The Stupidity Stack

The Stupidity of Smart Buildings

AI FOMO is a thing now. And I can feel it.

But more than feeling left behind, I feel AI accelerating my frustration with the status quo — especially in my industry: architecture, engineering, and construction.

I’ve been grumbling about the state of things for over a decade. But AI throws it all into sharp relief.

Someone with zero coding experience can now build and launch a software business in days. Meanwhile, it still takes me years to get a project designed and built.

Sometimes decades.

One of my biggest gripes? So-called “smart” buildings. Or rather, the tech stack of systems and devices that essentially make a “smart” building today.

Do me a favor: next time you walk into any modern building, look up.

You’ll see smoke detectors, cameras, speakers, sensors, antennas, lights, exit signs — each its own size, shape, color, wiring, and logic. Each its own system. Each designed, coordinated, installed, and maintained like a one-off prototype.

This is what passes for “progress” in the smart building industry.

Every one of those devices required a separate consultant, contractor, submittal, shop drawing, installation method, power spec, network protocol, and coordination meeting.

Some required weekly meetings.

Some required rework.

Some were missed entirely and had to be carved into finished walls and ceilings — at great cost and delay to the project. All for a $50 device.

And yes, we’re still pulling wires through conduit like it’s 1925.

We’re still mounting devices like they’re handcrafted decor — each one placed manually, cabled manually, programmed manually. We still act like the only way to make a building “smart” is to stitch together dozens of proprietary systems and hope they decide to talk to each other.

This is what I call the Stupidity Stack.

But the worst part? We’ve accepted it.

We’ve normalized a design and construction process so fragmented that it now takes more effort to hang a smart light in a building than it does to launch a new app or generate a film script.

We’re buried under a jumble of tech-shaped band-aids layered onto outdated, siloed infrastructure — where nothing works unless a specialist says so.

It’s why projects run over budget.

It’s why technology coordination is one of the top causes of construction delays.

It’s why we need entire trades, titles, and certifications just to install a light switch that can talk to an app.

And all of this friction comes at a cost.

But there’s a deeper cost too — the opportunity cost.

Because the real promise of smart buildings isn’t just “more data.” It’s better performance. Better experiences. More adaptability. More awareness. More intelligence in the built world — and less friction between people and place.

The problem isn’t a lack of innovation.

It’s that we’ve been innovating in the wrong direction — layering complexity on top of complexity, designing around proprietary constraints instead of human needs, and mistaking integrations for solutions.

It’s time for something else.

The future isn’t proprietary.

The future isn’t siloed.

The future is generic, open, and well-designed.

A new architecture is coming — one where field devices are as universal and self-configuring as USB ports. Where coordination is automatic. Where change is expected, and failure doesn’t derail the entire project.

It’s not just possible. It’s inevitable.

Because in an age where AI can design your brand, write your code, and build your business — we shouldn't need a committee to install a motion sensor.

We shouldn’t need much effort at all. Now that would be smart.