Usually, I try to stay away from such langauge.  But a recent experience has sort of caused some angst.

Recently, we moved our offices from my “home” office, to a new office in an old junior high school.  We didn’t fit anymore.  Employees cramed together in a space never really intended to have employees.  After four years, the amount of stuff had grown, the client list had grown.  It was time to move.  So we did.  Sort of, mostly, at least we started the process.

The space we picked out is a 22′x87′ space with 13 large 5′x8′ double hung windows.  This section of the school was built in 1932.  The original windows were long gone, replaced with single pane single hung aluminum windows.  Orange blinds.  Faux wood paneling on 2 of the 4 walls.  The floor was institutional carpet of an institutional grey-blue color.  1960’s era florourescent lighting.  But it was a large empty space without any walls and ready to go.

After about 20 iterations, most variations on the the same theme, we came up with a plan.  Only 4 walls.  3 of the walls wouldn’t touch other walls or the ceiling.  The 4th would go to the ceilng and connect to an exterior wall.

Here’s what needed to happen:

• Remove existing carpet and faux wood paneling.
• Patch and repair the walls where the paneling was removed.
• Frame the four new walls
• Wire up the place
• Hang the sheetrock.
• Paint
• Install the new floor
• Finish trim the electrical
• Finish trim the woodwork, including baseboards

It was about 11 weeks before things were mostly ready.  And we’re still missing our baseboards.  Building officials, contractor schedules, material availability, whatever.  It all conspired against us.

Our furniture, ordered the end of June still hasn’t been delivered.  Only the first page of seven was received by the factory and when we went to accept delivery 3 pieces were delivered, and they were the least important of the bunch.

It shouldn’t have taken as long as it did.  It shouldn’t have been as difficult as it was.  What a royal pain to build four #@$%! walls.

There has been some discussion on this web site and others about the cost associated with well designed homes. In my post entitled “McPeople” I posited that home owners in general are willing to accept inferior design in the name of blandness and resale. A commenter suggested that the cause for this is the marketing ability and budgets of the large tract home builders and that if architects would step to the plate through marketing and practice, people would see that they could build more distinctive homes that better fit their personalities and lifestyle.

I have decided that while there may be something to this idea (architects tend to put themselves above the suburban tract home) this alone will not increase good design in the suburbs. I think that many architects would say that new home owners are just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to recognize quality design and push it off. But I think that attitude only exacerbates the issue. The real problem is actually that the industry is geared toward repetition and is quickly becoming a one trick pony.

We have marketed to, and have received several commissions for smaller (2,500 sq. ft. and less) homes. We have been quick to repeat the mantra that good design doesn’t cost more. That for the same cost you could build a well designed house instead of the standard tract home.

I will not be saying that anymore.

What I should say instead, is that you SHOULD be able to build a well designed house for the same amount as a poorly designed house. The reality is that every time we try to do something unique, albeit simple to build requiring no additional knowledge or ability to construct, the builders get scared and increase their bids. Our portfolio seems to be filling with designs that the clients loved, we enjoyed creating, but that builders couldn’t figure out how to build at a cost comparative to other homes of their same size and complexity.

This will only be solved when builders who have an open mind come to the table and commit to good design, remove their blinders, and become willing to experiment with the rest of us. (see “Will Green Be Enough” for a discussion about motivation for good design)

Of course, that is not the end all. The other day, I had a headache so I went to my doctor and asked him for a full frontal lobotomy to remove the pain. He was incredulous! Somehow he didn’t think that was a good idea.

Of course the analogy is absurd, but it illustrates the issue I was addressing in “McPeople”. Many clients don’t respect and trust architectural professional opinions. It takes a bit of a leap of faith that most people are afraid of. Particularly since it usually involves a significant investment and considering most people who have a house built only do it once in their lifetime.

Those who do trust architects are typically people who have used them in the past for something other than their home (office building, retail store, etc.). This gets to the point of the commentator. We market to the wealthy, because the wealthy value what we do.

This reminds me of the venn diagram my first boss drew of 3 overlapping circles. One circle representing the client, another the architect and the last the builder. It is only where all three circles join that a truly great project can be conceived and executed. In the end, the reason our streets are full of McMansions is because it requires a feat that seems about as rare as the planets aligning to achieve something truly great; a willing and visionary client, a good architect and a committed builder. The trifecta!

I am a big hockey fan. That helps me “fit in” a little bit here in Brainerd. My oldest son has now been playing in the local amateur hockey association for the last 3 years. It has been really great for our family. We have made a lot of good friends and have been able to rub shoulders with some very neat people. Not to mention that our son has been able to have the camaraderie of the team which has helped him make the transition of our move to Brainerd.

It has also given me on opportunity to volunteer in the community. I serve on the facilities committee. Our task lately is to develop a facilities plan for the association so that we can provide a quality hockey opportunity for the long term.

While these relationships have not translated into more local work for the firm, they have been personally rewarding.

But an interesting thing was said at our last committee meeting that made me consider our public image as a firm. The committee consists of professionals and local business owners. In the group, there are 2 accountants, 1 attorney, a management consultant and at least 3 business owners; all successful and good people.

At our last meeting, one of them showed up in business attire. In the world I came from, that kind of thing isn’t worth noting, but it drew some sarcastic remarks from this crowd. His good humored retort was “hey I work for a living” which led to a discussion about “Brainerd casual.”

Apparently, the idea of dressing up in central and northern Minnesota is jeans and a button down shirt and you aren’t out of place anywhere in town in a hoodie or flannel. I know it sounds funny, but I once had another professional tell me that if you showed up in a shirt and tie to an interview, you probably won’t get the job. People around here are comfortable casual.

As a result I rarely wear slacks to work and I don’t know if I have ever worn a tie. As an architect from a dense urban core, this is a dramatic public image shift that I’m not always comfortable with. Everyone has an image of an architect and how they dress and jeans and flannel are not it. We wear silk shirts, slacks, black rimmed glasses and black shoes. If you live in a city you are familiar with ties and the trendy ways of tying them.

It’s about image. What does the client think of you the first time you meet? Do they think of you as a professional because of the way you dress? If they are going to be willing to pay 5%-10% of the building cost to you, they need to feel good about it and dressing nicely helps the image.

The same concept applies to your office. We work in an office that is attached to my partner’s house. It has great light and views and is very convenient, but it is small and is not conducive to meetings or presentations. We don’t have a conference room, a reception area, cool modern furniture or even great pictures on the wall. It is a good working office, but that’s it.

So all of this leads to the question: what is the image we want to present? What image will most likely help us grow locally? And finally, what image best fits us?

I’m not sure we have come up with a solution to this issue, but right now we are leaning toward the contemporary vision of the architect as a collaborator between art and practicality (that’s another interesting conflicting image that seems to have already been breached). We both have an affinity for modern architecture and technology and our discussions to date seem to be heading in that direction.

Due to our needs to grow, we have been looking for spaces to lease. It has not been easy since the majority of the leasable spaces in town are in buildings that are not distinctive, interesting, beautiful and none of them seem to ‘fit’. After some consideration, we have made the decision to try to get space in the Franklin Arts Center, home to the Crossing Art Alliance. We believe that being in this facility with other artists is a nice fit and is consistent with an image that we are comfortable with. The question is, will our clients feel the same?

Perhaps Brainerd is quietly waiting and longing for the type of sophistication and architecture we want to build and represent. It will be interesting to see if we are able to be successful.