NXT BLD/DEV 2025

Last week, I attended NXT BLD and NXT DEV . For those who are not familiar with this conference, it is a two-day event in London, organised by AEC Magazine and curated, I believe, by Martyn Day. 

I always think of the two days as BLD, when I get to learn from the teams that use the tools, and DEV, when I learn from the teams that build those tools. This year was slightly different because BLD included an entire section on what the industry is calling BIM2.0, which in reality refers to the next generation of BIM tooling for the AEC market. 

The morning of day 1 BLD featured classic presentations on how to utilise the tools to drive innovation in AEC, showcasing Heatherwick studio, Perkins&Will, and HOK . The presentations approached the topic from different angles; Alfonso Monedero and Pablo Zamorano Mosnaim presented a very impressive project, explaining the workflows involved in transitioning from parametric design to production-ready design using various tools. Their discussion covered the flows and challenges. Nick Cameron addressed the human aspect of technology, explaining how Perkins&Will is restructuring its technology teams. I believe this subject is greatly underestimated in architecture and is likely one of the most critical factors in deriving value from upcoming technological advances while maximising revenue. I often wonder if AEC still practises “billable hours” as a project costing method, considering that around 60-70% of that time is spent on construction drawings, which take the most time. As we move towards a future of automated drawings, how will AEC practices bill in the future? The last presentation of the morning on the main stage was by Greg Schleusner AIA from HOK, who remains a favourite of mine due to his cat and sci-fi references, as well as prompting deep contemplation regarding data and metadata. It even leads me to question, on a somewhat philosophical and existential level, whether BIM is the correct path, method, and technology for constructing buildings in the future, or is there a more sci-fi way of doing things that is different?

The second part of the morning was BIM 2. 2.0 time, which meant that we got to hear from Arcol , Motif , Qonic , Snaptrude Hypar , and Autodesk Forma . Currently, most of these tools are focusing on concept and design development stages, primarily aiming to shift towards more technical and construction design. What is critical and the value proposition here is: collaboration is significantly elevated since users can view the work of others live; they can see via their cursor who else is working on the design, which allows for more playful collaboration, some of them through canvases. Even with these commonalities, while I was listening to the presenters, I heard slightly different perspectives. Arcol was clearly a Figma version of BIM; they showcased the product live, and I appreciated the proper demo. Motif, which I think was the most anticipated by the audience, showcased their focus on understanding design processes as a collaborative exercise that involves more than just 3D. Qonic, a tool I have tested multiple times because I genuinely enjoy a tool that delivers performance, really concentrated on the viewer's aspect of performance. Snaptrude was one of the presentations where Altaf Ganihar referenced the client‘s requirements many times; this is a point I appreciate. We can romanticise the profession as much as we want, but at the end of the day, if the architect doesn't adhere to the brief and requirements, revenue becomes complicated. Hypar delivered my favourite presentation, because Ian Keough is an incredible speaker. I have been following that team for a while, and it’s another tool I have actively tested. No doubt it was my favourite presentation, and this is due to multiple points. However, I would say that remembering why people went to architecture school in the first place is a good point to consider regarding how tools should function. In AEC, we love design, playfulness, iteration, and having fun while creating. I also appreciated that Hypar is focusing on a specific vertical rather than venturing into multiple areas, and their focus on healthcare is aiding them in understanding iteration processes through collaboration. Finally, Autodesk Forma – just for those who are unaware, I work for Autodesk, not in Forma but in Tandem – and Carl spoke about the connectivity of the ecosystem and how Revit and AutoCAD are still here to stay. 

Some thoughts I had after all these presentations were excitement, FUN TIMES, and the observation that everyone seems eager to achieve something new but really focusing on delivering for the professional in the industry. This highlights a critical gap in the current tools: the need for real-time collaboration to expedite the iterative design process and stop the madness of rework.

By afternoon, my brain was a bit fried, and my deep thinking abilities were negatively affected. Yet, from the afternoon onwards, I loved listening to @Martha Tsigkary from Foster + Partners and Ismail Seleit , who prompted me to ponder the commoditisation of skills. It was always great to see what the Speckle team were up to; I am a massive fan of the tool, as I genuinely believe they get many things right. In my opinion, the best team regarding building community, getting people excited, and offering value were truly there to address the gaps. So it was great to hear Dimitrie Stefanescu 

Day 1 has come to a close, and I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with both old and new faces. However, I felt disappointed that I couldn’t duplicate myself to attend more presentations, particularly Augmenta , Finch , Ewa Lenart from Howie which I will need to catch up on this week. 

Day 2 started with a talk about investment by Jay Vleeschhouwer. I found that talk very informative. I am always fascinated by how investors analyse companies, as there seem to be many ways. Then it continued with Martyn Day and his talk Kill BIM. This talk got me thinking for a long time, so much so that I have still been pondering some of the topics. Particularly, a topic that Martha Tsigkari touches upon: the commoditisation of knowledge or specific knowledge. Martyn referred to the creation of the printing processes and how that made knowledge available to people and the different ways that, throughout history, the time technology prompts changes (see what I did there?). I would admit that on day 2, my brain is still overcooked from day one, but I will highlight my favourite talks: May Winfield talking about legal agreements. I feel this topic is so necessary, and we all have such limited knowledge. Foster + Partners showed their present, yes, a gift: Cyclops. This is, I believe, the beginning of this new normal and the change of commoditisation of knowledge. Cyclops is a raytracing simulator that the Foster team decided to share for free with the rest of the industry. It is created internally, by their own team, through project needs and testing. They will have a team that takes care of it, fixes bugs and continues to improve it, but as Martha says, “it’s a gift”. This made me think, is there a way where AEC companies can develop their in-house tooling, share it, improve and iterate? Is this a new normal of the fuck that more people can tweak technology and AI is helping people to create tools with low code input?

One of the other fascinating talks was Dalai Felinto from Blender (thanks for the Blender pin!). As a Product Manager, I found it fascinating how Blender is developed, that it has a studio attached to the Product team developing the tool that feeds the needs and roadmap, which is fascinating to me. That speeds up the development process because it allows for a constant feedback loop. The issue that I saw is the global scale, which in AEC is a challenge due to the heterodox workflows from the lack of standardisation of responsibilities in the industry.

And the last talk I saw that day was Antonio González Viegas from That Open Company, as a fellow Spaniard, I cannot even start to explain how proud I am. It is similar to seeing Carlos Alcaraz playing and winning Wimbledon in a way. But Spain, even though it arrived, in my opinion, slightly late to the party of digitalisation, it has caught up fast and furious. The quality of teams and professionals is outstanding, and the diversity of thought and perspective on looking at the industry problems is very inspirational. I loved how much Antonio explained IFC challenges from a technical perspective, and why the theoretical standard is challenging when implementing it from a technological point of view. Looking forward to seeing what fragments become, and also, on the comment of commoditisation of AEC Tech, which products use this platform as the baseline engine.

My conclusion of the 2 days was that we are at a point of change, too, in the AEC Tech and digital space. The so-called tools that focused on 3D are mutating to design workflows that are more similar to Miro/Mural or other highly collaborative tools, that allow for multiple file formats: pictures, PDFs, 3D volumetrics. Finally, we are trying to figure out how to make designing buildings fun again and be realistic about how building buildings work! Which is with an array of methods and processes. And that is very exciting. The key element that I am wondering is how all these new tools are going to tackle the less glamorous aspect of design: fulfilling client brief/requirements and legislative compliance requirements. This stills to me a big catch out there that I do not see too much emphasis on. And for the rest of the summer, I will be thinking about what it means for me and for the AECO and AECOTech, the commoditisation of knowledge that we are about to embark on. If we can all create software tools by typing sentences? And we can all design buildings by inputting two concepts? Which one will you do? I love both, actually.