architecture


A former co-worker of mine (who is now working for another architecture firm than the one we worked at together) recently Tweeted a complaint about having to work until 5pm on the Friday before a holiday weekend. My first thought was not that I felt any sympathy (although I do sympathize), but rather that there are may architects (myself included) who would be glad to have that problem right now. The grass may be greener, and all that, and if it were a different economic climate and I was a full-time employee of a firm, I might very well make a similar complaint in the same circumstance.

Another former co-worker of mine (from the same former firm) got a new job with a large firm earlier this year after a long period of deep underemployment and now commutes an extra 30-40 miles twice a day, and, on top of that, is working far longer hours than he used to. That just seems to be the base expectation in many larger firms. Architecture is one of the fields most badly decimated by the Great Recession, and there are thousands of trained architects looking for work, or who have abandoned the field and gone instead into new lines of work. Why, then, does this seem to be the current state of affairs?

This leads directly to an article I came across a couple weeks ago, written by Andrew Maynard, an Australian architect whose work and whose approach to work I have admired for a while. (Maynard also coined one of the best lines ever on the topic of green building: “Sustainability is like teenage sex. Everybody says they’re doing it, very few people actually are doing it. Those that are doing it are doing it badly.“) His article about work-life balance is a worthwhile read, especially for other architects. He talks about how he took a very different approach to work than his peers when he was working at a large commercial firm, and how that was at odds with the prevailing culture of the firm. Rather than fighting the corporate culture, he started his own firm which he runs in a very different fashion. “At 5.30pm all staff leave the office, including myself.” Only on a few occasions does he return to the office after hours (his commute is merely a flight of stairs).

His approach is unusual for the US, as well as in Australia. In many instances, salaried employees are seen as a pool of free overtime labor, and expectations of working extended hours and of giving up nights and weekends are common. Maynard also has a number of good observations about the foibles and “broken logic principles” followed by too many architectural employees. Australian practice doesn’t sound too dissimilar to that in the US in this regard, as well. He notes, for example, “Architects are often the lowest paid person on the building site and the only ones willing to donate their leisure time for free.”[1] Architecture is notorious for eating its own, for making extreme demands on the time and energy of those (most especially the lower tiers) who work in the field. That’s not the kind of place I would ever want to run, and I wouldn’t want to work in an environment like that if I went back to work for someone else.[2]

Around the same time, the Valve employee handbook was also making the rounds. Like Maynard’s article, it also offers some good insights into a better, more humane and egalitarian way to run a company (architectural or otherwise). The pull-quote in Maynard’s article comes from the Valve manual: “Working overtime for extended periods indicates a fundamental failure in planning or communication.

Valve has a completely flat business hierarchy. There are no bosses and subordinates, everyone is on equal footing, and teams come together and work on the projects they want to work on. While that’s not the model of an architectural practice (projects are externally dictated, rather than internally generated), the idea of a flat organization is appealing.

The firm I worked for, when I was working with the above-mentioned co-workers, had a pretty flat structure. It was a small firm (although it was the largest office, barring one summer internship, that I ever worked for), and everyone had to wear a number of hats, and fill different roles at different times. We had a boss, whose name was on the door and who was the guy in charge of it all, but beneath that, there was a good deal of flexibility. No one had job titles. Everyone had their strengths (I was referred to as the office’s “residential specialist,” and I was certainly the banner carrier for green building although the firm, as a whole, was a groundbreaker in green building) and different levels of experience, but no one worked in a locked-in role. I might help one of my colleagues as a “CAD monkey” on a project they were working on, and a few weeks later, they would be doing the same under my direction.

In the last couple of weeks, I also found myself in a discussion with an old college friend who was asking me for career advice[3] (because I’ve had a career arc where I’ve made some significant changes; he’s now looking at a career change and was curious about how I made the decisions I made when faced with those turning points). Among the things that I mentioned, was a great quote from Expect the Unexpected [Or You Won't Find It] by Roger von Oech: [T]he renowned chair designer Bill Stumpf was asked what criteria he uses to select new furniture projects. He responded, “There are three things I look for in my work: I hope to learn something, I want to make some money, and I’d like to have some fun. If the project doesn’t have the promise of satisfying at least two of these, I don’t sign on.” (p 114)

I think this may be a better rule than Maynard’s strict 40 hour limit, although I don’t think he’d disagree with my perspective here. If I’m having fun, or if I’m learning something new, or if I’m being paid for it, then I’m not going to complain about occasionally working extra hours. But that should be the envelope in which architectural work takes place, rather than the ‘pay you for 40 and expect you to put in another dozen on your own’ that seems to be more commonly found. Putting in extra time should be the exception, not the rule

Too many architectural projects are defined by a sale of hours (the hours worked by the firm’s emplyees). If architecture is merely who will do the work in the fewest hours, then it is not a skill that is valued, it is a commodity, subject to simple market competition. That may be the way to think about pricing when it comes to getting an oil change for your car or buying a steel beam; those are commodities. When I’m offering my services as an architect, I’m not trying to offer a cheaper oil change than the next guy. The value of an architect is in the advice they provide and the decisions they make on behalf of their clients.

When it’s good, architectural work can be fantastic fun, and working with good people on an interesting project doesn’t seem like work at all. (I just recently saw a Facebook post from someone who was writing about how much she loved the Malletts Creek Branch library, a building I worked on (along with the help of those two former co-workers) several years ago. It’s gratifying to see how much people still love that building.) But not every project is like that, and that should not be the expectation of all. To quote Maynard again, “Other professions, such as law, demand extended hours – why not architecture? Law is one of a handful of professions that has a cultural predilection for extended hours. The fundamental difference between law and architecture is that lawyers are typically paid very well.”

Trying to predict the number of hours that a particular project will take seems misguided. Parkinson’s Law dictates that, “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” To try to compete on a commodity basis simply transfers the burden onto the backs of the architectural employees.

Architects complain that they are underpaid and undervalued.[4] It ought to start with some recognition within the profession for the value of its own work.


Andrew Maynard: Work/life/work balance | Parlour

[1] He also (uncomfortably) points out the number of architects who think I will one day start my own practice and notes, “The proliferation of small practices and their significant cull rate illustrates a pathology unsupported by economic logic.”

[2] Economic realities force us all to make compromises from time to time. If I take a job where I’m working 60 hours a week, it’s because I value my children more than making a stand on principle.

[3] I am the first to admit the questionability of his choice for advisor.

[4] A real estate agent’s commission for selling a building is often a higher percentage of the value of the building than the architect’s commission was for designing it. We clearly value the ability to sell something far more than we value the ability to actually do a thing.

Here is what turned into an essay about working with an architect that I just posted to a local discussion group. It started with a question about kitchen remodeling, and eventually turned to “…what about working with an architect?”  I felt that it needed to be said that people should consider working with architects. Builders have done a very good job of supplanting architects in the public mind, but that shouldn’t necessarily be the case.  Architects offer a lot that is outside the normal scope of a builder’s work.

Part of my purpose for having this blog has been to try to make the process of working with an architect more accessible. As I say below, most architects are friendly creatures, and there seems to be a lot of (completely unwarranted) perception that architects are only for big, expensive projects. I want people to understand that that is not the case at all.  Architects offer a lot, and more people should understand that working with an architect can help them have a better, more comfortable, more personal home that suits their particular needs.


Working with an architect can be daunting to consider, but that shouldn’t be the case. Nor should you think that architects only want to work on big, expensive projects. Most architects are friendly creatures, and would be glad to talk about how they can help with your particular needs on a project.

While I am an architect, and I want to support the work of architects, I also have to agree that not every remodeling project needs an architect. If you are only changing the cabinets and the interior finishes, you probably don’t need an architect. And you don’t have to work with an architect if you are doing an addition or other remodeling project, but an architect can offer value in terms of helping with the design process, working through the specific needs and goals you have for your home.

An architect does more than just designing the space. An architect thinks in terms of problems and solutions. That problem solving extends far beyond the quetion of “how do make the building stand up?” A good architect should be able to evaluate your needs and develop a program and a design that represents what you want.

Some builders do offer design/build services, but others mostly just want to build, and the majority of design/builders are going to design what they want to build. That may or may not be the best thing for your particular situation and your needs.

Architects will often also take a longer-term view with the project. Instead of only looking at the immediate construction, they will also give consideration to matters such as energy efficiency and maintenance costs. What will your home be like in 10 years or in 20 years? An architect will look at a project with consideration to how things will change and adapt over time. And if a project gets to be too much to undertake all at once, an architect can help in determining what should be done immediately and what can be held off until later.

If you want to emphasize more sustainable building, or using healthy materials that will not offgas toxins inside your home, or being energy efficient, or trying to minimize your environmental impact, those are all things an architect can help with. If you have a particular style you want to match or if you want to try to do something unconventional and unique, an architect can help you.

Architects can assist with selecting materials that are more sustainable, that will offer better energy performance, and that will make for a better and more comfortable indoor environment. They can help you achieve a space that is personal and individual. An architect can help you focus the effort on the parts of your project that are most important to you.

Whether you are going to work with an architect or not, let me recommend at least taking a look at Sarah Susanka’s “Not So Big House” (and the other books she has since written in a series following that). She promotes an approach to creating spaces that are more about quality than about quantity. Better functionality and a more personal space are some of the things an architect can help you achieve.

Ideally, any construction project should be a collaborative effort. When everyone is working together on the same page, the project tends to turn out better. An architect can also help you navigate the building process, and should act as your advocate in working with a builder (which can be especially useful if you aren’t familiar with the construction process). The architect can be a person to talk with the builder on your behalf or may be able to help you in selecting the builder you want to work with.

You shouldn’t hire an architect “just because.” An architect should add value to your project. If you don’t think that an architect is going to offer anything more for your project, then I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you that working with an architect is a good thing. If you know exactly what it is that you want to do, then working directly with a builder may work for you.

Most people, though, will find that working with an architect will bring a more complete analysis to the project and will result in a space they are happier with and one that more closely fits their particular needs. An architect brings expertise and experience to help you realize what you want for your home.

Architects work as consultants and collaborators to help the owner make the numerous decisions you need to make in undertaking a building project. There are many decisions to be made in the process of doing a building renovation or building a new building. The owner is ultimately the one to make these decisions, and the architect serves that goal by understanding the owner’s desires and helping to narrow the choices in order to meet their needs.

(Click on the images for larger versions.)

This is an old Greek-revival style farmhouse, parts of which date back to before the Civil War. I’m certain the detail isn’t historically accurate. I’ve worked on many projects where classical detailing was used, and while I wouldn’t consider myself an architectural historian, I think I have a pretty good awareness of appropriate historical style.

For this project, though, we weren’t trying to do historic preservation or to restore the porch to what it originally looked like. Instead, we wanted to give it detail more appropriate to what it once may have had. Rather than trying to match what was once there, I suggested that this was trying to rhyme with what it had been. From a purist perspective, I’m sure this is sacrilege. But I think it is an improvement over what had been there before, even if it’s not as accurate as it might’ve been.

The porch was showing some signs of serious distress. The original lintel beam had been stripped of its detail and covered in aluminum sheathing some time in the past. It looked like it was failing structurally, and the project was to stabilize it and return it to functionality, but not to try to make it a historical restoration.

The two center columns (which are round, fluted columns) are still in very good shape, and only needed to be stripped and repainted. The two outboard columns (which were square, built-up board columns) were suffering considerable rot at the base and needed to be replaced.

When the carpenters started prying off the aluminum cladding and the old boards, we discovered that the whole thing was a box beam that had been nested in for some time. There was lots of pine straw and grass, and also loads of walnuts (if I’m recalling correctly) though there hasn’t been a walnut tree in the area for more than a couple decades. Rather than re-facing it, once we opened it up, it became apparent that the whole lintel structure needed to be rebuilt.

When the aluminum was stripped off, it was clear from the paint traces on the old boards that there had been some kind of a band across the middle which had been removed before the aluminum was put on. And the pediment of the front door suggests what the original detail probably was. The dentils on the porch are larger than what is above the door (again, rhyming rather than matching), but they seem more appropriately scaled to the porch.

It certainly looked better after the lintel was rebuilt and the new columns were in place, but that wasn’t the end.  It took a while for the trim millwork to arrive, so it didn’t get installed before it was winter. But, now that the weather is getting better, Mike Kessler, the carpenter for this project, was able to get out there and finish it off. There is still some touch up and painting that needs to be done before it’s ready for final photographs, but it’s mostly done, and good enough to share these images.

It’s not unlikely that the corner columns are not originals, and with some of the details we reinvented there, we were repeating past mistakes. But, as I noted already, the main goal was to restore stability and functionality to the porch, rather than to try to restore it to a historical ideal.

[Originally posted at EcoGeek. It's not entirely new news, since the Army began adopting ASHRAE 189.1 in 2010, but it's further movement in a direction they were already headed in. It's probably a greater blow to LEED, since the DoD was one of its biggest adopters.

AIA Michigan COTE has been working to get more information about the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC) out to our members, and I have to admit that I'm still not completely clear about how the IGCC interacts with current state building code. I do think that there will be an increasing move toward having green building practice embedded in code.

At the same time, I think that LEED can maintain its leadership by further pushing the envelope. LEED has become very mainstream, and that is both good (in terms of overall uptake of the message) and bad (in that it has become less distinctive). LEED has to finesse the balance between being cutting edge and being accessible. I think, as it has become more and more popular, it has become too ordinary, and it needs to regain some of its distinctiveness and its status as marking truly exceptional buildings.]

[Edit to add: Some further clarification came out after I wrote this original article. See the followup posted at EcoGeek, as well, for a fuller picture of what is going on.]

While the headline may sound dire, it’s not an indication that the US Army is giving up on green building. Instead, the Army has announced it will use a new construction code of its own which is based on the ASHRAE 189.1 standard for new buildings and renovations, rather than continue to use LEED or the High Perfromance Sustainable Buildings standards. This new standard will “govern all new construction, major renovations and leased space acquisition.” The Army had already adopted ASHRAE 189.1 late in 2010.

Some of the impetus for this change is political. In 2011, Congress acted to prevent any Department of Defense project from achieving LEED gold or platinum certification as part of that year’s Defense Reauthorization bill.

Moreover, LEED is fundamentally a marketing program that recognizes buildings built to a particular high standard of performance. At its core, the Army is more concerned about having better buildings that it can operate more efficiently. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Dr. Dorothy Robyn stated that, “With more than 300,000 buildings and 2.2 billion square feet of building space, DoD has a footprint three times that of Wal-Mart and six times that of GSA. Our corresponding energy bill is $4 billion annually.” The Defense Department recognizes the importance of green buildings for its overall operational effectiveness.

The armed forces have been one of the biggest early adopters of LEED, and if all of the services are going to move away from using LEED as their standard for improved performance, that is likely to have a strong effect on USGBC, GBCI, and the LEED program as a whole. “The repercussions of this announcement will be widespread,” notes Green Building Law Update. “For federal contractors, this is a game changer. The LEED AP credential will be less valuable. Past performance highlighting LEED certification will be less valuable, if not totally irrelevant.”

ASHRAE 189.1 is not some lesser standard. It was develeoped by ASHRAE (the professional organization of mechanical engineers), US Green Building Council, and IESNA (the professional organization of lighting engineers), as well as the International Code Council. Moreover, the Army’s action is not unprecedented. The International Code Council has also developed the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) which incorporates the ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 as a “jurisdictional compliance option.” Increasingly, building codes are going to directly incorporate green measures instead of relying on third-party standards that are merely optional.

Ultimately, this may push LEED in new directions. LEED was meant to push the envelope and to transform the marketplace. In that respect, it has accomplished much of that initial goal. As the industry has moved to embrace LEED, perhaps in the coming years, LEED will again push for even greater improvements in building technology and again make LEED an indication of a truly elite building.

via: Green Building Law Update

[This article was originally posted on Green Building Elements several years ago (April 2007). With the recent discussion about the concept of "open building," I thought it would be good to copy it here for reference.]

The strategy of “open building” can be traced back to European and Japanese roots. While it has been widely adopted in those parts of the world, it is only relatively recently beginning to see any use in North America. However, an increased interest in pre-fabricated construction is helping to expand awareness of this approach to building.

The principle is to maintain a separation between the different aspects of the building in order to be able to make repairs and do upgrades with a minimum of interference with other elements of the building. Open building stipulates separate zones or chases for different functions and services. This will, for example, make it easier to change plumbing systems without needing to repair other systems that cross or interfere with access to the necessary parts of the plumbing system.

Open building also makes construction easier by minimizing the interference between different systems, so that the installation of different systems can take place at the same time, rather than needing to be staggered one after another. With each trade and system given its own designated area, the builders (and also the future remodelers or repairers) of those systems can do their work with much less concern about damaging other elements of the building.

Open building lays out six “layers” with different lifespans. They are:

  • Site – the location; building site itself. Timeless duration
  • Structure – the framework; the “bones” of the building. 100 to 300 year lifespan
  • Skin – the cladding. 40 to 100 year lifespan
  • Space plan – the interior partition walls. 10 to 30 year life
  • Services – electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and heating/ventillation systems. Updated every 1 to 10 years
  • Stuff – belongings and furnishings. Can change monthly

Open building is often incorporated into pre-fab systems. Concentrating all of the plumbing elements in one area, for example, helps to put all elements of that system in one area for easier repair access. It also serves to reduce the amount of plumbing material needed. If all water uses are concentrated in one area, there is less piping needed which can mean a reduction in the amount of copper or other material used in the construction. The benefits of engineered construction with pre-fabrication, rather than having all of the installation of the services done on-site, can make for better use of materials and better buildings.

Taken to its extreme, however, open building can become restrictive, forcing configurations on the building that do not serve the needs of the inhabitants. If other parts of the plan are forced into awkward configurations in order to accommodate the structure of open building, then the savings in that one area may be lost in other areas. However, there can be benefits to understanding open building even without wholly embracing the open building system as the chief principle for constructing a building. Looking at the building with an eye to the life cycle of the different systems can lead to a better building, and can help reduce later problems.

Buildings need to be built to meet immediate needs. But they also need to be constructed in a way that future needs and changes to the building are also given consideration. Much in the same way that we need to conserve resources for the use of future generations, the buildings we build today will also be used and re-used well into the future, and a longer-term approach to building is another part of building green.

Article: Reinventing the House (Fine Homebuilding reprint – PDF)

Several years ago, when I was writing for Green Building Elements, I posted a piece on the concept of “open building” which was a concept being espoused, at the time, by Bensonwood Homes. And the idea derives from earlier writing by Stewart Brand. In short, it is a principle that is based on recognition that different parts of a building have different lifespans, and attempts to accommodate that in the design. To quote myself from that earlier article:

The principle is to maintain a separation between the different aspects of the building in order to be able to make repairs and do upgrades with a minimum of interference with other elements of the building. Open building stipulates separate zones or chases for different functions and services. This will, for example, make it easier to change plumbing systems without needing to repair other systems that cross or interfere with access to the necessary parts of the plumbing system.

Last week, I found my name being cited on the Greenbuilding-list, from David Bergman, who has written a book (Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide for Architects and Interior, Lighting, and Environmental Designers). I had some correspondence with him when he was working on the book, but I didn’t think I had really contributed all that much; mostly I thought I had pointed him at Benson and Brand, but he was talking about it “based on a combination of Benson, Stewart Brand and Philip Proefrock’s writing on the idea.”  So apparently, I’m a source to be cited on this.

Even more, when I tried to look up the original article, so that I could link to it, the top two hits in my search were a couple of articles posted on Treehugger by Lloyd Alter that cite me on the concept, as well. I had no idea!

Bergman’s graphic is a nice combination of the nesting of elements along with the respective timelines for each of the six levels:

I still think the reasoning behind the approach is sound, but it needs to be balanced in application. Building lots of additional chases and access points for the different building components is more likely to result in adding on extraneous stuff, rather than reducing the amount of material in a building. Exposed ducts and services certainly allow for easy access and flexibility, but that aesthetic isn’t always appropriate.

With Bergman’s book due out in a couple months, I should maybe think about this concept some more, and have some additional writings about this as an approach to building. I’ll also get that original article reposted here in the near future.

I’m still intrigued by the idea of the shipping container as an element for some kinds of basic construction.

There are cases where it becomes nothing more than an image element, and the containers themselves are so worked over and re-engineered that any benefit that may have come from using them as a simple prefabricated system is lost. I still find those interesting visually, sometimes. But I don’t particularly like the abandonment of the essentials of the material. If you are going to use something, you ought to use it honestly.

I’d like to work on a small house concept that uses a couple of containers as the structural base. I have a couple different elements I have been thinking about, but I’m not sure they are compatible with one another.

One idea is that the container itself is able to support a good deal of load, and that one of the biggest drawbacks in using them is that the containers themselves are narrow. But it should be possible to set two containers down with some separation between them, and then use some other structure to span the gap and create a larger space.

Another idea I’ve had is to create a bracket that could be attached to the container itself which would serve to create an overhang and roof. The projection from the face would help to provide shade for solar control. I’ve also thought that vegetated roofs for shipping container construction just make so much sense. Containers are strong enough to support the load easily, and this bracket idea should be robust enough that it could carry the roof system out to the edge.

Putting the two ideas together means that the spanning structure needs to become heavier if it is going to carry the load of a vegetated roof. So the two ideas aren’t incompatible. But I don’t know how well they go together necessarily.

One further idea is the concept of using shipping containers stacked on top of an existing building as a fast and interesting method for adding inexpensive space to a building. The image at the top is an incomplete model for the Longshore project (what I previously called the Theoretical Project, where 56′ long containers would be used to span the existing one-story building (assuming the masonry walls were, in fact, adequate to support the added load).
This photo from an earlier post about that project shows the existing building from a similar perspective.

The projecting roof on top of the containers that is, in fact, the bracket/overhang green roof. The stack of 3 containers (meant to be a stair tower to the new second floor) is perhaps committing the very sin I was just complaining about in using the container look, but requiring a lot of extra structure to actually make it work. This was never anything but a concept, so I never got further into how it might actually work.

I expect I will keep on exploring these ideas in the coming year. Stay tuned for more.

Other articles on the topic of shipping containers:
The Pros and Cons of Cargo Container Architecture from Arch Daily

Exhibition about shipping container architecture in Dusseldorf earlier this year. (Click the headline image for the slide show)

A list of common mistakes occurring in LEED-H projects. Good for reference.

Top 10 LEED snafus – an article to share with LEED classes.

Green or Greenwash The Quiz This one, from Building Green, isn’t easy, even if you’re deeply involved in sustainability and green building. I got what I’d consider a borderline pass on this myself (9 out of 12), though I would argue the subjective nature of one of the questions that I answered differently than their correct answer.

I’ve been a juror/visiting critic/guest for several different sets of final presentations for various architectural projects in the last week or so. That has gotten me thinking some more about architectural presentation boards, particularly after the last set of presentations, which were for a competition.

A lot of what all of the visiting critics were asked to address was the presentation of the information. In a competition, you aren’t there to explain your board(s), so all the information needs to be there and needs to be well organized and readily understandable. Getting into that mindset has gotten me thinking about that whole part of architecture. While it is (at least one hopes) helpful to provide feedback to the students about their projects, it is also good to stretch some of the mental muscles with thinking about things that often don’t get that much consideration in the post-school working world.

I also saw this image in a recent AIArchitect newsletter (about the stalled projects database, which is a topic for another day) which I thought was particularly effective. Instead of just looking at it and hoping that I remember it, I’m saving it here for future reference.

I’ve noticed that architectural presentation (or display) boards (and variants thereof) are one of the big search terms that keeps leading people to this site. I don’t think that I’m a particular source of information on that topic, but maybe it’s something that I can actually be helpful with for others, as well. Architects can always use more visual ideas, and I’ll stay on the lookout for other sites with good images for presentations. I’d appreciate references to other good sites with info about this, as well.

It would be interesting to do a course that was entirely about information presentation, and the project design was secondary (or even a non-factor entirely), not unlike my old materials and Methods class, or other non-studio classes I took where we still tried to incorporate a bit of design in the assignments, but where that wasn’t the focus of the class.

The other class idea I’ve been thinking about is a materials and research class that would focus on developing the skills to search out and evaluate new materials. Again, it would not be a studio class, but would be focused on seeking out new materials, critically considering their claims and benefits, and figuring out how they might best be used in actual practice.

One of the architects I regularly follow on Twitter, Andrew Maynard, recently wrote: “Just received a new commission to work on a small warehouse in fitzroy that I had always dreamed of playing with. #Fate?”

I’d like to share his fate, with a similar circumstance; there’s a building that is now for sale in Ann Arbor at Beakes and Fifth, just north of Kerrytown [here's the real estate listing for it].

I’ve long had an idealized view of this building as an architects’ studio/family loft. I’ve seen several Chicago loft conversions of old industrial buildings like this that have been turned into residential/office spaces like that, and the building typology and the location would be pretty wonderful. I just don’t happen to have a spare 7 figures to spend on this.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t work on it as a project.

Eventually, someone is going to buy the building and want to do something with it. Unless it’s another architect who buys it (someone with my kind of ideas, plus a less anemic wallet), they’re likely to need an architect for it, and I’d be thrilled to be involved in working on this.

Apparently, this building has been being used as an indoor parking garage for quite a few years. It deserves something far better than that. It’s only a single story, so there could be an opportunity to build upwards. The site is at the edge between the Kerrytown district and a residential neighborhood. It’s not right for a huge expansion, and I suspect the irregular size and tight site would make it prohibitively difficult to do anything that really blew out the existing building.

So, let me know if you’re interested in doing something with this building, or if you know someone who would like to do something with it.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 632 other followers