Building for Longevity

Every human action gains in honour, in grace, in all true magnificence, by its regard to things that are to come...Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labour and wrought substance of them, "See! this our fathers did for us."  -  John Ruskin. 1907. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. J.M Dent. p. 249.

 

We must reconsider the notion of 'sustainability.'

Do the architects and builders of our contemporary built environments design and build for 50, 100, 1,000 years?  No.  Not that architects don't want to, but the rise of the developer and the builder as the most influential participant in building in America today effectively negates this desire within the profession when speaking about the outcomes of a project with a Client/Owner. 

 

With the economic realities of the past five years or so (declining tax bases, ergo, declining funding), conversations during design and documentation invariably lead to discussions about the 'best bang for the buck'.  To be fair, these discussions may include concerns about the longevity of a material or components, but they invariably center around how much can be got for how little.  These discussions are most often led by the builder with the architect offering their insight into the economics of potential products, materials, components, but often to little effect since the builder is the one with their hands in the market, fingers on the pulse of the subcontractors, spreadsheets full of labor and material costs that back up their statements.  Architects, too, can produce quantifiable data, but more often than not, they do not maintain a database at all or as effectively as the builders do, resorting to ad lib or a last minute call into a consultant for past costs on similar installations, resulting in additional weakening of the architect as a knowledgeable professional.

 

Most commercial product manufacturers' warranties are for 10-15 years; 20 if you're considering top of the line or time-tested.  For others, you may be lucky to obtain 5 years.  Others still may guarantee their product for 25+ years, in an exterior application at that, with a premium paid up front by the Owner.

 

But, what of the material economics of building?  What of the life cycle cost of selecting one material, component or system over another?  Architects (their consulting engineers) are often required to provide this type of analysis for the buildings systems (mechanical and electrical in terms of energy needs and consumption) when working on publically-funded projects.  Should architects provide a life cycle benefits analysis of materials, components, systems and the overall design intent as well, noting expected longevity and maintenance costs associated with the materials, components and methods selected?  Is it their professional obligation to sell quality over quantity?  Or, is the Customer Always Right? 

 

{An aside:  I consider paying the premium up front for a fine leather wallet that I know will last me 10 or 20 years over a cheaper vinyl one (may be a cost difference of $100 over $10).  But, depending on my economic situation, I need that extra $90 dollars for something else that I just can't find anywhere else in my budget, so I go with the less expensive wallet.  Now, if I am super good about caring for my things, I might be able to stretch the life of that cheaper, vinyl wallet from a couple of years to 5, maintaining it and not abusing it (like overstuffing it with receipts, too much change and plastic).  Realistically, I am going to get an average of 2 years of use out of that vinyl wallet, so in 20 years I would most likely buy 10 wallets for a total of $100 dollars over 20 years, same as the initial purchase for the fine wallet.  But, I have used the energy of producing 10 wallets over 1 wallet, of producing vinyl over using leather, etc.  In a life cycle cost analysis of the two products, I would want to look at the cost of producing the materials used, the methods for making the wallets and for their shipment.  So, even if over the long run I spend the same amount to purchase a wallet over 20 years, the cost of making the goods will more than likely be different and one will be more cost effective, in terms of resources used, their cost of production, and how often they have to be repaired or replaced.  It is as important to understand the amount of embodied energy in the products and materials we use in our buildings today as the energy required to use the buildings we are producing today.}

 

We know from the tale of the Three Little Pigs, that brick construction is better able to stand up to the Wolf's huffing and puffing over straw and twigs.  We know that if we shade a painted wall in a sunny, hot locale that the paint will last longer and require less frequent repainting over time.  We know that if we install glazing systems that consider effective solar heat gain coefficients that we can decrease the energy required to heat and/or cool the space it provides light and views to, lowering energy bills over the life of the building.  It is time to remind the Client/Owner of these facts and help them see the benefit of choosing quality over quantity; to see this choice as an investment in their posterity as well as their community's.  

Owners, working with the designers and builders of our built environments, need to require a better outcome in the design and implementation of the built environment for the generations that will follow us.  They need to be obsessed by this notion.  Not in pursuit of a plaque on their building or a statement on their brochure or website, but in pursuit of built environments that will be lasting, physically, psychologically and culturally, meaningful at a multitude of levels and desirous of maintaining it into perpetuity, or as long as is possible.

 

Today, architects, builders, owners, planners and developers have at their disposal a number of tools that allow them to document and/or delineate expected outcomes in terms of sustainable, or green, building ideals.  It is in a concerted effort that all Project Team Members, Designers, Engineers, Builders and Owners ensure that the materials, components and systems selected meet or exceed expected outcomes. 

 

LEED, or Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is well established and is seen by many as THE standard for producing projects with sustainable objectives.  As it states on its website, LEED is a third-party source concerned with verifying that a project is designed, built and operating the way it was intended.  LEED is a documentation tool, requiring the architect to document the expected outcomes (design documentation) and the realized outcomes (construction documentation).  LEED is not concerned with the specifics of a design, but rather the expected savings and efficient operation of a project as set forth in standardized templates for 5 basic credit areas:  Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, and Indoor Environmental Air Quality.  Additional credits concern themselves with Transportation, Infrastructure, Neighborhood and Location.  LEED does not consider credits towards the LEED certification being sought based on expected Longevity, or Life-Time Sustainability, of the building and/or its components beyond the building's operation. 

 

{a side note:  Prior to  the creation of LEED, architects were already designing with the objectives outlined in the LEED Credits system.  By education, training and licensure testing, architects are required to consider a building's siting (wind, water, sun, climate, topography).  By Code (state & international), architects and engineers must consider water usage, energy usage, quality of the air and day lighting of the interiors.  By Ordinances (city, regional, state), architects and planners must consider materials, resources, transportation and neighborhood linkages.  LEED's value is providing a standardized system for documenting sustainable goals within a design project, based on its type, and a means to monitor the implementation of those goals during the design and construction of that project.}

 

Another, newer, tool in the Sustainable Building trend is The Living Building Challenge (LBC) developed by The International Building Institute.  As does LEED, the LBC is a certification system for projects that desire to be identified as sustainable in design, construction, and performance.  Whereas LEED certification is given to a project upon fulfillment and certification of design and construction credits for projected outcomes, the LBC does not certify a project until the project has been operational for a minimum of 12 months and it must provide documentation of project performance which is then audited.  Most importantly, while LEED (more or less) documents what architects and engineers were already doing, LBC strives to delineate a path to a near future reality in which the built environment is seen as a living organism, dependent on its environment and imparting little to no peril to its environs, that "the creation of building projects at all scales...operate as cleanly, beautifully and efficiently as nature's architecture."  Ultimately LBC seeks a future in which buildings and built environments create the energy they need within their architecture, requiring no further resources once they are built, becoming less and less dependent on resources outside themselves beyond fossil-based transportation and energy use.

 

The LBC has 7 performance areas, deemed petals, that are subdivided into a total of twenty imperatives that denote the performance standards for sustainable environmental design, be it a building, a neighborhood, a park, etc., as they see it.  Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity and Beauty are the petals of their living organism.  Several of the LBC petals hint at sustainability as a timeless act, that buildings might be thought of as sustainable entities with life spans that should be designed for.  While the premise of the LBC is admirable and arguably a more transformative notion of the sustainable built environment than LEED, it still leaves the question of Longevity on tenuous terms.   

 

Perhaps the LBC should include another petal, Longevity, concerned with how long a building or built environment is intended to remain standing and useable.  This last--or at least, additional petal--would be based on the building type, the community it serves (it's cultural history and economic history as it relates to maintaining, or ennobling, structures), its resources (readily available local and/or regional materials and methods of construction, as well as, economic).  Longevity should be thought of as a petal, not a subset of one or another, but a main underlying principle or performance area equal to the other petals, not buried within them.  This petal is not concerned with the reuse of existing structures or environments (which are provided for in various imperatives within the other petals).  This petal states emphatically that just like the other petals, Longevity matters, in terms of the materials, the energy, the people used to build it.  Longevity matters in the sense of community, the cultural, the society that the building or built environment embodies.

 

Nay, perhaps Longevity matters more than the other petals; it supports them, it is their raison d'etre.  Perhaps it is the Stem of that Flower.

Architecture's Behavioral Determinism

A few days ago, Jocelyn Robinson asked "Does Architecture have the power to mold our Behavior?" (http://lnkd.in/bZbsfDb) in response to an article on the blogsite The Conversation by Jan Golembiewski, a researcher in Environmental Determinants of Mental Health at University of Sydney and affiliated by Medical Architecture (http://www.medical-architecture.com/), a firm specialising in architectural psychology. 

 

Below is my response: 

 

To answer the original question, yes, Architecture does have the Power to Mold our Behavior, good or bad, intended or not.  The built environment, within and without buildings, does and can inform our decisions about where we live, work, play, congregate, shop, etc..  Architects utilize form, light, materials, textures, scale, etc. to mold space into places that they hope are conducive to the activities they are intended to embrace or showcase. 

 

In designing the built environment, the general public must remember that not every single individual user can be accounted for in any one design, as we all bring our own perspectives and experiences with us, and our mood on a particular day or in a particular segment of our lives does greatly influence our perception of a place.  The article cited in the link above ("Building a better world: can architecture shape behaviour?" by  Jan Golembiewski) does hint at this overarching factor of influence that is outside the sphere of the architect, the engineer, the planner, the developer or the politician.  The architect is well equipped--through education, training and practice--to better situate a design solution, but he/she should not be held accountable for a  particular behavioral outcome since behavior is the result of many factors beside the physical environment (psychological and physical health, etc.). 

 

One could argue that in order to better position architecture as a beneficial undertaking, architects should do more to quantify the positive affects of their design efforts.  Post occupancy evaluations are an old, but underutilized tool, that should be revisited and redesigned as an integrated philosophy of making.  Architects must also lose the moniker of the lone artist and reach out to other disciplines--anthropology, psychology, etc.--to facilitate new ways of researching and documenting the benefits of an intentionally designed environment.  By intentionally designed environments, I mean those designed by and with architects, landscape architects, planners, engineers, and users; not those that are developer-driven, where ROI is the overarching principle.

Designing Excellence, or, is it Good Enough?

The following is in response to the article “Is Designing Healthcare for “Good Enough”… Good Enough?” by Martin Valins, a Principal and Architect at Stantec (http://stantecinc.blogspot.com/2013/11/is-designing-healthcare-for-good-enough.html#!)

 

No matter the particular program or building use, the Team working together on a particular project must define "excellence" and "good enough" and then decide whether "good enough" is good enough.  In either case, one cannot overlook the impact of the built environment on the health and well-being of people.  If "good enough" is merely a question of coming in under budget, one must question the validity of the built environment, particularly healthcare, whether inpatient or outpatient, in its role to attain measurable and beneficial outcomes as they relate to the patient. 

 

A definition of primary care (from the American Academy of Family Physicians, http://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/primary-care.html ):  “…care provided by physicians specifically trained for and skilled in comprehensive first contact and continuing care for persons with any undiagnosed sign, symptom, or health concern (the "undifferentiated" patient) not limited by problem origin (biological, behavioral, or social), organ system, or diagnosis.  Primary care includes health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings (e.g., office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, etc.).”

 

Primary care, any health care service, should not be rendered in bare, gray, dimly lit, uninviting environs.  Primary Care is first contact, it is trying to get people to sign on to the concept that it is beneficial to start and maintain a healthy relationship with health care professionals, to prevent bad health outcomes and catch early stages of disease, etc.  As such, the premise that Primary Care cannot “afford” excellence is weak.  A well-designed, psychologically, socially, culturally and humanely relevant Primary Care/Outpatient facility must be deemed worthy of Excellence and its designers (architects, engineers, owners, Authorities Having Jurisdiction) and implementers (contractors) must be held to that.  If the facilities that are built to house these functions are warm, inviting, relevant, the communities that they serve will use them and return to them.  One has to remember that Primary Care facilities are not Emergency Facilities, and--depending on their particular location or healthcare insurance plan--none of their clients have to go to any particular one out of necessity. 

 

As Mr. Valins points out in citing Dr. Ruth Cammock’s Primary Care Buildings, “(who is both an architect and physician)…reminded us that the most important space in a patient’s healthcare journey is the point where he or she first begins it – likely just a room in which patients and their doctors or nurses speak one-to-one about a condition and preliminary assessments and prognosis. For many, that journey will end there, maybe with a prescription for medication, or maybe a follow-up visit. The buildings required to house such basic activities are more about ‘high touch’ than ‘high tech.’ “  This does not mean that we should put any less thought into the Excellence of that particular touch point, as we should not lessen the importance of the first touch point as one enters the site, nor the touch points as one approaches the front door, enters, checks in, utilizes services such as phlebotomy lab, checks out, etc.

 

Lastly, Excellence does not necessarily = Expensive, nor does it mean that every space has to be “high-tech.” With mobile technologies and cloud-based solutions, implementation of high-tech patient care is becoming less problematic as it relates to a Client’s capital outlay and operating budget.  Excellence in Healthcare Design most certainly should be the most Excellent environmental experience that we can devise for the most beneficial outcome of the patients they seek to serve, working with our Clients and their budgets.

Defining Community

Whether we live within a city, suburb or rural area,

we all live in

communities within communities. 

 

 

We build and define our communities

based on how far we are willing to walk, ride our bike or drive our car

to buy food, work, play, learn and socialize. 

 

 

Architecture, at its best, understands this concept,

embraces it out of necessity.

For without it,

architecture is only a building with

four walls,

a floor,

a roof. 

 

 

With the story of communities,

their people,

their souls,

their stories,

their values,

their customs,

architecture is alive.

The Value of Design Practice

In their graduate seminar this Spring entitled “Exploring New Value in Design Practice"see note 1 at Yale's School of Architecture, Phil Bernstein and Brian Kenet, both Professors of Practice--one at Yale the other at Harvard's Graduate School of Design (GSD), respectively--are taking on a topic that I have been debating for YEARS with former and current colleagues and associates in the architecture field:  Why does the practice of architecture--not the architecture itself, but the people and processes needed to conceptualize and formulate a realistic notion of a design concept--not seem to garner the same respect and value that the planners, developers and constructors of the built environment do?  And, why does it not command the same profit margin? 

In a process notorious for accepting the lowest bidder, the architect, and his/her consultants, are often the ones squeezed down to minimal, if any profit, particularly prevalent in the current economic climate we have been stuck in for the past 4-5 years.  Although it is quite a problem now with many design professionals squeezed to bare bone economics barely hanging on to their firms, cutting benefits and salaries along the way, it is not a problem borne of the current economic crisis. 

As a young design professional (nearly 20 years ago!), fresh out of the academic realm where we did not speak much about the economic realities of a practice, I was not overly curious about the process of marketing a project, securing the win and negotiating a contract.  It was only after a few years of gaining experience in a firm that I began to question the process and how the architect went about securing a contract with a client and getting an entire team of designers and engineers to come together on an agreed upon sum to actually perform the work and fulfill the contract for servicing the client.

For the most part, the architect/designer, being in the driver's seat, either requests a fee from their consultants or offers them a sum that they are willing to pay them to work for/with them.  The latter has become more prevalent in the past decade.  It is a tough job to be part of these negotiations, even harder to be the one to have to send it back and discuss 'sharpening their pencils."  All the while the Architect is also doing the same with the Client, negotiating a fee for the architect's firm that must include all consultants.  Often--and, this occurs in both private- and publicly-funded projects, large and small--this can take weeks and months before the final contract is signed with hours of meetings, phone calls and emails between lawyers, consultants and the architect. 

Another fact--which is not often discussed or acknowledged within a firm itself--is that all the while that the contract is being negotiated, the client often requests that the design team begin work on the project.  Of course, the designers have the right to say no until the contract is signed, but the reality is is that they need to keep the client happy and wanting to enlist their services again in the future, so they often begin the work without a contract signed.  There is great risk associated with moving forward without a signed contract, to be sure, and any representative from a firm's professional liability insurance company will talk at great lengths about minimizing risk.see note 2  This act, though not the lone culprit, undermines the profession's need to be seen and valued as a bonafide profession not as a spurious one that can be cast aside at whim. 

 

In order to redefine and strenghthen the value of the design professions, particularly that of architecture (a profession that requires years of education, internship, licensure and continuing education), the architects practicing today must rise up and say no when appropriate, not for the mere act of saying no but because the profession deserves respect.  That being said, the architecture profession can only earn that respect when it shows that it respects itself and the people and processes inherent in it.  Although this is a tougher decision to make and follow through on today due to the economic malaise and heightened competition for work between firms, architects must do better, for the future of their profession and those it employs.

Notes:

1.  Go here for Professor Bernstein's blog: Exploring New Value in Design Practice: 0, 1, 2)

2.  See article on professional liability insurance (http://archrecord.construction.com/practice/startUps/0712insurance-1.asp). From the article, note: "...not all clients pay their fees; it is common for an architect who brings a suit to recover fees to be subject to a counterclaim that the architect was negligent."

architects are people, too

Today I read a hearty, straightforward compact how-to guide on working with architects. 

What is the most important 'take away' is that the sentiments embrace the reality of working in any service-oriented profession / career field.  Be polite, be truthful, all the while being graceful.  In our modern world, we could all embrace a bit more straightforwardness, without grit.

Here's to better relationships!

http://thinkarchitect.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/how-to-treat-your-architect/?goback=%2Egde_2337575_member_193125463

 

yes: revolutionize 'doing' architecture

What is intriguing about this is the fact that individuals can show and back up their support for a meaningful architectural intervention within their own communities by simply clicking 'back this project'...Power to the People.   

http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/57663/the-revolution-has-begun-how-kickstarter-is-changing-architecture/

defining 'Architecture'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design

Industrial design is the use of a combination of applied art and applied science to improve the aesthetics, ergonomics, and usability of a product, but it may also be used to improve the product's marketability and production. The role of an industrial designer is to create and execute design solutions for problems of form, usability, physical ergonomics, marketing, brand development, and sales.^[

The International Ergonomics Association has adopted this technical definition: ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.

That is not the most efficient definition of what ergonomics is. Let us keep things simple. Ergonomics is the science of making things comfy. It also makes things efficient. And when you think about it, comfy just another way of making things efficient. However for simplicity, ergonomics makes things comfortable and efficient.

(source: http://ergonomics.about.com/od/ergonomicbasics/a/ergo101.htm )

 

…kinda sounds like architecture, wouldn’t you say?

(to paraphrase)

Architecture combines applied art and applied science to improve the aesthetics, ergonomics, and usability human-centered uses of a product built work (city, building, landscape), but it may also be used to improve the product's marketability and production. The role of an architect is to create and execute design solutions for problems of form, usability, physical ergonomics (and, if the shoe fits, marketing, brand development, and sales).

So, one may infer:  If it is useful and comfy (it fits in its context – social, economic, physcial, cultural -- and the users use it day in and out and find new uses for it), then it is good…

firmitatis utilitatis venustatis

Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians...

the problematic of a truly collaborative environment, or, is it?

Relevance

09.15.2011

Lately, I have heard a lot about             relevance

What is that, exactly?

bearing; meaning

significance

pertaining to a particular subject matter

Why do writers write?  Because they believe that they have something to say that has bearing on a certain subject matter and that it should be read and be discussed/given due consideration.  (hopefully, in an open, honest forum)

Of great significance in our profession, the question of relevance has lurked about discussions within and without the profession of architecture as long as it has been noted as a profession.  Not only is Architecture * questioned, so too is the Architect* (as the Creator personified).

IS Architecture relevant?

IS the Architect relevant?

When is Architecture relevant?

Is it when a project wins an award judged by its peers?  At the local level?  At the regional or state level?  At the national level?  Or, internationally?  Is it relevant if it is recognized by other building professions, but not an architectural entity?

Is it when the Owner states that they are pleased; that the finished product is everything thing they wanted, and more?

Is it when the Users exclaim that there needs to be more spaces/places like these for us to use, enjoy, embrace, own?

Is it when the project is linked inextricably to some historical event?

Is it when the project has become a tourist attraction?  For architects?  Or for the general Public?

Is it enough for the Architect to just say it is so?

* Architecture and architect with a capital “A” denotes the significance often given within the profession itself for its works.  It is a conscious effort to put forth relevance of both on the built environment, whether or not it truly exists.

09.16.2011

My spouse is unemployed; has been for a while now. 

Why?

Because some One, some Body determined that he was no longer relevant.  Once that determination was made, he was systematically phased out of responsibilities on the various projects he was working on and then let go when the timing was right for the firm.

How does someone determine someone else’s relevance?

Is relevance only something that someone else can define for you, or is it something that you need to stay on top of diligently, managing every aspect of your “brand”, no matter how long you may have been practicing your trade, profession, art?  Do we get complacent in our positions, thinking that an experience level of 10-year, 15-year, 20-year, even 25-year is enough to remain relevant?  In my spouse’s particular case, he had been successful in obtaining continuing education in the technical aspects of architecture, even obtaining LEED accreditation.  But, somewhere along the journey with his former firm, which he truly enjoyed working for, the firm changed its ideal about the type of employee it wanted to maintain and grow its own brand of architecture among its markets; and, rather than working with its existing top experienced employees, also often the highest paid, they sabotaged their self-confidence and just told them to go, wrapping it up with a small, monetary compensation and some encouraging words that the “layoff” was not a reflection of their abilities, just something that had to be done to keep the firm in the “black.”  Yes, a business is a business, and no one would certainly want to see an entire firm put out of work, but that is a whole other “ball of wax” that deserves discussion at another time.

What is of import here is the determination of relevance:  what it is, who does and who should define it, how recognizable it is.