We have been practicing architecture in Brainerd, Minnesota as Oldham Hirst Design now for about 4 years. My partner has been practicing architecture here on his own for an additional 2 years and worked for a local firm for several years before that. We like it here. It’s a nice community. The people are friendly, the schools are good (failing reforendum notwithstanding), and it’s beautiful. After the hustle and bustle of the urban core of Denver, Colorado, this has been a nice change of pace for me.

Recently the local paper has been reviewing the results of a social capital survey. In one of their articles in the series, they address the level of trust the local citizenry has in their neighbors. I was encouraged in my decision to move here by some of the results they reported.

Residents were asked if most people can be trusted or if you couldn’t be too careful in dealing with people. In the lakes area, 63 percent of residents thought people could be trusted compared to 47 percent nationally.

This was very encouraging. Their chart, however, showed that while the local community is overall more trusting than national averages, those who are newcomers are the least likely to be trusted. I guess that makes sense to me, but as a newcomer, I hope I can do something to change that.

What does all this mean for our business? Well, we are a successful architecture firm doing project in 10 states. Our projects range from retail centers, restaurants, class A office buildings, church’s, industrial buildings to private residences. We have been fortunate enough to do some work here in our back yard but not enough for us to really feel like we are part of the community, or rather that the community feels like we are part of them.

As a result, we have set a commitment in our office to do more to reach out to our local community. My next several posts will chronicle our efforts.

However, I want to paint a bit of the picture of the mountain we are trying to climb.

Demographics: We live in the Brainerd Lakes Area of Central Minnesota. The community has a seasonal aspect. There are several large lakes in the area that support summer residences and resorts that are primarily supported by individuals whose residences are in the twin cities. As a result, the summer is a very busy time of year for this area. Many of the smaller businesses and restaurant actually close down for the winter. There is also a broad range of economic brackets in the area. We have worked on both low-rent apartments and multi-million dollar homes all within a basic 10 mile radius.

The competition: In the local phone book there are 9 architects listed. I was actually surprised by that number because of those 9, in the 3.5 years I have lived here, I have only heard of 4 of them (strangely enough, we are not in the phone book! Something that needs to be fixed right away!). Additionally, one of the largest employers of architects in the area is a design build firm that is not listed under architects. That makes, essentially, 10 competitors.

Public works mountain: Through my research, the majority of public design work for the past 10 years and all in the past 5 years, has been completed by one architecture firm (a firm that also provides comprehensive engineering services). Other locals and some of our other competitors have also acknowledge this fact and have admitted a feeling of partiality, pulling up just short of terms like nepotism and discrimination, on the part of local government. In fact, we were excited when we received a RFP from a nearby jurisdiction for design build teams for their new government offices and police station until we were informed that the RFP was essentially a formality since they had pretty much already decided to use a team which this design firm was heading. We intend to submit any way. Hopefully this is not as biased as it looks. (Proviso: I have become friends with the head architect at the firm in question and I like him. I would be surprised if their was something untoward going on with him, so I am hopeful that this is more perception than reality)

Marketing strategy: For the first time in my architectural career, I am going to be embarking on a marketing “campaign.” Sure we have put ads in the Lake Country Journal, have joined the Chamber of Commerce and have supported the local ballet and other charities, but I have never had a need for an official marketing strategy. I’m kind of looking forward to it. Most of our work in the past has come from word-of-mouth (the best kind of marketing) and so this will be new for us. In order to help, we are negotiating with a local marketing firm to help us create an effective campaign.

Next: Public image. Lumberjack vs. Professional…and…Early Setbacks

We recently had a high school senior in our office.  He’s planning on a career in architecture.  A friend of ours works as a counselor in the local high school and recommend this young man come talk to us and possibly “job shadow” to see what it’s like in a “real” architect’s office.

He had participated in our alma mater’s summer architecture “discovery” program at Washington University in St. Louis, MO.  I think he learned some new things, particularly how an architecture program might run. He’s still waiting to hear from the school to find out if he’s been accepted.

We had a discussion…   A good discussion.  We talked theory.  We talked practice.  We talked about school.  We talked about the academy vs. reality.  We told war stories of project reviews and clueless professors.  We didn’t get much work done…directly.

But what it did do was sort of reinvigorate us.  We got a bit more excited.  A bit more enthused about our work.  In the day-to-day of running a business (and make no mistake, an architecture practice is a business.  Taxes, bills, invoices, employees, salesmen, phone calls…) it’s nice to remember why we got into what we do.  We can be passionate about it.

And that’s the value of the discussion.  It reignites our passion…  We’re excited to go to work again, even it’s just reviewing submittals.  When we first started working, we used to regularly sit in our bosses office and talk about Architecture.  It’s what kept is interested and excited.  In school we always talked about it…even if we disagreed with them.  Before I merged my firm with my partner’s firm, I would sit alone and do my work.  It was lonely.  And sometimes I wondered why I was doing what I was doing.  Having a partner to bounce ideas off of is great.  But, in the past few years together, I think we sometimes forget the value of the discussion.  The value of talking about these things to help us stay motivated.

We need to remember to take a break from the mundane work and talk about the architecture that excites us.  It’ll make for better projects for our clients–better architecture.  And therein lies the value of discussion.

Recently, Frank O. Gehry has been sued by MIT for some serious issues regarding the design of the three year old Stata Center. This building is a great example of the difference between architecture and sculpture. Architecture is meant to be inhabited and used. Sculpture is to be looked at and admired. Architecture can be so sublime as to be sculpture. But sculpture should never become architecture.For more, read Kyle Smith’s opinion here and Adam Raymond’s here.

There has always been a debate between architecture and sculpture. Many modernist architects fell in the “architect as sculpture” camp, then created sculpture and called it architecture. Mies van der Rohe was one of the first, with his glass house, copied by Philip Johnson. Peter Eisenman has participated, but the king of them all is good old Frank O. Gehry, or FOG, as we like to affectionately refer to him.

FOG’s buildings, for the most part, are sculptural with spaces carved out, almost as an after thought “oh, yes… I now remember this is supposed to be a functioning building.” The other poster on this blog is fond of saying that FOG’s buildings lack a sense of scale. FOG could do well making paperweights in the shape of his buildings–as it they work well at any scale as sculpture.

In another article on the Boston Globe web site (available here) the contractor complains that the architect poorly detailed the building and was made aware of potential problems during construction. Gehry has countered that the client cut the budget (which went from $100 million to $300 million). We’ve worked with enough contractors to know that they follow our details or don’t. If they don’t, we can easily wash our hands of the problems “Hey! The contractor didn’t build it as designed. It’s their problem.” But if the contractor doesn’t like our detail, because they’re the first to get called when there are problems, they’ll let us know right away. They’ll also let the client know that “Hey! We built it like the architect designed it. It’s their problem.” Knowing the complexity of a Gehry building, I’m sure that there was a lot of detailing left to the contractor, and I would bet the RFI (request for information) pile on Gehry’s desk is a few feet thick.

Usually, we don’t pile on fellow architects. We love to pile on fellow architects. Especially the famous ones who design buildings of debatable merit.
(image from Reason Magazine & Mr. Raymond’s post)