Axiom #1 Maximize it; then Double it.
There was always pressure for projects to generate income, but there is a palpable difference brewing. Future project success will be defined by achieving higher density than thumbnail research suggests is possible. Less parking, more area, higher density, more stories, mixed uses... The struggle will be found in pushing the bounds of construction type maximums and persuading municipalities to grant quantitative relief as a method of attracting new development. No doubt this will cause a longer approval cycle. It will also require more experienced designers that can generate ideas that help nudge a project through a difficult gauntlet. Irregular parcels, obsolescence, and zoning hurdles will be the qualities investors swallow to create the necessary returns.
|
|
Axiom #2 Time to eat your GREEN-beans. (but don't lick your plate clean yet)
I will refer to "Green" as "Emerging Cost Saving Technology" to make AXIOM #2 non-political. (I do not want to get into any e-debates). Land cost is down, construction costs are manageable, interest rates are low. The next logical place to gain a competitive edge is by reducing operational overhead. During good times, adding Green ideas to buildings was more of a marketing stunt than an economic necessity. Cost was not always the driving factor when considering geothermal, solar panels, living roofs and LED...It is now. To get an edge, investors are investigating the real economic benefits of "Emerging Cost Saving Technologies". If the research concludes that employing some of these new ideas saves money in the mid and long term, designers will be asked to trade some superfluous detail and ornamentation for expensive up front technology costs. A primary goal of tomorrow's investor is the ability to make it through another recession or energy cost spike by keeping maintenance and operating cost low. Secondarily, he is looking for buildings that will have structural, systematic and aesthetic relevance 30 years in the future so his predecessors aren't the managers of a "tear-down" empire. Call it Green if you want, but make sure you are referring to the color of money too.
It is important to mention that some municipalities grant increases to property limitations when investors deploy Green technology. So Axiom #2 is often a close partner with Axiom #1
|
| Axiom #3 Universal Accessibility. This train has been barreling into the station for 20 years. After the last purging of our industry, it is here to stay. The old-schoolers battling to hold onto properties without currently compliant toilet facilities or handicap parking spaces have joined the ranks of those who need these amenities the most. Simultaneously, that same generation of planners and code officials has been replaced by fresh young faces willing to work for cities that cannot offer lifetime 80% salary pensions or gold plated prescription cards. Embittered, these fresh young faces have no problem mandating total compliance in old and new buildings. Don't even think about reaching for your building improvement tool box without quelling the regulators' demands for enough grab bars and handrails to conduct Olympic gymnastics training. The new reality is simple; make it really easy for people with mobility limitations, mom's with strollers, the delivery guy and everyone else to get in, move around and find their way. There is a surplus of commercial space in many places and aside from location, accessibility (with a small "a") will be the largest consideration for tenants. Buildings and sites will be easier to understand, more intuitively arranged, and obstacles will be diminished. Signage, lighting, glare, automated doors, and even acous tics will be major design factors that ensure investment real estate is attractive to as many tenants and users as possible. This Axiom seems nuanced, but examine your own choices for pharmacies, lunch spots, hardware stores...If it is easy, comfortable and bright, you are more likely to choose it. Investors will capitalize on this factor more and more in the near future. |
| Axiom #4 Sleek is Chic. Architectural Design trends change slower than other fashion trends; but they do change. (Major signature projects like the World Trade Towers set and follow trends and are fodder for great debates in the halls of Architectural Academia, but the basis of my commentary is in regards to basic day-to-day commercial and residential building design trends). This architecture is moving towards another era of modernism, like it did in the 1930's with Deco and again in the 1960's. Progressives would argue we have been back to modern for a while, citing Ikea and the new McDonald's prototypes. Traditionalists would claim that the classics will never die and churn out endless reams of 16th century French cottage designs complete with 400 years of faux wear and tear and the public eats it up. Both are correct, but in my attempt to make a projection about the near future I can tell that the influencing demographic is more tolerant of cleaner and more modern buildings than the previous generation. The reason this is significant is that the natural gravity of designers and builders is towards simplicity driven by the readily available methods and materials; ie. modern. When a fashion trend aligns with technological honesty, there could be a very explosive shift away from the death spiral of "Post Modern Ecclectic Euro Revival" that common houses, apartments and commercial buildings have been entrapped for 30 years. The smart money is on this trend arriving, because when designed well (regarding proportion, context and materials) it can be very cheap to build. Remember Axiom #2 regards the desire of investors to have relevant buildings 30 years in the future and to forego ornament. So take heed before researching design details for your next strip mall by attending the Renaissance Festival. |
Axiom #5 LEED goes on Life Support
Disaster:
Two pints "behavior modification (USSR style)"
one jigger "big brother" three cups "get rich quick scheme"
one dash of stale "old fashioned common sense"
four teaspoons "randomly reduced quantitative limits"
three cups "desperate architects a reason to exist"
NOTE: The ingredient at the bottom of the list is optional since most of them have left architecture to sell coffee or design video games. They were the foot soldiers.
My final prediction is that the USGBC's golden goose, the LEED system, will be cooked. There are not enough beneficiaries to successfully processing the LEED paperwork. (Remember; placing the "LEED" behind your name on your business card is proof that you passed a 500 dollar test to know how to process the LEED paperwork; not that you have any knowledge or wisdom whatsoever regarding the science of energy use, recycling, transportation, etc) There is no honest distinction between LEED and non-LEED buildings in terms of which are "better" than the others. One must assume that all non-LEED buildings are hellish bastions of consumption, obesity and greed for LEED certification to have meaning beyond symbolism. Good buildings, energy conservation and good life habits are all reasonable to demand as a society, but the attempt to quantify and certify them has proven to be expensive, inflexible and divisive (a fact that only the federal government seems to not mind). This inflexibility leads to corruption and the corruption in the system diminishes the honest enthusiasm that made LEED come this far.
Consider this; if the normal codes are edited to align with today's LEED criteria, would the USGBC simply increase requirements? Too much redundancy, too many cooks in the kitchen, too much money. The logic just is not there, so I predict this ship has sailed. Emerging technology and energy efficiency will always be categories for architectural and construction enthusiasm, with or without the USGBC and LEED. |
Sincerely,
Peter Stuhlreyer
Designhaus Architecture |
|
|
|
Join Our List
|  |
|
|
