July 2026 – Authored by Snøhetta Australasia Project Director, Architect, Matt Irvine
Now in its tenth year of practice in Australia, Snøhetta has successfully applied an ‘unconventionally collaborative’ approach to deliver projects of enduring value across the country. In this article, Snøhetta Australasia Project Director, Architect, Matt Irvine shares his thoughts on what sets the Snøhetta partnership model apart and how it adds richness and depth to project outcomes, using the complex Harbourside development in Sydney as a live example.
Upending the architect-led model
Architecture has traditionally taken on an ‘architect-led’ model; where practices are named after their founders and a singular creative genius guides each signature project. But the dial has shifted in recent years — the reality of contemporary city-making through complex civic and cultural projects demands a much more representative process reflecting the views of many, not only a privileged few.
Snøhetta believes creativity is a fundamentally collaborative process, with the best outcomes emerging through teamwork. By leaning into a variety of expertise, we are given the opportunity to create a unified outcome for public engagement and community benefit, which is true for a range of project collaborations, especially Harbourside (Sydney) with Hassell and Djinjama, Glasshouse Theatre (Brisbane) with Blight Rayner and Pridham Hall (Adelaide) with JPE.
Shared authorship at every step
This decision shaped not only project workflow, but the culture of the combined design team working on Harbourside. We physically worked across offices, sharing ideas openly and being honest with each other without fear of retribution. That meant everyone had a voice and ultimately, played a role in contributing to the evolution of the design.
Fundamental to the design was the knowledge and stories of the First Nations connection with Tumbalong/Darling Harbour, which was generously shared by Djinjama and workshopped during the design process. Without this collaboration and a design process Connected with Country, the project would not be what it is today.
Harbourside is a great example of a project and collaborative approach that brought together complementary expertise as well as a strong alignment on design process — Hassell’s deep knowledge of Sydney and the site itself, and Snøhetta’s experience as an international practice that has delivered significant civic and cultural projects at a global scale.
Making room for surprise
Also central to Snøhetta’s collaborative model is that ideas should be pushed, pulled and tested by the collective.
I’ve always loved this approach because it’s never felt that some ‘one’ individual needs to come up with ‘the big idea’ or the absolute answer to a design challenge, because responsibility is shared. There is beauty in hearing from voices that bring different backgrounds, insights and knowledge to a project and it’s refreshing to engage with these different perspectives.
Genuine collaboration also means being willing to let go of any preconceived ideas to find the best outcomes that inevitably emerge from this sort of critical discussion. I really believe in the idea of testing and being willing to push your thinking, to listen to another idea and have the chance to be surprised. Time and again, I’ve seen the best work come from this kind of explorative collaboration.
When it comes to projects embedded in complex civic locations, like Harbourside, this openness becomes especially valuable. It helps keep the design team open to all sorts of possibilities when responding to place, cultural histories, community expectations, environmental conditions and long-term civic and social value.
The art of the “to and fro”
While the point of collaboration is to diversify the creative input, successful collaboration still requires decision making. The process cannot become a “design by committee” and leadership is needed to ensure a great outcome.
On Harbourside for example, at any given point one of the Snøhetta or Hassell team will lead. However, with this leadership role comes an expectation (and an understanding) that the designer will step back when needed to explore contrary views or to enable another idea to
come to fruition.
This “to and fro” creates a dynamic process whereby ideas are continually refined rather than defended. We ask our joint team to prioritise the quality of the outcome over their own personal ownership or contributions, we often ask “what is best for the project?”. This kind of non-linear decision-making requires more conversation and overall trust from all involved but is advantageous to achieving a high-quality design outcome.
A unified outcome
While this model can introduce complexity — particularly where roles are less clearly defined than usual — overall, it results in a more unified outcome and a stronger sense of shared commitment across the project team.
On Harbourside, our truly integrated approach and Joint Venture with Hassell created a richly layered design process that evolved and tied together many strands of design input and
expertise.
As cities continue to become ever more complex, I see architecture increasingly moving towards these more collective forms of practice and shared authorship.
