case studies: clarifying vision

43
Case Study | Clarifying Vision examples from 33 Arch Street Boston, Massachusetts

Upload: northeastern-school-of-architecture

Post on 09-Mar-2016

224 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Project from Northeastern Case Studies Class

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

Case Study | Clarifying Visionexamples from 33 Arch Street

Boston, Massachusetts

Page 2: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

Course 1235 : School of Architecture . Northeastern University . Huntington Avenue . Boston . Massachusetts . 02115

How can architects learn to provide clarity to advance turbulent projects?

Before the design even started, things appeared muddy. Turbulent market forces had delayed the project for nearly a decade. One de-veloper sold out to another, switching architects in the process. Regu-latory officials and neighbors had unique positions to be negotiated, either through design or cash incentives. The architect’s design team was being hand-picked by the developer no-less, and his investors placed their subsidiary as construction manager.

From the out-set, the architects role of designer and team manager looked to be a frustrating exercise, at best. But particular practices emerged that made the project smoother, often for everyone involved. From this project we can learn from how the architects leveraged their unique role, and what can be learned from strategies of other team-members.

Page 3: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONAbstract

Project Conception

DECISION MAKINGKey Relationships

Outside InfluencesBridging Gaps

Design Team Organization

CREATING A BUILDINGChoosing a Site Project History

Selecting a Project TeamPlanning ProcessResolving Details

Overlap + ConnectionsWinning Approval

Project Result

ANALYSIS: CLARITY & VISIONTenacity

Relationship StrengthVoices on your HeadBecoming Essential

46

910121416

192023242628303234

3738404244

TABLE OF CONTENTSCourse 1235 : School of Architecture . Northeastern University . Huntington Avenue . Boston . Massachusetts . 02115

Page 4: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

4 INTRODUCTION

While clients and developers make many program-matic and financial decisions, the architect has the unique position of providing clarity and image to building goals, practical and ephemeral. Often un-derneath the well-resolved skin of the architectural design lies a complex and convoluted process, in-volving world financial markets, local demand, other developers, politics, zoning requirements and his-toric review. Providing a literal vision that financiers, regulatory officials and prospective tenants can latch onto augments the pragmatics of cost and size. In this fashion, the clarity and vision brought by the architect is an example of the type of leadership they can bring to a project.

Thirty-Three Arch Street arose from such a process.

CONSTITUENCY WEB The building development process is created from a web of decision makers, each with a unique area of influence. Developer, investor, regulatory agencies and architects & engineers all have specific areas of responsibility, in which their limited authority rests. Each party can easily find the boundaries of their influence. Owners are limited by financing, inves-tors are limited by market conditions, and regulatory agencies are limited beyond the broad guidelines they give. The architect, too, has many limitations, not the least being budget, scope and program.

The building’s constituents’ also stretch beyond the typical client team. While developer and investors serve as a core constituent, potential tenants and neighboring organizations also are significant considerations which must be considered and designed to. While good mar-ket research by real estate professionals and relationship building by the developer lay the groundwork,

UNIQUENESS OF THE ARCHITECTThe architect, however, is in a unique position to become a bridge to other decision makers, permitting influence over a broader scope. This is largely where the architect gains their value in the process, as they provide a clarity and vision to an often turbulent process.

The architect provides the instrument of service to demonstrate the pre-conception of address-ing these key groups. For example, height reduc-tions were requested to limit shadows on the Old South Meeting house. While deal-making and relationship building provide the avenue to reach an agreement, the architect has the tech-nical and graphic capabilities to demonstrate the concessions of the owner. This key compe-tency, or service, brings clarity to the discussion. This clarity builds trust, which is foundational to successful project development.

ABSTRACTHow can architects bridge gaps and provide clarity to successfully advance turbulent projects?

Page 5: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

5INTRODUCTION

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

Many processes start with people in different places, going in different directions.

The architect often finds their role to bring these disparate positions together. Like a lens, they need to delicately and precisely modify the rays to create unity.

Like all lenses, they must have the proper form as well as proper relationship to the sources it is pulling from.

The Lens Metaphor of Project Management

This broad scope results in a large number of rela-tionships, not all of them familiar, or amicable. Many project challenges stem from team and relationship management, which the architect often finds them-selves in the middle of. Even when faced with an un-familiar team of engineers and consultants, selected by the developer, or a construction manager that is a subsidiary of an investor, the architect still must coor-dinate the work, and the team.

INTEGRATION POTENTIALThe architect has the potential to let their limited sphere of influence effect key decision makers at nearly ever aspect of the project. By integrating team-members to a common vision and scoping problems to propose ideal team mixes, these non-design skills give the architect leverage to affect a successful project. The design and construction of Thirty-Three Arch Street offered examples of team-members cre-ating clarity and enhancing vision for other parties. Often it was not the architect who provided this, but these examples provide valuable insights from other disciplines a thoughtful architect can learn from. At times the successful work of other parties highlights areas architects can improve as designers and team-managers.

Page 6: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

1

2

43

PROJECT CONCEPTIONHow turbulent economics shaped the development of 33 Arch Street.

Beginning of 33 Arch Street Thirty-Three Arch street, while completed in 2004 by the developer Congress Group, had its begin-nings fifteen years prior when original developer, the Kingston Group, hired architect Thomas Phiffer to explore a 24 story speculative office tower on the site. Peter Kruelewitch, head of the New York based Kingston Group, owned the parcel, as well as the adjacent garage. Phiffer, also from New York, had produced a speculative glass tower design for Kruelewitch on a Boston site two years prior in 1987. That project did not go through, however the glass cladding in the design gained considerable support among those at Boston’s chief building regulatory agency, the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

In short, the 33 Arch Street Phiffer design was ap-proved by the BRA in September. Its height was reduced to 21 stories to mitigate shadows on its northern neighbors, including the historic Old South Meeting House. Construction was slated to begin the following year, should financing come through, but it didn’t.

Revived in 1998 The financial market took a tumble just as 2 million square feet of commercial office space in 1990-91. Office Vacancy rate jumped up as lease rates plum-meted, making any construction un-viable. After a five year slump, lease rates began to rise, a combina-tion of the 1990s dot com boom and a lack of new office space. The race to develop before the next bust began.

The project was revived in 1998, now at 31 stories, and gained rapid approval from the BRA in March of 1999. BRA director Thomas O’Brien called the build-ing “a well-designed office building that adds badly needed office space to our downtown”, but offered his concern that the “clear glass design of the 31-sto-ry tower makes it expensive and requires high rents. Prospective tenants might regard it as not offering “the exclusive address” needed to justify those rents.” The concern O’Brien raises is valid. The site, due to be the first new office tower in Boston since Two Inter-national Place in 1993, sits a few hundred yards out-side the financial district, in the adjacent retail dis-trict, Downtown Crossing. It might just be enough to discourage, or slow, the top-dollar leases the build-ing would need to be a financial success.

New Development TeamLater in 1999, one of the major investors behind the project ran into financial difficulty and sold its stake to raise capital, and soon after Kruelewitch followed suit. The new development team was lead by Boston Developer Dean Stratouly, of Congress Group. With the sale came the land, its development rights, and the building design. At this point, however, after two BRA approvals, Stratouly brought in Boston architec-ture firm Elkus Manfredi.

Since financing could not be obtained before the de-velopment approval expired, Stratouly and his new architect brought 33 Arch Street before the BRA for a third time. While the prior two BRA approvals re-quired a small height reduction, this round

required stone cladding on the lower floors, up to the height of the adjacent buildings.

The project broke ground in 2001, and was complet-ed in 2004, within two weeks of its target schedule. Construction, however, was the least of Stratouly’s worries. Because of the significant amount of capi-tal required for real estate development, quickly filling the building with rent paying tenants is par-amount to the developer’s and investor’s financial success. Projects of this caliber often rely heavily on ‘pre-leasing’, with tenants committing to office space prior to the completion of construction. The project was slow to fill, and after two years of con-struction and no tenants, the original leasing agent was fired. When the first tenants were secured in April of 2004, Stratouly rejoiced, “I’m back from the dead. Everybody was burying me six months ago.”

Economy Slowdown in 2004 The early 2000s followed the same trend of the early 1990s. A sharp financial downturn followed a period of economic exuberance. Because of the long time-to-market of real estate development, slow projects can often miss the financial markers that made them initially viable. Thirty-Three Arch was the last of three office towers to come online in a slowing economy, and in early 2009 its top two floors remain vacant.

6 INTRODUCTION

Page 7: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

Downtown Boston Average Lease $/SF

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

‘90 ’91 ‘92 ’93 ‘94 ’95 ‘96 ’97 ‘98 ’99 ‘00 ’01 ‘02 ’03 ‘04 ’05 ‘06 ’07

Kingston Investment Corp.NY Odyssey PartnersNynex Properties Inc.

21 stories office building492,000 SF space230,000 SF office10 stories parking

$ 50,000 to improve the park$ 100,000 to the Old South Meeting House$ 650,000 Young Men's Christian Union building,$ 100,000 to the Wang Center restoration fund

Architect

Developer

BRAApproval

CommunityIncentive

Thomas Phifer Elkus Manfredi

Kingston Investment Corp.NorthStar Capital Investment Corp.

Congress Group VenturesNational Electric Benefit FundsValue Enhancement Fund IV- Lend LeaseAtlantic Retail Properties

31 stories office building600,000 SF office

880 parking garage

33 stories office building900,000 SF space600,000 SF office300,000 SF of parking and common area850 parking garage

$750,000 to the Old South Mtg House $750,000 to the Old South Mtg House

0

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

New

Co

mm

erci

alO

ffic

e Sp

ace1

,000

SF

Co

mm

erci

alVa

can

cyR

ate

Co

mp

leti

on

Dat

e

$35 $35

$22

$32

$36

$72

$45

$41

$38$39

$38

$40

$65

Ext

erio

rC

om

ple

te

Gro

un

dB

reak

ing

Office building was vacant for 6 months.

1,750

Thomas Phifer

7INTRODUCTION

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

The chart above illustrate how the project has undergone a turbulent process through varied economic situations. This involved multiple developers, architects, and community members. Through this seemingly chaotic process, the archi-tects had the responsibility of bringing clarity and unity to the nascent project.

Economic and Team-Member Timeline

1

2

3

4

Page 8: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision
Page 9: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

DECISION MAKING

KEY RELATIONSHIPSOUTSIDE INFLUENCES

BRIDGING GAPSDESIGN TEAM ORGANIZATION

Throughout the development process, there is an interrelated web of decision making. No one group is responsible for the totality of the decision making. Each group’s sphere of influence is directly related to the arena they have responsibility for. At the same time, each group often feels limited by their own boundaries. The architect, as limited as any other party, often find themselves with areas of interest, and ser-vice, overlapping other parties. Because of this position, the architect has the ability to bring clarity to other members, and at times provide influential input.

The architect’s project responsibilities give them one of the best positions to support, and direct, decision making. As the party coordinat-ing many team-members and managing the project’s drawings, the architects quickly become essential to other members completing their responsibilities. This range allows them to bridge many gaps for other members. One issue demonstrated on this project is the importance of strong relationships on getting ideas implemented. Even with the skills and responsibilities of the architect, without developing relationships with their team-members, relegate the architect to a marginalized role.

9DECISION MAKING

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

Page 10: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

10 DECISION MAKING

BUILDING PROMOTERS“Building Promoters” is the loosest organized group. The developer, architect & real-estate broker all have roles of promotion. The developer must present his case financially to his investors. The architect is re-sponsible for presenting the design to the city, by creating graphics to describe the building, as well as explaining program and local impact. The broker is the party that directly interfaces with potential ten-ants, often seeking them out and using visual aids from the architect, especially in pre-leasing.

BUILDING DESIGNERSThe building designers are responsible to collabo-rate to design and coordinate all the building com-ponents and systems. The architect is usually in a key role here, as the designer of space & building layout they have the dual role of designing the envelope & plan combined with coordinating the work of all the consultants. In a typical project, the developer hires the architect, who then in turn hires the engineers and consultants. In 33 Arch, this was not the case, as the developer direct-hired nearly all of the engi-neers & consultants. This unique situation caused some friction, as consultants had input separately from both developer and architect. For the most part, professionalism made the relationships work, but the relational ambiguity lead to increased coor-dination time.

BUILDING FINANCIERSThis group is responsible for determining scope, size and program of building. It is lead by the developer, who acquires the land and initiates the project. The developer finances a significant portion, which re-quires a bank to review and approve the proposal from a fiscal perspective. In order to maximize their return, the developer with often bring in investors to make up a portion of the equity required by the bank. These investors also carefully review the pro-posal for profitability, as they are in second position to the bank to collect on the building. Thirty-Arch has proved to be financially troubled in the short-term, and some investors are reported to have lost significant returns. The developer and investors have needed to supply an additional $10 million for carry-ing costs during building-lease up.

THE SERVEDIn any project, there is a set of people the build-ing is intended upon serving. Outside of Finan-ciers, Promoters and Designers, end users and neighbors make up this group. While both groups hopefully profit from this building, financially or otherwise, this occurs as a “user” end, as opposed to as a “creator”. In speculative office space tenants are unknown during design, and often during construction, so generalizations must be made to often nebulous, yet powerful “market forc-es”. Neighbors sometimes deal directly with the project, such as the Old South Meeting House, or represented through the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Either way, the pressure often political, is put on the building creation team to provide value for non-leasing “user” parties.

BUILDERSThe general contractor leads the building team. This group takes the drawings as produced and coordi-nated by the architect, and creates a physical struc-ture out of them. The general contractor themselves hires a plethora of sub-contractors to carry out spe-cialized aspects of the construction. At 33 Arch, a Construction Manager, Bovis Lend Lease was hired. This firm was a company held by one of the building’s Investors. They handled the hiring and management of subcontractors and controlled most of the design decision and coordination led by the architect.

KEY RELATIONSHIPSThese five main groups of influencers and decision makers exist in an interconnected web. The architect, next to the devel-oper, is one of the few players with direct influence on all the major groups. It is significant to note that unlike the developer, the architect does not hire other parties, but works through less hierarchical relationships.

Page 11: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

11DECISION MAKING

BECOMING ESSENTIAL

Final decisions for many aspects of the building process lay far outside the ar-chitects office. While executive power is often found with the developer, the city or potential tenants, the architect has the ability to enhance communication and even influence outcome.

Developer- relies heavily on architect communicate project intent and goals to city. The architect, because of their broad base of training, is often best suited to in-corporate program, city initiatives, financ-es, design and neighbor concern.

Broker- A financially successful building seeks to lease space prior to building con-struction, known as pre-leasing. Brokers rely heavily on the visuals the architect has produced to describe the building, especially renderings and floor layouts.

General Contractor- While construc-tion documents are thought of as legal technical documents, they are foremost a communication tool. To the degree the building is accurately described and sys-tem conflicts are resolved, the building construction can be faster and less ex-pensive.

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

THE SERVED

BRA

potentialtenants

market forces

citizenry

BUIL

DIN

G FINANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNE

RS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

bank

broker

BUIL

DER

S general contractor

subcontractors

collaborate consultants

hire

d

hired

buy into project

sell project

BUILDINGPRO

MO

TERS

Each member of a macro-groups, denoted by large bubbles, have similar project interests, though they retain unique project roles. Uniting group members are a common relationship to other parties, whether that is being hired, peer collaboration, or buying / selling the project.

Relationships of Macro-Groups

Page 12: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

12 DECISION MAKING

NEIGHBORSOver the course of approvals for this project, the Old South Meetinghouse, along with a number of other neighbors, were to receive compensation as part of the deal to construct 33 Arch Street. Most of these were rationalized by the additional shadow the building would cast over the site.

In 1990, the developers agreed to give $ 50,000 to improve a local park, as well as $ 100,000 to the Old South Meeting House and $ 650,000 toward resto-ration of the theater in the Young Men’s Christian Union building, and $ 100,000 to the Wang Center restoration fund. In 1999 this was modified to be $750,000 to the Old South Meeting House, which carried through to the 2001 proposal.

BOSTON REAL ESTATE MARKETCommercial Real Estate development has a lengthy time to market. The time a project takes to reach completion, increases the risk that the market will have changed from the conditions the building was planned under. Unlike development for an end-user, speculative office serves an unknown client, with no guarantee of demand upon completion.

33 Arch, in its many iterations, fell prey to this issue. Often it is the increased demand of a boom that in-creases lease-rates enough to make new construc-tion viable. Often this condition spawns multiple development projects, and the increased supply can often lower lease-rates, especially for later projects. In 1990 and 2000, planned developments began to come on-line after the boom market had begun to recede. The increased supply occurred during a time of decreasing demand, sending lease-rates lower.

VOICES IN YOUR HEAD

Significant influence can come from outside the core decision makers. From locals with-out financial stake, to financiers without lo-cal ties. Nebulous market forces to brokers trying to make a deal. Former leaders that left in disgrace or glory.

Understanding the role these “secondary parties” plays can be at least enlightening and at most essential. Often while present-ing the building and making design con-siderations, the influence of these parties needs to be considered. While they may not have a voice at the drafting table, their weight will effect the project at a point.

As a generalist, the architect’s broad range of knowledge and consideration can be one of their greatest strengths. A good architect may be the person to bring these voices to the table, in absentia. Doing so will serve the client, and the teams, interests, and possibly determine the success of the project.

THE SERVED

THE SERVED

BRA

potential

tenants

market

forces

citizenry

BUIL

DIN

GFIN

ANCIERS

BUILDING

DESIG

NER

S

architect

engineers

developer

investors

bank

broker

BUIL

DER

S

general

contractor

sub

contractors

collaborateconsultants

hire

dhired

buy in

toproject

sell pro

ject

BUILDING PROMOTERS

“Outsiders” can come from nearly any macro-group. Any party whose decisions or preferences affect actions of key decision makers can be a significant outside influence.

OUTSIDE INFLUENCESDespite periphery roles in this project, many groups had significant influence in the final architectural and financial outcomes of 33 Arch Street. Decisions by these parties shaped many of the issues the Design and Construction teams faced later on.

Page 13: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

13DECISION MAKING

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

INVESTORSThe project investors are key players whose interest is turning a profit on their investment. This group of players, Real Estate and Institutional Investors, choose to invest their capital in commercial real estate in-vestments with a level of risk, in hopes of a higher premium return. These players deal most often with pro formas and other forms of financially construct-ing the building on paper, often from maximum al-lowable square footages, prior to an architectural de-sign. These financiers often offer “mezzanine” equity or the difference between the developer’s equity plus his bank loan and the total project cost. If the project fail, they are in second position for bank debt, making their investment higher risk, and thus higher return. Reduction in number of stories allowed, or an extension of lease-out time effects the bottom line for these key players. Often if a target return cannot be met on paper, investors will refuse a deal.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGERIn this unique situation, the general contractor is from Bovis Lend Lease, which is also the investor for the project. They acted as the financial analysis, con-struction manager, as well as the general contractor on site. They played a huge role in the process, as they are very sensitive to cost.

BROKERThe initial broker, Trammel-Crow, was fired by the de-veloper in 2003, after securing no pre-leases in the first two years of construction. CBRE took the job and landed a lease with Digitas and SEC, months before the building opened. The developer thought an ex-pensive, fully glazed building could make-up for a less than optimal location. This seems to not have been true, and the down-market construction oc-curred in exacerbated this situation.

FORMER ARCHITECTThomas, a former partner of Richard Meier, was the original architect of the 1998 designs. His design focused on the interplay of glass and light, citing the “clear October light” as his inspiration, wanting the tower to have “as many moods as the day”.

Later, Elkus Manfredi has took charge of the proj-ect because the developer changed. While the Phiffer design had many unresolved aspects, the foot-print and similar skin were retained.

FORMER DEVELOPERPeter Kruelewitch, principle of Kingston Group originally owned the parcel at 33 Arch street, as well as the adjacent garage. He had proposed a tower, designed by Thomas Phiffer, in 1987, in downtown Boston, a deal that did not go through. Kruelewitch initially brought in the of investment team Odyssey Partners of NY and Nynex Proper-ties Inc. of NY & Boston for the $215 million, 21 floor plan in 1990. Lack of available financing from the ensuing recession killed the project.

In 2001, Dean Stratouly, president of Congress Group Ventures joined Atlantic Group Invest-ments, a retail specialist, as lead developer of the project. He brought in East Development, NEBF & Lend Lease Real Estate Investment as investors.

BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThe BRA approved the design of a tower at 33 Arch street three times from 1990 to 2001. The BRA was in favor of this development. From the beginning they required existing parking on site from 1970 garage be made-up in proposed design, in addition the park-ing required under zoning. In general, the BRA, which has an economic planning component, was in favor of the development, and made requests to height and materiality. These requests catered to concerns of neighboring buildings and contextualism.

In 1990, they approved They required the design be brought down from 24 stories to 21. Brian DeLorey, BRA director of midtown development, said the re-duction will “dramatically reduce” the shadows the tower will cast on the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Park one block away at Washington and School streets, but not eliminate them.

In 1998, city support lead to anticipated rapid ap-proval of the new glass tower design by Thomas Phiffer. While glass was considered out of character for the city by some, the BRA encouraged this, based on a previous design they had seen in the mid 1990s by the architect. The booming Boston real estate mar-ket needed additional office space to expand, or the city could potentially lose significant companies. The BRA approved a 31 story tower, which was a slight reduction from the original proposed 38 stories.BRA director Thomas N. O’Brien said it would be “a well-designed office building that adds badly need-ed office space to our downtown.”

In 2001, looking at a similar design, this time under the auspices of a new architect, the BRA requires stone cladding on the lower stories, to the height of the adjacent buildings.

BUILDING FINANCIERS FORMER LEADERS

Page 14: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

14 DECISION MAKING

DEVELOPER - ARCHITECTSELLABLE PRODUCT

When architect deals with the developer, the archi-tect has to understand the client’s expectation and needs. During a turbulence process, developers are more likely to be cost cautious to minimize any risk involved. Successful architect has to be sensitive to the issues and help layout a vision that can meet the developer goals, which is to provide clarity on how to be cost effective and design an economic feasible design. Elkus Manfredi Architects is the right firm for such process, the firm is known to help developers meet their goals and understand how to work with a developer. Therefore, they were able to successfully advance the project.

GENERAL CONTRACTOR - ARCHITECTWHAT (TO BUILD)

Architect needs to provide clarity through detailed drawing. The clearer and better the drawings archi-tects provide, it will result in less conflict and sur-prises at the end. Elkus Manfredi Architects have selected Alan Mayer to become the project architect, he is a highly detailed oriented person with advance technical detail skills. He works directly with the two Junior Designer and oversees all the drawings to en-sure all the drawings are met to its best ability.

BRIDGING GAPSIn a web of constituents with varied spheres of influence, the architect’s role is unique that it overlaps many of the other party’s positions.

OVERLAPPING OPPORTUNITIES

In an industry subject to increasing special-ization, the architect is one of the few re-maining generalist professions. The breadth of the scope diagramed here attests to this. This range provides three particular opportuni-ties::

Diversifying Services- Areas of overlapping the need of non-traditional constituents can be areas to potentially gain a new client base. Archi-tects typically provide serves to developers, but could their excellent graphic communication could be highly valued by real-estate brokers.

Leveraging Value- any need has value to a con-stituent, and this need can be used to for the architect’s advantage. By providing value to this varied group, the architect can potentially posi-tion themselves to gain “a-typical” opportunities. It could be potential tenants that need design services, or speaking opportunities at city meet-ings. Providing value opens doors.

Building Relationships- While a key asset of an architect may lie in the density of their roll-o-dex, the strength of the roll-o-dex lies in the strength of the relationships within. This broad access gives apply opportunity to for solid professional relationships that can enhance project delivery and network strength.

Page 15: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

15DECISION MAKING

ENGINEER - ARCHITECTARCHITECTURAL VISION

The architect has to fill the gap and provide the en-gineers with a clear vision and concept so the en-gineers can aid in the process in fulfilling the archi-tectural vision. The architect also have to coordinate drawings to make sure everything is accurate and is to the architecture expectation.

POTENTIAL TENANTS- ARCHITECTDESIRABLE BUILDING

Commercial Real Estate development has a lengthy time to market. The time a project takes to reach completion, increases the risk that the market will have changed from the conditions the building was planned under. Unlike development for an end-user, speculative office serves an unknown client, with no guarantee of demand upon completion.

architectlayout and design

general contractor

BRA

developerpotentialtenants

brokerengineers

how to do whatin what order and with whom

communicate bene�ts to potential tenantstechnical how-to of

architectural vision

solid project �nancialsgood market timingsaleable product

neighborscity plan

good location + pricedesireable building

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

BROKER - ARCHITECTCOMMUNICATION

Commercial Real Estate development has a lengthy time to market. The time a project takes to reach completion, increases the risk that the market will have changed from the conditions the building was planned under. Unlike development for an end-user, speculative office serves an unknown client, with no guarantee of demand upon completion.

BRA - ARCHITECTCITY PLANNING

Commercial Real Estate development has a lengthy time to market. The time a project takes to reach completion, increases the risk that the market will have changed from the conditions the building was planned under. Unlike development for an end-user, speculative office serves an unknown client, with no guarantee of demand upon completion.

The Architect’s RangeEach project constituent has their own unique roles in project. The architect’s scope oftenoverlaps a significant amount of other disciplines.

Page 16: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

16 DECISION MAKING

DEVELOPER-CENTRIC DELIVERY

Thirty-Three Arch employed a Developer-centric version of a Design-Bid-Build with a Construction Manager. The developer, Dean Stratouly of Congress Group, relied heavily on direct-hiring engineers, consultants and even sub-contractors who he had developed relationships with throughout his devel-opment experience.

One aspect this changed for the architect is their relationship with the design consultants and engi-neers. Hierarchical ambiguity, with instructions com-ing from Congress Group, as well as Elkus Manfredi, lead to responsibility and coordination problems. In one instance a structural gusset plate was designed to sit outside the sheer glass wall (when notified, the engineer reportedly told the architect, “Good luck solving that problem!”). In another instance, late in the design process, it was discovered that the HVAC had not been properly coordinated. According the Project Architect Alan Meyer, he and the HVAC de-signer spent much more time working on solving this than normal. Fortunately professionalism won out, and while solving the problem, the two became fast friends.

Beyond adding ambiguous relationships to the

design process, direct hiring sub-contractors, such

as the Curtain-Wall design-builders complicated relationships. While normally the architects ne-gotiate day-to-day decisions with these parties, because of the direct-hire often the CW Designer would go direct to the developer for approval. This made coordinating the design of adjacent clad-ding systems difficult, as the architect was not able to orchestrate all the involved parties.

Adding to this situation was the interesting selec-tion of construction manager., Bovis Lend Lease, which was a sub-company of one of the institu-tional investors. Beyond acting as the party select-ing and scheduling sub-contractors, which they were reportedly efficiently adept at handling. Be-cause of their strong ties to the Building Financing group, they also ended up informing value-engi-neering decisions to a higher degree than is typi-cal.

TYPICAL DESIGN-BID-BUILD

A typical Design-Bid-Build delivery method begins with the hiring of a design team. A typical Design team consists of an Architect lead team of engineers and consultants. In this situation, the developer hires an architect, who in turn selects and hires the neces-sary engineers and consultants.

After this, a general contractor, or construction man-ager is hired, who facilitates construction and hiring and coordination of subcontractors. If a construction manager is used, they are often selected on qualifi-cations, given a set fee, and find the lowest qualified bidders to do the work for the client. General con-tractors provide a total construction cost (bid) and take a percentage of it as their profit.

During construction, the architect and construction manager, both hired by the developer, have a peer relationship where they must collaborate with the other party to create a successful building. This re-lationship is characterized by conflicting points of view. A good relationship is one that quickly and suc-cessfully handles the conflict that inevitably occurs.

During this whole process, the developer, or his in-ternal head of construction, handles this process. His outside investors are only concerned about con-struction to the degree that it affects their pro for-ma’s bottom line.

DESIGN TEAM ORGANIZATIONThirty-Three Arch Sreet utilized a Design-Bid-Build delivery method, with a Construction Manger handling the bidding and construction. This is a fairly typical delivery method for a complex project of this size. The developer, however, made subtle, yet significant changes to this method, which yielded some atypical results. BUILDING

FINAN

CIERS

BUILDING DESIGNERS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

BUILD

ERS

general contractor

subcontractors

consultantssubcontractors

BUILDINGFIN

ANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNE

RS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

BUIL

DER

S general contractor

subcontractors

consultantssubcontractors

sub companyparent company

hiring entityproducing entity

peer collaborationpeer collaboration

LEGEND

Page 17: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

17DECISION MAKING

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

BUILDINGFIN

ANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNERS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

BUILD

ERS

general contractor

subcontractors

consultantssubcontractors

BUILDINGFIN

ANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNE

RS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

BUIL

DER

S general contractor

subcontractors

consultantssubcontractors

sub companyparent company

hiring entityproducing entity

peer collaborationpeer collaboration

LEGEND

TY

PIC

AL

REL

ATI

ON

SHIP

S BUILDINGFIN

ANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNERS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

BUILD

ERS

general contractor

subcontractors

consultantssubcontractors

BUILDINGFIN

ANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNE

RS

architect

engineers

developer

investors

BUIL

DER

S general contractor

subcontractors

consultantssubcontractors

sub companyparent company

hiring entityproducing entity

peer collaborationpeer collaboration

LEGEND

RELATIONSHIP STRENGTH

While often the design-team leader, in this scenario, the architect finds themselves as a design-team peer, responsible for orga-nizing and coordinating all other disci-plines. By forging strong professional, and social relationships with these parties, the architect was able to overcome a great deal of the ambiguity dealt to them.

The strongest relationship, rather than the strongest idea, often produces the winning option. This was demonstrated through direct-hired construction disci-plines. It was very frustrating for the ar-chitects, especially the design architect, as countless aspects of the design were axed, for value engineering. These rec-ommendations came from the develop-ers internal head of construction, Bovis & from sub-contractors directly. While some of these cuts may have been inevitable, strong relationships often out weighed even stronger ideas.

Critical to any design process are the non-contractual collaborative relationships, shown here by dashed lines. In these relationship, both parties report to a single source (usually the developer) and some decsion-making chain ambiguity can occur. 33 Arch street included more of these than typical, as the developer direct-hired the engi-neers, as well.

Page 18: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision
Page 19: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

CREATING A BUILDING

CHOOSING A SITEPROJECT HISTORY

SELECTING A PROJECT TEAMPLANNING PROCESSRESOLVING DETAILS

OVERLAP & CONNECTIONSWINNING APPROVALS

PROJECT RESULT

19CREATING A BUILDING

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

Thirty-Three Arch street meets most of the city as a shimmering glass tower, rising from the midst of heavily articulated, historic stone facades. The edifice sits nestled in between Arch & Hawley Street, towering over the former, and bridging over the latter. Thirty-three Arch street sits on a tiny half acre parcel of land, formerly housing a death-defying speed ramp for the adjacent garage. Over half a million square feet of office space and 880 parking spaces are wedged into this tiny site, over the 33 stories the building occupies. Above the ground floor lobby are eight levels of structured parking, enclosed behind a (metal) cladding system, with 25 stories of glassy office space above.

What this well-resolved glass tower does not express is the team-work and relational framework necessary to realize the project. Different types of persuasion, comprehensive coordination and crisp, clear presentation are all skills needed to navigate these professional waters.

The building appears in many side-street framed vignettes throughout Downtown crossing, its most significantly as the new back-drop to the Old South Meetinghouse, the birthplace of the Boston Tea Party. Once it touches the street, its entry however is more enigmatic. The building sits quietly at street level on the narrow Arch street, its well detailed, yet austere, façade is tacitly foreboding. On the secondary Hawley Street, the shade from the overhead garage bridge allows views through the glazing into the elegantly detailed lobby. This lobby stretches along the lot-line from Arch to Hawley, descending nearly 8 feet in grade, thorough a series of terraces and ramps. Opposite the guarded elevator banks, one can regard the build-ing’s signature lot-line bow, from one end of the building to the other. The lobby’s finish and design is a warm modernism, with green frosted glass offset by warm wood paneling. The lobby orients itself towards the more prominent Arch Street through the location of standard lobby program, security guard, corporate sculpture and café. While Arch Street may be more prominent in plan and faces the financial district, the Hawley Street entrance receives the most significant foot-traffic, as it provides a direct access to Downtown Crossing and its public transportation.

The core of elevator banks is split into a series of three- parking garage, lower office and upper office. As is common with raised-parking office, one must take the elevator down from the parking to the lobby, prior to taking the office elevator to the appropriate office floor. Even to the 31st floor, the highest of the 33 floors currently containing tenants, the ride is expectedly smooth and uneventful.

Exiting the elevator onto the 31st floor, one is struck by the low proportion of core to office space. The facades subtle bowing attempts to increase floor-plate, (but compare to typical 45ft bay). Most tenants provide glazed entries with glazed conference rooms behind, allowing natural light, and view, into the corridor. As one moves through the office spaces, the fully glazed façade permits a bevy of abundant views. The one advantage of being located outside the financial district is that as the western-most tower, there are nearly unobstructed views north and west of the city. To the south and east one sees the towers of the financial district proper.

Page 20: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

CHOOSING A SITEMidtown Cultural District

USELocating a Class A office tower at 33 Arch street was a risky move. The site is a couple hundred yards outside the financial district, nestled in Downtown Crossing’s retail and mid-rise buildings. Early in the process the BRA, while encouraging office develop-ment, expressed concern that the building’s address, and expense, would make it difficult to lease.

The developer took the risk that a well-designed glass building, and copious views could make up for a sub-par address.

SITEThe project is located on 33 Arch Street, just a bor-derline from the financial district. It was used to be two car garage, where the start of the ramp comes in through Hawley Street, therefore the street was closed off for pass through cars.

The new office tower is proposed on one of the park-ing garage tucked away from all the surrounding main street. It is a very restrictive and a very small site that has to deal with many issues. Some of the is-sues that needs to be solved is the connection to the existing Woolworth garage, fire code issues, handi-cap access with the 8’-0” grade difference from two ends, sprinkler system added to the face of the fa-cade because of the site being on the lot line, as well as creating an enormous cantilever over the garage to add more valuable tenant space.

20 CREATING A BUILDING

RETAILSTREET

SHOPPING

THEATER

MARKETFESTIVAL

Government Center/ Markets District

Midtown Cultural

H

arbo

rpar

k:N

orth

End

/Dow

ntow

n W

ater

front

Chinatown District

South Station EDA

LeatherDistrict

Government Center/ Markets District

Midtown Cultural

H

arbo

rpar

k:N

orth

End

/Dow

ntow

n W

ater

front

Chinatown District

South Station EDA

LeatherDistrict

Financial District

actual boundaryperceived boundary

Page 21: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

The primary entrance to the building stands di-rectly opposite the Boston Stock Exchange and features a glass canopy to mark the entrance. The secondary entrance is on Hawley Street, which is a fire lane bypass, which is also the most frequently used entrance.

21

The developer had proposed a transparent glass building but ran into opposition from the historic Old South Meeting House. It had raised some is-sues with historic preservation, how it will be out of context of the historic area. The neighboring com-munity was also concern of the shadow cast by the enormous height of the building.

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 22: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

RAYMOND DEPARTMENT STORESDemolition happened in 1967.

40 FRANKLIN STREETApproved in 1980.After Woolworth Building stores all closed, the city has been looking for another use for the site and was seek-ing private developers to redevelop the site. During 1980s, there were number of projects proposed, one of the devel-oper has wanted to develop a granite cladding office tower. However, because of the economic downturn, the project did not move forward.

1967 1970 1973 1980 1987

WOOLWORTH BUILDINGCompleted in 1970.Closed in 1973.This new building was to be the largest Woolworth’s that the company had ever built at its time. It was a three story build-ing with a basement bustling with retail shops and a deli shop in the rear to cap-ture some of the spirit of Raymond De-partment Stores.

33 ARCH STREETby Kingston Investment Corp.Approved in 1987.A developer, Peter Kruelewitch, head of the New York based Kingston Group, owned the parcel, as well as the adjacent garage. He hired a New York architect, Thomas Phiffer to explore a 24 story spec-ulative office tower on the site. Phiffer, had produced a speculative glass tower design for Kruelewitch two years prior in 1987. The project did not go through also because of an economic downturn.

PROJECT HISTORY

22 CREATING A BUILDING

Page 23: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

33 ARCH STREETby Congress Group Ventures and Atlantic PropertiesApproved in 2001.Completed in 2004.The site was split into two properties. One managed by Eastern Development for Retail on Washington Street and the other by Congress Group Ventures who specialize in office tower in 33 Arch Street. Dean Stratouly, the president of Congress Group Ventures, hired Elkus Manfredi Ar-chitects because they had worked with them before and he wanted to find a local architecture firm. The general form of the project has remained fairly the same to stay within the BRA approved project. But the skin, structure, penthouse, and wind calculation has been re-engineered and redesigned to lower the construction cost and regain 2 extra stories for approval.

33 ARCH STREETby Kingston Investment Corp.Approved in 1999.A developer, Peter Kruelewitch, head of the New York based Kingston Group, revived the project again with Thomas Phiffer design. Due to financial difficulty because of the expensive skin that put the rental unmarketably high, the engi-neering is incorrect, and the wind load calculation is off. The major investors and Peter decided to sell off the build-ing and not continue with the process.

1999 2001 2004

23

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 24: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

SELECTING A PROJECT TEAMIn a project this size, it is interesting to see that there is only five people. They have worked together very well and brought the project together on-time and on budget.

OVERVIEW

When Elkus Manfredi took the project, they had to deal with a strict budget. The project manager, and principal, Sam Norod, saw there was only a budget for five people in the team. He was very selective in the process. He needed one Senior Project Archi-tect, one Senior Designer, and two Junior Designer. Tamara Roy has fulfilled the position for the Senior Designer. However a qualified Project Architect is missing, he needs someone with high expertise to bring this project to completion.

The person who was recognized to fit the job de-scription is Alan Mayer, but he no longer work for the firm. Therefore, Sam recontacted Alan Mayer to ask if he can be in the project for two weeks to help train the Senior Designer, Tamara Roy, who would like to seek help to become a Project Architect to oversee the project delivery process.

Alan Mayer wanted to help Tamara Roy and agreed to help her temporarily in the process. Two weeks into the process, all the questions were continuously directed to Alan Mayer and he realized that Tamara Roy was strictly a Senior Designer in the project and knew nothing about the conversation with Sam. Quickly, he realizes he was tricked to come back into the firm for a permanent position.

At the end, the five project team, with its unique skills, had cooperated very well together and brought the project together on-time and on-budget.

24

PROJECT MANAGER

Sam Norod, is a project manager and principal in the firm. His position is to control the budget, schedule, and manage the project team, and oversee the proj-ect progress. He has a loving and passionate person-ality, respected by all. He has the ability to bring a team together. He is also the only one responsible to do the Construction Administration toward the end of the project.

PROJECT ARCHITECT

The Project Architect, Alan Mayer, on the other hand, is bought on team to settle any coordination issues. He is widely recognized on the firm to be very clear and detail oriented person who can see a problem things to be done correctly from a mile away, and also move a project forward. He was able to work with many different consultants and carry the proj-ect to work as a whole. When he notices a problem, he is able to delegate the project to appropriate peo-ple and know how to push for a decision.

He mainly work with his project team and consul-tants and never have to attend any meetings with the clients or general contractor. Therefore, his posi-tion is more laid back so he can put most of his fo-cus and concentration on providing a set of accurate drawing.

PROJECT DESIGNER

The Senior Designer, Tamara Roy, is a delightful per-son to work with by all her team members. She is also very passionate. She is responsible to carry her vision to the clients and Boston Redevelopment Authority. Therefore, she is normally in charge of attending all the meetings.

This may not be the best project for Tamara Roy. There were many times, she would propose some-thing that can help enhance the design, but it was continuously shot down again, and again, and again. Anything that will incur more costs to the general contractor is absolutely a no proposal.

Therefore, she worked around the general contractor and tried to design something with what she have to move the project along.

JUNIOR DESIGNER

The two Junior Designer, Tim and Zena are incredible individuals who wanted to learn as much as possible. They sat with Alan as a one to one mentor on how to draw sections, elevators, etc. Therefore, most of the drawings are carefully monitored and looked at as if it is drawn by a Senior Designer. Toward the end, both Tim and Zena benefited from the individual at-tention and gain tremendous skills and insight that has helped them through later projects.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 25: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

25

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

To get a work done successfully does not necessarily mean you need more man power, sometimes it is as simple as get¬ting the correct skills and personality in a team. Essential characteristics include strong leadership and direction. By be-ing clear and precise in communication of with needs and expectations allows all parties to know what is needed and when. An ability to be flexible is necessary, coupled with an openness to innovation. Not all skills need be possessed by one person, but a quality team knows how to resource its members to bring all these to the table. Often the sign of a good leader is an ability to uncover skills in their team, rather than possessing all themselves.

Within this project team, the direct collaboration are shown in dash lines. As mentioned, all the consultants, engi-neers, and architects are direct hired by the developer.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 26: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

PLANNING PROCESSThe general form of the building footprint has kept similar to Thomas Phiffer design so the approval would be easier. But the architect has to completely redesign the entire building because the previous design has not resolved many issues such as the fire lane, connecting to the neighboring context, the 8’-0” grade change, and the connection to the existing parking structure. Elkus Manfredi’s team has worked closely to the problem with the consultants and resolved the issues.

26

ARCHITECT - GENERAL CONTRACTORLobbyMost of the decision was made by the general contractor, as he is very cost cautious of the entire project and was well trusted by the developer. The architect often times run into many issues with the general contractor when it involves additional costs to the design.

The lobby was where the architect had most of the control for the design of the project, as many parts of the buildings were sub divided to many consul-tants. Although, the architect has proposed many designs solutions, the general contractor will always disapprove. The only design that had approved was the slanted wall.

The lobby was not designed to the architect’s vi-sion and standard,, as a result, the developer has redo three major renovation on the lobby over the course of two years. If between the course of deci-sion making of the lobby design, the architect was able to convince the developer the importance of good lobby design, perhaps, the lobby would not have to be redone three times. On the other hand, it may be difficult for anyone to foresee the situation until the final product is visible. And how to bring clarity to the vision so the developer can understand is slightly unresolved in this typical situation.

ARCHITECT-LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT

Ground Floor PlanThe site is very restrictive. It was difficult in many directions to resolve the issues as stated above. The landscape consultant was hired by the devel-oper, as there was not a lot of landscape to con-sider, but they have to resolve issues such as fire safety, handicap accessibility, and fire lane to make it all work. much of the ground floor plan was tak-en away from the fire lane.

There was not many issues raised between the landscape consultant and the architect. Each was ensuring all the requirements were met with the best solution.

The developer was not overly concern with the ground floor and did not compliment on how most of the floor plate is taken away, as he fully un-derstand the site constraints.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 27: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

FL10-FL24: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

GROUND PLAN

27

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

ARCHITECT - MEP ENGINEERMechanical PlansThe engineer was also hired by the developer be-cause he has worked with them in previously proj-ects. Supposedly, in this developer centric delivery, it makes it difficult for the architect to work with the engineer because they are not working for the archi-tect’s best interests and do not need to favor all of the architect’s decision.

But in this unique situation, both the architect and engineer first interest was to get the work done right. In the beginning of the project, the project ar-chitect has discovered many mistakes done by the MEP Engineers. The person who did the mistakes had left the Engineer’s office. The project engineer was ashamed for all the mistakes. But the project ar-chitect did not blame the engineer, instead he went to the engineer’s office and fixed the problems with the engineer.

This was a good characteristics for both the architect and engineer who puts everything else aside and concentrate on getting the project done correctly. Fortunately, they have became very good friends in this process.

GETTING THE WORK DONE

In this project, the developer directly hired consultants he had worked with and trusted, rather than allowing the architect to sub-contract their own consultants. This “developer centric delivery” created the additional challenge of more relation-ship building for the architect as design-team manager. It is important to note that regardless who hires the consultants or engineers, the main focus should always be getting the project done to the best of the team’s ability.

In this situation, the architect and MEP engineer actually have become good friends from cooperating to solve project difficulties and have referred each other for future projects. This is one potential benefit of true collaboration and teamwork.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 28: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

RESOLVING DETAILSThe building strikes a balance with its surroundings and neighboring buildings through the use of the granite stone facade used to add to continuity of the urban streetscape. Yet, it is distinct from its neighbors by the use extensive use of metal and glass in its exterior.

28

ARCHITECT - GENERAL CONTRACTORCurtainwallThe exterior skin was among the most difficult part for the Senior Designer to acquire. Understanding there is a cost associated with any changes, the ar-chitect have proposed fins on the curtain wall, but was quickly shot down.

Another issues was the resolution of the curtainwall skin to the fire sprinkler system on the face of the skin because the building is on the lot line. The de-sign team took one month to redesign a system that can hide the sprinkler system and make it better. Without a moments thought during the presenta-tion, that was also shot down.

Exterior SkinAs requested by the BRA, the developer has asked the architect to incorporate granite stone facade to the first few floors to add continuity of the urban landscape. The design was done with careful detail-ing, some details were missed, but was requested to be fixed after construction, but it was never re-solved.

ARCHITECT-CURTAINWALL CONSULTANT

CurtainwallThe curtainwall consultant was selected by the de-veloper based upon pre-bidding price. Permasteelisa was among the lowest in cost for the curtainwall de-sign. So to start, the curtainwall consultant has a pre-set construction and design already set forth for the architect. The architect did not have full control of the aesthetic of the curtainwall. The Senior designer has worked closely with the curtainwall consultant on the selection of glass color, the number of panels, and some specific detailings.

Overall, the architect has given the curtainwall con-sultant their vision and try to match it with the cost parameters associated with it. All the detailings and drawings were also produced by the curtainwall con-sultant.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 29: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

SOUTH ELEVATION

29

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

The architect have a strict parameters to work with as the curtainwall was bided to construct to the most cost effective design. The Senior Designer of the team has coordinated with the curtainwall consultant on the concept they are try-ing to achieve. The curtainwall consultant has drawn most of the details involving the exterior. But at the end, some de-tails by the consultant were overlooked. When drawings were submitted to fix the issues during construction, most of mistakes were left untouched because that will increase construction costs. It is very important in this project to draw as much details as possible that is relevant to your idea, if one was to work with a client who is sensitive to costs.

One of the issue was where the columns falls when it touches the base. The archi-tect wanted the column to stop and rest on the base. But that was not fixed on site after many drawing submission.

BE CLEAR AND CONCISE

What does an architect do when a client is reluctant to approve a change order from the contractor for an item implied by the drawing’s “design intent”? Often at this point, the architect’s hands are tied. When dealing with a client and general contrac-tor that is cost cautious, it is important to prioritize and draw as much details as possible that is relevant to your idea, and organize it in such a way that it is hard to be missed. Often times, it is difficult to draw all the details because schedule, staffing or review methodology.

Successful architects will bring a clarity and organization to their drawn descrip-tion of the building. It is the primary com-munication tool between you and the general contractor. Accuracy that helps avoid conflicts during construction can make the building go up faster and for less cost.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 30: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

OVERLAP & CONNECTIONSOne of the most distinct character of the building is the enormous cantilever as well as the connection between the old and new parking garage.

30

ARCHITECT - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERCantileverThe structural engineer was hired by the developer to help solve the cantilever structure as well as the wind load associated with a high rise building. The structural engineer primary interest was cost and the stability of the structure. He has no concern for design. So the architect has to continuously empha-sized the importance of certain details in hope for the engineer to resolve. At the end, they both can to a resolution in which both parties are partially satis-fied.

ARCHITECT - PARKING CONSULTANTParking StructureA parking consultant was bought to the team to solve the parking issues by the developer. There was immediate problems seen by the architect for the solution the consultant has proposed for the con-nection between the old and new parking garage. Quickly, the project architect bought the attention to the consultant and made quick suggestions, which has resolved the issue.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 31: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

SOUTH SECTION

31

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

One of the most distinct character of the building is the enormous cantilever as well as the connection between the old and new parking garage.

Initially, the structural engineer has proposed a huge gusset plate that sticks out the build-ing, with all the load falling into one column. The architect felt the need to work with the engineer to redesign the structure to work with the existing design. Finally, they both come to a mutual agreement that has worked out all the small details.

Another issues that the architect has resolved is the connection of the old and new building. The developer has hired a Parking Plan Con-sultant to solve the parking issues. What he proposed would have resulted a 10’-0” ceil-ing height on the lobby area, which would not have worked. Therefore, the architect has brought the attention to the Parking Plan consultant the section and plan is not effec-tive. If it was not because of the clear insight and ability to review drawing effectively, the project may have been very disastrous.

CREATING A BUILDING

BEING INSIGHTFUL

Working with other consultants, there is always overlap of interests, with each par-ty trying to resolve their own problems. However, there are times when these overlaps produce conflicts in the design of the building, and need to be resolved.

Recognizing and pointing out the prob-lems is a skill that many need to learn. When reviewing a set of drawing, if one cannot see the root of the problem and learn to solve it, the results may be a build-ing that is sub par. This could result in loss of reputation, which is the foundation of continuing work.

Page 32: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

WINNING APPROVALSThere are two main firms who had worked on the project through this turbulent process. Principals of each firm had previously worked with renown design architects prior to starting their own firms. Each has their own philosophy and different views of how to practice architecture, which effects what, and how, they deliver.

THOMAS PHIFFER AND PARTNERS

Philosophy: The best architecture strives for design excellence. It’s not a quality that is easy to define, but we recognize it when we see it. It doesn’t reside only in form, style or materials. It is reflected in the deeper at-tributes of appropriateness, proportion, attention to detail and celebration of craft. It is expressed in neigh-borliness and a democracy of spirit. Buildings marked by design excellence are connected to their surround-ings and embody the culture of the places they inhabit. They are simply open and accessible. They are built, first and foremost, for the people who use them. Their de-sign is rooted not in fashion of form or theory, but in the very activity by which they are realized.

Thomas Phiffer, located in New York, was the second architect who had to redesign 33 Arch Street. In his design, he wanted to have a clear glass structure im-ported from Japan to be located on the first 5 stories. He was an influential character who has got many people excited about the glass tower, which is how he won the approval through the BRA.

As design is relatively important. There was a prob-lem. The realization of cost becomes an issue. In order to compensate for the expensive skin the ar-chitect is proposing, the developer would have to charge unmarketable high rent. In addition, there were unsolved issues such as the wind load, cantile ver structure support. and his proposal for a seam-less lobby could not be done because of the 8’-0” grade change that he has not accounted for.

32

The idea is still in its early stages, probably it may ex-plains why many issues are overlooked. But it is im-portant to get many big things resolved in its early stages to guarantee the success of the project. be-cause of the architect choices, the developer was un-able to find finances, and project was sold to another developer.

Phiffer is known as a design architect, bringing form to metaphor. He conceived of the building as an ab-stract pillar of light emanating from the city fabric. In-spired by the glowing fall light, he wanted the build-ing to have “as many moods as the sky”. The lower stories of the building were proposed to be clad in fish-scale curtain wall system, to be imported from Japan.

Phiffer’s strengths lay in selling a vision for the build-ing. When his transparent glass tower was approved, it was considered quite progressive for the Boston sky-line. The only other glass tower in the city was the John Hancock tower, which employed highly re-flective glass. Phiffer had proposed a similar building for another parcel to the BRA, for a project which did not happen. Their reception to his a-typical design was warm.

Phiffer’s design, according to the eventual Project Architect, had much poetry but little resolution. The junior designers on the project spoke about Phiffer’s drawing in reverent, hushed tones, but the Project Architect saw many areas of the preliminary design that needed significant addressing.

While Phiffer did not complete the design, his mark remains on the building. His approved building enve-lope and skin materiality remain. Part of this was ex-pediency on the part of the new owner, but aspects of his intention still remain, for better or worse.

Phiffer conceived of the tower as a pillar of light, shin-ing through a transparent building. Created difficul-ties to resolve this expression with the lower 8 floors sat nearly on lot-lines overlooking narrow streets.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 33: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

ELKUS MANFREDI ARCHITECTS

Philosophy: The work on which we have built our repu-tation is first and foremost about collaboration. Our clients are our partners, their missions our own. Since the founding of Elkus Manfredi Architects in 1988, we have been privileged to form long-term relationships with many of the nation’s most distinguished develop-ers, corporations, and institutions, who have given us the opportunity to shape some of the most important planning and design projects undertaken across the country. As important as smart management and a savvy, experienced design team, the confidence of our clients at the center of the process has always been an essential ingredient of our firm’s success.

When Elkus Manfredi took the project, they did not looked at Phiffer design. They only took the gen-eral form and started from scratch. Probably three months into the project, after the developer contin-uously praised Phiffer design, the project architect took a look at the drawings and begin to realize the many issues that the architect did not recognized.

The project has very few staff. There were only one Project Architect, one Senior Designer, one Project Manager, and two Junior Designer. This has worked out very well. Each of them are very specialized for their specific title. The Project Architect worked closely with everyone and helped answer any ques-tions. The Project Manager dealt mainly with the cli-ent. The Senior Designer worked strictly on the de-sign and transfer her idea to the Project Architect.

33

The Senior Designer one main obstacle is dealing with the general contractor. In this type of market, the general contractor is very stringent in cost. He does not believe in design. His exact phrase to the architect was, “if I could design a box, I would”.

It was a difficult position for the architect to be in, because the general contractor is also an investor and he has a long relationship with the developer. Most of what he says stands true. For a person who does not believe in design, how can architect react to it?

The Senior Designer, Tamara Roy, tried her best. There was many times, she would propose some-thing that can help enhance the design, but it was continuously shot down again, and again, and again. Anything that will incur more costs to the general contractor is absolutely a no proposal.

Therefore, she worked around the general contrac-tor and tried to design something with what she have to move the project along.

The Project Architect, Alan Mayer, on the other hand, is bought on team to settle any coordination issues. He is widely recognized on the firm to be very clear and detail oriented person who can see a problem things to be done correctly.

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

POWER OF PERSUASION

Both architects had responsibility for bringing different parties into a unified position. The groups needing convincing, and the methods used were different for each architect.

Zoning ApprovalThomas Phiffer successfully presented a tower with very different skin than had been typically approved in Boston. A combination of poetic speech, crisp renderings and a similar previously ap-proved design were the tools of his trade. Explaining his design intention here had the responsibility of selling the project to the BRA.

Team ManagementElkus Manfredi, while re-presenting a re-worked building to the BRA, had their main persuasive role as design manager. The tactics used to bring a unfamiliar, pre-selected team of engineers and con-sultants to consensus were significantly different than Phiffer’s. Through devel-oping relationships with the new consul-tants, many project issues were bridged. When this method came to a stand-still, at times the project architect would take advantage of David Manfredi’s good rela-tionship with the developer, to get issues passed through consultants.

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 34: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

Project Name

Type of Project Market Sector

Owner

Client / Developers

Budget / Cost of Project

Compensation Type

Size of Project

Delivery Method

Construction Start DateExpected Completion Date

Official Completion Date

33 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts

Speculative office towards financial service clients.

Arch Street Tower, LLC

Dean Stratouly of Congress Group Ventures, Charles Burd of Lend Lease Real Estate Investments, Frank Carroll of the National Electrical Benefit FundThomas Maher of Eastern Development

$300 million project costs

20% for Schematic Design20% for Design Development60% for Construction Document

33 Story Class A office space755,000 SF building603,000sf office with floor prints 300,000sf parking garage and common area

Design - Bid- Build

June 5, 2001April 2004May 2004

PROJECT RESULTThe success of the project relied on many key decision makers. The project has not leased quickly, resulting in questionable financial success. Some of this is due to some poor decisions, while other factors were outside the project team’s control. While the architect was not able to real-ize many aspects of their design vision, there were other measures of success.

34

PROJECT OVERVIEW

CREATING A BUILDING

COST OF PROJECT

The cost of the project was on budget. Having the general contractor be on the team early on the pro-cess and the investor being the value engineerer, the costs of the project was closely monitored. Because of the strict budget, The principal of Elkus Manfredi Architects has carefully selected the right person on the team, rather than hiring another architect to ful-fuill the position, he recontacted former employer who is recognized for his ability to fulfill the role.

This delivery process has left very little room for in-novation on the design process, but the result of the building is still astonishing.

COMPLETION DATE

With only five people on the project team, the build-ing was finished only two weeks behind. The devel-oper is happy with the result.

DELIVERY PROCESS

All problems were resolved and coordinated in a timely manner.

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

There were few details that were not fixed, but the overall construction went very smooth without a lot of conflicts.

Page 35: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

35

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

CREATING A BUILDING

Page 36: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision
Page 37: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

TENACITYRELATIONSHIP STRENGTH

VOICES IN YOUR HEADBECOMING ESSENTIAL

37ANALYSIS

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

ANALYSIS: Clarity & VisionThe Architect has the dual roles of Designer-In-Chief and Project Team leader. Part of their responsibilities are to arrange and de-tail the building in a way that serves the client, users and the public. The other part is bringing everyone involved in the process to produce a unified product.

This Analysis will address methods of achieving clarity of intent and team-leading vision in both Project Team Management and Designer-in-Chief duties. During the design of 33 Arch Street, many of these came forth, and not always from the architect’s of-fice.

Tenacity: You can work yourself out of almost any mistake. Relationship Strength: It’s who you knowInclusion: the voices in your head Essentialness: Can’t live with ‘em, Can’t live without ‘em.

Page 38: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

38 ANALYSIS

Winner: Dean Stratouly“I’m back from the dead!”Position: president, Congress Group

Story:“Dean Stratouly has suffered from many bad decision, he had started the project at a bad timing, picked a difficult location, and allowed the design process to linger. He continuously offered more time to finish the drawing rather then paying for more staff to finish the project faster. Regardless of his bad decision, what made him come back from the dead was his tenacity. He stood by and believed there will be a turn around. There were few offers to buy out the entire project, but he rejected, instead, he gathered all the investors and asked everyone to put $10 million to pay for the downturn. Currently, the building is 80 percent occupied. He could still make a good profit by selling after fully leasing. Tenacity can overcome multiple mistakes”

TENACITY You can work yourself out of almost any mistake.

Even when poor decisions are made, often the tenac-ity of the decision maker has the potential to make the situation navigable. Thirty-Three Arch Street missed the market, but through the developer’s te-nacity, it has stayed afloat, and still has the ability to turn a profit, after full lease-up.

Commercial office space is a commodity. Developers make choices based existing Volume, Location and Market Rates. The developer answers to financial market (i.e., cost of debt) and commodity market (supply/demand of product).

Once market rates of leases reach a certain rate, all the developers which were getting ready, imme-diately start pushing their projects, to try to get a building up to take advantage of the profitable rate. Usually one building is a the (financial) winner- the first one. The other may do okay, but often the last one up is the (financial) loser.

Late 1990s, four Boston buildings attempted to take advantage of the rising rates. One Lincoln Center was the clear winner. State Street bank signed a lease for the entire building, netting the developer $300 million in profit. 33 Arch was the clear loser. It was the last building online and still has not com-pletely leased out.

33 Arch recently required $10 million in additional equity from its developer & investors to cover lease-up costs. Currently a financial loser, the building could still net a reasonable profit if it were to be sold after fully leasing up.

WHAT ARCHITECT CAN LEARN

Even a ‘failed’ project can have benefit. For an architect, this might mean being over-budget, or receiving bad press. Tenacity can be the only thing keep repeat clients when mistakes threaten to compromise a project. Taking pride in your work, prob-lems and all, can be a key to success.

Page 39: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

39ANALYSIS

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

Winner: Vinny Chiozzi“My business card should read: I build big ugly boxes.”Position: Director of Construction, Congress Group

Story:“Tamara Roy, the Project Designer, had attempted to add a little more to the aesthetic of the building. There was a time she spent one month to solve a detail to enhance the project. The project was overruled by Vinny Chiozzi. The only way to over-ride Vinny was for a person with a better relationship with Dean (Ie, Elkus going direct) or else the Project Designer (Tamara) would always lose.”

This was a ‘battle’ of relationship strength, not idea strength.

“Another case is in design of the lobby. Tamara Roy wanted to push for a design, but had some cost as-sociated, therefore it was rejected. but when tenants start to fill up the floors, it was redesigned again and again. It would have been better and save the client more money if it was done architect’s way the first time. But there relationship with the developer does not surpass Vinny.”

RELATIONSHIP STRENGTHIt is who you know.

While often the design-team leader, in this scenar-io, the architect finds themselves as a design-team peer, responsible for organizing and coordinating all other disciplines. By forging strong professional, and social, relationships with these parties, the architect was able to overcome a great deal of the ambiguity dealt to them.

The strongest relationship, rather than the strongest idea, often produces the winning option. This was demonstrated through direct-hired construction disciplines. It was very frustrating for the architects, especially the design architect, as countless aspects of the design were axed, for value engineering. These recommendations came from the develop-ers internal head of construction, Bovis & from sub-contractors directly. While some of these cuts may have been inevitable, strong relationships often out weighed even stronger ideas.

WHAT ARCHITECT CAN LEARN

When an architect is dealt a tough hand, such as receiving an unfamiliar set of con-sultants, they must invest in developing trust between parties. Early effort in rela-tionship building will allow the architect to function in the unifying role they often are expected to play.

Page 40: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

40 ANALYSIS

Winner: Tamara Roy“Now... what does this need?”Position: Project Designer, Elkus Manfredi

Story:“As the lead designer, Tamara was responsible for transforming the abstract ‘pillar of light’ inherited from Thomas Phiffer, into a workable, functioning building. A significant portion of this was developing the building skin at the parking garage. This area was conceptualized by Phiffer as clad in fish-scale glass, but when viewed in context, that solution did not respond to the interior program nor the needs of its neigh-bors. The final solution provided a metal-panel system that vented the parking garage, and responded to the heavy rustication of the surrounding building. This consideration went further to give the building a relative texture than the BRA’s requirements for stone trim to be added to the Arch Street facade.“

VOICES IN YOUR HEADInclusion.

Significant influence can come from outside the core decision makers. From locals without financial stake, to financiers without local ties. Nebulous mar-ket forces to brokers trying to make a deal. Former leaders that left in disgrace or glory.

Understanding the role these “secondary parties” plays can be at least enlightening and at most essen-tial. Often while presenting the building and making design considerations, the influence of these parties needs to be considered. While they may not have a voice at the drafting table, their weight will effect the project at a point.

As a generalist, the architect’s broad range of knowl-edge and consideration can be one of their great-est strengths. A good architect may be the person to bring these voices to the table, in absentia. Doing so will serve the client, and the teams, interests, and possibly determine the success of the project.

WHAT ARCHITECT CAN LEARN

When architects take the lead in consider-ing the needs existing outside the build-ing, integrated solutions can occur. While developer may negotiate with neighbors and the BRA may require materiality, an architect that knows the value they provide can make the building stronger, while making key decision maker’s jobs easier.

Page 41: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

41ANALYSIS

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

Winner: Alan Mayer“So you want me to run this?”Position: Unsuspecting Project Architect, Elkus Manfredi

Story:“Alan Mayer used to work for Elkus and had made a name for himself in the office. He was recognized as an individual who knows how to deliver and the ability to push a project forward. However, he took a leave of absence. Later, he got a call back to “help” the project designer, Tamara Roy, to manage the CD set. Eventually, he found out he got ‘tricked’ into being project architect. Just as Mayer had skills essential to Elkus, he became the point person on the project. He had more ‘consultants’ he was coordinating with than staff in the office.”

Mayer, working with two unexperienced intern architects, spent much of his time educating his staff on fundamentals of commercial design. As the key coordinator of a large group of consultants, every issue and conflict passed by his desk. As Mayer developed relationships with his project team, he was able to leverage this to ensure a smooth project delivery.

BECOMING ESSENTIALCannot live with them. Cannot live without them.

Final decisions for many aspects of the building pro-cess lay far outside the architects office. While execu-tive power is often found with the developer, the city or potential tenants, the architect has the ability to enhance communication and even influence out-come.

Developer- relies heavily on architect communicate project intent and goals to city. The architect, because of their broad base of training, is often best suited to incorporate program, city initiatives, finances, design and neighbor concern.

Broker- A financially successful building seeks to lease space prior to building construction, known as pre-leasing. Brokers rely heavily on the visuals the architect has produced to describe the building, es-pecially renderings and floor layouts.

General Contractor- While construction documents are thought of as legal technical documents, they are foremost a communication tool. To the degree the building is accurately described and system con-flicts are resolved, the building construction can be faster and less expensive.

WHAT ARCHITECT CAN LEARN

The needs architects fill can be leveraged to create opportunities to build relation-ships that can ensure project success. By finding niches that need to be filled, a platform can be gained, for input into ar-eas of interest. The more essential services that can be provided, the more value, and input, an architect can provide.

Page 42: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

42 REFERENCES

MEP EngineersCosentini AssociatesOne BroadwayCambridge, MA 02142617.494.9090Contact: Judy DiMichele Ed Dolan

Curtainwall ConsultantPermasteelisa North America Corp.123 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095-0767860.298.2000

Code ConsultantHarold Cutler165 Landham RoadSudbury, MA 01776617.443.7088

Elevator ConsultantLarch Batos and Associates175 Derby Street, Suite 38Hingham, MA 02043781.749.8787

Wind Engineer ConsultantsCermek Peterica Peterson1415 Blue Spruce DriveFort Collins, CO, 80624970.221.3371

PREVIOUS DESIGN

Client / OwnerKingston Investment Corp45 Broadway, New York, NY212.514.5198Contact: Peter Krulewitch

ArchitectThomas Phiffer and Partners180 Varick Street, Floor 11New York, NY 10014212.337.0334Contact: Thomas Phiffer

CURRENT DESIGN

Client / OwnerArch Street Tower, LLC33 Arch StreetBoston, MA 02110617.897.7200Contact: Gordon Ciagett

ArchitectElkus Manfredi Architects, Ltd530 Atlantic AvenueBoston, MA 02210617.426.1300Contact: John Lavoie Alan Mayer

General ContractorBovis Lend Lease LMB200 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10166212.592.6700Contact: Vinnie Chiozzi

Landscape ArchitectGeller Devellis77 N. Washington StreetBoston, MA 02134617.523.8103

Structural EngineersWeildingier Associates, Inc.One Broadway 11th floorCambridge, MA 02142617.374.0000Contact: Steve Highfill

OTHER

Regulatory AgenciesBoston Redevelopment Authority43 Hawkins StBoston, MA 02114617.918.5200Contact: John O’Brien Heather Campisano David Carlson

Historic PreservationOld South Meeting House 310 Washington StreetBoston, MA 02108617.482.6439

Page 43: Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

43REFERENCES

CA

SE S

TUD

Y |

33

AR

CH

STR

EET

META-ANALYSIS

FIELD VERIFIED

One of the most significant conclusions found in this study is the impact strong relationships have on decision making. While in the academic world idea strength may trump relationship strength at times, the reverse is generally true in the profes-sional world. In the research process, we were the direct beneficiaries of strong relationships. One of our team-members’ professor leased the 31st floor of 33 Arch, which quickly gained us access past lob-by-security. Our case-study advisor had previously worked with the building’s project architect, who generously shared stores from practice. During the process, we found that another team-member worked with 33 Arch’s project designer.

When looked at in context of other case study’s investigations, these relationships gained us quick access to pertinent proj-ect information, allowing us to quickly scope the project and propose well-in-formed analytical measures.

ACADEMIC PROPOSAL

If relationship strength is a key to imple-menting ideas, the academic curriculum should adapt to reflect this. Just as learn-ing to draw makes good ideas legible, and good present verbally makes ideas expressible, good relationship building skills makes ideas possible. Just as verbal presentations of drawn ideas are funda-mental to any architectural curriculum, re-lationship building skills should be as well. This could begin simply with networking assignments, where students are required to meet, and interview, engineering stu-dents for critiques on their projects. A sig-nificant portion of the assignment would be to creatively learn how to successfully build diverse peer relationships.

INTERVIEWS

John O’BrienBoston Redevelopment AuthorityProject Manager

David CarlsonBoston Redevelopment AuthorityArchitect

Alan MayerElkus Manfredi ArchitectsProject Architect

Mark BaranskiOverland CapitalVice President