Case Studies: Clarifying Vision

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

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

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

Course 1235 : School of Architecture

.

Northeastern University

From the out-set, the architects role of designer and team manager looked to be a frustrating exercise, at best.

But particular practices emerged that made the project smoother, often for everyone involved. From this project we can learn from how the architects leveraged their unique role, and what can be learned from strategies of other team-members.

.

Huntington Avenue

.

Boston

.

Massachusetts

.

02115

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Abstract Project Conception

DECISION MAKING Key Relationships Outside Influences Bridging Gaps Design Team Organization

CREATING A BUILDING Choosing a Site Project History Selecting a Project Team Planning Process Resolving Details Overlap + Connections Winning Approval Project Result

ANALYSIS: CLARITY & VISION Tenacity Relationship Strength Voices on your Head Becoming Essential

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 6 9 10 12 14 16 19 20 23 24 26 28 30 32 34 37 38 40 42 44

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

While clients and developers make many programmatic and financial decisions, the architect has the unique position of providing clarity and image to building goals, practical and ephemeral. Often underneath the well-resolved skin of the architectural design lies a complex and convoluted process, involving world financial markets, local demand, other developers, politics, zoning requirements and historic review. Providing a literal vision that financiers, regulatory officials and prospective tenants can latch onto augments the pragmatics of cost and size.

In this fashion, the clarity and vision brought by the architect is an example of the type of leadership they can bring to a project.

Thirty-Three Arch Street arose from such a process.

CONSTITUENCY WEB The building development process is created from a web of decision makers, each with a unique area of influence. Developer, investor, regulatory agencies and architects & engineers all have specific areas of responsibility, in which their limited authority rests.

Each party can easily find the boundaries of their influence. Owners are limited by financing, investors are limited by market conditions, and regulatory agencies are limited beyond the broad guidelines they give. The architect, too, has many limitations, not the least being budget, scope and program.

INTRODUCTION

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

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

The architect provides the instrument of service to demonstrate the pre-conception of addressing these key groups. For example, height reductions were requested to limit shadows on the Old South Meeting house. While deal-making and relationship building provide the avenue to reach an agreement, the architect has the technical and graphic capabilities to demonstrate the concessions of the owner. This key competency, or service, brings clarity to the discussion.

This clarity builds trust, which is foundational to successful project development.

The Lens Metaphor of Project Management Many processes start with people in different places, going in different directions.

INTEGRATION POTENTIAL The architect has the potential to let their limited sphere of influence effect key decision makers at nearly ever aspect of the project. By integrating teammembers to a common vision and scoping problems to propose ideal team mixes, these non-design skills give the architect leverage to affect a successful project. The design and construction of Thirty-Three Arch Street offered examples of team-members creating clarity and enhancing vision for other parties.

Often it was not the architect who provided this, but these examples provide valuable insights from other disciplines a thoughtful architect can learn from. At times the successful work of other parties highlights areas architects can improve as designers and teammanagers.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

PROJECT CONCEPTION

How turbulent economics shaped the development of 33 Arch Street.

1 Beginning of 33 Arch Street

Thirty-Three Arch street, while completed in 2004 by the developer Congress Group, had its beginnings fifteen years prior when original developer, the Kingston Group, hired architect Thomas Phiffer to explore a 24 story speculative office tower on the site. Peter Kruelewitch, head of the New York based Kingston Group, owned the parcel, as well as the adjacent garage. Phiffer, also from New York, had produced a speculative glass tower design for Kruelewitch on a Boston site two years prior in 1987.

That project did not go through, however the glass cladding in the design gained considerable support among those at Boston’s chief building regulatory agency, the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

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

2 Revived in 1998 The financial market took a tumble just as 2 million square feet of commercial office space in 1990-91.

Office Vacancy rate jumped up as lease rates plummeted, making any construction un-viable. After a five year slump, lease rates began to rise, a combination of the 1990s dot com boom and a lack of new office space. The race to develop before the next bust began.

INTRODUCTION

The project was revived in 1998, now at 31 stories, and gained rapid approval from the BRA in March of 1999. BRA director Thomas O’Brien called the building “a well-designed office building that adds badly needed office space to our downtown”, but offered his concern that the “clear glass design of the 31-story tower makes it expensive and requires high rents.

Prospective tenants might regard it as not offering “the exclusive address” needed to justify those rents.”

The concern O’Brien raises is valid. The site, due to be the first new office tower in Boston since Two International Place in 1993, sits a few hundred yards outside the financial district, in the adjacent retail district, Downtown Crossing. It might just be enough to discourage, or slow, the top-dollar leases the building would need to be a financial success.

Development Team 3 New Later in 1999, one of the major investors behind the project ran into financial difficulty and sold its stake to raise capital, and soon after Kruelewitch followed suit. The new development team was lead by Boston Developer Dean Stratouly, of Congress Group. With the sale came the land, its development rights, and the building design. At this point, however, after two BRA approvals, Stratouly brought in Boston architecture firm Elkus Manfredi.

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

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

The project broke ground in 2001, and was completed in 2004, within two weeks of its target schedule.

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

4 Economy Slowdown in 2004

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

Economic and Team-Member Timeline Downtown Boston Average Lease $/SF

2

$65 20%

4

$45

1,000

15% $40

$41 750

$35

$39

$36

$35

$38

$32

500

10%

$38

5%

$22

0 ‘90 BRA Approval

Developer

Architect

’91

‘92

’93

21 stories office building 492,000 SF space 230,000 SF office 10 stories parking

Kingston Investment Corp.

NY Odyssey Partners Nynex Properties Inc. Thomas Phifer

‘94

’95

‘96

’97

‘98

’99

‘00

31 stories office building 600,000 SF office 880 parking garage

Kingston Investment Corp.

NorthStar Capital Investment Corp.

Atlantic Retail Properties Thomas Phifer

$750,000 to the Old South Mtg House Community $ 50,000 to improve the park $ 100,000 to the Old South Meeting House Incentive $ 650,000 Young Men's Christian Union building, $ 100,000 to the Wang Center restoration fund

’01

‘02

’03

‘04

’05

‘06

0%

’07

33 stories office building 900,000 SF space 600,000 SF office 300,000 SF of parking and common area 850 parking garage Congress Group Ventures National Electric Benefit Funds Value Enhancement Fund IV- Lend Lease Elkus Manfredi $750,000 to the Old South Mtg House Office building was vacant for 6 months.

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

INTRODUCTION

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

1,250

Commercial Vacancy Rate

$72

Completion Date

1

Exterior Complete

New Commercial Office Space1,000 SF

1,500

Ground Breaking

3

1,750

KEY RELATIONSHIPS OUTSIDE INFLUENCES BRIDGING GAPS DESIGN TEAM ORGANIZATION

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

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

DECISION MAKING

KEY RELATIONSHIPS

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

BUILDERS The general contractor leads the building team. This group takes the drawings as produced and coordinated by the architect, and creates a physical structure out of them. The general contractor themselves hires a plethora of sub-contractors to carry out specialized aspects of the construction. At 33 Arch, a Construction Manager, Bovis Lend Lease was hired.

This firm was a company held by one of the building’s Investors. They handled the hiring and management of subcontractors and controlled most of the design decision and coordination led by the architect.

10

BUILDING PROMOTERS “Building Promoters” is the loosest organized group.

The developer, architect & real-estate broker all have roles of promotion. The developer must present his case financially to his investors. The architect is responsible for presenting the design to the city, by creating graphics to describe the building, as well as explaining program and local impact. The broker is the party that directly interfaces with potential tenants, often seeking them out and using visual aids from the architect, especially in pre-leasing.

BUILDING FINANCIERS

BUILDING DESIGNERS

THE SERVED

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

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

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

DECISION MAKING

G

BUI

LD IN

AN C N I F

bu

Relationships of Macro-Groups IERS

market forces

project nto i y potential tenants

citizenry

bank investors

BU IL

BRA

hired

jec

MOTERS PR O

hired

t

NG DI

broker

developer

o pr sell

collaborate sub contractors

consultants

IGN

engineers

ER S

general contractor

ES

BUILD ER S

architect

I NG BUILD

D

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

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

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

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

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

DECISION MAKING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

SERVED THE

11

OUTSIDE INFLUENCES

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

VED SER

E TH

ket mar s e forc

12

DECISION MAKING

buy

l ntia pote ts n a n e t

rs

er

brok er

hired

lop deve

t

DIN G

roj ec

BUIL

k

ban

ll p

BUILDI N

GF IN

AN

BRA

RS CIE

sto inve

se

itect

SIGNE S R

rs

u cons

DE

ts ltan

te ora collab

NG

hired

inee eng eral gen actor r cont

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

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

BOSTON REAL ESTATE MARKET

arch

BUILDERS

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

enry citiz

ct roje

RS OTE OM

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

p to

PR

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

in

VOICES IN YOUR HEAD

THE SERVED

I LD BUI

sub rs o ract cont

“Outsiders” can come from nearly any macro-group.

Any party whose decisions or preferences affect actions of key decision makers can be a significant outside influence.

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

33 Arch, in its many iterations, fell prey to this issue.

Often it is the increased demand of a boom that increases lease-rates enough to make new construction viable. Often this condition spawns multiple development projects, and the increased supply can often lower lease-rates, especially for later projects.

In 1990 and 2000, planned developments began to come on-line after the boom market had begun to recede. The increased supply occurred during a time of decreasing demand, sending lease-rates lower.

BUILDING FINANCIERS

FORMER LEADERS

BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

INVESTORS

FORMER ARCHITECT

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

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

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

In 1998, city support lead to anticipated rapid approval of the new glass tower design by Thomas Phiffer. While glass was considered out of character for the city by some, the BRA encouraged this, based on a previous design they had seen in the mid 1990s by the architect. The booming Boston real estate market needed additional office space to expand, or the city could potentially lose significant companies. The BRA approved a 31 story tower, which was a slight reduction from the original proposed 38 stories.

BRA director Thomas N. O’Brien said it would be “a well-designed office building that adds badly needed office space to our downtown.”

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

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

BROKER

FORMER DEVELOPER Peter Kruelewitch, principle of Kingston Group originally owned the parcel at 33 Arch street, as well as the adjacent garage. He had proposed a tower, designed by Thomas Phiffer, in 1987, in downtown Boston, a deal that did not go through.

Kruelewitch initially brought in the of investment team Odyssey Partners of NY and Nynex Properties Inc. of NY & Boston for the $215 million, 21 floor plan in 1990. Lack of available financing from the ensuing recession killed the project.

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

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

DECISION MAKING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

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

13

BRIDGING GAPS

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

OVERLAPPING OPPORTUNITIES In an industry subject to increasing specialization, the architect is one of the few remaining generalist professions. The breadth of the scope diagramed here attests to this.

This range provides three particular opportunities:: Diversifying Services- Areas of overlapping the need of non-traditional constituents can be areas to potentially gain a new client base. Architects typically provide serves to developers, but could their excellent graphic communication could be highly valued by real-estate brokers.

Leveraging Value- any need has value to a constituent, and this need can be used to for the architect’s advantage. By providing value to this varied group, the architect can potentially position themselves to gain “a-typical” opportunities.

It could be potential tenants that need design services, or speaking opportunities at city meetings. Providing value opens doors.

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

14

DECISION MAKING

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

GENERAL CONTRACTOR - ARCHITECT WHAT (TO BUILD) Architect needs to provide clarity through detailed drawing. The clearer and better the drawings architects provide, it will result in less conflict and surprises at the end. Elkus Manfredi Architects have selected Alan Mayer to become the project architect, he is a highly detailed oriented person with advance technical detail skills. He works directly with the two Junior Designer and oversees all the drawings to ensure all the drawings are met to its best ability.

The Architect’s Range Each project constituent has their own unique roles in project. The architect’s scope often overlaps a significant amount of other disciplines.

POTENTIAL TENANTS- ARCHITECT DESIRABLE BUILDING

potential tenants

solid project financials good market timing saleable product

general contractor

good location + price desireable building

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

architect

BRA

layout and design

neighbors city plan

how to do what in what order and with whom

engineers technical how-to of architectural vision

ENGINEER - ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURAL VISION The architect has to fill the gap and provide the engineers with a clear vision and concept so the engineers can aid in the process in fulfilling the architectural vision. The architect also have to coordinate drawings to make sure everything is accurate and is to the architecture expectation.

broker

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

communicate benefits to potential tenants

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

DECISION MAKING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

developer

15

DESIGN TEAM ORGANIZATION

GF IN

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

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

During this whole process, the developer, or his internal head of construction, handles this process.

His outside investors are only concerned about construction to the degree that it affects their pro forma’s bottom line.

16

DECISION MAKING

Beyond adding ambiguous relationships to the design process, direct hiring sub-contractors, such

sub contractors

consultants

sub

contractors D Adding to this situation was the interesting selecI NG BUILD tion of construction manager., Bovis Lend Lease, which was a sub-company of one of the institutional investors. Beyond acting as the party selecting and scheduling sub-contractors, which they were reportedly efficiently adept at handling. Because of their strong ties to the Building Financing group, they also ended up informing value-engineering decisions to a higher degree than is typical.

LEGEND

S

BU IL

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

N ER

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

as the Curtain-Wall design-builders complicated relationships. While normally the architects negotiate day-to-day decisions with these parties, because of the direct-hire often the CW Designer architect would gogeneral direct to the developer for approval. This contractor made coordinating the design of adjacentengineers cladding systems difficult, as the architect was not able to orchestrate all the involved parties.

ES IG

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

developer

RS

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

investors

BUILDE

DEVELOPER-CENTRIC DELIVERY

NCIERS INA

TYPICAL DESIGN-BID-BUILD

D

con

producing entity

hiring entity

peer collaboration

peer collaboration

parent company

sub company

architect

sub contractors

sub contractors

consultants

N ER

S

engineers

ES IG

CIERS

BUILDE

RS

N INA

developer

ct

general contractor

NCIERS INA

developer

I NG BUILD

D

N ER

RELATIONSHIP STRENGTH

ES IG

ultants

D

RS E D

sub contractors

ntity

aboration

general contractor

sub contractors

architect engineers

consultants

RS

BU IL

I NG BUILD

NE G BUI I LDING DES

mpany

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

BU IL

S

engineers

RS DE

While often the design-team leader, in this scenario, the architect finds themselves as sub a design-team LEGEND peer, responsible for orgacontractors producing entitycoordinating hiring nizing and allentity other disciplines.

By forging strongpeer professional, and peer collaboration collaboration social relationships withsub these parties, the parent company company architect was able to overcome a great deal of the ambiguity dealt to them.

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

DECISION MAKING

investors

de

general contractor

sub contractors

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

GF IN

investors

GF IN

investors

TYPICAL RELATIONSHIPS

BU IL D

BU IL D

17

CREATING A BUILDING

CHOOSING A SITE PROJECT HISTORY SELECTING A PROJECT TEAM PLANNING PROCESS RESOLVING DETAILS OVERLAP & CONNECTIONS WINNING APPROVALS PROJECT RESULT

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

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

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

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

CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

19

CHOOSING A SITE Midtown Cultural District

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

Financial District

RETAIL STREET SHOPPING

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

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

20

CREATING A BUILDING

Midtown Cultural THEATER

Leather District South Station EDA Chinatown District

actual boundary perceived boundary

nd/Dow

Government Center/ MARKET Markets District FESTIVAL

North E

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

Harbo ntown W rpark: aterfron

t

USE

CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

The primary entrance to the building stands directly opposite the Boston Stock Exchange and features a glass canopy to mark the entrance.

The secondary entrance is on Hawley Street, which is a fire lane bypass, which is also the most frequently used entrance.

21

PROJECT HISTORY

33 ARCH STREET

by Kingston Investment Corp.

Approved in 1987.

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

RAYMOND DEPARTMENT STORES Demolition happened in 1967.

WOOLWORTH BUILDING Completed in 1970.

Closed in 1973.

This new building was to be the largest Woolworth’s that the company had ever built at its time. It was a three story building with a basement bustling with retail shops and a deli shop in the rear to capture some of the spirit of Raymond Department Stores.

40 FRANKLIN STREET Approved in 1980.

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

1967

22

CREATING A BUILDING

1970

1973

1980

1987

33 ARCH STREET

by Kingston Investment Corp.

Approved in 1999.

A developer, Peter Kruelewitch, head of the New York based Kingston Group, revived the project again with Thomas Phiffer design. Due to financial difficulty because of the expensive skin that put the rental unmarketably high, the engineering is incorrect, and the wind load calculation is off. The major investors and Peter decided to sell off the building and not continue with the process.

1999

Approved in 2001.

Completed in 2004.

The site was split into two properties.

One managed by Eastern Development for Retail on Washington Street and the other by Congress Group Ventures who specialize in office tower in 33 Arch Street.

Dean Stratouly, the president of Congress Group Ventures, hired Elkus Manfredi Architects because they had worked with them before and he wanted to find a local architecture firm. The general form of the project has remained fairly the same to stay within the BRA approved project. But the skin, structure, penthouse, and wind calculation has been re-engineered and redesigned to lower the construction cost and regain 2 extra stories for approval.

2001

2004

CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

33 ARCH STREET

by Congress Group Ventures and Atlantic Properties

23

SELECTING A PROJECT TEAM

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

OVERVIEW

PROJECT MANAGER

PROJECT DESIGNER

When Elkus Manfredi took the project, they had to deal with a strict budget. The project manager, and principal, Sam Norod, saw there was only a budget for five people in the team. He was very selective in the process. He needed one Senior Project Architect, one Senior Designer, and two Junior Designer.

Tamara Roy has fulfilled the position for the Senior Designer. However a qualified Project Architect is missing, he needs someone with high expertise to bring this project to completion.

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

The Senior Designer, Tamara Roy, is a delightful person to work with by all her team members. She is also very passionate. She is responsible to carry her vision to the clients and Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Therefore, she is normally in charge of attending all the meetings.

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

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

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

24

CREATING A BUILDING

PROJECT ARCHITECT The Project Architect, Alan Mayer, on the other hand, is bought on team to settle any coordination issues.

He is widely recognized on the firm to be very clear and detail oriented person who can see a problem things to be done correctly from a mile away, and also move a project forward. He was able to work with many different consultants and carry the project to work as a whole. When he notices a problem, he is able to delegate the project to appropriate people and know how to push for a decision.

He mainly work with his project team and consultants and never have to attend any meetings with the clients or general contractor. Therefore, his position is more laid back so he can put most of his focus and concentration on providing a set of accurate drawing.

This may not be the best project for Tamara Roy. There were many times, she would propose something that can help enhance the design, but it was continuously shot down again, and again, and again.

Anything that will incur more costs to the general contractor is absolutely a no proposal.

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

JUNIOR DESIGNER The two Junior Designer, Tim and Zena are incredible individuals who wanted to learn as much as possible.

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

To get a work done successfully does not necessarily mean you need more man power, sometimes it is as simple as getÂŹting the correct skills and personality in a team. Essential characteristics include strong leadership and direction. By being clear and precise in communication of with needs and expectations allows all parties to know what is needed and when. An ability to be flexible is necessary, coupled with an openness to innovation.

Not all skills need be possessed by one person, but a quality team knows how to resource its members to bring all these to the table. Often the sign of a good leader is an ability to uncover skills in their team, rather than possessing all themselves.

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

CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

25

PLANNING PROCESS

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

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

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

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

26

CREATING A BUILDING

ARCHITECT-LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT Ground Floor Plan The site is very restrictive. It was difficult in many directions to resolve the issues as stated above.

The landscape consultant was hired by the developer, as there was not a lot of landscape to consider, but they have to resolve issues such as fire safety, handicap accessibility, and fire lane to make it all work. much of the ground floor plan was taken away from the fire lane.

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

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

ARCHITECT - MEP ENGINEER Mechanical Plans

GETTING THE WORK DONE

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

GROUND PLAN

In this project, the developer directly hired consultants he had worked with and trusted, rather than allowing the architect to sub-contract their own consultants.

This “developer centric delivery” created the additional challenge of more relationship building for the architect as designteam manager. It is important to note that regardless who hires the consultants or engineers, the main focus should always be getting the project done to the best of the team’s ability.

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

This was a good characteristics for both the architect and engineer who puts everything else aside and concentrate on getting the project done correctly.

Fortunately, they have became very good friends in this process.

FL10-FL24: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

The engineer was also hired by the developer because he has worked with them in previously projects. Supposedly, in this developer centric delivery, it makes it difficult for the architect to work with the engineer because they are not working for the architect’s best interests and do not need to favor all of the architect’s decision.

27

RESOLVING DETAILS

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

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

Another issues was the resolution of the curtainwall skin to the fire sprinkler system on the face of the skin because the building is on the lot line. The design team took one month to redesign a system that can hide the sprinkler system and make it better.

Without a moments thought during the presentation, that was also shot down.

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

28

CREATING A BUILDING

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTH ELEVATION CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

The architect have a strict parameters to work with as the curtainwall was bided to construct to the most cost effective design. The Senior Designer of the team has coordinated with the curtainwall consultant on the concept they are trying to achieve.The curtainwall consultant has drawn most of the details involving the exterior. But at the end, some details by the consultant were overlooked.

When drawings were submitted to fix the issues during construction, most of mistakes were left untouched because that will increase construction costs. It is very important in this project to draw as much details as possible that is relevant to your idea, if one was to work with a client who is sensitive to costs.

29

OVERLAP & CONNECTIONS

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

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

ARCHITECT - PARKING CONSULTANT Parking Structure A parking consultant was bought to the team to solve the parking issues by the developer. There was immediate problems seen by the architect for the solution the consultant has proposed for the connection between the old and new parking garage.

Quickly, the project architect bought the attention to the consultant and made quick suggestions, which has resolved the issue.

30

CREATING A BUILDING

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

Initially, the structural engineer has proposed a huge gusset plate that sticks out the building, with all the load falling into one column.

The architect felt the need to work with the engineer to redesign the structure to work with the existing design. Finally, they both come to a mutual agreement that has worked out all the small details.

BEING INSIGHTFUL

Another issues that the architect has resolved is the connection of the old and new building.

The developer has hired a Parking Plan Consultant to solve the parking issues. What he proposed would have resulted a 10’-0� ceiling height on the lobby area, which would not have worked. Therefore, the architect has brought the attention to the Parking Plan consultant the section and plan is not effective. If it was not because of the clear insight and ability to review drawing effectively, the project may have been very disastrous.

Recognizing and pointing out the problems is a skill that many need to learn.

When reviewing a set of drawing, if one cannot see the root of the problem and learn to solve it, the results may be a building that is sub par. This could result in loss of reputation, which is the foundation of continuing work.

SOUTH SECTION CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

Working with other consultants, there is always overlap of interests, with each party trying to resolve their own problems.

However, there are times when these overlaps produce conflicts in the design of the building, and need to be resolved.

31

WINNING APPROVALS

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

THOMAS PHIFFER AND PARTNERS Philosophy: The best architecture strives for design excellence. It’s not a quality that is easy to define, but we recognize it when we see it. It doesn’t reside only in form, style or materials. It is reflected in the deeper attributes of appropriateness, proportion, attention to detail and celebration of craft. It is expressed in neighborliness and a democracy of spirit. Buildings marked by design excellence are connected to their surroundings and embody the culture of the places they inhabit.

They are simply open and accessible. They are built, first and foremost, for the people who use them. Their design is rooted not in fashion of form or theory, but in the very activity by which they are realized.

Thomas Phiffer, located in New York, was the second architect who had to redesign 33 Arch Street. In his design, he wanted to have a clear glass structure imported from Japan to be located on the first 5 stories.

He was an influential character who has got many people excited about the glass tower, which is how he won the approval through the BRA. As design is relatively important. There was a problem. The realization of cost becomes an issue. In order to compensate for the expensive skin the architect is proposing, the developer would have to charge unmarketable high rent. In addition, there were unsolved issues such as the wind load, cantile ver structure support. and his proposal for a seamless lobby could not be done because of the 8’-0” grade change that he has not accounted for.

32

CREATING A BUILDING

The idea is still in its early stages, probably it may explains why many issues are overlooked. But it is important to get many big things resolved in its early stages to guarantee the success of the project. because of the architect choices, the developer was unable to find finances, and project was sold to another developer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senior Designer one main obstacle is dealing with the general contractor. In this type of market, the general contractor is very stringent in cost.

He does not believe in design. His exact phrase to the architect was, “if I could design a box, I would”.

It was a difficult position for the architect to be in, because the general contractor is also an investor and he has a long relationship with the developer.

Most of what he says stands true. For a person who does not believe in design, how can architect react to it?

The Senior Designer, Tamara Roy, tried her best.

There was many times, she would propose something that can help enhance the design, but it was continuously shot down again, and again, and again.

Anything that will incur more costs to the general contractor is absolutely a no proposal.

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

The Project Architect, Alan Mayer, on the other hand, is bought on team to settle any coordination issues.

He is widely recognized on the firm to be very clear and detail oriented person who can see a problem things to be done correctly.

Zoning Approval Thomas Phiffer successfully presented a tower with very different skin than had been typically approved in Boston.

A combination of poetic speech, crisp renderings and a similar previously approved design were the tools of his trade.

Explaining his design intention here had the responsibility of selling the project to the BRA. Team Management Elkus Manfredi, while re-presenting a reworked building to the BRA, had their main persuasive role as design manager.

The tactics used to bring a unfamiliar, pre-selected team of engineers and consultants to consensus were significantly different than Phiffer’s. Through developing relationships with the new consultants, many project issues were bridged.

When this method came to a stand-still, at times the project architect would take advantage of David Manfredi’s good relationship with the developer, to get issues passed through consultants.

CREATING A BUILDING

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

ELKUS MANFREDI ARCHITECTS

33

PROJECT RESULT

The success of the project relied on many key decision makers. The project has not leased quickly, resulting in questionable financial success.

Some of this is due to some poor decisions, while other factors were outside the project team’s control. While the architect was not able to realize many aspects of their design vision, there were other measures of success.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Name Type of Project Market Sector Owner Client / Developers

Budget / Cost of Project Compensation Type

Size of Project

Delivery Method Construction Start Date Expected Completion Date Official Completion Date

34

CREATING A BUILDING

COST OF PROJECT

33 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts Speculative office towards financial service clients.

Arch Street Tower, LLC Dean Stratouly of Congress Group Ventures, Charles Burd of Lend Lease Real Estate Investments, Frank Carroll of the National Electrical Benefit Fund Thomas Maher of Eastern Development $300 million project costs 20% for Schematic Design 20% for Design Development 60% for Construction Document 33 Story Class A office space 755,000 SF building 603,000sf office with floor prints 300,000sf parking garage and common area Design - Bid- Build June 5, 2001 April 2004 May 2004

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

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

COMPLETION DATE With only five people on the project team, the building was finished only two weeks behind. The developer is happy with the result.

DELIVERY PROCESS All problems were resolved and coordinated in a timely manner.

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

CREATING A BUILDING

35

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

TENACITY RELATIONSHIP STRENGTH VOICES IN YOUR HEAD BECOMING ESSENTIAL

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

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

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

Tenacity: You can work yourself out of almost any mistake.

Relationship Strength: It’s who you know Inclusion: the voices in your head Essentialness: Can’t live with ‘em, Can’t live without ‘em.

ANALYSIS

37

TENACITY

You can work yourself out of almost any mistake.

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

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

Once market rates of leases reach a certain rate, all the developers which were getting ready, immediately start pushing their projects, to try to get a building up to take advantage of the profitable rate.

Usually one building is a the (financial) winner- the first one. The other may do okay, but often the last one up is the (financial) loser.

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

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

38

ANALYSIS

Winner: Dean Stratouly “I’m back from the dead!”

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

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

RELATIONSHIP STRENGTH It is who you know.

The strongest relationship, rather than the strongest idea, often produces the winning option. This was demonstrated through direct-hired construction disciplines. It was very frustrating for the architects, especially the design architect, as countless aspects of the design were axed, for value engineering.

These recommendations came from the developers internal head of construction, Bovis & from subcontractors directly. While some of these cuts may have been inevitable, strong relationships often out weighed even stronger ideas.

Winner: Vinny Chiozzi “My business card should read: I build big ugly boxes.”

Position: Director of Construction, Congress Group Story: “Tamara Roy, the Project Designer, had attempted to add a little more to the aesthetic of the building.

There was a time she spent one month to solve a detail to enhance the project. The project was overruled

by Vinny Chiozzi. The only way to over-ride Vinny was for a person with a better relationship with Dean (Ie, Elkus going direct) or else the Project Designer (Tamara) would always lose.”

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

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

WHAT ARCHITECT CAN LEARN When an architect is dealt a tough hand, such as receiving an unfamiliar set of consultants, they must invest in developing trust between parties. Early effort in relationship building will allow the architect to function in the unifying role they often are expected to play.

ANALYSIS

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

39

VOICES IN YOUR HEAD Inclusion.

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

Winner: Tamara Roy “Now... what does this need?”

Position: Project Designer, Elkus Manfredi

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

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

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

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

40

ANALYSIS

BECOMING ESSENTIAL Cannot live with them. Cannot live without them.

Winner: Alan Mayer “So you want me to run this?”

Position: Unsuspecting Project Architect, Elkus Manfredi

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT ARCHITECT CAN LEARN The needs architects fill can be leveraged to create opportunities to build relationships that can ensure project success. By finding niches that need to be filled, a platform can be gained, for input into areas of interest. The more essential services that can be provided, the more value, and input, an architect can provide.

ANALYSIS

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

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

41

PREVIOUS DESIGN

CURRENT DESIGN

Client / Owner

Client / Owner

Kingston Investment Corp 45 Broadway, New York, NY 212.514.5198 Contact: Peter Krulewitch

Arch Street Tower, LLC 33 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 617.897.7200 Contact: Gordon Ciagett

Architect

Architect

Thomas Phiffer and Partners 180 Varick Street, Floor 11 New York, NY 10014 212.337.0334 Contact: Thomas Phiffer

Elkus Manfredi Architects, Ltd 530 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210 617.426.1300 Contact: John Lavoie

Alan Mayer

General Contractor Bovis Lend Lease LMB 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 212.592.6700 Contact: Vinnie Chiozzi

Landscape Architect Geller Devellis 77 N. Washington Street Boston, MA 02134 617.523.8103

Structural Engineers Weildingier Associates, Inc. One Broadway 11th floor Cambridge, MA 02142 617.374.0000 Contact: Steve Highfill

42

REFERENCES

OTHER MEP Engineers Cosentini Associates One Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142 617.494.9090 Contact: Judy DiMichele

Ed Dolan

Curtainwall Consultant Permasteelisa North America Corp.

123 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095-0767 860.298.2000

Code Consultant Harold Cutler 165 Landham Road Sudbury, MA 01776 617.443.7088

Elevator Consultant Larch Batos and Associates 175 Derby Street, Suite 38 Hingham, MA 02043 781.749.8787

Wind Engineer Consultants Cermek Peterica Peterson 1415 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, CO, 80624 970.221.3371

Regulatory Agencies Boston Redevelopment Authority 43 Hawkins St Boston, MA 02114 617.918.5200 Contact: John O’Brien

Heather Campisano

David Carlson

Historic Preservation Old South Meeting House 310 Washington Street Boston, MA 02108 617.482.6439

INTERVIEWS

META-ANALYSIS

John O’Brien

FIELD VERIFIED

ACADEMIC PROPOSAL

One of the most significant conclusions found in this study is the impact strong relationships have on decision making.

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

If relationship strength is a key to implementing ideas, the academic curriculum should adapt to reflect this. Just as learning to draw makes good ideas legible, and good present verbally makes ideas expressible, good relationship building skills makes ideas possible. Just as verbal presentations of drawn ideas are fundamental to any architectural curriculum, relationship building skills should be as well.

This could begin simply with networking assignments, where students are required to meet, and interview, engineering students for critiques on their projects. A significant portion of the assignment would be to creatively learn how to successfully build diverse peer relationships.

David Carlson Boston Redevelopment Authority Architect

Alan Mayer Elkus Manfredi Architects Project Architect

Mark Baranski Overland Capital Vice President

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

CASE STUDY | 33 ARCH STREET

Boston Redevelopment Authority Project Manager

REFERENCES

43