You’d think with the amount of time we architects spend in school, all the esoteric titles on our book-shelves, and the cryptic language we use amongst one another at dinner parties that the keys to understanding modernism would be complicated, scholarly and difficult to comprehend. You’d be led to believe that the fruits of modern design are only achieved after years of study and monastic-like internships; the culmination of having actually read all of those books on our shelves. It’s what many of us architects would like you to believe. These diversions do a good job of justifying why we write “manifestos” that nobody understands and they validate why we need to take out a second mortgage to afford all of those linen hardcover books.

But the fact of the matter is that good modern design can be boiled down to a handful of basic principles; principles that you don’t need a Ph.D. in architecture to understand. Today’s post is an explanation of five simple codes of modernism. Over the years, we’ve found that these 5 are present in almost every good example of modernism and they matter more than all of the obscure styles, trends and fashions put together. Granted, good modern design requires more than just these principles, but these 5 will get you most of the way there.

1. Line things up. Seriously, just line things up. As simple and obvious as this sounds, we’re constantly blown-away at the variety of architecture out there with features that should line up, but don’t. And as soon as you notice, you can’t stop noticing. One of our favorite examples of lining things up gets built into every home and commercial space that we do. We have a simple diagram on our cover sheet indicating that all door handles, light switches, shower controls and towel bars are to vertically align (basically anything that you reach out to touch or operate occurs in the same plane). You may not cognitively recognize what’s going on in a home where everything aligns, there’s just a visual harmony that works. But once you do notice, well…

2. Eighty-six the gratuitous. If it doesn’t need to be there, get rid of it. Good modern architecture is rarely about itself; it’s more often about the people and activities that go on inside and around the architecture. The breakfast nook below is everything it needs to be and nothing more. The space is about a family sharing meals together, kids doing their homework, dogs lying underneath waiting for table scraps and the daily celebration of life.

3. Use paint judiciously. Materials like wood, steel and stone have already worked hard to produce their inherent, beautiful qualities. Good modernism is true to itself, so don’t cover up all of nature’s labor with a thick coat of your favorite color. We have a tongue-in-cheek rule of thumb that the only thing you should paint is gypsum wall board and other paint.

4. Be authentic. Express the elements that need to be there and be deliberate about it. The drop beam designed into the simple shed below becomes one of the primary design features of the composition. Because it needs to be there structurally, there is an intuitive response that it belongs there visually.

5. Know when to stop. There’s a certain point at which simplifying is no longer sensible and it’s important to recognize–and yield to– this threshold. Good modernism is cost-effective. Minimalism, on the other hand, is complicated, expensive and (typically) inauthentic. Removing the column in the application below may lend to a cleaner, more minimal aesthetic. But the fact of the matter is that there are significant structural loads being resolved at that particular point in the house. Resolving these loads by some other means would be difficult and ridiculously costly – it would lack sensibility. An attenuated steel column is used here to deal with the increased point-load and the subsequent slenderness ratio. The column is differentiated from the other structural components of the house; in addition to being cost effective and sensible, it’s also a celebrated component of the interior.

Let us know what’s on your list of design principles.

Cheers, from TeamBUILD

A couple months ago, we wrote a blog post about a Usonian home located in Western Washington designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. We had the rare opportunity to tour the home, and recently a similar opportunity arose. Last weekend, BUILD was fortunate enough to check out another local Usonian project, the Brandes House, located just west of Seattle in Sammamish, Washington. On this recent visit, we got to thinking about the context surrounding Wright’s pursuit of this democratized form of architecture, which only came to fruition in the later part of his career.

The Usonian Homes emerged out of Wright’s ideas explored in Broadacre City, Organic Architecture, and his longtime interest in designing affordable housing on a massive scale. The term Usonia was adopted because it was seen as a more appropriate term to reference the United States than “America,” and it reinforced the idea of a newness in “American” life and culture. Though the word clearly didn’t take off in the way some anticipated, it has nevertheless become a term loaded with significance in the architectural world.

[Image Credit: New York Times]

The first Usonian was built in 1937 on a dare. A friend challenged FLW to design and build a home for $5000. After Jacob House I (above), Wright went on to build more Usonians in the proceeding twenty years. These post-depression homes re-evaluated the necessities versus the luxuries of the single-family home. Gone were the servants quarters, roomy bedrooms, and large kitchens. Extraneous volumes like basements and attics were excluded as well. In this new model, Wright instead manipulated the compact houses by compressing/expanding volumes with strategic wall and ceiling placements. And what these homes lacked in sprawling square footage, they made up for in their connection to the exterior surroundings of the home — both visually and physically. The use of uninterrupted corner glass and direct terrace access make an otherwise miniscule bedroom feel less confining.

[Image Credit: Seattle P-I]

Materials used were simple and locally sourced. This accomplished both the need to keep costs down and the desire to have these homes feel like they belonged within their surroundings. The otherwise spartan concrete blocks at the Brandes House possess a natural rose tint and the walls are tapered with a stepped block pattern at key locations. This achieved two things: it made the building appearing to be emerging out of the ground at the exterior, and it created a cozier volume at the interior, at living room where the seating and fireplace are located, for instance.

[Image Credit: Seattle P-I]

The ultimate goal was to create a comfortable home for a mid-century middle income family while executing a thoughtful, modern design. The constraints of economy didn’t automatically disqualify quality nor beauty. It instead set a different departure point based on efficiency. The seas we’re navigating today aren’t far from what Wright faced in his days, riddled with their own post-recession design challenges. Quality modern architecture and affordability are commonly seen as mutually exclusive qualities. We don’t necessarily believe this to be the case, even today. Modernism ought to be accessible and reproducible, and we’re exploring the possibilities of connecting those dots at present. Stay tuned for more dialogue, design, and building on this front.

Big thanks to Larry Woodin for setting up these tours. We look forward to the next one.

Cheers from Team BUILD

A recent project of ours just wrapped up and during the final stretch we stopped by for a site visit. Approaching the front door, we were so absorbed in the house itself that we almost missed what has become one of our favorite details on the project. Right by the front porch, cast into one of the pavers along the walkway, our clients (a family of four) cast their handprints into the concrete. It’s a detail that strikes a nostalgic chord: reminds us of childhood, the fascination of concrete curing into permanency, and the excitement of a new home. Most of all, it brings to surface the simple fact that, as serious as we are about architecture, ultimately, homes are for people and families to enjoy. They’re for dinner parties, running around in the yard and watching your kids grow up. A home is about much more than the architecture alone.

Today’s post is a salute to the impromptu details that make a project special. All of those serendipitous items that don’t appear on the drawings: the unexpected character added after the fact, the ad hoc feature that just seemed like it belonged there, the handprints in the sidewalk marking a key moment. Good design needs room to breathe, room for the spontaneous. It’s the unplanned items that often make the design sing.

Share any serendipitous details that you’ve come across in the comments below.

Cheers from team BUILD

Here at BUILD, we’re always yapping about social media and internet promotion. Having seen our own business grow and flourish due to a healthy online effort, we’re enormous advocates of having a strong web presence. Despite (or perhaps due to) the overwhelming amount of digital media out there, we’re always keeping an ear to the rail for what’s next.

Lately we’ve been spending quite a bit of time on what we’re calling meta sites -the web 2.0 experience devoted to user contributed images. And while the image is the first thing you see on these sites, they are typically accompanied by a significant amount of metadata (or quiet data). There’s a range of information typically included in this: the author, designer, or person that found the image; links to other websites, source blogs, opinions; and last but not least, descriptions of the image itself. While you may only see pretty pictures on these sites, all of this metadata is hard at work behind the scenes. The more an image is viewed, the more important it becomes. If a well-viewed image links back to your website or blog, the increase in traffic is noticeable. If you consistently post photos that people enjoy, what you have to say becomes very important on these meta sites. Subsequently, your images are featured more prominently, you gain “followers”, and the traffic bump becomes significant. Basically, you become popular.

All of this is incredibly effective as a means of getting your work noticed in the world. It harnesses the internet for what it does best; connecting information. It boosts traffic, helps build a brand name, and it establishes a larger audience of potential clients. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

So what do meta sites get out of it?

For one, they get your slick photos (crappy photos don’t cut it on these sites). Whether you took the photos yourself or found them on another site, good photos are valuable; they take time, effort and expertise to produce. Even finding someone else’s professional photos of the right things takes some skill. It takes a design savvy individual to know where to look, recognize beauty when they see it, and send it in the right direction.

Secondly the meta sites get your organizational ability out of the deal. You’re doing important work by linking applicable data with photos. Again, this takes time, effort and a bit of knowledge to explain why a photo is important, hot link it to the appropriate source on the web and correctly name it. While it may sound like a simple task for a single photo, consider that these sites have hundreds of thousands of photos in their collections -it would require an army of employees to properly organize, tag, link and explain them all. Meta sites are getting all that labor for free.

Thirdly, and most importantly, most meta sites are collecting your interests, preferences, behaviors, patterns and, yes… your contact info. They’re carefully watching who you follow and who follows you. If you let them, they’d be more than happy to track what you’re up to on Facebook and Twitter as well (we recommend using discretion if you do so). What do they do with this info? Who knows exactly, but as we’re seeing with the IPOs of social media companies, all of this is exceptionally lucrative data.

To some, this might seem like more digital big-brotherhood in the vein of Google and Facebook, but we see it a bit differently. With the correct expectations and proper tuning of the account settings on a handful of these meta sites, it can be a symbiotic business relationship that benefits both parties. Lately we’re noticing an increasing number of these sites dedicated to design and architecture; making the conversation around image-based meta sites more important than ever.

Today’s post is a review of what we’ve found so far on meta sites; while we’re not experts on the matter, we’ve poked around enough to gather some data form a few opinions. Call it Social Media 201 (for those of you who have completed Social Media 101 and have your website and blog speeding along). It should also be a good resource for you non-architects out there who are equally engaged in good design and inspiring photography.

Using Meta Sites

For Lookie-Lous you can just go to any of these sites and enjoy the scenery. No account or sign in necessary. For architects, designers and anyone that wants to contribute or get exposure for their own work, most of these sites require an account. You know the drill –some basic contact information, a password, a brief description of why you’re so dang special. Pay special attention to the check boxes sometimes hidden under “extended” or “advanced” settings. That’s where you can turn off all the email notifications and manage who sees what.

Evaluating Meta Sites As A Contributor

It’s essential that the meta site recognizes the value of the contributor’s information. We put quite a bit of sweat-equity into taking good photos and by the time they make it onto the internet (along with their associated meta), we’ve got some serious time into the process. They are an investment that we’re trading to the site, and we’re getting something in return. Once we’ve done our part and the info is loaded up, it’s time for the meta site to do its part. Presenting our information in an uncluttered, modern format is imperative; the interface should reflect the quality of the work being shown. Next is getting the images in front of eyeballs and allowing people to conveniently find what they’re looking for via search or filter functions. Allowing the images to be easily distributed, conveniently shared with others, and commented on are additional features that score big points with us. Links that take people back to our blog and website are imperative to the experience; they should be conveniently located and  link directly to the source. It’s also nice perk being rewarded for the quality and frequency of uploads with strategic placement on the meta site.

Our Review of 5 Meta Sites:

 Pinterest

This is the mothership of meta sites.  It has an astronomical number of users and a diverse demographic. The images range from hot modern architecture to your grandmother’s doilies, and everything in between.

+ The format is visually pleasing (even though the site doesn’t cater exclusively to design)
+ It’s always full of fresh, exciting images
+ The quality of the photos is excellent
+ The format for compiling portfolios is clean, simple and easy to navigate
+ Traffic directly from the site to websites/blogs is excellent
+ Content is organized by categories so you can (sort of) weed out the crap
- There’s no category for “modern architecture”, just “architecture” (shame)
- There’s a lot of ridiculous crap on the site, like doilies
- There’s been some controversy about Pinterest changing meta-data for profit

 Fancy

It’s an extremely sexy meta site, but it’s also becoming more exclusive by the moment. We were originally attracted to Fancy for its exquisite photos and savvy eye for design. Since then, we’ve become disenchanted by the endless streams of cars we can’t afford to drive, food too bespoke to eat, and models that wouldn’t give us the time of day. Which isn’t to say that we don’t enjoy looking at the pretty pictures, we’re just done trying to make a contribution to Fancy.

+ Consistently gorgeous images
+ The contributors are extremely design savvy
- Getting an image posted on the site’s stream is nearly impossible – for us we’ve found that the odds of getting bit by a shark are slightly more favorable
- They give out those worthless badges, like “Congratulations, you added 50 things to art and have been promoted to Gallery Curator”.
- Most of the photos are of things we can’t relate to (Lamborghinis, Foie Gras Sliders, Irina Shayk)
- It’s a little too heavy on the glamour and not enough on the both-feet-on-the-groundness
- The site makes us feel poor and ugly

Materialicious

We love this super clean site full of modernist goodies. There’s a nice range of modern architecture and design as well as newly launched products that you’ve probably never seen before. Once you’ve proven yourself as a contributor they’re very good about giving your work exposure and the traffic they harness is impressive.

+ It has a design conscious interface
+ The content is always fresh and valuable
+ The contributor upload is simple and straight-forward
+ Even the advertising is well designed into the site
+ The photos are all pro all the time
- It can take a day or so for a new entry to appear on the site

 Houzz

Houzz is a great example of the wave of meta-sites focused not just on architecture and interiors, but specifically on residential projects (or houzzez). We like that viewers are drawn to the site precisely because they’re interested in a new home or a remodel and can easily select “modern” to filter out all the faux-nonsense.

+ Different filters for style and spaces can be cross-referenced for searching precision
+ The photos are pro for the most part (a few turds sneaking through now and again)
+ The upload interface and portfolio storage is straight-forward and easy to use
+ There’s plenty of room for descriptions and tags (high metadata potential)
- The site has WAY too much fuddy-duddy faux-traditional design for our design sensibilities (it makes our eyes hurt)
- It’s harder to be featured than it should be
- The interface isn’t as sexy as it could be (they need to turn that dial up a bit)

Design Shuffle

We’re relatively new to DesignShuffle but so far so good. New portfolio additions appear immediately on the home page and the folks at DS have been great about making personal contact with us to optimize our exposure on the site. The site can be a bit overwhelming as far as  furnishings go, but it makes sleek, clean modernism stand out all the more.

+ Great response time between posting and getting exposure
+ The people behind DS seem honored for the contributions
+ There’s lots of room for including metadata along with each photo
+ Nice big high-res photos
- The interface is a little busy
- It’s heavy on the interiors and light on the architecture
- Not all the photos are pro

There’s five that we’ve been fiddling around on lately, and four that we’re sticking with. There’s  a barrage of others out there, so let us know what your experiences have been:  good or bad.

Cheers from TeamBUILD.

We’ve all seen them. You know the ones. The super-sleek, super-sexy stair designs.  The ones that, without fail, attract the design-minded like moths to a flame. We know them well; they’re always defying gravity with open cantilevered treads and enigmatically hidden connections. Handrails, when actually implemented, are a mere wisp of steel delicately gliding above the composition. This elite class of stair is generally white and always lead to some lofty, exclusive eden  – a place where one leisurely lounges, nibbling on figs, admiring the stair. And they usually float above a pool of water or any variety of objects found in the “Dangerous To Fall In” category. Admit it, you’re fascinated by them.

It’s worth noting that these stairs bear no resemblance whatsoever to anything that can even remotely be designed, permitted, built, inspected, or approved within the United States of America. Not a one. No guard between the open treads? No can do. More than 4 inches of open space between guardrails? Negatory. No guardrails? Go fish.

For us architects it’s a cocktail made with equal parts frustration and envy –throw in a dash of resentment for good measure and garnish with a twist of cynicism. Each time we open the latest design-mag, it’s the same bitter taste: a smoking hot, totally unrealistic open-tread, cantilevered, guardrail-less stair. Did the building code finally change to allow for more flexibility in stair design? Or did someone figure out a clever new way to interpret the code? Maybe we missed a building code exception? Oh, wait,….it’s in….Brazil?

So it goes.

Whether this is our way of liberating ourselves from stair envy or simply an enjoyable exercise to poke fun at stair design that might as well be on Mars, we’re launching the inaugural Ridiculous Stair Awards. Here are the top ten “winners” in reverse order:

 Black stair by Ecole.

VDVT House by Boetzkes | Helder

Circular Stairway by satt

Home Studio by ataSTUDIO

Shallard House by Lat Forty Five

Cool ribbon staircase by HSH Architects.

Minimal Stair by tecARCHITECTURE

Illuminated floating stair photography by Veronica Morales Angulo

Loft F27 by Schlosser + Partner

And the winner is…

Floating Concrete Stair by Ábaton Arquitectura

Big thanks to contemporist.com and stairporn.org.

Let us know if we’ve missed any contenders in the comments below.

Cheers from TeamBUILD

Along with the holidays come all of those holiday parties. And along with most any holiday party comes the potential for uneasy conversation and awkward small-talk. You’ve been there, you know you have; the only question is which side of the fence you were on. If you’re going to be in a room with one or more architects this holiday season, we recommend brushing up on some things not to say. We’ve rounded up our list of favorite taboo quotes, complete with mind-reading translations of what the architects will be thinking, should you elect to go there. Enjoy.

I always wanted to be an architect
Translation: I took an architecture course in college for about 6 minutes; you people are nuts. While you were toiling away in studio I was showing the entire Alpha Phi sorority how to make vodka Jello.

I always admired architects back in school for their dedication
Translation: I make 3 or 4 times as much as you do and I only spent four-and-a-half years in school.

I wouldn’t have made it in architecture school; I wasn’t any good at math
Translation: I never set foot outside the school of communication and would be blown away to find out how little math is required to get a degree in architecture.

Have you ever designed one of those cool infinity edge swimming pools?
Translation: I haven’t the slightest idea what to talk to you architects about; I saw a cool swimming pool in the last copy of Architectural Digest that I flipped through years ago while sitting in my dentist’s waiting room. I think it was the house of someone famous.

We should talk to you about a dormer project that we’ve been thinking about for a while
Translation: My wife has been nagging me for years about turning the attic into a master suite. I don’t care at all about the master bedroom, but you seem like the kind of guy that I could pawn this off on to get the heat off me for a while.

You practice architecture AND teach -must be nice getting two paychecks
Translation: I’m oblivious to the fact that, by the time you include bus fare, most architects actually pay to teach.

I’ve got this idea for my dream house that you’d really get a kick out of…
Translation: I still live in my parent’s basement.

So what do you think of the new stadium design?
Translation: I couldn’t care less what you think of the new stadium design; my husband is getting me another drink and I’m really hoping that this question bridges the gap.

My favorite architects are Frank Gehry and Frank Lloyd Wright
Translation: the only architects I’ve ever heard of are Frank Gehry and Frank Lloyd Wright.

So you’re an architect, my cousin’s wife [or other semi-distant relative] is an architect
Translation: The ice in my glass has entirely melted and now my drink tastes watered down.

Back in college, I had a buddy that studied architecture but I never saw much of him because he was always in studio
Translation: there was an architect in my fraternity back in college and we always used to hang out in his room because he wasn’t ever there and he had nice furniture.

I should show you the flashing around my chimney, maybe you can figure out why it leaks
Translation: I don’t really understand what architects do.

So you’re an architect, do you do residential or commercial work?
Translation: I commute from my suburban home to an office park 5 days a week; I haven’t been to a museum, a café or a dinner venue that isn’t a chain restaurant since the Clinton Administration.

You’d love it; it’s got a lot of very elaborate trim and cove molding details
Translation: I have never heard of the modern movement. The phrase “less is more” sounds like it might apply to my septic tank.

So do you guys still use T-squares and those plastic triangles?
Translations: you look like you just crawled out from under a rock and the digital revolution may very well have passed you by. When’s the last time you got some sleep, man?

We used an architect for our last house
Translation: I will never hire an architect again. The last time we worked with an architect the project came in 75% over budget and the architect still thought they were the icing on the cake.

What’s your favorite building?
Translation: If you don’t say something that I can relate to, this conversation is over.

Do you have a preference between Ionic and Corinthian columns?
Translation: I drive a Roman chariot and wear a tunic.

I actually designed it -I just had the architect draw it up
Translation: I don’t know a wall section from a carpet sample. I had a few creative ideas from that time that I sniffed epoxy-glue in 7th grade shop class and they’ve been rattling around in my head ever since. I found a drafter who got straight C’s in architecture school who couldn’t give a crap about making a name for himself; he’d put his stamp on a Rorschach test if I paid him to. The plans flew through the building department because all the details came straight out of a Graphic Standards book from the 1980’s.

…and by all means, add your favorites.
Cheers and happy holidays from team BUILD

The door shut and we all glanced at each other with that what-just-happened look and simultaneously murmured “we really hope not”.

It’s always struck us as odd that the typical path of most architects involves doing work that is increasingly more expensive and precious. There’s a disturbing expectation around architecture that the further along the professional trajectory a firm gets, the more exclusive their work should become. The fact of the matter is that it’s simply not the road we’re on; we’re blazing a different trail.

Until that moment, we hadn’t really expressed this in our office culture but felt that it was worth intentionally doing so; we truly enjoy designing and building real places for real people to live and work in. Working on architecture that is necessary and integral to the society functioning around us is important; it inspires us. We’re not excited by the endeavor of creating residential museums for society’s elite. And that’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with doing so, it’s just not what gets us out of bed each morning excited to do what we do. We’re much more engaged in making simple and clean modernism for folks in our various communities who are in a similar place in life as ourselves.

Our projects typically cost between $175 and $225 per square foot, not $1000 per square foot; and we like it that way. It’s not our goal to work up to the “high-end” or exclusive work; we’re already doing exactly what we’ve been trained to do. We’re doing what we want to be doing.

To us, doing inspiring, modern work that provides high value is one of the main ingredients of a successful project. It’s not the cheapest work out there, but it’s nowhere near the most expensive. Our simple assertion is that we need to provide our client’s with top value while creating modern architecture, and this makes sense for people who live (and work) and have both feet on the ground. It brings pleasure and offers new opportunities to people who are concerned with good design. And this is precisely where we like to operate. This “middleground” is satisfying, meaningful and useful. And we’re planning on staying right here.

Cheers from team BUILD.

When it comes to awards, there are three types of architects;
1.    The architects that get awards,
2.    The architects that don’t,
3.    The architects that don’t go after awards to begin with.

Winning an award in architecture involves much more than simply designing and building a great project.  There are a host of variables that have influence over which projects receive awards, and which projects don’t.
We’ve noticed this trend over the years and have been able to isolate five variables that go into awards.

 Jurors can be wild cards.
Most award ceremonies involve a panel of jurors made up of architects, designers and critics who select the winning projects. What’s important to realize is that these panel members are often brought in from different places; and while this brings fresh perspectives to the discussion, it’s a double edge sword. Different regions have different philosophies of design, different trends, and different methods of design. Often times, jurors also have their own agendas. Maybe they just authored a book on a certain topic, maybe they’re pushing a certain style or cause, or maybe they’ve got an axe to grind with another jury member, who knows.

Submissions imply marketing.
Most award ceremonies require architects to submit a package of information for each project. Along with the submission comes the opportunity to market, enhance or spin the project; subsequently the submission itself can add an exaggerated layer of gloss to a project. With a bit of insight, presentations can also be calibrated to the idiosyncrasies of the jurors (see #1).

Some of the most important project information is never taken into account.
Did the finished project meet the budget? Are the clients happy with the end result? Did the sub-contractors curse the architect’s name from the earthwork to the punch list? As important as these factors are, they are rarely, if ever, taken into consideration with an awards ceremony.

Ideally, the winners represent the institution hosting the awards.
The organization hosting, coordinating and paying for the award ceremony typically wants winners that represent their values. Do the winners pay dues to the hosting organization? Do the winners represent the principles and beliefs of the organization? Do the winners question the nature of award ceremonies on their blog? Whether stated in the criteria or not, these things most likely matter.

The impression of progress.
The very nature of holding an annual award ceremony suggests that the architecture needs to be something new, different and better than last year’s architecture. The nature of an awards ceremony proposes that there is a continued progress. This can steer the jury’s attention toward projects that *seem* racy or cutting edge. New sometimes trumps over good.

We’re not saying that any of these variables are good or bad, but simply that they’re most likely present at an awards ceremony; nor are we suggesting that it should be any other way. To some degree, these factors make award ceremonies exciting and unpredictable. It also takes a clever architectural team to craft a submission with these variables in mind; crafting the project entry requires its own strategy which we admire on a certain level.

The nature of award ceremonies is certainly something we’ve pondered over the years, and after observing many award ceremonies (and even submitting to a few), we finally came to the conclusion that we’re type 3 in the architect breakdown: we simply don’t go after awards.  We came to this conclusion based on a very simple reason; that is, time is valuable. The time involved in putting together a submission for an architectural award competition is significant: drawings typically need to be reformatted, images need to be resized, briefs need to be written, bios reworked, etc. For us, the time involved is too significant for a result that is, at best, a shot in the dark (or left up to the variables mentioned above). That same amount of time can be put into efforts that have direct and effective results like updating the website, providing value to readers on our blog, or, most importantly, serving our current clients well.

We’re not suggesting that this stance is right or wrong, nor do we suffer from sour grapes (although undoubtedly some folks will try to take this post there). We’re glad that architectural awards exist and we’ll always be rooting for our favorite entries. With all the hype around awards this time of year, we just couldn’t help but present some alternative thoughts to architecture award ceremonies. As with any of our posts, we look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Cheers from team BUILD

In the late 1960’s, when the construction was far enough along on the 100-story John Hancock Center, the developer began strategizing about how to best sell, lease and rent the tower’s residential and commercial spaces. But there was a problem; many of these spaces sat behind steel cross-bracing –a structural feature required of the building’s lateral system. These structural cross-braces are located on all 4 sides of the building and span from one end to the other; they impede views, they interfere with the clean orthogonal grid, and sometimes they eliminate entire windows. The developer feared that these spaces would be difficult to fill  and, even if tenants could be found for them, it was likely that the developer wouldn’t have much negotiating power given the massive diagonal steel brace slicing the view in half. What to do…

[Photo courtesy of Thunder Bay Books]

And then someone came up with a brilliant idea. They proposed that the developer charge more for the spaces with the cross-bracing. You see, these rare spaces posses a piece of the buildings unique character. Rather than being undesirable, these spaces were special, the cross-bracing made them more valuable. So the developer applied this strategy and not only did tenants pay more for the offices and condos behind the cross-bracing, but these spaces were the first to go. Tenants who came late to the party were disappointed that they missed out on getting a piece of the building’s distinctive structure. Very clever.

As an architect or designer, you have more influence over the value of design than you might think. Creating a narrative and telling an interesting story about the product is just as much a part of the end result as the design itself. Designs shaped by meaningful experiences and strong ideas have the potential of being more valuable. Maybe that value is realized in a higher price point, maybe it translates into a larger scale of replication, or maybe the value is the proliferation of other people telling your story. Whether a design has value and where that value resides is significantly influenced by its author; the designer has a profound influence on the value of design.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s industrial design, landscape design, architectural design or  widget design. Excavate the process for a good story, allow the enthusiasm and rigor you have for design to saturate the narrative. Right now (50 years after the original story) there are people in the John Hancock tower who aren’t bothered by a cross-brace blocking their view; instead they have a special piece of the building in their office. It’s the same piece of steel, just a different narrative they have in their head –a narrative that gives the design much more value.

Cheers from team BUILD

[Photo by Emile (Doctor T) Tobenfeld]

[Photo by Emile (Doctor T) Tobenfeld]