Blog Archives
The View from Down Under
Fifteen long hours later, I’m in Australia. It feels simultaneously like the other side of the planet (what is the sun doing in the north?) and a lot like California (laid-back, golden, full of good food). I land in Sydney and shortly drag my jet-lagged self to a party filled with architects and hosted by my friends at Bennett and Trimble. It turns out to be a great introduction to the architecture of Sydney. Not only do I hear all the native lore about Jorn Utzon and the Opera House (more on that later), but everyone is abuzz with the new addition to the MCA which had opened the weekend prior. One guest describes it as a very prominent missed opportunity. Designed by Sam Marshall in association with the New South Wales Government Architect’s Office, many guests preferred the original competition winning design by SANAA. I had many chances to observe it coming in and out of Circular Quay on the ferries. After visiting it, I had to agree – the galleries were crammed into the old office building while the addition contained new office space and lots of oversized circulation. The two pieces have nothing to do with one another and feel awkwardly joined.
Could it be because of my recent project – renovating the Round House for the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge – that several of my favorite buildings in Sydney are round? The modernist Harry Seidler, with the structural engineer P.L. Nervi, built many of Sydney’s more elegant towers in the 60’s and 70’s including the circular Australia Square with it’s Sol LeWitt mural and the MLC Centre with its gravity defying traveler’s club in front. Also, recently completed by Ingenhoven Architects of Germany and Architectus of Australia, the 1 Bligh Street tower is not only round it’s a marvel of sustainable design. The central atrium serves to ventilate and daylight the entire building, in tandem with a double skin facade. Other features include a tri-generation system and black-water recycling. It embodies what I would come to realize is the effortless integration of sustainability that characterizes a lot of Australian architecture and culture. For example, dual flush toilets are so ubiquitous they never require signage. Signs on row houses warning “tank water in use” are everywhere in Melbourne, alerting people that non-potable water is being used for irrigation. Ironically, in a country where natural resources far outnumber inhabitants, they are pushing to reduce their footprint.
The setting of Sydney is striking, with its hills and water and the whole city seems to revolve around the iconic opera house. Having seen so many photos I was prepared to be disappointed, but just the opposite was true. The building is even more awe inspiring in real life. I arrived in the middle of Vivid Sydney, an annual event that features projection and illuminated installations all over the city, but mostly along the waterfront. The projection on the opera house was hypnotizing, and made use of the unexpected texture of the shells. Even the official story of the opera house (as relayed on the tour) is that the building (10 years late and $95 million over the estimate) is hard to comprehend. The hubris and effort that went in to it are hard to quantify, but then so is the spectacular result. To hear the architects at the party tell it, it’s an example of design triumphing, and the huge reward that’s possible with great risk. Although it’s hard not to feel that the legacy of the scale and inventiveness of the opera house has led to some demonstrations of just what the risks are. But the opera house glows and it’s impossible to imagine Sydney without it.
If Sydney is all sparkle and light, Melbourne is all darkness and mystery. Not just because of the gray weather. The laneways are filled with street art and surprises; each neighborhood a new adventure at the end of a tram line. The way the Melbourne Theater Company building resolves itself into surprising volumes when illuminated at night. Melbourne is filled with restaurants, bars, shops, and galleries all constantly changing. The Council House 2 seemed to embody this idea – the first time I walked by it seemed like an opaque box, but the next day the shutters had been opened to reveal an intricate second skin. The building uses its sustainable features as signs – yellow wind turbines – water capture that slides over the glass sheets of the awnings, green vertical screens, every angle has a story to tell.
I think we have a lot to learn from Australia – this alternate version of California that’s booming down under. They share a lot of our optimism about the future, and our desire to preserve the incredible natural beauty that surrounds us. Together, we could do great things! If only it wasn’t on the other side of the planet!
Phoebe Schenker, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Project Architect
Living City Block: San Francisco
In April 2012, I came across an interesting publication titled “Greening an Entire Block Instead of Just One Building” in The Atlantic Cities online journal. The vision of sustainability on a community scale, described in this article, seemed to be a natural fit with EHDD’s mission to imagine a greater future through sustainable design. This encouraged me to reach out to Llewellyn Wells, Founder at Living City Block, to find out how I as an architect and we as a firm could be part of this initiative. Llewellyn suggested a gathering of like-minded professionals from different industries within San Francisco with vested interests in promoting sustainable communities, and with that, the idea for a workshop was conceived.
Not surprisingly the response to the workshop held at EHDD in July was overwhelming. City officials from planning, energy and green building departments, utility officials, local NGOs, bankers, real estate professionals, engineering and design firms and venture capital firms all responded promptly to our invitation and were present at this first public/private discussion on urban regeneration possibilities at a neighborhood scale in San Francisco. EHDD was represented by Michel St. Pierre, Pramod Sanoor and Ruth Kurz.
The concept of Living City Block focuses on neighborhoods that do not receive a lot of attention from commercial markets, or do not have the resources, know-how and the financial ability to take advantage of utility rebates, government schemes, and tax relief because of their small size. Living City Block’s aggregation based methodology enables the stakeholders to accomplish things together that they cannot achieve as individuals on their own. The initial goal is to use this aggregation model to help cut the energy consumption of an entire community by at least 50% with the help of energy efficient improvements, and then use proven and cutting edge green technologies effectively to create a community that produces more energy than it consumes. Eventually the aspiration is to go beyond the energy goals, and use community connectivity and new technologies to create a resource efficient, self-sustaining and thriving community that has the potential to be transformative well beyond the site.
Applying this aggregation model, over 30 professionals from across the Bay Area brainstormed sustainability and urban revitalization possibilities for existing San Francisco neighborhoods. To examine how this program might best suit the Bay Area, we discussed the application of this model to 12 blocks between Townsend & Harrison and 2nd & 6th streets, in the SOMA district, which is within the proposed Central Corridor Project, a redevelopment plan by the San Francisco Planning Department.
Llewellyn and his colleague Chad Riley walked us through the Living City Block mission, vision and the bigger picture with precedents and examples of their ongoing pilot Living City Block projects in Denver and Brooklyn. An extremely thought provoking discussion ensued as we analyzed the opportunities for our ‘strawman’ Living City San Francisco, keeping in mind a realistic picture for retrofits against new construction. We examined existing San Francisco area programs, and how these can be integrated with a Living City Block type methodology. The San Francisco Planning Department presented goals and opportunities for sustainable development in the San Francisco Central Corridor. The San Francisco Department of Environment explained the open market model for the PACE financing program for building retrofits. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission presented water ordinance and water efficiency. Sherwood Engineers discussed their pioneering projects in San Francisco known for their distributed generation and energy efficiency measures.
For the last part of the workshop, we broke into smaller groups to contemplate ideas for programmatic work for the selected site in SOMA. The participants were assigned to four distinct focus groups to discuss possibilities for energy, water and waste, a livable community, and equitable economic development. The group activities generated hundreds of ideas for potential projects at the selected site.
The workshop was a stimulating discourse with dynamic presenters that covered community interests ranging from resource efficiency, distributed systems, aggregation governance, finance, policy, mixed-use zoning, affordable housing, crime and safety, community based planning and design, community identity, urban agriculture, new technologies an green infrastructure. The enthusiasm of the participants is the key to the success of this initiative as they brought new ideas and experience, new perspectives and connections which I am sure will help us implement a Living City Block here in San Francisco. EHDD looks forward to partnering with Living City Block and revitalizing the urban fabric of San Francisco, one block at a time!
Pramod Sanoor
Designer, LEED® AP BD+C
The Packard Foundation
Earlier this month, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation moved into their new headquarters that we at EHDD designed with them over the past five years (for more information, click here: http://bit.ly/NxtFtU). Please watch the video to take a virtual tour of the building.
A year from now we all expect to be able to proclaim this nearly 50,000 sf LEED® Platinum building to be the largest net zero energy private office building in California. For the Foundation this is the culmination of a three-decade old journey to develop an industry-leading project that would reflect their work and values in their Los Altos, California home. In 1999 they pioneered the concept (along with architecture firm BNIM) of a Living Building, leading an indirect line to today’s Living Building Challenge. Thirteen years later, they are now showing how we can all enjoy a higher quality of life while meeting the greenhouse gas targets enacted into law in California under AB32, the most ambitious climate change legislation passed to date in the United States.
I spent a good part of the last five years working with the Foundation as EHDD’s project manager and will continue my working relationship over the next year during what may prove to be the most innovative aspect of the project: a “post-occupancy” phase where the project design and commissioning team sticks around to track performance, diagnose and remedy issues that arise, and work with building users to make sure they are getting the most out of their building. The Foundation understands that net zero energy is a living goal that requires ongoing engagement by the entire project team including designers, owners, operators and users, and that the fulfillment of this goal extends far beyond opening day.
The ultimate goal of this project is to demonstrate a replicable model for not only sustainable office buildings but also sustainable organizations. This means that things beyond the building – including transportation, purchasing, and community, for example – are as essential as the technical aspects of the design. Over the next year I’ll be blogging about what we learn about how this groundbreaking project works and how this leading organization, the Packard Foundation, is living its mission of environmental restoration and protection with its unprecedented commitment.
Brad Jacobson
Senior Associate, AIA, LEED® AP BD+C
Design for All
With Thomas Kinkade’s recent death, the controversy regarding his status as an artist surfaced once again, reflecting the vast difference in the perception of art between the professional establishment and the general populace. That same divide can be seen in architecture. As architects, we’re always pushing for better design; however, we’re often met with resistance from clients who may not value or understand Design with a capital ‘D’. It is often seen as arbitrary, subjective, elitist, the list goes on.
A big cause of this is that our clients and projects have changed drastically over time. For the majority of history – starting with the church and followed by private patrons like the Medicis or Familia Guell – only the rich, powerful and educated elite hired architects and served as their patrons, because they understood the importance and value that architecture can bring.
Very few of us now have patrons, and even if we do have repeat clients, they may not be rich or powerful. Our “clients” include institutions, stakeholders, users, neighborhood associations, activist groups, basically anyone who we may need to convince to move a project forward. Often these people do not have any kind of formal design education, so their appreciation of how architecture can work for them may be limited.
Also, architects used to design only significant projects. Everything else was built by craftsmen, and there was a distinction between design and craft. However, the onset of codes and regulations of the last century has eroded the distinction and changed the business model. Now our projects range from basic grocery stores to highly designed museums, but with a lot more of us working on the former while wishing we could be designing the latter. The reality is that design is not always prioritized and often misunderstood as part of our services.
Yet even with this considerable shift in client and project types, architects have done little to really address this growing gap between the public and ourselves in terms of understanding the benefits of design. This lack of public awareness is also why architects are often glamorized, but architecture is then ultimately devalued.
In a society where art education is already in a constantly precarious spot, there’s obviously no room for general architectural education. While I’m definitely not advocating for some watered-down architecture overview, I do believe that design should be part of everyone’s education. And I would also like to make the stand for abolishing undergraduate architecture degrees in favor of establishing more general design programs to catch a wider audience.
While many people think that design education is about trends, styles and aesthetics, it offers so much more. Design should be taught because it is relevant, universal, accessible and enhancing. Some of the most important design skills: critical observation, research and analysis, creative problem solving, visioning, asking “why not?”, do not just lend themselves to advancing the aesthetic and physical world around us (the next coolest chair, the impact font of the year), but can have an enormous force on the world of business, social policy, law, and science.
Another worrisome factor is the significant drop-out rate of architecture students after their freshman year and even after their graduation. So instead of teaching architecture in such a narrowly defined trajectory, hoping that a small percentage of students will succeed, why not open design to more people as a general education, which they can use to springboard into a broader array of future professions whether it be architect, rocket scientist or CEO? The realization of the value of a design-integrated curriculum is a trend that’s already started: CCA offers a Design/MBA program, while Stanford has a d.school. Furthermore, design thinking spreading beyond traditional design professions has already been pioneered by IDEO and has been followed by other design think tanks like AMO or VisionArc.
If more people understood design and its advantages, then there’s a better chance that we’ll have better clients. And if we have better clients who appreciate design, then architecture would be so much richer (even if architects are not). It would take design out of the vacuum of pure architecture, and allow the conversation to be much more involved. And architectural failures, whether it’s the everyday strip mall, grocery store, or famous ones like Pruitt-Igoe may have had a better chance for success because instead of ineffectively talking to our clients about design, we can talk with them about its realities and opportunities.
In the end, one thing remains consistent throughout history, there’s always more demand for a grocery store than for a museum. So wouldn’t it be great if that grocery store owner understood what design can accomplish?
SiJing Tan Sanchez, LEED® AP
Architect
Lands End Lookout
When you stand on the promenade at Lands End gazing out at the Pacific Ocean it feels like, if you could look far enough, you just might see the other side of the world. And if you lean over the edge, the wind almost supports your weight as you study the crashing waves and the ruins of Sutro Baths a hundred feet below.
The landscape is wild, but the Cliff House clinging precariously to the edge of the world is a testament to man’s repeated attempts to tame it. In fact, this struggle is the main interpretive theme of the exhibit housed in the new Lands End Lookout visitor center: “Here at Lands End, you are at the edge of the continent where the intersection of people and natural forces continues to change this wild landscape as they have for thousands of years”. As you start to explore the surrounding national park, you realize that the line between nature and culture is blurred everywhere – in the “natural” cypress forests, and rock cliffs of Sutro Heights Park, in the Stewardship program that collects seeds native to the watershed and tends to the restored natural habitat, and in every story of the site’s rich history.
This struggle between culture and nature is perhaps most evident in the ruins of Sutro Baths, where the remains of a huge man made structure have been reclaimed by nature into a thriving brackish marsh. The design of EHDD’s new building is inspired by these ruins – formed from a series of concrete walls that rise up out of the landscape to organize the building components and frame views. Across the grain of these walls, glass planes and reclaimed redwood siding reference the vernacular and monumental structures of the site’s past amusements – the steel and glass of the baths, but also the oyster and chop houses of Merrie Way.
While the building aesthetic references the ruins, its design is also inspired by the design of the original baths. Adolph Sutro was an engineer who made his fortune inventing a system of water and air delivery for the silver mines of Nevada. When he relocated to San Francisco, he recognized a unique opportunity in the bowl of the former Naiad Cove, choosing the site for his large public baths. Using the existing geology he captured the waves and through a series of tunnels and settling basins, used them to passively feed the pools of his new baths.
Similarly, the design of the Lookout takes advantage of the naturally prevailing winds and the existing topography of the site to passively ventilate the building, bringing air in low – below the floor – and exhausting it high through the clerestories above. This strategy helps make the building 32% more energy efficient than the ASHRAE baseline. It also creates a sunny wind-sheltered courtyard on the leeward side, providing a rare respite from the harsh environment for those exploring the trails and beaches of Lands End.
And, similar to Sutro’s use of wind power to pump water to his gravity fed irrigation system, solar panels on the Lookout roof help offset an additional 32% of the building’s remaining energy needs (making the overall efficiency 53% better than baseline). While the building takes advantage of many new technologies – efficient LED fixtures, lighting controls, energy star appliances and high performing glass, and insulation – it’s the natural ventilation and daylighting strategies that really make a difference.
I like to think about Adolph Sutro gazing out from his terrace, past the sculptures and his baths below, to the distant horizon. He’s wondering how to rebuild his Cliff House – after yet another devastating fire – this time out of concrete instead of wood. He never would have imagined that his ideals – of popular access to recreation and innovative efficient use of natural resources – would be echoed in a National Park Service visitor center on the site over a hundred years later.
Similarly, I can imagine EHDD’s late founder Joseph Esherick, standing on the edge of the continent a bit further north at Sea Ranch. Leaning into the same wind, he’s grappling with how to site the now iconic Hedgerow houses. It’s so satisfying, to learn from the work of those who have come before us. And it’s reassuring to think that even as we make so much progress, some things never change, and I hope the struggle between nature and culture is one of them – they both have so much to teach us.
For more on the history of Lands End:
On Adolph Sutro: http://www.sfmuseum.org/sutro/bio.html
On Sutro Baths: http://sutrobaths.com/explorebaths.shtml
On the Cliff House: http://www.cliffhouseproject.com/introduction.htm
On Merrie Way: http://www.outsidelands.org/merrie-way.php
On the new Lands End Lookout: http://www.parksconservancy.org/park-improvements/current-projects/san-francisco/lands-end-lookout.html
Phoebe Schenker, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Project Architect
BIM at EHDD
BIM, the final frontier, or is it just the beginning?
When I arrived at EHDD years ago, the office had just started its first pilot project using BIM softwarecalled Autodesk Revit. When we first started BIM, our design teams often struggled with different aspects of the tool. At that point we seldom used the 3D model tool for design presentations, it waschallenging to achieve acceptable graphics for construction documents, and all of our 2D detailing still had to be done in conventional drafting software. Since then, the firm has grown substantially, and we use BIM on all projects and in all design phases. As I walk through the office today, I see Revit on every computer screen, digital models in almost every presentation, and teams using the tool in new and creative ways.
Our projects and clients have benefitted from BIM. Most clients today expect that a design team should be able to quickly show a 3D model of any portion of the building during the design phase. It is common place for us to use the same model to generate concept plans, massing diagrams, building area reports, rough quantity take offs, and to generate photo realistic images of the building design. Our clients often use our architectural design models during construction to coordinate different trades. Even though the models are not perfect, they do allow all of the stakeholders in the project to anticipate problems before the building is built. A contractor once confided in me that using BIM during construction is great because 90% of the problems are worked out before the installers arrive onsite.
Despite its benefits, implementing BIM has not been without challenges. From the very beginning, we have had to constantly manipulate the software to make graphic improvements to our drawings, we struggle to add accurate 2D and 3D content to the model at appropriate times, and we are spending an increasing amount of time making model corrections. We are generating our details from the model which allows us to connect directly to the 3D database, but not always with increased accuracy or coordination. The truth of the matter is that the AEC industry and project expectations are rapidly changing. Tight fees and schedules often lead to problems later down the road. In an ever changing world, we have to constantly sharpen our strategies of effectively communicating the design intent.
The next chapter of BIM development at EHDD will likely be focused on how to better leverage the data that is put into the model. Models in the future could be set up to render and animate unlimited views of the building, contain all equipment and building services parametrically linked, have countless schedules taken directly from the model that outline everything from how much concrete is on the project to what team member is working on what sheet. The possibilities are truly endless. Will we get there? We may need to sooner rather than later.
Terry McCormick, AIA, LEED® AP BD+C
Associate
Earth Day 2012
Looking back at early environmental movements prior to Earth Day 1970, we see many old ideas returning, particularly attitudes about community, localism, and reaction against globalization. In recent decades the green movement has grown up with the amazing developments in science and accompanied by the inevitable bureaucracies needed to foster change at the scale required by our environmental challenges. The result has been a focus on metrics and technical transformations within conventional market economies. In contrast, movements leading up to the first Earth Day were centered around philosophical and cultural transformations. I am referring to the utopian and ecological movements that started with John Muir, Ruskin and Thoreau, the Back to the Land movement, the hippie communal movement, and including anarcho-enviromentalism. Amidst the abundance of current green ideologies one can distill environmentalism into two general schools of thought: The technocratic and the communal. The technocratic espouses mainstream transformations through science, analytics and politics while communal refers to the older mode of grassroots, community and spiritual transformations. It’s E.O. Wilson’s Consilience versus Wendell Barry’s Life is a Miracle; establishment versus subversive; the spectrum between those that believe we will succeed in manipulating nature through science to those that believe there is something intrinsically good about humanity and unknowable in nature.
Current sustainability ideals have lost much of the rebelliousness epitomized in the pre Earth Day era by people like Aldo Leopold, The Farm, the Merry Pranksters, or the Nearings, who chose unconventional paths. There were also analogous revolutionary movements in design with Black Mountain College, Bucky Fuller’s “Spaceship Earth”, Drop City, Jane Jacobs, Arcosanti, and later on Christopher Alexander’s “Pattern Language” theories. These people approached environmental problems with artistic inputs and the deconstruction of societal norms.
The specter of catastrophe and intense focus on environmental metrics, bogged down in debate and politics, do not appear to be compelling enough to cause the transformations we need, and I wonder that if as a people we re-emphasized the older humanist ideals espoused by the communal movements: caring for one another, schooling our children, doing meaningful work and creating meaningful jobs, consuming less, and re-establishing age old patterns of stewardship. By rebuilding our commons, perhaps we would have less need to regulate in the first place.
Now we see many of the values of old returning: the value of real work, hand craft and “making”, experiential learning, collectivism, and the rejection of the political center.
People are taking back communities both rural and urban, forging neighborhood bonds, and taking responsibility for their own wellbeing. People are growing small businesses in unexpected places, developing local economies, creating goods that are unique and place specific. These can be healing and regenerative like the urban farms in Oakland and Detroit, civic and transformative like burgeoning bicycle infrastructure in many major cities, or cosmopolitan like the locavore crazes in San Francisco and Portland.
In the spirit of this humanistic revival EHDD has evolved. Our sustainability practice has generally focused on innovative building solutions and research. Now, our urban design studio allows us to foster environmental change at larger scales and in places, like India, where the need for thoughtful urbanism is most needed.
Sadly last year saw the close of the NASA Space Shuttle program, conceived around the time of the first Earth Day. One of the great successes of NASA’s recent space exploration is their Earth Science mission which is revealing the earth’s natural patterns, looking in instead of out. It is fitting that a NASA image of the earth from space came to symbolize the environmental movement. With our selection as executive architect for the California Science Center Air and Space Center – which will house the Space Shuttle Endeavour – EHDD will be at the table as the environmental movement enters its next phase.
Closer to home and channeling our inner localista we are creating tighter bonds within our community. We have hosted artful gatherings and are investigating the creation of a “parklet” near our office. We have volunteered at local food banks and are always looking for new outreach opportunities. We are also participating in the Climate Ride in September – a 350-mile bicycle ride to raise money for environmental organizations.
It is compelling to think that a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from and when it comes to sustainability more is better; that communal ideals benefit the technocratic and vice versa.
At EHDD we don’t just ride our bikes to work, we ride them across California! Happy Earth Day!
Andrew M. Sohn AIA LEED® AP BD+C
Senior Associate
What’s the value of architecture school?
The movie begins with ping pong and a chicken. More precisely, it begins with a group of architecture students finishing their final projects late at night—the chicken and ping pong arising naturally from the chaos. The film, follows a group of Indian architecture students in the 1970’s, and is based loosely on novelist Arundhati Roy’s own experiences. There are afros. There is colorful Indian slang. It is a window into another world.
And yet, it is unexpectedly but intensely familiar. My own architecture school experience did not take place in the 1970’s, and occurred on an entirely different continent, and yet is immediately recognizable. Intense conversations, check. Caffeine addiction, check. Petty rivalries, check. And of course, ping pong, check.
This of course, would just be an amusing exercise in reminiscences and shared cultural touchstones if it weren’t for unsettling real-world interjections into this collegiate atmosphere. In Georgetown University’s recent study on the employment trajectories of various typical undergraduate majors, architecture and arts yielded the highest unemployment rates among all college degrees.
More broadly, today’s political and economic environment is less than enamored of the classic liberal arts education, to which architectural education is closely philosophically tied. With an increasing emphasis on global competitiveness and performance, more practical educational programs (think: engineering, IT infrastructure, green technology, medicine) seem critical; philosophy and the arts, less so. Moreover, given the Georgetown study, these criticisms are not without some merit. After all, if you walk out of your final studio with $100,000 of debt and no job, an expertise at ping pong is scant comfort.
So, what is the value of architecture school? What do you get for the sleepless hours, the painful presentations, the impenetrable jargon? And more importantly, what do clients get that is valuable and unique?
Things you get (from architecture school):
Abundant practice in public speaking (even under conditions of stress and exhaustion)
Basic technical knowledge
Comfort with the latest technological tools
Cocktail party conversational starters—or enders—about famous architects
However, I think the most fundamental part of architectural education is less tangible. The studio system teaches students to take big ideas and to manifest them in concrete, particular, small(er) scale ways. The student takes a Big Question—the future of education, the experience of a city, income inequality, social justice—and attempts to respond using what is, overall, a fairly limited toolkit of material and geometry. Inversely, successful projects (and successful architecture) operate at both scales: a well designed building/city/detail can suggest something larger and intangible about the world around it. This is a difficult and thorny process: hence all the late nights, and frustrating critiques.
However, this skill is valuable. In fact, this sort of large-scale/small-scale thinking is becoming more and more common at the top-ranked business schools—Harvard, University of Chicago, UC Berkeley. And yet, business school graduates less frequently come away with only debt and ping pong. If this type of thinking is a fundamental part of architectural education, and is otherwise clearly valued in the current economic market, why are architectural job prospects and financial compensation so distinctly dim?
In part, due to what you DON’T get (from architecture school):
Business training of any sort
Outside opinions
Architecture schools are highly insular—they are regulated by NCARB, and their faculty is largely made up of other architects and planners. This means, that though teaching critical thinking and design strategies with universal value, most studios consider projects unsuccessful if it’s not, in the end, a building/landscape/city/installation. This does a disservice to the incredible creativity that thrives within architecture schools—and it does a disservice to the profession that these schools serve. It’s too bad that the innovation generating new façade languages cannot also be used to generate new approaches to real estate development, or different ways to articulate planning directives, or even new business models for architectural practices. Architecture schools should recognize the broader value of their existing pedagogy; ultimately, both architectural practice and education will be stronger.
The craft entrepreneur may provide lessons for architects. As recently discussed in the NY Times, the makers of artisanal pickles and gourmet beer are boosting the new American economy. These businesses work economically by sidestepping the trap of cheapness. Most notably, they offer creativity and quality – two things that an architectural education prepares us to offer – so people pay more for their products. By articulating the value of our own education, we position ourselves to better articulate the value of our profession.
Leah Marthinsen, LEED AP BD+C
Designer
A Mumbai Master Plan
I recently returned from a trip to India, as a part of an EHDD team lead by Michel St. Pierre (principal and director of urban design) along with Jennifer Devlin (EHDD India managing principal) and Dave Vogel, (associate principal). We were there to take part in an intensive, four-day design workshop with our client, a Mumbai-based developer who commissioned EHDD to create a new masterplan for a 24-acre site in a northern suburb of the city.
An initial masterplan was completed in 2009 with a mixed-use program that included four million square feet of housing, retail, office, and cultural uses. Recently, after construction on the first phase had begun, local authorities upzoned the area to incentivize greater development density in close proximity to a planned transit corridor and new station. Aiming to capitalize on the increased allowable density the client commissioned EHDD to redesign the original master plan to accommodate the increased development program, up to seven million square feet total.
In the weeks leading up to the trip, EHDD’s design team worked tirelessly to devise several alternative schemes to meet the twin challenges of maintaining a sustainable and livable environment within the increased density, and working with the buildings and infrastructure already underway on site. The team produced 40+ full size color presentation boards describing and diagramming a myriad of options and alternatives for the site, enough to cover every wall of the conference room.
The EHDD and client teams were joined by a host of stakeholders, consultants and specialists, including local architects who provided the needed interpretation of the complicated planning codes in Mumbai; traffic engineers to strategize for the flow of thousands of cars through the site and onto nearby roadways; and sustainability experts to advise on the wide array of site development and green building features in the project and optimize them for the unique Mumbai climate.
After four straight days of lively debate, flurries of sketching and on-the-fly computer modeling, a new scheme emerged which addressed all of the competing factors of the large and complex project, while offering the flexibility for several future-phase variations. In the end, the preferred solution was a synthesis of many options developed during the workshop that incorporated all the critical issues discussed with the entire group. The EHDD team returned to San Francisco with a clear design direction, and we are now developing the overall design into a concept master plan that will form the basis for the overall development of the project for the years to come.
Joseph Schollmeyer
Designer, LEED® AP
Challenges in Creating Sustainable Cities
A recent article in The New York Times entitled “Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy” raises some fundamental issues about how to create truly livable and sustainable cities. Several European cities are tackling the issue of car management full force, resisting the notion that a city needs to accommodate cars to remain commercially viable. The model that has characterized how North American cities have developed since World War ll has greatly emphasized the vehicle. It is inconceivable that such a model can prevail today, knowing its tremendous impact on the environment and given the sophisticated public discourse about what makes a great place to live and work. Nonetheless, when we are designing commercial and mixed use developments in many California communities, we are often required to meet parking standards that are not in sync with the public discourse. In fact, by mandating a high minimum parking requirement (rather than a maximum), municipalities are providing a de facto incentive for citizens to drive a private vehicle as a means of commuting. This is especially relevant today in light of new California state laws that require cities to address climate change. It is well known that, in most municipalities, the largest factor in green gas emissions (CO2) is private car usage.
Parking ratios determination is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of planning. Parking requirements mandated by a given municipality are often based on precedents from other municipalities. Most of the time the underlying assumptions used in the original parking requirements are unknown to most, and thus difficult to challenge. It is critical to conduct a site specific study assessing all potential modes of transportation and potential carpooling to determine what is the appropriate amount of parking needed. Incentives towards promoting sustainable forms of transportation should be a key element of any planning regulation.
Cities like London and Montreal have taken bold step towards making cycling a true alternative form of commuting. In some areas of London, cyclists overtake rush hour drivers and dictate the speed of traffic. Montreal developed an extensive network of safe and segregated bicycle lanes throughout the city, not dissimilar to those in Holland and Denmark. The program has proven to be so popular that the city now faces a serious cycling congestion problem during rush hours, which leads many bike riders to veer off the path and take their chances amidst the automobiles.
There is a clear need to put greater emphasis on infrastructure for bike mobility and storage. Once that infrastructure is in place, we can make our cities drastically more healthy and livable, while considerably reducing our carbon footprint.
Michel St. Pierre
Director, Planning and Urban Design Studio
