Kube Open House

Street View of KUBE House in Georgetown

I went to an open house a number of months ago for a new project by KUBE architecture. From the street, this Georgetown home, designed by Janet Bloomberg, seems to be yet another Georgian town house. When you open the door you find yourself transported to a modern space more at home in Los Angeles or manhattan than the 18th century streets of DC’s 2nd ward, yet the starck transition works. It sets you up for a series of well lit rooms that play with the modern trope of compression and release but manage to avoid the pitfall of hyper-glossy surfaces that are too often found in contemporary spaces. Instead Janet has chosen a muted palet of textural elements which alternate between the sheen of brushed metal, the warmth of rich wood veneers and the pleasantly imperfect nature of unglazed ceramics.

Front Window Bay of KUBE House in Georgetown

The house is anchored by a floating stair whose verticality is emphasized by a curtain of steel cables running from the ground floor to the second story.  While an interesting architectural element, the steel cables at times present a bit of a challenge in visual and physical comfort.  When I visited the house was very crowded, the steel cables made the narrow kitchen passage feel even tighter.   While a wall would have made the situation even worse, an open void may have made this space not nearly as tight.  Then again, in a day to day mode, this would never be an issue.

Kitchen and Stair of KUBE House in Georgetown

Light plays a big part of this house, Light is brought in through a skylight in the center of the house. Part of it is captured in the bathrooms through the use of a glass baseboard along the bathroom walls to allow subtle lighting in while still maintaining privacy. It should be noted that privacy is also an essential element for the master bathroom whose door is hidden in plain sight amongst the wall panels of the Master Bedroom. Light then filters through the stair cables and into the kitchen and is supplemented by a slim window along the south kitchen wall. The kitchen itself was an interesting mix of two wood tones, stainless steel counter-tops with an integral sink and a bright orange frosted a transparent polymer island top. Finally light filters through a glass panel under the stairs into the large finished basement with a bathroom. This space is nicely lit and could easily be adapted as an extra bedroom or as a guest suite.

Rear Operable Wall of KUBE House in Georgetown

The rear wall was a NanaWall like system; when opened it complete disappeared allowing the small rear yard to flow into the house as one living space. Combine this with the mostly concrete back yard and you have a space that easily could be an extension of the living room. The cast concrete backyard has a poetic 3 square feet of grass, which is just large enough to be noticeable, but small enough to be ironic. If there is anywhere where I felt things could be improved it would have to be the rear yard; while I get the statement that is being presented here, I would have loved to see a tree or two worked into the backyard, it felt like a missed opportunity.

To BIM or not to BIM that is the question

Today I came across an e-mail informing me that Autodesk had released the new 2011 versions of their CAD and BIM software, AutoCAD and Revit. If you are familiar with these products feel free to skip the following two paragraphs for my opinion about BIM and CAD, if not, read on.

For those of you who are not familiar with the world of architectural software it is broken into two different conceptual models: Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM). CAD software has been around since the 1980’s and is a digital analog to hand drafting. In it, users work in either a 2-D or 3-D environment defined by points and lines (or vectors). CAD software is a time saver in that instead of each drawing being an independent sheet that needs to be redrawn whenever changes are made, the drawing lives virtually within the software and changes can be made rapidly without effecting other areas of the work. In addition drawing elements can be quickly scaled larger or smaller to create details or other drawings. Since CAD is a replication of the drawing process it is used by many different industries. For three dimensional work it can be clunky and hard to understand; to remedy this companies like Autodesk created add-on programs that extend the vector based system using pre-made and user definable blocks and proprietary elements indexed by a database to automate the three dimensional process. This system has its uses, but cannot compete with true BIM software when it comes to three dimensional coordination.

BIM is almost as old as CAD, but has only recently started to become a mainstream tool.  If CAD software is the digital analog of drafting, BIM software is the digital analog to model making. BIM uses a database of elements to define space: instead of drawing two lines to represent a wall, or using a wall tool to create a series of lines and surface to represent a wall, in a BIM system a user models a wall by selecting an element from a database and defining its values, like height, length, material components, etc. The element that appears in the program looks very similar to what you would find in a CAD program, but instead of being defined by its fixed points and vectors, it is instead being built from a database element. This allows individual elements in the building to be categorized and identified much quicker and allows for a higher level of integration. Instead of just defining a wall as X feet high, you can define it as running from floor 1 to ceiling 1, this way if the distance between floor 1 and ceiling 1 changes the wall changes without the user having to make any other corrections. This system can take lot of time and effort in the beginning to create a model of a project, because every major element needs to be present. Once the skeleton is in place, though it saves an incredible amount of time, because elements can be augmented at will, and, at least in theory, everything will adjust. This system can also be automated to produce warnings when elements intersect in ways that are not desired, which can be a godsend when coordinating multiple construction disciplines (architecture, mechanical engineering, plumbing, structural, etc.).

Since I recently started my own firm, I have been looking to buy software to automate our design process. In previous jobs I’ve used AutoCAD Architecture and in school I used Revit, so I am comfortable working in either CAD or BIM. The real issue for me is a cost benefit analysis. CAD software can be as inexpensive as the new version of Autodesk’s 2-D only non-enhanced software,AutoCAD LT, priced currently $900, or can ballon up to Autodesk’s expensive, but powerful, 2-D and 3-D software with architecture specific modeling tools, AutoCAD Architecture 2011, priced at $4995. On the other hand, Autodesk’s Revit Architecture 2011, one of many discipline specific varieties of BIM software, is priced at $5,495. To me as a small practitioner, the cost of either AutoCAD Architecture or Autodesk Revit is prohibitive when I have the option of software at 1/5 the price. On the other hand, if I was going to buy higher end professional software that can automate my tasks I cannot see a reason to by AutoCAD Architecture, for $600 more I could start working in what is sure to be the new method of construction design. In addition, the hardware requirements for AutoCAD Architecture or Revit far outstrips any machione I currently have, and would require an additional $2000 purchase. Now, of course, if I was an existing office the choice would be a lot more difficult, if my files and previous projects were all AutoCAD based, and my staff was all CAD trained, BIM might seem like an unreasonable hurdle to overcome. Thinking about this makes me wary of buying AutoCAD LT, because even though it is a reasonably priced entry level piece of software, if that is what I start my business with when I am ready to move to a higher end piece of software I may find myself trapped by my future staff’s ability and my past projects.

So, for now, I will content myself with hand drafting until I find either a profitable contract to offset the infrastructure purchase of a high end machine and revit or find myself wasting too much time revising a project and break down and buy the lower end software.

2008 – Top 24 Architecture Design Firms in the Washington DC area

Since moving to the DC area it has been easy to feel lost in the neoclassical and federalist architecture that pervades the area. Many of the firms here still work within those vernaculars. Those who differ seem to err on the side of bland post modern boxes. I decided that there had to be firms in the area who had a more avant-garde/metropolitan sense in their design aesthetic and so I searched through the websites of over 400 firms listed in the Washington, DC / Northern Virginia (NOVA) / Maryland region.

I only looked at architecture firms whose only office is in the DC metro area, and selected those that I felt had a more contemporary/avant-garde design sensibility. I feel that I have achieved my goal of proving that there are small to medium firms in the DC metroplex that focus on creating buildings/spaces that further the architectural dialogue and do not just rehash old building styles for the sake of building.

The following firms are in no particular order.

amestudio
Geier Brown Renfrow Architects
Robert M Gurnery, FAIA

a

David Jameson Architect, Inc
Randall Mars Architects
Fox Architects
French Studios
Suzane Reatig Architecture
envision
Schick Goldstein Architects
Bonstra Haresign Architects
Forma Design
Sorg and Associates
Christian Zapatka Architect LLC
CORE
Grupo 7
Cunningham Quill
Adamstein & Demetriou Architects
McInturff Architects
Division1 Architects
Shinberg.Levinas
WAHL Architects, LLC
S27 Architecture
KUBE Architecture PC

While, in my opinion, the firms below are not in the same caliber of design as the previous list, they are worthy of Honorable Mention.

I welcome your opinions, please register and create a user name to leave your comments.

If you liked this article, please digg it.

Lord, all firms can’t be corporate!

The DC area is filled with architecture firms, but I have been hard pressed to find many that are real players in the current avant-garde architecture climate. Most of the big name firms that have local offices focus on government work and not theoretical/concept work.

To wit, I am compiling a list of the best firms in the DC metroplex for publication as a future post to hopefully dispel the belief that good design cannot be found in DC.

Does anyone have any suggestions of architecture firms that go beyond the norm? I am specifically looking at firms that have an exemplary design identity.

Article: Jean Nouvel Wins Architecture’s Top Prize

L'Institute de Monde Arab in Paris

According to the Washington Post (click here for the article) Jean Nouvel has been awarded the Pritzker Prize. A more fully illustrated blog post can be found at Gizmodo (click here for the post).

This intrigues me because Jean Nouvel is one of the contemporary architects whose buildings were used quite often as precedent studies in school. He joins other distinguished contemporary precedent study architects like Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, and Herzog and de Mueron.

I have only seen one of his buildings in person, the institute of the Arab World in Paris. I was only able to see it from the outside, but that is where most of the design concept lies. The skin, which is patterned off of an Islamic geometric progression and screening methods, is made of a geometric/fractal-like pattern of operable irises that adjust to limit the solar gain. When I visited the building, it appeared to have some issues with the operation of these irises. Some of them were stuck in the open and others in the closed position.

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).