Site Visit #3: Rough-Ins

The final stage of construction that I got to observe on this site was rough-in work being completed on the building closest to the road. This building had been started first and the superintendent told me that on the days when it was too cold to do other work, the various trades had begun rough in work in this building.

He told me that in more than one case the architect on the project had made mistakes in the drawings and that the various subcontractors had made changes in the field after approval by him. I witnessed him discuss many small changes with the different trades, and there didn’t seem to be any sort of an official process for making certain types of changes. That made me wonder if there is a provision in contracts for certain small changes to be made without approval by the architect. I witnessed them making many snap decisions- to rip things out, to add things, to change things. When they did this they talked about “bad design” a lot. For example, according to the drawings, there was ductwork that was supposed to cross a door opening and they had to change the pipe completely. The super told me that the architect comes on site once per month to review progress and inspectors for both the city and the lending agency comes on site 2 weeks after the architect each month. He also told me that the project manager only comes on site once per month when the architect comes.

He informed me that there was an oversight in the estimate that ended up costing about $80,000 for electrical work. Overall, this is an 8 million dollar job for low income housing.

Something I learned more about through this site visit was the difference between RFI’s (Requests for Information) and PCO’s (Potential Change Orders). The superintendent for this job did the RFI’s to the architect himself, but he sent change orders through the Project Manager at the home office so that there would be a more official record of changes and associated costs. It seemed that this was required by the contract because he referenced legal reasons.

Because this job was to be LEED certified, there were certain guidelines that had to be followed. Sometimes these requirements seemed excessive. LEED guidelines control the appliances, windows, insulation, etc. that can be used. Something that the superintendent mentioned to me that he seemed to think was excessive was that they had to caulk around all the electrical outlets.

In regards to scheduling the different subcontractors, the superintendent was in charge of telling them when to arrive on site. He gave me an example of one of the small parts of the logic of hi schedule in regards to rough ins. Because the HVAC systems have the biggest pieces and parts he brings them in first. 1 week after that he starts the plumber and 4 days after the plumber starts he has the electrician come in and begin his work. this way they are able to follow each other through the project, with a little bit of lag.  

Site Visit #1: Cowgill Parking Expansion

This was a VERY small site, but its close proximity to the path I take daily to classes really allowed me to observe the progression of many aspects of a larger construction project on a very understandable scale. It made for an good case study about how some of the stages of construction we talk about in class work out in the real world. This post is a photo gallery with comments on each photo. Each photo was taken by myself or Chiravi Patel.

Site Visit #4: Wood Framing

When I arrived on site wood framing was being done by a crew of four men, working continuously throughout the day. They were working on the back side of the property, in the 16 unit building. Once the wall is built on the ground, three of them raise it up to be essentially level, then one other guy goes around with a nail gun attaching diagonal shoring at this point they go in with a level and make adjustments. They put the Tyvek on while they are building the wall on the floor to avoid having to get up on a ladder on the outside. This makes it a safer process and thus reduces liability and possibly cost.

While walking through the building I noticed that the shoring seemed both excessive and haphazard, which made me wonder if it was done correctly.

Another interesting aspect of the framing was that there was lots of extra blocking within the frame and metal straps attaching everything (sometimes even in excess). I was told that this was required because it is a LEED job. The metal straps are called hurricane straps and prevent against destruction due to high winds. I wondered if this was truly necessary in the area it was built, which doesnt tend to recieve excessively high winds. 

One final thing I noticed was that even though the building was still exposed to the elements- some drywall had already been put in place. I was told this is weatherproof drywall that has to be put in place to ensure things like the floor joists were in their correct position. They used this sparingly, only where necessary.  

Site Visit #5: Slab-On-Grade

When I arrived on site there were two stages of concrete construction that I was able to observe. There were two buildings that had only had their slabs poured at this point so i was able to see thise along with the various protrusions for plubming and other utilities. The other stage I was able to see was the pouring of a concrete pad/footer for where the dumpster was to be.

The floor slab for whole building is done in one pour using concrete block as permanent formwork and temporary wood in some places, such as door openings. The same day concrete is poured, the control joints are cut and the next day sealant is sprayed. Some cracking was still observed, however the super said it wouldn’t matter. The porch slabs were poured separately. Plumbing is Integral with the slab.

Something I found especially interesting about thw concrete work was that there was no rebar or welded wire fabric used in the slabs. The concrete has reinforcing fibers made of glass instead. (See detailed photo) the dumpster slab that I watched being poured DID have WWF.

Under the slabs are footers which, in some cases, are up to 20 feet wide. 

In pouring the slab and footer, especially on the largest, 16- unit building they encountered issues in digging through VERY rocky soil. This was not expected and ended up costing an additional 100,000. This was either a problem with bad estimating or poor soil analysis.

Site Visit #6: The Tree.Church

Stage of Construction: Completed

Contact: Dave Dryden, DC Dryden LLC, Project Manager 

Type of Construction: Worship and Classroom Spaces Converted from an old Big Box Retail Store

Estimated at: $7 million

I had a special connection to the site of my first site visit. As a child, my dad was the landlord of the property and during a long period between owners I was, almost daily, riding my bike inside through the big open spaces, exploring the behind the scenes of the mezzanine and secret rooms and finding old stuff that had been left behind by people while my dad was doing maintenance work. 

Seeing the site today was shocking to say the least. Although not an active construction site (the keys were handed over a couple months ago) I was able to walk through the entire project with the project manager who oversaw the whole production from start to finish. He also gave me an entire set of architectural and civil drawings for the project. 

There were a few unique things about the construction process of the building that I would like to point out:

Cassions, in this case called helicals, and shaped like screws had to be placed in many parts of the building to reinforce the structure for the new use because of poor soil bearing capacity. The most suprising area for me was that 61 were required under the main stage in the sanctuary, each about 14” in diameter each! 

Also to reinforce the existing structure they had to move columns and shore up existing concrete cassions to receive the extra load.

There were no fire stop walls in the entire porject. So, in response to that there is excessive firproofing EVERYWHERE.

An Audio Visual Consultant was not included in the GC’s scope of work but everything else, including finishes was performed by subcontractors of the GC, for which Dave Dryden was a consultant and performed the position of Project Manager and Superintendent.

This was a Design-Build project. There was no bidding process, but rather the contract was awarded to a friend of the owner.

I thought it was imporeesive that, because so much of the existing slab had to be ripped up to do various plumbing and structural work, they brough machinery into the building through temporary garage-style doors installed in the front facade.   

Dave and I spoke alot about the way in which he scheduled the building process. He mentally split the building into two halves- along grid line G. He then further seperated that into 6 areas, proceeding clockwise around the building except for the sanctuary which was the final space, area 6.  ((DIAGRAM))

Additionally, there were concepts and terms that I learned from this job that I hadn’t hear of before:

-      Attic Stock (specified by architect)- required in the contract, an extra supply of various building and finish materials (ex. Flooring tiles) so that owner can perform maintinenece. Specified as a percentage of total needs for the job of each material.

-      RFI’s = request for information for architect and how those relate to PCOs (potential change orders)

-      Acclimating stock and materials and allowing time for that in the schedule- this will prevent warping, settling too much

-      Occupancy Permit- can be granted by the city once all parts of the project related to life safety are complete (i.e. floors don’t necessarily have to be down yet but fire suppression systems have to be in place) allows the owner to start moving in.

Site Visit #7: Crossroads Church

Stage of Construction: Excavation

Contact: Dave Dryden, DC Dryden LLC, Project Manager 

Type of Construction: Worship and Classroom Spaces, New Construction, Both Public and Private Work

Weather: Very Cold, Windy and Wet.

On the day I arrived, there were some construction guys hanging around who weren’t able to do any work that day because it was too wet to dig. They started the project on November 1st, which is pretty late in the year to begin digging because the ground is wet and freezes easily.

The project includes a church, parking space, A retention pond for storm runoff, a public road and bridge that is being privately performed and then handed over to the city and a private road for access to the church. There is also a parcel of land that is for sale that is to be improved as part of the project.

This project was bid on in the traditional design-bid-build method. Thompson Excavation was doing the excavation work and on site they had quite a bit of equipment. Mr. Dryden told me that they own most of their own equipment. I spoke briefly to the foreman in charge of excavation and he seemed discouraged that they hadn’t been able to get much work done lately because the mud was sticking to everything and they were spinning their wheels.

On site I observed lots of types of equipment, a mailbox, a porta john and a large pile of fill dirt at the back of the site. I mention the mailbox because it seemed odd to me that there was a mailbox on a site that was just dirt. Mr. Dryden told me that it is required by code that you maintain a mailbox at the construction site in that locality. Additionally, there was a small parking area for the equipment that has been stoned with rocks the size of my fist. 

Something Interesting about this site is that they were waiting on an arborist to come in from the city before they could start clearing brush and trees for the road/site/bridge because the city of Canal Winchester is what is called a “tree city” meaning they have algorithms that determine (based on tree caliper-trunk size- and species) how many trees you have to plant on the site for each tree you tear down. This then equates to a certain amount of green space you must have in the final scheme. 

Site Visit #2: Site Work

In addition to typical site work like excavating, grading, paving and landscaping this site required the installation of two retention ponds and stone to be laid in order for construction to proceed through the wet winter months. All of this was required in order to meet code. This project was completed in Akron, Ohio as a low-income housing project. The general contractor was a co-owner and subbed out all of the work. 

Because this location was in what is considered a “tree city”, every tree that was cut down to make room for construction has to be replaced with new trees on the site at the end of the project.

In regard to excavation, a large amount of fill dirt was scraped off the site it was originally estimated as a balanced site, but it has now been determined that extra fill will need to be brought in at the end of the job. They had their dirt separated into piles by type. The blacker of the piles was topsoil that was scraped off the site and will be used for landscaping in the final stages of the project. 

One interesting thing about this job was that they utilized GPS to control excavation and site work. A central unit, mounted at the corner of the site, supplied live feed info to the excavator and told it exactly where and how far down to dig- down to within a 10th of an inch!

When I arrived, stone was being compacted all-round the site, the stone was gravel mixed with a powderier lime so that it would compact more easily and form a solid surface. two machines were required for this job, one for spreading and one for rolling. It seemed to me that they had a somewhat significant amount of excess material.

Architectural Opportunities: Concrete

As a break from my theme of the architect’s role in the project delivery process I will be starting this miniseries of blog posts entitled “architectural opportunities”. I will be using this to delve a little deeper into the materials and processes we are studying in class. First on the docket is concrete.

Every time we are assigned a new project in studio someone will inevitably decide to experiment with concrete. I’ll admit, it does have many impressive material qualities, but its use is not without its challenges. 

To me the most interesting aspect of concrete isn’t the material itself but rather the inverse- the processes and materials that are used to turn a liquid into the world’s most ubiquitous building material. More specifically, I think it could be argued that formwork construction is the most challenging and impressive aspect of this seemingly magical material.

In reading more on the subject I came across an essay called “A Building and Its Double” by Mabel Wilson. This essay describes the sculptureHouseby Rachel Whiteread in London. In this project Whiteread cast the inside of a Victorian house in concrete. (Essay)

This project brings a visual aspect to an idea that we touched on in class- the idea that a concrete building is really “built” three times. Once in the formwork, once in the reinforcement, and finally, in the concrete. 

Being that it is clearly critical to the final result I decided to look more into the opportunities, and challenges, presented in formwork construction. 

In his book Stuff Matters Mark Middownik says “If you can build the mold [formwork] you can create the structure.” After that all you need is some steel, cement, aggregate, and water and you’ve got your concrete building. However, it’s not quite that easy, or simple.

To achieve the aesthetic qualities specified by the architect, builders must come up with inventive ways to create functional formwork. Since formwork construction is considered means and methods, it is up to the contractor to design and build. Below I have given some examples of the different formwork types and materials that are being used to achieve these architectural goals. A quick note, this type of concrete construction is considered “architectural concrete” meaning that it has a visible finish surface. This distinguishes it from structural concrete such as floor slabs and hidden columns, etc. Structural concrete can have some inventiveness with its formwork, but there are more prescribed, traditional methods to form those portions of the building. 

Fabric Formed Concrete

Fabric can be used to create flowing, sensuous forms. The difficulties here are creating secondary formwork to hold the fabric taut and in place and developing a reinforcement system to match the complex geometry.

Church of Light, Osaka Tadao Ando, 1988

Here, metal plates were used to create what architects affectionately call “Ando-crete” distinctive for the way in which the form tie plugs are incorporated.

Traditional Wood Formed and Reinforced Concrete

once the concrete arch has cured it will be entirely in compression and therefore able to stand on its own. However, while curing it must be held in place.

Form Liners

Patterns can be creates in concrete that is traditionally formed with incorporate form liners. This requires a high level of precision from the builders.

(Photos courtesy of Slideshow by Thomas Mills)

Plastic Formwork

One of the main advantages of plastic formwork is that it can be easily reused, meaning less waste. It also allows for nearly seamless finishes.

Foam Formed Concrete

Foam formed concrete is especially useful when the foam can be left behind as built-in insulation, such as in foundation walls.

One more thing that I would like to point out that I found disheartening in doing this basic research is that the builder is almost never given credit in architectural journals and websites. I find it unethical on the part of the architect not to give credit to the builders for making their drawings into reality, they did not achieve these results on their own. 

Quality: Where and How is it Defined

After defining Architect-Led-Design-Build last week through a case study of the company who pioneered this process, I would like to delve deeper into the practicalities of ALDB as it relates to quality and efficiencyof work. This will be a shorter post, in preparation for some real world discussions of the role of the architect in the construction process through some site visits and interviews.

To be able to effectively discuss these topics, it is important to first discuss what “quality” means in reference to architecture and construction:

What Makes Good Architecture and Construction??

The question of what makes “good” architecture is very difficult to answer. Ideas about this have varied across time and throughout different cultures. However, some ideas are ubiquitous, it is these that I would like to discuss.

Good architecture can be analyzed based on theory and it’s response to innovations. One of the most widely accepted theories is that of Vitruvius, a Roman author, architect, and engineer who said essentially that a structure must exhibit equally the three qualities of “firmness, commodity, and delight” (“firmitas, utilitas and venustas” in the original Latin). What does this mean?

Firmness, or sturdiness indicates the quality of construction. Today this would indicate the construction itself and the environmental impact of that activity. This is the aspect of architecture which makes it timeless in the sense that it will remain intact and functional for many years to come.

Commodity, or functionalism indicates the usefulness of the architecture. This means both its general use and if that use is achievable through the architecture. For example something that would not satisfy this condition would be if you were constructing a gymnasium, but the architect designed it to have a column right in the center of the basketball court. 

Finally, Delight is the poetic and ephemeral sense that we have of a space. This cannot be quantified, only felt. The space either works or it doesn’t, in a sense of feeling, not function. All good architecture must evoke a sense of satisfaction with it’s users. This is what makes people enjoy or dislike a space. 

In my opinion these relative areas also indicate approximately how many buildings tend to exhibit each quality. Notice good design is the smallest

Defining “good” construction is somewhat more quantifiable. This is because you can see, touch and measure the results. Typically, good quality construction is thought of as adhering to the design documents with a high level of fidelity and complying with the quality level specification set by the owner. This means crafted details, and flush and level construction. This is achieved by double checking all drawings before completing work and hiring competent subcontractors or employees (if self-performing). Additionally, good contractors work to ethical conditions and are as efficient as possible, wasting little time and resources.

Additionally, there are 10 general categories that a project should respond to in order to be considered “good” today. In brief, they are as follows:

“1.    Sustainable
2.    Accessible
3.    Functional
4.    Well Made
5.    Emotionally Resonant
6.    Enduring 
7.    Socially Beneficial 
8.    Beautiful
9.    Ergonomic
10. Affordable”

What is a Quality level? Where is it Specified?

What is harder to do is to define what determines a particular quality level, to which the construction work must comply. In RS Means for example, especially in the data charts used for preliminary estimating, they define project costs in terms of high medium and low quality. But what does this mean? 

I will come back to this post later to discuss the definitions of the quality levels utilized in RS Means (low, medium, high) that determine project costs. I also will get copies of wordings used in contracts that dictate the quality level expected for a job. Further research and discussion is needed.

What’s Next?

So, now that I have defined ALDB (through the case study last week) and what quality means in both design and construction I will be able to effectively discuss the architect’s role in construction and their influence on quality and efficiency of projects. While this will be my main theme I will also digress to discuss certain other aspects of construction management.

A final note that I want to make to ensure that future discussions are clear: When I speak of the architect’s “role” in the construction process I am referring to the architect’s responsibilities, both physical and financial, typical tasks they complete, and how they fit into the professional hierarchy of a piece of work.

What is ALDB? A Case Study of GLUCK+

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/

The Education of an Architect, or Lack Thereof

Last week through my discussion of the relationship between architecture and construction, several problems came to light. This week I would like to discuss the main problem that I observed with the modern day construction processes and project delivery systems and that is the architect’s lack of knowledge of the realities of construction. This gap in their education has led to the drastic reduction of the architect’s role in the construction process, which often leads to inferior work and loss of design intent. 

Architects used to be majorly involved in the construction process after their designs were complete; they were responsible for imagining a structure, creating drawings to demonstrate the structure, supervising construction and controlling costs. This is the time when the architect was referred to as the “master-builder” when they connected the owner to the project every step of the way and had an intimate understanding of every aspect of the project. In those days, an architect’s education was much more holistic, encompassing high level design and engineering, trade work, and construction processes and management.

In 1971 The Cooper Union school of architecture had an exhibit at the MoMA, titled “The Education of an Architect: a point of view”. 

The cover of the book published by the cooper union in conjunction with the MoMA exhibit. The work consists mainly of drawings and poetry that have seemingly nothing to do with architecture as the art of building but rather architecture as the ideas of design (Click on image to see contents of book).

This work presents a good example of the thinking at the time of the best way to educate an architect, a thinking that still persist to today. Essentially architects are to be educated as sculptors  are, the only difference being our palate of materials, and the relative size of our works. Little attention is paid to the built work while the concept is placed in high regard. What I have found most revealing of this mindset in my own education is that many of the buildings we study in our courses on the history of architecture, were never constructed. This is because they were about an idea of architecture rather than a physical, built, experience of it. Additionally, they would have been impossible to build with the construction methods of the time.

Cenotaph for Newton by Etienne-Louis Boullee. From Arch Daily “Boullée’s approach to design signaled the schism of architecture as a pure art from the science of building.”

Today, it seems architects are being taught to only achieve an aesthetic quality and a philosophy of design and sometimes forget that owners want, a useable, efficient building. To achieve that result I believe that an architect must be educated (or educate him or herself) in the parts and assemblies of built work, and how these pieces are put together in the field. This lack of what I believe to be critical knowledge is causing construction prices to soar and quality of work to plummet as the architect is unable both to be a reliable intermediary between owner and contractor and to advocate for their designs. Today, in the architect’s absence during the construction process, and minimal field knowledge, architecture and construction both suffer.

Having the architect be present at the jobsite as an owner’s advocate would seem to be logical. They would be able to ensure greater fidelity to drawings and thus a higher quality, and change order requests from the contractor could be verified more easily, and approved faster, if necessary. However, architects are often lacking a knowledge in construction means and methods. So, simply worded, the solution to this problem would be to educate architects both in design and construction. This too again cycles back into the question: What should the architect’s role be in construction?

As this seems to be the critical question that I keep circling back to, over the next few weeks I will be investigating different ways in which the architect can be involved in the practice of construction, through two of the major project delivery systems, design-build and design-bid-build. I would like to discuss how the ways in which the architect is involved can influence quality and cost of a project.

Specifically, I want to discuss architect-led-design-build (ALDB) and the different forms that process could take. I would like to delve deeper into the practicalities of ALDB both from an economic standpoint and as it relates to quality and efficiency of work.

Finally, to further demonstrate my points I aim to find case studies of projects (either successful or unsuccessful) that have involved the architect in the ways I discuss. I also hope to interview both a professor and a student from both fields, design and construction, here at Virginia Tech, to get their opinions on how they view the other profession and what they think that architect’s role should be in the construction process, and how the education of an architect would need to change accordingly.

This is important to me because, over the years I have been developing an idea in my head about best practices for architecture and the type of firm I hope to own or work in one day. I believe that when the architect has a higher level of involvement, architecture is produced at a higher quality. This in turn creates a higher quality of life for those who live and work in those buildings. I am determined to find practical, pragmatic ways in which this can be achieved in the modern day design and construction processes.

The Relationship between Architects and Builders: A Discussion of Project Delivery Systems

This past week in my Construction Management class we have been discussing project management, and specifically project delivery systems. This prompted me to begin thinking about what the architect’s responsibilities are in the construction process. Specifically, I am wondering if it is the architect’s responsibility to make both architecture and construction a more transparent process to consumers. This question came into focus even more upon my reading of chapter one of Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets by Barry B. Lepatner. Although his book is about how to fix the construction industry from an economic point of view by providing owners with more information up front in order to reduce the excess cost and time of many modern day construction projects, I had many ideas about how the industry standard processes of how an owner procures a project could be changed. 

In his book he asserts that many construction firms, with little oversight and accountability by owners or governments (usually due to a lack of knowledge by these entities) produce less than satisfactory level quality architecture and infrastructure. This led me to begin thinking about how the architect could play a role in helping to change this “broken” industry.

---

HOW ARE BUILDINGS BUILT: PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEMS

I think that the adversarial relationship between architects and contractors arises from these industry standard project delivery systems, along with others. Although many projects look very different and seem to have varying levels of complexity on the design side, in the construction industry they are mainly procured (that is “built” by the owner) in one of four major ways, and merely need scaled up. I have diagrammed  and briefly explained these delivery systems below:

Design-Build

In this process the design team and construction team are combined into a joint entity, with contractors typically leading the team and hiring design professionals or entering into a joint venture with the design firm. In this way they are essentially nothing more than an “architect of record” for the project, providing their stamp on standard plans that the construction company is used to working with. In this case the owner also must come prepared with a plan for general design, program, systems, and finishes and be comfortable giving up control of some decision making. One variation of this process is the “fast track” concept where design and construction are performed simultaneously

Design-Bid-Build (Traditional)

In this traditional process the owner develops the parameters of the project, and hires an architect to prepare the design. Subsequently, the owner invites contractors to bid on the design and the selected contractor then builds the design.

CM at Risk

As Lepatner puts it, “The primary difference between the GC and the CM is one of transparency. The CM shares with the owner, on an open-book basis the subcontractor’s contracts.” The CM therefore acts as a sort of consultant - or partner - to the owner entering into direct contracts with the subcontractors and remaining soley responsible to the owner for their performance, and thus the quality of the finished product. A CM Can also act simply as an agent for the owner, incurring little risk and managing the day-to-day construction, as an employee.

Master Builder

Gone are the days of the master builder where the architect, engineer, and builder were one. But until more modern times this was the procurement process for most architectural projects. The architect had the knowledge and skills to design not only beautiful, high performance architecture.

---

The most popular construction process today and for the past century or more is that of “design-bid-build”. In this method of building procurement, the owner and its partners propose a program for the project to meet their business objectives. The owner must have prepared a plan for the building which will allow for it to match their present and future needs to the site. They also must know how much they can afford to spend on the project and the timetable by which it must be completed.

After the owner has defined what they would like to have these desires are relayed to the architect who then interprets them into a design and, subsequently, drawings. Sometimes, the architect or owner will hire additional consultants for specific aspects of the design of the building (i.e. engineers, interior designers, etc.) to help develop a complete solution.

When the design is nearing its ending stages the owner invites General Contractors (GC’s) to bid on the drawings and other specifications, called construction documents. When the GC bids on these documents they assume they are 100% complete, which is usually not the case (leading to many change orders that can increase the original bid amount later on). Upon winning the bid, a contract is awarded and construction begins. It is at this point that the GC “buys out” all subcontracted work and proceeds with the project.

Once construction begins, the GC is responsible for coordinating and scheduling the work. “It is during this “build” phase that conflicts, errors, and omissions are discovered in the design team’s bid documents, unforeseen and concealed site conditions are uncovered, and myriad other minor and major derailments encountered” (Lepatner). These problems result in change orders from the GC which must be approved by the owner and, often, the architect.

“Architects often contend that complete, fully coordinated sets of plans are not possible on large, complex projects [which I don’t believe is true with modern BIM software like Revit and Navisworks]. They assert that the fast-track process chose by owners ad construction managers precludes this from occurring. Almost always, contractors find that changes in the design during construction are necessary to actually get the thing built.”

— Lepatner, Broken Buildings

Because of this, it is not suprising that, although working together to accomplish the same goal in theory – producing a building – because the architect and construction team are not traditionally working together from the beginning to ensure a practical and constructable design it is no wonder then that architects and Construction teams have typically had an adversarial, if not combative, relationship. 

An increasingly popular project delivery system is design-build. In this process the design team and construction team are combined into a joint entity, with contractors typically leading the team and hiring design professionals or entering into a joint venture with the design firm. Although there are fewer disputes from the contractor when utilizing this method, the designer is typically restricted, even from the conceptual stages by cost and ease of construction concerns. In this way they are essentially nothing more than an “architect of record” for the project, providing their stamp on standard plans that the construction company is used to working with. Because of this many off the shelf solutions are used, and many of these projects become very un-interesting, standard, or “cookie-cutter”. 

---

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION

As I have begun meeting and working with more and more people in the construction program I have gained a new respect for the field, a respect that I believe many of my peers in architecture are lacking. Before I began this program I, like many other architecture students I have spoken to, didn’t understand the difference between construction management and trade work. I classified everyone in both fields as “construction workers” and, partly because of my experiences with the industry, had a very prejudiced view of these people as big, gruff, burly men with hardhats and big boots, sweaty, swearing and standing around hardly working. We, as architects “know” that they don’t care what the final project looks like, as long as they are home by 5 with a check in their pockets. We are taught that if we don’t specify exactly what we want, quality will suffer at their hands.

This opinion could not be further from the truth.

“The men and women working in this industry … work within an industry that time has forgotten. The way we build today differs little from how our ancestors built churches and sphinxes hundreds and thousands of years ago. No one denies it. Everyone would prefer to do better.”

— Lepatner, Broken Buildings

I think these prejudices arise from the fact that the construction process is not explained to us very well in school. Learning the bare minimum of construction techniques, which is mostly trade work, we are taught to view architecture as a sacred act of design and many famous architects as just a step down from god. This leads to an extreme lack of knowledge about the construction process as a whole, but especially as it relates to costs of various parts, assemblies, and scope of work. And we have little to no sense of the time it takes to complete the building of the things we design. In short we have almost no comprehension of how our building is actually BUILT.

In analyzing the relationship between architecture and the act of building, I think it is important to remember how each field views the concepts of drawing and building. In architecture drawing is thought of as a verb, while buildings are viewed as nouns. Quite the opposite in construction, drawings are thought of as objects, while building is the action. This is an important distinction to make because this fundamental difference is where many of the problems arise.

---

HOW TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS

I dont pretend to have all the solutions… yet. However, in my next post I plan to outline some of my ideas about how this relationship, and the architect’s role in the construction process, could be improved.

The Intersection of Architecture and Construction: An Introduction...

Having just recently begun my first class in the series required for my Building Construction minor, I have already been confronted with many new ideas that I would not have considered otherwise. Most importantly I have learned that architecture is more than the pretty drawings we make in studio. Architecture is BUILT. In the real world, my plans, sections, and elevations need to be comprehensible by people who have not studied the *poetry* of architecture. While it is important to create a beautiful spatial experience, I would argue that first and foremost you need to comprehend the process of how that space will be constructed.

(Below is a small case study of what I believe to be a successful process of drawings to construction, but I believe that the initial steps could be improved. I think the architect should be more knowledgeable in the beginning steps rather than coming up with a “dream” and handing it off to others to figure out and then taking credit for the project, as Frank Ghery did in this case.)

Sketch of the Guggenheim Museum by Frank Ghery

This drawing describes the atmosphere that the architect envisions for the project but would be incomprehensible to the builder as far as how to construct the museum. This would be the conceptual stage of the project, the napkin sketch.

Multiview Drawings of Guggenheim

At this stage of design development the architect has somewhat finished the drawings. However, due to lapses in the construction education of an architect these drawings can sometimes have significant errors, which are then compounded later in the process.

Structural Model of Guggenheim

As part of the detailed working drawings and design stage of the project, multi view drawings will be translated into detailed BIM models which are then provided to the owner and made available to contractors so that they can bid the project.

Construction and Craft

Much thought goes into the architecture along the path from designer to engineer to builder, but in the end one must keep in mind that PEOPLE build buildings and that fact should control designs in order to control cost.

I have suddenly become frustrated by my architectural education in the sense that we are not learning HOW TO BUILD. Granted, that’s not perhaps what we should be learning, but we should be starting to comprehend how other people build things. On another side note to that point architecture students should begin to understand that there are two levels to what we consider “construction workers". On one level you have construction management and on the other, tradespeople or craftsmen, and both probably know more than we do about construction methods and respect should be shown accordingly.

Since I said I wanted to be an architect, my dad, who worked in construction for many years, has complained to me constantly of all of the “stupid” architect’s he had to work with who designed things that simply COULD NOT BE BUILT. I have tried not to become “one of those” but I think in modern architectural education it is extremely difficult not to fall into the trap of philosophy and theory of architecture rather than the practicality of building. But I digress…

As part of this class I will be writing blog posts centered around a theme related to construction. So, throughout the remainder of this semester, I will be writing weekly blog posts discussing the nuances of the intersection between the fields of architecture and building construction and different ways of approaching the designer/builder relationship. Specifically, I would like to investigate an idea I have been toying with this past summer which is the concept of Architect-Led-Design-Build (ALDB). As you can see from my previous post I developed a formal interest in this concept last semester when I attended a lecture on the topic. However, this idea of an architect being a sort of modern day “Master Builder” has been something I have thought about long before I knew the term to describe it.

My interest in this topic stems from the fact that, from what I have seen in my preliminary research, very few firms engage in this method of project delivery. It seems very logical to me that this would be the relationship between design and construction, so I am wondering why it doesn’t seem to be very popular. One of the first thoughts I had is that it isn’t cost effective. I also thought that it might put too heavy a burden of risk on the architect’s shoulders.

I am determined to answer some of these questions for myself, especially in my first few posts in this series. I plan to write on the following topics:

1. Project Delivery Systems and How the Influence the Relationship Between Architecture and Construction and How to Fix some of the Problems they Cause

2. What is Design-Build? Can It Produce Higher Quality Architecture?

3. Architect Led Design-Build (ALDB): The Argument Against the Traditional Design-Bid-Build Method of Construction

4. How Can Architect’s Make Better, More Instructive Drawings?

5. At What Point in the Design Process Should Contractors Have Input? Building as Noun and Verb

6. Why Every Architecture Student Should Visit Construction Sites

Over time, I would also like to dedicate one or two posts to the topic of women in the construction industry and the challenges they are faced with. Following that I would like to discuss possible ways of overcoming those challenges.