Building as Business

Gardens by the Bay, Singapore. By Wilkinson Eyre & Atelier Ten
Source: http://www.directorsnotes.com/2008/03/19/gardens-by-the-bay-squintopera/
Singapore’s nearly complete “Gardens by the Bay” —a 110-hectare botanical garden with indoor waterfalls and a photovoltaic tree canopy—makes an important point about the state of 21st century architecture. Today, buildings have a new level of complexity, and the integration of technology continues to redefine the way we design and build. In stark contrast to the new ways and means of architecture, our current project delivery methods, as well as the relationships between owner, architect, and contractor remain largely the same as they have been for decades. Architects deliver the same sets of drawings, using the same Uniform Drawing System standards established in the mid-1990s after the rise of AutoCAD, as well as the graphic conventions that predate the use of computers.
Well, not everyone.
Peter Gluck & Partners and Tocci Construction have developed innovative approaches to project delivery; more broadly, they have shifted the relationship between architect and contractor. Not for them is the typical separation between architect and contractor with its daily time lags, as one party communicates information to the other. It is a well-known fact in the industry that this piece-meal process ultimately creates change orders and cost overruns.
Peter Gluck & Partners’s innovative approach to project delivery, “Architect Led Design Build”, is simple: the New York City-based firm acts as both the architect and the contractor. The client gets two separate contracts with different legal entities but the same people. A typical project goes from schematic design, directly to subcontractors who estimate cost and contribute useful information on alterations or alternatives. This feedback loop of information continues through design development and construction documents, at which point the firm manages the construction themselves. No surprises.

Townhouse, New York. By Peter Gluck & Partners
Source: http://www.gluckpartners.com/mainframe.html
Drawing sets are organized by bid package such as “Concrete” or “Glazing”, rather than the traditional organization by design disciplines, such as “Architectural” or “Electrical”. In this way the subcontractors get information relevant only to their work. This method of project delivery puts enormous pressure on the firm responsible for the project design and execution. In Gluck’s case, they’re happy to take on this responsibility because of the added profit brought in by assuming the contractor role and, more importantly, the higher quality projects they’re able to deliver.
In contrast, Tocci Construction, has rethought project delivery to a different and, in some ways, opposite end. While Gluck provides an example of architects gaining more control of their product by stepping up to accept more responsibility and risk, Tocci provides an example of the contractor taking on more responsibility for that same upper hand. Tocci’s method, highly collaborative project delivery (HCPD), involves co-location of architect, contractor, structural engineers, MEP and highly efficient collaboration due to ease and speed of communication. Tocci moderates and generates early collaboration between all parties to achieve the same goals of cutting back on communication time lag and misunderstandings that result in change orders.
These two approaches point to a coming evolution in project delivery methods in architecture and construction. Both have developed cyclical processes that go back and forth between reviewing design intent and constructability throughout the process, rather than defining a line when design stops and construction starts. While it seems that both are vying for a more close knit relationship between architect and contractor, it remains to be seen who will take the upper hand and gain control and monetary rewards for their additional involvement. Although in the case of Tocci, this coordination has been made possible largely by Pierce Reynoldson, an architect by training.
Both experiments are promising and indicate a coming advantage for architects: Those who have a better working knowledge of how buildings are actually built will have greater control of their product and their profits, and will be able to deliver a better quality product. And in the end, if architects don’t fill the current void, contractors will.
Kathryn Lenehan is a student in Yale School of Architecture post-professional master’s program. She received her Bachelor in Architecture from the University of Notre Dame.









Re-imagining Infrastructure: Part 3
Q&A: Andrew Blum
The Sustainable Campus
Integrating History with Today’s Needs
Science for Designers: Scaling and Fractals
Q&A: Jerry Helling
Combating the Healthcare Epidemic
Lab Report: XXIX
Rejection is a Good Teacher
The Ways We Work: IV



Historically, design-build was frowned upon by the architectural community due to the perceived fear that architects would have an unfair advantage to bid their own projects. The actual result was a distancing of the construction process from the profession, and a widening gap with architects and contractors on opposing sides. A few years ago, this was officially recognized as wrong-headed and the results are firms like Peter Gluck, Onion Flats (Philadelphia) and El Dorado (Kansas City). Although not necessarily a model for firms doing large projects, for smaller to medium-size firms it’s a huge step forward.
Comment by shtrum — January 30, 2012, @ 1:27 pm
Historically design/build was frowned upon by the LEGAL community positing that architects would be the fox in the chicken house. Who would protect the owner from one thing being designed and another lesser thing being installed? The result was the legalistic preference for institutionalizing separate sets of responsibilities that could be adjudicated in courts, and WOULD be adjudicated in courts. Resulting costs of risk management, law suits and E and O insurance have proven far more costly than any chickens that might have been gobbled.
Design/build as a method of project design and production is becoming common for projects of all scales. However design/build is usually driven by contractors. In other words, It is usually build/design. Are contractors smarter, more talented more professional than architects? Are they more capable of managing large projects? Can architects only handle small projects? Of course not.
It is only the fact that architects have just recently begun to lead the process (Architect-Led Design Build) that they have not been commissioned to design and build large projects.
Comment by Peter Gluck — February 1, 2012, @ 6:49 pm
any architect who has been involved in a traditional design-bid-build process would understand the benefit of what gluck & others are doing.
however, i thought that the legal rationale for the separation of powers was to mitigate a perceived conflict of interest: if an architect doesn’t have doesn’t stand to profit by specifying the most expensive toilet out there, they’re more likely to specify one with the best cost/benefit ratio for the owner.
Comment by hank — February 2, 2012, @ 6:19 pm
The question of design/build has a lot to do with intention. If your intention is to deliver a product which has the ability of being molded into the best result possible without being manipulated and changed in the process then it is important to have a handle on the entire show.
In the design/build process it is often the case that the phrase “common sense” is brought into the conversation, both in the design and the building phase. As I believe Peter is referring to above, many times in history these two, supposedly hand and hand phases have been broken apart by misunderstandings, cost engineering or just shear ego. Having a design team who is not just working with the build team but actually is the build team allows for a holistic approach and symbiotic result.
The great architects of the ages were the craftsmen and they were responsible for the final product.
What could be better than providing a full level of accountability while defining the actual results in which the project was originally intended to have and at the same time having the freedom to dream and design as you achieve the highest level of your team’s intention?
Comment by Patrick McDonald — February 3, 2012, @ 1:50 pm
I would also be keen to learn how many architects in US take control by also being joint owners in the development itself, as despite traditional separation as described here, this is far more beneficial to all parties as being witnessed in small - medium practices in Austral- Asia.
Comment by Anna Fairbank — February 8, 2012, @ 7:30 pm