SEGAL VS. LOCUS VS. SEAGAL

At the beginning of his keynote speach at the Minnesota AIA convention, Jonathan Segal addressed the crowd with a hope that he could create converts to his way of thinking;to infuse other architects with the MasterBuilder Control ideology. Members of this blog were in attendance, as were the principals of Locus Architecture. In speaking with Wynne Yelland after the presentation it was learned that the comments of Segal had given him some ideas. Though he was unwilling to share them with us as commentary on this blog, as a previous post indicates, he finally obliged us the opportunity to interview him regarding conclusions taken away from the convention in regards to his own practice.

Before getting to the comments from the interview, it is important to take into account the mission statement of Locus Architecture as advertised on their website;

"We provide exemplary architectural design catering to clients' specific needs, while offering owners the satisfaction of finished projects which reduce the significant malignant impact on the environment."

Adverstising is a tricky word, because a phrase like this is meant to sell an ideology to potentially like minded clients. The question is whether the work supports the pitch, and in terms of this small design build firm, the answer is yes. The architectural ethos outlined in this simple phrase is exemplified in the work; work made possible by having Control of the entire process from design to construction. Nevertheless, in viewing the projects of this firm on the website, not every built artifact credited Locus as the builder. At some point, then, their masterbuilder delivery relenquished total control of the design to involve more of a construction management mode.

Locus is currently involved in designing a church in northern Wisconsin where the client insists on using a local contractor for the builder. We began the interiew with Wynne by asking if this type of business relationship undermines the ideology set forth on their website, and if it lessens the amount of control they have in delivering the finished project. His response was that in this type of delivery, the level of control they have as masterbuilder can never be attained. This is a result of RISK that Locus is willing to take as builders with new materials and systems, compared to a contractor who is more apt to operate under a guaranteed measure of quality which they know they can produce for a set cost. The attitude at Locus in terms of integrating new technology is, "how hard can it be," while the contractor would rather play it safe with what is already known.

So is this the direction for Locus. As the partners get older, they admit that they will no longer be as directly involved with "swinging the hammer". Will their role be defined as designers who hand over their work to other builders. According to Wynne, that is hardly their path. From their experience in projects like this impending church, all work can be good work. The catch is that as they lose more control, or as designs get decided upon by committees or outside contractors, the work can fall into a realm of limbo defined by not being innovative enough to speak to Locus's design aesthetic but also not conventional enough to attract the less adventurous consumer.

Here in lies Mr. Yelland's response to Jonathan Segal. Locus has had their share of clients, much to the chagrin of Segal no doubt who preaches the values of being client-less. Nevertheless, the future of Locus lies in the model of real estate development that Segal persues. Currently celebrating their tenth year of existence, Locus has the construction and business background that can lead them into the future of developing their own projects, maintaining control of the designs, and sub-contracting out the work that they themselves can not build. As Wynne stated during the interview, the Dean of the College of Architecure and Landscape Architecture at the University of Minnesota, Dean Fisher, came up to him after Segal's keynote address and told him that in ten years, Locus could be giving that speech about Masterbuilder. In other words, the future for Locus as Design Build professionals is to remain in Control of the entire process by being proactive architects and builders.

In the end, there is only one person that comes to mind when thinking of Segal and Locus, and that is Seagal. Why you may ask? Well, like Segal and Locus, Seagal is Hard to Kill, Out for a Kill, Above the Law and at the same time he is master of music, a master of spirituality, and a master of kicking your ass with Aikido. What the hell does this mean. It means, that like Seagal, Segal and Locus are multifaceted, diverse entities whose abilities allow them to maintain the utmost level of CONTROL.

Jonathon Segal wanted converts to his way of thinking; He's got 'em. Locus is forging their own version of it, although they had a strong identity before hearing his keynote address, and TLC Architects, well, we're on our way; but not before we go see Steven Seagal's classic feature, Marked For Death.

Control of process, Control of results

on TLC architects blog

TALL buildings, BIG controversy

Some words about height…

Height, Density and Politics

Brought by the AIA MN Urban Design Committee, this entertaining presentation at the AIA Minnesota convention had people from all over the spectrum: architects, developers, community advocates, and project managers. What was expected to be a controversial talk was in reality a very happy marriage between the participants. However, there was an evil, contra force acting against this happy family: the community. Yes, it seems the community does not want to grow; we all want to remain being the Minneapolis child. We are afraid of density, crime, pollution, crowds of people, and above all HEIGHT. Yes, the infamous height. Luckily, superheroes like Gretchen Nichols and her Center for Neighborhoods group can bring some light into this obscure issue. Gretchen and a couple of friends from the Metropolitan Design Center are trying to convince people that Height is not such a bad thing and that city density in fact is a positive thing for the public realm. So, it seems people are being more proactive rather than reactive, however there is so much Gretchen can do, I mean a mother of 4 and a strong community leader, Gretchen can not influence the whole Minneapolis about not being afraid of Height and its malevolous consequences.
So, there are still some out there who have not come out from the dark side and oppose projects such as a nice 6-storey mixed used building on Lake Calhoun. David Graham from ESG has fought the dark force without conquering it. In fact “the heavy-handed tactics from the community” impeded the realization of this project.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Yes, Bill Baxley from BKV group has been able to defeat the evil and got a green light for their project in uptown. How could he do it? Well, it wasn’t his charm what convinced the community of approving a 112 ft. building. What really convinced them was BKV willingness to work with both the City and the community to design a project that was satisfactory not only to the clients, but also to the public in general. So let’s see and wait if this building turns out to be a success.
David Frank as his last name suggests comes to be very frank about the issue of Height. A New York City native, he is evidently not afraid of height and in fact he is behind the Phoenix and the River project in the Marcy Holmes neighborhood in Minneapolis. How could the neighborhood approve such a tall building? No one knows, what it’s known for sure is that this building will have excellent views to the Mississippi River that only some $fortunate$ ones will be able to enjoy.
After an hour and a half of discussion I am still not sure what to think of Height. Is it going to make Minneapolis a cosmopolitan city? Is Height to bring people back from the suburbs? Is it only going to help create up-scale condos? Or will it become the force that unities architects with developers? The future of Minneapolis remains uncertain, however there are many out there who dare to fight in the name of Height: good luck to all them.

SMALL firm LARGE ego

"Control is Everything." These words were spoken at the 2005 AIA convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota by keynote speaker Jonathan Segal , FAIA, of San Diego, California. Aptly titled "The Architect as Masterbuilder in the Urban Environment" Mr. Segal's speach centered around a discussion of his work that showcased his ability to cut out the contractor, but also the client. If architecture is the soul of a design project, Segal questions why are so many architects willing to let it go; why can't this profession have all the power to hold onto the design? In response to this, Jonathan Segal has chosen to become the "Man" and lead the future of architecture by example.

Unlike the government work and corresponding trend of design build outlined in the previous post on this blog, the portfolio of Segal exhibits an attitude that shows disdain for that process. His is an architecture where He is the client and He is the designer and He is the builder. And when we say He, we do not mean God, though it appears as though he thinks himself as one. He did not give away his secrets as to how he learned the business and physical construction of things, but he strongly eluded the He does it all and can control it all because He builds residential projects where He is the client with his wife, who is also his business partner. He talked about how smart He was without speaking to how He got so smart and savy with all aspects of the profession.

Though Segal does engaging work and He knows how to "dress the part" for each segment of the profession, whether designing or dressing down to physically build with sub-contractors of his choice, the process he utilizes seems limiting in terms of scope and function. Nevertheless, residential work is important for increasing urban density, and his buildings primarily have been multiple units of condos or townhomes.

Ultimately, Segal is in control and he is financially rewarded. To do what he does seems to come with arrogance. If architects are to follow his model, must all humility go out the metaphorical window. In his terms, most definately, and why not. If you want to be the best, control the most, make the most then the architect must learn not to wait for work to come but be proactive and make the work happen. To do this, the architect must act alone as the sole visionary and builder. Screw everyone else!

MEDIUM AND LARGE: UNCLE SAM WANTS DESIGN/BUILD

It did come up at this year's AIA convention during Event 51
'A Green Case Study - Ramsey County's New Public Works Facility': the sentiment that there is angst among architects about the increasingly popular method of delivery known as Design/Build. Of course in principle Design/Build makes the GC the conductor of the multi-complex orchestration we used to consider architecture. Now it is back to master-building. But do you ever hear negative testimony from architects involved in Design/Build projects? Never. Architecture is a business however. Who is going to bite the hand that feeds you? (Notice the absence of any names holding anyone responsible in this post).

ROME WILL BE ABLE TO BE BUILT IN A DAY - AND UNDER BUDGET.
Not yet though. Most municipalities do not have the authority to organize a Design/Build "team" to erect buildings for the public works (why? we're not sure). Ramsey County however is a home-ruled chartered company with the authority to organize what turned out to be a huge success. This particular Design/Build project was awarded the Governor's Award for Excellence in Waste and Pollution Prevention.

But this wasn't the ultimate measure of success for the government (getting an award from themselves?). When asked does the government favor the Design/Build method of delivery, the response was to the effect 'what other project can you name that came in on time and under budget'. Viola! A new measure for greatness in the built environment.

SMALL: Design-Build as an ecological approach

The last issue of the architecture magazine Dwell features five different projects that are categorized as sustainable. One of the most interesting projects is a mix-used building in Berkeley, California. Street signs creating fences, car parts making garage doors and car windshields as shading devices are some of the tactics this sustainable architecture firm used in its project called the Dwight Way.
Architects: Karl Wanaselja, Cate Leger, Frederick Hyer, Scott McGlashan are principals and associates of Leger Wanaselja Architecture. As graduates from the University of California, Berkeley, it is not surprising that they practice ecological design. Nevertheless, their project makes a statement about sustainability and the use of innovative and reused materials.
It is somehow logical that Leger Wanaselja Architecture took not only the design of this project, but also the development and construction of it. This firm uses a design-build approach in where they are in most of their projects, the designers, developers and constructors. This kind of delivery method makes sense for this firm due to the innovative nature of the materials and the uniqueness manners these materials are put together. They claim in their mission statement to be committed to innovation in both design and construction. It seems that when a firm wants to experiment with unusual construction materials, are very concerned about the details and craftsmanship, and work closely with their sites to create ecological buildings, it is desirable that they are the only entity to work in their projects, thus assuring an integrative approach. There are also many risks involved with this kind of projects because the firm is somehow a pioneer in the use of unusual materials and they should have great knowledge on construction methods in order for buildings to be successful.
As wholly responsible of their projects, Leger Wanaselja Architecture can find alternative ways of designing and constructing. I wonder how feasible it is to try to innovate when the delivery methods are traditional, that is having a developer and contractor who are different from the firm building the project. It is perhaps difficult to assure quality, uniqueness and environmentally sensitiveness when working with entities that are perhaps not in tune with these ideas. That is perhaps why Leger Wanaselja Architecture chooses a design-build approach.

MEDIUM: Design-build as Synergy; Architect as Advisor

This medium sized case study pertains to the scope of the project that was to be designed and built for the owner/client. It is an example of a team assembled through synergy, matching ideals and goals between the architect, Perkins +Will, the contractor, Duke Construction(a subset of Duke Realty) and the owner, the Wilder Foundation. As shown in the graphic models above, there were three main ways to potentially organize the project, with the final Design-Build method of delivery being the winner. This process places the architect in an advisory role to the owner, thus particpating in the project as a role of service versus production. In this case study, this was seen as more desirable to the architects in that they were able to sell a service of architectural design versus selling a service of production. In this advisory role, the architect is enabled to focus on helping the owner see what they have and posit the question of "Why Build" and "do you need to build as much?"

Nevertheless, this method of delivery works as long as there is the synergy, a trust between the architect and contractor, both having parallel values. Otherwise there could be complications and information lost in translation between the architect and client via the contractor, who acts as the go between. In either of the three models of delivery, however, the architect still faces the same amount of liability. In this advisory role, the architect is also always at risk of giving bad advice. In the end, the Design Build approach utilized in this case study was about a team approach; it was less about control and more about putting together a good team that can work together to create the most appropriate response to the desires of the client.

LARGE. A Collaborative Approach

When talking about methods of delivery in the architectural practice, there are three different approaches: Design-Bid-Build, Construction Management and Design-Build. Within Design-Build, it appears that there are also differences in terms of the scale of the projects and also the delivery methods within this Design-Build approach.
Collaborative Design Group www.collaborativedesigngroup.com, a 40 person architectural firm based in Minneapolis, tried this approach in one of their projects. For the Midtown Exchange project on East Lake street in Minneapolis, Collaborative Design Group engaged in a large scale project, in where they were hired by a large scale developer: Ryan Companies.
Ryan Companies then became the entity dealing with the client. In this case, the client was the Hennepin County and the Design-Build approach enabled the Hennepin County to have a single contract with Ryan, which facilitated the bid process. (Supposition).
Collaborative Design Group was in charge to be the lead architect, planner and structural engineer group for the renovation of the Sears building, which will become the Midtown Exchange building.
This ambitious project involved the renovation of the historic 250,000 square feet Sears building. Housing, office and retail spaces will form the program of the building. In this project, Ryan needed to coordinate with different agencies: Allina group, Global Market and Sherman housing making this project even more intricate.
When a project is of such large scale, it seems that the client may benefit from only dealing with an entity: in this case: Ryan. However, the architecture firm still needs to deal with not only Ryan as the hiring entity, but also with the people from Hennepin County involved in this project, as well with the different community groups involved. Collaborative Design Group, as its name alludes, presumes to be a firm where collaboration is their main asset. In the Midtown Exchange project, the collaboration was perhaps even greater as not only the usual groups: client and community played a role, but also Collaborative Design Group needed to work side by side with the developers, in this case they were their bosses.

SMALL- Attitudes Toward Design - Ingenuity in Business Practice

Design/Build can describe the work of designers who use their construction experience and contractor's licenses to execute the building of their designs. The level of designer's participation can range from acting as the general contractor to having an in-house building crew to picking up a nail gun and banging up walls. More often than not, these three scenarios probably occur along side each other.

Design/Build considered in this respect often raises the issue whether designers are building or builders are designing. Firms like Locus Architecture can be described as having a focus on innovative design informed by their experience in building. On the other hand the work of Choice Wood Architects might be said to focus on quality construction employing tried and true designs. We encourage anyone reading this post to contribute additional descriptions of design/build firms and their work. We hop this will serve to construct a more complete picture of the design/build activity nationwide. (Searching the web unfortunately does not readily offer up examples.)

Based on a conversation with Paul Neseth of Locus Architecture the capability to act as a contractor and build allows architecture firms to adapt better to the cycles of the economy. Rather than expanding and contracting the number of employees as a firm's work load changes, a design/build firm has the potential of expanding and contracting its involvement in individual projects. During slow periods construction is a source of work and income. Times when business is high, construction can be contracted out in order to take on more design opportunities.

Challenging the Initial Assumptions of Design Build Delivery Systems

The experience of the Design Build studio strengthed our romantic, naive outlook of the design build process; we were not aware of the full impact and meaning of the professional relationship between architect, builder and the client. To us, we fulfilled the studio requirements and reaped the satisfaction of completing a project that transcended paper space. As helpful as Locus Architecture was, we were still oblivious to the complexity of their business relationships and how a small scale design build firm operated to serve the client and deliver the architectural product.

Today, in the beginning of the third, and final year of architectural Graduate study at the University of Minnesota, the course known as Professional Practice has opened our eyes to the possibilities, definitions, and organization of design-build practices. In class presentations by local firms have informed us of a basic classification of Case Studies of which we will further explore throughout the second half of the semester. The Case Studies will be organized as: SMALL, MEDIUM, or LARGE and be focused first at a local scale, and then broadened in scope to examine this method of delivery at the national level. Furthering our mission of an earlier blog entry, we look to dissect the advantages and disadvantages of the process and what they mean for the three scales of design-build. Essentially, with the case studies we look to analyze the diagram of the delivery process in comparison to the traditional method of design-bid-build product delivery to determine effectiveness and value in this methodology.

Looking back, last Spring's design build studio actually did involve a professional process of architectural delivery, but at a much smaller degree. It came close to following the definition of design-build as outlined in The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, 13th edition. As stated on page 173, "Under design-build, a consolidated entity provides both design and construction services to the owner. A single contract is established betweeen the owner and the architect-contractor or design-build entity." Our studio as the design-build team had a direct, explicit relationship with the State Fair to provide all services for the completion of the public seating and sun shading pavilion; we accomplished that goal but without recognizing it in those terms. With these other case studies, then, we will begin to see how this definition of the process plays out at a variety of scales.

SMALLER-Initial Assumptions based on Design Build curriculum in Architectural Graduate Study

The members of this blog team were all involved with a Design Build Studio in the Spring of 2005 at the University of Minnesota. The actual client was the Minnesota State Fair and the program to be considered was a public seating and sun shading pavilion. The mode of delivery was for the eleven students of the studio to design the structure in the first half of the semester and build it in the second half. The photos above represent daylighting studies of the physical model towards the end of the design phase. The leaders of the studio were from Locus Architecture, a small design build firm based in Minneapolis comprised of architects who were also knowledgeable builders The overall process, including communication with the instructors about their office culture, led us to further our assumption that the term design build pertained solely to smaller scale projects of which the design team was also the team responsible for building. Granted, elements of the State Fair project were sent to fabricators to assist in the building process of areas we had insufficient tools to experiment with on our own, but primarily the focus was on maintaining control of the design throughout the entire process. This was an advantage of the process, particularly in learning how to carry the details of the design through to their construction. In the end, we designed it, we built it.