In Curiosity We Trust: Learning the Nick Bowker Way

Nick Bowker , an Associate at Turner Fleischer, has built a career defined by curiosity, adaptability, and a drive to explore every facet of Architecture. From technology and sustainability, to teaching and leadership, Nick reflects on his path into the profession, his role in shaping BIM standards and sustainable practices, and how collaboration and hands-on learning continue to guide both his work and his leadership style.

Why Architecture?

That is a hard question to answer. And quite honestly, I still don’t know why I chose Architecture (which probably seems weird). In high school, I enjoyed art, math, and science, but English and history were not always interesting for me. Going to school for Architecture seemed like one of the most interesting ways to find a career that could also lead to other options, if I changed my mind about Architecture.

I chose the Architectural Technology program at George Brown College because they offered different bridging options into either construction or engineering.

After graduating I interviewed at four or five different firms. Following my interview with John Chow , I had all but given up on a career in Architecture. John reviewed my portfolio and caught all my mistakes (laughs). Despite that, Turner Fleischer offered me the job, and I started in the Site Development team.

While I was working at the Studio as a Technologist, I still explored other avenues. I applied to engineering at the University of Toronto and a few other places but couldn’t quite make up my mind. After all that, I decided to stay at Turner Fleischer and keep working for another year—and one year turned into 15.

I think the reason it has worked out so well is because Architecture is such a varied field. You can go in many different directions with your career if you want to. You can focus on construction, design, or the artistic side. I have been lucky because I have experienced a little bit of everything, which keeps the work interesting.

How was your experience working in Site Development?

It was great. I think it was a good entry point into Architecture because it gave me exposure to so many different aspects of the profession. I learned so much about Design and construction and what developers are looking for. The work is very fast paced, but through that I gained exposure to a wide range of projects.

Most of what I was doing at the time was commercial work—from large commercial redevelopments to rezonings for existing buildings and everything in between. You get a lot of different experiences very quickly, which helped me understand the bigger picture. It was a great starting point because it allowed me to see all the early, front-end design-related work.

After a little over a year, I transitioned into what was then the Commercial Design and Realization team. We were very creative with team names back then for some reason (laughs). In this new role, I focused more on design development and construction documents.

That trajectory gave me the chance to see projects through their entire lifecycle—from the very early pre-design stages, through construction, site visits, and the final product.

I learned by seeing the mistakes I made in the drawings in practice when general contractors would tell why they couldn’t build according to the drawings.

That kind of experience isn’t always something you get—especially early in your career, and I am grateful for the early learning opportunities.

You’ve been involved in shaping the BIM standards and implementation at TF. How did you get into the tech side of things?

I have always been interested in technology. Even before college, I took courses in high school on AutoCAD, Photoshop, and digital arts programs. As soon as I discovered Revit early in my time at George Brown, I was hooked. At the time, there were maybe one or two introductory Revit courses, and most students were still doing their project work in AutoCAD. I decided to switch and do all my work in Revit, basically forcing myself to learn the software more deeply.

I think learning Revit early on played a role in me getting a job at Turner Fleischer, because it was around the same time Turner Fleischer made big investments into BIM and adopt more of those workflows. It lined up well, but it also fit well with how my brain works.

I’ve always liked to understand everything a piece of software can do. What I loved most about the software was my ability, as a user, to connect all the information together, and how much easier that made projects.

I always want to find the easiest way to do something. That’s what led me to join the BIM committee back in 2013 or 2014, when I was, I think a Senior Designer. For me, BIM is not so much about the software itself, but more about solving a bigger puzzle: how do people use the software?

You are Passive House certified too. What inspired you to pursue this certification?

Similar to my interest in technology, I’ve always been very interested in sustainability and the environment. I grew up absolutely loving the Nature Channel and David Attenborough. I was also really drawn to the more scientific aspects of what we do, especially building science, which is at the core of the Passive House certification.

I first heard about Passive House around 2016 or 2017, but at the time work was busy and life got in the way. I had already gone through LEED certification, but it started to feel more like a checklist (“Greenwashing” in a sense, if you will) to say your building was sustainable, even when the measures didn’t always connect to good design.

The example I always give is bike lockers: you can put a bunch of them outside your building and get a few LEED points, but if your building isn’t downtown Toronto, you’re not getting much actual impact out of that, there are no fewer cars on the road, and our buildings aren’t performing better.

Passive House felt different. It was scientific, measurable, and clear—either your building is low-energy, or it isn’t. That resonated with me. I like data that will prove one theory over another.

It wasn’t until March 2020—when the pandemic suddenly left me with a lot of time at home—that I decided to finally dive in. Passive House can be dense and, honestly, kind of “math-y.” At first, it I felt like I needed a refresher in algebra (laughs). But with the extra time I had at home, I figured I should do something productive. Instead of playing Call of Duty all day, I took all the Passive House courses, and I committed to understanding it deeply.

How did your experience across projects, teams, and roles lead to becoming an Associate?

It was a long and meandering journey. I worked on a variety of different teams at the Studio, and on a range of project typologies. I accepted all sorts of work outside of my role. Some of that included the BIM initiatives, Dynamo and automation in Revit, and even developing some applications in those tools. I had a lot of fun with virtual reality, and it got me involved in different areas of the Studio.

Over the years, and I think, given my experience in all aspects of Turner Fleischer’s projects, I became a Project Manager, a Manager, and then Associate because I had well rounded experiences.

It was the drive to keep pushing past the boundaries of my role—learning, experimenting, and taking on what was unfamiliar—that defined my path to becoming an Associate. That same curiosity still drives me today. I am always looking for new challenges and opportunities to grow, whether that means exploring a different aspect of the work or taking on greater responsibility within the Studio.

You are now part of our Sustainability Committee. How did that come about?

It ties into what I mentioned earlier. Over the years, I had a lot of discussions with Ellen about sustainable design. We have a huge portfolio that spans across the country, and some of our clients are among the biggest in their respective industries. Because of the nature of the work we do, we have a significant impact on the built environment. Most of our projects are built, and in many cases, they’re repeated— like a grocery store, a retail location, or a condo tower. That impact is exponential compared to something like a museum, where the project might take ten years to complete.

Considering the scale of our projects and our clients, the challenge became: how do we design more sustainably, and how do we make it economically sustainable for our clients? The perception is often that sustainable design costs more, and I think that comes partly from the history of LEED. With a LEED certification, buildings are awarded points for adding things to a building, which naturally increased costs.

But sustainability isn’t just about adding solar panels or geothermal systems. It’s about thinking responsibly.

Where do we place windows? Are we critically considering which ones have a lower solar heat gain coefficient? Those kinds of decisions don’t cost anything. However, and importantly, they take extra thought in the early stages of the project, but they result in a better product for both our clients and the end users of the building.

With that in mind, we wanted to think holistically about what we’re doing for our clients: from energy and wellness perspective to accessibility, materials, and embodied carbon.

We’re developing our action plan to be simple for everyone to understand—our clients and our studio members included—that will have a lasting impact on our projects and our communities.

You’re also a TF Academy instructor. What do you enjoy most about teaching?

I really enjoy the interaction with people I don’t always get to work with day to day. I also like teaching and talking about the things that interest me. Every TF Academy session I have taught focused on topics that sparked my curiosity.

To me, it’s also a great way to reinforce what I know.

It’s one thing to understand a principle in theory, but it’s whole other challenge to successfully and effectively explain it to someone else. Teaching forces you to do that.

I spent several years teaching Revit at Humber College, which kept my Revit skills sharp as I moved into management roles, and wasn’t using the software every day. It was a fun way to step out of my comfort zone, work with people from other studios—engineering and Architecture alike—and see how others were trying to upgrade their skills.

Teaching has always been a fantastic experience for me, and I think anyone who is given the opportunity to teach should seize it. I’m not going to go as far as citing Uncle Ben in Spider-Man (“with great power comes great responsibility”) — but something to that effect (laughs).

How has this journey of learning and exploring new things impacted your leadership style?

That’s an interesting question. I’m not sure I have a perfectly clear answer because my leadership style isn’t something I consciously think about. It’s more just how I approach people and projects. I’d say it’s based on building good relationships and not taking things too seriously. I like to have fun, and I think that plays a big role in how I lead.

I prefer being in the trenches with the team, working alongside my colleagues on the project we’re tackling together, rather than standing off to the side and directing.

Leadership is about collaboration, creating an environment where people enjoy the work, and making sure we can laugh a little along the way.

Teaching has also shaped how I lead. It pushed me to connect with people that I do not work with every day, and it gave me the chance to improve soft skills like communication, and public speaking. Public speaking used to terrify me. When I first started here, I refused to stand up in front a large group of people. I hated it. Teaching helped me work through my fears. It’s still intimidating, but now it feels like a challenge I actually enjoy—a mix of anxious and excited—whereas before it was just fully anxious (laughs).

That confidence has carried over into project work too, especially in meetings where effective communication is critical.

One piece of advice you would give to someone just starting out at TF?

Stay curious.

Especially for someone at the start of their career, every unique challenge is an opportunity to learn. There are so many different types of projects we work on, and so many pieces of the larger Architecture and construction puzzle to learn about. The more you explore the parts you’re not working on every day, the more it fuels that curiosity. I think that’s what keeps you interested, at least that’s what does it for me.

Interest is the main ingredient to success.

Looking ahead, what excites you most about your own career, the projects you’re working on, or the future of the studio in general?

What excites me the most right now is the opportunity to build our new Design + Quality Department from the ground up. I have never had the chance to start a new department before—it is definitely a little nerve-wracking, but also really exciting to shape something from scratch.

At its core, the department brings together design leadership and technical expertise under one umbrella, all driven by a shared commitment to excellence. It is about supporting teams through structured guidance, coordinated reviews, and clear standards that strengthen how we deliver projects. But it is also about curiosity—continuous improvement, research, and staying engaged with emerging ideas in design, technology, and sustainability.

For me, it is a chance to help create a space that not only supports project delivery, but also pushes innovation across the Studio.

The goal is simple: to ensure everything we design reflects our intention to make lives better by design and contributes meaningfully to Canada’s built environment.

Nick’s impact goes beyond projects. By challenging assumptions, simplifying processes, empowering others to learn, and finding efficiencies, Nick is proof that curiosity is a sure way to a successful and rewarding career in Architecture.