What's in a Name: A Love Letter to the Metric System (and the Quiet Suffering of Fractions of an Inch)

Let's start with something that makes our eyes twitch.

2'-8". Two feet, eight inches. A perfectly normal dimension in an American architectural drawing. Now say it as a decimal: 2.8 feet. Sounds right, doesn't it? Except it's wrong. 2.8 feet is actually 2'-9 19/32" (approximately, because the fraction doesn't resolve cleanly either). A foot has 12 inches, not 10, so the decimal and the notation have nothing to do with each other, and you cannot do basic arithmetic with feet and inches the way you would with any other number. The system will punish you for trying.

This is our daily reality. And also, somehow, the reason we named our studio what we did.

Someone asked us what Métrica means

It comes up more than you'd think: clients, collaborators, people at events reading our name tag with a slight squint. We always enjoy the question.

The short answer is that it's a tribute to the metric system, which in Spanish is inseparable from the word metro: the unit of measurement, yes, but also the tape measure hanging off every builder's belt. Architecture is measured in metros. The name was almost too obvious.

There is also the accent on the É, which is deliberate. It is a quiet signal to those who recognize it: we are an international studio with Latin heritage, working across Seattle, Miami, and Bogotá. The name does not try to sound local and does not hide where it comes from.

But the real reason the name felt right, the moment we heard it and knew, goes deeper than any of that.

A system built on purpose

The metric system was not discovered. It was designed. In the 1790s, French scientists sat down and asked a question that sounds simple but had never really been asked before: what if all of this connected?

The answer was base-10, every unit a clean multiple of the next, the prefixes drawn from Latin and Greek so that the system explains itself. Milli means one-thousandth, so a millimeter is one-thousandth of a meter. Centi means one-hundredth, making a centimeter one-hundredth of a meter. Scale up and kilo means one thousand, giving you a kilometer at exactly one thousand meters. The whole ladder is right there in the language, and once you see it, you don't memorize conversions anymore. You just move the decimal point.

Then they went further, connecting the units to the physical world itself. One liter of water fills a cube exactly 10 centimeters on each side, one cubic decimeter, and that same liter weighs exactly one kilogram. Volume, distance, and weight: one system, one internal logic, all of it by design. Temperature followed the same thinking, with zero degrees Celsius fixed at the freezing point of water and one hundred at the boiling point, chosen deliberately so the numbers would mean something.

To see how elegant this is, consider: 25.4 millimeters is also 2.54 centimeters, also 0.0254 meters. Three expressions of the same thing, each convertible with a single move of the decimal. And maybe you recognize that number: 25.4mm is exactly one inch.

A system built by accident

Now run the imperial system through the same test.

One foot has 12 inches. Why 12? Because a Roman unit called the uncia divided the foot into 12 parts and it stuck, not because 12 is logical but because it was already there. The inch was standardized in 14th-century England as the length of three barleycorns placed end to end. One yard is 3 feet, reportedly fixed as the distance from King Henry I's nose to the tip of his outstretched thumb, and it is exactly 3 feet - this one is clean - almost suspiciously reasonable for an imperial unit. It is never used. Except, cruelly, in cubic form: a cubic yard is how concrete is ordered in the United States, which means every contractor on every job site is mentally cubing a king's wingspan to figure out how much to pour.

One mile is 5,280 feet, a number that traces back to medieval land management: eight furlongs, where a furlong was the distance an ox could plow before needing to rest. One acre is 43,560 square feet, defined as the area that same ox could cover in a day. A hectare, its metric equivalent, is 10,000 square meters: a perfect square, 100 meters on each side. One of these was designed. The other was farmed.

Nobody designed this. It accumulated across centuries and cultures, each unit a local solution to an immediate problem, with no one ever asking whether it connected to anything else. It is less a system than a sediment, layers of practical decisions made by people who are all long dead, pressed together into something that now has the weight of official fact.

And then the inches. Once you accept 12 of them in a foot, anything smaller requires division by 2, again and again: halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty-seconds, fractions of fractions, each one requiring its own arithmetic before you can add two numbers together.

1'-1 5/8" + 2'-3/4". What is that? Take a moment.

The part we have to admit

Our studio is called Métrica. Every day, we open our drawings and work in feet and inches.

Our team over the years has included architects from Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Australia, Spain, and for every one of them, imperial measurement is the steepest part of adjusting to practice in the United States. Not the culture, not the language, not the building codes. The units. Nobody ever learns to love it. We just, as they say in English, muddle through.

We are aware of the irony.

One day, maybe

The United States has tried to go metric before. The Metric Conversion Act passed in 1975, was voluntary, and did not go well. In 1999, NASA lost a spacecraft worth $125 million because one engineering team used metric units and another used imperial, and the Mars Climate Orbiter burned up in the Martian atmosphere over a unit conversion nobody caught. Most of the world made the switch long ago. The holdouts are the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar.

We are not optimistic about a timeline.

The part that surprised us

Here is what we did not expect when we chose the name: métrica in Spanish also means poetic meter, the formal structure and rhythm of verse, the set of rules that governs how a poem is built, how many syllables a line contains, where the stresses fall, how the sounds repeat and resolve.

This seems, at first, like the driest possible definition of poetry. And yet it is precisely what makes poetry possible. A sonnet is not a loose collection of feelings but 14 lines, a fixed rhyme scheme, a precise syllable count, and inside that rigid container something happens that couldn't happen any other way. The constraint is not the enemy of beauty. It is the condition for it.

Architecture works the same way. A building begins with a site, a budget, a program, a set of codes, a structural system, and these are not inconveniences to be tolerated before the design can begin. They are the meter of the poem. The best buildings are not beautiful despite their constraints but through them, shaped by forces that demanded a specific, considered response.

This is also, we would argue, how a well-designed project works: not decisions that accumulate by accident, each one made in isolation without reference to the others, the way the imperial system grew, but decisions that connect, that follow from a concept, that build on each other with the internal logic of a system someone actually designed on purpose.

We named the studio after measurement, after rigor, after a system where everything relates to everything else and moving the decimal point is all you need. It turned out we had also named it after poetry. We can live with that.

‍