the gravitational force from the Milky Way, disrupted the orbits of some comets. Although the Sun pulls these objects inward, the galaxy’s gravity appears to have twisted part of the Oort cloud outward, forming a spiral tilted roughly 30 degrees from the plane of the solar system. “As the galactic tide acts to decouple bodies from the scattered disk it creates a spiral structure in physical space that is roughly 15,000 astronomical units in length,” or around 1.4 trillion miles from one end to the other, the researchers write in a paper that was published in March in the Astrophysical Journal. “The spiral is long-lived and persists in the inner Oort Cloud to the present time.” “The physics makes sense,” says Faherty. “Scientists, we’re amazing at what we do, but it doesn’t mean we can see everything right away.” It helped that the team behind the space show was primed to look for something, says Carter Emmart, the museum’s director of astrovisualization and director of Encounters. Astronomers had described Nesvorný’s model as having “a structure,” which intrigued the team’s artists. “We were also looking for structure so that it wouldn’t just be sort of like a big blob,” he says. “Other models were also revealing this—but they just hadn’t been visualized.” The museum’s attempts to simulate nature date back to its first habitat dioramas in the early 1900s, which brought visitors to places that hadn’t yet been captured by color photos, TV, or the web. The planetarium, a night sky simulator for generations of would-be scientists and astronauts, got its start after financier Charles Hayden bought the museum its first Zeiss projector. The planetarium now boasts one of the world’s few Zeiss Mark IX systems. Still, these days the star projector is rarely used, Emmart says, now that fulldome laser projectors can turn the old static starfield into 3D video running at 60 frames per second. The Hayden boasts six custom-built Christie projectors, part of what the museum’s former president called “the most advanced planetarium ever attempted.”  In about 1.3 million years, the star system Gliese 710 is set to pass directly through our Oort Cloud, an event visualized in a dramatic scene in ‘Encounters in the Milky Way.’ During its flyby, our systems will swap icy comets, flinging some out on new paths. [Image: © AMNH] Emmart recalls how in 1998, when he and other museum leaders were imagining the future of space shows at the Hayden—now with the help of digital projectors and computer graphics—there were questions over how much space they could try to show. “We’re talking about these astronomical data sets we could plot to make the galaxy and the stars,” he says. “Of course, we knew that we would have this star projector, but we really wanted to emphasize astrophysics with this dome video system. I was drawing pictures of this just to get our heads around it and noting the tip of the solar system to the Milky Way is about 60 degrees. And I said, what are we gonna do when we get outside the Milky Way?’ “Then [planetarium’s director] Neil Degrasse Tyson “goes, ‘whoa, whoa, whoa, Carter, we have enough to do. And just plotting the Milky Way, that’s hard enough.’ And I said, ‘well, when we exit the Milky Way and we don’t see any other galaxies, that’s sort of like astronomy in 1920—we thought maybe the entire universe is just a Milky Way.'” “And that kind of led to a chaotic discussion about, well, what other data sets are there for this?” Emmart adds. The museum worked with astronomer Brent Tully, who had mapped 3500 galaxies beyond the Milky Way, in collaboration with the National Center for Super Computing Applications. “That was it,” he says, “and that seemed fantastical.” By the time the first planetarium show opened at the museum’s new Rose Center for Earth and Space in 2000, Tully had broadened his survey “to an amazing” 30,000 galaxies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey followed—it’s now at data release 18—with six million galaxies. To build the map of the universe that underlies Encounters, the team also relied on data from the European Space Agency’s space observatory, Gaia. Launched in 2013 and powered down in March of this year, Gaia brought an unprecedented precision to our astronomical map, plotting the distance between 1.7 billion stars. To visualize and render the simulated data, Jon Parker, the museum’s lead technical director, relied on Houdini, a 3D animation tool by Toronto-based SideFX. The goal is immersion, “whether it’s in front of the buffalo downstairs, and seeing what those herds were like before we decimated them, to coming in this room and being teleported to space, with an accurate foundation in the science,” Emmart says. “But the art is important, because the art is the way to the soul.”  The museum, he adds, is “a testament to wonder. And I think wonder is a gateway to inspiration, and inspiration is a gateway to motivation.” Three-D visuals aren’t just powerful tools for communicating science, but increasingly crucial for science itself. Software like OpenSpace, an open source simulation tool developed by the museum, along with the growing availability of high-performance computing, are making it easier to build highly detailed visuals of ever larger and more complex collections of data. “Anytime we look, literally, from a different angle at catalogs of astronomical positions, simulations, or exploring the phase space of a complex data set, there is great potential to discover something new,” says Brian R. Kent, an astronomer and director of science communications at National Radio Astronomy Observatory. “There is also a wealth of astronomics tatical data in archives that can be reanalyzed in new ways, leading to new discoveries.” As the instruments grow in size and sophistication, so does the data, and the challenge of understanding it. Like all scientists, astronomers are facing a deluge of data, ranging from gamma rays and X-rays to ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio bands. Our Oort cloud (center), a shell of icy bodies that surrounds the solar system and extends one-and-a-half light years in every direction, is shown in this scene from ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ along with the Oort clouds of neighboring stars. The more massive the star, the larger its Oort cloud [Image: © AMNH ] “New facilities like the Next Generation Very Large Array here at NRAO or the Vera Rubin Observatory and LSST survey project will generate large volumes of data, so astronomers have to get creative with how to analyze it,” says Kent.  More data—and new instruments—will also be needed to prove the spiral itself is actually there: there’s still no known way to even observe the Oort cloud.  Instead, the paper notes, the structure will have to be measured from “detection of a large number of objects” in the radius of the inner Oort cloud or from “thermal emission from small particles in the Oort spiral.”  The Vera C. Rubin Observatory, a powerful, U.S.-funded telescope that recently began operation in Chile, could possibly observe individual icy bodies within the cloud. But researchers expect the telescope will likely discover only dozens of these objects, maybe hundreds, not enough to meaningfully visualize any shapes in the Oort cloud.  For us, here and now, the 1.4 trillion mile-long spiral will remain confined to the inside of a dark dome across the street from Central Park.

I recently came across an old jQuery tutorial demonstrating a “moving highlight” navigation bar and decided the concept was due for a modern upgrade. With this pattern, the border around the active navigation item animates directly from one element to another as the user clicks on menu items. In 2025, we have much better tools to manipulate the DOM via vanilla JavaScript. New features like the View Transition API make progressive enhancement more easily achievable and handle a lot of the animation minutiae. (Large preview) In this tutorial, I will demonstrate two methods of creating the “moving highlight” navigation bar using plain JavaScript and CSS. The first example uses the getBoundingClientRect method to explicitly animate the border between navigation bar items when they are clicked. The second example achieves the same functionality using the new View Transition API. The Initial Markup Let’s assume that we have a single-page application where content changes without the page being reloaded. The starting HTML and CSS are your standard navigation bar with an additional div element containing an id of #highlight. We give the first navigation item a class of .active. See the Pen Moving Highlight Navbar Starting Markup [forked] by Blake Lundquist. For this version, we will position the #highlight element around the element with the .active class to create a border. We can utilize absolute positioning and animate the element across the navigation bar to create the desired effect. We’ll hide it off-screen initially by adding left: -200px and include transition styles for all properties so that any changes in the position and size of the element will happen gradually. #highlight { z-index: 0; position: absolute; height: 100%; width: 100px; left: -200px; border: 2px solid green; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease; } Add A Boilerplate Event Handler For Click Interactions We want the highlight element to animate when a user changes the .active navigation item. Let’s add a click event handler to the nav element, then filter for events caused only by elements matching our desired selector. In this case, we only want to change the .active nav item if the user clicks on a link that does not already have the .active class. Initially, we can call console.log to ensure the handler fires only when expected: const navbar = document.querySelector('nav'); navbar.addEventListener('click', function (event) { // return if the clicked element doesn't have the correct selector if (!event.target.matches('nav a:not(active)')) { return; } console.log('click'); }); Open your browser console and try clicking different items in the navigation bar. You should only see "click" being logged when you select a new item in the navigation bar. Now that we know our event handler is working on the correct elements let’s add code to move the .active class to the navigation item that was clicked. We can use the object passed into the event handler to find the element that initialized the event and give that element a class of .active after removing it from the previously active item. const navbar = document.querySelector('nav'); navbar.addEventListener('click', function (event) { // return if the clicked element doesn't have the correct selector if (!event.target.matches('nav a:not(active)')) { return; } - console.log('click'); + document.querySelector('nav a.active').classList.remove('active'); + event.target.classList.add('active'); }); Our #highlight element needs to move across the navigation bar and position itself around the active item. Let’s write a function to calculate a new position and width. Since the #highlight selector has transition styles applied, it will move gradually when its position changes. Using getBoundingClientRect, we can get information about the position and size of an element. We calculate the width of the active navigation item and its offset from the left boundary of the parent element. Then, we assign styles to the highlight element so that its size and position match. // handler for moving the highlight const moveHighlight = () => { const activeNavItem = document.querySelector('a.active'); const highlighterElement = document.querySelector('#highlight'); const width = activeNavItem.offsetWidth; const itemPos = activeNavItem.getBoundingClientRect(); const navbarPos = navbar.getBoundingClientRect() const relativePosX = itemPos.left - navbarPos.left; const styles = { left: ${relativePosX}px, width: ${width}px, }; Object.assign(highlighterElement.style, styles); } Let’s call our new function when the click event fires: navbar.addEventListener('click', function (event) { // return if the clicked element doesn't have the correct selector if (!event.target.matches('nav a:not(active)')) { return; } document.querySelector('nav a.active').classList.remove('active'); event.target.classList.add('active'); + moveHighlight(); }); Finally, let’s also call the function immediately so that the border moves behind our initial active item when the page first loads: // handler for moving the highlight const moveHighlight = () => { // ... } // display the highlight when the page loads moveHighlight(); Now, the border moves across the navigation bar when a new item is selected. Try clicking the different navigation links to animate the navigation bar. See the Pen Moving Highlight Navbar [forked] by Blake Lundquist. That only took a few lines of vanilla JavaScript and could easily be extended to account for other interactions, like mouseover events. In the next section, we will explore refactoring this feature using the View Transition API. Using The View Transition API The View Transition API provides functionality to create animated transitions between website views. Under the hood, the API creates snapshots of “before” and “after” views and then handles transitioning between them. View transitions are useful for creating animations between documents, providing the native-app-like user experience featured in frameworks like Astro. However, the API also provides handlers meant for SPA-style applications. We will use it to reduce the JavaScript needed in our implementation and more easily create fallback functionality. For this approach, we no longer need a separate #highlight element. Instead, we can style the .active navigation item directly using pseudo-selectors and let the View Transition API handle the animation between the before-and-after UI states when a new navigation item is clicked. We’ll start by getting rid of the #highlight element and its associated CSS and replacing it with styles for the nav a::after pseudo-selector: <nav> - <div id="highlight"></div> <a href="#" class="active">Home</a> <a href="#services">Services</a> <a href="#about">About</a> <a href="#contact">Contact</a> </nav> - #highlight { - z-index: 0; - position: absolute; - height: 100%; - width: 0; - left: 0; - box-sizing: border-box; - transition: all 0.2s ease; - } + nav a::after { + content: " "; + position: absolute; + left: 0; + top: 0; + width: 100%; + height: 100%; + border: none; + box-sizing: border-box; + } For the .active class, we include the view-transition-name property, thus unlocking the magic of the View Transition API. Once we trigger the view transition and change the location of the .active navigation item in the DOM, “before” and “after” snapshots will be taken, and the browser will animate the border across the bar. We’ll give our view transition the name of highlight, but we could theoretically give it any name. nav a.active::after { border: 2px solid green; view-transition-name: highlight; } Once we have a selector that contains a view-transition-name property, the only remaining step is to trigger the transition using the startViewTransition method and pass in a callback function. const navbar = document.querySelector('nav'); // Change the active nav item on click navbar.addEventListener('click', async function (event) { if (!event.target.matches('nav a:not(.active)')) { return; } document.startViewTransition(() => { document.querySelector('nav a.active').classList.remove('active'); event.target.classList.add('active'); }); }); Above is a revised version of the click handler. Instead of doing all the calculations for the size and position of the moving border ourselves, the View Transition API handles all of it for us. We only need to call document.startViewTransition and pass in a callback function to change the item that has the .active class! Adjusting The View Transition At this point, when clicking on a navigation link, you’ll notice that the transition works, but some strange sizing issues are visible. (Large preview) This sizing inconsistency is caused by aspect ratio changes during the course of the view transition. We won’t go into detail here, but Jake Archibald has a detailed explanation you can read for more information. In short, to ensure the height of the border stays uniform throughout the transition, we need to declare an explicit height for the ::view-transition-old and ::view-transition-new pseudo-selectors representing a static snapshot of the old and new view, respectively. ::view-transition-old(highlight) { height: 100%; } ::view-transition-new(highlight) { height: 100%; } Let’s do some final refactoring to tidy up our code by moving the callback to a separate function and adding a fallback for when view transitions aren’t supported: const navbar = document.querySelector('nav'); // change the item that has the .active class applied const setActiveElement = (elem) => { document.querySelector('nav a.active').classList.remove('active'); elem.classList.add('active'); } // Start view transition and pass in a callback on click navbar.addEventListener('click', async function (event) { if (!event.target.matches('nav a:not(.active)')) { return; } // Fallback for browsers that don't support View Transitions: if (!document.startViewTransition) { setActiveElement(event.target); return; } document.startViewTransition(() => setActiveElement(event.target)); }); Here’s our view transition-powered navigation bar! Observe the smooth transition when you click on the different links. See the Pen Moving Highlight Navbar with View Transition [forked] by Blake Lundquist. Conclusion Animations and transitions between website UI states used to require many kilobytes of external libraries, along with verbose, confusing, and error-prone code, but vanilla JavaScript and CSS have since incorporated features to achieve native-app-like interactions without breaking the bank. We demonstrated this by implementing the “moving highlight” navigation pattern using two approaches: CSS transitions combined with the getBoundingClientRect() method and the View Transition API. Resources getBoundingClientRect() method documentation View Transition API documentation “View Transitions: Handling Aspect Ratio Changes” by Jake Archibald

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) Friday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices” (based on a review of globally accepted standards) and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.