World Architecture Day | Interview with Dr. Paris Fokaides, Frederick University, Cyprus

World Architecture Day (WAD), created by the International Union of Architects (UIA) in 1985, is celebrated annually on the first Monday of October. This day coincides with the United Nations World Habitat Day, aligning the architectural community’s efforts with global urban development goals. This year, under the theme “Design for Strength”, we were sincerely honored to interview Dr. Paris Fokaides, Editorial Board Member of Sustainability (ISSN: 2071-1050), Topical Advisory Panel Member of Energies (ISSN: 1996-1073), and Guest Editor of Buildings (ISSN: 2075-5309).

The following is a short interview with Dr. Paris Fokaides:

1. Could you share a bit of your journey into architectural research?
My academic journey began in process engineering, where I focused on optimizing complex systems to improve efficiency, sustainability, and performance. During my PhD, my work centered on thermochemical processes, energy conversion, and the integration of sustainable technologies into industrial operations. Although my early career was firmly rooted in engineering, I became increasingly aware of how the same principles of optimization and resource efficiency could—and should—be applied to the built environment. Buildings, after all, are complex systems in themselves, with intricate interactions between materials, occupants, and environmental conditions. This realization marked the turning point that brought me into architectural research. I began collaborating with architects, building physicists, and urban planners to translate engineering methodologies into design strategies for sustainable buildings. Over time, my research shifted toward areas such as life cycle assessment (LCA), the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI), renewable integration in buildings, and performance-based retrofitting approaches. What continues to inspire me is the interdisciplinary nature of this field: architectural research offers a unique arena where engineering precision, environmental stewardship, and human-centered design converge. My process engineering background provides the analytical rigor to evaluate performance, while my work in architecture connects those results to tangible design outcomes. This bridge between disciplines has allowed me to contribute to innovative solutions that are both technically sound and contextually sensitive—solutions that aim to make our built environment not just more efficient, but also healthier, more resilient, and more responsive to the needs of its users.

2. Could you please share the most impressive breakthrough in your research career, either in terms of ideas or research results?
The most significant breakthrough in my research career was leading to the development of the very first European standard on Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) on-site assessments. As Chairman of the CEN Workshop Agreement (CEN WS Report), I had the privilege of guiding a diverse group of experts—ranging from policymakers and standardization specialists to researchers and industry stakeholders—in shaping a practical, harmonized approach for assessing building smartness in real operational contexts. Prior to this effort, the SRI was a promising concept at the EU level, but it lacked the concrete, field-based methodology needed for its effective implementation. Our work bridged that gap. We established clear procedures, assessment criteria, and reporting formats to ensure that SRI evaluations could be carried out consistently across different building types, climates, and national contexts. This standard was the first of its kind and set the foundation for integrating smartness into mainstream performance evaluations. For me, the breakthrough was not only the technical content but also the collaborative process—bringing together different perspectives and aligning them into a single, coherent framework. The resulting document is now a key reference for Member States as they move toward the large-scale adoption of SRI, helping translate policy goals into measurable and actionable outcomes. This experience reinforced my belief that impactful research is as much about building consensus and applicability as it is about technical innovation. It also demonstrated how academic leadership can shape tools with real-world policy and market implications.

3. How do you interpret the theme of “design for strength” from an academic perspective?
From an academic perspective, “design for strength” extends far beyond the traditional engineering notion of withstanding loads or resisting failure. In architecture and the built environment, strength is a multi-layered concept encompassing structural integrity, environmental resilience, social relevance, and long-term adaptability. Structurally, it refers to designing buildings and infrastructures that can safely bear intended loads, resist natural hazards, and maintain performance over their intended life cycle. However, when examined through the lens of sustainable architectural research, strength also involves the capacity of a design to adapt to changing conditions—climatic, technological, and societal—without losing functionality or value. In my research, I see “strength” as a product of synergy between engineering precision and human-centered design. A building may be physically robust, but if it fails to provide comfort, energy efficiency, and adaptability, its true strength is compromised. Therefore, academic work on “design for strength” must integrate performance simulations, life cycle thinking, and smart readiness assessments to ensure designs are not only safe and durable, but also sustainable and responsive. Strength can also be interpreted in terms of resilience—how well a building recovers from disruption, whether due to environmental events, energy system fluctuations, or changing user needs. In this sense, designing for strength is designing for continuity, ensuring that the built environment remains functional and relevant in the face of uncertainty. Ultimately, from an academic standpoint, “design for strength” is about uniting physical robustness with adaptability and sustainability, creating buildings that stand the test of both time and transformation.

4. Where do you see the future of architectural research?
The future of architectural research is moving toward a deeply integrated, interdisciplinary model where technology, sustainability, and human well-being converge. Historically, architecture has been perceived primarily as a creative and spatial discipline, while engineering and environmental sciences addressed performance and sustainability. This separation is dissolving. The buildings of the future will be conceived, designed, and operated as intelligent systems—able to adapt to climate conditions, interact with energy networks, and enhance occupant experience in real time. Digitalization will play a central role. The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) with real-time data from sensors, smart controls, and digital twins will allow researchers to simulate, test, and optimize building performance throughout its life cycle. Standardization—such as the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) framework I contributed to—will help ensure that these advancements are measurable and comparable across different contexts. Sustainability will remain a driving force, but the definition will expand to include circularity, biodiversity integration, and the social dimension of the built environment. Climate resilience will become a core research priority, especially in adapting buildings to extreme weather, energy volatility, and changing user needs. Collaboration between academia, industry, and policymakers will be critical. Research will increasingly need to produce tools and methodologies that are directly applicable in practice, influencing regulations and market adoption.

5. Do you have anything to say to your fellow scholars?
To my fellow scholars, I would say this: research in our field is not only about producing knowledge—it is about shaping the way people live, work, and interact with the built environment. We have the privilege, and the responsibility, to ensure that our contributions lead to spaces that are not just functional and aesthetically pleasing, but also sustainable, resilient, and inclusive. One of the greatest strengths we have as a community is our diversity of perspectives. Engineers, architects, social scientists, environmentalists, and policy experts all bring unique insights to the table. The most transformative solutions emerge when we allow these disciplines to interact freely and constructively. My own experience leading standardization work for the Smart Readiness Indicator has shown me the value of consensus-building—bringing together people from different backgrounds to create something meaningful and applicable beyond academia. I encourage colleagues to stay engaged not only with academic discourse but also with industry, policymakers, and communities. Our work gains relevance when it addresses real-world challenges and finds its way into practice, regulation, and everyday use. Finally, embrace curiosity and adaptability. The challenges of climate change, digital transformation, and societal shifts mean that our field will continue to evolve rapidly. New methods, tools, and even philosophies will emerge. By remaining open to learning and collaborating, we can ensure our research remains both rigorous and impactful—driving progress toward a built environment that serves both present and future generations.

6. As an Editorial Board Member of Sustainability, Topical Advisory Panel Member of Energies, and Guest Editor of Buildings, could you share your experience with MDPI journals?
Serving as an Editorial Board Member of Sustainability, a Topical Advisory Panel Member of Energies, and a Guest Editor of Buildings has given me a comprehensive perspective on the editorial process within MDPI journals. These roles have allowed me to engage with the research community from a different angle—evaluating submissions not only for their technical merit but also for their novelty, clarity, and potential impact. One aspect I particularly value about MDPI is the efficiency and transparency of its review process. The open access model ensures that high-quality research is freely available to both academics and practitioners, broadening the reach and potential influence of each publication. As an editor, I have witnessed how rapid but rigorous peer review can accelerate the dissemination of new findings without compromising quality.
My involvement has also deepened my appreciation for thematic Special Issues, which MDPI journals excel at organizing. These provide an excellent platform to cluster research efforts around emerging topics—whether in sustainable building design, smart readiness assessments, or advanced energy systems—helping to create coherent bodies of knowledge that can influence future research agendas. Equally rewarding is the interaction with authors and reviewers worldwide, which fosters a truly international exchange of ideas. This exposure to different academic cultures and approaches has been both enriching and inspiring. Overall, my MDPI experience has reinforced the importance of combining academic rigor with accessibility, ensuring that cutting-edge research serves the widest possible audience.