In every Godzilla movie there is always a battle between Godzilla,King of the Monsters, and another giant beast. Whether it is Mothera, Mecha-Godzilla, or King Kong, the real loser in these Japanese cinema classics are the towns that the Monsters stomp on as they fight. Many people who are building or renovating a structure may sometimes feel like the Japanese townspeople under foot in a Monster battle if they get caught in the struggle between Architects and Contractors. So who should the owner look to when such battles occur? Who will best serve the owner's desire for quality at a fair price? The answer should be that both the Architect and the Contractor are on your team and must be working together in the Owners best interests.
An architect job is to create a functional design, meet a budget, and a construction schedule. The Contractor's job is to build a structure, meet a budget, and construction schedule. The goals of these two members of the team are the same as the Owner so why is it that a conflict may occur? The Owner may not see the conflict but, unfortunately, there is an inherent conflict that is a part of the process of building. The architect wants to see the design built correctly but the contractor may not.
After a good design is agreed to by the Owner and architect the project is sent out to bid. Usually this process is a competitive one between at least 3-5 contractors. Each contractor wants to win the job or they would not take the time to work out the cost for the project. This cost estimation process is time consuming and is also a bit of smoke an mirrors. Many contractors will lower their estimate to win the bid and this is where things get sticky. The contractor will try to make more money after winning the bid by making design changes that will favor their bottom line. The contractor may even attempt to convince the owner that he will pass along the savings. This is why we have the conflict between "the Monsters". A good architect will have already worked to meet the budget in the design process. Architects want to prevent changes during construction that will increase the time and cost of a project. Many times a contractor is making changes that are not in the Owners best interest.
Though all contractors should not fall under suspicion, most are craftsman concerned with a quality product, some need to be watched during the construction process. This is why it is essential to keep the architect involved in construction administration to make sure that quality materials, code compliance, and design integrity are maintained. The best recommendation that anyone can make is that all Owners should look to both Architect and Contractor to be the best possible fit for the project. If both have a record of quality then the conflicts between the two should be nil or minimal thus making the design, building process, and final product a fun and gratifying experience for the Owner--no Monsters required.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
What is Green Architecture?
I heard someone on the internet say that if you asked about green architecture 10 years ago people would say; "Why would you want to paint your building green?". Actually, green architecture started in the late '60's with the environmental movement but died a slow death along with the peace movement and bell bottom jeans. Green has returned with a vengeance (and so have the bell bottoms) because of gas prices. What is Green Architecture?
Green building has become a buzz word because of federal tax credits. It is time to demystify what it means to be green. In order to have a "Green" building you must meet a laundry list of requirements. The more items one can check off the higher the green rating and, therefore, the more money you save in taxes. Of course you also save money on heating, cooling, and lighting costs after your initial investment.
Green building can cost up to 30% more than a conventional structure depending on how green you go. There are several levels that can be achieved and the tax / energy savings increase as one goes from bronze through silver to gold or platinum crediting. A large amount of paperwork has to be prepared by a LEED accredited architect in order to apply to the government for the tax incentives. This does not mean that you need to have the building designed by a LEED architect but that the forms have to be filed by one. The U.S. Green Building Council, 1998, (USGBC) established Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) to create clear standards for measuring levels of energy efficiency. So what are some of the items that qualify for an energy efficient design?
There are a broad number of categories that are covered by LEED guidelines. Some ways of going green are simple like choosing carpeting that is made of recycled material which saves energy in production of the product. Choosing Energy Star rated appliances and mechanical equipment is a more expensive but obvious design practice. One obscure way to get a credit is to put in bicycle racks to encourage non fossil fuel modes of transportation and there are many esoteric nooks and crannies in the green process.
The largest and most expensive category of LEED design is the composition of the building's overall exterior envelope. This includes not only the wall, ceiling, and foundation design but building orientation, tree and mechanical shading devices, and the orientation of the building on the site. If you are thinking of building green there is a whole new world of ideas that you may want to cover with your architect. You can work with an architect to reach a level of balance between expenses and credits to determine a comfortable initial cost and investment repayment schedule. This is where we separate the bronze from the platinum in Green Architecture.
Green building has become a buzz word because of federal tax credits. It is time to demystify what it means to be green. In order to have a "Green" building you must meet a laundry list of requirements. The more items one can check off the higher the green rating and, therefore, the more money you save in taxes. Of course you also save money on heating, cooling, and lighting costs after your initial investment.
Green building can cost up to 30% more than a conventional structure depending on how green you go. There are several levels that can be achieved and the tax / energy savings increase as one goes from bronze through silver to gold or platinum crediting. A large amount of paperwork has to be prepared by a LEED accredited architect in order to apply to the government for the tax incentives. This does not mean that you need to have the building designed by a LEED architect but that the forms have to be filed by one. The U.S. Green Building Council, 1998, (USGBC) established Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) to create clear standards for measuring levels of energy efficiency. So what are some of the items that qualify for an energy efficient design?
There are a broad number of categories that are covered by LEED guidelines. Some ways of going green are simple like choosing carpeting that is made of recycled material which saves energy in production of the product. Choosing Energy Star rated appliances and mechanical equipment is a more expensive but obvious design practice. One obscure way to get a credit is to put in bicycle racks to encourage non fossil fuel modes of transportation and there are many esoteric nooks and crannies in the green process.
The largest and most expensive category of LEED design is the composition of the building's overall exterior envelope. This includes not only the wall, ceiling, and foundation design but building orientation, tree and mechanical shading devices, and the orientation of the building on the site. If you are thinking of building green there is a whole new world of ideas that you may want to cover with your architect. You can work with an architect to reach a level of balance between expenses and credits to determine a comfortable initial cost and investment repayment schedule. This is where we separate the bronze from the platinum in Green Architecture.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The Romantic Seen with "Modern" Eyes
Is there is any romance in modern architecture? It is presupposed by many that traditional forms are romantic or have meaning and therefore have more gravity than anything novel but all styles had an origin before they became a part of any tradition. Can modernism embody a unique romance of its own? Modern can be romantic too but it requires clients that believe in their architects and let the new romantic come into being.
As with any design in architecture there is a period when the new is shocking and out of the norm. All of the styles from history were new at one time. Historic forms, what we call classical or traditional architecture, were once the modern, cutting edge solution to the problem of dwelling. There are many examples of historic architecture that, when first introduced, were almost rejected. I will use two local Philadelphia architectural firms to make my point.
Frank Furness, of Furness and Evans, first introduced his brand of Victorian in the late 1800's and his buildings were so outlandish for the time that many rejected his designs as frivolous. He was the modernist of his day. "Fiery" Furness made structural expressions that seemed incomplete and to some even scary. Arches that were half complete, cantilevered overhangs, and some of his ornament were distorted shapes that seemed unstable. The introduction of cast iron and steel in engineering, new around this time and hidden behind facades, allowed him to make his buildings appear awkward by standard design proportions and, in some cases, apparently ready to fall down. There were many other architects who used steel structure but its capacity to make new shapes was always hidden behind an outward appearance (facade design) that masked the new materials capabilities. Others architects made their building look like older styles and broke no accepted visual rules of composition. A passer by would never know that a large number structures designed after1850 had steel skeletons and later whole steel frames. Furness took advantage of steel to make a new romantic style that challenge convention and found clients willing to let him make the new romance.
Furness went on to design many Banks, Train Stations, Libraries, and homes in the Philadelphia area. Perhaps one of his best is the Architecture Library (Furness and Evans 1890) on the campus of The University of Pennsylvania. http://lacqueredlife.blogspot.com/2010/04/study-study-study.html
He persevered over the critics who had tastes entrenched in the the way of classicism and the traditional. Today Frank Furness is known as the master who apprenticed Louis Sullivan who, in turn, apprenticed Frank :Lloyd Wright. His work is considered a treasure in the Philadelphia area and some of the most romantic architecture ever designed. This is an example of how the shockingly modern of its time can become accepted as romantic and beautiful given time.
So in the last 100 years we have another "new" romantic architecture which has many names. It started as "The International Style"- a moniker given by Hitchcock and Johnson for their exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1932. One of the first and perhaps best examples of this style is the Howe and Lescaze Philadelphia masterpiece that is the PSFS Building of 1929-32 http://press.visitphilly.com/media/1267. This is a high expression of steel structural gymnastics but, unlike Furness, there is not even one single attempt at hiding the new forms with any notions of ornament or historic structural references. This design is an example of the next step to expose the new romantic in its true form. The expression is not made heroic by any attempt at tradition and the shapes themselves are daringly unconventional and challenge one to think of architecture in a new way.
So I have given some examples styles that challenged the accepted ideas of architecture and then became a part of the fabric of design history. These are now the new classics. Philadelphia is a community blessed with many exceptional designs that pushed the envelope of what can be. So where are the new romantic designs? Modern architecture can only happen when modern people see and accept that the new can be just as romantic and wonderful as the old. It takes great, open minded clients to let the architects of our time make new forms. The design profession waits to find the people in the public who see the new as romantic and then it will happen.
As with any design in architecture there is a period when the new is shocking and out of the norm. All of the styles from history were new at one time. Historic forms, what we call classical or traditional architecture, were once the modern, cutting edge solution to the problem of dwelling. There are many examples of historic architecture that, when first introduced, were almost rejected. I will use two local Philadelphia architectural firms to make my point.
Frank Furness, of Furness and Evans, first introduced his brand of Victorian in the late 1800's and his buildings were so outlandish for the time that many rejected his designs as frivolous. He was the modernist of his day. "Fiery" Furness made structural expressions that seemed incomplete and to some even scary. Arches that were half complete, cantilevered overhangs, and some of his ornament were distorted shapes that seemed unstable. The introduction of cast iron and steel in engineering, new around this time and hidden behind facades, allowed him to make his buildings appear awkward by standard design proportions and, in some cases, apparently ready to fall down. There were many other architects who used steel structure but its capacity to make new shapes was always hidden behind an outward appearance (facade design) that masked the new materials capabilities. Others architects made their building look like older styles and broke no accepted visual rules of composition. A passer by would never know that a large number structures designed after1850 had steel skeletons and later whole steel frames. Furness took advantage of steel to make a new romantic style that challenge convention and found clients willing to let him make the new romance.
Furness went on to design many Banks, Train Stations, Libraries, and homes in the Philadelphia area. Perhaps one of his best is the Architecture Library (Furness and Evans 1890) on the campus of The University of Pennsylvania. http://lacqueredlife.blogspot.com/2010/04/study-study-study.html
He persevered over the critics who had tastes entrenched in the the way of classicism and the traditional. Today Frank Furness is known as the master who apprenticed Louis Sullivan who, in turn, apprenticed Frank :Lloyd Wright. His work is considered a treasure in the Philadelphia area and some of the most romantic architecture ever designed. This is an example of how the shockingly modern of its time can become accepted as romantic and beautiful given time.
So in the last 100 years we have another "new" romantic architecture which has many names. It started as "The International Style"- a moniker given by Hitchcock and Johnson for their exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1932. One of the first and perhaps best examples of this style is the Howe and Lescaze Philadelphia masterpiece that is the PSFS Building of 1929-32 http://press.visitphilly.com/media/1267. This is a high expression of steel structural gymnastics but, unlike Furness, there is not even one single attempt at hiding the new forms with any notions of ornament or historic structural references. This design is an example of the next step to expose the new romantic in its true form. The expression is not made heroic by any attempt at tradition and the shapes themselves are daringly unconventional and challenge one to think of architecture in a new way.
So I have given some examples styles that challenged the accepted ideas of architecture and then became a part of the fabric of design history. These are now the new classics. Philadelphia is a community blessed with many exceptional designs that pushed the envelope of what can be. So where are the new romantic designs? Modern architecture can only happen when modern people see and accept that the new can be just as romantic and wonderful as the old. It takes great, open minded clients to let the architects of our time make new forms. The design profession waits to find the people in the public who see the new as romantic and then it will happen.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Modern Architecture and the Horse and Carriage
I would like to throw down a challenge to Those who are living in the past on the Main Line. Live in the present and give up your Buggy Whips! Here is the basis of the challenge: A few weekends ago I spent a Sunday volunteering as a docent for an historic house tour for the Lower Merion Conservancy. There were five houses and a church set as stops on a very lovely Fall day. I was sent to a little cluster of homes in Ardmore, PA that were designed in 1938. All of the other structures on the tour fell easily into nice, easily identifiable traditional styles of Victorian, Neo-Classical, and the like. The little structure I was honored to present was designed by Frank :Lloyd Wright and is called "Sun Top Homes. Sun Top was designed over 70 years ago and the work contains most of the elements of what one would call Modern architecture. The fact that this home and all modern design is almost non existent where I live made me think of the Horse and Carriage. I never see Horses drawing buggies at all these days except when I see them in Lancaster, Pa being driven by the Pennsylvania Amish. They are an anachronism. If the Horse and Carriage have been replaced why is it that most of the homes being built today are designed to look like they were built over 100 years ago? I challenge you to look at Modern Architecture.
The Pennsylvania Amish, for those who do not know their culture, do not accept Modern technology. Their entire community strictly prohibits the use of anything that uses an engine or electricity. Needless to say when you visit their communities you never see any homes or structures designed in the Modern style. The PA Amish reject modernism based on strongly held religious beliefs that prevent them from moving into the 21st century. I can accept their rejection of Modern Architecture because it is against their culture's very essence. Why is it that Modern Architecture is rejected by the mainstream of American culture?
We live in a time where the Automobile has replaced the Horse and Carriage. Most of us have Computers with Internet connection, Cellular Phones, Televisions ( now flat), Air Conditioning and a few other devices that are quite wonderful inventions. If you do not have at least two of these devices you would not be able to function on a high level in our society. If we accept modern technology then why is it that Americans cling to traditional styles of architecture? It would almost be like driving down the street in a car designed to look like a Buggy. So, as an architect who loves modern design I am wondering what it is going to take to get you to throw away your buggy whips, get on your computers, and find the beauty of Modernism.
We have several nice examples in our area of good contemporary design. These include the Frank Lloyd Wright homes in Ardmore (though they need a bit of loving right now), a Louis I, Kahn home in Wynnewood and Kahn's dormitory for Bryn Mawr College. There is even a small Richard Neutra home in Gladwyn. Seek out these and other designs and you can see that modernism can be as beautiful as any style of architecture. If you are ready to give up your Horse and Buggy I am sure you can find a talented architect, which I think I am, who would be more than willing to design a home that is of this century and its technology, that is as beautiful as any traditional home. The Gauntlet has been cast. Who will put their hat in the ring?
The Pennsylvania Amish, for those who do not know their culture, do not accept Modern technology. Their entire community strictly prohibits the use of anything that uses an engine or electricity. Needless to say when you visit their communities you never see any homes or structures designed in the Modern style. The PA Amish reject modernism based on strongly held religious beliefs that prevent them from moving into the 21st century. I can accept their rejection of Modern Architecture because it is against their culture's very essence. Why is it that Modern Architecture is rejected by the mainstream of American culture?
We live in a time where the Automobile has replaced the Horse and Carriage. Most of us have Computers with Internet connection, Cellular Phones, Televisions ( now flat), Air Conditioning and a few other devices that are quite wonderful inventions. If you do not have at least two of these devices you would not be able to function on a high level in our society. If we accept modern technology then why is it that Americans cling to traditional styles of architecture? It would almost be like driving down the street in a car designed to look like a Buggy. So, as an architect who loves modern design I am wondering what it is going to take to get you to throw away your buggy whips, get on your computers, and find the beauty of Modernism.
We have several nice examples in our area of good contemporary design. These include the Frank Lloyd Wright homes in Ardmore (though they need a bit of loving right now), a Louis I, Kahn home in Wynnewood and Kahn's dormitory for Bryn Mawr College. There is even a small Richard Neutra home in Gladwyn. Seek out these and other designs and you can see that modernism can be as beautiful as any style of architecture. If you are ready to give up your Horse and Buggy I am sure you can find a talented architect, which I think I am, who would be more than willing to design a home that is of this century and its technology, that is as beautiful as any traditional home. The Gauntlet has been cast. Who will put their hat in the ring?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)