Housing and Community Development

Thad Broom said, "Rather than use this forum for pity parties, lets use it to, gee, share housing knowledge. We residential architects practice in the most competitive design area with the smallest fee structure and the most demanding clients. Lets discuss how to succeed in that environment. What tips and tricks to success can you share. I doubt if any of us directly compete so lets open up and help each other. I will start with BIM (I won't mention the brand name). I use it exclusively and find it to be a real time saver. It also allows me to provide 'freebie' material take offs for my builders so they give me lots of referrals and return business. I would be interested to hear how others have leveraged BIM beyond the basics."

I have learned two things in the last 12 months of residential practice:
1. Teaming up with a builder is fantastic. When we have design-only projects, they lend a lot of gravitas to my cost estimates. When we have construction-only projects, I lend a lot of gravitas to theirs when it comes to design, building codes and HUD habitability standards (I'm also a HUD-certified 203(k) consultant). Sometimes my only involvement is to help a homeowner visualize the end result of something I haven't even designed. Just knowing we have an "in-house" architect makes a lot of homeowners more willing to talk with us and hire us. When we have design+build projects, the projects go very very smoothly and seamlessly.

2. Quantity take-offs by the architect buy a lot of good will and credibility. My design+build partner uses my BIM quantity take-offs to double-check his figures. Because I'm "in-house", it's not a liability issue.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall AIA
Integrated Property Services
Bluffdale UT
-------------------------------------------

For the past 4-5 years my intention has been to share my experiences, business model, and results with everyone with the hope that our profession as a whole can also share how they have changed the traditional delivery model for residential design. Often in the public forum I'm met with skepticism and sometimes accusations of being unprofessional. More often I receive private emails from Architects all over the country asking me more in depth questions about how they can offer their services at a reduced cost without reducing their worth. Every area is different, but I hope they have been successful at evolving their own business models to the changing times.

Our greatest problem is that the housing industry has evolved without us and we have clung to a small piece of the business with wealthy folks who can afford to pay us to produce documents and services that are similar to what is expected of the commercial sector. The disparity between what we provide at a commercial level of documentation and services compared to what the average home builder needs to build a house is vast to say the least. It is completely unrealistic to the level of absolute insanity if we think we can expect the housing industry to make a 100% shift in our direction when we're designing about 50,000/ year out of 1,600,000 houses being built total. When appraisals are based on the status quo and our involvement often yields a result that are far more expensive, we alienate ourselves from the average delivery model of design and construction. Would you pay a car designer to custom design your next car and have the manufacturing cost well exceed what it costs to just buy one off the lot only to find that the bank financing your car thinks your custom car is worth 75% of what you spent? What we offer typically cannot be afforded by 97% of the country.

Lucky for us more and more local jurisdictions are asking for more and more sophisticated drawings in order to get a building permit. The IRC and other codes are becoming more and more stringent. Sustainability is changing the industry as the glaciers keep receding like a 40-50 year old man's hairline. The housing industry is moving in our direction, but we're going to have to bridge the gap and understand that regular people can't afford us nor do they need everything we think we have to provide to protect ourselves. Look at all the houses being built without our self imposed requirements! 

Rand and I came to the conclusion that what I provide in terms of actual permit drawings is pretty similar except I'm talking about working directly with a spec builder on a regular basis and I believe he was talking in terms of providing drawings for a homeowner with no knowledge of who the builder will be. Maybe I missed it, but I never did see a response on the amount of time Rand spends offering a similar package of drawings the traditional way which would include specs, finish schedules, cabinet elevations, and possibly a few other additional drawings I don't provide for the spec builder. When I'm working with a builder I know well, I spend less time drawing and designing. I can get a set of drawings out for permit in about 40-50hrs from the very first meeting. In order to make ourselves affordable and to not diminish our worth, we must find ways to produce quality work more efficiently.

Sean is dead on. BIM is the key to efficiency, but for the beginner it can cost you even more time. When using BIM, it's a completely different tool than FlatCAD. You must take advantage of the 3D model as BIM gives you the opportunity to kill 3 birds with one stone if used properly. I can keep Schematic Design time down to 15-20 hours with a Spec Builder and 30-40 hours with a homeowner (on larger, more detailed projects). I never show anyone a 2D elevation or section until the final drawings are complete. The only drawings my clients get during Schematic Design are Floor Plans, Site Plan (showing Zoning Compliance), and lots of 3D views. Even a seasoned builder is going to understand 3D views over 2D. I don't put any 3D detail into the interior at this stage and I only do that for homeowner clients paying extra.

When building a 3D BIM model, many hate the idea of having to think about detailed issues like wall construction/ materials. This is the advantage of BIM. From the very beginning I'm using walls that illustrate where the face of stud is and I know I'm lining up the stud face with the foundation wall below. I don't have to go back and readjust my design to meet reality. I'm building a real building from the beginning. My Schematic Designs are ready to go when the client authorizes me to start the Permit Drawings. I have already thought out the structure and geometry as I go. By the time Schematic Design is complete, I know my virtual building works. 100% of the time when a builder says they "built it just like the drawings" and they're having a problem with a roof lining up right or a stair working, I know they didn't "build it just like the drawings" because the BIM model is brutally honest and I've already built the building in the virtual world. Of course my construction experience helps, but I can quickly find where they went wrong and help them correct the mistake. When properly used, BIM will eliminate geometry issues and embarrassing mistakes that can be easily made when using FlatCAD.

The key to getting your Architecture to the masses is EFFICIENCY! We Architects are the masters of inefficient design process as we like to reinvent the wheel. Streamline your process, make the builder work for you, and I could go on, but I need to get out there and earn that dollar...Good Luck!

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

Eric,
I think your comments are dead on correct. In the same vein as being efficient and relevant, does anyone know of simple one sheet explanations of "green building aspects" in terms that homeowners can simply understand as well as pay for itself time. i.e. for this particular installed feature because of its money premium over conventional construction. This would be for residential. Some energy performances are required by the latest codes, like 2009 Energy code here in Illinois; so those items like R values and insulation are already built in to the base "conventional" price. However, geothermal, PV, and superinsulated envelopes are items that cost more however, will pay for themselves over longer time frames for energy cost savings. This is stated in the interest of addressing:

"The housing industry is moving in our direction, but we're going to have to bridge the gap and understand that regular people can't afford us nor do they need everything we think we have to provide to protect ourselves. Look at all the houses being built without our self imposed requirements! "

We have to compete in the family budget compared to money spent for kids needing braces for their teeth or other 97% population discretionary spending issues. Demonstrating our design value and the lament for the recognition of same has been raised in this forum; however, this simple document might be a marketing opportunity for why hiring an architect adds bottom line dollars value to designing in these systems and being able to deliver them for an efficient, affordable fee. Pooling the resources and input in this forum that address these issues in a strategy that is affordable for architects to provide services to builders and the majority of homeowners is the way, as Eric points out, of architects increasing broader target markets. Doing it with demonstrating bottom line dollar savings gives us a leg up on increased architect value and credibility. Doing the research on a project by project basis when the fees are necessarily lean to be competitive or affordable is probably unrealistic. However, I was wondering if this forum  provides tapping a larger group experience contribution and wider nationally applicability and could move the architect value added demonstration and evolve it incrementally over time.
Thanks for all your input in advance. 



-------------------------------------------
Peter Brinckerhoff AIA, LEED AP
President
Brinckerhoff and Associates LLC
Glenview IL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2012 09:14
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Sharing Housing Knowledge

For the past 4-5 years my intention has been to share my experiences, business model, and results with everyone with the hope that our profession as a whole can also share how they have changed the traditional delivery model for residential design. Often in the public forum I'm met with skepticism and sometimes accusations of being unprofessional. More often I receive private emails from Architects all over the country asking me more in depth questions about how they can offer their services at a reduced cost without reducing their worth. Every area is different, but I hope they have been successful at evolving their own business models to the changing times.

Our greatest problem is that the housing industry has evolved without us and we have clung to a small piece of the business with wealthy folks who can afford to pay us to produce documents and services that are similar to what is expected of the commercial sector. The disparity between what we provide at a commercial level of documentation and services compared to what the average home builder needs to build a house is vast to say the least. It is completely unrealistic to the level of absolute insanity if we think we can expect the housing industry to make a 100% shift in our direction when we're designing about 50,000/ year out of 1,600,000 houses being built total. When appraisals are based on the status quo and our involvement often yields a result that are far more expensive, we alienate ourselves from the average delivery model of design and construction. Would you pay a car designer to custom design your next car and have the manufacturing cost well exceed what it costs to just buy one off the lot only to find that the bank financing your car thinks your custom car is worth 75% of what you spent? What we offer typically cannot be afforded by 97% of the country.

Lucky for us more and more local jurisdictions are asking for more and more sophisticated drawings in order to get a building permit. The IRC and other codes are becoming more and more stringent. Sustainability is changing the industry as the glaciers keep receding like a 40-50 year old man's hairline. The housing industry is moving in our direction, but we're going to have to bridge the gap and understand that regular people can't afford us nor do they need everything we think we have to provide to protect ourselves. Look at all the houses being built without our self imposed requirements! 

Rand and I came to the conclusion that what I provide in terms of actual permit drawings is pretty similar except I'm talking about working directly with a spec builder on a regular basis and I believe he was talking in terms of providing drawings for a homeowner with no knowledge of who the builder will be. Maybe I missed it, but I never did see a response on the amount of time Rand spends offering a similar package of drawings the traditional way which would include specs, finish schedules, cabinet elevations, and possibly a few other additional drawings I don't provide for the spec builder. When I'm working with a builder I know well, I spend less time drawing and designing. I can get a set of drawings out for permit in about 40-50hrs from the very first meeting. In order to make ourselves affordable and to not diminish our worth, we must find ways to produce quality work more efficiently.

Sean is dead on. BIM is the key to efficiency, but for the beginner it can cost you even more time. When using BIM, it's a completely different tool than FlatCAD. You must take advantage of the 3D model as BIM gives you the opportunity to kill 3 birds with one stone if used properly. I can keep Schematic Design time down to 15-20 hours with a Spec Builder and 30-40 hours with a homeowner (on larger, more detailed projects). I never show anyone a 2D elevation or section until the final drawings are complete. The only drawings my clients get during Schematic Design are Floor Plans, Site Plan (showing Zoning Compliance), and lots of 3D views. Even a seasoned builder is going to understand 3D views over 2D. I don't put any 3D detail into the interior at this stage and I only do that for homeowner clients paying extra.

When building a 3D BIM model, many hate the idea of having to think about detailed issues like wall construction/ materials. This is the advantage of BIM. From the very beginning I'm using walls that illustrate where the face of stud is and I know I'm lining up the stud face with the foundation wall below. I don't have to go back and readjust my design to meet reality. I'm building a real building from the beginning. My Schematic Designs are ready to go when the client authorizes me to start the Permit Drawings. I have already thought out the structure and geometry as I go. By the time Schematic Design is complete, I know my virtual building works. 100% of the time when a builder says they "built it just like the drawings" and they're having a problem with a roof lining up right or a stair working, I know they didn't "build it just like the drawings" because the BIM model is brutally honest and I've already built the building in the virtual world. Of course my construction experience helps, but I can quickly find where they went wrong and help them correct the mistake. When properly used, BIM will eliminate geometry issues and embarrassing mistakes that can be easily made when using FlatCAD.

The key to getting your Architecture to the masses is EFFICIENCY! We Architects are the masters of inefficient design process as we like to reinvent the wheel. Streamline your process, make the builder work for you, and I could go on, but I need to get out there and earn that dollar...Good Luck!

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

Peter,
I think the green standards you speak of may need to be established location by location. Down South, we have a whole host of climate issues that can't be solved with Canadian building practices, which is where most of our energy efficiency techniques come from. Some owners can afford more than others, so what is the baseline minimum bang for the buck for our regular guy?

We have a spec builder in our area who certifies his houses as EarthCraft, which uses Energy Star standards plus some extras. He puts standard HVAC equipment in an attic with blown-in insulation on the ceiling and in the crawlspace with insulation at the floor line. Both units are NOT in insulated spaces. This cookie cutter design has few overhangs on the lower level, it often places the long broad side facing East or West, and by the nature of cookie cutter, he mows down every tree and existing structure on site with no regard. Basically, this form of GreenWasher is certifying buildings by barely checking off the minimum number of boxes on the "green" checklist. He's selling these as the Green Standard in our area. He designed one and off he goes...

Our standard is to foam the roof line/ between joists/ knee walls/ garage under living space/ misc awkward spaces, insulate basement or crawl walls (not the floor), batt the main walls, and house wrap. This gets our air changes down to 3-5. We're starting to use mini-splits, which can become costly for larger projects as each unit is between $1000-2500 and they have limited range. They are perfect for zoning buildings and cost effective for smaller houses when you only 2-3 of them. You can hook these up to an ERV along with bath fans. These units can achieve almost the same efficiency as geothermal for much less price. The secret is that they convert AC current to DC and this allows them to vary the amount of electricity being used by the unit, greatly reducing consumption.

One of the greenest things you can do is design each building for the specific site it is built on. In the inner city neighborhoods we Renovate, Repurpose (whole house renovation), and lastly we Replace old houses in that order. Some of my best projects you would never know were renovations. We work around old growth trees. We orient our buildings as best we can giving the tight constraints. We take advantage of landforms. Ultimately, our houses look like they grew up from the landscape instead of being pushed off the back of a truck. Susan Susanka (Not so BIG House) recently said at a green conference that aesthetics are very important to sustainability. Ugly buildings are more likely to get torn down, beautiful buildings have a better chance of survival.

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 11-16-2012 07:41
From: Peter Brinckerhoff
Subject: Sharing Housing Knowledge

Eric,
I think your comments are dead on correct. In the same vein as being efficient and relevant, does anyone know of simple one sheet explanations of "green building aspects" in terms that homeowners can simply understand as well as pay for itself time. i.e. for this particular installed feature because of its money premium over conventional construction. This would be for residential. Some energy performances are required by the latest codes, like 2009 Energy code here in Illinois; so those items like R values and insulation are already built in to the base "conventional" price. However, geothermal, PV, and superinsulated envelopes are items that cost more however, will pay for themselves over longer time frames for energy cost savings. This is stated in the interest of addressing:

"The housing industry is moving in our direction, but we're going to have to bridge the gap and understand that regular people can't afford us nor do they need everything we think we have to provide to protect ourselves. Look at all the houses being built without our self imposed requirements! "

We have to compete in the family budget compared to money spent for kids needing braces for their teeth or other 97% population discretionary spending issues. Demonstrating our design value and the lament for the recognition of same has been raised in this forum; however, this simple document might be a marketing opportunity for why hiring an architect adds bottom line dollars value to designing in these systems and being able to deliver them for an efficient, affordable fee. Pooling the resources and input in this forum that address these issues in a strategy that is affordable for architects to provide services to builders and the majority of homeowners is the way, as Eric points out, of architects increasing broader target markets. Doing it with demonstrating bottom line dollar savings gives us a leg up on increased architect value and credibility. Doing the research on a project by project basis when the fees are necessarily lean to be competitive or affordable is probably unrealistic. However, I was wondering if this forum  provides tapping a larger group experience contribution and wider nationally applicability and could move the architect value added demonstration and evolve it incrementally over time.
Thanks for all your input in advance. 



-------------------------------------------
Peter Brinckerhoff AIA, LEED AP
President
Brinckerhoff and Associates LLC
Glenview IL
-------------------------------------------