A Place to Build Relationships

The favorite moment in the life of a building for most architects is that time between when the building is done and when the client moves in and starts to use the building. It is the moment when their work is un-marred by the messiness of people actually using the building. Reason #37 why I dance to a different drum than most architects, is that I prefer grand openings and dedication ceremonies to the pristine emptiness of pre-occupancy.

I love making buildings. I love walking through a building being framed. I love that new-building smell (which, ironically, is being eliminated by minimizing VOC’s). But as much as I love architecture, I believe it is not an end in itself. Rather the value of well-designed buildings and space, the importance of what I do as an architect is its impact on the  quality of human interaction that takes place in the building.

Winston Churchill said it best, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.” I believe the quality of gathering whether for learning, worship, or caregiving is profoundly influenced by the quality of the building in which these activities are housed. Sure, we can learn, worship and live in any setting, but well-designed environments can exponentially improve our effectiveness.

Our own office at 61 S. Main Street in Harrisonburg is an interesting case study. Built in 1902, the space in which we work is little changed from original construction. It’s too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter, the floors sag and there is only one bathroom for three floors of people. Yet we enjoy people stopping by our office on the 2^nd floor and chatting as they climb stairs to their own offices above. Because we’re on Main Street, people stop in while running other errands. Clients and contractors like our accessibility. We’d be more comfortable and perhaps more efficient in a newer, more commodious building, but we would sacrifice a sense of community. 

Too often architects inflict building that look good but are hostile to healthy human interaction. Good design, if it is to have any value at all must deliver spaces that improve the quality of human interaction.  Our goal at Blue Ridge Architects is to make buildings that dramatically enhance the experience of people coming together and building relationships.

Big Idea Meets the Devil in the Details

While on vacation I had the opportunity to visit the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Boston, designed by Diller, Scofidio + Renfro and completed in 2006, ICA is a key part of Boston's Fan Pier re-development efforts www.icaboston.org/about/thenewica/design-announcement/ Our time there got me thinking about how important it is for the "Big Idea" to matched by "Attention to Detail."

It is the building's "Big Idea" that first grabs your attention as you approach.  Four stories in the air, the main gallery cantilevers 60 feet out over the harbor.  A monumental exterior stair leading to the studio theater, rises three stories beneath the cantilever.  Inside an all glass elevator as big as an executive office rises to the main gallery with spectacular views both inside and out.  The stadium-style media labs frame a view of the water which one tour guide described as "the world's coolest screen-saver."  Along the east side of the fourth floor is the Founders' Gallery with riveting views of Boston Harbor.  These and many other large-scale gestures create civic building worthy of its prominent location and the accolades it has received from architectural critics: www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/arts/design/08ica.html

But after spending some time there and getting over my country-boy-in-the-big-city wonder, I began to see details that didn't match the expectations set by the "Big Idea". Little things -- like sloppy drywall finishing, cracks in concrete floors, paint drippings and materials that scream "value-engineering" no matter how creatively they are used -- all add up to a building that struggles to live up to its first impression.  A review from a year after it opened, confirmed my suspicions: 

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/080225boston.asp

On one hand it's exciting to see an organization and a city like Boston try something bold and innovative.  But cost and quality control too often mean doing it the way it's always been done.  When audacious ideas meet bureaucracy, too often the result is a building like the ICA -- best viewed from afar, not up close.

A (Hokie) Architect's Take on the UVA Debacle

The recent furor over the forced resignation of Theresa Sullivan at UVA (http://wapo.st/MhuQh6) is a clear example of how decision-making defines an organization. As an alumni of another of the Commonwealth's flagship universities -- Virginia Tech, (where the current, long-serving president is an architect!) -- I've been particularly interested to see how two methods of leadership have clashed.

Decision-making,whether in companies, boards of directors, pastoral teams, city councils, tends to follow one of two models: Command or consensus.

In the command, or executive, model, a small number of persons, with appropriate authority and responsibility decide what needs to be done and then works to bring the rest of the organization along. This method is, understandably, most often found in for-profit, bottom-line companies.

The other model involves engaging a broader group in which authority and responsibility are collectively held. Consensus-based decisions involve the group working together to first define the needed action and then systematically reviewing options, considering everyone's opinion and ultimately making a decision that the entire group supports.

Both models of decision-making are valid and both have their place. My observation after working for 23 years with both executives and boards is that many boards, like the UVA Board of Visitors, are opting for a top-down, command-style decision-making, while many businesses are discovering the power of consensus-based decision-making. Applying the wrong method in the wrong situation creates debacles like what is happening at UVA.

Any change, whether short or long term, involves risk. How an organization decides what change to make shapes the risk involved. Executive-style decisions are faster and can be more efficient which usually translate in saving money and the ability to seize an opportunity. Consensus-building trades the advantage of speed for the stability of shared risk and enduring support.

Believe it or not, architects, particularly Blue Ridge Architects, are good at help you shape the right decision-making process. Give us a call or email us and let us explain how we can help you manage risk through good decision-making.

Management vs. Strategic Vision

Some more thoughts on master-planning.  Before you groan and roll your eyes, hear me out.  There is probably more suspicion about architects trying sell master-planning services than anything else we do. In a tough economy, where dollars are tight and organizations struggle to keep overhead and administrative costs low, long-range planning (we prefer this moniker to "master-planning" ) may not seem like a priority.

Campus Plan for Eastern Mennonite School, Harrisonburg, VA

Long-range campus and facility planning have value both as a near-term management tool and as a longer term strategic tool.  We are finding that the ambivalence many executive directors, vice-presidents and board members feel about long-range planning comes from not understanding the distinction between these roles.

We believe that managing growth is a near-term function -- five year out, max.  The planning horizon for most schools, clinics, churches is only a couple of years in the future.  Demands for services, demographic and economic trends, regulatory impacts become very speculative beyond 3 to 5 years.  Therefore, a 5-year plan can and should be responsive to known, quantifiable circumstances and thus serve as tool for managing your campus and facility in that time frame.  This is also why long range planning needs to be updated at least every five years.

Beyond five years, organizational decisions have to be guided by a strategic vision.  This means a board, a president, a pastor has to say, "This where I/we believe we are called to go".  A long-term campus or facility plan can serve as a vital tool to communicate, further and inform that vision.  Critical point:  if you and/or your organization can't articulate a strategic vision then we as architects shouldn't try to do a master plan for you.  If you are ambivalent about where you see your college, church or non-profit is going, then we as architects are tempted to substitute our vision for your lack of one.  That isn't healthy for us or you.

Organizations need both good management and strategic vision. The key to getting maximum value from the money you pay for master-planning services is understanding the difference. Blue Ridge Architects can help you plan facilities and campuses in a manner that is both practical and compelling.

Why (sometimes) I'm Embarrassed to an Architect

Howard Roark, the architect/ protagonist in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, famously says, “I have clients to practice architecture.  I don’t practice architecture to have clients.” The implication is that for many architects, having clients is a means to their own ends. We invest many years in training and apprenticeship.  We take a grueling series of exams.  Stir in utopian tendencies and strong imaginations and you have a profession that is very sure that it knows best when it comes to designing and constructing buildings. 

The characterization of architects as aloof and arrogant is, unfortunately, well-earned.  A congruous proclivity is perpetually invoke how erudite we are. We like to show people how smart we are. Too often we approach a client with the attitude of, “You’re doing it all wrong.  Here, let me show you how you should do it.” Rather than be helpful, we hector.

Don’t get me wrong, you want your architect to be knowledgeable, experienced and talented.  But an architect’s true value to you is their ability to lend those collective resources to your mission -- to take on your agenda as if it’s their own. The right architect for you is the one you believe “gets you,” who serves up that knowledge experience and talent in a way that is consistent with the culture of your organization.

If someone “proves” that they know more than you, you might respect them, but not trust them. I want Blue Ridge Architects to be respected, but more importantly I want us to be group of people you can trust.

What to Know Before You Build

If you run a busy organization, the thought of launching a building project might seem overwhelming.  Maybe you’ve heard stories about design and construction projects where costs run amok, schedules drag out and the building doesn’t operate correctly when you move in. Cost, complexity, risk and busyness are all reasons for putting off the hassle of tackling a building project

Many people believe they have to know what they need before they talk to an architect. In reality there are only four things you need to know before you talk to an architect:

1. What are the symptoms? -- Doctors want you describe symptoms, not tell them what operation or prescription you think you need.  Architects are the same way.  Tell us what isn't working; what activities don’t have space; whose office is in the former janitor’s closet; what building systems don’t work anymore.  
2. What are your priorities? – How are the current “symptoms” derailing your strategic objectives?  What are the mission-critical tasks that are hindered by your facilities?  Our diagnosis begins with making sure we understand your mission and strategic plan.
3. How much can you spend? – Typical operating budgets can’t carry the cost of building.  Having a clear picture of what you can borrow or raise in a capital campaign is crucial. If you don’t know, we can help with rules-of-thumb and our knowledge of the lending market.
4. How quickly do you need the solution? – The more time you have the more options you can consider.  Acute situations can determine what type of project delivery you choose.  Schedule can shape discussions about renovation vs. building new.

Typically there is more than one building solution for any given set of symptoms.  The right solution will be the one that best addresses your priorities given the time and money you have to invest.

Blue Ridge Architects would love to hear about your aches and pains.  Our prescription pad is ready.

Proud to Provide Design Solutions

Architect Audrey Matlock, speaking at a conference on innovation, is quoted, “Today in the U. S. it’s no longer ‘can-do,’…In other countries, they talk about design ideas.  Here we have ‘design solutions.’”[1] At Blue Ridge Architects we talk a lot about “design solutions” so I felt a bit defensive when I read this. We believe a focus on design solutions, rather than innovation for innovation’s sake is good thing

Our firm values call for buildings to be functional and affordable.  While there may be clients who have the luxury of creating iconic buildings at the expense functionality and affordability, the majority expect architects to be careful stewards of their resources.  It is our attention to function and cost that earns us the right to suggest new forms, materials and approaches to building.

Another of our core values is that buildings should be progressive:

 The desire to see and do things in a new way is a by-product of the hope we all need to live and thrive.  Even as we find formal and symbolic ways to build links to the past, we anticipate the future with better technology and spaces that welcome our changing patterns of living.

Practical design solutions are not the enemy of innovation or aesthetically pleasing buildings.  Rather it is the ability to do both that makes architects a vital part of the building process.

---

[1] Architectural Record, December 2011