Tobias Architecture

In Defense of "Developers"

2011-09-16T06:48:00.001-07:00

I recently listened to a progressive talk show host lambast a caller from Portland who called in to the show to explain one sector’s problems with over-regulation. This was the residential construction sector (with which I am intimately familiar). I listened to the host’s party line dismissal of this “developer”, who in fact was NOT the stereotypical, egomaniacal, bribe paying, cigar smoking neighborhood destroyer that is so easily portrayed in film, TV, and books (not to mention political groups). No, this guy was more typical of the residential developers with whom I am aquainted. He was a contractor who had $300,000.00 saved up, and decided to build an infill style 4-plex in downtown Portland.

I ended up at the office, and was so peeved at the smug idiocy of the host’s position that I actually went on his website, joined the website, and wrote a rather lengthy post which took issue with his position, which was essentially that developers are pigs who make incredible profits on the destruction of neighborhoods (or something to that effect).

The first half of the post was directed at very specific fallacious comments made by the host, and are too specific to post here. But in the second half of the post I found myself defending developers as perhaps the most unsung, underrated, and under appreciated entrepreneurs and job creators in America, as well as highlighting the difficulties they face on a day-to-day basis. It goes without saying that architects and contractors face similar roadblocks. Here is the second half of my post.

“Developing property is one of the most fascinating, multidisciplinary, creative and job generating endeavors that may be undertaken by an individual or group. Starting from a bare piece of land, a developer must hire a team of consultants (or pay in-house talent) to analyze potential end user needs, determine regulatory restrictions, create design options, and generate cost analysis documents in order to make a decision whether or not to develop the land. Once the project is green lighted, even more exacting, costly, creative and effort intensive activities must occur. This is perhaps the most exciting phase of a development of any size, as the team finally reaches the point in the collaboration where they all understand that the project can be realized.

The regulatory process must then be engaged. There was a time when this process was rather straightforward. Building codes were good enough that homes didn’t really fall down, people didn’t really get hurt in them, and they could be engineered, if desired, in a relatively affordable fashion. Zoning was simple, four setbacks and a height maximum, for the most part. The time to review the project was measured in weeks. The costs well under $5,000.00.

This is no longer the case. We now have six, seven, sometimes eight agencies required to review projects. Each agency requires its own fees, takes its own time to review the project, and even in this age of computerization and efficiency, does not coordinate with the others. The development team must gather all these reviews, figure out the conflicts between the various comments, revise the plans as required, resubmit to all agencies and begin the process again. The amount of sheets of corrections, which used to be two or three, now number fifty or more, much of it either redundant or proof that the reviewer simply didn’t look at the plans very carefully.

I won’t even go into the many ways that, due to poorly written or revised codes, neighbors or other private citizens can delay or even sabotage valid projects.

After the tens of thousands of dollars are paid to the agencies and the project has been reviewed, re-reviewed, and re-re-reviewed, gone to hearings, been approved, and withstood appeals, the permit is finally issued. At this point, the project is barely half over.

Up to this point, the effort has all been cerebral and the battles have all been conceptual. The fight has been over drawings and calculations. The approval is based on lines on paper. The end result – the building and all its amenities – must correspond to these approved lines or there will be hell to pay. This is just another thought that the developer has on his mind each night as he falls asleep.

I won’t go into the complexities of construction, but let’s just say that the people who don’t do it, or who regulate it, think it is a science, while those who actually do the figuring, planning, digging, hammering, torching, etc. know that it is, at best, a practical art. Projects always cost more than anticipated, always take longer than projected. At the end of the day, however, the good practitioners walk away with a great finished project. If it is a home, the new owners enjoy a wonderful, well conceived dwelling. If it is a shopping center, a new facility for our consumer driven economy has risen, giving choices to prospective shop owners. If it is a farm, more or better raising of crops or livestock occurs.

Keep in mind that non-commercial projects; schools, churches, light rail stations, libraries, government buildings, etc., are all forms of development, and require the exact same mentally and financially exhausting process that a purely for-profit venture must endure.

From an economic standpoint, our Portland developer sunk $300,000.00 into his project. $90K never left the county, as it either paid salaries of local city staff, or went into city coffers. Of the remaining $210,000.00, I would estimate that half went to the local labor force, and half went to materials, with the money being paid through local suppliers. Now we don’t know how he paid for it, and if he is selling it at a loss we don’t know if a bank or some investor is going to take a haircut, but the point I am making is that this individual’s actions as a single developer directly injected $300K into a very local economy. This is the case with every single development project that I can think of. Not many industries can make the claim of a varied, flexible, constant injection of money into a highly localized economy.

Now, I will be the first to lament the quality of some, if not many developments. Similarly, I cannot reject the stereotype of the developer as being some brash, hard bargaining, corner cutting cheapskate out to make a buck. But I would like to make two points.

The first is that the stereotype exists simply because these types of developers stick out like sore thumbs, and do not represent the majority of individuals willing to either be developers or act as developers (keep in mind the couple who builds their own house are developers in every sense of the word).

The second is that it can be argued that the cutting of corners and costs, and the apparent lack of aesthetic and creative concerns that plagues many commercial and residential development is in no small part due to the complexities, costs, and delays directly attributable to over-regulation (a favorite republican word, I know, but I have clearly shown that it exists, so I am going to use it here). Progressives like to pontificate that we need all the regulations that currently exist. I am proving that we don’t. The fact of the matter is, as more and more regulations are heaped on a construction project, and the more the costs due to these regulations go up, and the longer it takes to build due to these regulations, the less a developer will pay for a carefully considered design. “Figure out the parking. Maximize the floor area ratio. Put a flat roof on it. Make it affordable.” That is the unfortunate mantra that many developers are forced to chant.

This flies in the face of your lecture point to the caller, which was something to the effect of, “Portland is one of the most regulated cities in the Nation. People will always pay more to live there. It has one of the most desired qualities of life in the Nation.” This is not necessarily true. Portland has very strict development zones. It forces people to live in mostly urban areas, in order to preserve agricultural land (don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any problem with agriculture). So growth in Portland is pretty restrictive, and the quality of life is somewhat unique, in that one must be willing to live in an ever -increasing urban density in order to enjoy adjacent open space. It’s an interesting urban planning model, but clearly serves a rather selective demographic (Portland is 78% white), not a progressive’s multi-cultural utopia, by any definition.

But I didn’t write this letter to debate the merits of Portland. I wrote this letter in support of those individuals or groups who undertake the development of land, the redevelopment of existing buildings, and any other activities that lead to creation of buildings and related amenities. It is not an easy job. The benefits to the culture and economics of cities are irrefutable. And not very many Americans have what it takes to undertake the risks. These individuals are the EXACT definition of “job creators”, and should not be stereotyped as you so woefully managed to do in two minutes on your radio show.”

REAL ARCHITECTS DON’T DO CONTAINERS

2011-09-02T18:45:00.000-07:00

The first time I saw someone attempt to validate the use of cargo containers as architecture was back in Architecture School at UCLA in 1986. One of my classmates, as his senior thesis project, hypothesized that one could build a three dimensional grid of wide flange columns and beams and shove cargo containers into the bays to create housing for the homeless. It was a big hit with the review committee, I presume, because it combined social justice, recycling, and a “demystification of design” in one, fell swoop. But the one question asked that no one could answer was, “But is it architecture?”

Twenty-five years have past, and I couldn’t be more convinced that the answer to that question (which was obvious back in ’86, just politically incorrect to acknowledge) is clearly, “No.”

The over-arching argument that “cargotecture” is not architecture is that it eliminates several of the avenues of intellectual rigor and design skill that architects utilize in the generation of shape, form, massing and “genus loci”.

Consider the comparison of play-dough to legos. Give ten individuals a chunk of play-dough and five Legos. Tell them to make something with the play-dough, and something with the Legos. The first thing one would notice would be that no two play-dough objects would be similar, yet the lego configurations would probably fall into three basic configurations, at most. Design creativity would be stifled to an exponential degree.

The second observation would be that one, maybe two of the ten play-dough objects would stand out from the rest, while it would be virtually impossible to rate or grade or create a hierarchy out of ten objects made from five legos. Design distinction would be dropped to the lowest common denominator. Excellence, individualism, uniqueness would be throttled.

Cargotecture is modular design, and modular design does not need an architect’s touch. The dimensions of most of the world’s cargo containers are roughly 8’ x 8’ x 10, 20, or 40 feet in length. This modular makes a whole lot of sense for the intended use of the container, which is global shipping. It might even make sense in extreme needs of habitation and human use, say, for instance third world shelter, or my fellow student’s homeless highrise (a stretch, but let’s give it to him). The reason it makes sense is because the end user has made a decision that living in a steel box is not the preferred outcome, but perhaps the only outcome available. And, when there is only one outcome available, does anyone really need the services of an architect? I think not.

But when options are available, like ceiling heights and shapes, room dimensions that are between the take-it-or-leave-it modular of 8 feet, or long span openings (the list goes on and on), the need for the architectural process becomes preferable and possible.

Architecture should at least speak to the times and culture in which it is manifest. An architecture of note should in some fashion show the way forward for its culture. I cannot think of any instance when a project was given serious consideration as architecture for its metaphorical suggestion that we backslide into a more impoverished way of life.

The historian Arnold J. Toynbee once postulated that societies flourish when the lower classes try to emulate the upper classes, but decay when the upper classes try to emulate the lower classes. This insight is exactly what crossed my mind when I first started seeing these projects crop up in Southern California hotbeds of design like Venice, Santa Monica and West Los Angeles. I asked myself, “Why would anyone want to high brow what is essentially a third world means of shelter?” Clearly it takes a skewed perspective on habitation, which, if it were to exist anywhere, would only be in this micro region of “anything goes” design.

Letter to the Malibu City Council

2011-04-11T15:15:00.000-07:00

This letter was submitted into the record regarding the City's discussion about whether or not to increase residential and commercial building energy efficiency to an additional 15% above the 2008 California Energy Code.

4/8/11

Dear Members of the City Council,

I am writing in opposition to the creation of localized energy efficiency standards for buildings in Malibu for several reasons:

We all ready have statewide measures that are the most stringent in the Nation and are, themselves, being continuously updated and made ever more restrictive. Reasonable measures to reduce energy usage are very closely coming to a point where the laws of diminishing returns kick in. A review of the report prepared by Global Green will support this fact. Furthermore, California has proven that, as a state, our energy policy is to continuously regulate for greater efficiency and expanded use of “green energy” regardless of potential negative economic effects to businesses and consumers. This is indeed one area in which our tiny little seaside hamlet has no valid reason to “out regulate” the State.

The report that generated the necessary “findings” for possible CEC approval of the localized standards was generated by an organization with an economic and ideological interest in making said “findings”. Global Green’s mission statement says it all, “fostering a global value shift towards a sustainable and secure future…”. Engaging Global Green to perform the analysis required to obtain CEC approval is sort of like hiring PETA to determine if wearing fur causes cancer if one is trying to ban the wearing of fur in a given municipality.

The actual findings appearing in the report are specious at best. For example, one justification posited in the report states, “Reduced energy usage in residential and nonresidential buildings as a result of efficiencies required by the Ordinance is likely to have local benefits such as reducing peak load energy demands that can cause power outages or power reduction (“brown outs”) which affect public safety and can cause adverse local economic impacts, decreasing overall electricity demand, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These benefits are likely to become increasingly important as the effects of global warming and climate change are felt locally.” Now, this might have an ounce of truth to it IF Malibu generated its own electricity, BUT WE DON’T! We are a very small sector of a much larger grid controlled by Southern California Edison. Any additional efficiencies squeezed out of homes in Malibu that are larger than 5,500 square feet WILL BE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT TO THE SCENARIOS PUT FORTH IN THIS REPORT. The next assertion, that somehow this Ordinance will reduce the actual effects of global warming on Malibu specifically is even more unbelievable.

The residential regulations as proposed place the ENTIRE burden of these reductions on homes larger than 5,500 square feet. This is un-democratic and un-American. Perhaps even worse, it is a bold-faced testament to the fact that the Progressive/Environmental movement is a quasi-dictatorial, fascistic, anti-freedom endeavor cloaked in a “save the world” costume of intelligent altruism. Malibu is, if anything, a town of individuals. From our Matron Saint (May Rindge), to our several historical, colorful figures (Gene Wall comes to mind, as does “No Pants” Lance Carson and “Zuma Jay” Wagner, but with no direct connections between the three), to our fights to keep additional state regulations from being forced upon us, we fight for individuals to live as they choose, and as they can afford. This Ordinance creates an unnecessary division between property owners based on the size of their homes, with no proven correlation between home size and energy usage, and should be rejected because of it.

The energy savings presented in the report are based on hypothetical assumptions that have a greater probability of being wrong than of being right. Perhaps the most clinical of these fallacious assumptions is that homeowners live energy conscious lifestyles; that they set their thermostats to collectively determined norms, keep windows closed, take short showers, flush low flow toilets only once, (the list goes on and on). This is NOT how individual members of a community live, and since the energy saving analysis is based SOLELY on manually operated systems, it is extremely likely that the miniscule savings assumed is far too optimistic to be taken seriously. Voluntary monitoring of several LEED certified buildings is, in fact proving this point.

Finally, both the costs to implement this 15% increase in efficiency, and the alleged energy savings, are both so small that one has to ask, “Why bother?” Why do we need another “bolt on” portion to the code? Don’t we have bigger fish to fry around here? And, contrary to the assertions in the report, how can this not add time and money and review to an all ready over burdened permitting and construction process?

This Ordinance is essentially a watered down, final attempt to pass something to make Malibu appear more green than it all ready is. This process started back in 2008/2009 when “sustainability”, ”green building”, and “LEED” certification had reached a fever pitch in the halls of government. It was egged on by individuals in the private sector who saw a new marketing tool and public mandate through which they could potentially increase their market share in the design and construction industry. Yet three years later, many of those proponents in the private sector have stopped pitching their LEED qualifications because they have found it to be a cumbersome, expensive, time consuming and ineffective process in terms of promoting sustainable design.

The Ordinance before you is proof that when it comes to energy efficiency, our state regulations are performing just fine. And when it comes to environmentally responsible design and construction, the process proved, like many of us asserted three years ago, that Malibu is all ready at the forefront of this endeavor. We don’t need outside consultants wasting our time, our staff’s time, and our money to try to eek out a btu here or a pound of CO2 there.

Our city seems to continuously busy itself with ordinances, amendments, studies, reports and such, yet we still have a completely byzantine methodology by which we process applications. We sweat the small stuff, while completely ignoring the fundamentals of permitting. We continually rewrite the playbook, and have forgotten how to block and tackle. This Ordinance should be dismissed, and the staff should be directed to close this chapter in our history.

Sincerely,

Lester Tobias/Architect

California State Architects License C22552

BA Environmental Studies/Resource Conserving Architecture, UC Santa Cruz

Master in Architecture, UCLA

Member, City of Malibu Architects and Engineers Committee

Member, City of Malibu Environmental Review Board

Member, City of Malibu Green Building Study Group (or whatever we called it)

And, counting all my past lives, I have lived in Malibu for 342 years. Top that.

Frank Gehry in five Minutes

2010-01-04T07:45:00.000-08:00

At Christmas dinner this year I was chatting with a very impressive and intelligent 93 year old doctor whom I have known since I was 16 years old. After discussing his interests (which were numerous and lucid), he politely shifted to my universe, and simply said, “So what is it with Frank Gehry?”

It’s a great question. Having worked for Frank in my academic years, and having studied his work and admired his career for the past 25 years, I quickly assessed the interest level of my dinner partner and answered thusly.

No architect has ever moved the ball as far down the field in a career as Frank. No other architect has shifted gears and invented new styles as much as Frank. No other architect, with so much built and studied and published work has defied being “knocked off” as Frank. No other architect can “do” Gehry. This clearly suggests that he may very well be the greatest architect in the history of the world.

If one needs to quickly summarize Gehry’s career, it can be done in three highlights. The first is the period, best described by Phillip Johnson when he claimed Gerhy to be, “…a madman with a two by four.” Frank’s take on the use and visual expression of banal construction materials, as well as rather unique attitudes for their composition broke rules of formality in ways that had never before been contemplated. For better or worse, it supercharged radical design theory in a “street cred” sort of way that gave validity to all sorts of new ideas regarding design, materials and construction.

The second highlight is the use of “scales” as a means of sheathing structures. This development came out of a competition held by the Formica Company, challenging architects to come up with creative uses for the then ubiquitously specified countertop product. Frank used the little color chip samples, given out every year on keychains containing hundreds of samples, to create a lamp, shaped like a fish, that used the chips as its “scales”. Gehry quickly scaled this up to a restaurant in Japan, a residence here and there, and refined with highlight number three (see below), to once again invent a complete original architectural aesthetic.

Highlight number three came in the last recession, when the aerospace industry along with several other major industries, went into the tank. Leading up to this period, the Gehry office had historically relied on rough model construction to generate their unique designs. In most of the larger projects, they then relied on technically oriented firms to make their work “buildable”. Knowing the power of the computer, and seeing all of these engineers out of work, allowed Gehry to hire them and utilize their knowledge of the CATIA computer design program used to design and construct airplanes, which by this time had more in common with the shapes coming out of the Gehry office than just about any other product. This allowed him the ability to develop the most recent ground breaking designs in his oeuvre; Bilbao, Disney, etc.

So, when you think Gehry, think “2 x 4, fish scales, CATIA.”

It’s all you need to know.

Design of the Highest Quality

2010-01-02T08:38:00.001-08:00

Very few people ever consider the quality of the design when looking at buildings. When we think about quality and buildings, we typically think about construction. Is it “well built”? Is the detailing precise? Are the materials “high quality” (what does that mean, anyway)? Will it last?

Now granted, these are all important observations to make about the construction of a building, but none of them have any bearing on the building’s success, or the quality of the design. So I have taken it upon myself to generate some criteria that, in my opinion, are exhibited in Architectural Design of the Highest Quality.

1. The architecture correctly identifies and responds to the problem statement.

2. The architecture is tailored the site.

3. The architecture tells a story.

4. The architecture is placed in the context of the current times.

5. The architecture exhibits examples of original thought.

6. The architecture clearly expresses the skill of composition in both two- and three-dimensional reference.

7. The architecture contains personal meaning to the owners/users.

THE ARCHITECTURE CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES AND RESPONDS TO THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

Design of the Highest Quality (DHQ) starts with the architect’s ability to listen, think, organize, analyze, prioritize and reach conclusions against which all subsequent alternatives will be measured. This exercise starts with thorough (and sometimes numerous) discussions with the client regarding lifestyle, ideas, goals, and individual perceptions of the intended result(s) of the design. It demands that the architect take the time to think through these requirements, and correctly identify areas of conflict, harmony, mutual benefit, dependencies, etc. The architect then exhibits the ability to clearly see the analytical road map that will guide and inform the development of the building.

THE ARCHITECTURE IS TAILORED TO THE SITE

All building sites, no matter how small, contain clues to the proper location of buildings, rooms, and uses. As the sites grow in size, so do the options. The number of factors that come into play will vary, as well. A small, rectangular infill lot may yield as few clues as the shadows cast by an adjacent structure, or the need to make certain that adjacent neighbors not be able to see directly into large windows being contemplated. On larger sites, everything from environmental factors, to views, circulation, and issues of sustainability will all be assessed as options are developed and judged for their response to the site. DHQ will only be achieved if all valid site development alternatives have been identified and analyzed so that the final solution never leaves one pondering, “if we had only…”

THE ARCHITECTURE TELLS A STORY

Good architects are always contemplating the meaning of their architecture. Architectural metaphor has been a valid informant of design for several decades. Most are familiar with the metaphor of “the outdoor room”, “the house as street”, “the industrial campus”, and “the building as a machine for living”. Yet the notion of the architect(ture) telling a story can be much more personal, and can be brought down to very specific levels, in order to create a building of note. Typically the architectural elements, devices and design direction used to tell the story create very noticeable visual signatures for both the building and, possibly, the architect. Understanding this phenomenon, and successfully exploiting it, is a component of DHQ.

THE ARCHITECTURE IS PLACED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT TIMES.

While there is no denying that an historically referential building, if executed properly, is a welcome departure from otherwise meaningless “theme” architecture, for a building’s design to be of the highest quality it must exhibit the architect’s understanding of the contemporary culture and the ability to respond to its clues and stimuli. For, much as we read books by Dickens and plays by Shakespeare to glimpse historically cultural slices of England, we can look to the buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry for an understanding of the American 20th Century.

THE ARCHITECTURE EXHIBITS EXAMPLES OF ORIGINAL THOUGHT

An original idea successfully executed is an architect’s “payback” to the profession and to the culture. Ultimately, it is what separates the leaders from the pack. These original thoughts occur at all levels of design. Some architects solve problems by looking at new ways to organize spatial relationships. Some architects create new engineering solutions. Some invent details to solve problems generated by a changing environment or society. Whatever the problem, whatever the solution, it is these individuals that “move the ball down the field”, guaranteeing that architecture remains a dynamic and important part of culture and history.

THE ARCHITECTURE CLEARLY EXPRESSES THE SKILL OF COMPOSITION IN BOTH TWO- AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL REFERENCE.

Composition is the only purely visual criteria for design of the highest quality. In order for it to be achieved, the architect must have education, training, and experience in two- and three dimensional studio art. The composition of the architecture has nothing to do with “curb appeal”, as it involves a much more serious analysis of form, proportion, and balance, whereas mere curb appeal can be achieved with popular stylistic themed vocabulary. Two-dimensional composition requires analysis and organization between the elements of the floor plan, the section, and the elevations of the building. Its process is akin to solving a puzzle. Three-dimensional composition is more intuitive, as there are fewer “process of elimination” steps by which a successful three-dimensional composition is created. Additionally, three-dimensional composition is perhaps more subjective than its two-dimensional counterpart.

THE ARCHITECTURE CONTAINS PERSONAL MEANING TO THE OWNERS/USERS

In order for an architect, who possesses all of the aforementioned skills, to also instill in the building a sense that it belongs to its owners and/or users, a final professional character trait must exist. That trait is humility. The architects of Designs of the Highest Quality take their work very seriously, but do not view themselves in kind. In the final analysis, they know that they provide a service, and the true owners of the architecture are others. Sometimes it is a mere individual. Sometimes it is a family. Many buildings are for the employees who will spend their careers inhabiting the structure. Maybe it is for art patrons, or school children, or worshippers or politicians. The ability to flesh out the symbols of meaning for these end groups and users, and to concretize and integrate these symbols into the building, is the final evidence that the edifice has gone from a mere structure to a work of architecture of the highest quality, and has become a building of note.

Three Party Talks (part one)

2009-11-28T06:37:00.000-08:00

I have noticed a trend in a certain segment of my clientele that can impact the success of a project. This trend is what I call the “his/her” project. The notion seems harmless enough. One spouse has the time, energy, and inclination to be the “client”. The other is predisposed to defer most decisions on the project. Perhaps this deferential spouse is the breadwinner, less available, and/or simply not as interested in putting in the time.

This trend is not gender biased. I have seen just as many women claim disinterest in the design of their house as men. The initial justification is that the couple is busy and practical, and they have decided to put one or the other in charge to expedite the decision making, design, and construction process. Perhaps one claims a great admiration for the other’s penchant for architecture and design, and is willing to trust that spouse with the project’s outcome.

This used to seem logical to me, but over time, I have decided that it is a major consideration in determining a project’s degree of difficulty. For the “silent partner” rarely, if ever, remains silent. Their voice is sometimes only heard in the background, both literally, as when I would be on the phone with the active partner, or figuratively, as in, “My husband wanted me to ask you why…”

Sometimes the silent partner holds the purse strings, and is not willing to divulge the actual budget until it becomes an issue. Sometimes I am told that money isn’t an issue only to have it become THE issue six months down the road.

Perhaps my favorite division of labor is when one spouse states that he/she will not be involved in the project, except for (fill in one room here).

The rationales that I am given for the “his/her” project are numerous. But underneath the surface of every one of them lies a deeper statement about the relationship. And because the design of a home, if done well, reflects the relationship of its inhabitants, it is incumbent on the architect to bring the silent partner out of the shadows and into the process.

"Old School" Exposed Rafter Detailing

2009-10-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

In the age of R-30 roof insulation, it is very difficult to create an exposed rafter ceiling that doesn't either look fake or proportionally out of scale. The crux of the problem is that most rafters are artificially deep due to insulation requirements, as opposed to structural requirements. Most batt insulation needs to be 9 inches deep (with a 1 inch airspace) in order to achieve the R-30 value most often required for energy efficient construction. Add to that the requirement to have the roof deck provide lateral strength, and it is almost impossible to have exposed decking and exposed rafters like they used to do it "back in the day".

In one of my recent projects, I developed a detail which leaves a clean, structural roof deck, achieves R-30 insulation performance inside the rafter bay, and provides an honest look of a 4 x 4 rafter with 2 x 4 v-groove roof decking sitting on top.

I slotted channels on either side of each rafter, 4 inches up from the bottom, to receive 1 X 4 V-groove decking. 3 inch rigid foam insulation was attached above the slot, and the 1 x 4's were forced into the slot, then slid down into place alongside each other. No border molding was needed, and the end result can be observed below.

These are the 4 x 10 rafters with the plywood roof deck above and the slots on the side.

The final detail.

Architecture in the Age of Obama (part 3): A Totally Rational, Fully Baked, Honestly Convenient Truth

2009-10-26T05:33:00.000-07:00

Back in the mid-1970’s, the late, great, Roderick Nash taught me and several other mush-minded freshmen environmental studies majors at UC Santa Barbara a very simple truth; environmental concern is a “full stomach” phenomenon. Economic prosperity always trumps concern for the environment, and that it is only when one’s “stomach is full” (i.e.: secure job, food on the table, mortgage covered, confidence in the future) that one starts to notice the state of the world around him, and takes stock in the potential enjoyment of that world. This is when concern for the environment kicks in. And although there are many other observations in Nash’s oeuvre, it’s the “full stomach” phenomenon that has been on my mind as of late.

I have always been convinced that the mutually exclusive ideologies of environmental protection and economic prosperity would always remain in a juvenile sort of slow dance, in an awkward embrace, swaying back and forth, shuffling a little this way, a little that, hopefully making it through the evening without anyone’s toes getting crushed. I have never subscribed to the politically expedient slogan that we can simultaneously create wealth and live totally sustainable lifestyles, on any magnitude of scale (more on that at a later date…).

The current administration in Washington has little or no intention of realizing that there are financially inexpensive policies that could be implemented that would play a major role in halting the loss of jobs, stabilizing the economy in all sectors, and begin to assist in the new growth cycle of the economy and the regeneration of wealth once again. I can think of several ways in my industry whereby a relaxation of regulatory requirements, most notably in the overwrought review and permitting process for several types of relatively innocuous buildings, would greatly speed up the pre construction period and reduce the costs of projects. This, in turn would entice a certain percentage of those individuals who have been wanting to build, but spooked by the recession, into deciding to move forward with their projects. My second postulate is that I believe that every other practitioner of commerce in every other sector of the economy, if asked, could come up with modifications to their regulatory environment that would help their businesses, as well.

Two things happened last week that made me say, “All right!”

The first was the news that Governor Schwarzenegger eliminated certain environmental review requirements for the proposed new football stadium in Carson, California. By doing this, it has been estimated that the project will not only be constructed, but that it will be completed a full year earlier than originally estimated. Bringing a football team to Los Angeles means jobs, new businesses, local income generation, and new streams of tax revenues. Building the stadium is an important step in attracting a team. Finally, in Ahnold, we have a politician who not only understands the full stomach phenomenon, but also is willing to utilize and act on it. Good for the Governator!

The second item was a blog post by Michael S. Malone titled, “The High Tech Sandwich: Missing the Meat.” It was basically an analysis of the potential for rebound and growth in the high tech sector, focused on Silicon Valley. The gist of the analysis was that the high tech sector has become so over regulated in the past decade, that although promising technologies are in abundance, private capital isn’t. And it isn’t that there’s no money. It’s that the money is sitting on the sidelines because government regulation has killed the venture capitalists desire to fund innovation.

So it is my hope that a year after trying to revive our economy from a monetary policy perspective, we are beginning to realize that while lack of regulation in one small corner of a very large industry created our fiscal mess (taking into account poor regulation, as well), it is regulatory policy that needs to be tweaked in order to begin the regeneration of the millions of jobs that have been lost to date.

Architecture in the Age of Obama (part two): “ Doctor, Doctor, Gimme the News…”

2009-10-11T07:24:00.001-07:00

Doctor: Well, the diagnosis is clear. You’re suffering from being overleveraged, overvalued, and under appreciated.”

Architecture: “Huh? In english, Doc. Please.”

Doctor: “All right. First, too much money has been borrowed against your worth. Second, your worth has dropped significantly. Third, people don’t think you’re as important as they used to.”

Architecture: “Is that it?”

Doctor: “Well, you’re also showing symptoms of glut. There are more of you to sell than people wanting to buy. This is compounded by the fact that you’ve become incredibly homogenized over the past twenty years.”

Architecture: “Homogenized?”

Doctor: “Look around. Years of individual neglect have left you in a state of banality, redundancy, or just plain thoughtlessness. The majority of your efforts lack personality, originality, or individuality. Exact structures are being built from New York to California to Florida to Colorado. The number of your practitioners has expanded so quickly that the actual talent pool has been severely diluted. You suffer from a glut of quantity combined with a lack of quality.”

Architecture: “What’s the prognosis?”

Doctor: “Well, it definitely can be cured, but it requires patience and a change in your lifestyle.”

Architecture: “Lifestyle?”

Doctor: “Lifestyle. You need to stop trying to keep up with the Jones’. You need to stop trying to always fit in or to be the life of the party. It may not be killing you, but it definitely is making you miserable. You need to stop looking at what others are doing and start think about what you would do. Then go and do it.”

Architecture: “But where do I start? How do I begin?”

Doctor: “First get a good architect. Second, start small. Third, move slowly and deliberately. Fourth, stay true to your individuality. If you do these things, you’ll be fine.”

Architecture in the Age of Obama (part one)

2009-10-07T19:10:00.000-07:00

The connection between the built environment and society is well documented. Architecture has always been a reflection of the culture at any given time. The past 15 years saw the built environment reflect power, status, wealth and confidence in economic growth. We were introduced to the incredibly “wired” homes of the dotcom elite in Seattle and Silicon Valley. We became inundated with the bloated, uninspired, and derivative McMansions and gated communities here and abroad. We also witnessed the bestowing of “rock star” status on architects who designed everything from museums to high rises to hotels (and let’s not forget chairs, tea kettles, and carpets). We saw perhaps the greatest boom in real estate speculation since the Homestead Act of 1863. This all came to a sudden end in September of 2008. The past year has been one of uncertainty, which has also been reflected in the lack of will to build, expand, and develop. Most real estate markets are still looking for that elusive “bottom”.

The regulatory environment continues, even in the midst of this great recession, to become more onerous. In my little coastal hamlet, we are considering new green building codes (higher construction costs), considering requiring more coastal development permits (higher permitting costs and a longer permitting process), and considering forcing a large segment of our city to put in a sewer system in lieu of requiring advanced treatment septic systems (which is the current law). Not only do we have less disposable/discretionary income, and less equity in our homes with banks unwilling to lend, our own regulatory bodies are making it more difficult and expensive to improve our personal built environments.

That’s the bad news. But there’s good news, as well. We have spent the past year peeling away layers of relative affluence to expose the core of who we are and what we want. We have done that with business. We have done that with education. We have done that with our recreational priorities. For most homeowners, larger scale additions and remodels were put on indefinite hold. The thought of buying land to build a house was made moot by the fact that one can now buy great homes at deep discounts with no waiting. Speculative developers of all types have disappeared from the market…for now.

These doldrums will not last. At our core we are a species that seeks shelter. We seek comfort in our homes. We nest. We improve. We make plans, both large and small, which affect our shelter needs. As our new projects reflect our new culture, we will see things that we haven’t before seen on a large scale….

To be continued…..

The Smith Residence, completed in 2004, is indeed the best interpretation of an Irving Gill design ever executed. From its offset access courtyard, to its stripped down spanish vocabulary, to its playful dance down a hillside, the home is a pleasure to behold and inhabit.

2009-10-07T13:31:00.001-07:00

The front elevation is a study in two dimensional composition and integration of modern and spanish elements.

The courtyard is accessed at different locations from each of its enclosing walls. A koi pond provides a visual "marker" as one looks from the Entry across to the Family Room.

As the site falls away, the base of the structure drops with it, providing several paths, both inside and out, to meander from the street side gardens to the pool and bamboo forest below.

One path leads through the shade garden, past the conservatory, where a massive second story is curiously perched above a wraparound, steel windowed bay.

The study overlooks the rectangular courtyard, with the southern two-story wing of the residence cut back to allow for ample sun to warm the space throughout the day.

The conservatory (shown from the exterior in an earlier view) is one of three open spaces that "pinwheel" off of a central fireplace, whose stark massing recalls the similar composition viewed from the shade garden.

The kitchen is evocative of a fortunate servant's workspace; simple in detail yet gracious in space and accoutrements.

The vaulted ceiling over the large desk in the study perches like a tower over the garage when viewed from the street (see first photograph). It also contains some very cool elements, like a hidden bath and balcony doors which disappear into the wall.