Unit 3 Reflection

 When choosing a genre and medium for our Unit 3 Project, we were faced with both a challenge and an opportunity. As a group of four architecture students, we knew we didn’t want to do just another research paper or design proposal. We spend so much of our academic lives focused on visual media (drawings, renders, plans) that the chance to work in a completely different format felt exciting. We also wanted our project to feel like something we would actually enjoy consuming, which is how we landed on a podcast.

Our episode, ‘How Technology Frames the World Around Us’ was the result of several late night studio chats, where one conversation always spirals into another in a state of sleeplessness. From the state of digital tools in architecture, to Instagram algorithms, to the uncanny aesthetic of AI-generated images, we started to notice a pattern: technology doesn’t just support our work, it shapes how we see, design, and communicate. Additionally, that pattern doesn’t just apply to architecture, but it stretches into journalism, graphic design, animation, and visual media as a whole.

The podcast medium was the perfect fit for this idea as it mirrored the energy of our studio conversations: casual, curious, slightly chaotic, but always thought-provoking. We didn’t want to lecture our audience, we wanted to talk with them, and a podcast gave us the space to do that. It allowed for nuance, personality, jokes, and laughter, allowing us to connect with our listeners. More importantly, it gave us a way to quite literally meet our audience where they are. Architecture students are always plugged in, whether it’s working in studio with headphones on, listening to something to pass the time.

Our projected audience was our peers: fellow architecture and design students, especially those who’ve sat through the same software glitches, Instagram scrolling, or late-night debates about how Midjourney might be replacing conceptual sketching. These are people who think critically but also need a break from academic formality, so we leaned into that. The tone of the episode was friendly, casual, and conversational. We asked questions, shared observations, and built a conversation across disciplines.

That tone and structure were both conscious rhetorical choices. We wanted the episode to feel accessible, like something a student could half-listen to while modeling in Rhino, but still take away a few ‘huh, I never thought of that’ moments. We scripted lightly in bullet points, outlining key points but leaving room for natural tangents. From TikTok to Le Corbusier, we didn’t just talk about technology in isolation, but we explored how it mediates our worldview and how we as designers might unknowingly perpetuate certain aesthetics or ideologies because of the tools we use.

The podcast description reads like an elevator pitch crossed with an inside joke: ‘Technology is everywhere—but are we framing it, or is it framing us? A group of tired architecture students talk about how digital tools shape how we see and design, from Revit to renders to reposts’. We used an image of the four of us as the cover, as putting faces to names greatly helps listeners feel like they’re merely having a conversation with friends.

Ideally, we want our audience to see this project not just as a one-off podcast episode, but as an invitation to question their tools, to think about the bigger picture. We hope it inspires someone to bring these conversations into their own studio or to start questioning why they make certain design decisions. We have already had several conversations with friends and family once they listened to our episode (which we shared via social media) proving that the idea of technology and framing the narrative extends far past the discipline of architecture.

One of the most rewarding parts of this project was seeing how form and content work together. We weren’t just talking about how technology frames our world, we were actively choosing a format that demonstrated that point. The podcast itself became a case study: the way we structured it, and the way we framed our message all reflected our awareness of the medium’s influence, particularly on our specific audience. 

This reflection process also helped us realize how much thought goes into rhetorical decisions we usually take for granted. Every choice, from the intro music to the pacing, shaped the listener’s experience. We learned to see ourselves not just as students completing an assignment, but as communicators designing an experience. That mindset feels really valuable, not just for future creative projects but for how we present ideas in architecture and beyond.

In conclusion, our decision to create a podcast for our Unit 3 Project was shaped by our subject, our audience, and our desire to speak authentically within our own design culture. We submitted the episode in a way that felt organic and accessible, and while audience interaction was modest, it was impactful. We hope that our audience walks away from the episode feeling a little more aware of how the tools we use shape what we create—and maybe even more curious about the invisible forces behind their own work.

A comment I recieved on my blog that really encouraged me to broaden my thinking and understanding of my topic was left on my Unit 2 Portfolio, by Kate Kaplan. She thinks it's interesting to see the bias the algorithms exhibit and how that can impact smaller, marginalized writers, but she wonders 'if it is based on the programmers and if their bias is what causes the algorithms to behave that way'. This thought, although small, encouraged me to dig deeper into the human influence behind algorithmic behavior. It made me realize that algorithms aren't neutral: they're shaped by the choices, perspectives, and unconscious biases of the people who create them. This pushed me to explore not just the outcomes of algorithmic bias, but also the roots of it, and how systemic inequalities can be embedded in digital tools we often assume are objective. In this way, technology doesn't just reflect the world—it actively frames it. It shapes what voices are amplified, whose stories are heard, and what kinds of knowledge are prioritized. Kate’s comment helped me see how technology can reinforce existing power structures, subtly influencing how we understand and interact with the world around us.