Concerning the Professional | selophane.blog

Learning from the bottom up.

Poetpainter has a great post entitled: Why I Am Not A Manager. That’s where I found the above image.

This image really speaks to me. I think it illustrates the greatest problem in architecture practice. The hierarchy of offices are set up mostly as managers and “managees”. There really is no place for collaboration or any challenging of the status quo. Sure offices say they value the opinions of the interns and non-managers, but the whole hierarchy leads itself so that their ideas have to be greatly filtered before they reach anyone who can make any decisions. Now this is partly good, many interns don’t know their proverbial ass from their elbow when they first join an office, but I fear that a lot of stale architecture is made because the firms designing the buildings are top-down. The principals work with a lead designer who has a vision and then everyone else works to craft that vision. Studio Managers take direction from the designer, and in turn direct project architects, who craft red lines and cartoon sets so that the interns can generate drawings. All those layers are like the children’s game of telephone, in every step the designer’s ideas get diluted by management, and in the end even if the design was steller the final product is usually mediocre at best.

Now to envision a more leadership driven office would take a whole different outlook on architectural practice. Designers would be embedded in studio groups and taking the role of the leader. They may generate the basic program and idea, but a system of valued employees should be able to flush that idea out without having so much dictatorial direction. Granted there will be employees who know less than others about the mechanics of architecture, and they would be helped by their teammates and leader to reach the goal. Trial and error, especially with a safety net, leads to better productivity than examples of the correct solution without any knowledge of the wrong ones. This type of structure could still allow for an upper ring of leaders/principals, but it would mean a more cohesive project team instead of the fractionalized teams so often seen in today’s offices.

Breaking the Autodesk Hegemony

In the modern architect’s office there are no more drafting boards; if they exist, they serve as extensions of the desktop and become semi-permanent homes for check sets, red lines, specs and trace paper sketches. Instead, we work in CADD – Computer Aided Design and Drafting – usually short for Autodesk’s AutoCAD or Architectural Desktop/AutoCAD Architecture software. This software (in practice) is little more than hand-drafting+; it is rare to find a firm using the full three dimensional capabilities of the software. In addition, Autodesk’s CAD is PC only. There exist a handful of other pieces of drafting software for the PC – specifically Bently’s Microstation comes to mind, but truly Autodesk is the most popular girl at the dance. Mac users on the other hand have a rough and varied landscape of numerous semi and fully professional software solutions. Since purchasing my first Mac when Leopard was released (a Mac Mini – my last apple before this was a IIc), I have been trying as many of these programs as i can find. All in all i can not seem to find one that balances the speed of use of AutoCAD and its keyboard commands and a good integration with the mac interface. Because of this I feel trapped in the chaotic world of XP and Vista and, even thought it would be in my office’s best interest and i know solutions must exist out there, I cannot in good conscience advise anyone who does full time CADD work to run a Mac.

As BIM (Building Information Modeling) becomes more pervasive, requested and sought after as a selling feature of an office, the fundamental functioning of computers in the design and documentation of buildings will be changing. At the moment Autodesk’s Revit is the real player on the scene and, like the rest of Autodesk’s software, it is PC only. I would really like to see a software developer take advantage of the better architecture of the Mac system and the upcoming Grand Central technology which will be a part of of OSX 10.6 – Snow Leopard. Better access to multi-core processing could help give BIM the speed and processing push it would need to become the de facto method of building construction, especially if the rendering times are speeded up by better hardware. For my current office, the savings from not having to outsource our renderings could easily pay for better hardware and software training. In addition, a logical user intuitive interface in-line with the mac development standards would help win over many of the “old dogs” in the profession who refuse to learn a new way of working.

With the specter of Windows XP’s death on the none too distant horizon and a general fear and loathing of Vista the climate is ripe for a industry wide transition to apple. As far as “artistic” professions go, architecture is the only one I can think of which is PC based and that comes form using an engineering based software. With the switch to building models instead of vector data a more graphic friendly solution seems around the corner. Now if only there was an easy network enterprise integration for the mac os like there is for windows business and I could easily see offices like mine making the switch. If this does exist – and I’m sure it does in one form or another – I have no knowledge of it.

Better Red than … an intern-architect?

The Washington Post ran an article by Philip Kennicott in this Sunday’s Style & Arts section about the massive building boom and its affect on the culture of architecture in china. The article goes into depth about how the western concept of permanency and a national architectural identity is in direct contrast to the Chinese (and very eastern) concept of impermanence and intellectual assimilation. This article paints a very interesting picture of how the “Star-chitect” designed buildings fit into the context of the awakening Beijing and compares them to the temporary workers housing.

What intrigued me about this article is how it describes architectural education and the path of current and recent architecture students. The author describes that many students and recent graduates have portfolio’s filled with built projects, whereas here it may be years before a young architect (such as myself) can see any of their work built. This is all too true of an observation, and just like our falling math and language test scores this is an indication of our inability to keep up with world markets. It is common here to reserve “design” work for those who are already licensed and who have a thorough understanding of the components of a building, in doing so, we end up with stale stagnant fabric architecture. The designers here are building buildings which were ideologically relevant 20 years ago; yet those in the office with on average the best understanding of the current design theories are kept drafting and picking up red lines until they pass their exams and leave such childish things as independent thought behind or they leave the profession for something more stimulating.

One of the things that struck the biggest chord with me in this article was the last paragraph. Philip Kennicott predicts this of outcome for most of the hordes of newly educated Chinese architects:

They will emerge from architecture schools and go straight into the state-affiliated design institutes that do the heavy lifting of architecture. They will work for years in a system that resembles medical internship in this country — small pay for huge amounts of work, with the credit taken by their superiors. They will design factories and apartment complexes and shopping centers, with little more creative input than one has pressing the button on a photocopying machine. They will further a profound transformation of their country, with virtually no influence on its direction.

At this I am forced to ask, how does this differ from my experience, and the experience of many other young minds here in the US? We work long hours (hardly any intern architects I know are paid hourly like the AIA encourages, instead we are all salaried), our salaries do not keep up with other professional careers of similar educational requirements and social status, and we have little to no input (and many will never have any input) in the architectural and design dialogue going on in our own country. It is only the exceptional few (by virtue of intelligence, place of education, connections and birth) who get to play a part of this great American architectural dialogue.

And really, how American is American Architecture? Kenicott argues that Chinese Architecture is a nihilistic non-architecture, an assimilation of world thought reproduced through the designs of masters and the hands of untrained workers in a nature of semi permanence and constant change. It is my opinion that the new American Architecture is one and the same. Look at an issue of Architecture Record, the magazine of the AIA, how many projects are built outside of the US and how many by foreign architects? These projects, when they are built, the workforce is composed of untrained itinerant labor, who not only cannot rivet straight, but also cannot install rudimentary wall flashing and end damns. And as for impermanence, look at most of the non-Environmentally friendly buildings built in the last 20 years in our country and you will see structures designed to deteriorate and be replaced within 10-15 years. For over 50 years of the last century, the world was preoccupied with the divide between communism and capitalism. Somehow in the last 20 years US and THEM have essentially become the same.

In defense of Architects

This past weekend the Washington Post ran an article in their magazine describing one man’s trauma renovating his kitchen. It has some very negative things to say about the architect, the contractor, and the building process as a whole. It is obvious that there is blame to go around. Yes, the architect made poor design decisions and the contractor had his errors as well; but speaking as a member of the profession, I feel that the greatest problem here is with the public conception of what is the job of an architect.

It is very clear what a contractor does. They interpret the architect/designer’s plans (or owner’s description) into a real built environment. Thats it. They may hire out subcontractors, manage time, and coordinate, but their number one job is to build.

An architect’s number one job is to plan and oversee, not, as commonly believed, to design or create. Yes, part of the planning process is the creation of the original design with the input of the owner, but the real job of an architect (or at least a construction/production architect) in the US today is to make sure that end result conforms to code, performs within reasonable expectations (doesn’t leak, has adequate HVAC ,has the proper plumbing hookups, is structurally sound, etc – the actual design of which may be outsourced to engineers depending on the size of the project), and is to the satisfaction of the owner. It is not to come in under budget or ahead of schedule, or even on time. These are commendable goals that every architect should strive for, but they should not supersede the needs of a building that just WORKS. This management roll is why an architect is/should be involved from the day the project begins site selection until the owner has the keys in their hand.

All of this sounds fine, until, like the tinkering of a a mad chemist, you combine a contractor and an architect. The ensuing relationship may (albeit very rarely) be one of silky smooth communication and efficient construction, or (not as rarely but still not usually) an explosive clash of interests and egos the likes of which the senate chamber has never seen. Usually, the result is a sometimes friendly, sometimes adversarial relationship where the contractor spends a lot of time undoing and redoing work. This is mostly due to a breakdown in communication and some key issues that are overlooked 99% of the time. Without going into the in depths mechanics of construction administration, it will suffice to say that a contractor must submit everything to the architect for approval before it is built, while it is being built, and after it has been built. This process usually has holes due to time or budget demands and a desire on the part of the contractor to increase their profit. Contractors want to have as little time spent waiting for approval as possible and owners tend not to want to pay architects to continually visit the job site and oversee the work of contractors. Because of this, details like window flashing (waterproofing at exterior surface penetrations), movement joints, insulation, and anything else that gets hidden tend to get constructed improperly. There are many reasons for this (lack of skill in the installers/staff, errors in the documents, a desire to cut corners, etc) but as far as the owner is concerned they all look the same: “perfectly good work” being torn out because some “fussy” architect has to have everything his way. This isn’t to say that there are some cases where the architect is being overly cautious/anal retentive, but in the sad state of modern practice, it is usually the architect trying to prevent themselves from being the subject of a lawsuit when your new skylight leaks all over your original mid-century modern rug and ruins it.

Something else that is easily ignored is the power of the purse. Owners should never pay contractors without pay authorizations going through the architect, and these should be based on percent of work completed, not an arbitrary timetable. This allows the owner to accurately pay for work rendered; this way incase there is a cessation of work – for natural or legal reasons – the owner has not overpaid the contractor. This goes double for the end of a job, the owner needs to hold off on the final pay authorization until the architect has ran a final punch-list (a checklist of issue that need addressing) and can vouch that the project is completed.

All of this goes back to a post I wrote at the very start of this blogging experiment – courses in the bureaucracy and business of home repair/renovation for homeowners just like the mortgage seminars some home buyers must take. Owners do not need to be infinitely involved in the day to day issues of construction, this is one of the reasons to hire an architect or a construction manager, but they should know be comfortable knowing that an architect may seem to be wasting their time but they are really protecting their interests. Such seminars could, in a single half hour session, help to clear up these misconceptions and also help home owners to realize the value added by hiring an architect in the first place.

The author closes his article stating that before you renovate, make sure you know more about construction than your architect or contractor. This is wrong, owners do not need to know how things work, what they do need to do is to be prepared for their 1 month renovation to stretch on for a year. It is essential that an owner understand that no time estimate is definitive and that in the end it is better to wait for a new kitchen that functions than to have the project delivered on time and be of sub-par construction. The old adage IS right: good things come to those who wait.

Article: Shoot for the stars, land in the gutter

Santiago Calatrava's Original Concept for the Path Station

[Image via Curbed.com]

So it looks like another one of the major Lower Manhattan re-building efforts is facing budget problems. Santiago Calatrava’s path station entrance may be looking at a major value engineering effort in so much that it may be another architect’s rein-visioning of the station, according to an post on Curbed.com. This is bad news for the neighborhood, first the Freedom Tower has yet to start construction (lets not even talk about the deisgn process) then the Fulton Street Transit Hub is looking at ways to work their budget, now this. All of this makes me wonder, has the New York City development community been a victim of the most American of financial flaws – spending beyond their means? Or is this a case of bureaucratic inaction catching up with rising construction costs and inflation? Either way, I think that this is a specter of what is to happening across the board with American projects, I see it in my own office as well. Clients either commission Coach tastes on a Canal Street Budget, or they get massive sticker shock when they see their cost estimate and throw a ton of money into value engineering exercises which end up sucking part of the cost-value of the project away.

So where do we go from here? One of two places, clients need to learn what they can afford and settle for that- which is not likely to happen, or architects need to learn how to better stretch their budgets and keep an eye on the bottom line. The latter seems more reasonable to me. In the current practice of architecture I have yet to know anyone who does their own cost estimating, most firms hire out. Much like catering, its hard to really know where your money’s going and to plan for a budget while designing when someone else does the math. The current architectural work force has to go out of their way (and find a willing management) to learn about project financial and how to plan accordingly. This is a weak point in our profession and can lead to shattered dreams, broken promises, and lots of runny, runny yolk on your face. Much like the port authority has now.

[2017 UPDATE] Calatrava’s station has been built and opened to the public, but the critical reception to it fell along the lines I described previously. This New York Times Article from March 2016 gives an update on the long history of the project and the eventual completed space. The takeaway is that, like the much maligned second avenue subway or the new silver line for the Washington, DC Metro, it seems public architecture and infrastructure is too often slow to fruition and costs too much for the final product.

A portrait of the Architect as an Egotist.

The Gehry Disney Concert hall in LA - A building plagued with problems, but if you ask the Architect no one is pissed at him.

Frank Lloyd Wright thought that he was the messiah of architecture and that his work would change the face of the earth. Ayn Rand immortalized this part of his personality in The Fountainhead.

Buckminster Fuller believed that if we changed our bodies to his Dymaxion Rhythym and lived in Dymaxion Houses we could produce more and prosper. His geodesic domes never really caught on, but one did land a prominent place in the most prosperous and happiest place on earth.

Le Corbusier imagined himself to be a new Vitruvius reinventing the discourse of architecture and the human habitation environment. By the end of his century (the 20th) society had rejected his massive housing blocks as dehumanizing and there was a massive resurgence in classical pastiche.

Now Frank Gehry has envisioned himself as the new Pope, when working ex-catia he is a man that can do no wrong. In essence, no one can hate him even when they appear to be mad at him. According to an article in the New York Magazine, Mr Gehry refuses to accept that the recent protests about his new Atlantic Yards development have anything to do with him. Instead they are directed towards the developer. This rubber-and-glue (think childhood playground taunts) mentality seems to apply to much of his past work as well.

It really makes you think, what is it about having the ability to mold and form space with your own bare hands (or mouse and screen) that makes an Architect believe he is semi-divine. And why hasn’t this plague of ego affected women architects?

The measure of a manager

So I’ve been reading a bunch of management and business books lately at the urging of my boss. Specifically they’ve been Good to Great by Jim Collins, Mindset by Carol Dweck and Results by Gary Nielson. All of these have a similar idea in them:

Don’t be afraid to look in the mirror and see what is wrong with your company/person. Once you identify what your non-successes are, then you can decide to either focus on them, or let it go. It is only through continued analysis and correction will you be able to excel and succeed.

Taking this to heart I’ve been analyzing the failures of all the firms I’ve worked for and I feel that they are all the same. The symptoms are different; but in the end, it comes down to employment policies.

The common symptoms are a problem with diligence in regards to projects. Important things like making sure opening measurements are to standard masonry sizes and skew angles are whole numbers seem to get lost between design and construction drawings. This problem is like an onion, the ultimate cause is only revealed by peeling away symptom by symptom until we find the core issue at hand. The top layer cause for this is lack of team continuity. Project teams ideally should consist of one or two core people who may ride out the whole project from schematic design through construction with team members occasionally being brought on mid project to help in a pinch. From my experience this is not how it usually ends up. Instead the teams shuffle from project to project; this can be due to delays and mismanagement of man hours and deadlines, or it can be due to staff turnover. This latter option seems to me to be the most common.

Staff turnover in itself is not the root problem, it is just another symptom. Staff may leave for many reasons: personality conflicts, personal/familial/domestic issues, professional growth, or management conflicts. In the first few years of architecture internship it is not uncommon to be a professional migrant intern, jumping from job to job year by year to accrue the greatest possible raises. As I discussed in my previous post, raises for new interns are usually cost of living adjustments (COLA) – between 3 and 5% whereas changing jobs can sometimes yield a 30% raise. This makes long term commitments to any employer a financial mistake. This I fear, is the root cause of mediocrity amongst architecture firms. Yet, if employers gave out yearly raises and took into account the analysis of sites like salary.com and gave raises such that interns stayed relatively close to the bell curve of pay this would entice many interns to stay in one place. In some cases it is less than the COLA raises that are afforded to the upper management.
While this is costly for the employer, it is a cost that will soon be realized in quality of work and lack of non-productive hours. With every employee that leaves a new one must be hired and trained, the cost of non-productive time alone is worth the money. In addition, continuity of employees will contribute to continuity of project teams. If you consider that a project can take as little as 2 years or as many as 10 to go from pre-design to construction the amount of turnover on a 5 year project assuming that an intern changes jobs every two years is drastically limiting. By the time the project is in the ground, none of the staff working on it will have ever worked on the design development drawings let alone schematic design.

I want to believe that most firms have not analyzed the information like this, and that is why they operate like they do. Yet, i fear that that is a fallacy. It is my belief that most firms think that it is in their best interest to keep operating budget low and continually keep a cycle of less experienced staff. This way the perceived bottom line is lower, and the ratio of Architects to interns can be maintained without having to lay people off (which in of itself is expensive).