Cursed By Knowing The Numbers

Still puzzling through the IPD process.  Am a big fan of the bill of quantities [chartered surveyor] approach, have used it for years to bound in project costs. At its core, an owner is paying a contractor for pace, intensity, getting the right subs "on the bus", and quality [ no leaks, squeaks, or smells].  Architect is paid for putting the puzzle pieces together in a smarter & more valuable whole.  And the owner is responsible for maintaining vision and context--setting the course, and having the understanding when to nudge the tiller to keep on course.

I need to understand more about BIM, it seems like it is an essential tool in understanding how to chart/maintain a course.  Almost like a navigation system for building..."Left turn in one month...  Recalculating...  turn back now.  I REPEAT, TURN BACK NOW."

Posted by Ted at 9:11 AM | Permalink

Our jobs are typically very private, so I don't often get a chance to brag on them, or the team responsible for breathing life into them.  So I'm grateful when we get great press.

Our Palo Alto project received another award.  Custom Home Magazine awarded our project its Grand Award for a Custom Home more than 5,000SF.  This Palo Alto infill project struck me as one of the last great houses of the 20th Century, and probably the best built example of Architects Steven Ehrlich, Takashi Yanai and Alec Whitten.

Ryan Associates was our general contractor and raised the bar on cast in place architectural concrete.

Engineered Environments was our AV design/builder and I recommend them highly.

Depp Glass fabricated the glass for the main stair--they did the Apple stores--and were real pros to work with.

Pacific Pools was the pool contractor and, well they stuck with it until they got the job done. 

Great team, exacting job, glad to see it get some press.

Posted by Ted at 11:23 AM | Permalink

Louis Sullivan's principle  "Form follows function" has been the battle cry for many of my architect friends and a way of understanding what needs to be done to our built environment.  Over dinner the other week, we were getting comfortable with a new paradigm--one that is becoming more and more apparent every day--Form follows Energy.

California is the 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world--the second largest user of transportation fuels--and the largest user if you look at it on a per capita basis.  If you are looking at the problem through a greenhouse gas lens, our problems are sprawl development, and a very high percentage of car use.

My focus here is whether building form is influenced, or follows, energy demand--I'm going to leave the car problem to the smarter folks.

My basic thesis is that we will not conserve our way out of the problem--we need to develop for a world where energy is expensive.  This will get the numbers working in the right direction, and then focus on delivering clean, cheap power as part of the solution.  Why isn't conservation the answer?  This is what happens when energy is cheap:

Every new home we add, every new apartment we build, every new office building developed--increases the demand for energy.  If we are generating electricity from carbon based fuels, it increases the carbon loading of the atmosphere.

The average Californian requires about 7,500 kWh per year:

This is a little more than half of the national average, but we add 400,000 people per year in population.  Part of the reason why our usage is so low is that we are blessed with a wonderful Mediterranean climate in our coastal regions.  The problem is that the majority of these new arrivals will live in the interior of the state, where the summer heat is intense, and AC loads drive a "peaky" electrical demand curve.  And no one wants a new power plant next to them.

Every new office building requires about 13 kWh per square foot per year to operate when fully occupied.

New data centers are being designed at 400 watts per square foot or 1600 kWh/SF/yr, more than 100 times your typical commercial office building.  And data center demands are increasing, not decreasing as Google, Netflix, and Amazon becoming a more familiar part of our lives.

The value of the asset we create is diminished by the energy costs necessary to operate it, and augmented by its value to its occupants.

Our demand for power is becoming increasingly "peak-y" due to building more in the Central Valley--peak demand is very sensitive to temperature variations:

The rising cost of petroleum and natural gas as a feedstock increases awareness of how much, and what type, of energy is used, in our daily activities.  Understanding energy flows can, and should, inform the design of our built environment. 

How do I practice Form follows Energy development?

The most basic form of energy is the sun--so Form flows with the Sun--

Start by understanding the energy flows of the site.   reflected in what is needed to be captured, deflected, or redirected.  Think daylighting, cross ventilation, night flushing, pre-chilling, and thermal cycling.

Intervening--reflecting, redirecting, and catching the energy flows.  Think shades, reflective roofs, and occupancy patterns.

Harvesting--solar electric--photovoltaics, and solar thermal--solar hot water and adsorptive chillers for air conditioning.  Harvesting on an inefficient building is a dumb idea--like trying to row a leaky boat.  Do you row faster, or fix the leak?

Methinks the answer is:

• more compact development patterns--ULI is already looking at this,
• net zero energy buildings--CPUC wants all new residential at net zero by 2020 and commercial by 2030,
• a revolution in how we fuel transportation,
• distributed electricity generation--think smart grid, solar, and wind, and
• a fuel tax/carbon tax/credit process to motivate us to do the right thing.

Creating incentives, building awareness, putting a cost to using energy unnecessarily.  This is a "wetware" problem--the people, economics, and politics--putting the skills to work.  We have won the hearts and minds, now we need to execute. 

Form following energy, indeed.

Posted by Ted at 3:54 PM | Permalink

Tucked inside the 301 page CPUC Energy Policy Report [4MB]--their first policy guideline post-AB32--is this zinger:

The California Public Utilities Commission, through its “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies,” has adopted three programs designed to move all new residential and commercial construction to a zero net energy standard. The goal of this program is to reach zero net energy in residential construction by 2020 and in commercial construction by 2030.

Another interesting point was the mandatory solar--so that it could be included in the T24 calc.

Mandatory solar isn't the way to go.  Shading, tilt and azimuth is a major issue in greater than 50% of residential sites, so we would end up with systems that don't pay for themselves quickly enough.  The report did admit that feed-in tariffs--the way they do it in Germany and Spain--are the way to go.  And this would promote higher performance design.

Price grid power high enough vs self generation--we think the curves have already crossed in PG&E territory and on the Big Island of Hawaii--add a feed in tariff, and the market will take care of the rest.  Or do what Marin did, and cap residential energy use at the equivalent of a 3,500SF home, and the owner or builder needs to compensate for any additional usage through greater efficiency, or the use of pv to self generate the difference.

Posted by Ted at 8:47 AM | Permalink

...had to be Michelle Kaufmann's mkLotus house--a 640SF prefab erected in Civic Center Plaza.

It seemed wider than the 14'-6" wide chassis would indicate, and fit and finish was above expectation. 

The indoor/outdoor feel was a big deal.  This is probably the hardest element to duplicate when your land costs require you to achieve higher densities.

Transportation of the cube turns out to be less of an issue than I thought--range is 400 miles @ $5/mi, a nice improvement over my previous150 mile heuristic.

It fomented all sorts of ideas--prefabbing kitchen/bath cores on higher density product >>

Resort development becoming more feasible because site construction unknowns are reduced.

Quicker mixed use>>Santana Row'ing retail because your time on site is now within the retail downtime [Jan to May] window.

Looks like the house is a zero energy house--we need to get all our projects to achieve this.  The house is Green Point Rated by Build It Green.

Interested?  Here is her book. 

And the numbers?  Per Justin Brown, bizdev guy for the firm, $110 PSF, not including foundation, decks, or hookups.  TDC is probably ~$400PSF, about 10% less than site built right now.

Posted by Ted at 7:53 PM | Permalink

Great article in the Economist [subscription reqd] about how biologically inspired design can help reduce the environmental impact of development.

This concept resonates with me.  Growing up on a farm in southeastern Pennsylvania, I came to greatly respect two things:

1. Nature designs for performance.  There is very little about natural design that does not serve a purpose or essential function.
2. Nature always gets last bat.  As little as 20 years after man has left an area, nature reclaims the site and continues to do what it has always done--grow, reproduce, transform, and return to the soil--a closed loop.

Biomimetic principles can be taken to a point where they add measurable value to a building through increased tenant demand for the building's brand identity, reduced operating costs,  and increased investor demand.  At a minimum, a building should be able to generate it's own energy.

"Nature has had the benefit of a pretty long R&D period."

It is going to take a while to get this right--so start with simpler techniques, like incorporating smog eating concrete into the facade, employing photo-voltaics to harvest the available solar resource, understanding a site's environmental attributes, and maximizing daylighting/solar orientation.

"Part of the challenge, I believe, is to reconnect people with resources."

Precisely.

Posted by Ted at 8:17 AM | Permalink

I need to demystify pv.  Now a part of my plan on all my upcoming projects, I find that I need to convince my bankers and investors that it is more than window dressing--it is an essential part of branding my real estate.  The conventional wisdom is that it costs too much.

Moving from convention to the unconventional takes two things--

1. the system needs to be designed and sized right, and
2. it needs to be extremely buildable--unique designs are often priced to reflect unknowns.

It seems pv is now considered an exotic material by architects--more along the lines of tail fins rather than a true performance enhancement.  The answer lies somewhere in the middle--but I have not seen that answer produced yet. Aesthetics are the primary consideration, but aesthetics that do not respect the performance nature of pv will be remodeled out in ten years.

Look at it this way--stone or spandrel glass is about $75 to $100 PSF--about the same cost as PV.  And PV pays for itself in roughly 8 years, whereas the building skin material has no payback.  Starting to make sense?

Integrating solar power harvesting with the skin of a building is starting to become more widely understood.  The blue-toned cells of a polycrystalline module are now a part of the palette of materials available when I am struggling with what a site, and its structure, wants to be.  It enriches the story the asset tells.

The biggest hurdle is how I handle the costs.  BIPV, from a financial perspective, is simply front-loading energy costs into the building budget.  If I design the system right, my operating costs will be lower, demand for the space will be higher, and I can have certainty of supply when combined with a UPS system.  But it can easily double my electrical line item budget, causing a construction lender to grow faint.

BIPV is the visual evidence of green design.

For my financial partners--it requires a leap of faith as it is too new for many of them.  I split out the math--and look at bipv as a capitalized operating expense, and take the deduct on the construction cost side if there is one.  For my designers, it is easier to convince them that integration of the energy and environmental design features in a holistic way can be done--on time and on budget.

One of my main objectives over the next five years is to get the costs of this line item down.  And continually refine design.

If you are interested in joining the parade, download this BIPV design guide [.pdf 9MB].

Posted by Ted at 7:17 AM | Permalink

Article in Sunday's NYT real estate magazine--Key--about aromatherapy in commercial real estate.  Inspired by retailers such as Pottery Barn and Starbucks at creating distinctive environments through meticulously chosen lighting, woods, background music, and fabrics, scent design is now the new frontier. 

Scent marketing is becoming increasingly pervasive--Advertising Age named it one of their top ten trends to watch in 2007.  Starting with a development's traditional architecture and interiors vocabulary--the identity is expanded to include aromas and auditory elements to tell a story, reinforce the project's position and seduce the target demographic.

Smell is the primary way most creatures identify mates, food and home--our most primal and deeply rooted sense.

"The ambiance that scent creates is critical"

"People will make quicker decisions, be willing to pay more for the property and most likely be so emotionally engaged that they are removed from the rational part of their behavior"

Now companies like ScentAir and AromaSys promise to help you and your project tap into the power of a memorable aroma.

Time for me to wake up and smell the coffee [ugh] on this tool--can't wait to put it to work on my next project.

Posted by Ted at 6:17 PM | Permalink

...where they are not supposed to be are three things that drive owners crazy.

Speaking of squeaks, There is a great article in today's NYTT about the importance of acoustically conditioning a home.  Overkill is my approach during construction.  It is much more cost effective to deploy more rock, more insulation and acoustically isolate drain lines at this time than to try and fix it later.

The cost to do a reasonably good soundproofing job adds anywhere from $3 to $20PSF, but the qualitative difference is well worth it.

My secrets?

• Sheetrock/resilient channel/QuietRock is by far the most effective material to acoustically condition a space.
• Steel studs lessen the mass of a wall, making this an option for interior framing.
• Acoustiblok is a mass loaded vinyl product that is installed over the framing and behind the sheetrock.  Installer error is an issue here, make sure; one, the installer knows what they are doing, and two, you inspect the penetrations (outlets, switches, recessed lighting) before surfaces are rocked.
• Windows are a big source of flanking noise, make sure you, or your builder or architect, understands the STC characteristics when evaluating your window options.

And when I really need a room to be quiet, I call Charlie.

Posted by Ted at 12:50 PM | Permalink

An Italian firm has patented a concrete mix that photocatalyzes nitric oxide pollutants in the air, breaking these smog creating compounds into less harmful carbon dioxide, nitrates and water.

Best performance is achieved in architecture with large surface areas and direct sunlight in locations with high traffic flows--urban.  An additional benefit is the long term preservation of bright, clean concrete surfaces.  The cement is white and the installation can be precast, plastered, or cast in place.

Results show a 45 to 60% reduction in nitric oxides via photocatalysis.  Cost of the concrete is 30 to 40% greater, but I would look at a plastered surface with this admix.  Test results in Milan showed covering 15% of visible urban surfaces with this material enables a reduction in pollution of approximately 50%.

Projects using photocatalytic cements [.pdf].

Q&A [.pdf]

Download the Scientific Results [.pdf].

Posted by Ted at 2:45 PM | Permalink

  I have built several pools, and all of them have been headaches.  I don't know if it is the trade contractors, or if my specs are difficult, but I have never made it through the process without a great deal of handholding.

Pools, and water, add magic to a home.  It is one of Legorreta's trademark materials, and no resort home would be the same without a resort pool.

So the headaches, in the end, are worth it.  I have learned a few things along the way.  Here's some of what I know:

Pool Mechanicals

Controllers--I find either the Jandy or the Intellitouch systems work well and both tie into my home automation systems--although I wish they offered an IP based controller.

Install a little meter on the makeup water line.  You will lose roughly 0.5 to 0.75 inch per day from evaporation, any more than that--you have a leak.  7.82 gallons to the cubic foot, or 1 gallon from 200 SF of pool surface area.

 I use the Strantrol system to monitor and maintain pH and HRR.

For oxidizing bacteria, I prefer a bromine system over a chlorinated system, and ozonation for hot tubs. 

The big things to understand are how quickly you need to bring pool temp up, what the turnover is--usually <4 hours for a residential pool, and flow rate and flow rate changes through the different elements [fountains, waterfalls, spa, main drain, infinite edge, etc.)

Infinite edges seem to be a part of all the pools I have done.  The architectural appeal is significant, and the way you can get the layering of different materials at certain vantage points.

Tip:  if you use a floating cover with an infinite edge, you need to reverse the angle on the infinite edge to trap to cover when the cover is closed. 

Rule of thumb, you need 5gal/min flowrate per LF of infinite edge to maintain 0.125" of water over the weir.  Nothing worse than an infinite edge that shows high spots at the weir edge.

Finishes-- your choices are plaster, tile, or a plaster modified with crystals or aggregate such as 3M Quartz, Pebble Sheen or Gem Sheen. 

Plaster is the most economical pool finish and should last 15 to 25 years if the substrate, and the bond to the substrate, were good.  Keep your plaster a light tint.  The bleaching from the pool chemicals that inevitably happens looks worse on a dark colored pool.

If your preference is for a dark color pool, use tile, or a dark aggregate mix-in.   

I used a glass mosaic tile on the pool in these photos, to match the color of the ocean off of Hawaii.

Saving energy is a big concern of pool owners.  When I have the budget, I specify the Hydralux cover from Aquamatic in Gilroy, CA.  95% of the heat is lost through the water surface, and the Hydralux cover is a floating segmented cover that stops a larger percentage of this heat loss.  They also offer a floating solar cover, that allows the irradiance from the sun to pass through this cover and trap it in the pool.  This does not meet spec as a safety cover, so you will still need the fence.

The other way is to install a solar thermal system that loops through the pool pumps.  My rule of thumb is that I get an extra month on either end of the season here in Northern California without using a lot of gas. 

Posted by Ted at 6:59 PM | Permalink

An article in Business Week about Sophisticated Cellars got me thinking about the cellars I put in the homes I produce.  The first book I reach for when scoping the opportunity is How and Why to Build A Wine Cellar.

Why a wine cellar when winemaking techniques have improved to the point where most wines are enjoyable the day you acquire them?  Three reasons-

• it enhances the experience of collecting and appreciating wine;
• it provides an optimal environment for storing expensive, collectible wines--an effective storage solution is a fraction of the cost of the wine being stored;
• it enhances the value of your property.

The first question is capacity.  How many bottles?  Large format bottles?  Other types of storage?

  Second question is the primary and secondary functions of this space.  Long term storage?  Entertaining?  Actually practicing oenology? 

Third question is location.  Putting the cellar underground is the traditional option--great temperature control, away from light--really a highest and best use. Other options are in a detached structure--the more of it underground, the better.

The two enemies of wine are heat and light.  The fundamental job of the cellar is to prevent these two elements from happening to your collection.  It is the cycling of temperatures that prematurely age your wine--wine does not like change.  The other job of the cellar is to impress your wine drinking friends with your collection--which calls for light, and then perhaps a table, and a great racking system.

Temperature--I find that reds age optimally at 50-55d F.  Whites can take about five degrees higher in ambient temperature.  Humidity is not as big an issue, unless you are storing wines for a really long time.  The concrete walls should be enough.

Things to consider--

Diamond shaped bins are a bad idea in earthquake country.  The bottles dislodge too easily during a seismic event.  Minimize these bins in your cellar.

If you are using wine storage units, they can be noisy at night--so be careful where in the home you put them...you don't want to be woken to the sound of the compressor cycling on [again].

Resources:

Designer.  A Marin based Designer.

Racking

Split System Cooling Units.

Packaged units. 

WhisperKool units.

Posted by Ted at 1:56 PM | Permalink

Agnes Bourne, nearly a San Francisco native, graduated from Mills College, studied art and design first in Italy and then with Rudolph Schaeffer at the Rudolph Schaeffer School of Design in San Francisco.  The school combined the aesthetics of the Arts and Crafts Movement and Asian art with a philosophy in which beauty and utility coalesced.  She had a San Francisco studio and showroom for 18 years and now runs her interior design, furniture and color design from Jackson, Wyoming.

Agnes was the interior designer on a home I produced in San Francisco almost ten years ago.  She epitomizes enthusiasm to me and is great fun to work with on projects--enthusiasm as faith in action. 

We had a chance to compare notes when she was in SF this past week

How do you get someone to understand the role color plays?

Take my crash course on color!  I ask a person to wear a color for a week and note in a journal the experience of wearing it, looking for it, listening for it, eating it.  If you approach color as a language, you can literally hear what the colors do.   The responses that come from the senses engaging with the color--where it is good, where it is bad--the response provoked in color.

It is fun to make a color go through its paces--put it in the light, make it shiny, make it flat, make it fat, make it thin.  We just saw the movie Flushed Away, and the colors carried so much of the plot without doing anything.

Other elements I work with:

• Adjacency--the effect of putting one color next to another gives you a third color.
• Texture--where it is the smoothest, the roughest and how you work the gradient in between.  Where texture becomes structure.
• Translucency.
• Form.
• Flow!
• And you can't forget function...

How do you set out to understand what the project wants to be?

The interview process is where you establish the kernel, the house haiku, the essence of the vision that becomes the project.  What are the essential elements?  Ecstatic?  Views?  Light? Peacefulness?  The haiku is the anchor, the touchstone of what the home or space wants to be.  The most successful projects are where the haiku is set at the beginning, is constantly referred to during design and construction, and is evidenced in the final product.

The design voice is in service to the idea, to the project's haiku.  All elements of the design are in service to the haiku, the project essence.

Thoughts on architects?
Frank Gehry and I had a series of great conversations about a project and he told me Architecture Evokes Passion.  What does passion do?  Inspiration, nothing passive about great architecture.  Your environment really affects your well being.

Tom Kundig and I have done a couple of projects together and the challenge is to do interiors that do not detract from the architecture.  The interiors must augment the response of the architecture, not an answer that takes away from the architecture.  His sense of detail is strong, not fussy.

Grant Marani, a partner at Robert A. M. Stern Architects, facilitated a great experience in true collaboration, authentic accountability and good humor on a San Francisco home.  These three elements provide a solid foundation for great results during the design process.

Heath Ceramics has been a great source for custom shapes and colors and inspiration for me.

What would you like to design that you haven't done?

Macro  >>  Design a house that has no waste in process and function.  Imagine a nest...nothing is wasted and it all returns to the environment when its job is done.  The only power consumed was the energy it took to gather and build it.

Micro Object of Desire >> Mattresses.  Goose down mattresses.  This would be a challenge, a missed opportunity, an amazing feeling--so rested, even temperature, support.

How has moving your practice to Jackson Hole furthered your practice?

The biggest lesson I have learned in Jackson is how to listen, listening to the environment in all the ways that one listens.  Listening apart from language.  Listening with all your senses.  Listening to understand.   There is a lot of trust and purpose in nature. 

Watching how wildlife responds to their environment.  They are purpose driven, but also take time off.  Particularly coyotes...

You begin to feel the difference of a granite mountain--it is a different thing, a different feel from sedimentary formed mountains--heavy mountains vs. not so heavy mountains...

Two things you want to do?

See the Massive Change exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art.

The Green House exhibition at the National Building Museum.

Any advice on building a practice in San Francisco?

Get your team together.  In all areas.  Construction.  Lighting.  Architecture and where the handoff occurs from design to construction.  Understand the project schedule and work with a team where everyone buys into the schedule.

Posted by Ted at 11:42 AM | Permalink

...I hate fashion victim architecture.  Moody starchitecture.  I just don't get it. The expansion of the Denver Art Museum, that is.

Played hooky one sunny day during ULI in Denver last week and went for a run to check out Daniel Libeskind's new extension to the Denver Art Museum</a>.  After reading Ouroussoff's review in the NYT, I had to see it for myself.  Does the "Bilbao effect" of starchitecture work if the building doesn't? 

Does the strategy of adding condos--clad in Rheinzink rather than titanium-- to the mix save this plaza from a windswept exile?

The sculptural aspects of the building were impressive from a distance. Titanium works well in the afternoon light. I can't for the life of me understand how it will be a great place for understanding art.  The arrival sequence is dehumanizing.  Form completely separated from function.  Lighting is tough with the sloping walls.

It will be a great space for a particular sub-genre of art--sculptor Antony Gormley's Quantum Cloud XXXIII, an abstract human figure made of sharp-edged metal seems right at home among the rest of the sharp edges. 

There is no other exhibit space I know of that has planes colliding into planes in the way this space does.

The number of acute angles may drive demand for art that responds to this angularity.  Was it a reaction to the surrounding buildings?

And for a building owner, the fact that titanium, besides being expensive, marks.  How do you keep this clean over time? They should have gone with the granite at ground level.

The detailing up close was disappointing--metalwork joinery was not up to the level of quality one would expect from a game-changing building, if that is what the museum's board members were after with the $110 million they spent on adding 146,000SF to the museum.  What else could have they been after?

The most interesting juxtaposition is how the acutely angular DAM expansion plays off Michael Grave's thirteen year old PoMo Denver Public Library.    A real architectural odd couple.  Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not a huge fan of master-planned environments, but will it be interesting to walk this plaza ten years from now. 

The real trick will be whether this structure adds to the life around it, or is a one-off stunt that sucks the life out of, and detracts from the art contained within Denver's arts center.

UPDATE:  Guess I was not that far off--

Posted by Ted at 6:44 PM | Permalink

November's Architectural Digest (p 192) has an article on a home we produced in Palo Alto.  This is the third home we've produced that has graced the pages of Digest, and we are grateful for the (anonymous) attention.  This post discusses the three [insanely great] homes we produced.  I am grateful for the coverage, because for all the hard work that goes into them, they are private homes, and the final result is rarely ever seen.

There were several interesting aspects about producing this home.  I believe this home is the best example of the architect Steven Ehrlich's work, bar none.   This house has substantial, yet quiet, subtle moves to it.  It embodies Steven's philosophy of multi-cultural modernism.

The use of cast in place architectural concrete in such inventive ways was the most challenging part of the project.  Ryan Associates was the general contractor, and they really stuck to the task of getting the cast in place architectural concrete right. Thanks for getting the job done, Jim, Gil, and Stephen.

I love the Honduran mahogany paneling and casework.  Plant Architectural Woodwork built all of the casework on this job--it was a pleasure working with them.

The home prior to that was in Hawaii, designed by Ricardo Legorreta's office, with production drawings done by Shah Kawasaki.  Project architect was Geddes Ulinskas, a very talented professional.  Ryan built this one for me, too.  This was in the October 2005 issue of AD.

Ricardo's homes are about mass, form, color, materiality, and daylight.  The quality of his homes is unique--for example the interior doors are all 3" thick--the heft is so reassuring.  The research into materials was extensive and the final palette is a statement about, life, art and living.  Paul Wiseman was the interior designer.

The location is right on the ocean, and the juxtaposition of the ocean, the colors, the light and the great moves this house has made it one of the island's most significant architectural homes--though it was an acquired taste for some armchair critics on the island.

The first home I produced that made it to Digest was in San Francisco, designed by Robert A.M. Stern, now dean of architecture at Yale.   For many reasons, it will probably always be my favorite.  I love the sentimentality of Stern's voice, the owners are my heroes, and the entire building team came to appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship that went into producing this home.

The fact that this home is built in, and reflects the culture of, San Francisco makes it even more appealing.  Shingle style architecture is truly an American vernacular, and the overscaled nature of some of the detailing increases the clarity of the voice that calls this a home, in the best sense of the word.

Architectural Digest is unique in that their photography is attractive, yet only partially revealing.  No revelations about the numbers.  Only quality.  And they reveal nothing about what it took to produce the home--not a bad thing, for the design once, build once, operate once world is a challenging one. 

 I have referred to Digest over the years to learn about designers on projects I may be working on, to find vendors to help me solve problems, and as a way to enjoy again projects that I worked on.  For Owners it is a great source of inspiration, aspiration, and for articulating that most American of ideals, the private home.

Posted by Ted at 5:01 PM | Permalink

Phillips displayed a number of concepts at its Simplicity event in London this week. Click here to learn more about the concepts, many oriented around healthy living and the use of color and light therapies to enhance our quotidian routines.  Light, air, and control over our environment.  Some things never [should] change.

Look for more LED lighting, rf based controls  and media centers that give you intuitive access to all media in your home--getting us one step closer to that digital lifestyle.  Your entire home and media library controlled by your iPod?  Methinks we are about three years away...

Posted by Ted at 3:45 PM | Permalink

and making building materials perform un-natural acts (as a client so aptly put it) seems to be an increasing part of the challenge of producing insanely great places to live.

Glass is one material that is increasingly being used in unique, un-natural ways.  On a recent home, I used it in the main stair.  We had a few precedents to go on.  This application was a little more conventional than the glass staircases you see in the Apple stores.  Jobs patented the stair's design, you can download a copy here.  Dupont's Sentry Glass Plus interlayer plays a role in the structure, as did Depp Glass' embossed finish--we used the microdot on our job.  Wesley Depp was a great help in getting this design figured out.  Another installation that was instructive was on Seattle's City Hall, a glass bridge.

Building codes and liability issues have to be closely managed.  The math is actually pretty simple, and the Dupont SGP gives you a boost in strength if you need it.  We had to perform an IBC equivalency, and I worked closely with the chief building official to make sure we understood how this product met codes.  You have to dial in the strength with one of the layers broken, so you need to understand how the laminations work together.  Edge supporting helps a lot, but diminishes the cool factor.  And your fabrication drawings need to be exact.

One alternative we looked at but ended up not doing anything with was Schott's LightPoints LED equipped laminated glass product.  Maybe on my next project...

Posted by Ted at 3:13 PM | Permalink

...as determined by the editors of Fine Homebuilding. 

A Schindler, a Maybeck, Greene &amp; Greene, Jefferson, Samuel Mockbee,  Joe Esherick, and a James Cutler grace the pages of this review.  Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater is declared the most famous house in America, natch.

Issue is available for $8.99 by clicking here.

Posted by Ted at 11:53 AM | Permalink

is how John King describes San Francisco in his SF Chronicle Place column.

too true.

This image brought to mind Joshua Prince- Ramus' talk at TED about how the conceptual design process for this project developed.  I can only imagine the fun of trying to convince a banker to give me a hefty enough construction loan to successfully capitalize this deal. 

The structural steel premium alone has to be $100PSF. Staging? elevators?  At least the land residual cost would be cheap...I like the visual of jacking the museum pod into place, very cool.  Would love to develop one of his designs, my problem would be populating the capstack. 

I am all for architectural over-commitment, but remained cursed by knowing the numbers...

Posted by Ted at 10:22 AM | Permalink

"Green design's quirky, lesser-known cousin"

was the topic of this New York Times article.

Natural elements can reduce stress, morning sunshine can reduce hospital patient's need for pain medication.

An environmental psychologist said:

"Correctly framing views and integrating the designs of landscape and houses are key biophilic principles but 'are not well understood' by many builders".

Posted by Ted at 8:34 PM | Permalink

Stairs and their handrails, can be the ultimate test of your architect's abilities.   I can't tell you the amount of time I have spent on projects hashing out the details of a handrail.   You have architectural sensibilities careening into building codes, wrapped in the enigma that stairs (and their handrails) are used differently by different people. And then to get it all to work within the budget...

Here is a site in Slate, by Witold Rybczynski, providing some great prototypical solutions.  BTW, if you haven't read his book  The Most Beautiful House in the World, I highly recommend it, particularly to understand the digressions, detours, and distractions in designing and building a home of one's own.

Posted by Ted at 10:07 AM | Permalink

Insanely great homes are built from a common language, a patron that understands what they want, and has the resources to get it done.

Establishing this common language, establishing the values and principles, and articulating this in a way your designer understands so that they can develop the working drawings is the next major challenge you face, after right-sizing your budget.

 
Your architect is motivated differently than you are. 

This is my post on why people build.  It is the design, material, and recognition that drives your architect and your common language needs to incorporate these motivations.  Understand what motivates your architect and you are more than halfway there.

Posted by Ted at 5:03 PM | Permalink

Following up my conversation with Stephen Suzman and Lisa Guthrie, I asked them to walk a mile in the Owner's moccasins. 

I asked them,

What are the ten questions you would pose to your landscape architect?

1. How will you figure out what I REALLY want?
2. How will you convince me what the site tells you it wants?
3. How much of the program will be what I tell you I want and how much of the program will be what the site tells you it wants?
4. How long will this really take to complete?
5. How much will this really cost to complete?
6. Who am I going to work directly with in your office?  What are my choices?  Why is this person the best fit for my project?
7. Do you have a good relationship with a contractor who could provide reliable pricing information and guarantee this price working from DD drawings?
8. What other contractors do you usually work with?
9. Have you worked in this town before?  Do you have a good relationship with the planning and building department?
10. Do you like Agapanthus or Lantana?  (if so, you are fired!)
11. Do you source/review material before it is delivered to the project site?

Posted by Ted at 3:02 PM | Permalink

...Stephen Suzman and Lisa Guthrie of Suzman & Cole Landscape Architects about how to work best with your landscape architect, what is important, and what isn't.

1. Is "voice" important when looking for a landscape architect?

Landscape architecture primarily needs to respond to the site.  The landscape architect needs to understand the site, its opportunities and constraints, its microclimate, and the preferences of the client.

Planting a formal French garden that is not responsive to the site is not a valid solution.  Voice is possible, voice can be a fashion, but the opportunities and constraints of the site need to guide you.

We do not specialize in a particular vernacular, what we are is perceptive, inventive, and resourceful. Our goal is to produce a hybrid design--a new response that avoids endless repetition and sterility.  The Bay Area is an extremely conservative place (from a design perspective) where firms that provide only one voice limit their options.

The client's personal preferences, colors, plants and styles, are essential to identify early on, through an interview or a questionnaire process.

2. What three questions should an Owner ask you when you first sit down?

• Are you available?
• Is this something you would be interested in?
• Have you worked in this jurisdiction before?
• Are you familiar with the microclimate?

3. What are the fundamental elements that you work with, in terms of complexity and cost?

• Water--extremely expensive to provide from a budget perspective.  (Ted: $300 to $500 per square foot of surface area for custom pools and spas).  Maintenance and room for pumps and filters is needed.
• Grade changes and retaining walls--retaining walls are very expensive (Ted: $35 to $70 per SF of wall) and steps and stairs need to be developed to circulate through the site.  Rise and run of these steps are critical.
• Paving, parking, and tennis courts--paving can be expensive (Ted: can range in cost from $15 to $200 per square foot).  The wrong surface can easily degrade in the environment.  Grade changes for the automobile are difficult to manipulate without creating a bunker feel.  Automobile turnarounds, fire department requirements on rural sites.  Tennis courts can be a challenge.
• Drainage--more plants succumb to bad drainage than any other malady.  Leaky pools.  Drainage needs to be addressed by the civil engineer.
• Dialogue, early and meaningful,  with the building architect to review site, grades, retaining walls.  With the client, to make sure we understand their preferences.
• Safety--stairs and lighting.  Providing a comfortable rise and run on steps.  Stair and pathway lighting.
• Transplanting Trees--some plants will be lost, it is a fact, and something we can recover from.  Trees need to be pruned for safety.
• Color--sample matches on pool plaster, hardscape, and paving are very important..  Samples need to be approved and archived and used to accept built finishes.  There is a wider palette to work with today than previously--materials are sourced worldwide.  No mica.  Porous stones need to be dark to hide staining.
• Lighting--safety lighting is critical, pathway and stair lighting.  Pool lighting.underlighting rather than overlighting.  Avoid high contrast--transitions from inside to outside are critical.

4.  How do you relate to the buildings existing or proposed on the site?

Site planning is a chicken and egg process between the Architect and Landscape Architect to identify opportunities and constraints.  Sloping sites are particularly important to understand early on.  Siting the building properly makes a huge difference.

Outdoor program should be an early product of the design process.  Outdoor rooms are different--the solar aspect, the fact there is no ceiling, and they change through the day and the season.  Interior space is much more finite.

5.  Views are critical to owners in the Bay Area.  How do you respond to this need?

Borrowing views in an urban property, minimizing views from offsite and maximizing privacy is one of our key tasks.  Developing view corridors on rural properties comes out during our initial discussions with the architect and Owner. 

6.  And plants?
Owners usually start with plants, but that is typically the last thing you work through on a site.  You don't really know what wants to go where until you have developed your grades, circulation, and view corridors.

7.  How important is a site survey?

A complete, topographical survey with two foot contours  is critical.  A complete site survey is the best $10 to $20K that you can spend to understand grades.  (Ted: AGREED!!).

8.  What are the more difficult needs you have to respond to?

People want what they haven't got.  Its never what you can, its what you can't. Flat sites want to be elevated, sloping sites want to be flat (Ted: see retaining walls, above).

Building Codes.  Owners ask me to skirt building  codes on their projects.  Code compliance is very important and a reality that you have to deal with all the time. 

9.  What is the one thing that needs to be understood, but is tragic if it isn't?

Wind.  People don't like it, and it picks up in the afternoon when you want to be outside entertaining.  Critical in San Francisco, and on any high elevation site.  Very important to design around it, but if not understood early enough, responses are too late and not effective.

10.  What seems important, but really isn't?

Whether you have done this garden before is not an issue.  It is understanding the site--not providing the same solution to different problems.

Posted by Ted at 9:19 PM | Permalink

In this article in today's NYT, I came across a new term coined to fight infilling our existing urbanized areas--vertical sprawl--a higher density land use that causes increased traffic, parking problems, and the cost of supporting new projects with schools, water and other municipal services.  Key unique issue is building height, and shadows cast on adjacent properties.

Parking can be solved through adequate below grade parking--a matter of public policy, economics and soil types.  Traffic is a more complicated issue.  It depends on safe, time efficient, and convenient alternatives to SOV's (single occupancy vehicles).  Economics need to factor in the door-to door elapsed time and yuck factors of urban mass transit.

The costs of building type I--highrise--(c. $550PSF) are two times the costs of building lowrise--type V (c. $275PSF).  The cost of land and infrastructure does not offset these higher construction costs, which is why people still flock to the exurbs and ignore the transportation costs (for a while).

Housing costs are starting to be viewed as the combination of costs of housing plus costs of transportation to work and services

Here is the Brookings Institution study.

"Significant empirical evidence is beginning to point towards a tantalizing association of economic productivity and compact, centered, and efficient regions."

The Sierra Club  produced a white paper on sprawl and an interesting study--particularly the contrast between Portland OR and Atlanta GA--cities with roughly equivalent growth with widely varying effects on costs of providing services, traffic, and air pollution.

Posted by Ted at 11:01 AM | Permalink

Architecture can be one of the few factors differentiating your asset from the one down the street.  Ignore the power of elegant and function and you are no more than a commodity.  Great design is a timeless advantage.

Design is best defined at the margins--the margins of materials, how they meet, how they are daylit, how they are located where people can touch and feel them.

Design is more reductive than it is additive.  You know you are there when you can't take anything else away.

I spent today getting my head around the numbers for a acre and a half site that is the perfect mixed use, sustainable, walkable location.  Design will be a significant part of my message for this proposal. 

A lot of design people never really get.  For example--every mixed use plan in the markets I work in is a parking plan, first and foremost. How you:

• get the cars off the street,
• get the people out of the cars,
• get them into their place of refuge (home), or
• get them into the mixing chamber (retail/restaurant),
• get them back in their cars, and then
• back out on the street

safely, securely, and with the sense of place that leads them to the next decanting point.

I still am struggling with this site--getting the parking to work.  Every plan is a parking plan...every plan is a parking plan. And a significant part of the costs--an underground parking space is $35 to $50K to build.

Posted by Ted at 8:31 PM | Permalink

...or fenestration, as my architect friends call it.  The primary function of a window is to provide a link to the outside.  This link needs a view of the ground and the horizon.  Windows offer the opportunity to frame a view, direct light, allow cross ventilation, and connect us with our location.

How do I get my head around windows? 

Look at the rough openings. In the Bay Area and Hawaii, my first cut for a total RO number is 25% of floor area.   Budgeting costs range from $80PSF of rough opening for mid-market solution to $275PSF for a completely custom mahogany window system  to $400PSF for a european import.

 Had one quote for a french cast bronze system that was $2400PSF, but that is another story.

Multi-point, pocketing, casement, awning, double-hung, triple-hung or fixed sashes?  Screens?  Depends on how you use the opening--view, ventilation, daylighting.

Laminated glass is great for soundproofing, and you don't have those anodized aluminum spacer bars visible in a double paned window.  Type of glass, low e, argon filled, etc--how much you use and where you use it is defined by your Title 24 calculation--this calculation determines how energy efficient your home is.

Final placing of windows needs to be done on-site--full scale model approach--with the rough frame of the building in place.  Mock up the frame of the window and move it around until it feels right.  Pay attention to the organization of the view and how the space inside relates to this.  Be careful about windows on a western exposure--they tend to heat up the house when you least need it.  Windows on a northern exposure are great for studio space.

Windows are a big part of your budget, but like the doors on your automobile, you use them a lot, and their mechanical function provides feedback on the quality of  construction.  They make a big difference in the delight and function you get from your home--so choose wisely.

Posted by Ted at 2:58 PM | Permalink

One of the most powerful elements your architect can frame is daylight.

I was fortunate enough to be the project manager on a Ricardo Legorreta designed home.  One of the most powerful elements Ricardo directed was daylight into the bathrooms.  The skylights provided an elevating, sanitizing, and even empowering sense to the space.  Paired with the right stone--we used roman travertine--the room glows and rejuvenates you.

Skylights in bathrooms are a must have for me now in any home I have a design say in.  It is a modern, clean solution to enlivening this space.  The light from above is more natural than light ported in horizontally.  Backlighting at mirrors is no longer an issue.

 

Skylights over the vanity and in the shower are on my checklist.  Look at adding them to yours.

I work with someone who told me, "Skylights leak.  That's their job.:  True enough.  You have to weigh this when you build and select the final location of the skylight.  There are locations on the roof that are more prone to leaking than others.  But to me the tradeoff is well worth it.

And my wife says daylight is so much better when applying makeup.  Case closed.

Posted by Ted at 11:15 AM | Permalink

Kitchens, and their design, seem to provoke more questions than any other space.  I tried to field a number of them last night at a friend's house, and woke this morning with the goal of walking through with my readers how I put a kitchen together.

It first is the "Am I paying too much?" question.  All in, a kitchen with new cabinets, new countertops and professional grade appliances will run $125 to $250K.  The spread is primarily in the cabinets and the remodeling work to make the space ready for cabinets--think lighting and kitchen exhaust fan.

The second is "Why are cabinets so expensive".  OK, let's back up.

Let's start with the question that should be asked: What will be the primary functions of this space?

 Family food preparation, entertainment, refuel and go ops? gathering place? Morning, evening, weekends?

How do I plan the kitchen zones?   Julius Blum, a German manufacturer of cabinets and hardware, has a great online zone planner  that helps you understand the dynamics of planning for a kitchen that works.  Great helpful hints.

Then budget.  Professional appliances will run $25 to $75K for a complete complement and retail prices are set by the manufacturer--so not a lot of leeway.  My recommendations are

• gas cooktop (we cook on a Viking and can recommend it),
• convection ovens, and
• a kitchen exhaust fan size and location that works.

Everything else is personal preference.

Upper and lower <strong>cabinetry</strong> runs from $500 per lineal foot (IKEA) to $1500PLF for custom built.

I have been unimpressed with the imported european cabinets.  Timing (twelve to fourteen week lead time and they missed the delivery date forcing us to air ship the boxes), the quality, and the final installed appearance were underwhelming.  TO their credit they do an impressive sales job--If its good enough for Gwyneth Paltrow, its good enough for you--but on a recent job, the cabinets (again airshipped from Germany) were the wrong size and it took them seven weeks to replace them on a critical path job.  For 20% more, we could have had a completely custom kitchen with furniture grade finishes--on time without the hassle.

Stone countertops run from $80 to $300 per lineal foot of countertop, based primarily on the type of stone.

Kitchen exhaust fans need to be sized to remove 100 to 150 CFM per square foot of cooktop, 28" to 32" (70 to 85cm) above the surface of the cooktop.

Lighting, particularly with California's new energy codes--50% of total wattage in a kitchen to be fluorescent--is a critical area.  Island lighting, task lighting, ambient lighting.

Posted by Ted at 10:53 AM | Permalink

Radiant heating is high on the list of wants in almost every one of the homes I have produced.  The comfort, the invisibility, and the economies of radiant heating make it an attractive alternative. 

There are ways of designing your system that optimize the installation. Use this post when discussing heating systems with your designer.

There are four five things to understand with any radiant system:

1. There is a one to four hour thermal lag because the system is heating up such a large mass--a stone floor, for example.
2. Because of the thermal lag, we don't interconnect this source of heat with the split system as radiant systems are not meant to cycle on and off.  We do include a second outdoor temp sensor that adjusts the water temperature automatically with changes in outdoor temperature.
3. In California or sunny western states where there is a large diurnal temperature range during parts of the year, the system is best suited for areas that are not influenced by these daily temperature swings--northern exposure and basements.
4. The system is most effective in spaces where there is not a lot of solar heat gain during the day, ie in northern/northeastern/basement spaces.  I am hesitant to install these units in spaces with a large amount of southern exposure, and believe they are actually counterproductive in spaces with a large amount of western exposure due to the thermal lag.
5. Spaces with a large amount of glass and high ceilings can develop cold drafty convection currents at the windows on cold days that can overwhelm the system.  Look carefully at tubing sizing and spacing to understand how to compensate for large expanses of glass. 

Radiant heating is best understood as a steady-state, set-it and forget it system.  Most of the jobs I do, we design the system to be set at 72 degrees.  We augment the radiant system with a split system that provides any necessary cooling in summer, and responds to calls for additional heat in the winter, and in spaces with potential for temperature swings.  We don't overthink the handoff (there is none) between the two systems--radiant provides the baseline, and the split system responds to your immediate requests.

You need the split system to provide the responsiveness, and the radiant system for quiet, clean comfort.

The heat in a radiant system can come from one of two sources--electrical heating mats or tubing with hot water from a boiler.  I use mats in small isolated areas--have one in my master bathroom floor, for example.  They are not efficient providers of heat on a $/BTU basis, but work in areas where you can't have leaks or if you just want comfort heating in small areas.

I prefer to put radiant heating under stone, tile or concrete rather than hardwood.  They are more tolerant of temperature shocks than wood.  Hardwood seems to like it best in the same comfort zone as us people--that is 65 to 80 degrees.  Warmer than that, and the hardwood dries out and shrinks.  Water temp in the tubing is typically 100 degrees F +/- 10 degrees.  If wood is the look you want, look at engineered flooring or floating floor systems that are more stable with these higher temperatures.  Carpet diminishes the efficiency of the system and traps heat in the floor, both no-nos.

Hydronic radiant systems designed around a PEX tubing system like Wirsbo should give you trouble free enjoyment for a number of years.  I caution that these systems will leak, it is a matter of when, not if.  In the interim, you will enjoy the comfort, even warmth and "invisibility" of this great heating alternative.

The numbers?  The systems I have put in have ranged from $12 to $22 PSF for hydronic systems.

Posted by Ted at 1:37 PM | Permalink

when stories abound of the cost, the difficulty, and the time involved?  Because for some of us, the essence of building is transforming quotidian, real world needs into art that works for us. 

The design of the single family, private home is an architectural touchstone.  Even though they take more time, more decisions than ever thought possible, and are utterly irrelevant socially, they are the crucible of how we want to live our lives today.

"When one has finished building one's house, one suddenly realizes that in the process one has learned something that one really wanted to know in the worst way--before one began."

--Nietzsche

The modern American home provides an owner and an architect an opportunity to create a singular design reflecting the outward and inner directed motivations of the owner.  Much as wealthy patrons commissioned concertos or portraits, Americans see their homes today in much the same way.

Paul Goldberger (he was the architectural critic for the NY Times) wrote a piece entitled Houses as Art (12MAR95 NYT Magazine) where he described three general categories of people who undertake "this mad indulgence"

1. Patrons motivated by pure belief--the house is an opportunity to prove the power of architecture.
2. Patrons motivated by hubris--They are trophy hunters and a home represents a chance to reinforce their place in the food chain;
3. Patrons motivated by the collecting instinct--the home is another way of indulging in a passion for acquiring art.

Goldberger then mentioned a fourth kind of patron, "the accidental patron, the client who does not intentionally start out on the mission of building a serious house but who finds a talented architect, establishes a comfortable relationship with him and, in the process of fulfilling the basic needs of a house, ends up transcending them and creating a great work."

This is building as challenge.  A challenge to the patron to advance a clear vision of what is to be achieved by the home.  A challenge to the architect to walk that fine line between architecture as unlivable art and a connection to the world that uniquely guides the architectural vision into practicality.

For when we build, our goal is to practice an elegant efficiency and steady pace to get to the heart of the problem and build a home that has both a unique sense of place as well as to provide shelter with an emotional intensity not found anywhere else.

As for Nietzsche, my antidote to his described fruitlessness is to keep building--because whatever we have  built, we are always beginning again.

Posted by Ted at 10:28 AM | Permalink

succinctly--simply but no simpler--is the first test of converting the dream to reality.  You have your site--now what?

What are the steps you need to take as an Owner?

Architects and designers have a design voice, an intrinsic momentum of how they resolve spatial issues, frame views, and balance form and function.  Your potential investment also has a voice--as yet unrevealed.  The first step you need to take is to find the architect with the voice that matches the voice of your dream.

Architects are trained and work their entire careers developing this voice. The architect's voice can document, communicate and resolve your dream in a way that the builder, the community, and the other professionals on the team understand in a way that risks can be quantified and the work priced, or "bought out" in the parlance of our industry.

The steps are:

1. Collect photos, examples, movies, of what this voice is to you.  I once had a client that told me he wanted the home in the movie "Legends of the Fall". Hard to get a clearer voice than that.  Another told me he wanted to bring David Adler and Tommy Church back to life and commission them.  A voice from the past...
2. Walk projects with architects.  Have them show you the opportunities and constraints.  Understand the resolution.  Understand the voice behind the resolution.  Rinse and Repeat until you find a voice that provides you with the next level of insight.
3. Have your architect develop the opportunities and constraints map on your site.  Make sure they understand permitting and approvals constraints--this can be an expensive omission.
4. Have your architect iterate on your program.  Do they get it?
5. Don't rush into a schematic design yet.  This is typically the first deliverable--but you can spend a lot of money generating design after design.  If you understand what can be done with the site, your first iteration on schematics will be very close to the final answer.
6. Start with a floor/site plan complete with inside/outside relationships, and exterior elevation of the primary facade. Overlay opps/constraints map on this.  Look at kitchen/living and master suite spaces--with furniture layout-- to understand flow/privacy/symmetry/arrival sequence.   This exercise will probably run $20K +/- $15K.

First cut at a budget: 100% of interior square footage + 150% of hi volume interior footage + 50% of terrace footage+100% of pool/spa footage + 5% of landscaped area footage multiplied by the current average cost per square foot for your area.  Add 30% of this total for soft costs, permitting and contingency.  Voila, you have to go make some more money.

Check against approvals constraints.  Sign off on the numbers. 

It will all be ok--there's nothing like a home designed around a dream.

Posted by Ted at 8:20 AM | Permalink

a dream of a home, a home you may have seen, experienced, or just dreamt of. A custom built home, no matter how large, is the ultimate tool for a well lived life.

No less than Robert A.M. Stern recognizes that the typical American house reveals in its design subliminal and overt expressions of the realities and myths of our individual and collective experiences.

"Virtually every aspect of the American single family house--defines who we are as well as who and what we would like to be."

Stern goes on to note that "Architecture should be an affirmation of place--that is the physical product of a truly environmentally responsive approach."

Your dream begins with a place, and a sense of that place, both externally aware and internally focused.

This tome is a great way to stoke the dream-making process. 

Architectural styles are very portable--a drive through a modern neighborhood is a catalog of architectural voices.

The numbers behind this dream? All things considered, your total development cost ( everything other than the land) will run anywhere from $350 to $1000 per square foot in the areas we work in, and the average new home is roughly 2,400 square feet.

What's your dream?

Posted by Ted at 12:17 PM | Permalink