Ignorance is Bliss (and funny!)

Not only is this an extremely honest and brutal portrayal of the Architect naivete, but it is an amazing website that I plan on using immediately to create movies of my own!



HOT or NOT: Fourth Street SE Bridge Reconstruction

Attention class, it is time for the first lesson of Urban Design 101.  There are two principle means of transportation along public streets: vehicles and pedestrians.  Alright, let's review:

1)  Which of the following are primary methods of travelling in a street right-of-way?
        A - riding a monkey
        B - riding a unicycle
        C - walking on a sidewalk
        D - driving an automobile

These two means of transportation represent the source of 90% of the design decisions that factor into a street section.  Therefore, if you cannot successfully design these two modes, you might as well give up factoring in the other secondary modes of transportation that may also need consideration.  These days it is difficult to get the relationship of these pieces wrong.  In fact, with all of the literature and education available on new urbanism, and downtown revitalization, I think you would be hard-pressed to screw this up.  Which brings us to our latest installment of HOT or NOT, the Fourth Street SE Bridge Reconstruction.

The verdict is...NOT

South side of 4th Street SE bridge

Do you see the problem?  Ignore for a moment the seasonal daylighting and lack of vegetation and imagine this in full summertime bloom.  Now do you see the design flaw?  I am going to break this down and explain why the most fundamental of design considerations was ignored for this project and, as a result, the overall success is compromised. 

[As a disclaimer, I need to mention a few things.  This is a vast improvement upon its predecessor.  The new bridge incorporates planters, quality materials, lookout niches, a narrowed curb-to-curb dimension, it includes planning for bike lanes in the future, and connects adjacent bike and walking trails in a much more safe and efficient manner.  There is a lot that is HOT about this bridge reconstruction project, and without knowing the true cause of this major design flaw, I cannot pin the NOT blame squarely on the designers.  As with anything in government and the "design by committee" atmosphere, this project had the potential to be screwed up at various points along the way.]

A frequent complaint of people who live in and around urban environments is that the street can feel unsafe.  This can be due to a myriad of factors, but often it is the result of pedestrian-vehicular conflict (i.e. pedestrians, when walking along a street, are intimidated by vehicles).  This feeling can be exacerbated by increased speeds of vehicles, and by bringing the pedestrian closer to moving vehicles.  Complete streets--or streets that are designed for multiple modes of transportation--tend to make for a safer pedestrian environment because they are ultimately reducing vehicle speeds and putting barriers between pedestrians and vehicles.  Creating a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles is the easiest way to increase the perception of safety on public streets.

This can be accomplished through several different singular strategies or combinations of more than one.

• Grade Separation: placing the vehicle and the pedestrian at different elevations
• Boulevard Plantings: placing vegetation or trees between the sidewalk and the roadway
• On-Street Parking: Dedicating a lane to parking to create more distance between pedestrian and vehicle

So here is the fatal flaw in the Fourth Street SE Bridge Reconstruction, they did not place the planters between the pedestrian and the vehicle.  This not only puts the traffic closer to the people, but it also pushes the people away from the edge of the bridge where they can take advantage of the views.  This is a huge error in design and has no cost implications to reverse (in design).  I am struggling to think of a single advantage to the current arrangement, but alas I cannot.

street section comparison

There will be more bridge reconstruction projects in Rochester's future, and I hope we can raise the level of thinking about these basic urban design decisions.  Frankly, this one has no excuse.



Anything you can do, I can do Modulor

When French architect Le Corbusier conceived of the Modulor Man, his intention was to bridge two disparate systems of measurement.  The anthropomorphic juxtaposition of mathematics and anatomy was a classical idea, yet his modern mind required a new interpretation.  This refusal to accept the most basic foundation of design thinking typifies the life and struggles of Corbu.

His inability to mesh this type of analytical genius with fundamental human comfort in his stark and high-modernist buildings remains his greatest failure.  While his imprint on the canon of architecture is unmistakable and his buildings are seminal, they lack to endurance of the classical works that he was attempting to supplant.  Pity, though.  The Modulor Man is so much easier to draw... 

Modulor Man superimposed onto Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man

Name That Penetration

The standard contract for a commercial construction project is between the Owner and the Architect.  Nowhere in that contract is there a relationship between the Owner and Mechanical Engineer.  What this does, in a sense, is make the Architect the face for everything design.  When the Owner sees how gigantic his roof-top unit is after it is installed, he doesn't call up the Mechanical Engineer, he calls the Architect. 

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Architect to know enough about Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing systems to identify those items that have impact visually and architecturally on the design...in a perfect world.  In reality, this rarely occurs and the design is tweaked up until the last minute and often into the construction phase and pretty soon the Architect is clueless.  We are not without weapons in this fight.  The wonderful specifications and general notes contain language such as, "submit shop drawings showing exact locations..." and, "notify Architect of discrepancies..." and my favorite, "contractor to coordinate." 

Principle on my list of pet peeves, are penetrations through the exterior envelope.  These are not only spots for moisture and air infiltration, but they have a direct impact on the aesthetics.  Without a solid understanding of MEP systems and what elements need to penetrate the envelope and where they occur and which code they follow; you end up with a swiss cheese facade. 

So to illustrate the difficulties in coordinating all of the various mechanical trades responsible for affecting the design, it is time to play:

NAME THAT PENETRATION!

Fill in the blank (you have to you use more than one)

A  ____________________            Furnace Fresh Air Intake

B  ____________________            Range Hood Exhaust

C  ____________________            Dryer Vent

D  ____________________            Furnace Exhaust

E  ____________________            Toilet Exhaust

F  ____________________          

G  ____________________

H  ____________________

I   ____________________

J   ____________________

K  ____________________ 

Carpet is Evil

There I said it, and the sooner you can realize and accept the ills that carpet brings to our built environment, the sooner you can reiterate this sentiment to others.  Proselytize, my brethren!

Now many of you may be saying, "wait one second, I thought carpet was an amazing, functional, inexpensive interior floor finish that is desirable for anyone with young children or the elderly?"  I am going to explain to you why carpet isn't all it's cracked up to be, and in fact, you would be better served to rip it all out and start over. 

The case against carpet goes like this:

If someone walked up to you on a street and exclaimed, "hey! I have this fantastic coat I think you should buy.  It is soft against your skin and will protect you if you bump into things on the street or if you fall down.  Plus it has some insulating qualities so it feels warmer in the winter time.  It is much cheaper than Gortex or those other long lasting, high durability coats, and it comes in any color or pattern you desire!  Now, the only thing is if you have pets, or you smoke, or you encounter any moisture anywhere in the entire world, you will have to be diligent about dry cleaning it and keeping it exposed to fresh air.  You can never put it in a closet because then mold will grow all over it.  Oh, and I should mention that when you clean it, it will most likely spew all of the dirt, mold spores, and pet dander back into the air so you may want to be sure to be in a well ventilated space...and I should mention that when it wears out (and it will wear out) it will be significantly heavier due to all of the moisture and debris it has absorbed over its lifetime.  So, can I put you down for this coat, maybe one for each season?!"

Lynn Hauldren: Friendly carpet salesman? or viscious enabler?

That is the problem with carpet, for a long time the focus has been on the positive with relatively little emphasis on the negative.  However, recently with the sustainable movement, the perils of plush have made their way into the parlance of our times.  Specifically, many green rating organizations (Green Communities, MN Green Star, LEED, Green Globes, etc.) have virtually outlawed the stuff.  This has not been well received by manufacturers of carpet.  So their response is to discredit these claims to ensure carpet remains a healthy flooring alternative.  I am here to set the record straight. 

Facts: 

• Carpet was originally (and still is) a petroleum based product, meaning it required oil to make it.  Without digressing into the oil debate, we can agree that was not the best course of action.  So recently more "green" manufacturers have used other products including corn and recycled synthetics to create their carpets, which is a step forward unless the farmers are using chemicals or pesticides in their fields. 
• New carpet emits noxious chemicals from the fibers themselves and from the adhesives used to install them.  If you gots to have it, make sure you specify low VOC and formaldehyde emission adhesives and Green Label Plus (Carpet and Rug Institute) carpets and pads.
• Carpet is by nature absorptive.  They can absorb the following: new paint on your walls, pet dander, dust mites, fleas, dirt, pollen, smoke, mold spores, soot and ash, and odors.  "BUT WAIT!," the carpet purveyors exclaim. "All you have to do is regularly vacuum."  This sounds like a solution, but what is a vacuum? 
• The vacuum principle is simple, brushes and air currents kick up dust and debris from the carpet so that it can be sucked into the machine.  As with any suction, their needs to be a release or exhaust, which means that all of the air you are sucking into the vacuum has to come back out.  The vacuum attempts to let the clean air go through the filter or bag while the debris is collected.  The problem is that to maintain a solid vacuum, you need to have the filter and bag porous enough to not choke off the air movements.  As a result, particulates that you are removing from the carpet are redistributed via a high powered fan back into the air.  This is also referred to as 'robbing Peter to pay Paul.'
• Basements are the absolute worst location for carpet.  Basements are by definition below grade, which means they are surrounded by soil and ground moisture.  Concrete is a porous material and therefore with temperature and pressure differences will perfuse water over time.  Carpet is also porous...except when it gets clogged with dust, dirt, and debris.  When this happens, then moisture moving from below basement slabs is trapped above the concrete and below the carpet creating a fantastic atmosphere for mold and mildew growth. 

Personally, I will take a cold ceramic tile basement that may mean I need to wear slippers versus choking on the myriad hazards supported by that evil carpet.  And now you know as well.  (and as they say, knowing is half the battle)

HOT or NOT: Think Mutual Bank

A man's handshake tells a lot about the person.  Firm = strength, confidence, determination.  Limp = weak, timid, wishy-washy.  Rough = unrefined, simple, honest.  Smooth = sneaky, sophisticated, moisturized.

A building's design tells a lot about the establishment.  It reflects the values of an organization and their resolve and dedication to core principles.  It may meet purely functional and utilitarian needs, or it may try to awe and inspire, or it may attempt to grab attention in the hopes of bringing patrons through the doors.  In any case, many things can be read off the facade of a building and I think it is important to evaluate them.

In Rochester, Think Mutual Bank has been making waves by building new locations all over town as it grows into a premier financial institution.  Their success is not solely due to their mortgage products or interest checking accounts, but because of the emphasis they place on design.  This edition of HOT or NOT is discussing Think Mutual Bank's body of work in Rochester with a focus on three particular locations. 

The verdict is...HOT

Green Meadows

The three banks profiled here are selected for their dissimilar aesthetic but commonality of purpose.  All three vary widely in materiality (metal; stone; terracotta and glass), formal expression (lines and arc; butterfly roof; box and plane), and interior experiences (verticality; structural expression; transparency).  However, as different as each may appear, the importance placed on design is clearly demonstrated.  Think Mutual Bank has decided to construct buildings that are unique, iconic and emblematic of their organization.  Their brand announces triumphantly, "design matters."

West Circle Drive

If you ever had your father advise you that "you never get a second chance to make a first impression," or had your mother straighten your collar before you head out because "when you meet someone, your appearance speaks first," then you understand this tactic by Think.  If you want people to think you are a safe, secure, and professional company, then you need to project those qualities in your brand.  Banks have often been confined to the stereotype of classical architecture because of the connotation of permanence.  But the paradigm has shifted and now banks are about their services and convenience.  Can you name a bank that you have been to in the last 10 years that didn't have a drive-thru?  This freedom allows banks to make a different sort of first impression.

Shoppes on Maine

The HOT design goes well beyond first impressions.  I would recommend walking inside each of these three banks; not because I am advocating you change financial institutions, but because I was not allowed to take photographs of the inside of these banks and their interior spaces are equally as exciting as their exterior.  I cannot think of another exposed timber truss, butterfly roof that I have seen in person, not to mention in Rochester (West Circle Drive location).  All three of these locations feature abundant natural light, intuitive wayfinding, open floor plans and accessible offices.  I imagine it is as functional of a place for staff as it is for customers. 

Clarify of structure, simplicity of function...all around quality design.  Think Mutual Bank is tough to beat when it comes to memorable architecture in Rochester.

$1,113/sf

One of my absolute favorite designers is Italian Architect Renzo Piano.  Piano's work has spanned more than four decades and includes many of the most iconic architectural examples of the last 25 years.  His work oversees and in the United States has many attributes of modern architecture that I appreciate and attempt to emulate; structural expressionism, large scale geometric moves, lightweight materiality, sustainability, and awe-inspiring interior spaces.  My admiration for his work and practice make it all the more difficult to write this type of post that is not all praise and adulation. 

I recently was reading a critical review of his most famous recent completed works, the Modern Wing expansion to the Art Institute of Chicago.  This article in one of the major architectural publications lauded his beautiful and striking urban intervention grafted onto the classical structure.  The imagery was overwhelming even in print and having seen it personally during construction I could confirm its impressive stature up close.  My favorite component of Piano's presentation graphics is his frequent use of a large scale building section that illustrates the vibrancy of the layers and scale of the structure.  In this magazine, the page with the sultry black and white line drawings is often also utilized for some details about the project (architect, builder, material suppliers, etc.).  Such was the case with this project, and included in the description was the total square footage and total cost.  I have never claimed to be a math whiz, but I can do some simple division to calculate the cost/sf which is often used in architecture as a ballpark estimate of costs and a rule of thumb for complexity of design or degree of finishes. 

The number that I calculated made me wonder if I missed a decimal point.  $1,113/sf (1,113.63636 to be exact).

Now in full disclosure, I have worked on a few complex lab science buildings and a few high design buildings that garnered a higher level of interior and exterior finish...but I have NEVER worked on a building that cost more than $300/sf.  In fact, I had heard that upwards of $500 was the limit set for many of the most famous "starchitects" in the US.  This is more than TWICE that much!!  How could this be?

It begs the question, is it right to spend that much money on an art museum?  I can maybe rationalize that type of spending on a structure of higher significance but for simply a civic function it seems (dare I say) wasteful.  What message does this send to the public about what Architects do?  How must our non-profits and small business of the world feel when they scrape together $100/sf and design a building that they consider the Taj Mahal?  The biggest error in this whole thing is the tacit acceptance of this practice.  The glossy magazines believe this to be commonplace.  In the latter stages of a great recession, we should all understand the fundamental problem that this sort of excessive spending is having on our profession.  Who will stand up and say, "enough is enough?"

dollars per square foot of building as compared to automobile costs

This is precisely the kind of inattentiveness that has caused the public perception of Architects to wane.  The moment that people think that this sort of practice is common, is the moment we have reinforced the sentiment that hiring an Architect is a luxury and ultimately, "not worth it because they will design something that I cannot afford."  Many would argue that these world renowned architects cannot be limited by banal budgets or cost overruns because it compromises the design.  I am sorry, but cost, budget and fees are inextricably linked to design.  You can't sweep costs under the rug for the sake of an outstanding design.   

For the sake of design, and for its ability to transform people's lives, this blatant disregard for financial considerations is hurtful and unsustainable.  Hopefully, the next big project that is produced from Piano's studio makes up for the lack of realism of this project. 

Et tu, Renzo?