![\"Glasshouse](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/ba6575a7f74e9e221c3fc6a8ceaa6a59.jpg\")
<\/p>\nIsabelle Toland: Most of our projects are collaborations in different forms. When Amelia [Holliday] and I founded Aileen Sage 13 years ago, collaboration was foundational to how we wanted to work. We think it brings new perspectives to the table and can allow projects to develop in unexpected ways \u2013 driving new ideas, approaches and innovations.<\/p>\n
The most successful collaborations, we find, occur when there is mutual respect for what each party is bringing to the table. This sets the tone of the relationship between collaborators.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m interested to understand how each of you came to meet your collaborators on your different projects. Were they pre-existing relationships, and how did you establish a positive working dynamic?<\/p>\n
Jayson Blight: Our most recent collaboration was with Sn\u00f8hetta on the Glasshouse Theatre in Brisbane. This came about because Michael [Rayner] was a creative director of the 2012 Australian Institute of Architects\u2019 National Architecture Conference, where Kjetil Tr\u00e6dal Thorsen, founding partner of Sn\u00f8hetta, was invited to speak. They got on well, and from there the relationship continued. But it wasn\u2019t until five or six years later that the design competition for the theatre was announced, and our first thought was to call Kjetil. He was interested to work with us, and that\u2019s how it started. Each of our skillsets were also compatible.Given the nature of the project, the collaboration made perfect sense, combining Sn\u00f8hetta\u2019s extensive theatre project experience with our own strengths to create a well-rounded design team.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
View gallery<\/p>\n
IT: Did that make the scope split discussion quite easy, since everyone understood the different expertise they were bringing to the collaboration?<\/p>\n
JB: You\u2019d think so, but no \u2013 because everybody thinks they want a 50-50 split. For all our collaborations, whether they be sub-consultancies or joint ventures, it always sets out to be 50-50, but the hard part is getting clarity on where the split is. You might start with an \u201call in\u201d approach, and see what happens, but that can only work if everybody is very open-minded. It really is about relationships first, and knowing you can work with people. That\u2019s fundamental.<\/p>\n
IT: And then the difficult conversations start \u2013 formalising the relationship and, in particular, fees, and that can create some friction.<\/p>\n
JB: Yes, fees are one of the hardest parts of any collaboration. Hourly rates and fee structures can vary wildly, so resolving financial arrangements can be difficult. Fortunately, Sn\u00f8hetta had practices in Adelaide and Melbourne, so their Australian offices coordinated with their offices in Hong Kong, Norway and the USA. There\u2019s always going to be friction, but our relationship with the Australian team was robust, and I think you get past most conflicts when there\u2019s mutual respect.<\/p>\n
IT: James, at Lyons, you\u2019ve collaborated with all kinds of practices, and across various scales of project. How did those collaborations come together?<\/p>\n
James Wilson: Collaboration has a long history in architecture, especially on larger projects, but one of the market shifters happened when we did the New Academic Street at RMIT<\/a>, which Carey Lyon led. That project became a springboard for a different kind of collaboration \u2013 between not just two practices, but multiple practices, including emerging architects.<\/p>\n Whilst we could have done that project alone, we knew RMIT wanted to stitch themselves more into the city, so diversity became important early in the process. We brought in practices that weren\u2019t working at a larger scale at the time. It started with the idea of bringing alumni from RMIT together, and as alumni, they all shared a deep love for the university. We also all knew each other on that basis, so we had mutual admiration and respect. Though we split up the project between many, Lyons acted as \u201ca safe pair of hands\u201d over the contractual arrangement.<\/p>\n View gallery<\/p>\n IT: With multiple smaller practices involved, how did you divide the scope? Did you propose the roles, or was there more of a dynamic discussion with all parties working out together what they could bring to the project?<\/p>\n JW: We only collaborate with design thinkers, whether emerging or established. We believe that giving agency to those voices brings strength to the collaboration.<\/p>\n On both the University of Melbourne Student Precinct<\/a> and New Academic Street at RMIT, we left the split of the collaboration open until the end of the masterplan concept phase. We let people\u2019s interests emerge by bringing everyone together, doing workshops like you would as a studio \u2013 and it became clear where people\u2019s interests and deep skills lay.<\/p>\n In contrast to a larger collaboration with a strong commercial imperative, emerging or smaller practices seem to be more flexible with their involvement, as long as they benefit commercially and creatively. In both those projects, we carried the risk, so we held a 51 percent stake, taking the majority share, but then split the rest between the smaller practices.<\/p>\n JB: It comes down to the job, the building and the client. It\u2019s great if you can keep things looser at the start, if everyone is willing. It\u2019s far more enjoyable \u2013 a bit more chaotic at the beginning, but it feels honest.<\/p>\n View gallery<\/p>\n IT: That\u2019s the challenge \u2013 sometimes you need clear boundaries, but you also need to be open to shifting them as the project unfolds.<\/p>\n JW: Right, the more agency you give collaborators, but protect them where they might lack experience, the better the outcome. But it\u2019s case by case.<\/p>\n JB: Case by case, and week by week if you can \u2013 letting it open up and close within risk boundaries.<\/p>\n IT: Which is why communication matters so much \u2013 you need to keep talking throughout.<\/p>\n Was the University of Melbourne Student Precinct more straightforward, since as a precinct it could be divided into distinct buildings?<\/p>\n JW: Mostly, although during the masterplan concept phase, some buildings were deleted and others emerged. For instance, Koning Eisenberg from Los Angeles did a fantastic building called the Student Pavilion. That didn\u2019t exist in the original brief, but by working through the concept phase together, that came to light as a project within the precinct.<\/p>\n View gallery<\/p>\n IT: Opportunities often surface through the process, which makes it risky to lock things in too early. But without an explicit commitment to reserve part of the project for smaller practices, their scope can easily disappear during value engineering. By then, it\u2019s often too late to shift elsewhere \u2013 the larger practice has already designed everything \u2013 leaving the smaller practice with little leverage, and the larger one little incentive to relinquish scope.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve been caught out before, without having a commitment that we will be paid a certain percentage of the fee. We\u2019ve since gotten better at establishing this, with room to revisit and recalibrate the scope of our contribution so it matches our agreed fee. Holding your ground on fees doesn\u2019t sound like an ideal way to start a collaboration, but it\u2019s essential when the power dynamic is clearly unequal.<\/p>\n JW: You have to. From the initial phase, when we invite other practices into our team, we\u2019ll establish something concrete \u2013 for instance, a twenty percent stake in the project, which might equate to a twenty million dollar part of the scope for their team.<\/p>\n IT: That transparency is great to hear \u2013 and very rare for us.<\/p>\n JW: You have to be generous. If you\u2019ve invited people onto your team, and then squeezed them out, it doesn\u2019t respect the idea of inviting them in the first place, or that you won the job partly because of their contribution. You\u2019ve got to be careful not to create distrust in the industry, because we all know each other.<\/p>\n JB: Agreed \u2013 you have to get down into the contractual weeds. Fees and scope need to be sorted out first, for the benefit of both sides. Then you can do the parts you love working on together in a more open way.<\/p>\n JW: I believe that too. You also have to be upfront about workload and resourcing as the project evolves. Scope and capacity can shift over time on either side.<\/p>\n View gallery<\/p>\n IT: Yes, those pragmatic conversations are important.<\/p>\n What about the scenario where you have multiple collaborators working on a single building?<\/p>\n![\"RMIT](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/5ed96b1dd8e28442bd21593da358dd0a.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Gunyama](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/4d70aeb95d45de42463e8924212178fe.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"University](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/2d7b57cd566c615b45696f703738a6bf.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"119](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/9005f055dd59c8bdf85873a7d2cae8e1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"National](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/49fe8c52d1610684dc979b02b4658050.jpg\")
<\/p>\n