The week started with a bus tour to some fantastic homes around Chicago. The next day was Lawrence Scarpa’s keynote address “Design for the 99 percent”. Scarpa does beautiful work from his LA office, and he spoke about the social responsibility of design in non-profit, volunteer, and his rural studio-like projects. Scarpa also hit on the importance of sustainability in design and his hard work to deliver sustainable design affordably through thoughtful planning, and finding public grants. Although I have tremendous respect for Larry Scarpa, I was hoping for more. I do not believe that we can deliver design for the 99% through good design, policy, and public grants. There are deeper problems in our profession than just the products we deliver, and I think it begins with the services we provide and how we provide them, not just the same old architectural design process with a nice project.

The next session, “Innovating Community Design and Mass Market Housing”, had me intrigued in a very different way. Here seven different architects presented very different profiles of the firms that they operate. One was focused on public policy and design solutions for the greater good, proclaiming “every issue is a design issue”. This is a valid perspective of the 21st century architect, as we should return to the role of the renaissance man, more along the lines of Thomas Jefferson or a firm such as Ideo. Architect Donald Powers presented his development projects, and John Brown presented his company, Housebrand. Housebrand had me very intrigued as a new model for architect-led housing delivery. His firm vertically integrates design, construction, and real estate brokerage to deliver renovated homes to buyer clients. The reuse of existing housing stock is inherently sustainable, and his team takes on the Realtor by delivering a home for the clients’ real needs and not solely for square footage and granite countertops. (Plus they take some of that commision!)

The final day was quite surprising in its format and discussion platform. The focus seemed to be a debate between traditional architecture and modern architecture. It seemed an odd debate that does not really solve the problems with our profession, but instead expounds them. The presentations of the two sides had the traditional designers on the defense with Donald Powers showing a slide explaining that just because you like old buildings, that does not make you a nerd, and just because you wear all black and like shiny buildings, that doesn’t make you cool. The traditional group felt that they were responsibly responding to clients needs for experiential comfortable design, and the modernists felt like the traditionalists were marginalizing the role of the architect.

This was a very interesting discussion, but reiterates many of my earlier posts that the architect is pushing himself farther and farther from the end user by not engaging them at their level. I pointed out to Larry Scarpa that 55 million suburban single family homes have been built since 1960, and it is irresponsible for architects not to take them on and be involved in some way – as a result the large homebuilders have taken complete control. Larry responded that he disagrees and that it is a policy issue not an cultural one. When Jonathon Segal was asked why he doesn’t build good suburban homes, he responded that he is not interested in that sector. My conclusion is the brilliant architects on the panel have just simply turned their back on the majority of Americans who want to live in the suburbs, and as a result bad design will continue to win.

There was a lot of discussion about style and form, but I do not believe that is our primary problem in reaching the 99 percent. The irresponsible education of the consumer by our profession, our antiquated design processes, what to do with the existing housing stock, and the importance of off-the-shelf materials in each architects work, are all topics that I would have like to have been brought up and discussed in further detail.

I look forward to next years conference, and I hope to see more alternative design practices, and less presentations of images that have pushed us further and further from the consumer.

The logic is simple; purchase a quality asset at a severely discounted price and then sell it for a profit when it appreciates. However, houses are proving to be very complicated beasts for the financial industry to fully understand. The concept and money is there, but the wherewithal to preserve each homes value is lagging. Bloomberg reported that of the over $6 billion in institutional capital that has been raised to purchase single family REO’s, less than $2 billion has been spent. This is a result of the financially led teams’ inability to acquire and reposition so many properties in a way that effectively protects the long-term value of their investments.

The center of the struggle with re-commissioning single family homes on a large scale is that the construction industry is extremely fragmented and every single home is individual, especially in markets with older housing stock. Every single home of the 6 million show foreclosures in the U.S. has to be valued, analyzed for rental potential, estimated for rehabilitation, analyzed for life cycle costs, maintained and preserved.

A big question being asked is whether the banks and hedge funds are essentially becoming slumlords by purchasing these foreclosed properties, renting them, and selling long. A valid argument is that it is not in the investors best interest to do this. The better upside in this investment scenario is to preserve the value of the asset and produce income through single family rental. This means that these foreclosed properties need to become quality and marketable rental properties.

This is a fantastic opportunity for any architect who has a passion for housing, and especially for universal housing. The massive re-positioning of these millions of homes is also an important piece of the puzzle of solving the housing crisis. Being involved in making these homes quality places to dwell is right up most architects’ alleys.

This blog is subtitled ‘Architecture Controlled by Architects’, and this foreclosure crisis is one of those rare opportunities that architects have to control architecture on a massive scale. If every one of the architects in the U.S. bought and repositioned 3 single family homes, architects would make a dent in about 5% of the foreclosure shadow inventory. That’s a start. The American Institute of Architects says, “working with an architect member of the AIA can save time and money by making your new spaces more functional, comfortable, efficient, and environmentally responsible.” If we really do contribute value to housing in these ways, now is the time architects to put their money where their mouth is and become involved in this opportunity!

Gang and Greg Lindsay say, “Too often during the bubble, banks and builders shunned thoughtful architecture and urban design in favor of cookie-cutter houses that could be easily repackaged as derivatives to be flipped, while architects snubbed housing to pursue more prestigious projects.” This is a tremendous understatement in my opinion. Subsequently, I do not believe that the rest of the article addresses the ‘architect’s snubbing’ of housing with any significant solution.

Architects to Solve the World’s Problems?

The article is written from a typical outsider architect’s perspective – Everyone else screwed up housing, and if the world would just listen to us houses would be beautifully designed…

I do not disagree with the argument that municipal restrictions limit the creativity and even financial feasibility of good design, but these regulations came about through architectural lobbying and community democracy. Additionally, most municipalities allow Planned Developments or PUD’s that allow a new master plan to have variances or even circumvent the existing zoning code.

The book The Politics of Place: A History of Chicago Zoning, cites the evolution of the “four-plus-ones” in the early 1970’s Chicago. These efficiently designed, dense housing blocks were a developer response to solving the cheapest most economical equation for apartment buildings. Once these popped up all over the lakefront, residents protested and the zoning ordinance was rightly changed to dictate more sensitive residential design.

1970's Four-Plus-One in Chicago

Houston Texas is the best (or worst) example of an American city with no municipal zoning ordinance, and the result is a unconnected and poorly planned mega city. In Houston’s case, the result was not a beautiful city designed by architects, it was a horribly planned urban landscape created by developers who had only economic rules to follow.

It seems to me that Gang and Lindsay are proposing that municipalities give the power to the architects to fix the housing landscape. This sounds great, but the reality is that not all architects are Jeanne Gang, in fact 99.9% are not. Chicago’s Cabrini Green housing project is an example of the architects’ naivety giving way to a poor planning solution. The designers said that by turning the buildings inward towards central courtyards, the low-income residents would have a utopian community space of their own to share and make wonderful. Consequently the reality was the designed planning solution moved the low income community away from the street where it was unable to be patrolled or controlled, and massive crime ensued. These designed solutions have since been razed.

The Education of the Consumer

The inconvenient truth is that municipal regulation is what keeps most architects in business. Chicago requires an architect’s stamp to be on construction drawings. Also most developers would much rather pay an architect to navigate the Illinois Accessibility Code, Chicago Zoning Ordinance, the UL assembly databases, Chicago Building Code, etc. than do it themselves. If these regulations did not exist I would be willing to bet that most developers would not hire architects and would just hire a General Contractor to build a combination of what they sketch in their proforma combined with some images of other projects.

Similarly I believe many CPA’s would tell you that a confusing tax code is good for business. I do not think that this is an ethical or productive business model for the design community, but it is a reality. Therefore before preaching to change the zoning code and give all the power to the design community, I believe architects need to put a system in place that convinces the consumer (not necessarily the developer) of our value, allows affordable access to this value, and engages the architect economically at the homebuyer level.

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em Join ‘Em

As a child I went to a sailing camp as a camper for several summers. I had a fantastic time, and later worked as a counselor there in College. As a Senior Counselor, we used to say “You don’t know what it’s like to be a camper until you are a trainee; you don’t know what it’s like to be a trainee until you are a junior counselor; and you don’t know what it’s like to be a junior counselor until you are a senior counselor. We were always referring to the control that each hierarchical figure has on its subordinates in terms of the activity structure and individual freedoms.  Of course when you are a camper you do not realize the structure and limitations behind your daily activities because you are so busy having fun.

Similarly, as I now work as the design director for a developer that hires outside architecture firms, I feel that I now know much better what it’s like to be an architect than I did working for design-only service firms. The reality is the developer is in control of the ship, and at the end of the day the developer just wants the architect to do what he says. There is no time or system built-in for a real round-table design process, and the architect burns all of his time thinking outside-the-box pro-bono.

The end-user, or homebuyer in the housing case, really isn’t the client, because the developer typically just builds what worked the last time. So when an architect proposes something in the design that he may consider better design for the homebuyer, more times than not, the idea will be shot down if it is not something that the developer has done before.

In my opinion the simplest and most direct solution for architects to engage the future of housing and “Design the Fix for Housing” is to MAKE HOUSES.

The old system of an architect selling his services to a developer just doesn’t work. Just look at the 1.6 million cookie-cutter houses that were built in 2006. If architects really want to fix housing through design, I do not believe it is time well spent to lobby municipalities and work out new financial models for funding homebuyers.

Steve Jobs did not spend his time lobbying to give technology companies control of the music industry. Over a long period of time he simply developed great products that consumers did not even know they needed until they had them. He then saw opportunity in the music industry and integrated his great products with great interfaces to deliver incredible experiences to the end-user. Steve Jobs did not work for the music companies or some other large industry – he worked for us, the consumer.

Similarly architects who want to fix housing design need to just make houses. This could be a number of scenarios from creating a fund to buy foreclosures and rent them, to working with manufacturers to make and sell an affordable vanity that isn’t terrible. I simply wish that architects would just take all of the pieces and parts that go into a typical production home and re-arrange them into something better. There are so many small scale applications of architectural talent that can make housing better if we just focus some of our energy away from the AIA’s Architectural Record magazine, and turn it towards the NAHB’s Builder magazine.

Whatever the scenario is, it involves architects who want to fix housing rethink what exactly it is that their firm provides. There is certainly a place for architects in housing but it will first take a retooling of the architectural industry before we can even think about restructuring the municipal codes and financial systems. To use the Apple example, architects need to find a way to affordably deliver well designed homes that homebuyers do not know they can’t live with out until they have them.

Architects need to stop judging the failures of housing design from the outside, fix our own internal issues, and get our hands dirty on the inside.

How Kraft, McDonald’s, Sears are doing social media right

This is an interesting story in Crain’s Chicago Business which is analysing how various companies are now leveraging social media. Some seem all to simple, some seem pretty creative, and some seem like no-brainers. Regardless, all of these companies recognize the advantages of taking the web-based interaction and participatory interfaces directly to the consumer.

Unfortunately I have not seen the architecture industry take these sorts of steps to reach out to the end-user. Instead we typically have a few interviews with the client and then retreat into our secret lair to later unveil our solutions.. take it or leave it.

There should be a place for more participatory and interactive architectural design, and I believe it would lead to more efficiencies in the overall design process.

Read The Crain’s Article

Most of these properties were originally slated for Alpha Type developments. Alpha Type meaning the old slam-dunk, previously low-risk, model of mass homebuilding. Just five years ago, developers merely had to plan, finance, and build homes the way they had for the previous twenty years, and the buyers would show up, no question. These properties are now Redfields because the previous model does not work. The collapse of the housing market has essentially removed the Alpha Type, and given an opportunity for the Beta Type. Beta housing concepts involve rethinking the housing financing, planning, design, and delivery process. The SchoolStreet project in Libertyville is a prime example of Beta housing on a Redfield. The bank-owned property was obtained at a discounted price and re-planned to a new working housing model.

So what is the Beta housing model? It begins by thinking about what homebuyers’ lifestyles really want and need, not just what was previously delivered in the Alpha model. At the macro level of SchoolStreet is the planning concept of “urban infill”. Downtown Libertyville is already a thriving urban center featuring historic buildings, dozens of bars, restaurants, shops, a farmers market, music, and an outgoing, energetic population. The community sells itself, and is where a shifting homebuyer demographic can see themselves living for a longer term, not just a two-year condo-flip. Additionally it is a walkable community, with public transportation access to surrounding areas and even downtown Chicago.

At the semi-macro level, the Beta housing model rethinks the community planning of the development. More in tune with an energetic, urban community; out is the big front lawn, and in are sidewalks, front porches, roof decks, and narrow lots. By moving garages to the rear, accessed through an alley, the life of the homes moves to the street. Some of the SchoolStreet homes even break the mold so far as to plan kitchens at the front of the house. Homebuyers and the community appreciate the new streetscape oriented planning concepts; it is something they have not seen in suburban developments, and it is easy to picture themselves living such a community-oriented lifestyle.

Lastly at the micro level, the Beta housing model addresses innovation, specific homebuyer needs, productivity, construction quality, and quality of design. To achieve this, it is necessary to work in holistic approach in which every team member is working for the good of ‘the project’. SchoolStreet’s developer, StreetScape Development, has a diverse team of in-house experts ranging from developers, to production housing builders, to architects. In addition StreetScape, partners with subcontractors, architects, and industry-leading consultants to deliver the best home possible. For the SchoolStreet project, architect, Sarah Susanka’s involvement in the Not So Big Showhouse developed a better Beta housing model. Working with the carpentry subcontractors, the SchoolStreet project developed a manufacturing area for framing the walls of future houses off-site. This innovative approach increases productivity, limits worker fatigue, and helps to keep construction ahead of schedule.

The Beta housing model also realizes that information is the key to limiting risk, delivering a quality product, and keeping the customer happy. StreetScape has been implementing a Building Information Modeling approach to design, which creates a building simulation prior to construction. Efficiencies are gained through early construction conflict detection, and accurate costs can be placed on design decisions. The building simulation also has the potential to offer visualization for the design team and customer. StreetScape also plans to unveil a new web-based customer portal, giving the customer open access to project documents, drawings, and feedback.

Through the sale of 21 of 26 homes in one year, the SchoolStreet development has demonstrated that in this difficult housing climate, it is still possible to build homes, by rethinking the development and delivery process. A dormant redfield site can become a successful development by contributing to the community and offering a the homebuyer a new end-product more tailored to their long-term needs and lifestyle.

The success of the SchoolStreet project also demonstrates that by focusing on innovation, quality, and taking design directly to the consumer, houses will sell. Sarah Susanka says in her MarketWatch interview, “People have money to spend if it is on something that is in line with their values.” Believe it or not, people value good design; and if architects can rethink the process, we can deliver it efficiently and affordably.  With the alpha homebuilders out of the way, now is as good a time as any in history to deliver this.

For anyone who has been itching to get their own personal hardcopy of my thesis, it is finally available on amazon.com:

GO TO HOUSING2.0 THE BOOK

To me, the bottom line is that there is a huge shift in housing demand from a delivery perspective. The old cul-de-sac model is out, and people are looking for good design, walkable locations, smaller spaces, and a more sensible home for a long term living solution… not a “what will this home be worth in two years so I can flip it” solution.

With the big guys (homebuilders) out of commission and/or on the DL, they are frantically trying to figure out how to re-invent their deliverables, and break the sales model thay have used for 50 years. This is the time, the small amount of time, available for architects to get in and pitch their good designs directly to the homebuyers. It will take some work, a lot of work… but this is the best era since 1949 for architects to take over single-family housing. Learn from the failures of the case study houses and the Usonian homes, and learn from the successes of Apple and Google. This is the time for architects to break from their dependence of developers; developers who follow the old homebuilding model, and take their creativity, passion, and problem-solving spirit directly to the consumer.

So these two articles are must-reads and a tad inspirational:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/shifting-the-suburban-paradigm/?hp

http://places.designobserver.com/feature/beyond-foreclosure-the-future-of-suburban-housing/29438/

The Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch posted a story today featuring our SchoolStreet Project in Libertyville. Since I work for SchoolStreet’s developer, StreetScape, I was of course excited for the publicity of our intriguing successful housing development in 2010-2011.

Aside from my pride in the project, I especially appreciated the headline, and it’s subtitle:

Where Small Houses Mean Brisk Sales

The housing market is a bust, with builders struggling and new-home sales sunk in the mud. But that’s not the case at one development in suburban Chicago, where prices are rising due to strong demand. Why? It’s all in the design.

To me the beauty of this article is that it explains the importance of good design in the success of the project. Sarah Susanka says, “The reason that this particular community is selling, is that people actually do have money to spend, if it’s something that embodies their values.”

The new Beta housing model is something that addresses personal lifestyles and longer term living for people and families. The Alpha, buy-to-flip, model is gone, and this is an unprecedented opportunity for architects to rise to the challenge and deliver creative, personalized, housing solutions; just as Sarah Susanka and our team are doing on SchoolStreet.

See the whole story:

http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/where-small-houses-mean-brisk-sales/5C68D2F6-0C18-4140-A21A-83982FC0AC39#!5C68D2F6-0C18-4140-A21A-83982FC0AC39

Very intriguing article about the impact multi-touch tablets are having on the 3d/design software industry:

http://architosh.com/2011/08/the-ipad-how-the-cad3d-industry-is-being-changed/

To me, the user-interactive capabilities of these devices provokes a completely new way of thinking about design tools. A similar comparison is the evolution from coordinate-based drawing in AutoCAD to the user interface of Rhino’s Grasshopper plugin. Back when I began using AutoCAD, it was DOS-based, release 12. If you wanted to draw a building component; it usually started at the ‘command’ line with something like this: line<enter>@12.5<45<enter. There was a separate AutoCAD language that users had to learn and use to make anything. In Grasshopper, AutoCAD’s antiquated, coordinate to coordinate drawing system, has evolved to an interactive, modifier-to-object-to-relationship drawing system.

In the Grasshopper scenario, the user does not just draw what he wants to see, instead the user is setting up relationships and rulesets to generate the geometry. Similar to the big change from DOS to Windows, the multi-touch operating systems offer a completely new and different level of user interactivity and capability. Back in 1994, it was difficult to imagine an interface such as Grasshopper, and I look forward to seeing how design interfaces evolve with the popularity of tablets such as the iPad

Blog Power by dp (opens in a new window)