designmyhome.com

In an effort to build our local business in Brainerd, Minnesota, I have joined a business networking group.  I have really enjoyed it.  I am getting to know a good group of people and we are getting better local exposure as a result.

In one of my networking meetings with another individual who represents the commercial building market which is actually a design build firm, they told me that they basically give away their design work for free.  I think his actual words were “we eat the design costs.”

That’s an interesting concept to me and I was immediately skeptical.  Clearly, their staff architects are getting paid a salary.  That salary has to come from somewhere and construction margins are quite that good.  I’m not saying it isn’t true, I just don’t see how that is a profitable business model.

But over the several months since that conversation I have been considering over and over the idea of giving away the design for free.   It seems to me, that this is a statement of how much they, as a company, value design. It would seem that this policy fosters what I think is one of the biggest problems with architecture and that is its devaluation in the minds of the public.

It that time, I have been trying to consider how to compete with free and it has had me a little worried.

But I have had an epiphany.

I don’t have to compete with that.  In fact, I don’t WANT to compete with that.  Those individuals who devalue design to such an extent that they expect it for free simply would not agree with me and we would not be a good fit for them.  It’s the difference between price, and value.  I will compete on value.

There’s a great article at MSN about the need for an architect when remodeling. We can’t support this idea more.  We highly recommend reading the article, but we’ll summarize their 5 points here:

5 Reasons to Hire an Architect (opens a new window)

1. To see the big picture
2. To handle the paperwork
3. To hire muscle
4. To oversee the job
5. To go green

So, go hire the architect!

While reviewing our google analytics, I noticed that someone made it to our page using the search “architecture is not sculpture”.  This is an interesting place to start a discussion.

By itself, the statement “architecture is not sculpture” is true but only so far that the adjacent statement “architecture is not just sculpture” is also true.  Architecture is the ultimate in interactive art.  The question of whether or not your house, or the library, or some proclaimed master piece is “good” sculpture or art may be the genesis for the comment “architecture is not sculpture” but it does not disqualify it as art.  In other words, just because MOST architecture is BAD architecture doe not diminish architecture itself as an art form.  It’s just become an art form performed by mediocre to poorly trained artisans…in general (wow, that’s not going garner many friends in my architect circles).

Frank Lloyd Wright proclaimed that architecture is the mother of all art with good reason.  It’s really only relatively recently the history of the humanities that architecture wasn’t a meaningful part of the art of an era.  In fact, many eras are defined by their architecture.  But with the redefinition of “art” and the modern accessibility to architecture the point becomes worthy of a discussion.  When the public body of a previously recognized art form diminishes in it’s quality to such an extent, can the art form itself then become reduced to a trade or something less then art?

I think that architecture reflects its society.  It informs us of the priorities and sensibilities of it’s clients.  Like nearly all artwork in previous centuries, architecture remains an art form that requires patronage.  As a result, it becomes a mirror of the patrons.  So if you don’t like the architecture of today, may I submit that it’s the result of two causes.  One, architects are no longer trained to discover and create beauty, and two, society does not value beauty.

In the first post in this series, Going Local, I discussed the challenges facing architecture our firm when it came to breaking into our local market.  I discussed things like the local to local bias, the seasonal traffic and public works jugernaught.

In the second post, Public Image, I talked about the idea of “Brainerd casual” and the struggle I perceived with how to present ourselves in this market.  Finally, I ended with the decision we have made to lease space in the Franklin Arts Center in the old Franklin Middle School near downtown Brainerd.

Since that post, we have moved into our new space and have decided on a direction for our public image.  We want to be the architects in town that you go to if you want to try something a little different and contemporary.  Why should we fight who we are?  This is what we like, this is what we want to do and so we are going to market as such.  As a result, I have drifted back to my previous ways of dressing for work in slacks and a nice shirt as well as the occasional tie.  When people ask, I am unabashed about my leaning toward unique and contemporary architecture.

Now, I think it would be professional suicide to suggest that this is all we do.  We have done, we can do and we will continue to design in the styles that our clients would like.  But we want to corner that piece of the market which is looking for something fresh and new.

So, we have decided to make our new space a central part of our marketing campaign and I though you might like a few pictures.

Oldham Hirst Design Office

Oldham Hirst Design Conference Room

Oldham Hirst Design Work Area

Architectural Model of Tower

Usually, I try to stay away from such language.  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.