Architecture Controlled by Architects

Posts tagged Books

Am I Selling Out?

Aug11
2011 1 Comment Written by dave pollard

I must admit that my blogging has been a bit lax lately… about two weeks since my last post. Although I plan to continue a minimum of one post per week (and hopefully 2 or 3 per week), I blame my aloofness on my re-entry into the real world.

After wrapping up my thesis three weeks ago, I immediately began working full time for an design/develop/build company about an hour outside of Chicago. Although this has kept me physically detached from my blog, I think about what to write next on every train ride to and from Libertyville… so I have a mental backlog of writings.

I have struggled with how to write about this endeavor, because I do not want to use this blog as a platform for just promoting or talking about our projects. So it took some time for me to figure out how to breach the subject that I am essentially working for a “developer”.

A month or so, I was having lunch with my old friend/architect/colleague/nerd Brad. When I told him about this new adventure out in Libertyville, he laughed and put a dagger right in my heart by saying that I was selling out. I was taken back a bit, because at no point had that thought ever crossed my mind; although I am really good at always telling myself what I want to hear.

I quickly retorted by saying, “no… going back to a Chicago architecture firm would be selling out.” He did not disagree, but needed further clarification on how building houses out in the suburbs was not selling my soul to the devil.

There are two important books that helped to justify my decision and explain my position to Brad. First, The Art of Innovation, by Ideo’s Tom Kelley; and second, Built to Last by Jim Collins. In The Art of Innovation, Tom Kelley writes a fantastic chapter on the importance of building “Hot Teams”. Hot Teams are the heart of Ideo and critical to innovation.

I have been indirectly working with the developer John McLinden since last year. Once he read my thesis proposal and my blog, six or so months ago, we started having some very dynamic conversations about the future of housing, and what architectural design can, and should play in it.This conversations led into a real proposal about what I can bring to Streetscape development and what they can bring to the world of affordable design.

After starting working with John and his crew full time, three weeks ago, I realize now that he has been building that Hot Team. At the core, there are four of us. We all have very different backgrounds, expertise in different fields, and differing personalities. We are all driven by a common core ideology, a passion to succeed, and an ambition to do things better. We all have specific expertise, all while our roles overlap. At the same time we all highly respect each other and are not afraid of conflict. John has, and continues to build our Hot Team, and I think we can do great things.

With regards to Built to Last, this book really supported my decision through its insistence of the importance of a company’s core ideology. I have defined my professional ideology as “to allow everyone affordable access to good design.” After the last few weeks, I believe it is fair to define Streetscape’s ideology as “it shouldn’t be so g-d difficult to build good homes for good people”. This completely parallels my thoughts and passions; meanwhile I have had trouble finding an ideology anywhere close to this in most architecture firms.

Lastly the real reason this move makes sense for me is that I believe, to truly make a difference in housing, you need control. As John says, “you have to own the shop.” Most architects make websites and monographs only for other architects. They are rarely taking their genius, intuition, and expertise to the end-user. As the developer, however, we are taking the design and delivery directly to the consumer and we can control the process the whole way. IT’s the old WWDHD. (What Would David Hovey Do)

I would not say that I am selling out. I would not even say that I am doing the “if you can’t beat them join them.” I think that to truly engage architecture in mass housing, we need to step out of our homebuilder/developer/architect/engineer/contractor/client labels, and create a new entity and image for home delivery.

Housing2.0 is not about selling architectural homes on the internet, its about redefining the process so that the end-user has a say and affordable access to good design. And that is exactly what we are doing at Streetscape.

Posted in Endeavors - Tagged , , , , , ,

Is the Architectural Profession a “Visionary Company”?

Jul27
2011 Leave a Comment Written by dave pollard

After I read Tom Fisher’s, In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture, I read what I thought was an unrelated book; Jim Collins’, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.

I read Built to Last after a recommendation from an entrepreneurial colleague. The author, Jim Collins,  studied 18 visionary companies that have consistently outperformed the market for decades, and compared them to similar companies that have not performed as well. He then outlines the findings, many of which seem to be contrary to conventional perception about cut-throat business.

The book is inspirational in that Collins’ defines one of the most important characteristics of visionary companies is the implicit definition of a core ideology. Alongside maintaining this core, visionary companies should always change their methods to support the core ideology. Collins defines this as the ying and the yang: “Preserve the Core/Stimulate Progress”. So while the pursuit for change is necessary for a company to be visionary, the one thing that cannot change is the core ideology.

This is only one aspect of visionary companies out of 12 that Collin’s defines through his research. While I was reading, I could not help but to think about how every chapter applies to architecture firms as a whole. According to Collins’ definition of visionary, the entire architectural profession would be considered unsustainable.

Honestly, it is difficult for me to define what the core ideologies were at some of firms that I worked for…. to design great buildings? to provide great service? to be architecty? to provide good solutions? I am not completely sure. The closest I can come to a core ideology would be from my tenure at Optima. I believe that we were “providing provocative, well-designed, and kind of affordable housing solutions”. Keep in mind though, Optima is not a traditional architectural firm. They are architect-led design/develop/build. Although I did not always feel that our methods always supported this core, I did have a sense of this core existing, and a personal interest in participating in the mission.

I brought Tom Fisher into this post because I believe he defines the architectural profession’s core ideology as “to provide the good life”. I think that deep down this ideology is why we stay in the architectural profession, if you have not yet left for law school, finance, or to make more money as realtor. (Although the argument that realtors’ core ideology is “to provide the good life” may be a bit clearer – and I don’t think they work nearly as hard or spend as much on education as architects)

The problem though, and Fisher argues this as well, is that the methods architects use to reinforce the core are so far from the good life, that it is detrimental to the profession as a whole. Architects compete with each other, pay low-wages, work their employees to the bone, micro-manage, and can be real assholes to their own people. Young architects continue to accept it, because the culture says that is just the way it is.

I urge all architects, young and old, to read both of these books and ponder if our profession, as a whole, is still visionary and at all sustainable without change.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged , , ,