HOUSING2.0
A COLLABORATIVE PLATFORM FOR THE DESIGN OF MASS HOUSING THROUGH DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS, NEW MEDIA, AND ARCHITECT DESIGN FRAMEWORKS
David P. Pollard, AIA LEED AP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work would not have been possible without the loving support and patience of my wife Megan. She has truly sacrificed to allow me to enter into graduate studies, and I will be forever grateful. My parents, Anne and Overton Pollard, have also continuously supported my journeys through the world of architecture. They have pushed me towards a continuing education and supported my pursuit to question the status quo and learn from these questions. My thesis advisors, Thomas Kearns and Dirk Denison, have been paramount resources for this study. Thomas has opened my eyes towards an entirely different and expansive world of technology to which I was not formerly accustomed. As an established residential architect, Dirk has continuously supported this proposal, all while asking the right questions and offering insights into his experiences. A friend and colleague, Aaron Greven, has continued to push me towards exploring innovation in architecture. Aaron has inspired me to always question the process and look for a better way. Optima president and founder, David Hovey, has been an inspiration in showing me that architects can be leaders in housing if we just take some risk and deliver good design. Illinois Institute of Technology professors John Durbrow and T.J. McLeish have also lent their support and knowledge throughout this study. John has taught of a stronger leadership role for architects in the building and manufacturing community. T.J.’s thesis study has advocated for a stronger leadership role of architects engaging technology and web concepts. Their writings and comments have inspired this work. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
.......................................................................................
iii
LIST OF TABLES
...................................................................................................
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
.................................................................................................
vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
..............................................................................
1
1.1 Problem .................................................................................. 1.2 Hypothesis ............................................................................. 1.3 Solution ..................................................................................
5 10 11
2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
.............................
14
Current Situation ................................................................... Perspectives of the Current Situation ..................................... Evolution of Parallel Industries ............................................. Current Web-based House Customization Systems ..............
14 17 30 40
3. METHODS FOR RE-ENGAGING THE ARCHITECT IN MASS HOUSING ...............................................................................
48
3.1 Design Systems ...................................................................... 3.2 Networks ................................................................................ 3.3 Implementation ......................................................................
48 52 57
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
4. PRECEDENT WORKS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
......................................................................
59
Web-based Customization ..................................................... Web-based Design ................................................................. Open Source Systems ............................................................ Crowd Sourced Systems ........................................................
60 61 62 63
iv
5. SYSTEM DESIGN PROPOSAL 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
........................................................
64
Conceptual Description .......................................................... Proposed Model ..................................................................... Introductory Video Interface .................................................. Prototype Portal Interface ...................................................... Prototype House ..................................................................... Ruleset Structure and Operations .......................................... Prototype House Ruleset System ........................................... Prototype House Library System ...........................................
65 66 68 72 89 89 93 98
6. USER PARTICIPATORY PROCESS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
............................................... 103
Architect Process ................................................................... 104 Builder Process ...................................................................... 109 Customer Process .................................................................. 112 Designer Process .................................................................... 119
7. EVALUATION AND RESULTS
....................................................... 122
7.1 Questionnaires ....................................................................... 122 7.2 Defense Presentation .............................................................. 129 8. CONCLUSIONS
................................................................................. 131
8.1 Limitations ............................................................................. 131 8.2 Future Research ..................................................................... 132 8.3 Summary ................................................................................ 135 APPENDIX A. VIDEO PRESENTATION SCRIPT B. EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES C. RELEVANT BLOG POSTS BIBLIOGRAPHY
..................................................... 136 ................................................. 145
................................................................. 153
.................................................................................................... 158
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1 Comparison of Precedent Theses and Dissertations
....................................
2.2 Comparison of Web-Based Architect-Designed Home Systems
vi
..................
24 47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1 Example of ReCaptcha System
..................................................................
1.2 U.S. Census Bureau, Single-Family Housing Starts, 1959-2009 1.3 Homebuilder and Architectural Services Revenue, 2002
3
...............
6
..........................
7
2.1 Arts & Architecture Case Study House Announcement, 1945
..................
14
2.2 Case Study House #8, 1949
........................................................................
15
2.3 Levittown, New York, 1957
.......................................................................
16
2.4 Jose Duarte, Customizing Mass Housing: a Discursive Grammar for Siza’s Malagueria Houses ..........................................................................
20
2.5 T.J. McLeish, A Platform for Consumer Driven Participative Design of Open (Source) Buildings ............................................................................
21
2.6 Xiaoyi Ma, A Web-Based User-Oriented Tool for Universal Kitchen Design ...........................................................................................
22
2.7 Joseph Huang, Participatory Design for Prefab House
..............................
23
2.8 Vinyl Siding Textures That Attempt to Make an Innovative Product Appear Like Wood Clapboard Siding ........................................................
29
2.9 Ford Model T, 1908
31
...................................................................................
2.10 Model T Ford Conversions by Consumers
................................................
2.11 Example of Internet Customization of an Automobile from Mazda
.........
33
......
34
............................................................
35
....................................................................
36
2.12 Example of Web-Based Open Source Car Design from Local Motors 2.13 Hushpuppies Advertisement, 1958 2.14 Evolution of Shoe Typologies
32
2.15 Screenshot of NikeID.com Customize Interface
........................................
37
2.16 Comparison of the Evolution of Automobiles versus Housing in the 20th Century .......................................................................................
39
vii
2.17 Living Homes Web Interface
......................................................................
41
2.18 Flatpak System Description
........................................................................
42
2.19 Marmol Radziner Prefab System Choices
..................................................
43
..............................................
44
.......................................................
45
.............................................................
46
2.20 Free Green Open Source Homes Screenshot 2.21 PostGreen Homes System Description 2.22 MK Designs Prefab House System
3.1 Comparison of Building Systems to Design Systems
.................................
3.2 Network Diagram Based on Asymmetrical Information Flow
...................
3.3 Traditional Architect, Builder, Client Information Flow Diagram 3.4 Proposed Rhizomatic Network Diagram
53
.............
54
....................................................
55
3.5 Proposed Information Flow from Builder to Consumer
.............................
56
.......................................................
58
....................................................................
60
3.6 Participatory User Roles in the Project 4.1 Elfa Design Center Screenshot
52
4.2 Autodesk Homestyler Screenshot
...............................................................
61
4.3 OpenOffice.org Screenshot
.........................................................................
62
4.4 Threadless.com Screenshot
.........................................................................
63
5.1 Conceptual Image of the Prototype House
..................................................
64
5.2 Conceptual Diagram of the Project System
................................................
65
...............................................................
66
....................................................................
67
5.3 Housing2.0 Welcome Screenshot 5.4 Housing2.0 Interface Diagram
5.5 OpenArchitecture Welcome Screenshot
.....................................................
68
5.6 Screenshot of the “Why” Story
...................................................................
70
5.7 Screenshot of the “What” Story
..................................................................
71
viii
5.8 Screenshot of the “How” Story
...................................................................
5.9 OpenProject Portal Welcome Screenshot 5.10 Screenshot of the Learn Sequence
72
...................................................
73
..............................................................
74
5.11 Screenshot of the Architect Share Functions
..............................................
75
.................................................
76
5.13 Screenshot of the Customer Share Functions
..............................................
77
5.14 Screenshot of the Designer Share Functions
...............................................
78
5.12 Screenshot of the Builder Share Functions
5.15 Screenshot of Basic Open Projects Browse Function
.................................
79
.....................................
80
......................................................................
81
5.16 Screenshot of Advanced Search Browse Function 5.17 Screenshot of Project Viewer
5.18 Screenshot of Question and Suggestion Function
.......................................
82
................................................
83
.......................................................
84
5.19 Screenshot of Update Framework Function 5.20 Screenshot of Submit Pricing Function
5.21 Screenshot of Customer Customization with the Flex Operation
...............
85
5.22 Screenshot of Customer Customization with the Swap Operation
.............
86
5.23 Screenshot of Customer Customization with the Finish Operation
............
87
..............................
88
...................................................
89
5.24 Screenshot of Project Pricing from Customer Interface 5.25 Diagram of Design Framework Contents
5.26 Tree Diagram of Revit Native and Proposed Rulesets
...............................
90
5.27 Description of Container and Plane System Variables and Relationships ........................................................................................
91
5.28 Graphic Depiction of the Flex Operation
....................................................
92
5.29 Graphic Depiction of the Swap Operation
..................................................
92
ix
5.30 Diagram of Tier 1 Ruleset Variables
...........................................................
93
5.31 Diagram of Tier 1 Container and Plane Relationships
................................
94
5.32 Proposed Revit Plugin for Tier 1 Ruleset Definitions
.................................
95
............................................
96
5.33 Tier 2 Relationships to Tier 1 Customizations
5.34 Tier 3 Relationships to Tier 2 and Tier 1 Customizations
..........................
97
................................
98
.....................................
99
5.35 Hierarchy of Library Tiers and Ruleset Relationships 5.36 Tier 2 Wall Components Populating Tier 1 Planes
5.37 Tier 2 Space Components Populating Tier 1 Containers
............................ 100
5.38 Tier 2 Casework Components Populating Tier 1 Containers
..................... 100
5.39 Tier 3 Finish Components Populating Other Tier 3 Components 5.40 Elfa Design Center Closet Planner Application 5.41 Ikea Home Kitchen Planner Application
6.3 Architect Sketching the Ruleset
.......................................... 102
.................................................... 102
6.1 Screenshot of Learn Panel Welcome Screen 6.2 Architect Plan Sketch and Diagram
.............. 101
.............................................. 103
............................................................ 105
.................................................................. 105
6.4 Dialog Box to Edit or Add Custom Ruleset
................................................ 107
6.5 Screenshot of Custom Content Creation in Autodesk Revit ........................ 108 6.6 Screenshot of Timberline Cost Estimating Software
.................................. 111
6.7 Google Map Interface Showing Available Project Sites
............................. 114
6.8 Customer Interface to Browse and Select Tier 2 Components 6.9 Screenshot of Tier 3 Editor with Elfa Plug-In 6.10 Screenshot of Customer Pricing Review 6.11 Tier 2 Library Browser
................... 116
............................................. 117
..................................................... 118
................................................................................ 121
x
7.1 Web-Based Architect Survey 7.2 Web-Based Builder Survey
..................................................................... 125 ........................................................................ 126
7.3 Web-Based Customer Survey
.................................................................... 127
7.4 Web-Based Designer Survey
..................................................................... 128
7.5 Video Screenshot of Presentation
............................................................... 130
8.1 NURBS-Defined Geometry Using Rhino
xi
................................................... 133
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Although numerous architects have attempted to engage mass single family housing design over the last century, the housing industry has been continuously controlled by large homebuilders. This has stifled innovation, limited consumer choice, and commoditized housing. The commoditization of housing is defined as a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.1 This lack of qualitative differentiation has occurred in the housing market as large American homebuilders have built over 55 million homes over the past 60 years. (U.S. Census Bureau) The majority of these homes have been built in large, homogenous tract developments. Homebuyers have the opportunity to obtain architectural services from a professional, but this can be expensive. These services are typically reserved for the wealthy. Experience working for traditional architectural firms supports the notion that architectural services should be expensive, as the traditional design process can be tedious, complicated, and time-consuming. Architects have repeatedly attempted to address the costs of design fees by developing repetitive construction systems known as modular or prefab construction. Other architects have sold house plans through magazines or websites. However, architect-designed modular and prefab systems are still costly compared to typical homebuilder homes. 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commodity
2 Purchased house plans are typically little more than construction documents and limit the level of customization and architectural oversight during construction. Both concepts are expensive and difficult for a homebuyer to execute. More importantly, neither concept has been accepted by the American population anywhere near the scale of the turnkey home deliveries of the mass homebuilders. Meanwhile, the rampant success of new and social media concepts is evidence of the power of the internet. Facebook and Twitter have even been attributed to being the impetus behind the overthrowing of governments. (Beardsley) The disruptive technology of new media has affected major industries such as music, entertainment, advertising, and even consumer commerce. Perhaps one of the most innovative uses of the collective nature of the internet is Luis van Ahn’s development of ReCaptcha. Van Ahn originally created Captcha to assist Yahoo in an email anti-spam project. Captcha was a solution that helped the computer to determine if the user was a human or another computer. This was achieved by delivering a scrambled image of letters that a human brain decodes into a word. A brilliant solution, Captcha was incorporated industry wide for email accounts, e-commerce, and online advertisements. (Cort) Van Ahn recognized the large amount of time that was being collectively spent across the world on decoding these words, so he then proposed a new solution that could harness this time for the greater public good. As a result, he developed ReCaptcha. (Figure 1.1) This innovative concept uses the aggregate time spent decoding these words to translate the U.S. National Archives into digital media. The National Archives uses OCR technology to scan books and convert the text into a digitized format. However, the
3 OCR system was not able to decode every word, especially the words of very old and damaged books. ReCaptcha uses humans to help decode the words for the computer. Recaptcha’s website estimates that 200 million of these word problems are solved each day. If each puzzle takes 10 seconds to solve, together that is 150,000 hours of work each day that could be used for the greater good. Van Ahn’s solution uses this collective time, time that would otherwise be wasted, to translate books. (Cort)
Figure 1.1. Example of ReCaptcha System
It is difficult to imagine exactly how this collective concept can translate to architecture; there is no specific parallel in decoding books to building homes. However, the goal of this thesis is to establish the inherent power of social networks and new media, and then examine how this power can be utilized by the architectural community for the greater good. New media has not yet impacted the housing industry in any
4 significant way. This presents an opportunity for the architect to take a leadership role in the quality of the American housing landscape. Architect and Dean of Minnesota’s College of Architecture, Thomas Fisher, said, “Architectural practice has become one of the major design problems of our time. While addressing this problem will demand changes in how we practice, it must begin with a redefinition of design.” (92) Fisher continues by questioning architectural practice as it exists today, wondering why knowledgeable architects have accepted the status quo of high risk, long hours, and low pay relative to less educated fields. This notion is the basis of this thesis. For architects to impact single family mass housing, a new design process must be implemented, and our participatory role must be re-thought. By rethinking the design process and subsequently involving new media concepts, architects can lead a true housing revolution. Rethinking the design process involves utilizing computer technology and developing design frameworks. The new media concepts proposed include web-portals, open sourcing, crowd sourcing, and controlled customization. The result is a collaborative, transparent, and participatory home design process accessible to all Americans. This study is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 1 addresses the concept of engaging architects in mass housing through a revised design process and new media. The introduction offers an overview into the challenges architects have faced in mass housing and the general description of the proposed solution. In an effort to understand how parallel industries have evolved over the past century, Chapter 2 studies the current situation of customization and consumer choice in the automobile, shoe, and housing industries. The problems of the regression of the housing industry are then examined
5 through the perspectives of the consumer, homebuilder, manufacturer, and architect. Chapter 3 outlines the methods for re-engaging architects in mass-housing as it is proposed through an internet accessible web portal. A collaborative, transparent, and participatory design process is explained through the use of design systems, networks, and innovative implementation. Chapter 4 examines precedent and successful, new media concepts that are incorporated into this proposal. Chapter 5 presents the system design and prototype for engaging architects, builder, customers, and designers in a participatory housing design process. Chapter 6 describes in greater detail the process by which each user interacts and participates with the system. The system is then evaluated through surveys and a live presentation outlined in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 concludes the study by defining the achievements, limitations, and potential future research on the subject.
1.1
Problem The modern American housing landscape is composed mostly of homogenous,
median designed homes. In the past fifty years, over 55 million new single family homes have been built in the United States. (Figure 1.2) The majority of these have been designed and built by large homebuilding companies with little influence from the architectural community.
6
Figure 1.2. U.S. Census Bureau, Single-Family Housing Starts, 1959-2009
A comparison of architectural design revenues relative to the value of built singlefamily housing projects indicates that in 2002, architectural services accounted for less than one percent of the housing industry. (U.S. Census Bureau) Meanwhile that year’s largest American homebuilder, D.R. Horton, posted revenues of nearly three times that of the entire single-family architectural industry. (Figure 1.3) This data demonstrates the large size of the mass homebuilding industry, and the lack of significant architectural involvement within single-family housing.
7
Figure 1.3. Homebuilder and Architectural Services Revenue, 20022
Affordable housing choice has been limited, and therefore the consumer has had minimal influence in shaping the evolution of the American home. As a result, the American home has become commoditized with no real consumer standard of quality beyond finishes and square footage. This thesis studies the problem as it relates to evolution of parallel industries from median design. A median design is a specific product design or service meant to appeal to the majority of potential buyers. Historically as mass marketed products have been introduced to the market, they begin in a median design mentality. This thinking assures
2
U.S. Census Bureau and D.R. Horton’s Annual Report, 2003
8 that the product gets maximum exposure to a broad market. However, most industries eventually evolve from median design to offer the consumer additional choice and customization. Over the past decade the internet has grown into a robust platform for marketing and commerce. Most major product industries have capitalized on internet usage to offer even greater customization and choice. Sophisticated technology in manufacturing has also supported greater customization abilities for products. This innovation has offered consumers more choice and customization of their products. According to a 2006 survey by the AIA, 36 percent of architecture firms reported being involved in custom or luxury home design. In the same survey, 14 percent reported being involved in market rate housing, and only six percent of firms had any involvement in affordable housing. The lack of firms being significantly engaged in affordable and market rate housing supports the stigma that architectural services are reserved only for wealthy clients. The architectural community has faced many challenges in becoming more involved in single family housing design, many of which are stigmas nurtured by the industry itself. (Fisher 31) Thomas Fisher argues that the architectural profession has been marginalized within the building industry itself. The increasingly competing services within the building process such as project managers, construction managers, and program managers have been very successful at communicating and selling the value of their services to the client. As a result, the architect who has historically been poor at articulating his value, is being pushed farther and farther from the consumer. Referring
9 the other non-architectural building services, Fisher says, “They have not only told their story; we have allowed them to tell our story, to our detriment.” (27-28) With limited success, architects throughout the twenty-first century have attempted to take a leadership role in more affordable mass-produced housing. The Case Study Housing program could be considered the most famous attempt. The program began by challenging eight architects to, “shape the course of the post-World War II building boom toward widespread acceptance of modern architecture, and to offer technologically-based and ultimately affordable housing.” (Smith 7) As a result of the program, 36 homes were designed, and most of them were constructed in California. In the architectural community, the program was celebrated as a success, but the principles of the designs did not gain widespread recognition. The program’s relatively small West Coast installation was not enough to prevent it from being overshadowed by the emerging homebuilding industry led by Levitt and Sons. Although Americans seem to happily embrace the latest technology and design in their ipods, computers, and automobiles; Americans seem more reluctant to embrace the same innovation in their home design. This is due in part to an industry that has many participants from many different fields, the largest contributors to the built environment being the product manufacturers and contractors. These parties are rarely led with a focus towards architectural design, or design for the greater good. Americans are also typically timid towards concepts of prefabricated housing. Richard Bender describes the factors that have impeded the development of prefabricated housing systems in the market as, “thoughtless use of new and unfamiliar materials, inflexibility of design, poor distribution systems, the lack of nationally or even regionally
10 accepted codes, and the poor public image of the prefab as a cheap and badly built house.� (57) These are all factors that architects are trained to solve and have a passion for doing so. The architect has not been involved in this market and the resulting homes are not architecture. These homes are so far from architecture in fact, that they have created a very damaging stigma in the industrialized and prefabricated home market. The film Beer Wars outlines a parallel scenario in the spirits industry in which larger beer companies in effect sabotage the good intentions of smaller craft breweries. The large beer company makes a product that is packaged to look similar to a craft beer, and puts it on the shelf of the store right next to the craft beer. The large company sells its inferior product for a few dollars less, and the consumer thinks the two products are similar, so he buys the less expensive one. The inferior one tastes bad, and the consumer no longer ventures into the craft beer isle. Instead he returns to drinking his typical domestic beer also produced by the large beer company. In effect, as the architect is not involved in the innovation of the homebuilding industry, the architecture of homes is sabotaged by the homebuilders and manufacturing industry. The evidence already exists in the stigmas attached to most innovative housing concepts and products.
1.2
Hypothesis The involvement of the architect in mass homebuilding will increase the quality
of our built environment and create a new American architecture. By re-thinking the design ruleset from the geometric modular to cloud-based, computational software concepts, architects can take full advantage of modern technology use in design,
11 fabrication, and visualization. Delivering these tools through an internet portal will allow the consumer affordable access to architectural design. Additionally the creation of a revised, networked, and collaborative design process will deliver efficiency in the construction process. Open access to information and the collaborative nature of a social networking will spread architectural principles of design across the homebuilding industry.
1.3
Solution Architects must use the advantages of software technology, open source concepts,
and social networking to expand the breadth of their influence in homebuilding. Software platforms now allow architects to understand, coordinate, and control the information of the construction process more than ever before. Gregg Pasquarelli from SHoP Architects wrote, “The computer has enabled architects to rethink the design process in terms of procedure and outcome in ways that common practice, the construction industry and conventional design methodologies cannot conceive of.� (7) Building Information Modeling and other three-dimensional design tools now allow architects to break from their traditional molds of delivering only two dimensional drawings and specifications. Many firms such as Frank Gehry and SHoP Architects have already been finding advantages in these software platforms. Gehry has evolved the aircraft design software Catia into a very powerful design tool. The software allows the architect to communicate information of complicated design geometry to the manufacturing process. The result is new architecture that never before seemed possible.
12 SHoP has used software to optimize their design process through a better understanding of materials and systems. The software program informs the designer of material limitations and constraints during the design process. Through software technology, the architect has a new set of tools to better understand the processes of construction, and is in effect becoming involved in the construction process during the design phase. (Pasquarelli) Open source concepts can allow both architects and homeowners to have a larger role in the design of homes. As an analogy, software operating system developers create open systems for software designers to make applications, and home users use the platform to engage these applications. In a similar sense, architects can develop an open building framework in which other architects, designers, and homebuyers can develop components. The architectural framework has an implicit set of design rules established by the architect, but the system is open to customized design within the rulesets. Recent advances in communication technology have led to a world continuously connected through online social networking. This is a tremendous advantage for the potential of quickly spreading architectural principles of design. Architects already create virtual representations of their work in order to communicate designs to clients. Using similar tools, there is now an opportunity to allow every American to customize his own home through an open platform. This platform is delivered under the guidance and rulesets defined by the architect. A parallel framework exists in the online social networking game Second Life, and in many other video game platforms. Through the game’s interface and rulesets,
13 users are able to develop their own custom virtual spaces and buildings. 3 Imagine a system in which the architect can now efficiently convert a user’s energy and vision into a deliverable of components, parts, schematics, and pricing. Significant opportunities exist for re-engaging architects in mass housing. The research of precedent architectural studies proposes achieving this with new, prefabricated, or modular building systems. This thesis, however, argues that architectural involvement has been limited because of the profession’s reluctance to engage current building systems. By manipulating advanced software technologies, new media, and consumer education, coupled with existing building systems, architects can have a stronger leadership role in mass single family housing.
3
http://secondlife.com/whatis/
14 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Current Situation The post war years after World War II were a revolutionary time for architects,
especially in the design of housing. The advent of industrial fabrication techniques during the war coupled with the increasing demand for housing after the war was a recipe for a housing revolution. This provided great opportunity for innovation by architects and builders, and created an opportunity for architects to shape the future of the American built environment.
Figure 2.1. Arts & Architecture Case Study Houses Announcement, 1945
15
In an attempt to engage the reshaping of the future of housing, the art and architecture community developed many prototypes for postwar housing including the Case Study Housing Program introduced by John Entenza in 1945. (Figure 2.1) Another innovative architectural system development was the use of porcelain coated metal panels in Lustron Homes. However, these attempts did not develop into a widespread revolution of housing, and their principles of technology and innovation were short-lived. The Case Study Housing Program designed and constructed 36 prototype homes over 21 years, and Lustron Homes sold only 2,500 homes over two years.
Figure 2.2. Case Study House #8, 1949
16
Meanwhile new, speculative, homebuilding companies such as Levitt and Sons began a “new town” movement in which entire towns were built by a single homebuilding entity. (LePatner 72) The “new town” concept became the model that homebuilders essentially use to this day, eventually leading to a peak of 1.6 million new homes built in 2005. (U.S. Census Bureau) The builders have led the revolution, and the architect has been on the sideline.
Figure 2.3. Levittown, New York, 1957 In his 1931 Manifesto, LeCorbusier wrote, “There is one profession and one only, namely architecture, in which progress is not considered necessary, where laziness is enthroned, and in which the reference is always to yesterday.” (109) LeCorbusier was
17 writing of his discontent of the regression of the architectural profession into historical decoration as opposed to innovation. Now, in the 21st century, LeCorbusier’s statement still applies in terms of architects’ abandonment of the housing industry. Architects’ numerous attempts to affect the innovation and design of mass-produced single family homes have been relatively isolated and not necessarily affordable. As a result the concepts presented by the architectural community have never gained widespread acceptance in American culture.
2.2
Perspectives of the Current Situation Within the construction of each home is a tremendously complex set of
operations. For the purposes of this study, the operations addressed are those of the primary parties involved in the creation of the home as a physical existence. The perspectives of the architect, homebuilder, homebuyer, and manufacturer are further examined in the following sections.
2.2.1
Architect Perspective. Architects are an essential contributor to the quality of our
built environment. Besides a professional obligation to uphold the health, safety, and welfare of buildings’ inhabitants, architects offer creative intuition, a holistic appreciation of the built environment, a romantic vision, and owner representation. More specifically, architects specify performance criteria for the building and also develop responsible land use strategies for each project. Thomas Fisher argues that architects have fallen short in consumer education of the value of architects and architecture. Fisher claims that architects have an important
18 responsibility to see that what is built meets the need of the clients and of the greater public good. He refers to the larger public good as, “the people who will use the building, members of the community who will look at it and visit it, and future generations who will have to maintain it.” (27-37) Architect and author Sarah Susanka began the Not So Big movement in 1998 and has written a series of nine books selling the value of architects in housing. Susanka’s concept of the “not so big house” is housing design that is focused on the quality of space, and not square footage. She achieves this by communicating specific design concepts that achieve a nurturing home, flexibility, and efficiency. Both Susanka and Fisher offer critiques of the profession and argue that the education of the consumer is critical to architectural involvement in housing design. Architects have attempted to engage in single-family housing on a large scale on several occasions in the 21st century. Arguably the most famous attempt by the architectural community was the Case Study House program. The goal of the program was to develop a widespread appreciation of modern architecture during the post World War II building boom, and ultimately provide affordable housing to the entire country through the use of technology and modern design principles. (Smith) A small fraction of home-building in the last decade has been led by architects acting as designer, builder, and sometimes developer. These are mostly, small privately owned companies such as Optima, FlatPak, LivingHomes and Blu Homes. Each of these companies gains efficiencies in delivering affordable homes in different ways, but none are huge publicly-traded companies with expansive purchasing power. As a result, the small and fragmented architectural profession has struggled to engage housing design at a
19 global or even national level. The 2006 American Institute of Architects Firm Survey indicated that 95 percent of architecture firms that focus on residential projects have fewer than ten employees. Numerous architectural studies and dissertations have been produced over the last decade proposing systematic computer-aided approaches to design. MIT’s House_n Research Group has produced dozens of theses and dissertations attempting to propose solutions for new technologies to impact built space. 4 Jose Duarte’s 2001 dissertation argues that using a mathematical model called a discursive grammar can produce mass customized design solutions. Duarte’s proposal was tested by interactively determining house designs based on Alvaro Siza’s Malagueria houses. (Figure 2.4)
4
http://architecture.mit.edu/house_n/
20
Figure 2.4. Jose Duarte, Customizing Mass Housing: a Discursive Grammar for Siza’s Malagueria Houses. Similarly, T.J. McLeish’s 2003 thesis proposes an interactive solution for participatory home design using open source systems. McLeish’s study incorporates an interactive computer-aided approach for consumer home customization. McLeish argues
21 that the role of the architect would be to provide design engines for consumer use. He also suggests revised roles for the developer and manufacturer. His proposed design systems integrate digital fabrication and open source building components to create simultaneous virtual and real open source construction systems. (Figure 2.5)
Figure 2.5. T.J. Mcleish, A Platform for Consumer Driven Participative Design of Open (Source) Buildings Approaching computational house design at a smaller scale, Xiaoyi Ma’s 2002 thesis proposes an interactive tool for consumer kitchen design. Taking in to account the functional ruleset established within traditional kitchen design, Ma developed a system in which design strategies are computationally established based on a user’s dimensional constraints and needs. (Figure 2.6)
22
Figure 2.6. Xiaoyi Ma, A Web-Based User-Oriented Tool for Universal Kitchen Design
23 Another important precedent dissertation is Joseph Huang’s 2008 study of internet and query approaches for housing customization. Huang proposes the i_Prefab Home web interface. Using prefabricated housing modules, the system creates a recommended house design based on user questionnaires. Huang defined a design ruleset that is controlled by surveyed user input, not aesthetic decisions. (Figure 2.7)
Figure 2.7. Joseph Huang, Participatory Design for Prefab House
These precedent studies are valuable research for this proposal. This thesis uses concepts from each study to inform the solution, but also argues that each precedent approach has limitations in allowing architects to have true design control of the housing industry. Table 2.1 describes the basic ruleset description of each precedent study as well as the resulting assembly type.
24
Table 2.1. Comparison of Precedent Theses and Dissertations Author
Title
Ruleset Description
Assembly Type
Jose Duarte
Customizing Mass Housing: A Discursive Grammar for Siza's Malagueria Houses
Rulesets defined based on Siza's home designs using a discursive grammar of functional and stylistic design elements
Siza's defined building systems
T.J. McLeish
A Platform for Consumer Driven Participative Design of Open (Source) Buildings
Rulesets are based on data collected through House_n prototype home
Modular opensource building system
Xiaoyi Ma
A Web-Based UserOriented Tool for Universal Kitchen Design
Rulesets are determined by standard functional kitchen designs
Standard kitchen assemblies
Joseph Huang
No customization without architect
Rulesets are determined by customer survey
Prefabricated Housing Components
Most of these precedent studies, however, suggest solving consumer-driven participatory design for full homes with new building systems, such as modular and prefabricated assemblies. This thesis engages Xiaoyi Ma’s concepts of standardized kitchen assemblies, but proposes a participatory approach with the full house construction. The key difference of this thesis is the proposal of a collaborative and participatory design process that uses the same traditional home building systems used by large homebuilders.
2.2.2 Homebuilder Perspective. The homebuilder has an enormous role in the construction of single family homes. At the home building market’s peak in 2005,
25 American homebuilders built over 1.6 million single family homes. (U.S. Census Bureau) Homebuilding is roughly a $500 billion industry dominated primarily by large homebuilders such as D.R. Horton, Pulte, and Lennar. These companies use traditional construction methods and are able to build homes very affordably. (LePatner 162-164) The large speculative homebuilder model came to fruition after World War II. Levitt and Sons began building large speculative housing developments in an assembly line fashion across the Northeastern United States. The Levitts were not architects, but speculatively built simple marketable homes with traditional designs and construction methods. (LePatner 71) The Levitt model of speculative housing production has been the industry standard to this day.
Large publicly-traded companies dominate the home building
industry, and are capable of building large developments of similar homes efficiently and economically. Homebuilders have essentially been using the same home construction technique for framing houses since balloon framing was invented in 1833. The process has evolved slightly with the evolution into platform framing. (LePatner 160) Platform framing is a very effective system, and manufacturers have developed a relatively open concept of allowing their building products to flexibly fit into the system. The system is efficient in its speed and flexibility, and can allow any number of wall configurations and designs from single pieces of 2x4 dimensional lumber. Each wall is composed of many pieces of 2x4’s that are individually cut and fastened to form the wall configuration. Determining the sizes and layout of the individual wall components from a plan and elevation can be time consuming. For this reason homebuilders find great
26 efficiencies in repetitive designs and also limiting homeowner alterations to these predetermined designs. Speculative homebuilding is the most efficient production model in construction today. In this scenario the homebuyer does not enter the design or construction process until the end. The homebuilder must understand the market, as it determines success or failure, and also profit. (LePatner 145) The homebuilder is able to offer a homebuyer a turnkey home very economically. Unfortunately the homebuilder typically takes a very conservative, universal approach to design so that it will appeal to a wide market. The homeowner does not necessarily obtain a home designed for his lifestyle, but instead he receives a homebuilder’s impression of what most Americans would like.
2.2.3 Homebuyer Perspective. Homeowners have traditionally had only a few options for obtaining a newly constructed dwelling. Options are purchasing a new home that was speculatively built by a homebuilder, hiring an architect to design a custom home, or engaging in a semi-custom design-build agreement with a homebuilder. Understandably, most homebuyers in this turnkey culture purchase speculative homes from homebuilders. The home is already constructed and sold ready for the owner to move in. The builder takes on risk by investing money in the project in hopes that it will be sold for a profit. The builder typically has a strong understanding of the housing market and what he thinks homebuyers want to purchase. At the other end of the scale is the custom, architect-designed home. This model typically involves an architect as an agent for the owner’s best interests. The architect is
27 not constructing the home, but instead is advising the owner on design principles to best suit their needs. The architect provides a service to the owner which is not typically deemed necessary by most homeowners. Although the architect has a professional obligation to protect the owner’s best interests, architects have a stigma that their services are reserved only for the wealthy. Many homebuyers prefer to give input into the design of their homes, so they opt for a seemingly hybrid model, semi-custom homebuilding. Homebuilders give the impression that the owner is getting architectural consultation on their home, and it is built within the standards of the homebuilder’s typical processes. The semi-custom type has become more common for several reasons. Homeowners like to have input on their homes’ designs, and semi-custom homebuilders give the perception that the buyer is in control of the end product. This perception allows the homeowner his perceived happiness, and the homebuilder is able to construct the house with what LePatner calls a mutable contract. (82-85) This contract type limits the speculative risk of the homebuilder, and allows him to build the home however he wants for a seemingly fixed cost. Any changes by the owner outside of the agreed upon semicustom design are costs passed on to the buyer.
2.2.4
Manufacturer Perspective. With the $500 billion housing market dominated by
homebuilders, the product manufacturers cater to the needs of homebuilders and not consumers. Tremendous manufacturing research and development goes into creating more efficient processes for producing similar looking products.
28 At the same time, more efficient production methods have led to sophisticated building components for homes. Windows, insulation, mechanical systems, and appliances are more efficient than in the past. The manufacturing industry is very competitive, so companies have engaged in a research and development effort to be industry leaders in economy and performance. Every new technology brings about a new problem to be solved. Richard Bender uses the circuit board analogy to explain the hump that is encountered in innovation. In consumer electronics, circuits used to be networked using wires and solder. As technology advanced, circuits became more and more complex, and as a result were very expensive to produce. It took innovation and invention to develop the printed circuit board which could efficiently connect circuits without the use of wires and solder. This advancement allowed a systems view of electronic components, and pushed technological advancements in consumer electronics even further. (9-10) The building product manufacturing industry is often at this innovation crossroads, but the market has not pushed them to completely rethink most of their products. The industry has innovated by evolving its processes and materials to produce essentially the same building components. Much of the manufacturers’ research energy goes into making innovative products that still look like the old ones. The development of vinyl siding is a prime example. Homeowners liked the aesthetic of wood siding, but they had problems with the constant maintenance required. The wood would rot, become bug ridden, and need frequent repainting. The building products industry responded to this problem with a plastic rainscreen system of
29 interlocking horizontal panels. The product was maintenance free, would not rot, and did not need to be painted.
Figure 2.8. Vinyl Siding Textures That Attempt to Make an Innovative Product Appear Like Wood Clapboard Siding5
The product was then manufactured to have simulated wood grain and a relief bead like colonial clapboards. The innovative product later obtained a stigma as cheap, fake-looking, wood siding. Perhaps if the product manufacturers had simply introduced an innovative system as previously described, instead of making it look like something else, the product would be more of a widespread success. 5
http://www.progressivefoam.com/vinyl-siding-textures
30 The manufacturers cater to a market that has been developed by homebuilders and not architects. With architects involved in less than two percent of home construction (Figure 1.3), of course the manufacturers align their innovation and research to the homebuilder aesthetic, rather than architectural design principles.
2.3
Evolution of Parallel Industries While the housing industry has regressed in terms of quality, choice, and
affordable customization, most other major industries have evolved to become sophisticated consumer-driven operations. Automobiles and shoes are two mainstream American products that have become essential to consumers’ lives. Both have significantly progressed in terms of quality, efficiency, choice, and open competition. In recent years, both industries have made their products more accessible and customizable through web interfaces. Meanwhile the mass housing industry has regressed by becoming more standardized, commoditized, and homogenous.
2.3.1 Automobiles. The evolution of the automobile from a mass-marketed median design to specialized and open-market vehicles occurred relatively quickly. At its introduction in 1908, Henry Ford’s Model T was a versatile vehicle that he advertised as “designed for the great multitude”. (Collins 97) Although very innovative in its production methods, The Model T was a median design. It was economically manufactured to appeal to and support the lifestyles of not just a specific demographic, but instead the majority of Americans. The Model T was touted as a universal car, and as a result over 15 million Model T’s were produced over 19 years. (Brooke)
31
Figure 2.9. Ford Model T, 1908
Although the Model T was a median design, it was also designed on an open platform. This allowed owners to essentially hack the design and alter their cars to suit their specific needs. (Figure 2.10) The do-it-yourself iterations that followed were possible because of the Model T’s widespread availability and its simple design. (Brooke)
32
Figure 2.10. Model T Ford Conversions by Consumers
As a result of the open participation of consumers customizing their automobiles, new automobile typologies evolved. In the 100 years since the introduction of the Model T, there have been hundreds of different car companies. The collective of these automobile manufacturers has produced a tremendous number of different models for different cultures, utilities, and price points. Tractors, pickup trucks, vans, coupes, sedans, sport-utility vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and minivans are just a few of the vehicle typologies that emerged from car companies to support the specific needs of the consumers. Today, consumers have even more choice when it comes to purchasing a car, and web interfaces allow potential customers to customize their own. Many car companies allow you to choose options, visualize and price the car of your dreams through online internet portals.
33 Mazda allows the consumer to build a virtual vehicle based on geographic location, model, trim, color, and options. The web interface clearly shows the costs of the customization options, and it gives the consumer access to the overall cost of purchasing the vehicle relative to their location and customization options. Once the consumer completes the customization process, they are able to contact a dealer and request a quote.
Figure 2.11. Example of Internet Customization of an Automobile from Mazda
34 More robust and participatory internet portals exist for more customizable automobiles, such as localmotors.com. Local Motors’ online community members can contribute to the design, development, and building of the co-created cars, all through a web portal. The system is open source, so design files and specifications are available to all participants. The designs and parts can be modified by online community members all with the intent of mass producing affordable customized automobiles. Over the last century, automobiles have evolved from median design to participatory and customizable design. Consumers can now find an affordable car for any lifestyle, culture, or need.
Figure 2.12. Example of Web-Based Open Source Car Design from Local Motors
35 2.3.2
Shoes. In 1958, the new suburban, post-war casual lifestyle led Hush Puppies to
introduce the world’s first casual shoe. Made of suede and lightweight soles, this new footwear typology was soft, breathable, and comfortable. At the time, there was no other shoe like it. (Gladwell 1-5)
Figure 2.13. Hush Puppies Advertisement, 1958 On its website, the company says, “In an era when footwear choices were limited, Hush Puppies provided the world with a new alternative. The introduction of Hush Puppies broke the world out of median shoe design. Figure 2.14 shows that in 1958, Hush Puppies were a universal shoe design, while today the median design has evolved in to
36 numerous specific footwear typologies. Today there are thousands of different shoe designs available for any occasion, lifestyle, or utility.
Figure 2.14. Evolution of Shoe Typologies
The internet now allows consumers to shop tens of thousands of different shoes online through websites such as Zappos.com. Zappos’ website claims that one out of three shoe sales was actually lost in conventional shoe stores because the shoe and size that the customer wanted was out of stock. Zappos changes this by having an enormous, networked inventory, therefore giving the consumer endless choice and maximizing customer satisfaction.
37 Nike has also been on the cutting edge of web-based shoe customization with NikeId.com. Within Nike’s design framework, customers can choose, customize, and purchase their own personalized shoes. Nike’s web portal also allows users to browse and customize shoe designs based on other users’ proposals. Customers can also offer feedback and reviews of other designs. Many other major shoes manufacturers such as Converse, Reebok, and Vans also let you customize shoes through a web interface.
Figure 2.15. Screenshot of NikeID.com Customize Interface
Hushpuppies started a shoe revolution that has pushed footwear beyond median design. Since then shoe companies have engaged software and manufacturing technology
38 to allow mass customization by consumers. Now there are seemingly infinite types of shoes and customization options to fit a customer’s feet and lifestyle.
2.3.3 Housing. Clearly housing is a very different business model than automobiles and shoes. Shoes and automobiles are not the only industries that have allowed customization. Most products that can be purchased on the internet certainly have choice, and somewhere allow a buyer a certain degree of customization. To allow this level of customization, industries have overcome median design through open, competitive markets. Consumers have demanded affordable choice and customization. Meanwhile, homebuyers have not demanded this, and the market has not evolved from median design. Levitt’s home building model served the post war need for housing, but the problem now is that mass homebuilding has not yet evolved from this median design system. It seems that over the last century, housing has actually moved in the opposite direction from most other industries. (Figure 2.16) Tools to engage architects in collaborative, web-based housing customization exist in other industries. It is simply a matter of evolving these tools to work for the housing industry model. A method for doing this is further explained in Chapter 3.
39
Figure 2.16. Comparison of the Evolution of Automobiles versus Housing in the 20th Century
40 2.4
Current Web-based House Customization Systems Some architect-led companies such as Living Homes and MK Designs have
offered quality prefabricated and modular housing solutions. The designs are innovative, environmentally responsible, and utilize modern design principles. However, they are still significantly more expensive than a similar-sized home built by a homebuilder. These housing solutions also require the homebuyer to provide the building site, site construction, and foundation work prior to purchasing the prefabricated home. The homes also offer limited flexibility of the designs, allowing the purchaser to change finishes and add a few additional spaces. Although innovative in concept, these homes are difficult to purchase, and their customization is limited. Given the fact that they are also expensive, it is difficult to imagine that this housing model will have any great impact on the single family built environment compared to the homebuilding industry. Several of the current web-based portals for home customization and purchase are examined in the following sections. Furthermore, these portals are compared in Table 2.2.
41 2.4.1
Living Homes. The Living Homes web portal allows a homebuyer to choose
from nine different architect-designed housing prototypes. The buyer can then choose specific defined options and receive real time pricing updates. Users can choose various options that have been pre-defined within each housing system.
Figure 2.17. Living Homes Web Interface
42 2.4.2 FlatPak. Flatpak is a modular building system that allows homebuyers to customize their home according to the predefined architectural framework. Through the company’s design team, homebuyers can adjust floor plan modules, and choose materials of specific exterior and interior conditions. The parts system is then shipped to the site for assembly. The company’s website describes the system’s process and flexibility, however it does not have an interface that allows the potential buyer to manipulate and visualize the system in real time.
Figure 2.18. FlatPak System Description
43 2.4.3
Marmol Radziner. Marmol Radziner is an architecture firm that delivers
prefabricated homes as well as custom design. They have several lines of houses, and each has multiple variations. The initial design process is described as the same as a sitebuilt home, but efficiencies are gained through the delivery and construction process. Since the homes are prefabricated, Marmol Radziner claims a shorter construction duration and more precise cost control.6
Figure 2.19. Marmol Radziner Prefab System Choices
6
http://www.marmolradzinerprefab.com/howitw.html
44 2.4.4 Free Green and Better House Plans. Free Green was founded to give homebuyers access to free and affordable sustainable home designs. The deliverable is a set of house plans and specifications that a homebuyer can then have built on their own. Originally Free Green homes were only designed by the company itself, but in January, 2011, they founded an open source subsidiary. Their new company, Better House Plans, allows architects to submit and sell their home designs and plans through the portal. As of July 2011, Free Green claims over 100,000 downloads of their house plans.7
Figure 2.20. Free Green Open Source Homes Screenshot
7
www.freegreen.com
45 2.4.5
PostGreen Homes. The most sophisticated model in this research is PostGreen
Homes. PostGreen offers online customization of homes, and the homes can be associated with a building site. The design systems are predetermined by PostGreen, and it is not open to other architects. As the user walks through the customize process, he is able to choose the housing design, site, and finishes. The user also receives real time pricing as the building is customized.
Figure 2.21. PostGreen Homes System Description
46 2.4.6 MK Designs. Michelle Kaufmann’s company, MK Designs, offers prefabricated, sustainable homes. The home is delivered to the building site in large modular pieces. Once assembled, the home is considered 90 percent complete. 8 MK offers several housing models, and each has variable configurations and customization options. However the customization options are not displayed interactively or with real time pricing.
Figure 2.22. MK Designs Prefab House System
8
www.mkdesigns.com/process
47
Table 2.2. Comparison of Web-Based Architect-Designed Home Systems Builder/ System
System Description
Customization Level
Deliverable
Site Incl.
Cost /SF
FlatPak
Modular Kit
Customize with Flatpak designer
Shipped Parts
no
$200+
Living Homes
Modular Components
Add/remove options
Shipped Modules
no
$220+
PostGreen Homes
Customizable Customize with web Project interface
Turnkey Home
yes
$210+
Free Green
House Plans
No customization without architect
Construction no Documents
n/a
Marmol Radziner
Modular Components
Add/remove options
Shipped Modules
no
$300+
MK Designs
Modular Components
Add/remove options
Shipped Modules
no
$230+
48 CHAPTER 3 METHODS FOR RE-ENGAGING THE ARCHITECT IN MASS HOUSING
For architects to be engaged in mass housing at a large scale, it is necessary for the architectural profession to re-establish the processes for design, information management, and delivery. The current system is antiquated and involves a lengthy and costly design process that does not fully utilize the computer technology commonly found at an architect’s disposal. In addition the traditional architectural practice is often far removed from the realities of construction costs. Utilizing new technologies can give the design instant access to real costs and economic factors. Thomas Fisher argues that a problem in the architectural profession is its focus on individualism. Architecture acts more as a trade than a profession. Fisher states that architects, like trades, compete against each other and keep secrets. A profession on the other hand should collaboratively share information and work towards a common knowledge base. (30) Concepts of social networks and collaborative thinking can bolster this critical shift in architectural process.
3.1
Design Systems Historic architectural attempts to re-engage mass housing have focused on
modular housing and pre-fabricated concepts. In essence, architects have re-invented building construction systems and products. As is evidenced in the small proportion of built architectural prefabricated and modular homes to site-built developer homes; reinventing building systems has not affected mass housing on a large scale. Architects do
49 not have any real control over the manufacturing industry. Therefore architects’ attempts to invent new manufacturing systems and techniques have proven counter-productive. This proposal asserts that architects should focus on re-inventing that which architects actually control: the design and deliverable process. By re-inventing the process of design-systems, architects can efficiently deliver controlled customization of quality designs.
3.1.1
Building Information Modeling. Building Information Modeling (BIM)
software technology has gained widespread use in the architectural community over the past decade. Driven by a Model View Controller (MVC) software engine, this technology creates a database of building components that are viewed through a user interface. These model views are multi-dimensional, enabling the visualization and testing of Cartesian coordinates, time sequencing, environmental optimization, and virtually any other data that can be plugged in to the model. A major benefit of BIM over traditional two dimensional drafting processes is the building simulation aspect of the project during the design phase. (Krygiel) Full utilization of BIM tools can allow a change in project deliverables. The traditional architectural deliverables are construction document drawings and detailed specifications. This information can be replaced by a single, coordinated and data-rich building information model.
3.1.2
Parametrics. In The Design of Everyday Things, design visionary and author,
Donald Norman uses the Richard Pew quote, “Design is the successive application of
50 constraints until only a unique product is left.� (158) This concept is the basis of parametric design frameworks. Parametric concepts have been used in Computer Numerical Control manufacturing for decades. The basic idea in this use is that parametrics allows a definition of constant coordinates relative to other variable coordinates. As one set of coordinates changes, the other adjusts based on the first set. The same principle can be carried to architectural design. Parametric design frameworks can allow a designer to set a series of constants and variables that are driven by user input. In theory these constraints can have multi-dimensional variables that can adjust based on user input, time, environmental conditions, cost, construction, or any other constraint built into the framework, including pre-determined design decisions. This does not mean, however, that a home design is determined by a computer program. The framework is defined by the architect. The builder then inputs his cost information based on unit costs of components within the framework. Then the homebuyer makes choices and manipulates the design within the system’s variables all while receiving real time cost data and design visualization. The computer software is merely a tool that allows architects to lead an interactive multidisciplinary design exercise. It is up to each architect to define what is constant and what is variable. It could be a completely fixed design, or it could be a completely open design. A parametric architectural design system of this nature allows architects this flexibility, while at the same time creating comprehensive cost analysis for the builder, and controlled customization for the homebuyer.
51 3.1.3
Systematic Design. The idea of architects engaging in mass housing is not new.
However architects have historically addressed this issue by designing new building systems, and not necessarily by re-thinking the design process itself. Frank Lloyd Wright even introduced his own line of affordable mass-housing designs called the Usonian homes. Over one hundred of these prototypes were built across America. Innovative companies such as Lustron Homes introduced the country to a new delivery system of prefabricated metal homes. Even today there are more and more architect-led modular and prefabricated home companies introduced each, many of these companies are described in Chapter 2. None of these architect-led housing prototypes, however, have caught on anywhere close to the scale of the large homebuilder. Furthermore, the majority of these housing concepts have not reduced costs anywhere close to that of the large scale homebuilders. At the root of this problem is that most of the architect-led proposals for mass housing have tried to redesign the building systems. In contrast, this thesis asserts the need to rebuild the design systems. Rebuilding the design systems is now possible because of the sophistication of software tools that now engage Building Information Modeling through the use of parametric technologies. Through the proposed web portal, architects build their design systems, builders price the systems, and homebuyers can choose a system and customize it for their lifestyle all while receiving real time cost data. This proposal is not reinventing how homes are constructed, but instead rethinks how architects can take a leadership role in delivering their services to homeowners. As a result; architects participate in shaping the American mass housing landscape, builders
52 construct optimized homes that have been simulated, and customers get to have choice, customization, and architectural oversight in the purchase of their home.
Figure 3.1. Comparison of Building Systems to Design Systems
3.2
Networks A collaborative network of information and communication between all of the
housing participants is critical for an architect-led mass housing solution. Asymmetric information is a major cause of construction inefficiencies. (LePatner 81) When all of the parties involved in the design and construction process have access to unbalanced levels of information, there are miscommunications, uninformed decisions, and ultimately lost efficiencies. This network breakdown has occurred repeatedly, and the diagram of the architect-client relationship has evolved to a diagram of the client-builder relationship. (Figure 3.2) In this scenario, through control of information and client relationships, the
53 builder is in the leadership role. The result of this network is the reduction of input and influence that architects have on projects. (Fisher 93)
Figure 3.2. Network Diagram Based on Asymmetrical Information Flow
The traditional relationship diagram of architect, client, and builder should essentially remain intact for architects to have impact in the housing industry. (Figure 3.3) The architect is the licensed professional with the client’s best interest in mind. The builder is contracted to build the building according to the architect’s documentation. The architect then supports the client in seeing that the builder follows through in accordance with the contract documents.
54
Figure 3.3. Traditional Architect, Builder, Client Information Flow Diagram
An evolution of the traditional diagram is possible again if architects break the cycle of individualization. Breaking the cycle of individualization can now occur by rethinking the design process and utilizing social networking concepts. Creating an aggregated, collective, and collaborative professional knowledge base within the architectural community will benefit the profession and the public good. Using this networked concept, the resulting diagram is a much more robust, rhizomatic network in which primary participants all openly share information. At the same time additional Architect, Builder, Customer, and Designer participants are able to connect and share information with other projects. (Figure 3.4) The Project then becomes the collaborative rhizome core, as opposed to the traditional tree diagram showing the client at the top.
55
Figure 3.4. Proposed Rhizomatic Network Diagram
3.2.1
Information. At the root of the problem inherent in the traditional competitive
builder contracting is asymmetrical information. This often leads to mutable contracts by the builder. Builders are then able to submit a low-ball, lump-sum estimate and make up costs through change orders or other added costs. The mutable cost contracts have very little transparency and therefore create difficulty for clients and architects to manage costs. (LePatner 82-85) This thesis proposes a third party web portal to manage the flow of information between participants. The information is open but shared in a common interdisciplinary standard. Builders submit pricing information for construction assemblies that is visible
56 to other Builders, Customers, and Architects. Architects and Customers are then able to make informed and educated decisions based on common information. (Figure 3.5)
Figure 3.5. Proposed Information Flow from Builder to Customer
3.2.2 Collaboration. Web-based networks can allow open and fluid collaboration between a large number of users in varying geographic locations. This proposal defines the users as the participants who are specific to the design and construction of a new home. These users are the Architect, Builder, Customer, and Designer. Each plays a valuable role in the design of the home, and collectively they can contribute to the delivery of a customized home. The proposal for collaborative information sharing also serves to solve the problem of individualism, defined by Thomas Fisher.
57 3.2.3
Communication. In the past century, the architect has been moved farther from
the client and the building process. Those that have been able to sell the value of their services to the client better than the architect have gained control of information and feedback. At the same time, architects have become individualized and do not necessarily communicate and share information amongst each other. (Fisher 27-37) Communication through feedback is important to architectural control of the housing industry. Donald Norman describes feedback as “sending back to the user information about what action has actually been done, [and] what result has been accomplished�. (27) Architects, Builders, Customers, and Designers should all have access to open feedback from each other. This feedback can range from cost data, to design implications, to subjective opinions. The creation of a collaborative web portal will allow users to communicate through comments, suggestions, questions, and answers.
3.3
Implementation A web-based portal for customizing and purchasing a new architect-designed
home will make design affordably available to a wide demographic. The implementation strategy involves a robust, but simple to navigate, web interface. The center of the system is the Project. The Project is composed of two main components: the library and the ruleset. Users participate in the Project by interacting with either the library or the ruleset, or both, depending on the user’s defined role in the system. This system is described in further detail in Chapter 5.
58
Figure 3.6. Participatory User Roles in the Project
In order to maintain consistent and reliable information and data flow, a standard model format will need to be developed. It is necessary for the format to maintain the data and parametrics that are inherent in both the library and the ruleset. Similar to Autodesk’s Design Web Format (DWF), the model format will need to maintain rich data and metadata that can be shared with compatible software applications. 9 However a format more robust than DWF will be necessary as relationships between the library components and the ruleset will need to be maintained.
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Web_Format
59 CHAPTER 4 PRECEDENT WORKS
In Chapter 2, the regression of the housing industry over the last century was examined as it inversely relates to the evolution of automobiles and shoes from median design. At the same time, it is necessary to study precedent works in new media technologies. The following web-based systems have been successfully implemented, and their concepts are important in the development of the system design proposal described in Chapter 5. The precedents examined engage concepts of web-based customization, webbased design, open-sourcing, and crowd-sourcing. All of these systems are collaborative in nature and involve multiple participants for the good of the final product. Each has varying degrees of consumer participation and the final deliverable ranges from imagery to a final product. The concepts of these precedents are important to this thesis for the purposes of understanding the collaborative nature of internet applications. In addition they demonstrate successful implementations of free consumer access to design, information, and products.
60 4.1
Web-based Customization The Elfa closet storage system can be customized and priced through an internet
website. The system begins by asking a few user survey questions such as gender and the style of closet. Then the user defines the dimensions, door type, and orientation of their closet space. The user can then choose wall colors and various shelving systems to visualize in the portal. During the customization process, the user is able to see costs for “do-it yourself� and installed systems. The user is then able to purchase the system through the website. The system allows seemingly infinite customization permutations, designer guidance, and transparency of costs.
Figure 4.1. Elfa Design Center Screenshot
61 4.2
Web-based Design Autodesk HomeStyler is a web-based interactive design tool for homeowner use.
It is a relatively easy to use interface that allows the user to plan and visualize space. The program has a limited library that allows placement rules and incorporates proprietary manufacturer’s components. The system does not coordinate with pricing information for standard assemblies, but does allow the user access to proprietary components and cost information for library items such as kitchen appliances. The financial model for this web-based free system provides revenue from the proprietary manufacturers that contribute to the library.
Figure 4.2. Autodesk Homestyler Screenshot
62 4.3
Open Source Systems OpenOffice is a free alternative to the Microsoft suite of word processing and
spreadsheet software. The system is compatible with Microsoft Office products, and allows user participation to make the products better. Users can participate by building add-ons that can help to further their productivity. These add-ons are then available to other users to download, utilize, and build upon .
Figure 4.3. OpenOffice.org Screenhot
63 4.4
Crowd Sourced Systems Threadless uses a crowd sourcing model for the design and sale of t-shirts.
Participants are able to submit t-shirt designs that are voted on by other participants. Each day the design receiving the most votes is put into production and sold through the website. The participant’s incentive for designing a t-shirt that is produced is the receipt of one of the designed shirts.
Figure 4.4. Threadless.com Screenshot
64 CHAPTER 5 SYSTEM DESIGN PROPOSAL
A conceptual system has been developed to outline the participants and their respective roles in the system. A prototype web interface has also been developed to demonstrate how each participant interacts with the system. Within the web interface is a prototype home. The home is designed based on the sequences described in the system’s Architect design process. These sequences are further described in Chapter 6, and are intended to demonstrate the ruleset, constraint, and variable definitions in the system. The prototype home also serves to outline the framework tiers of the design ruleset and library.
Figure 5.1. Conceptual Image of the Prototype House
65 5.1
Conceptual Description The proposal is for a web-based portal system. The portal system is a
collaborative alliance of Architects, Builders, Customers, and Designers for the purposes of providing customizable homes and re-shaping the American housing landscape. At the center of the system is the Project. The Project is the result of the library and ruleset. The library and ruleset are created and customized by the users. Each of the users interacts with the Project through an interface using different functions. The available user functions are make, choose, and price.
Figure 5.2. Conceptual Diagram of Project System
66
5.2
Proposed Model The proposed model is a web interface that begins with a description of the
overall study. (Figure 5.3) Titled “Housing2.0”, the overall study is broken in two parts: the story and the portal. The story is titled “OpenArchitecture”, and it is an interactive video presentation that explains the why, what, and how of the study. The secondary demonstration of the study is the portal, titled “OpenProject”. OpenProject demonstrates how users interact and participate with the system. (Figure 5.4)
Figure 5.3. Housing2.0 Welcome Screenshot
67 This model also addresses the issue of Project financing from a conceptual level. Currently it is difficult for an average homebuyer to pay for architectural design services, as the costs are upfront and paid pre-construction. This thesis argues that once a Project is created by the participants, real costs are associated with the construction and land, and then a proforma can be built based on the overall Project. Lenders are then able to appraise the future value of the home and borrow money to the homebuyer based on these projections. This Project loan would incorporate all of the costs of the Project, including design fees paid to the participant architect.
Figure 5.4. Housing 2.0 Interface Diagram
68 5.3
Introductory Video Interface The video interface is designed to allow users to interact with the video
presentations in full or in segments. As the video progresses, the content of the information pane changes to address the metrics of each scenario. Users are able to navigate during the movie progression to different video segments and information. The bottom navigation bar contains nine buttons to engage the why, what, and how questions of the proposal. (Figure 5.5)
Figure 5.5. OpenArchitecture Welcome Screenshot
The welcome screen is divided into four main sections. The site navigation bar allows users to access return to the welcome screen, watch the full video presentation, see the video credits, or continue to the OpenProject section of the portal. The information
69 pane displays information relevant to the current video clip. The video pane displays the current video clip as selected by the user. The video navigation bar allows the user to choose which video clips to watch pertaining to the why, what, and how aspects of the thesis proposal. The video content is based on the introductory section of this thesis. The “why” segments describe the current situation and questions the regression of the housing industry as compared to the evolution of the automobile and shoe industries. (Figure 5.6) The information pane displays graphical information of each industry’s growth or regression towards customization over the last century. When the movie plays, the information for each industry is automatically displayed when the video reaches a specific content cue. Users are also able to click on the icons for each industry to display the graphical information prior to reaching the cue.
70
Figure 5.6. Screenshot of the “Why” Story The “what” segments of the introductory video address the problem of the lack of consumer choice when purchasing a new home. (Figure 5.7) The video is scripted from the perspective of a young family attempting to obtain a new home affordably that is designed for their lifestyle. The information pane displays metrics that gauge the risk, cost, and customization levels of each option.
71
Figure 5.7. Screenshot of the “What” Story The “how” portions of the video engage this thesis’ second chapter, the vision for re-engaging the architect in mass housing. (Figure 5.8) The proposed solution outlines concepts of design systems, networks, and implementation for achieving this goal. The scripts of each video segment are included in the Appendix.
72
Figure 5.8. Screenshot of the “How� Story
5.4
Prototype Portal Interface The portal interface is titled OpenProject. This is the interactive segment of the
proposal where the user is able to see how each user interacts with the Project. (Figure 5.9) The user is first asked to choose a role, selecting Architect, Builder, Customer, or Designer on the top user bar. Once the user role is chosen, the subsequent content is adapted to the roles and responsibilities of that user. With each role, three functions are available: learn, browse or share.
73
Figure 5.9. OpenProject Portal Welcome Screenshot
74 5.4.1 Learn Sequence. The Learn sequence is initiated when a user clicks on the “learn� button. (Figure 5.10) The steps of the current user type are then outlined in a slideshow that overlays the current information. The specific content of the learn sequences is outlined in detail in Chapter 6.
Figure 5.10. Screenshot of the Learn Sequence
5.4.2 Share Function. The Share function allows each user access to tools needed to share information and content with the portal. Here each user is able to download their respective Application Development Kit (ADK). The ADK provides plugins for proprietary software so that the user can build content and provide information according
75 to the OpenProject information standards. Standardized information formats allow users to use the system across multiple platforms. Architects are also able to upload a new framework and upload a new component. The framework is the architect’s ruleset contribution to the Project. The components are the architect’s library contribution to the Project.
Figure 5.11. Screenshot of Architect Share Functions
Through the Share function, Builders are able to submit pricing information. Builders are asked to submit pricing information for any design frameworks and library components that they are interested in building. If a Builder submits this information
76 before a Project is created by a Customer, the Customer will then be able to see real-time cost data relative to their customization options. After downloading the ADK, Builders are able to submit unit-cost data from proprietary software packages into the system.
Figure 5.12. Screenshot of Builder Share Functions
Through the share function, Customers are able to submit a site or start a new Project. When sharing a site, a Customer is able to find a geographic location on a map application and submit it to the Project. Other participants are then able to suggest frameworks or other Projects that would be appropriate for the Customer’s site.
77 When starting a new Project, Customers begin by entering information about their housing needs and lifestyle. This information can better inform other participants in recommending frameworks and other Projects on which to build. The Customer is also able to simply browse the available Projects and frameworks without receiving recommendations and suggestions from other participants.
Figure 5.13. Screenshot of Customer Share Functions
78 Designers are able to contribute library components to the system. The ADK allows designers access to tools to build the content in other software systems such as Autodesk Revit or Google Sketchup. By uploading a library component, the content is then available for other participants to use on their Projects.
Figure 5.14. Screenshot of Designer Share Functions
79 5.4.3 Browse Function. The Browse function allows users to browse available Projects and frameworks. This can be done through the simple search engine that shows available Projects (Figure 5.15) or a more robust, advanced search engine modeled after real estate search criteria. (Figure 5.16) The first browser screen remains the same for all users.
Figure 5.15. Screenshot of Basic Open Projects Browse Function
80
Figure 5.16. Screenshot of Advanced Search Browse Function
After the user chooses a Project in which to participate, they click on it and are taken to the Project viewer. This is the billboard for the architect design framework. The architect is able to give a description and intent of the design system. They are also able to upload Project imagery to give an overall vision for the framework. (Figure 5.17) The user is then able to choose to either customize this Project or return to the Project browser to search more Projects.
81
Figure 5.17. Screenshot of Project Viewer
Once the user has chosen to customize the Project, the subsequent options change depending on the user role. All of the users are able to ask questions or make suggestions by clicking the “ask/suggest� button. This button takes the user to an interface allowing the input of questions and suggestions. (Figure 5.18) Users are able to question some or all of the participants and upload media to support those questions. Additionally users can make suggestions and upload supporting content to the system.
82
Figure 5.18. Screenshot of Question and Suggestion Function
The customize sequence for Architects also allows them to update the architectural framework. This can involve updating the framework model, updating Project information, or changing the Project viewer content. (Figure 5.19) The update framework interface then allows architects to upload content and see Project statistics. The Project statistics can show information similar to web stat plug-ins for blogs. The intent is that the statistical information can provide quantitative data that can help inform Architects’ future design decisions.
83
Figure 5.19. Screenshot of Update Framework Function
From the customize interface, the Builder is able to submit pricing information for the Project. This can be entered directly into the portal as unit costs, or the data can be uploaded from proprietary software platforms. If the Builder enters the information directly into the portal, a DWF viewer allows the Builder to navigate the model and its components. Additionally, the interface shows the components in a tree format organized by CSI division. Builders can download the Project information or upload pricing data through this interface. (Figure 5.20)
84
Figure 5.20. Screenshot of Submit Pricing Function
The Customer interacts with the Project editor by customizing the home and reviewing pricing. An interactive interface similar to Google Earth allows the Customer to visualize the home and examine each floor. The customization options that exist for the Customer are the flex, swap, and finish operations. Flex allows the user to adjust the dimensions of the home’s geometry as defined by the architectural ruleset. (Figure 5.21) The swap operation allows the user to replace a Project component with another compatible component from the library. (Figure 5.22) The finish operation allows the user to choose the finishes of the library components and engage additional customization
85 options through proprietary plugins. (Figure 5.23) The flex, swap, and finish operations are explained in greater detail later in this chapter.
Figure 5.21. Screenshot of Customer Customization with the Flex Operation
86
Figure 5.22. Screenshot of Customer Customization with the Swap Operation
87
Figure 5.23. Screenshot of Customer Customization with the Finish Operation
88 Additionally, the Customer is able to see real-time pricing from any Builder participant who has bid library components and the architectural framework. The pricing is displayed from Builders who are available to build Projects in the home’s geographic location. (Figure 5.24) Customers are also able to review specific Builder information from the pricing interface. Once the Customer has customized the home and is satisfied with the pricing, they are able to purchase the home through the portal.
Figure 5.24. Screenshot of Project Pricing from Customer Interface
89 5.5
Prototype House To demonstrate the relationship of the library to the Architect designed ruleset, it
is necessary to present a prototype house system. The prototype system description is divided into the ruleset and library definitions. The prototype house is then graphically explained through the relationships of the house rulesets to the library as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 frameworks and components.
Figure 5.25. Diagram of Design Framework Contents
5.6
Ruleset Structure and Operations The ruleset concept is built on Autodesk Revit native datum. Revit allows users a
series of regulating lines and planes that can parametrically control the behavior of model components. At the same time the native system uses dimensions and lock controls to adjust geometry based on user-defined parameters. Building on the native software, this thesis proposes additional datum and relationships. (Figure 5.26) The proposed datum are named containers and planes. Containers are rectilinear forms that can hold components. As the container size changes,
90 the components adjust accordingly. The containers hold content from any of the Revit native categories. Planes are similar to containers except they are two-dimensional and can hold only walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings. (Figure 5.27)
Figure 5.26. Tree Diagram of Revit Native and Proposed Rulesets
91
Figure 5.27. Description of Container and Plane System Variables and Relationships
The two operations that are defined in the ruleset system are flex and swap. As described earlier in the chapter, the flex operation allows users to adjust the dimensional relationships of objects that the Architect has defined as flexible. (Figure 5.28) The swap operation allows users to replace container content with another compatible component. (Figure 5.29).
92
Figure 5.28. Graphic Depiction of the Flex Operation
Figure 5.29. Graphic Depiction of the Swap Operation
93 5.7
Prototype House Ruleset System The definition of the prototype rulesets begins with the Tier 1 regulating lines.
Figure 5.30 outlines the regulating lines in plan view. These lines are controlled by a series of dimensional relationships and lock functions. As a user adjusts the regulating lines, the attached containers and planes adjust according to the rules set up in the relationship parameters.
Figure 5.30. Diagram of Tier 1 Ruleset Variables
Figure 5.31 demonstrates the containers and planes defined in the plan view. The colors of the containers and planes indicate the relative categories that they have been allowed to contain. The indicated containers have been allowed a swap parameter,
94 therefore allowing them to have interchangeable content. To populate a specific container, the content must be of a compatible category and meet the adjacency relationships that have been defined as part of the container’s ruleset. Figure 5.32 shows the proposed Revit plugin that allows the architect to place category, X,Y,Z, adjacency, and orientation rules on the container contents.
Figure 5.31. Diagram of Tier 1 Container and Plane Relationships
95
Figure 5.32. Proposed Revit Plugin for Tier 1 Ruleset Definitions
96
Figure 5.33. Tier 2 Relationships to Tier 1 Customizations
Planes and containers hold library content. This content is defined as Tier 2. Tier 2 content adjusts to maintain relationships to its parent container as the flex operation is used on the container. While Tier 2 content maintains relationships to the Tier 1 plane or container, it can also have its own ruleset as shown in Figure 5.33. Additionally Tier 3 content holds relationships to its parent Tier 2 content and subsequently the Tier 2 parent, Tier 1.
97
Figure 5.34. Tier 3 Relationships to Tier 2 and Tier 1 Customizations
Figure 5.34 demonstrates the multiple-tier relationships in a kitchen system. The Tier 1 system is the kitchen container. The kitchen container has a Tier 1 ruleset that defines it as a space container that only holds kitchen spaces. It also has dimensional and adjacency rules that determine which Tier 2 content it can contain. Within the Tier 2 kitchen component is a ruleset that determines where the Tier 3 content exists and its relationships to other Tier 3 content within the kitchen. In this case the Tier 3 content is cabinets, appliances, and fixtures. The next section further demonstrates the tiered structure of the library.
98 5.8
Prototype House Library System The library encompasses the content that is available to populate the rulesets. The
library has a hierarchal order beginning with Tier 1 and ending with Tier 3. (Figure 5.35) The available Tier 1 library content is composed of containers and planes. Containers are populated by Tier 2 components from the Autodesk Revit native object categories. Planes on the other hand, are only populated by Tier 2 walls, floors, roofs, and ceilings.
Figure 5.35. Hierarchy of Library Tiers and Ruleset Relationships
99
Tier 3 components populate the relative Tier 2 content and adjust to Tier 2 rulesets. Tier 2 rulesets are then dependent on Tier 1 rulesets, therefore Tier 3 content is in turn affected by Tier 1 flexing and swapping. Tier 3 components can nest within each other, therefore there can be numerous Tier 3 component categories within a single Tier 2 component. The Tier 3 component tree ends at the final finish parameters of the components. Figure 5.36 illustrates the Tier 2 wall components that populate the Tier 1 plane components. Figure 5.37 and Figure 5.38 illustrate the Tier 2 space and casework components that populate the Tier 1 containers, respectively.
Figure 5.36. Tier 2 Wall Components Populating Tier 1 Planes
100
Figure 5.37. Tier 2 Space Components Populating Tier 1 Containers
Figure 5.38. Tier 2 Casework Components Populating Tier 1 Containers
101 The Tier 3 library is intended to be more open to allow a broad set of potential categories and objects to populate it. This allows a deep level of customization beyond the more rigid Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Using the Tier 2 kitchen component example, Tier 3 customization options can be cabinet finishes, cabinet doors, appliances, fixtures, and cabinet hardware. (Figure 5.39)
Figure 5.39. Tier 3 Finish Components Populating Other Tier 3 Components
The Tier 3 system also allows for the incorporation of plugin applications. Manufacturers, software developers, and other interested parties can develop applications to allow proprietary systems to populate Tier 2 and Tier 3 components. An example of this is illustrated in Figure 5.40 showing the Elfa closet system design center web
102 application. A plugin such as this or Ikea’s kitchen planning tool could allow a higher level of customization and real-time pricing for consumers. (Figure 5.41)
Figure 5.40. Elfa Design Center Closet Planner Application
Figure 5.41. Ikea Home Kitchen Planner Application
103 CHAPTER 6 USER PARTICIPATORY PROCESS
For the purposes of defining the breadth of this proposal it is necessary to outline how each type of user interacts with the portal system. Architects, Builders, Customers, and Designers all participate in the system with different procedures. In the OpenProject prototype web interface the following steps are explained through the learn panel.
Figure 6.1. Screenshot of Learn Panel Welcome Screen
104 6.1
Architect Process The intent of the portal for Architects is to re-engage and take a leadership role in
shaping the built environment of mass housing. In order for the architectural community to be able to do this, a system needs to be in place that allows a widespread consumer base access to affordable, quality design. This is achieved by architects delivering a flexible design system instead of only a singular design. Because of this use of design systems, the architect’s traditional design process must change. As an Architect designs a home in this system, he or she needs to begin thinking about the critical dimensions, constraints, and variables that can make the design flexible and customizable. The conceptual design process could still remain the same as the architect’s previous process, but it is critical that the rules of the system be defined early in the design of the home. As a result, the traditional construction documentation process evolves into building information modeling and ruleset definitions. Architects will execute the following sequence of steps to participate in the system.
6.1.1 Sketch the Designs. The Architect begins the design process just as he or she normally would. (Figure 6.2) However, it is critical to be aware that the design will soon be transitioning into a design ruleset system. Therefore it is helpful for the Architect to keep a mental picture of what constraints and variables will be utilized.
6.1.2 Start defining the Rules. The Architect begins defining the rules by outlining the spatial organization and the Cartesian coordinate basis for the system. (Figure 6.3)
105
Figure 6.2. Architect Plan Sketch and Diagram
Figure 6.3. Architect Sketching the Ruleset
106 6.1.3 Get the Development Kit. The Application Development Kit (ADK) can be downloaded from the portal. This package gives the Architect access to the add-ons required to define rules in separate software packages. The development kit also gives the Architect access to the system’s library content while working in separate software packages.
6.1.4 Set the Flex Ruleset. The flex ruleset system allows users dimensional adjustments to the housing design. The rules are defined through the software add-ons downloaded in the ADK. In a compatible software package, Architects define the dimensional constants and variables within the planes and containers.
6.1.5 Set the Swap Ruleset. Swap rulesets are created in a similar manner as the flex rulesets. Through the software add-ons, Architects define which containers can contain interchangeable content. Further metadata, including categories, orientation, and dimensional limitations can also be defined in this step.
6.1.6 Add Custom Rulesets. It is most likely that an Architect will need to use rulesets outside of what is provided by the default library components. When this is the case, Architects can pick a ruleset component in the software package and choose to customize it. Within the add-on dialog box, (Figure 6.4) the properties of the library component can be altered. Then the component is saved back into the web-based system to be shared with other alliance participants.
107
Figure 6.4. Dialog Box to Edit or Add Custom Ruleset
6.1.7
Add the Content. Once the ruleset has been constructed and defined, Architects
can populate the system with library content. The content is accessed through the software add-on library, and it is placed in the model with physical relationships to the ruleset.
6.1.8
Add Custom Content. Similar to the concept of building custom rulesets,
Architects can build custom library components. Components can be constructed from
108 scratch in compatible software packages, (Figure 6.5) or built from existing content submitted by other Architects or Designers. Library components all have associated Creative Commons licensing determining the extent to which content can be used or altered.
Figure 6.5. Screenshot of Custom Content Creation in Autodesk Revit
6.1.9 Share your Project. An Architect’s design framework is shared with other participants once it is submitted to the portal system. The framework is then available for Builders to price, Customers to customize, and Designers to contribute. Crowd-sourced
109 feedback is received from any alliance member who has participated in the Project. Architects can then receive information to inform design changes and submit new designs based on public opinion.
6.1.10 Sell Your Design. Once a Customer has participated and customized an Architect’s design framework, chosen a Builder, and committed to a contract to build the home, the Architect receives payment for design services. This is a commission percentage pre-determined by the participating Architect. The Customer also has the opportunity to contact the Architect directly for further information on the design or to contract additional design of construction administration services. If the Project is outside of the Architect’s geographic location, the Architect can offer addition construction services to be administered by another alliance Architect.
6.2
Builder Process The portal allows Builders to submit bids to build any Project in the system. This
allows Builders maximum opportunity and exposure to new home Customers. The process begins by a Builder first submitting unit costs for library content. When Customers build or customize their Projects, they are able to see real time comparative cost data from all of the participating Builders. Therefore the more library content a Builder prices, the more visible the Builder is to potential Customers. Additionally, the more information that can be obtained by the Builder from the system’s library, the more accurate and competitive the Builder’s pricing can be.
110 Participating in the alliance gives Builders access to reliable building information modeling data. This data can be deciphered and organized through the system’s add-ons for construction management and estimating software platforms. The system’s focus on organization, transparency, and reliable information bolsters the construction administration phase as the construction process can be managed through the system’s web-based Project management tools. The sequence for Builders to engage in the system is outlined in the following steps.
6.2.1 Download Development Kit. The Builder’s ADK provides add-ons to construction software packages. These add-ons are required for pricing the rulesets and library content submitted by Architects and Designers. The add-ons are designed to work with industry standard software for cost estimating, clash detection, and project management.
6.2.2 Price the Ruleset. Builders submit pricing for rulesets through the software package add-ons. Builders can search the portal for Architect-submitted rulesets through a search engine similar to a real estate search. Builders can also choose to be notified about any new Projects that have been submitted in their geographic location.
6.2.3 Choose a Project. Open Projects are Projects which have both Architect and Customer participants already involved. When searching through the portal, Builders can find and choose open Projects in their geographic area.
111 6.2.4
Submit Pricing Information. Once a Builder has chosen a design framework, a
library component, or an open Project, the Builder submits pricing information. The cost information is submitted through the software add-ons downloaded in the Builder’s ADK. (Figure 6.6)
Figure 6.6. Screenshot of Timberline Cost Estimating Software
6.2.5
Keep the Information Current. Builders are notified of any changes to the
Project after they have submitted pricing of a framework, component, or Project. Likewise, when a Builder adjusts the unit pricing, the other Project participants will be notified.
112 Builders also must submit general conditions costs for each Project which includes overhead and profit as well as any contingencies. However, the concept of the alliance system is to maximize information flow to the Builder, therefore minimizing discrepancies and contingencies.
6.2.6 Collaborate. The alliance system is the collaboration between Architects, Builders, Customers, and Designers. Therefore all participants in a Project are urged to participate by asking questions, offering solutions, and making recommendations.
6.2.7 Build the Project. When a Customer completes a Project and is ready to build their new home, they will choose a Builder from the alliance. Once the Customer has chosen a Builder, the Builder is immediately notified, and is bound by the contract to complete the home as delivered through the portal system. The contracts and payments to the Builder are administered through the portal system.
6.3
Customer Process The Customer portal gives potential homebuyers the opportunity to choose and
customize their architect-designed home. At the same time the Customer is able to receive real time cost data from Builders near the Project’s geographic location. Through the portal, Customers can browse available Projects, find a building site that is for sale, or share their building site to receive design recommendations from Architects.
113 Architects then have the opportunity to make recommendations for home designs to use on the Customer’s site. A participating Architect may even develop a new framework designed specifically for the site. All alliance members have the opportunity to participate in the Customer’s Project.
Architects,
Builders,
other
Customers,
and
Designers
can
make
recommendations, build custom components, and propose cost control solutions. The crowd-sourced, participatory nature of the portal will help Customers affordably obtain customized homes for their lifestyles.
6.3.1
Browse the Projects. Customers can begin by browsing existing open Projects.
This gives the potential homebuyers an idea of the architectural frameworks available, and they are able to see how other Customers are participating in Projects. Customers can choose from open Projects or start their own Project from scratch. When Customers start a new Project, they are able to choose from available sites, submit a site, or build a Project without a site.
6.3.2
Use a Current Site. If the Customer owns or has interest in a specific building
site, he can share the site with other participants in the system. Any participant can suggest a framework or Project to be used on the site. To search for a building site, the address is entered through the system’s Google Maps interface. Additional Customer information can be shared with the participants about the Customer’s lifestyle to better inform the participants’ suggestions. Additionally
114 Customers can upload any other site information that they may have, such as a Plat of Survey or topographic map. Once a site has been selected by the Customer, the Project has been started and opened. At this point Architects will start suggesting frameworks, and other participants will start making additional suggestions.
6.3.3 Find a Site. Customers also have the ability to search for building sites that are for sale through the portal. A site that has been submitted to the portal as saleable is already an open Project, and it will already have recommended design frameworks in place. Customers, however, still have the opportunity to customize the framework. Depending on the seller’s preference, Customers may be allowed to choose different Architect frameworks for the site.
Figure 6.7. Google Map Interface Showing Available Project Sites
115 6.3.4
Open a Project without a Site. Customers who do not have a site in mind can
begin to build a customized home without a site. Customers begin by browsing and searching the available design frameworks.
6.3.5
Customize Tier 1. The first step to Customer customization is working within the
Tier 1 design system. The Tier 1 system is the ruleset designed and defined by an Architect participant. Customers can customize within this framework according to the rules, relationships, and variables that the Architect has defined.
6.3.6
Customize Tier 2. The next step in the Customer customization process is the
Tier 2 editor. Within this interface Customers choose the architectural components to populate the Tier 1 framework. By hovering over customizable planes and containers, the browser pane displays alternative components to populate the framework. (Figure 6.8) When a Customer begins a new open Project, the Tier 2 components will already be populated within the Tier 1 framework. These default components are those that have been chosen and recommended by the Tier 1 Architect.
116
Figure 6.8. Customer Interface to Browse and Select Tier 2 Components
6.3.7 Customize Tier 3. The Customer chooses the home’s finishes in the Tier 3 customization interface. Similar to the Tier 2 editor, users hover over customizable components in the framework and click one to proceed to the Tier 3 editor. The Tier 3 system also allows for proprietary plug-ins such as the Elfa closet storage customizer. (Figure 6.9)
117
Figure 6.9. Screenshot of Tier 3 Editor with Elfa Plug-In
6.3.8
Share the Project. Once a Customer creates a new open Project, it is shared with
other portal participants. The participants are able to give feedback, make recommendations, and offer alternative choices.
6.3.9
Review the Pricing. As the open Project is developed by the Customer, real time
pricing from participating Builders is available. (Figure 6.10) The pricing structure is broken into unit costs provided by Builders interested in building the specific design framework and library components. This structure allows the Customer to make informed decisions when choosing the pieces, parts, and finishes that compose the new home.
118 Customers are also able to see detailed information about each Builder who has bid on the Project.
Figure 6.10. Screenshot of Customer Pricing Review
6.3.10 Purchase a New Home. When the Customer has completed the open Project process and is ready to purchase the home, he can choose a Builder and contract them to build the house. The portal has a collaborative financing concept that allows Customers to search and choose from available financing affiliates. The contracts and payments are processed through the portal system.
119 6.4
Designer Process The facet that makes the portal system truly open source is the participation of the
Designer. Any Designer participant can submit content to the system library. This content can then be incorporated into a Project by any participant. Designers are envisioned as people that simply enjoy making things. Manufacturers could also build proprietary library content as Designer participants. This concept also allows Designers to sell their virtual and real content through the portal. The concept is that the system can allow content to be submitted that has been created in a variety of free and affordable software packages. It is necessary for Designers to follow the standards outlined by the portal system. Following these rules allows the content to be properly incorporated into the Architect’s design framework.
6.4.1
Get the Development Kit. Designers begin participating by downloading the
Designer’s ADK. This kit contains add-ons for software platforms that allow Designers to both build content according to the system standards and submit content to the library.
6.4.2
Browse the Projects. Designers can browse and search existing open Projects
and frameworks to begin building content for them. Once a Designer chooses a Project, he is able to see which components are able to be custom built and shared. Designers can search for Architect frameworks, open Projects, or other Designer components to build upon and share.
120 6.4.3 Understand the Ruleset. When the part of a Project that the Designer wants to build is found, such as a kitchen or stairs, he chooses it with a mouse click. The interface then displays the ruleset and information pertinent to that component. The Designer is then able to choose to design the component from the interface.
6.4.4 Build the Component. When the Designer chooses to design a component through the interface, the content is automatically loaded into the software platform via the software add-on downloaded in the development kit. The Designer then opens the software package and can choose the component from the add-on library.
6.4.5 Share the Component. Once new content is built, the Designer can choose to share it. By picking this option, the content is loaded into the portal system and subsequently shared with all participants through the library browser. (Figure 6.11)
6.4.6 Recommend the Component. After the content is shared with the system participants, Designers can recommend its use in any open Project. Designers browse open Projects and then suggest their components as alternates to other open components.
121
Figure 6.11. Tier 2 Library Browser
122 CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION AND RESULTS
As this thesis is a proposal for a new design system offering consumers easy access to architectural design, the primary mode of evaluation has been the use of questionnaires. Furthermore, architects, professors, and students offered feedback during a formal thesis defense presentation in an open forum.
7.1
Questionnaires Web-based surveys were delivered to architects, builders, customers, and
designers to gauge their qualitative impressions of the goals of this study. The questionnaires were developed using Surveymonkey.com and delivered via email. Three architects in Chicago, Virginia, and California returned surveys examining the portal from the Architect perspective. Additionally two architects in New York and Florida returned surveys from the Designer perspective. Two Chicago homeowners submitted surveys from the Customer perspective. Although five surveys were sent to homebuilders, at the time of this publishing, only one builder had returned any questionnaire-based results from the Builder perspective.
7.1.1 Architect Survey. The results of the Architect survey gave insights into the professional perspective of the proposal. In general architects were intrigued by this study. Their impression was that this study opens many questions about the future of the architectural profession in housing. Most agreed that the web portal would educate the
123 consumer about the value of the architect’s role. At the same time, most agreed that they would be interested in participating and submitting a design framework. Some architects, however, were concerned about the upfront and unpaid time required to submit such a framework. Furthermore there was consistent concern from architects that a proposal such as this does not provide the level of services that the traditional process provides. San Francisco architect, Sean Kennedy said, “I think that [Housing2.0] could elevate the base of housing to a better level of design in terms of more site responsiveness, climatic concerns, and material quality. On the other hand I think it tends to de-value the training, study, and deep level of involvement that a designer, architect and contractor should have in the process of building our shelter.” This feedback reinforces the idea that the re-engagement of architects in housing will require a retooling of the design and deliverable process. California architect, Todd Kuhlman, offered criticisms of the proposal as it relates to current consumer dynamic in housing. He also conveyed a sense of weariness about the potential overpopulated content that could arise out of such a portal. Looking at the proposal holistically, however, Kuhlman said, “[The architects] could be the end users of the portal and control our housing, design, and economic destiny. Housing2.0 could be the one stop shop design-build-finance collaborative for the architect-design-builder.” This thesis argues that new media concepts can allow the architect to lead and shift the current consumer dynamic in housing. Furthermore, the specific methods proposed and implemented to achieve this portal allow control over the content and rulesets submitted to the Project. The questions administered in the Architect survey are shown in Figure 7.1.
124 7.1.2 Builder Survey. A Virginia-based architect and builder, Charlie Appich, expressed concern of the learning curve of the web-based system. Appich did acknowledge, however, the positive influence that the system’s unit costing could have on decisions early in the design process. Additionally, Chicago builder Dan Sheehy has expressed his personal intrigue of this study. During several meetings, Sheehy has described the construction process as difficult and unnecessarily complicated. He believes that controlled customization is a valuable strategy to build good design more efficiently. Furthermore Sheehy has stated that he believes a system such as Housing2.0 can deliver controlled customization, therefore benefiting the efficiency of the construction industry. The questions administered in the Builder survey are shown in Figure 7.2.
7.1.3 Customer Survey. The Customer surveys reported intrigue of the overall concept. Customers stated that they were certainly willing to seek architectural design services if there was no upfront cost associated with them. The questions administered in the Customer survey are shown in Figure 7.3.
7.1.4 Designer Survey. Responses from the Designer survey were positive. New York intern architect James Petras said, “I Like the idea of establishing a library of parts that could aid in future production.” Asked why the Designer would want to participate in the system, Florida architect Dan Villa said, “Like any project: the satisfaction of design and seeing something get built…” Petras, however, stated that he would like to see monetary
125 compensation for building library components. The questions administered in the Designer survey are shown in Figure 7.4.
Figure 7.1. Web-Based Architect Survey
126
Figure 7.2. Web-Based Builder Survey
127
Figure 7.3. Web-Based Customer Survey
128
Figure 7.4. Web-Based Designer Survey
129 7.2
Defense Presentation A live presentation of this study was delivered to a group of roughly 25 architects,
professors, and students on June 29, 2011, at IIT’s Crown Hall. The presentation included a slide-format lecture, video clips, and concluded with a question and answer session. The 90 minute presentation was recorded in its entirety and has been posted on the internet at vimeo.com.10 The question and answer session of the presentation indicated a high level of intrigue in the provocative nature of this study. The professional community, however, also expressed valid concern towards the disruptive nature of the proposal. Specifically, Dirk Denison commented on the risk of removing the traditional, personal relationships between the clients and architects. Denison refers to this as client “hand-holding”. This study argues that the traditional relationships between architects and clients are timeconsuming and expensive, and therefore these traditional services are not accessible to the majority of the population. Furthermore, it is argued that by rethinking the processes, engaging information technology, and utilizing social media concepts, architects can provide a level of quality design without using the traditional design service model. Another architect, Eric Schlickman commented that the current culture does not find the traditional “hand-holding” necessary, and at times consumers only want to make their own decisions through a computer interface. This comment supports this thesis in the concept that systematic design and computer interfaces can allow the masses to access design controlled by architects. This study does not propose to replace current architectural practices for high-end design clients who want the traditional architect-client
10
A video recording of the thesis presentation can be viewed at: http://www.vimeo.com/25869064
130 relationship. Instead it proposes that technology can allow architects to provide design in demographics where design is currently unavailable and financially unobtainable. Aaron Greven, a Chicago architect, offered comments on the powerful potential of this proposal to engage real data. Specifically, Greven suggested that the incorporation of sustainable rulesets and cost data can actually increase quality in design. In other words, systematic data-based design is inherent in the proposal, and quality is inherent in systematic data-based design.
Figure 7.5. Video Screenshot of Presentation
131 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS
This study proposes a conceptual plan for architects to be involved in the design of mass affordable housing through a revised design process and the utilization of new media. The collaborative nature of the web portal introduces an efficiency, transparency, and customization level not seen in the housing industry. Architects would be able to lead the design process, and the consumer would have choice through controlled customization of a new home. This study should serve as a foundation for future research based on engaging architects in housing design through new media. This concluding chapter outlines the achievements, limitations, and potential future research of this thesis.
8.1
Limitations The web-based system proposal is conceptual in nature and presented as a
philosophical design. The prototype interface and house serve to demonstrate the system design and the user interaction. With that said the technical limitations to implementing such a system are based in a lack of sophisticated software development. To implement such a system, a standardized model file interchange format would need to be developed that maintains parametric relationships. Additionally software add-ons would need to be developed to incorporate the model format into standard software packages. Users would need to be able to define design rules through these add-ons. Limitations within the housing industry exist as well. Residential codes and zoning ordinances are fragmented and maintained by each municipality. Navigating these can be cumbersome and complicated. Dealing with municipal codes and labor unions has
132 historically been an impediment to the implementation of prefab and modular houses. Although this study empowers local builders to navigate the municipal politics, this could still be a limitation to the efficiency and growth of the system. The proposed system is designed with a traditional house parti in mind. Therefore the prototype rulesets are based on planar and rectilinear forms and relationships. The system as designed has limitations for implementing sloped, curved, or other complex geometries.
8.2
Future Research The results of this study present a philosophical system for participatory,
consumer-driven housing design led by architects. The achievements presented offer an innovative design, compensation, and delivery approach to housing. Although the social media concepts for collaboration exist on current platforms, further development is necessary for implementing the universal modeling formats required for data and information exchange. Furthermore, the proposed system is open-ended, and future research could be oriented towards developing design frameworks beyond the architect’s ruleset. The following approaches are potential future research on the subject: 1.
Development of building code, zoning ordinance, and municipal code
design rulesets. Additional “code” rulesets could complement the architect’s design ruleset based on geographic location. 2.
Development of engineering rulesets. Additional structural, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing rulesets could complement the architect’s design ruleset to define constraints and variables based on engineering criteria.
133 3.
Development of sustainable design rulesets. Rulesets could be developed
that help consumers make design decisions based on environmental simulations and energy conservation. 4.
Development of complex geometric rulesets. The current system is based
on rectilinear forms and relationships. Additional research could be dedicated towards developing frameworks for the more sophisticated use of complex geometries. An example would be the parametric capabilities of non-uniform rational B splines (NURBS) in the software Rhino. (Figure 8.1)
Figure 8.1. NURBS-Defined Geometry Using Rhino
5.
Proposal for a standard model interchange format. The file format
maintains metadata and parametric relationships between various software platforms. Data rich model interchange exists with Autodesk’s Design Web Format (DWF), but maintaining parametric relationships is limited.
134 6.
Integration of BIM-based design systems with the municipal permitting
process. Most current permitting processes involve antiquated paper construction documents. An integrated system which analyzes a BIM model could support the replacement of two-dimensional design documents. 7.
Integration of participatory design frameworks with digital fabrication. A
robust system that optimizes building components for digital fabrication would lead to greater efficiencies in the construction process and costs. 8.
Development of participatory design frameworks for alternative building
typologies. Although this study was focused on developing a system for re-engaging architects in single family housing, the reality is the concepts can be applied to any building type. 9.
Use of participatory design and controlled customization concepts to gain
efficiency in emergency shelters and low-income housing. The efficiency concepts applied in this study for affordable and market-rate housing could also be applied to more socially responsible architectural projects. 10.
Evolution of the manufacturing industry based on consumer feedback and
open competition. With the consumer at the forefront of the decision-making process in housing, there is potential for innovation and increased quality in the manufacturing industry for housing products. 11.
Community-based participatory design through crowd-sourcing. Crowd-
sourcing concepts can make it possible for the community to have input on neighbors’ homes or buildings.
135 8.3
Summary The overall goal of this thesis is to propose a solution to give the consumer easy
and affordable access to architectural design. By achieving this goal architects have the opportunity to have oversight and control of the built environment of homes. Through the implementation of an internet web portal and the use of architectural design systems, architects can achieve this level of impact on the housing industry. Once architects are again involved in mass housing, only then can they return to the role of the masterbuilder. There is no question that someone will find a solution to leverage the tools of the information age in home building. The ultimate question, though, is who will that someone be? Now in 2011, with the homebuilding industry economically battered, architects have an unprecedented opportunity to leverage their knowledge, brand, and capabilities to be that someone, and to truly take back control of mass housing design. This study opens up many questions about the education of the consumer, the current architectural processes, and the impact that the information age can have on architectural services. I hope that this thesis serves as a basis and inspiration for future studies and implementations that grow the architect’s role in the home building industry.
136
APPENDIX A VIDEO PRESENTATION SCRIPT
137
1. THE STORY: WHY? 1.A: AUTOS In 1908, Ford Motor Company introduced its first assembly-line produced automobile, the Model T.Henry Ford said: “I will build a car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for.” Although very innovative in its production methods, The Model T was a median design. It was economically manufactured to appeal to and support the lifestyles of not just a specific demographic, but instead the majority Americans. As Henry Ford put it, design “for the great multitude”. However, shortly thereafter, Ford began introducing a variety of automobiles for different lifestyles and uses built on the same Model T platform. In the 100 years since the introduction of the Model T, there have been over 160 different car companies, making a tremendous number of different models for different cultures, utilities and price points. Today we have even more choice when it comes to purchasing a car, and we can even begin to customize our own. Many car companies allow you to choose options, visualize and price the car of your dreams through online web-portals. If you want, you can even go to LocalMotors.com, and design your own car. Here, other Local Motors community members can contribute to the design, development, and building of the co-created cars, all through a web portal. As you can see, over the last one hundred years, automobiles have evolved from median design to participatory and customizable design. Now you can pretty much find a car for any lifestyle, culture, or need.
1B: SHOES In 1958, the new suburban, post-war casual lifestyle, led Hush Puppies to introduce the world’s first casual shoe. Made of suede and lightweight soles, this new footwear typology was soft, breathable, and comfortable. There was no other shoe like it. On its website, the company says “in an era when footwear choices were limited, Hush Puppies provided the world with a new alternative.
138
The introduction of Hush Puppies broke the world out of median shoe design. Now there are thousands of different shoe designs available for any occasion, lifestyle, or utility. Of course now you can shop tens of thousands of different shoes online through websites such as Zappos.com. Zappos claims that one out of three shoe sales was actually lost in conventional shoe stores because the shoe and size that the customer wanted was out of stock. Zappos changes this by having an enormous, networked inventory therefore giving you endless choice and maximizing customer satisfaction. You can also go to NikeId.com. Within Nike’s design framework, you can choose, customize, and purchase your own personalized shoes. Many major shoes manufacturers such as Converse, Rebok, and Vans also let you customize shoes through a web interface. Websites such as Zazzle, allow you to be even more creative by customizing patterns and colors, all within a Keds shoe design framework. As you can see, Hushpuppies started a shoe revolution that has pushed footwear beyond median design. Now there are seemingly infinite types of shoes and customization options to fit your feet and your lifestyle.
1.C: HOUSING So you may be asking, what do cars and shoes have to do with mass housing? Well it is not just shoes and cars that have allowed customization. Pretty much anything that you can purchase on the internet, certainly has choice, and somewhere allows a user a certain amount of customization. To allow this level of customization, all of these industries have overcome median design through an open, competitive market. Buyers have demanded affordable choice and customization. At the same time, for whatever reason, house buyers have not demanded this, and the market has not evolved from median design. The post-World War II building boom led to significant advancements in the mass production of homes. Prior to this time most homes were designed by architects and slowly constructed by skilled workers. After World War II, this model did not work for the huge increase in suburban housing demand, so a new model was developed. It was during this time, Levitt & Sons introduced an assembly line system for building median designed homes efficiently and inexpensively.
139 Similar to the assembly line of the Model T introduced in 1908, workers had a specific task to perform and moved from one house to the next. The more similar each of the homes was, the more efficiently and inexpensively each one could be built. Levitt’s model served the current need for housing, but the problem now is that mass homebuilding has not yet evolved from this median design system. Over the past sixty years, there have been over 55 million new homes built. The majority have been by large homebuilders in a median design model with little to no influence from a professional architect. Is seems that over the last century, housing has actually gone in the opposite direction from most other industries. This has left America with a homogenous housing landscape. Why is it that homebuilding has not engaged computer technology for the good of customization and innovation? Why is it that America’s housing landscape does not reflect the true ideas and lifestyles of its people?
140
2. THE STORY: WHAT? 2.A: REAL ESTATE AGENT A young family is looking to move out of their starter home, and into a new home to support their changing lifestyle. They are thinking about the methods for obtaining this new home, and they have so many questions about finding just the right house… One aspect of their home purchase they are curious about is their potential RISK: Will there be transparency in the costs of their home? Will there be quality in the design and construction of their home? Do they need professional oversight and help in this home purchase or construction? They are also curious about the COSTS associated with this home purchase: What kind of fees and commissions will they have to pay? How much will the house, construction, or land cost? What additional fees are they going to have to pay for professional services? The family also wants a own home suited for their lifestyle, so they are also wondering about customization: Can they personalize their home other than their furniture and decorating? Do they need professional guidance for their personalization? Would they like Creative Vision from an architect or designer? The family’s first thought is to go to a real estate agent to look for an existing home on the market? There is some risk in that they don’t know exactly how well the home actually works, the home cost is higher since the homes are in established neighborhoods and they need to pay a broker commission, and because the home already exists, the family is unable to customize it for their own needs. They decide to take a look at their other options to try to reduce cost and risk, and to try to get a home a little more customizable.
2.B: HOMEBUILDER As the family continues their search for a new home, they decide next to look at a few homebuilders who are building new developments in their area. Most of the homes are built and financed through large homebuilders so the process for purchasing one is relatively easy. The homes are usually under a limited warranty, but many times the construction quality is questionable. There is typically quality control involved in the construction process, but no professional oversight from an architect.
141 The cost of these homes is usually low since the homebuilders can build their models efficiently, and also because the land is typically purchased in large parcels that are later subdivided by the homebuilder. Customization is typically relatively limited. The family has a little bit of choice choosing between the builder’s models and changing a few options, but any other customized changes to the home could be very costly. In a lot of ways the developer home seems like it could be a good choice, developers have built and sold over 50 million homes in the last fifty years. but all of the houses are the same… and the family wants something special that they can enjoy for the next twenty-plus years of their lives together… The family decides to look and see what an architect can offer to their new home. 2.C: ARCHITECTS The family decides to also look at hiring an architect to custom design their personal home. The family is excited about the level of quality that they can get from an architectural design and the piece of mind from having professional oversight. In theory the architect also limits their risk, as they are there to advise that the home is actually built according to the architect’s specifications. They are concerned, however about the significant costs associated with hiring an architect. In addition to paying the architect’s hourly fees before construction, there is a stigma that architects actually make house cost more to construct. The fnaily is worried that they are getting in over their head in terms of cost, and there is no really good way to predict and fund these expenses. Obviously the architect will provide a high level of customization. As well as designing a personalized home just for the family, the architect can also provide professional guidance and creative vision for the family’s new home. All though they respect what the architect can provide, the family is weary about paying the premium, when the homebuilder and real estate agent can get them a larger home for much cheaper. There has to be a better way of having an architect involved in the family’s new home! They wish that there was a solution that provided low risk, affordability, and a high level of customization. That’s where OpenArchitecture comes in.
142
3. THE STORY: HOW? 3.A: Design Systems During the 1950’s there was strong excitement towards design innovation even in the housing industry. However, these historic architectural attempts to re-engage mass housing have focused on modular and pre-fabricated concepts. In essence, architects have tried to re-invent building construction systems and products. Unfortunately, this method has not been successful at any large scale Housing2.0 proposes that architects reinvent that which they actually control, so instead of re-designing the building systems, architects should re-build the design systems. The good news is that the tools for doing this are readily available. Building Information Modeling and Parametric software systems are now being implemented across the architectural and building industries. The next step is to get the design process up to the level of sophistication of the software. By implementing rule based design partis a singular house design can be customized in an infinite number of variations. Housing2.0 does this through the use of flex and swap operations. The Flex operation sets rules that allow the user to adjust the dimensional relationships of the model. The Swap operation allows users to interchange the components that populate a framework. 3.B: Networks Asymmetric information is a major cause of construction inefficiencies. For this reason, a collaborative network of information and communication between all of the housing participants is critical for an architectural mass housing solution. Housing2.0 proposes a collaborative solution in which all of these participants contribute to a central project. The Project contains a Building Information Model which holds all of the interactive information provided by the architect, builder, customer, and designer.
143
Using a social media model, information can be shared fluidly between all partcipants. The Architect is able to submit design frameworks, review pricing information, and offer design experitise. The Builder is able to openly price projects to inform the design process and gain greater market exposure The Customer is able to engage the architect and builder for the good of the project, all while choosing customizable architect-designed homes. The Designer is able to build housing components and submit them to architect design frameworks to be reviewed and priced.
3.C: Implementation It has been argued that architects have failed at educating the consumer on the value of their services. Referring to other homebuilders, architect Thomas Fisher said, “They have not only told their story; we have allowed them to tell our story, to our detriment. A web based implementation strategy can change this and finally tell the architect’s story. The goal of Housing2.0 is to enable the consumer to have easy and affordable access to architectural design. This solution is implemented through an internet portal, allowing homebuyers in any geographic location to access information and to collaborate on the design of their new home. At the center of the portal is the Project which is created by the Homebuyer. Architects, Builders, Customers, and Designers all participate in the project in a different way, all with the goal of offering the Customer controlled customization of their architect designed home. Architects submit Design Frameworks. Builders then price these Frameworks Designers submit library components that can populate the framework.
144 Homebuyers can search for design frameworks submitted by architects. They can then customize the design within the rules that the architect set. And Customers can Flex the design or swap components based on the rules the architect has set. During this process the Customer is able to see realtime cost data from participating builders. When a customer is ready, they can choose to purchase the home and sign a contract with a selected builder. The architect receives a design fee that they set once the project has been purchased. A critical component to the portal is communication. All of the partcipants are able to openly communicate with each other by asking questions,making suggestions, or giving feedback. Housing 2.0 and OpenProject offer homebuyers an alternative choice for purchasing a new architect-designed home.
145
APPENDIX B EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES
146 Architect Questionnaires Survey A1 Name: - Todd Kuhlman Company: - Kuhlman Structures City/Town: - Encinitas State: - CA 2. Do you think that architects could become more involved in homebuilding through a system such as Housing2.0? I think that architects could see a modest increase from a few interested individuals and progressive/forward thinking companies but that for the most part buyers and home builders are looking for completed off the shelf products. Unfortunately I see that people (i.e. end users/clients) would still control the stream, volume of the site and access for getting an architect involved and that they represent a market segment not that active in pursuing architect designed homes, regardless of the price. There seems to always be something bigger or better that one can get for the same price to the majority of home buyers. As you know, I believe that architects need to control the flow of their own work by introducing competetively priced housing alternatives. I see what you are doing as a valuable way for architects to be able to design and price product for themselves or as a valuable design kit to attract clients with a real interest in saving money, but do not feel that it will change the manner in which the vast majority of homebuilders and clients obtain their homes. I like the approach but do not see the public shifting to a design/build approach that gets the archtect sustantially more involved than he already is. It needs to be so easily implementable that the buyer has no reason not to. 3. As an architect would you be willing to spend upfront uncompensated time to build and submit design frameworks? (You would be compensated when a customer purchases and builds a project based on your design framework) I would on the surface and would be fine recieveing compensation on the back end of theoretically multiple use of a particular design. However, knowing that sites like this can become so overpopulated with content and user choices that the magnitude of choices might cause buyers to stop looking before they really start. Similiarly, if a site is oversaturated with available options it may appear as futile to an architect to consider posting their work to try to take advantage of a limited exposure their design framework might get. For instance, when you see the browse page on the site and there are 3 choices, fine, but if say 23 pages of choices exist, both the architect and the public would be less than interested in what is on page 19 or 20. A means of sorting relevent design criteria could be a means to controlling this, but wouldnt we all be doing the same basic thing... 4. Do you believe that a portal such as Housing2.0 educates the consumer on the value of an architect? I think the site would educate the consumer on the value of archtectural design, not necessarily of an architect. Clients already think that they can design better than the archtiect and having a menu of mix and match, best cost items to chose from might encourage them to assemble a building from unrelated bits and pieces in an effort to tailor the building or the pricing of it themselves. I also see them shopping designs again not for design value but for cost and cost alone which gets you right back to where you started. The architect themselves do not matter. 5. What do you believe are the current limitations/difficulties in affordably designing a home for a median income family? Land and entitlements, oh&p, infrastructure, permits and impact fees. The cost of the home can often be less than half of the develoment cost. Add on design fees and people just walk away. People want to spend say $150/sf on their house. Which is to say that when you take off 15% gc oh&p, a/e 10% fee, permit and impact fees, etc. they are either spending $75/sf on their house or $225/sf on a complete project. Neither of which makes them happy or that they fully understand. From a 2.0 site perspective it may be a worthy endeavor to factor these fees into the education of the homebuyer/builder or derive and economic tier or spending choices to futher identify appropriate choices for appropriate home buyers. The second limitation
147 for an affordably priced home of course is access to money and available down payment. Land loans tend to be 25-50% down draining the ability to pay for design a permits prior to construction financing. A onestop money shop tied to the value of the home (alone) payable on the back end could also be made part of the site. Lets face it, money talks and good prices on archiect designed homes goes nowhere without cash. That could be the real game changer as it pertains to who will chose the site for the design of their home... the one who can affordably and easily fund it. 6. Do you think that having access to accurate and real cost information from builders will allow a more holistic approach to home design? Again yes and no. I think architects will be able to do a lot of great things and implement their designs more readily with the competitive real cost info when working with a holistic client/customer but that most customers might forgo design and architect options by prepricing themselve and/or the architects out of viable design options. Neither al designs nor all designers are the same and back to where we were in question 2, you are still relying on Mr. & Mrs. John Q to choice you and your platform and you and your design and now you and your cost over every one else on the the portal. 7. Please offer any other comments, suggestions, and insights about this proposal to engage architects in single-family housing. Don't get me wrong, from an architectural and thesis point of view the validity it lends and choices it opens up to both the archtect and end user are laudable. Take it apart one more time now and ask yourself how to get yourself (as frugal and all knowing architectural client) to utilize the system easily and effectively. Find out how you can no longer say existing homes are still a better option. Find out how you can avoid purchase by price but rather by design, and find out how you can put the power of design back in the architects hand. I think you are well on your way. As I say I think the portal could be used very effectively by the design.build community to implement designs and thereby have existing real product on the street to compete with economically and design wise with existing home sales. We could be the end users of the portal and control our housing and our design and economic destiny. Housing2.0 could be the one stop shop design.build.finance collaborative for the architect.design.builder.
Survey A2 Name: - Scott Edmonston Company: - SEA Studio, LLC City/Town: - Bethany Beach State: - DE 2. Do you think that architects could become more involved in homebuilding through a system such as Housing2.0? Yes 3. As an architect would you be willing to spend upfront uncompensated time to build and submit design frameworks? (You would be compensated when a customer purchases and builds a project based on your design framework) I would if my firm wasn't busy or the firm was big enough to have an intern or two that could be dedicated to a potentially non billable project (in the event that the design didn't sell). It could be great for upstart architecture firms though. 4. Do you believe that a portal such as Housing2.0 educates the consumer on the value of an architect? Not sure. I think that, in some ways, it could make the architectural services seem easier/ less complex than the really are. (I did, of course, only spend 10 minutes playing with the portal). 5. What do you believe are the current limitations/difficulties in affordably designing a home for a median income family? I think a major limitation is the ability of a family to wait for their house to be built. In many cases,
148 families can't carry the cost of both their current home and the home that's being built. 6. Do you think that having access to accurate and real cost information from builders will allow a more holistic approach to home design? Yes. 7. Please offer any other comments, suggestions, and insights about this proposal to engage architects in single-family housing. Maybe you already have this but what about an awards process for the submitted designs. That way, the contributing architects could be lured by not only the potential sale of the design but also the potential for gaining some publicity if they submit a great design even if it doesn't get built.
Survey A3 Name: - sean kennedy Company: - ccs architecture City/Town: - san Francisco State: - CA 2. Do you think that architects could become more involved in homebuilding through a system such as Housing2.0? at a review / consultant level 3. As an architect would you be willing to spend upfront uncompensated time to build and submit design frameworks? (You would be compensated when a customer purchases and builds a project based on your design framework) yes with certain reservations 4. Do you believe that a portal such as Housing2.0 educates the consumer on the value of an architect? somewhat, I think that it could elevate the base of housing to a better level of design in terms of more site responsiveness, climatic concerns, and material quality - on the other hand I think it tends to de-value the training, study, and deep level of involvement that a designer, architect and contractor should have in the process of building our shelter. there is much to learn from pre-fab, car design and industrial manufacturing but there are limits when it comes to a trully enriching built environment. 5. What do you believe are the current limitations/difficulties in affordably designing a home for a median income family? time current site built, cost intensive and materially wasteful way we build homes. 6. Do you think that having access to accurate and real cost information from builders will allow a more holistic approach to home design? having those constructing, fabricating and suppying the home and the design process woud help in terms of overall project time and cost constraints 7. Please offer any other comments, suggestions, and insights about this proposal to engage architects in single-family housing. more about value of design in terms of how a home should be about light, air, space and quailty in terms of health for family and for health of community not just what color and what shape roof is.
149 Builder Questionnaires Survey B1 Name: - Charlie Appich City/Town: - Midlothian, VA 2. Do you believe that being able to put unit costs on BIM assemblies will be an accurate cost estimate for a home? why or why not? Probably yes Because the size is small enough to ensure accurate costs unless the design is complicated 3. Do you believe that being able to openly bid on projects through a web portal would benefit your business or not? I have not had much success on the web for business opportunities but can certainly keep trying when given a chance 4. Do you think that a web portal such as Housing2.0 could give your company greater exposure to potential projects? I do not think so where I live because of the traditional roles builders and architects have established here. Mostly through networking and work of mouth. 5. Could you envision your company participating in a collaborative design/construction portal such as Housing2.0? why or why not? I would give it a try for the novelty of it. 6. Part of the intent of Housing2.0 is to make architects and designers aware of the construction costs incurred because of their design decisions. Do you believe Housing 2.0 helps to achieve this goal? I can see that this would directly affect design decisions with an associated cost. 7. Please add any addition comments, suggestions, or insights on the Housing2.0 proposal from a builder's point of view. My only concern having limited knowledge of how H2.0 works is how long it would take to get used to it. I need some technical support to give you better feedback. You have obviously spent some time creating this alternative approach to the built environment and I thank you for sharing this with me.
150 Customer Questionnaires Survey C1 Name: - Kristy Latorra City/Town: - Chicago State: - IL 2. In your search(es) for a new home, have you considered hiring an architect? why or why not? No, I have not considered a cutom build. 3. If you had access to free architectural design services, would you use them? Yes and No, if I potentially were in the market to build a home, but I am not. If I were building a home from ground up, and services were free, yes I would consult with an designor. 4. Would you consider Housing2.0 as an accessible way to customize and purchase a new home? Based on my current needs, No. 5. If you were building a new home through a homebuilder, would seeing the real costs of construction and options be beneficial to your decision-making process? Yes. 6. Please add any additional comments or suggestions about whether or not an internet portal for purchasing a new home makes sense. No Response
Survey C2 Name: - Shawn Latorra City/Town: - Chicago State: - IL 2. In your search(es) for a new home, have you considered hiring an architect? why or why not? No. I am not aware of the benefits an architect could provide considering I had purchased a pre-owned home (as opposed to new construction). I would also suspect that the services they would provide might be expensive. 3. If you had access to free architectural design services, would you use them? Yes, I would if I had plans to make any renovations/updates. 4. Would you consider Housing2.0 as an accessible way to customize and purchase a new home? For sure. 5. If you were building a new home through a homebuilder, would seeing the real costs of construction and options be beneficial to your decision-making process? Absolutely. 6. Please add any additional comments or suggestions about whether or not an internet portal for purchasing a new home makes sense. No Response
151 Designer Questionnaires Survey D1 Name: - Daniel Villa City/Town: - miami beach State: - FL 2. Would you enjoy making the library components that could be built into someone else's house? Yes. 3. What software would you be most comfortably using to make the components? Sketchup 4. Would you also like to create entire projects based on other people's designs and library components? Depends on what they're like 5. What do you see as the reward for designer's participating in projects on Housing2.0? Like any project: the satisfaction of designing, the satisfaction of seeing something get built. Being able to see that you're making an owner happy would be great too. Oh and getting paid. 6. Please add any additional comments, suggestions, insights into the designer role in the Housing2.0 system. I thought the website was a little complicated, sorry. Also, it strikes me that there are already simple ways to share design components such as the sketchup warehouse. The strength is that it brings together designers builders and owners.
Survey D2 Name: - James Petras City/Town: - New York State: - NY 2. Would you enjoy making the library components that could be built into someone else's house? I Like the idea of establishing a library of parts that could aid in future production (I think that is a "yes"). Also, I think the idea of establishing system that could easily adapt to and accept components is important. 3. What software would you be most comfortably using to make the components? Revit, CAD, Rhino, pencil and paper version 1.0 4. Would you also like to create entire projects based on other people's designs and library components? not particularly. I'm afraid that crosses the boundary between designing a product and specifying parts to use. 5. What do you see as the reward for designer's participating in projects on Housing2.0? I’m not completely clear about Housing 2.0, but I'm afraid that the designers would be getting the "short end of the stick". Similar to RevitCity.com, someone just uploads their work/ intellectual property for anyone to use while getting nothing in return. I don’t see the incentive for designers to contribute. 6. Please add any additional comments, suggestions, insights into the designer role in the Housing2.0 system. I am primarily interested in the “Framework” within this system operates. I’m no Real Estate buff, but I’ve heard that the average duration for a family to own a home in the U.S. is 5 years (this may or may not be
152 true). If we can develop a system where housing can easily adapt to changing needs, I believe there would be a great reduction in unnecessary housing development. I am cautious about the idea of anonymous contribution to this system. This may not apply, but I am constantly reminded of the various websites that offer these types of third party pieces (like RevitCity, CADMonkey.com, Google Warehouse, etc.). At present, Google Warehouse appears to have millions of models from various participants. My concern is that users would be giving up the intellectual property for their work OR you’d have no sense of accountability when there is a problem
153
APPENDIX C RELEVANT BLOG POSTS
154 Dave Pollard, July 10, 2011 “Geography + Design = Data Dependent Design” Take Back the Building : Architecture Controlled by Architects At the 2010 GeoDesign Summit, University of Minnesota’s Dean of Architecture, Thomas Fisher, made a fantastic presentation on the value of geographical data in architectural design. Fisher argues that previous design processes have not utilized historical data in any meaningful way. Over the last fifty years, design has been based on trends and imagery with little influence from any real data. Fisher argues that as a result we have created an irresponsible, fracture-critical, built environment around us. The basis of the GeoDesign concept is to utilize current and previous data (geography) to imfluence the future data (design). In Fisher’s book, In The Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture, he makes a similar comparison to the investment banking industry’s dependence on real data. Fisher argues that the the design community has done little to study and archive the resulting data from our built projects, and this has made it difficult to sell design decisions to clients and ourselves…. there is no real information to point to in order to better justify the costs or energy of these decisions. Meanwhile most other industries, even investment banking; operate, control risk, and sell their value based on historical, collected data. I envision the utilization of a centralized system such as Housing2.0 to incorporate a systematic feedback system for housing data collection. Using new and social media tools, this data can consist of infinite categories. These categories could range from subjective like/dislike, to very objective energy consumption analysis. The possibilities are endless if the architects just evolve the design and delivery process to a web-based, open system.
Dave Pollard, April 22, 2011 “Professional Collaboration – Cadreas.com” Take Back the Building : Architecture Controlled by Architects Cadreas is a collaborative portal of owners, design professionals, and manufacturers in the building construction industry. It is a step in the right direction as the concept is using new/social media to share and spread ideas and information. It also creates an online showcase of the participants’ work. More interestingly, the site links the developer and professional community to manufacturers and their product information. Although there is much that is positive and has great potential in this site, there is also much to be desired. Contrary to my proposal, Cadreas does nothing to engage the education of the consumer. The developer is at the top of the food chain, and all of the other participants are doing whatever they can to get exposure and sell to the developers. My proposal puts the consumer, the homeowner, office tenant, or other occupant at the top, because they are making the decisions and spending the money.
155 The problem is that developers are selling space for a living, so they look mostly at historical data and what has sold in the past to make decisions. Homebuyers have also played this game over the last decade or so, but now that is shifting. Homebuyers are now looking for longer term homes that are sustainable, affordable, and tailored for their growing families’ lifestyles. Architects can engage this market by taking control through a similar portal that engages and educates the homebuyer consumer as well.
Dave Pollard, April 4, 2011 “Design Alliance : openingdesign.com” Take Back the Building : Architecture Controlled by Architects OpeningDesign founder Ryan Schultz has created this portal with the intent to form an “an open community of A/E/C professionals asking and answering technical questions, exchanging feedback on designs/details, sharing content, and posting/bidding on small gigs/projects.” What intrigues me the most; however, is the idea of creating a formal, organized social network of design professionals. It addresses a modern issue that the AIA has not, which is making the small, regionally isolated design community a unified alliance. It also has the potential to offer dialog and collaboration between much smaller firms doing smaller projects. I am excited to see where this concept goes, especially the latter idea of “posting/bidding on small gigs/projects”. This could lead into the idea of smaller firms sharing their resources across the alliance. Right now, smaller firms have to hire and fire depending on how much or how little work they have. But what if they could share their workloads across the alliance to better balance their worker turnover? What if a small firm could bid on a larger project because of its alliance relationship with other firms? The potential of such an idea could help to evolve how we provide services and make a living, all while making design services more accessible to all clients.
Dave Pollard, March 28, 2011 “Education of the Consumer” Take Back the Building : Architecture Controlled by Architects During my thesis presentation last week the comment came up again that an important part of my proposal is the intent to educate the consumer on the value of architects. The more I think about it, the more I realize how architects have fallen completely flat on the education of the consumer on the value of architects in homebuilding. How do we deal with this lack of a sales pitch to the public about our value? The first thought is the comparison to attorney television advertising. Our professional standard somehow puts us
156 above the cheesy lawyer ads. I believe attorneys have a pretty high professional standard, but the TV ads certainly hurt the public image of the profession. We think that doctors are above that and do not advertise. But they kind of do. Hospitals, pharmaceuticals, dentist networks, all have major television ad spots. I am not suggesting that architecture firms make TV ads. But I do think that it is necessary for the AIA to think about supporting us through the education of the consumer – the consumer in this case being home buyers. The AIA could be doing feel-good ads pitching the value of the profession, or better yet look into the tactics that Realtors and interior designers have taken. To me HGTV is little more than a television network with interesting shows that educate the consumer on the value of the realtor. Show after show is a documentary of the process of a young couple buying their first home under the advice of a realtor, or an under-water seller finally unloading their home because of the sage advice of a realtor. Nate Berkus has his own interior design show educating the consumer on an interior designer’s value, and house-flippers have their own shows dealing with making a quick buck off of buying and re-selling distressed properties. Where is the Architect TV network? Where is the Architect TV show? And where is the architect in any of these other HGTV shows? We need to re-think our consumer education process, and maybe even get a step ahead by engaging new and social media for this purpose.
Dave Pollard, February 10, 2011 “Libertyville Taking Back the Building” Take Back the Building : Architecture Controlled by Architects Last night I attended a community development meeting in Libertyville, Illinois. Developer John McLinden of StreetScape Development is building 26 singles family homes in a downtown infill development. What makes this proposal different is that the homes are all individually designed by architects led by architect/author Sarah Susanka. The Libertyville Civic Center was filled, standing room only, not with protestors opposed to development, but by folks eager to hear Sarah Susanka speak and have their books signed. Questions did not critique the design or complain about traffic congestion, but instead asked if the basements could be deeper, and how much do the homes cost? I have been to community development meetings where we architects sit back and listen to angry community members call our design “butt-ugly” and too tall. I have never seen anything quite like this Libertyville meeting. Sarah spoke for nearly an hour and the crowd listened to her every word. She showed before and after images describing why architects designs are different
157 than your typical homebuilder. The crowd gasped as if to say they can’t believe that anyone could ever live in those cookie-cutter developer homes. Architecture schools do not teach about Sarah Susanka, instead we learn of the greats like Lou Kahn, Corbusier, and Renzo Piano. Honestly we are trained to look down our noses at architects like Sarah Susanka, who design more traditional seeming homes and appear on Oprah. But the truth is we need to listen and learn from her. She has a way of speaking to homeowners at their level. They relate to her. She convinced the crowd that a floor plan is worthless, that good space is designed three-dimensionally. She sold the importance of details and quality materials. Everything that she preached aligns with what we learned in school, but she delivers it in a way that is less offensive to regular people as housing extremes like Villa Savoye. While in fact many of Corb’s design tenets are the same as Sarah’s. Most importantly, Sarah convinced the crowd of the importance of architects in housing.
Comment by Sarah Susanka, February 15, 2011 “Libertyville Taking Back the Building” Take Back the Building : Architecture Controlled by Architects Thanks so much for your positive comments about the Libertyville event last week, Dave. I’ve always believed that if we architects would spend less time trying to impress each other and more time helping people understand how good design can help bring into being their dreams of home, the more we’d be appreciated. Do you know, I’d never even considered that people might be antagonized by this development? It is so much a part of my life to explain why good design does what it does to improve the life experiences of the inhabitants, and to see how receptive people are to the ideas, that it never even occurred to me that the audience wouldn’t be just as receptive as when I’m giving a more general informational presentation. I absolutely agree with you that we need more architects out there making this connection with homeowners (and communities) and helping them to realize that their own dreams of home are attainable at a reasonable price. When we do so, I think we’ll be amazed at just how many people want what we have to offer. I truly believe that the biggest problem we have to overcome in our profession is our own ineptitude at communicating the value of what we do.
158 BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, K., and D. Saltes. “Architecture Billings as a Leading Indicator of Construction.” Business Economics 40, no. 4 (2005): 67–73. Baron, Anat. Beer Wars. Documentary, 2009. Beardsley, Eleanor. “Social Media Gets Credit For Tunisian Overthrow : NPR”, n.d. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/16/132975274/Social-Media-Gets-Credit-ForTunisian-Overthrow. Bender, Richard, and Forrest Wilson. Crack in the Rear View Mirror. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1973. Brooke, Lindsay. “Mr. Ford’s T: Versatile Mobility.” The New York Times, July 20, 2008. Accessed June 13, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/automobiles/collectibles/20FORD.html. Collins, James C. and Jerry I. Porras. Built To Last: Successful Habits Of Visionary Companies. Harper Business, 1997. Cort, Julia. Science NOW 2009: Episode 1: Diamond Factory. PBS, 2009. Duarte, José P. Customizing Mass Housing: A Discursive Grammar for Siza's Malagueira Houses. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Entenza, John. “Announcement: The Case Study House program.” Arts & Architecture, January 1945. Fisher, Thomas. In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture. University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Back Bay Books, 2002. Huang, Joseph Chuen-huei. Participatory Design for Prefab House: Using Internet and Query Approach of Customizing Prefabricated Houses. VDM Verlag, 2008. Kieran, Stephen, and James Timberlake. Refabricating Architecture: How Manufacturing Methodologies are Poised to Transform Building Construction. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003. Krygiel, Eddy, Phil Read, and James Vandezande. Mastering Autodesk Revit Architecture 2011. 1st ed. Sybex, 2010.
159 Larson, K., T. J McLeish, J. Beaudin, and R.E. Williams. “Open Source Building Reinventing Places of Living.” BT Technology Journal 22, no. 4 (October 2004): 187-199. Le Corbusier. Towards A New Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, 1986. LePatner, Barry. Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets: How to Fix America's TrillionDollar Construction Industry. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2008. Ma, X. “A Web-Based User-Oriented Tool for Universal Kitchen Design” M.S.Arch Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002. McLeish, T. J. “A Platform for Consumer Driven Participative Design of Open (Source) Buildings.” M.S. Thesis Media Arts and Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003. Pasquarelli, SHoP/Sharples Holden. Versioning: Evolutionary Techniques in Architecture. Academy Press, 2003. Smith, Elizabeth A. T. Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses. The MIT Press, 1999. Susanka, Sarah, and Kira Obolensky. The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. Expanded. Taunton Press, 2009. U.S. Census Bureau. New Privately Owned Housing Units Started in the United States by Purpose and Design, 2010.