GLUCK+, a company based in New York City, has been pioneering the project delivery method of Architect Led Design Build (ALDB) for some years now. I first heard of them at a lecture last Spring and was very intrigued by their design process and methodology. As a part of my discussion of the architect’s role in the construction process I would like to do a case study on this company to investigate the process of ALDB and what role the architect plays in that process, as it’s leader.

Profile in Brief

Who: Gluck+ Architecture, Construction and Development

What: Project Types:

- Residential

- Non-Profit

- Institutional- Schools, Boys and Girls Centers

- Commercial

- Housing

- Modular Pre-fab

When:

- Established in 1972 as Peter Gluck and Associates, Added Construction Services in 1992 and Development Services in 1997 to form Gluck +

Where: Location:

- NYC, NY

In looking through their website, I found that they are not only practicing this design methodology, they are trying to promote it by explaining the advantages to clients and others. Here, I would like to discuss some of the key details of this process and how it differs from traditional design-build.

What is Architect-Led-Design Build?

“Architect Led Design Build is single-source responsibility for the design, construction and commissioning of buildings. Typically, an owner hires an architect to draw a building and a contractor to oversee the subcontractors that will build the building. This separation is adverse for the quality and cost of building. Project stakeholders lose out.

Architect Led Design Build is an agile process in which the same people are responsible for an entire building project. Our architects are also construction managers, meaning feedback between method of construction and design is fluid and responsive. Priorities between design, cost and schedule are clear. Creativity is responsible.”

— Gluck+

Gluck + claims that over the last 40 or so years an impenetrable wall has grown between the design and construction teams (aka the architect and their consultants and the contractor and their subs). They assert that this break between architect and builder occurred in the 1900s when architects professionalized themselves. This is when they say that architects became more focused on theory and concepts rather than building and making, and they practiced in studios rather than shops. They say that this schism is “legal, cultural, and certainly adversarial”. There is a fear of litigation, liability and risk. To the architect’s credit, there has been an increasing financial risk in the practice of construction for many years now, partly because of tighter regulations to make the practice safer. As a result, the architect more tightly defined his/her scope of work to mitigate that risk. Today, they are entirely removed from the construction process, since owners typically don’t see the purpose in paying an architect extra money to be on the site at all times.

Although there is obvious need for communication across this invisible divide, because of a fear of liability, there is an incredible lack of collaboration and critical decision making. This leads to clashes because of conflicting ideas, and the owner is placed in the role of mediator, without the knowledge to make judgements (because that’s why they hired other entities in the first place!). With Architect-Led-Design-Build the owner has a single entity with whom they must communicate, and one entity is responsible for the project. The architect then is the mediator between the architectural consultants and subcontractors and is also responsible for overseeing the construction process. Finally, they state, “This integrated process, allows for the communication, knowledge sharing and cultural integration necessary to produce great buildings. For it is the design of the project that leads to its success: functionally, artistically, and ultimately responsibly to its community.” I think this perfectly sums up the reason an owner would want to utilize this variation on traditional design-build.

What is the Role of the Architect in ALDB?

In general, the architect is much more hands-on. The architect* becomes the superintendent and construction manager on the job site. So, the same person who created the designs is now leading the construction process with feedback throughout the entire process from all of the various trades.

In Gluck+ they do not have two separate arms to their company (as in traditional design-build) but they are one whole. The same people who are designing are also building. During design the architect is expected to think about cost and time implications of what they are drawing and adapt the design to respond to these. Thus, cost and schedule that were given to them from the owner are incorporated into the project from the beginning. This means that estimating and scheduling can be done simultaneously with design which shortens the entire process of design-build.

For this process to work the architect must have extensive knowledge of construction means and methods, because they are controlling both. Gluck+ does this by producing sequential construction manuals for building a building adapted for each trade and consistent with what that trade will see on site. This is because they recognize that building is a function of time, which makes scheduling and coordination an important part of design. In some cases these logistical considerations even inform design. One thing that is especially important to their process is that they receive constant feedback from subcontractors during design which turns construction issues into design opportunities. (traditionally subcontractors are not consulted during design). This is where change orders could be incorporated and since it is the same entity performing and designing the work the owner may not have to approve change orders, as long as it wasn’t detrimental to the budget. Possibly there could be a provision in the estimate or the contract that allows for an expected level of change orders. However, as a consequence of this process, the more work Gluck+ does the better and more familiar they get with the way in which their building team builds thus resulting in fewer change orders in each subsequent job, in theory.

Gluck + does something else in this regard that I found even more unique. They acknowledge the order of trades work. They create what they call “trade sets” which are “sequenced, ordered, and overlaid”. Traditionally design documents come from the architect in one big roll. It is then up to the contractor to determine which pieces and parts of the building are parts of the scope of each subcontractor. The architect is encouraged not to delve into these worlds (this philosophy starts in their schooling since they aren’t even taught how to do these things) for fear of liability. There is an inherent risk in this process because of the possibility that some work could be left out accidentally, which usually falls on the contractor, which is why construction is the most expensive, because it has the most risk. In this way Gluck+ is able to reduce costs because there is no need for contingencies for that scenario when the scopes of work are laid out in the drawing sets themselves and thus the estimates from subcontractors are comparable “apples to apples”. They say that a construction team, made up of up to 30 trades is like a symphony, and that the building they are working on is their only performance…so they better get it right. “Clearer drawings, fewer contingencies, better quality” seems to be their motto, and it’s quite clearly working for them.

In short in the process of ALDB, the architect is expected to take full, holistic responsibility for every aspect of a building throughout that building’s life from the construction site itself to the final project.

What are some of the major advantages for the owner?

As I already mentioned, one of the major advantages for the owner is that they have one entity with whom they communicate. This is an essential difference from traditional project delivery methods because it means the owner has a knowledgeable intermediary between themselves and the people who are actually completing the work. This ensures that work is done on time, to budget, and to the quality specified. With ALDB, Gluck+ claims that they are able to bring “high design” to organizations, especially nonprofits, that typically think they can’t afford an architect.

Finally, one of the most important take-aways I got from studying this company and while still thinking about the issue of transparency that was originally raised in my reading of Lepatner’s “Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets”. Because of the architect’s knowledge of both design and construction they are able to provide thoughtful options to clients which enables the clients to make much more informed decisions. In addition, Gluck+ provides the client with access to all the information from bids from subcontractors which are condensed according to unit cost in order to let the client understand the bidding process and be part of decision making on the subcontractor level. This allows them to cut costs or increase quality where they see fit.

In general, it seems to me that architect-led-design-build raises quality and lowers cost, which tends to be the owner’s biggest concerns.

This company is the best example of the advantages of ALDB (at least in theory). However, they still leave the question of what the disadvantages may be, besides the taking on of risk, which is what I hope to continue to look into. Most importantly, they do not describe (for obvious reasons) the way in which they, as an architecture firm, are able to be competitive in the construction market. One of my newest conclusions is that the architect being involved as the leader is only beneficial if the architect has the knowledge, and if the construction team and design team are one singular entity, rather than two arms. As I established in a previous post, the current architectural education (in my opinion) is lacking this complete knowledge of building that is necessary for them to be a more active participant in the construction process. In the future I hope to discuss ways in which the architect’s education could be adapted to better suit this process.

*meaning an entire architectural firm, collectively referred to as “the architect”

Sources: https://gluckplus.com/process/