Welcome to Fublis’ interview series, “Media Matters”, where we engage with media professionals who shape the landscape of journalism, editing, and content creation. Through candid conversations, we intend to explore the intersection between media, architecture, design, and technology.

In this edition, we sit down with Daniela Silva, a talented architect and writer who beautifully merges the practicalities of design with the art of storytelling. From her early struggles as a writer to becoming a published author, Daniela shares how writing evolved to be a key component of her professional practice. She also discusses how she strikes a balance between her dual roles as an architect and a writer, the impact of social media on architectural discourse, and her approach to reviewing creative pitches.

Join us as Daniela offers her insights into navigating the world of media and architecture, providing valuable lessons for aspiring writers and architects alike.

What first attracted you to start writing and publishing materials, and how did that develop in parallel with your architectural career?

Daniela Silva: Reflecting on my journey, writing wasn’t always something that came naturally to me. In fact, when I completed my master’s in architecture, I realized that one of my weakest points was my writing. As architects, we often rely on visuals – drawings, models, and diagrams – to express ideas, but I understood that being able to articulate those ideas in writing is just as important, especially in today’s global context where communication extends far beyond the drawing board.

So, I made a conscious decision to turn this weakness into an area of strength. I knew the only way to get better was to challenge myself. I started by sending out proposals to different magazines and platforms. Honestly, I was met with a lot of rejection at first, and I won’t deny that it was discouraging. But those rejections became part of the learning process. They forced me to revisit my ideas, rethink how I communicated them, and ultimately, sharpen my writing skills.

In those early stages, I trashed several drafts, pitches, and essays. It felt like a constant cycle of trial and error. But over time, that persistence paid off. With every failure, I grew more confident in finding my voice and refining my approach. Having deadlines and external expectations really pushed me to keep going and stay disciplined.
What started as a personal challenge to improve my writing evolved into something much deeper. Writing became a space for me to explore ideas in architecture and technology, share my research, and contribute to the broader conversation in the field. It’s now an integral part of my architectural practice and research work. I’ve come to love the process, and today, I find great satisfaction in developing articles and essays that resonate with others. It’s become a source of pride, knowing how far I’ve come, and I truly enjoy the opportunity to share my thoughts and insights through writing.

In many ways, this journey parallels my architectural career. Just as design requires constant iteration, feedback, and refinement, so does writing. Both are creative processes that demand a willingness to evolve and adapt. And ultimately, both allow me to communicate ideas – whether through physical structures or written words – that I hope inspire others in the field.

How do you balance these dual roles as an architect and a writer? Are there particular challenges and particular benefits that derive from wearing both hats?

Daniela Silva: Balancing the roles of architect and writer has definitely been a journey of learning and adapting, but it’s also been incredibly rewarding. At first, they might seem like very different activities, but for me, they complement each other.

My experience as an architect feeds into my writing. Architecture gives me a deep well of experiences and topics to explore, and having a foot in both worlds allows me to approach architecture from a broader, more reflective perspective. Writing gives me the space to step back and look at the bigger picture, while architecture keeps me grounded in the practical and tangible realities of building and designing.

The benefits of wearing both hats have made that balance worthwhile. Writing forces me to articulate my thoughts more clearly, which is critical when explaining design ideas to clients or collaborators. It has taught me to think more critically about why I make certain design choices, helping me refine my conceptual thinking.
Another interesting benefit is that writing has connected me to a broader community. Through my articles and essays, I engage with other architects, other creatives and thinkers who I might not have encountered through architectural practice alone. It has opened doors to collaborations and opportunities that continue to enrich both sides of my career.

Over time, I’ve also realized that feeding my creativity requires me to do different things. I’ve learned that by engaging in various activities – whether it’s designing a building or preparing an article – they tend to feed off one another, keeping my mind active and my creative energy flowing. Writing allows me to explore ideas on a theoretical or reflective level, while architecture grounds me in practical, real-world problem-solving. This constant shift keeps me from feeling stuck in one mode of thinking.

The biggest challenge is, of course, time. Both architecture and writing demand a lot of focus, creativity, and energy. Architecture, especially when working on a project, can be demanding and time consuming with its deadlines, client meetings, and constant problem-solving. Writing, on the other hand, requires a quieter, more reflective space and time to think, to structure ideas, and put those to words. So, finding the time to switch between these two ways of working has been one of the biggest challenges. I’ve had to become more disciplined with my schedule, to dedicate time for writing alongside the architectural practice.

So in the end, I’ve found that each role actually strengthens the other. Together, they give me a more well-rounded way of engaging with the world of architecture, and I’m grateful for the unique perspective this dual path has provided.

Walk us through your personal branding process as a writer or editor, beyond the organizational affiliations. Can the two identities coexist, and when there is friction, how does one deal with it?

Daniela Silva: Developing a personal brand as a writer, while also being an architect and researcher, has been an ongoing process of defining my voice and identity outside of the organizational affiliations. It’s something that’s evolved over time, it’s still evolving, and I’ve found that it requires a lot of self-reflection.

For me, the key to personal branding has been about authenticity – following my interests, and trying to offer a unique perspective. As a writer, I don’t just want to talk about trends or established ideas; I aim to explore topics that genuinely resonate with me, especially in the context of architecture, and technology. I’ve developed a voice that reflects my own experiences and thoughts. I always ask myself: what do I uniquely bring to the conversation? What perspective can I offer that’s different?
I see my identity as an architect, writer, and researcher as interconnected, and I make sure that my values and vision come through in all aspects of my work. That way, no matter where my work appears, there’s a continuity in how I’m presented to the world.

However, friction does arise at times. There are moments when the expectations, or even the tone required by certain organizations or publications don’t fully align with how I want to express myself. When that happens, it’s important to strike a balance between meeting those expectations and staying true to who I am. I think a lot of it comes down to flexibility and clarity.

When there’s real friction, I reflect on what matters most – whether it’s a creative vision I don’t want to compromise on or an editorial direction that I might not fully align with. If it’s something minor, I adapt. If it’s more fundamental, I’ll find a way to communicate or negotiate, but ultimately, I’ve become comfortable with the idea that not every opportunity or collaboration is the right fit.

So yes, I do believe the two identities can coexist, and when there’s tension, it’s about having the awareness to adapt without losing sight of who you are. Personal branding is a dynamic, evolving process.

Drawing from your own experience, how has the emergence of social media revolutionized the processes and practices through which architectural content is conceived, distributed, and consumed? Elaborate on what, in your opinion, is the most important positive effect and pitfall of these technologies.

Daniela Silva: Social media has undeniably transformed the way architectural content is conceived, distributed, and consumed. From my own experience, I’ve seen how platforms like Instagram, LinkedIn, and even architecture-specific forums have become essential spaces for sharing ideas, showcasing projects, and engaging in conversations that extend far beyond traditional boundaries. In the past, architecture was often discussed and shared within closed circles – academic institutions, conferences, or print publications – but today, social media has opened up the field, making architecture more accessible to a wider, more diverse audience.

One of the most significant shifts has been the speed and democratization of content distribution. Architects and designers no longer need to rely on established media outlets to publish their work. Instead, they can share their ideas, sketches, and projects directly with their followers and engage in immediate dialogue. This has allowed younger architects or smaller studios to gain visibility that might have been harder to achieve in a pre-digital era. It’s also fostered a global community where architects can exchange insights, trends, and challenges with colleagues and enthusiasts from around the world in real-time.

The most important positive effect, in my opinion, is this democratization of architectural discourse. Social media has lowered the barriers to entry, giving emerging voices a platform to be heard. It’s not just about established firms showcasing polished projects anymore – students, recent graduates, and independent practitioners can now share their process, their experimental ideas, and even their failures, which contributes to a richer and more inclusive conversation. The architecture community has expanded to include not only architects but also the general public, who are now actively participating in discussions about design and urban spaces. This greater transparency and accessibility are invaluable for the evolution of the field.

However, with these advantages comes a significant pitfall, and that’s the potential for oversimplification. Social media tends to favor visually appealing content, which can sometimes reduce architecture to a series of aesthetic snapshots rather than a complex discipline that involves deep thinking, technical rigor, and social impact. When scrolling through platforms like Instagram, it’s easy to focus solely on the “Instagrammable” qualities of a project – its form, colors, or photogenic angles – without considering the nuances behind it, such as its environmental impact, the process of its construction, or the social context it responds to.

The race for likes, shares, and followers can lead to a focus on eye-catching, sensationalist designs rather than thoughtful, context-driven solutions. It risks encouraging a culture of instant gratification, where projects are consumed rapidly and forgotten just as quickly, rather than fostering deeper, more meaningful engagement with architectural ideas.

While social media has revolutionized the way architectural content is shared and has created new opportunities for inclusivity and innovation, we must also be mindful of its limitations. Striking a balance between visual appeal and the substance behind the designs is very important to ensure that the architectural discourse remains rich and meaningful in this digital age.

When you are reviewing pitches by writers or artists, what are the common criteria you are using to determine if something is worth pursuing? What do you look for in a pitch that might make it stand out?

Daniela Silva: I’m primarily looking for a combination of originality, clarity of thought, and relevance to the larger conversation within architecture, design, or the creative fields. There are a few specific criteria that help guide my decision-making process, and while these might vary depending on the context, they generally fall into a few key categories.

First and foremost, originality is essential. I’m always drawn to pitches that bring a fresh perspective or explore ideas that haven’t been widely discussed. This doesn’t necessarily mean the topic itself needs to be completely new, but I look for a unique angle or a personal viewpoint that sets the idea apart. I appreciate when a pitch surprises me or introduces me to an idea or approach I hadn’t considered before.

Another key factor is clarity of concept. A strong pitch needs to clearly communicate the core idea and its value. I always look for a concise, well-structured explanation that tells me not just what the pitch is about, but why it matters.

I also pay attention to the relevance of the pitch within the broader context of the field. Whether it’s addressing current trends, emerging technologies, or social and environmental issues, I’m looking for pitches that are timely and have the potential to contribute to ongoing conversations. I want to see that the writer or artist has considered how their work fits into the larger discourse and how it might resonate with the audience.

Passion and authenticity are equally important. When someone is genuinely invested in their topic, it comes through in their pitch. Passion often drives better work because it shows that the creator is personally connected to the topic and willing to explore it fully.

In terms of standing out, a pitch that has together a strong, original idea with clarity, passion, and a clear relevance to the field is always compelling. I’m also drawn to pitches that demonstrate critical thinking – where the writer or artist shows they’ve engaged with the subject in depth, thought about different angles, and can offer a nuanced perspective.

What makes a pitch stand out is its ability to tell me something new or inspire me to think about an issue in a different way, all while being well-articulated and thoughtfully conceived. When I see a pitch that ticks those boxes, I’m always excited to pursue it.

Can you elaborate on what you think makes a ‘good’ pitch? On the other hand, some common mistakes that make people’s pitches not so attractive?

Daniela Silva: A good pitch makes me curious and excited to learn more while showing that the person behind it has thought through the concept in detail.
The best pitches are original, offering a fresh perspective or unique angle, and they’re clear and focused, with a well-defined idea that’s easy to understand. They also need to be relevant, tying into current conversations or trends, and show passion, with the writer or artist personally invested in the topic.

On the other hand, common mistakes include vagueness, where the idea isn’t clearly explained, or lack of originality, simply repeating well-worn ideas. Sometimes pitches are overly ambitious, trying to cover too much ground without enough focus, or they can feel detached, lacking personal engagement or passion. A great pitch is one that feels thoughtful, intentional, and inspired, making it stand out from the rest.

What do you believe are some of the essential elements of a media kit for an architect, designer, or other creative profession? How would you implement these to interest a party?

Daniela Silva: Before even crafting your media kit, the first step is to study who you’re sending it to. Understanding your audience – their needs, preferences, and what they’re looking for. This knowledge will allow you to tailor your presentation to make the most impact. A generic pitch often falls flat, but a well-researched one feels intentional and relevant.

Presentation is everything. It should be a direct reflection of your design sensibilities. I always stand by the idea that a good project, badly presented, becomes a bad project, while even a less impressive project, if presented well, can be perceived as great.

Avoid clutter at all costs. Every element in your media kit should serve a purpose in telling your story. Focus on quality over quantity. Instead of showcasing every single project, choose a handful that best represent your style and capabilities. It should be visually engaging and accompanied by a concise description that communicates not just what you did, but why it matters.

What advice would you give to aspiring architects, designers, and creatives who one day dream of being in those top publications? What has been successful for you, and what should they avoid?

Daniela Silva: My advice is simple: fight for your weaknesses and stay curious.

Don’t rely solely on your diploma or qualifications – it’s important to push beyond that and continuously seek growth in areas where you may not feel as strong. Whether it’s writing, presenting, or thinking outside the box, always challenge yourself to improve.

For me, what’s been successful is recognizing where I needed to grow and actively working on those areas. When I started writing and submitting to publications, it wasn’t because I was already good at it, but because I knew it was a skill I needed to develop. I took risks, faced rejections, and kept going. So, I encourage you to stay curious and pursue more than what’s expected – this curiosity is what will set you apart.

Avoid getting too comfortable or relying only on the work that’s in front of you. Trusting only in your diploma or sticking to conventional paths can limit your potential. Instead, stay open to exploring different avenues within your field, and don’t be afraid to take the harder route. It’s that drive to push beyond your comfort zone that will eventually open doors to bigger opportunities, including those top publications.

What do you see as the biggest challenges faced by designers and creatives in an attempt to gain such exposure in top-tier publications, and how could these be overcome?

Daniela Silva: The biggest challenges is the high level of competition and the frequency of rejection. It’s easy to get discouraged when pitches don’t get accepted, especially when you don’t receive feedback on why. But I believe this challenge can be overcome with a mindset of persistence and continuous improvement.
The key is to never give up. If you get rejected, don’t take it as a final answer. Instead, try to seek feedback whenever possible. Understanding why a pitch didn’t land can be incredibly valuable – it allows you to improve and refine your approach. Even if feedback isn’t provided, take the time to evaluate your pitch and think about how it could be stronger. Maybe the angle wasn’t compelling enough, or perhaps it wasn’t aligned with the publication’s audience.

After refining the pitch, try again, either with the same publication or with others that might be a better fit. Top-tier publications are highly selective, but persistence and adaptability often pay off. The more you work on your pitches and keep improving them, the better your chances of eventually breaking through. Exposure in these spaces often comes from a combination of talent, resilience, and a willingness to continuously evolve and learn from rejection.

If you were to look back, how would you evaluate your approach to your career as an architect, researcher, and writer? Were there any underlying principles or philosophies that have guided you along?

Daniela Silva: Looking back, I can confidently say that my approach to my career as an architect, researcher, and writer was shaped by a key realization I had quite early, while I was still studying for my master’s. I understood that the competition would be huge once I graduated – there are so many universities producing new architects each year, and when I started doing the math, it was clear that just completing the course wouldn’t be enough to make me stand out.

While many of my colleagues were focused on getting high grades and working on impressive design projects, I felt I needed more than that. I decided to explore the other paths within architecture, beyond just the traditional focus on projects. That shift in mindset was probably the most important moment in my career. I came to realize that architecture is as vast as we want it to be – there are so many directions you can take it in.

From that point on, I started to explore what truly moved me within architecture, what I was passionate about. That exploration led me to where I am today – practicing architecture, but also writing and researching. And above all, I consider myself passionate and curious, which is what continues to drive me.
If I were to identify an underlying principle that has guided me, it’s that architecture is not a fixed profession – it allows you to be many things. And the most fascinating part of being an architect, in my opinion, is precisely that: you can carve your own path, mix disciplines, and continuously evolve. This openness to explore and pursue different aspects of architecture has been key to my journey, and it’s a philosophy that keeps me inspired every day.