The typical way to build buildings is through a design-bid-build approach. The way this works is that you first design stuff and create drawings. You then ask people to price the stuff that you have drawn. And then you proceed to build what is on the drawings and what has been priced.
There are a number of possible risks with this approach. For one, the design/drawing phase is sometimes/often done in isolation without a lot of feedback from the contractor and/or subcontractors. So you might be designing and drawing things that aren't all that feasible or constructible. Pre-construction involvement helps address this.
Another risk is that you're buying what is on the drawings. So if the drawings suck or aren't properly coordinated, then you are likely opening yourself up to a barrage of change orders and lots of additional costs.
In theory, it all sounds fine. Here are my drawings and specifications. Give me a price. And then let's build. But as many or most of you will know, it's generally never that simple or easy. Though it will, of course, depend on the type and complexity of the project.
Another consideration is the kind of contract you enter with your constructor. Is it a cost-plus contract, where the constructor simply charges a percentage on top of whatever the costs end up being, or is it some kind of lump sum or guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract?
While I was in architecture school I decided to take a class on construction delivery methods. The instructor was, in my mind, your quintessential construction person. He was built like a brick shithouse and he never minced words. He also had a voice that sounded like a subwoofer.
The typical way to build buildings is through a design-bid-build approach. The way this works is that you first design stuff and create drawings. You then ask people to price the stuff that you have drawn. And then you proceed to build what is on the drawings and what has been priced.
There are a number of possible risks with this approach. For one, the design/drawing phase is sometimes/often done in isolation without a lot of feedback from the contractor and/or subcontractors. So you might be designing and drawing things that aren't all that feasible or constructible. Pre-construction involvement helps address this.
Another risk is that you're buying what is on the drawings. So if the drawings suck or aren't properly coordinated, then you are likely opening yourself up to a barrage of change orders and lots of additional costs.
In theory, it all sounds fine. Here are my drawings and specifications. Give me a price. And then let's build. But as many or most of you will know, it's generally never that simple or easy. Though it will, of course, depend on the type and complexity of the project.
Another consideration is the kind of contract you enter with your constructor. Is it a cost-plus contract, where the constructor simply charges a percentage on top of whatever the costs end up being, or is it some kind of lump sum or guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract?
While I was in architecture school I decided to take a class on construction delivery methods. The instructor was, in my mind, your quintessential construction person. He was built like a brick shithouse and he never minced words. He also had a voice that sounded like a subwoofer.
I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I do remember him hammering home two points. One, GMP actually stands for guaranteed minimum price. This is forever imprinted in my mind. You're never going to pay less and you're almost certainly not going to pay the "maximum" number. You will end up getting change ordered and paying more.
Two, lump sum and at-risk contracts create a very different relationship between owner/developer and constructor. In his words, it is adversarial.
Because if I'm a constructor and I've promised a specific number, I'm likely going to do a few things. I am going to inflate the numbers to make sure my profit margin is protected throughout the project. And if my profit margin gets squeezed, which it likely will, I'm going to look for other ways to make money.
Personally, I side towards cost-plus and construction management arrangements. I don't want an adversarial relationship. I want a partnership where there's as much alignment as possible around a common set of project goals. Let's ride or die together.
Similarly, when it comes to the actual procurement and delivery methods, I find that we are often using more integrated approaches as opposed to cut and dry design-bid-build approaches. You want the competitive pricing that comes with bidding, but you also want collaboration. It's about striking that right balance.
The construction process is a messy one. These are just some of my thoughts this morning. If any of you have any insights, I would, of course, welcome them in the comment section below.
Building things, as we all know, is a risky endeavor. I think of myself as an optimist, but the reality is that there are countless things that can go wrong. There's approvals risk, political risk, market risk, construction risk, design risk, and many other kinds of risk, some/many of which will be entirely unforeseen. If you asked me two years ago, I wouldn't have listed pandemic risk as being all that high up on the list.
So one way to think about the process of building/developing is that it is an exercise in risk mitigation. This makes it sound a lot less sexy than "city building." Given this, there can be a natural and understandable tendency to want to repeat what worked the last time around. Why make a change and introduce more risk into the system if you don't have to, right? This is arguably one of the reasons why it is often said that the real state industry isn't all that innovative. Too busy managing risk.
To give a specific example, let’s say you’re really focused on managing design risk. In this case, you might make the decision to always work with the same architect. This way you can establish a set of typical approaches and a standard spec. You know how to work together and you know what you're getting when it comes to working drawings. Rinse and repeat as best you can.
There is also something to be said about a kind of product-driven or branded approach to development. In this case you want some consistency to help build a specific brand and experience. And just because you’re using the same firm, doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t innovate and be design forward. This is what great architects do. Think Foster + Partners and Apple. Their stores are powerful brand symbols but also wonderful and highly site specific.
An alternative approach might be to continually use different (design) architects. And maybe partnering with an array of celebrated firms is part of your brand story. You introduce a certain degree of design risk because you’re now trying out and building new relationships, but you could perhaps argue that you’re mitigating other risks. Does using a brand name architect help to reduce market risk, for example? In some markets, it’s almost essential.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong approach here. Use the same firm, or don’t. Use international starchitects, or don’t. The point is simply that development is fraught with risks that need to be managed. Design is one of many. How you choose to do that depends on what you’re trying to do and what you’re after.
I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I do remember him hammering home two points. One, GMP actually stands for guaranteed minimum price. This is forever imprinted in my mind. You're never going to pay less and you're almost certainly not going to pay the "maximum" number. You will end up getting change ordered and paying more.
Two, lump sum and at-risk contracts create a very different relationship between owner/developer and constructor. In his words, it is adversarial.
Because if I'm a constructor and I've promised a specific number, I'm likely going to do a few things. I am going to inflate the numbers to make sure my profit margin is protected throughout the project. And if my profit margin gets squeezed, which it likely will, I'm going to look for other ways to make money.
Personally, I side towards cost-plus and construction management arrangements. I don't want an adversarial relationship. I want a partnership where there's as much alignment as possible around a common set of project goals. Let's ride or die together.
Similarly, when it comes to the actual procurement and delivery methods, I find that we are often using more integrated approaches as opposed to cut and dry design-bid-build approaches. You want the competitive pricing that comes with bidding, but you also want collaboration. It's about striking that right balance.
The construction process is a messy one. These are just some of my thoughts this morning. If any of you have any insights, I would, of course, welcome them in the comment section below.
Building things, as we all know, is a risky endeavor. I think of myself as an optimist, but the reality is that there are countless things that can go wrong. There's approvals risk, political risk, market risk, construction risk, design risk, and many other kinds of risk, some/many of which will be entirely unforeseen. If you asked me two years ago, I wouldn't have listed pandemic risk as being all that high up on the list.
So one way to think about the process of building/developing is that it is an exercise in risk mitigation. This makes it sound a lot less sexy than "city building." Given this, there can be a natural and understandable tendency to want to repeat what worked the last time around. Why make a change and introduce more risk into the system if you don't have to, right? This is arguably one of the reasons why it is often said that the real state industry isn't all that innovative. Too busy managing risk.
To give a specific example, let’s say you’re really focused on managing design risk. In this case, you might make the decision to always work with the same architect. This way you can establish a set of typical approaches and a standard spec. You know how to work together and you know what you're getting when it comes to working drawings. Rinse and repeat as best you can.
There is also something to be said about a kind of product-driven or branded approach to development. In this case you want some consistency to help build a specific brand and experience. And just because you’re using the same firm, doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t innovate and be design forward. This is what great architects do. Think Foster + Partners and Apple. Their stores are powerful brand symbols but also wonderful and highly site specific.
An alternative approach might be to continually use different (design) architects. And maybe partnering with an array of celebrated firms is part of your brand story. You introduce a certain degree of design risk because you’re now trying out and building new relationships, but you could perhaps argue that you’re mitigating other risks. Does using a brand name architect help to reduce market risk, for example? In some markets, it’s almost essential.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong approach here. Use the same firm, or don’t. Use international starchitects, or don’t. The point is simply that development is fraught with risks that need to be managed. Design is one of many. How you choose to do that depends on what you’re trying to do and what you’re after.
This 12-meter 3D-printed stainless steel bridge was recently erected in Amsterdam. As is par for the course, some people hate it and some people love it. I’m in the latter camp.
Designed by Joris Laarman Lab in collaboration with MX3D and Arup (engineering), the bridge was printed off-site over a 6 month period and then craned into place.
3D printing stuff isn’t new; but it is interesting to see the technology being used for this real world application. Supposedly it’s the first 3D-printed stainless steel bridge. There are claims out there for other materials.
What is also interesting is that the entire bridge has been outfitted with sensors so that things like pedestrian usage, corrosion, and load changes can be measured going forward.
Construction is generally a messy process. And it’s kind of amazing how little it has changed over the years. I don’t think that there’s any question that this represents the future of building.
This 12-meter 3D-printed stainless steel bridge was recently erected in Amsterdam. As is par for the course, some people hate it and some people love it. I’m in the latter camp.
Designed by Joris Laarman Lab in collaboration with MX3D and Arup (engineering), the bridge was printed off-site over a 6 month period and then craned into place.
3D printing stuff isn’t new; but it is interesting to see the technology being used for this real world application. Supposedly it’s the first 3D-printed stainless steel bridge. There are claims out there for other materials.
What is also interesting is that the entire bridge has been outfitted with sensors so that things like pedestrian usage, corrosion, and load changes can be measured going forward.
Construction is generally a messy process. And it’s kind of amazing how little it has changed over the years. I don’t think that there’s any question that this represents the future of building.
