Links/Blogs

Visit links, read articles and blogs from some of the architecture community's brightest stars.

Architecture Blogs & News

My Architectural Philosophy 1.2

Assuming we can effectively model and control Cost, how do we make Architecture, in the highest sense of the word?

One key concept to understand, apply and promote to staff, clients and contractors is: 'Design for the Long Term." Hopefully, this will develop a truer sense of "Building Costs" and therefore, lead to the understanding that a small increase in initial capital investment can reap substantial dividends, some of which are financial, over a 20, 50 or 100 year life cycle.

Building financing in our society has forced building owners and budgeters to think and plan in 5 to 7 year financing cycles. A strong financier may stretch this to 10, 15 or possibly 20 years. This financing model is not conducive, or supportive, of quality, long-term construction.

In the U.S., buildings we consider as historically significant, or examples of good architecture, are often 100+ years, maybe even 200 years old. World-wide the Architecture is 500 to 2,000 years old, with many classic examples pre-dating even that age.

(In contrast to sustainable, long-term construction, I guess we could build a 'sustainable" 5 or 7-year building that is completely recyclable, or de-composable. This would fit right in with our 'disposable-minded' society. I will explore this scenario in more detail later.)

The state of U.S. Architecture typically falls somewhere between a Tent ("disposable") and a Cathedral ("built for the centuries"). Unfortunately, most is closer to the Tent Model.

One positive result of the current 'Green Movement' is that it is pushing architects and clients to think, design and seriously consider the long-term cost and impact of our buildings.

By 'long term,' most green building models still only consider a 20 year life-cycle.
It would be interesting to do a Life-Cycle Cost Analysis on a 500 year old cathedral, or a 2,000 year old pyramid. (If anyone knows of such an analysis out there on the web, please forward the link to me.)
20 years is only one-quarter of our current human life-expectancy! Shouldn't our buildings last at least as long as we do?

I also believe the integration of Beauty, or creation of Beautiful Architecture, can contribute to the long-term life cycle of a building. A beautiful building is more likely to be preserved, loved and cared for by the public than a basic, non-descript building. e.g. witness the U.S. fascination with our "historic" (100 to 150 year old) building stock. The public will tend to breath new life into 'good architecture.'

(Digression about Beauty & Ornamentation in Architecture)
Not all Beauty has to be expensive. Form, proper proportion and composition do not cost anything 'extra.' Applied ornamentation and high-end finishes can be expensive and have a tendency to be more ostentatious than truly beautiful. Ornamentation can contribute to the building's beauty as long as it is integral to and consistent with the overall design (e.g. Gothic Cathedrals, Wright's and Sullivan's work). Ornamentation that has its foundation and inspiration in God's Creation, and is a direct out-growth of the building design has the highest potential to be perceived as beautiful.

Absolute Beauty is defined as the embodiment, or reflection of, Absolute, A Priori, Principals as Created by God. Realizing we live in a mortal world where God's perfection has been compromised, all that is around us is a blend of perfection and deformity resulting from our fallen human nature. In our mortal state, I believe we actually find temporal beauty in both the Absolute and the Cursed. We seem to be particularly fascinated, and captivated when the two are superimposed, or closely juxtaposed together. (e.g. the weather stains and patina formed on a classic piece of architecture or sculpture.) We are as uncomfortable with Absolute Perfection as we are with Gross Deformity.

My Architectural Philosophy 1.1

In our current capitalistic society, and truth-be-told during most of mankind's building history, architecture is limited by our resources, or the Budget in current language.

The formula for building scope and cost commonly held by most building professionals and the masses is: Quantity (Q1) x Quality (Q2) = Cost (C). These are the three core components of current building sciences, and key decision makers can only control two components while the third component will be the result of the decisions made regarding those two components. For example:

Q1 x Q2 = C This formula best represents the Design-Bid-Build project delivery method. Quality & Quantity are rigorously studied, determined and designed, and the resulting cost is what it is as a result of those decisions.

Q1 x C = Q2 This formula best represents the Design-Build project delivery method. Building Size and Cost are the driving factors, while Quality of building components is a variable result of those decisions. For example, if you want a 100,000 SF building for $25 per SF, it may have to be a tent.

Q2 x C = Q1 This formula best represents those high design and boutique specialty projects where Quality and Cost are 'no object.' However, since there is usually some degree of resource limitation, the Quantity, or project size, may be reduced to achieve the "Quality at any Cost" standard.

This is my understanding of the culmination of our advanced, efficient and enlightened building society in the 21st century. Notice what is missing: Beauty, Satisfaction and Fulfillment - unless these are obtusely included in Quality (Q2), which in my experience they rarely are. Even if they are included in Q2, we can only have as much of it as our budget (C) and program (Q1) will allow! How discouraging. I think this partially explains the marginal design quality and beauty in today's mainstream architecture.

Unfortunately, I have been just as guilty of holding to, practicing and even promoting this core philosophy. The end result has generally been disappointing to me, my clients and society.

To move beyond the Common Model, we must understand and be able to wield the 'All-Controlling-Cost.' Some of the problems that make controlling construction so difficult are:

Construction costs fluctuate, sometimes wildly, with market conditions and volatility, many times over very short timeframes.
The construction process and material delivery is grossly inefficient and wastefull.
The fast-pace and profit-driven focus of design delivery drives architects to use Historical Cost Methods using 'similar' project types. Unique design elements become very difficult to estimate accurately. Due to lack of understanding, effort and/or research, even construction estimators will 'throw numbers' at unique design elements, rather than estimate accurately.
Most construction cost analysis focuses on first costs only, instead of 10, 15, 20, or more years.
If using 'Square Foot Cost Estimating,' adjustments can be made for design density, volume, finish, systems, etc. (the old Q1 x Q2 = C). However, it is still a S.W.A.G.
(Note: At least these are some of the main issues I have observed in the Mid-South. However, in my very limited experience with building in other parts of the country, I suspect it is fairly universal. I would be interested in insights on this issue from architects in other U.S. markets.)

One big question I do not have the answer for, nor have I seen addressed predominately in our profession: Can the Construction Process effectively be made more efficient through Drawings, Specifications, Education...? I intend to discuss this issue at length with some of my Contractor buddies.

Assuming we can effectively model and control Cost - How do we then make 'Architecture,' in the highest sense of the word?....(to be addressed in my next blog)...

My Architectural Philosophy 1.0

Now that I have been practicing architecture for 20 years, what is my Architectural Philosophy?

How does that philosophy affect and influence my service to my clients?

How does that philosophy and its application provide self-fulfillment, and more importantl...

Back to Building Costs

My simplified philosophy on building costs is that 'Things Cost What They Cost' and generally, 'You Get What You Pay For.'* The exceptions to these general rules-of-thumb are:

Fraud
Negligence
Market & Brand Hype
Unbalan...

Read more »

Back to Building Costs

My simplified philosophy on building costs is that 'Things Cost What They Cost' and generally, 'You Get What You Pay For.'* The exceptions to these general rules-of-thumb are:

Fraud
Negligence
Market & Brand Hype
Unbalanced Supply & Demand
Inexperience (i.e. "I ain't never done that before") {Time=>$}
Complexity {Time=>$}
"Bleeding-Edge" Technology (as opposed to "Cutting-Edge" Technology)
Human Factors such as Distrust, Dislike, Unfairness {Time=>$}
Untimely & Excessive Changes {Time=>$}
Uncertainty & Confusion Due to Poor Documents {Time=>$}

{Time=>$}: Several of these 'Poor Economy' issues are a result of, or at least heavily influenced by, the adage that 'Time Is Money.' In most of these examples, it is actually the 'Fear That Time Will Be Money.'

Construction Costs should be evaluated from the perspective, or paradigm, of 'Good Economics,' not lowest first cost, or necessarily even most efficient. 'Good Economics' are defined as the absolute best value of money spent and applies these costs over, not only the building's life cycle, but also over the owner's interests, users functions, community quality, overall economy, society at large, our natural and built environments. A tall order to be sure!

Although daunting, and somewhat overwhelming, these factors should be considered in the overall economics of all architecture. We are grossly short-sighted when we only evaluate first cost (i.e. Low Bid) and even the 20-year life cycle. Unfortunately our society, governments and most of our building delivery methods are setup and entrenched in this short-sighed mind-set. {Our current (October 2008) financial crisis, in my opinion, is a result of similar societal short-sightedness and rampant, systemic greed facilitated by equally short-sighted governmental policies and mandates.}

So, how do we evaluate building cost based on holistic, long-term economics?

This Holistic Building Cost Evaluation should be:

An analytical system / multi-layered matrix
Broad, deep & efficient
Objective
Inclusive of subjective issues, but under a method for judgement that could survive broad peer review.

Factors to consider in the Holistic Building Cost Evaluation:

First Cost (Construction & Design)
First Time (Construction & Design)
LEED* Factors (Point System) {LEED is actually a very good method for evaluating holistic building economics.}
20, 50, 100-year life-cycle costs
Occupant Well Being*
Community Impact* (Societal & Physical)
Environmental Impact*

Any 100+ year old building that is efficiently and effectively in use is an example of an 'Economically Built Building.' Conversely, any building that can be used and then completely dismantled and absorbed (i.e. No Waste) into society is, likewise, an "Economical Building.'

Introduction

As a middle-aged blogger newbie, I am trying to understand this concept that was not even a legitimate word when I was in school. I'm also not really sure what the value, or purpose, of exposing my thoughts and ideas to the world may be...but here it goes:

Since I was in the School of Ar...

Introduction

Since I was in the School of Architecture at Mississippi State University back in the mid-1980's, I have often wondered: "What is my place in this immensley broad and deep field of study?" And now that I am a 'Professional Architect,' I feel that I am still trying answer that question. Maybe blogging will offer some degree of clarity, or at least another tangible method of exploration. Hopefully, it will also provide some connection to like-minded individuals, as well as those that are operating from a contrasting paradigm.

I am no 'starchitect,' and only consider myself an adquate designer, but blessed with some degree of creative ability. I do admire those architects that have achieved stardom, although I do take philosophical issue with some of their works for reasons that should be self-evident as I continue. My heroes of the profession are Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan and Santiago Calatrava, all of whom seem to embody timeless principals in the heart and core of their works, yet in completely creative and meaningful ways. I also do not consider myself as part of the 'intellectual elite,' but rather I attempt to stay grounded in Common Sense as well as in good Theory.

Unlike my heroes, I often feel trapped by the 'mob,' as Mr. Wright called society at large. By trapped, I mean that I fall into the routine of producing buildings for clients to meet their basic functional, and marginal aesthetic desires, in an effort to have a viable business and provide for my family. I truly believe that, like many of my peers , I have the same kernel of talent and ability that could grow to produce that great architecture of my heroes; however, I have not had the single-minded drive of purpose that these, and others, had. While I acknowledge opportunity has some impact on producing great architecture, truly great architecture can be created from obsure commissions, as evidenced by the history of these individuals. (e.g. "The Fountainhead," by Ann Rand - deja vu.)

At this juncture, I feel I must stop and explore/explain my definition of what 'great architecture' is, and is not. It is not the manifestation and monumentalization of a great designer's great ability and ego. (Unfortunately, this held true for Mr. Wright more than I care to admit.) Instead, 'great architecture' should, in my opinion:

be true to timeless a priori principals of proportions and balance, or it should intentionally and blatantly violate them.
be true to materials; whether natural or unnatural.
be defined and enhanced by formal and material interaction with natural and artificial light.
be properly sited, or intentionally mis-sited.
masterfully meet, or exceed, the functional Program; yet still be timeless enough to be fully adaptable to functions yet in the future.
contribute to, and even enhance, the community and society in which it is placed.
be a good steward of the costs allocated and resources used for its construction.
when designed for a specific Purpose, it should capture and clearly convey that Purpose to the Common Man.
inspire thought, awe or emotion in those that experience it.

This is admittedly a personalized, twenty-first century re-hash of Vitruvius, Corbusier, Wright and others. However, I do think we need to stop and reconsider what defines 'great architecture' in our high-tech world. Are the basic principals the same as they were 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago? Or, has technology somehow altered our value system? The technology we now use to create architecture not only opens an infinite number of doors to design and construction possibilities, it also affords a myriad of ways to 'screw things up' or distract us from genuine greatness. Just because we can technologically achieve something, does that mean we should achieve it, and if we do actually accomplish the 'previously impossible', does that necessarily make it 'great?'

But I digress. Is architecture a career? a profession? a passion? a job? a hobby? a religion? a ....? I'm afraid the answer may be "yes." I would be interested to learn how other architects' view their architectural endevour at their station in life.