#393 - We Ceded This to the Contractors

Summary

Archispeak Episode #393 – "We Ceded This to the Contractors" Release Date: July 21, 2026
Hosts: Evan Troxel & Cormac Phalen

---

Episode Overview

In this candid and thought-provoking episode, Evan and Cormac dive deep into the ever-shifting boundaries of architectural practice—particularly, the gradual transfer of detail-level authority and responsibility from architects to contractors. Through personal anecdotes, humorous asides, and thought experiments, they discuss the implications of this shift on design culture, project documentation, collaboration, firm risk tolerance, and the very soul of the profession. The conversation also weaves in a spirited meditation on creative risk, regionalism, standardization, affordability, and the ongoing challenge of inspiring quality and meaning in the built environment.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is "Organic Architecture" Even Possible? (00:10–03:50)

• Jumping off the AIA Convention, Cormac presents the hot take: "There really isn't such thing as organic architecture because the act of humans building in nature is actually anti-nature, regardless of if you’re even building with sticks and stones." (B, 00:13)
• Evan pushes back, questioning definitions and the impossibility of achieving true 'organic' design.
• The philosophical debate sets the tone for tensions between idealism and practice throughout the episode.

2. Transatlantic Jargon: American vs. British/International Terms (02:13–05:44)

• Discussion of terminology differences:
  • "Programme" (UK) vs. "Schedule" (US).
  • "Issue for Construction" (IFC) in the UK aligns with "Construction Documents" (CDs) in the US, but "IFC" is a file format in the US. (05:01–05:14)
  • "Detailed Design" in UK parlance covers both design development and a significant portion of construction documentation.
• Memorable Quote:
  • "Have you submitted the program? Like, I submitted the schedule… but, you know, and then they're like, you know, the program… but the schedule." (B, 03:15)

3. Levels of Detailing: International Expectations & Project Phases (05:44–12:43)

• LOD (Level of Detail) Confusion:
  • Overseas expectations for 'LOD 300' (design intent) often resemble the deep specificity of shop drawings—beyond typical US practice.
  • Cormac describes pressure from overseas clients to produce "essentially an IKEA set of documents." (B, 09:16)
• A Key Problem Identified:

  • US construction documents are mostly about design intent, not hyper-specificity.

  • This trend towards ever-greater detail is, per Evan, "territory ceded to the contractors"—reflecting systemic realignment of risk, liability, and creative control.

    "Cormac, like, it's pretty obvious architects have kind of ceded this territory to the contractors, but that's really now in the contractor's bounds to build the constructability model." —Evan (10:53)

4. Custom vs. Standard Details; Pushing Design Boundaries (13:16–15:08)

• Master Architects & Bespoke Details:
  • Referencing Frank Lloyd Wright, Lautner, and others, many details now considered standard began as custom solutions to unique problems.
  • Contemporary practice, particularly in institutional/public sectors, leans toward avoiding custom details for reasons of time, liability, and cost.
• Anecdote:

  • Cormac shares a project where he collaborated with a manufacturer to push standard terracotta fins farther structurally than originally spec'd, creating a new, longer cantilever solution. (15:10–21:00)

    "We helped work on a detail together, which ultimately was the A1 off, but probably something that they could roll into their, their standard offerings…"
    —Cormac (15:56)

5. The Value of Builder Collaboration (18:06–22:00)

• The Dave Prudding Reference:

  • Great builders ask, "What are you trying to achieve here?" before pushing back—opening the door to creative, project-specific solutions.

    "It wasn’t this automatic pushback and say no, it was like, well, why, what are you trying to do here? What’s the goal?"
    —Evan (18:18)

• Hands-On Learning:

  • Both hosts extol the virtues of learning detailing directly from builders and product reps—real-world dialogue as essential to design intelligence.

6. Regionalism, Standardization, and the Myth of Cheapness (22:08–40:51)

• Traditions of Customization:
  • Why the bravado of past masters gave way to risk aversion, standardized "kit of parts", and the avoidance of trial/error in specification.
• Regional Architecture:

  • Examples of innovation using off-the-shelf materials: Schindler’s felt paper house, Glenn Murcutt’s regionalist steel/wood architecture, Rural Studio’s adaptive reuse.

  • "Standard details" have roots in experiments that ultimately became codified.

    "Our standard details came from those non-standard details or those bespoke details that didn’t exist beforehand…"
    —Cormac (24:22)

• Pushing Materials:

  • Success depends on deep understanding of both materials and construction—daring to push what's standard into something creative (yet affordable, not "cheap"). (36:47)

    "Understanding construction is a huge, huge, huge part of this idea of being able to do something perhaps unconventional, perhaps a little daring perhaps…"
    —Evan (41:36)

• Teaching & Mentoring:
  • Hands-on experience (Rural Studio, design-build) is championed as the best way for young architects to become truly skilled and bold.

7. The Risk-Averse Culture and the "Mediocrity Quotient" (26:29–34:42)

• Standardization as Safety:

  • "80% play it safe all the time." (A, 26:29)

  • The client often becomes the design limiter, with architects assuming a service mentality, reducing opportunity for bolder gestures.

  • Developers and municipalities seek efficiency over inspiration, causing urban sameness and loss of identity.

    "It's the butts-in-seats version of development: just get it done, make sure everybody's there..."
    —Cormac (31:39)

• Opportunity:

  • Architects must decide if they're content with a passive, supporting role, or if they're willing to become developers (or work directly with them) to re-inject quality and distinctiveness into the built environment.

8. Affordability as Design Constraint and Opportunity (36:12–48:00)

• Public Sector & Institutional Work:
  • "Affordable" vs. "cheap." Creative approaches can yield meaningful buildings even within tight budget constraints.
  • Example: Rural Studio, Sam Mockbee, and the quest for architecture for all.
  • Standard building modules were adopted out of necessity—becoming a source of design intelligence, not limitation.

9. Inspiration, Elevation, & the Architect's Purpose (49:19–54:43)

• Finding Ways to Elevate:

  • Regardless of the project size or budget, strive to "elevate" the environment and experience of users—“elevate the experience, elevate the environment, elevate the enterprise.” (A, 51:45)

• Citizen Architect:

  • Reference to the documentary "Citizen Architect," Sam Mockbee, and the ethos of service, creativity, and impact.

  • Architecture should serve a broader audience, not just those with the means to pay for it.

    "Any and every endeavor of architecture that we, you know, partake in should be… trying to achieve, bringing architecture to everybody, not just those who can pay for it."
    —Cormac (51:29)

• Call to Inspiration:

  • Hosts riff on the need for passion, inspiration, and the courage to do more than "code compliant buildings." (53:13)
  • A humorous note: "We're not the hang-in-there kitty poster on the wall... we're… inspiring the next generation." (A, 54:11)

---

Notable Quotes & Segment Highlights

• On Over-detailing:
  • "We want you to give us an IKEA set of documents." (B, 09:16)
• On Construction Knowledge:
  • "Understanding construction is a huge, huge, huge part of... being able to do something perhaps unconventional, perhaps a little daring..." (A, 41:36)
• On Regional Innovation:
  • "It's the creativity behind all of that—is what's really kind of up to the architect." (B, 39:03)
• On Client Service:
  • "A lot of people think, well, the client is always right, give them what they want... but a lot of times we find ourselves not asking if you want to go further, if we want to push it a little bit farther..." (B, 26:54)
• On Mediocrity:
  • "Architecture in the built environment and how it affects cities and towns... has gotten really freaking boring and mundane and mediocre." (A, 29:15)
• On The Architect’s Role:
  • "We're, we're not the... 'Hang in there, kitty'... we're inspiring the next generation." (A, 54:11)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:10–03:50 — "Is Organic Architecture Even Possible?"
• 02:13–05:44 — "Transatlantic Jargon: American vs. International Terms"
• 05:44–12:43 — "Levels of Detail and Their Consequences"
• 13:16–15:08 — "Custom vs. Standard Details; Pushing Boundaries"
• 15:10–21:00 — "Case Study: Pushing Manufacturer Collaboration"
• 18:06–22:00 — "Builder Collaboration and Symbiosis"
• 22:08–26:29 — "Regionalism, Standardization, and the Creation of Standards"
• 26:29–34:42 — "Risk-Averse Culture and Architectural Passivity"
• 36:12–48:00 — "Affordability, Constraint, and Creative Opportunity"
• 48:18–54:43 — "Citizen Architect, Elevation, and Inspiration"

---

Tone and Style

Authentically conversational, at turns humorous, self-deprecating, impassioned, and philosophical. Evan and Cormac maintain a rapport that balances critique of the profession with encouragement for boldness, continual learning, and advocating for real architectural value.

---

Additional Resources Mentioned

• Citizen Architect documentary (about Sam Mockbee and the Rural Studio)
• Rural Studio: Design-build pedagogical program at Auburn University
• Projects by Frank Lloyd Wright, Bruce Goff, Glenn Murcutt, Sam Mockbee

---

For Further Reflection

If you missed the episode, use this summary to deepen your understanding of why the role of architects is changing, the tension between creativity and liability, and the ongoing need for vision and rigorous collaboration in shaping meaningful buildings and places.

---

Call to Action: Have ideas or inspirational “architecture posters” based on this episode? Share them with the Archispeak team!

Transcript

[A]

Really? Yeah. I want, I want you to propose this hot take to everybody. Let's hear it.

[B]

So holding up here, something I picked up from the AIA convention.

[A]

Oh, A plus D. What is that?

[B]

The Journal of Organic Architecture and Design. And I had just said to Evan before he hit record that I personally believe that there really isn't a such thing as organic architecture because the act of humans building in nature is actually anti nature, regardless of if you're even building with sticks and stones.

[A]

Nature, humans, together, togetherness. I'm doing the international sign of togetherness right here. This is what this is.

[B]

I just wanted to see if what your reaction was going to be on that one and see if you're like, wait, wait, what the.

[A]

Yeah, Buildings are a machine for living. Yeah, I mean it's, it's.

[B]

Well, you know what's funny is that I've said in the past somebody would say that what I just said, you know, it's like, well, you know, you're building all these materials and you know, you're using brick and stone and all of this other stuff, the manufacturing, the manufacturer, you know, it's just like, well, if you think about it, we can't create anything that is not already here one way, shape or form, even down to the most molecular of the levels. Right.

[A]

So theoretical here.

[B]

Yeah, good. No, theoretically. So like really everything is organic.

[A]

See, now you're going, now you're going too far in the other direction.

[B]

I, I, I, I, I wanted to just, you know, throw out some controversy.

[A]

Yeah, controversy about because of the project

[B]

that I have overseas, a lot of the people that I deal with are from either the British Isles, one way shape or form, or Europe somewhere or the Middle east somewhere. And so you hear more or less British English all the time.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And so I, I don't know if I purposely try to avoid using British English just as a, be a typical American and say, it's not a lift, it's an elevator. It's, it's not aluminium, it's aluminum.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. You know, according to you.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. But you know, it's just like, well, we were talking and I, and I, I'll pay attention when I'm talking and it'll be like, you know, it's just like, well, responding to your queries, like they're just questions.

[A]

Oh, I like it. No, I, I like, I like getting the, a taste of someone else's culture in the.

[B]

Oh yeah, it's great. You know, control. I was just like, you know, schedule, schedule.

[A]

I like that a lot.

[B]

Schedule. So, yeah, what's interesting is a schedule is a program, and a program is a schedule in the RIBA standards.

[A]

And in program terminology. Architectural terminology, you're talking here.

[B]

Yes, in architectural terminology. And so that was one of the things. It's just like, you know, have you submitted the program? Like, I submitted the schedule, but, you know, and then they're like, you know, the program, but the schedule.

[A]

Help me out. Words for completely different things. And so, I mean, and there's. There's many, many of these. Right. It's like, I just had one a minute ago now I've already lost it. But. But yeah, this is. It could be confusing sometimes, for sure.

[B]

Well, you know, and then there's some interesting things. So I was having a little bit of a conversation today about, like, issuing out some information. And so you've heard me say this multiple times. The architectural supplemental information, the asi, Right. Is not something that is used overseas in the same way or at all in certain. Certain locations. And so they're like. Well, I was like, well, we could issue an asi. And they're like, what's that? It was like architectural supplemental instructions. They're like, what's that? And like, additional information that we think you need to execute this design stuff that we.

[A]

That we didn't get into the project before the deadline.

[B]

Something we may have forgot but decided that got too low on the list of.

[A]

We didn't. Of course, the things we care about.

[B]

Yeah, well, it's just like, you know, it's the priority list. And it's just like the biggest part of the priority list was conforming to the schedule. I mean, program in getting those drawings out and getting shoot for.

[A]

I think you said there were different terms also for like the phases of a project versus what.

[B]

What we have here. In fact, what. What we call construction documents. They call issue for construction. So IFC instead of CDs.

[A]

But IFC here is a file format.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And then. And so you have the DD phase, which is not design development, but it is craft. It literally just forgive it. I just lost it.

[A]

So. So we. I've got one point. You've got one point of being old so far in this episode.

[B]

There you go.

[A]

Just can't remember the word that you were about to say exactly.

[B]

Detailed design. There we go. Detailed design.

[A]

I haven't remembered mine yet, so I'm.

[B]

So it's a zero. So it's. It's essentially, it's design development, and let's just say it's. It's basically all of the phase of design development and about 50% of construction documentation all rolled into wood. Because at the end of their DD phase, they're actually expecting you to almost have a. A biddable project with a pretty comprehensive set of design documentation.

[A]

I'm pretty sure that's not how they would explain it right there. I bet they would say, we expect you to have a biddable project. Not. Yes, we don't expect you to almost have a biddable. That's not really an expectation. True, true, true, true, true.

[B]

And then. And it's interesting too, because we're even having conversations about the interpretation of. And you'll love this one, especially as somebody who not only was on the design side of things, but then also started to work in the implementation of the digital practice and stuff. So LODs, the good old. What does LOD stand for?

[A]

Yeah, there's controversy about this controversy.

[B]

The control.

[A]

Level of detail. Yeah.

[B]

Level of detail. Yes. So level of detail. So LOD 300 and there is, there is a pretty well established LOD 300 that BIM managers, at least as far as I could throw them, agree on one thing. Well, it seems as if the level of detail that's provided in some of the overseas documentation are bordering more towards. When you give them a set of construction documents bordering more towards the level of detail they give is. Is closer to what we would expect out of a shop drawing. And we're like, we don't do that. There's.

[A]

Do they have a number that they assign to that or what are they. That's just.

[B]

Well, no, their, their expectations of an LOD 300 are. Why aren you calling out fasteners? Why aren't you calling out this? Why aren't you calling out that? Like, I mean, because. And so I had this conversation with them. It's like the expectations, especially in the States, are if we are giving a set of documents and we do it off of a basis of design, we'll detail things around that basis of design. But that basis of design will ultimately be, in most of the cases, especially with the projects that you and I've worked on in the past, will ultimately be changed by the low bid somewhere else. Like if we're calling curtain wall Y and curtain wall Z comes in and says, oh yeah, we can do the same thing, but we can do it cheaper. Guess what? Their details are going to be different. So as you and I've always talked about, it's just like, is that where the architects. Is that where the effort of the architect should be, is like detailing These things out to the nth degree.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You know, and, you know, it's. And so if you ask the, the people in the conversations that I've had for my overseas project, the answer would be yes. Like, we want you to tell us everything. We want, we want you to give us essentially an IKEA set of documents.

[A]

You know, can we talk about the problems with that?

[B]

Oh, yes.

[A]

Oh, my God. I just, I mean, they're just flying into my head right now. I mean, that just sounds like a giant pain in the ass.

[B]

Oh, yeah, yeah. And, and when you're developing a fee, rarely will you develop a fee that unless it's well established beforehand that the level of detail that you're going to be providing in your set of documents is, you know, shop drawing level documents, which it's rare that you'll find an architect who. Let me restate, restate that because you will find many an architect who can, you know, deliver a, you know, that level of detail. But again, if you're not paying for that level of detail, if you say LOD 300 and it's established that this is what you're going to get, you're going to get an LOD 300, which is design intent.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, I'm just thinking about the, the constraints that would need to be in place to achieve that expectation.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You have to have, you have to have a builder with a, with a knowing of building systems, materials much earlier on in a project. Yeah, yeah, you would have to be. I mean, you're actually talking about a completely different incentive for drawings that, like, what we're talking about in the US Are the intent is to actually get a permit and to act as the basis of design for the building and not the actual level of detail. What you're talking about, which is usually nowadays, I mean, and I'm not saying this is right or wrong because Cormac, like, it's pretty obvious architects have kind of ceded this territory to the contractors, but that's really now in the contractor's bounds to build the constructability model. Right?

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. And in, again, in most cases, when you're doing a basis of design or approved equal, you're assuming that this is going to be a competitive bid. You're going to get multiple different manufacturers who says, yes, I can deliver this design intent and here's how I can do it. And they prove it through their shop drawing. Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Whereas some of the levels of detail that they're asking for more focus around soul sourcing and, well, if you're talking

[A]

about a manufacturing process.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Versus the actual building construction process where everything's a known quantity. Right. When you're, when you're going to build a car in a factory and you're going to do a repeatable thing, like yeah, you have defined every single bit of that upfront. Right. Right before you even build that first car. Right. Like so.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

That's a complaint. And, and I wonder where, you know, I guess I kind of see, I mean we have seen this many, many times where people just put those types of constraints and ideas upon architecture. Say no, this, this should be more like manufacturing. And there are definitely lessons to be learned from manufacturing cross disciplinarily and things like that. But especially with certain types of architecture, maybe modular and things like that, but it doesn't really apply and yet it keeps getting applied to this discipline.

[B]

It's rare that you're going to get that level of detail in a project that's competitively bid in especially let's just say developer, let's just say public works, things like that, you know, because you are looking for efficiency, affordability and all of that other stuff. If you're looking for, let's say the Renzo projects wherever, you know that everything

[A]

is going to be Heatherwick, like I think.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Projects where it's like the, the level of detail to the final.

[B]

Well, the level of detail is. Because those details don't exist anywhere. And so you're going to remain ready. Here's a, here's our next British versus American terms. It's either going to be bespoked or customer.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Yeah, but so if you're doing something bespoke, it is going to be something that is going to cost you a lot of money or more money than what would be a standard off the shelf item. Right.

[A]

Well, think about the conversation we had with David Prudding. Right. And the homes that, that they've built. I mean custom homes, custom detailing, lots and lots and lots of custom detailing that the architect didn't even figure all the way out.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Because you have to work hand in hand with the builder to actually do that.

[B]

I'll, I'll say that honestly, if, if you, if we're given the freedom, which I, I wish we were given the freedom a lot more, especially with our clients and our, whether it's a developer or a public institution or whatever to work with a manufacturer and do a design assist type delivery, then you, you really are even taking their standard stuff and somewhat customizing it to get kind of the, the design intent in and you're actually developing the details that are making that customization of something standard far more dual.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I mean. Okay, so you're basically waiting for permission to do this. But I think again, this kind of goes back to, I mean, in the way that you said that. It's like, I wish we could. We could. You. But that's a decision. That's a business model decision.

[B]

That's a.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like.

[A]

Yeah, if you're talking about the firm that you're practicing in doing competitively bid public projects.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Then yeah, that's not a thing that exists.

[B]

Well, I'll say as we're designing something and we are coming up with say, a design detail that we haven't really done before or something like that. Absolutely. I'm going to reach out to the manufacturer and absolutely, I'm going to work with them to try to make sure I can understand their systems to be able to deliver that design. And so in a way, I do my own design assist by understanding the systems that we need and understanding my limitations of the knowledge of the system and then reach out to them to basically ask them, hey, can you help me? Can you help me achieve this? You know, and then, oh, yeah, you know, we've done that. Or, you know, I give you a great example. When I used some terracotta fins and I had them in the vertical, but I wanted them to cantilever a certain distance that I'd seen some cantilevering in their systems, but not as far as I wanted to go. And we helped work on a detail together, which ultimately was the A1 off, but probably something that they could roll into their, their standard offerings to be able to achieve this larger cantilever with, you know, basically steel and terracotta.

[A]

Everything started as a one off. There had to be a first.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Right. Yeah.

[B]

And now there's a certain terracotta manufacturer who can do some decently long cantilevers of their terracotta fins. Thanks.

[A]

How did you guys achieve that? Can you talk about like the general way? Did you do it with steel, like extra supports or how did you pull that off?

[B]

So typically what they, what they typically do is they actually have like a sandwich and bracketing and things like that. What I did was sort of put threaded rod through the terracotta things to extend.

[A]

It's like an open structure. There's the, the hollow.

[B]

There's like inside. Yeah, the, there's a hollow core inside there and you know, it's, it's ripe to basically almost create A sandwich of steel, steel plates, steel rods and that. But then bring it back so that you kind of have like a mid span connection point. But because you're taking a series of terracotta and putting them together to create the, the overall fin, we just took the whole sandwich and said, okay, now we have connection points here and here, but the structure is actually running all the way through there.

[A]

Yeah, okay, that makes sense.

[B]

Yeah, it was fun. I mean, it was kind. It basically looked at like some of their standard details and said, well, what if we did this? Yeah. And under. And again, me understanding the system a little bit and them understanding, like the technology, we kind of came to it. So, okay, here's how far we can push that detail. Yeah, perfect. That's.

[A]

Yeah, that's a great process. I think that's also something that Dave talked about when we had that conversation with him, right. Is he would look at a set of drawings and he would say, what are you trying to achieve here? Right. Because he would see something and it would just jump off the page at him like, whoa.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Or, you know, he'd look at the detail and say, oh, that's not how I've normally done it. But it wasn't, it wasn't this automatic pushback and say, no, it was like, well, why, what are you trying to do here? What, what, what's the goal? And then once you know the goal, you can work together to come up with maybe it is a new assembly that you have to come up with or a new detail.

[B]

And. And you know, in that conversation with Dave was a good conversation about that symbiotic relationship that you need with a builder who understands and appreciates the level of work that it takes to achieve a design. And if he's open to. And you know, if the builder's open to and the architect is open to that conversation. Like I've learned, and I think I've said this on numerous occasions, but I've learned more about construction detailing from just sitting down and talking to the people who are actually building it. Like, yeah, all right, here's what I want to design. How would you build it?

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And I mean, you talked a minute ago about going to a product manufacturer who spends all day in that product every day.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

They know the most about it. And you can't know everything there is to know about all these different pieces of the puzzle. And so why aren't we. Why is there so much adversity to working with these other people? And obviously, people have gone through really terrible scenarios as well, where it's. Oh yeah, it's completely adversarial the whole time and you're getting thrown under the bus in front of the client and burning bridges and so yeah, there's all, all versions of this story.

[B]

It is, we've said it's like, who knows their product more than the people making the product? Now, there may be some times where we question, like, are you sure it can't do this?

[A]

Well, yeah. And you can push them, right?

[B]

And you push them. You know, it's just like. Well, you know, we, we really just thought about it as a standard way of doing this. However, that's an interesting question that you pose. Maybe, maybe we can increase the cantilever on this thing. You know, we're only saying that we can give you a foot, maybe a foot and a half. You're asking for four feet? What about three? Okay, well, let me see what my design can do and let's see what you can do. You know about that. And that was really it. Like they could only achieve a one foot cantilever. I was asking for a four foot cantilever. We worked together on some detailing together to try to push and push and push and we got a three foot cantilever which, you know, at the end of the day, because of a couple of different ways, it still felt like in. If you looked at the elevations, still felt like four feet because of the way that I sort of modified my detail.

[A]

Achieves the design intent.

[B]

And it achieved the design intent. I just went back to that on my little epic road trip. I went back and looked at that project and it's still holding up.

[A]

I would expect it would be because you did, you worked on it. Mighty fine architect over there.

[B]

I get nervous about like trying new things and making sure that, you know, I can put my money where my mouth is or somebody else's money where my mouth is.

[A]

Well, I mean, yeah, it's your reputation, right? It's. It's. Because especially with an institution like that,

[B]

it has to hold up.

[A]

It literally has to hold up. And.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

It's a. Yeah, it is a. I mean, that's the risk and reward of, of trying things. But also, you know, your reputation and your license are Right. And your E and a. Insurance or you know, you know, insurance. Yeah. Is not.

[B]

Yeah. Yes, exactly. Exactly.

[A]

How did we get here from organic architecture is impossible based on your, your how.

[B]

How many times do we, how many times do we like see the path ahead of us and say, you know what? I'm gonna run through the, I'm gonna, I'm gonna run through the poison oak

[A]

all the time. Okay, so let's talk a little bit more about organic architecture because, and, and not really the, the, the theoretical nature of if, if it's the definition of organic, but I think about like Frank Lloyd Wright or Kendrick Banks, Kellogg or Bruce Goff or. I mean there's many, right, that, that we could, we can name and I think when I think of Dodge. Okay, I don't know that I don't either.

[B]

But it's, it's, it's in here.

[A]

I've got a cool book from Aaron Green, which was one of Frank Lloyd Wright's.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Understudies John Lautner. I mean, yeah, there's, there's many.

[B]

And I think talked about my visit to Thorn Crown Chapel and we know Eve Jones.

[A]

So, so I'm, I'm thinking custom details. I'm thinking many, many, many, many, many custom details on those projects. Like there's nothing standard or run along.

[B]

Probably every part of it was a custom detail, one way, shape or form.

[A]

Yeah. So, so okay, so nowadays there's a huge, I mean we, this has been, I don't, I don't just mean like recently. I mean like modern practice is really revolves around the reuse of kind of a standard kit of parts, right? There's standard construction types, there's wood and concrete and steel and then there's methodologies and then there's, you know, especially if you're doing institutional architecture, you know, you're doing wood frame schools, steel frame schools, CMU buildings, right? Custom details are really like avoided as much as possible, right? It's like, because, well, they take time to develop. They've got to be proven, they've got to go through qa. They've got to, you know, it's, it's, it's a big thing. But I mean if you think about those projects that we just mentioned from, from the masters, right? Those were drawn as they were needed. I. Do you think they really used sander details back then? Maybe they had some that carried over from the previous project of like this is how we want the glass to inset into the concrete wall kind of. But if you, but if you think

[B]

about it, where we are now today in our standard details came from those non standard details or those bespoke details that didn't exist beforehand, that somebody's like, well you know, I've never really thought about doing glass that way, but let's give it a shot. And so they do it and Then somebody else comes about, says, you know what? I've seen that Frank Lloyd Wright building. I really would love to do that. Like corner glazing like that. Can we do that? Like, well, that was a really custom detail for that corner window. We're gonna have to do another corner. So isn't there anything standard? Let's see what we can do. And then you just start asking people to kind of like do that. And more and more people keep asking for it. So it kind of evolves into that

[A]

becomes a standard detail.

[B]

It becomes the standard. It become, well, it becomes a standard manufacturing opportunity that I'm not quite sure. A lot of people actually try to stretch materials further than they really are. Like the building that we're working on in, in Baltimore, there's a lot of customization of standard kit of parts to make it feel like there's a lot of custom things on the project that really aren't. They're just a, an assemblage of a lot of standard things that we figured out a way to make them look custom. So it's a customization of some of standard. But you know, and that's the thing that's kind of interesting is some people don't seem to be risky enough in that because then people say, oh well, that's going to cost a lot of money. Like, well, it's still the same curtain wall. It's still the same this. It's just we're doing this with it rather than that. Right. You know, it. What's interesting is like, you know, all of the masters that you named and everybody, you know, in between and you know, they pushed for something that didn't exist.

[A]

Right? Yeah. Can I say like the word that comes to my mind is daring and bold. Daring and, and it's like man, architects rarely are daring and bold. There, there's obviously some name brand architects who are known for that then and there's ones who, who do that and aren't. But then, you know, 80, 20 is probably even a bigger, you know, offset than that. But it's like 80% play it safe all the time.

[B]

Well, you know, a lot of people, I was listening to some conversations that people were having about client service and you know, obviously this is a client service driven, you know, profession. You know, we're a service profession. Right. And so, you know, but a lot of people sometimes think, well, the client is always right, give them what they want, those kind of things. And so a lot of times we find ourselves not asking if you want to go further, if we want to push it a little bit farther, you know. You know, we don't want to kind of like, you know, upset the apple cart. So we don't. And so we get what we get, which is, you know, I was watching a reel about, you know, a friend of ours, Marilyn, who was. She was talking about breaking the mass. And that's like the trend right now is like, all of these, like, rectangular, you know, one size fits all, kind of like designs for, like, multifamily or, you know, kind of like, you know, and stuff. And it's just like the new. All their. The new standard of just, you know, taking, like, materials and slapping them onto, like, you know, pushing and pulling of, like, the. Of the facades and stuff. And, you know, it's just like. It's not really daring. All it's doing is just, you know, basically, you know, taking, like, a bunch of materials and saying, yeah, it's good we broke the mass.

[A]

It's creating detailing opportunities.

[B]

Yeah, it. Well, it's actually creating detailing nightmares. And she points that out, you know, pretty well, but, you know, it's just creating all of these nightmares. And, you know, because it's just like, should those two materials go together? Does that actually make a watertight, you know, seal? You know, can you flash that properly? No. Well, then why are you doing it? You know, whereas they're just like, well, you know, Frank Lloyd Wright, you know, we'll just go ahead and use Frank Lloyd. Well, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't have flashing, so it's like. Yeah, but the thing about it was, is, like, he was doing details that just didn't exist. And so nobody knew that you needed flashing until they're like, oh, shoot, Frank, your roof is leaking on the owner during dinner time.

[A]

Yep. This one leaks, too. Yeah, yeah. And I don't mean, like, daring could be interpreted in many different ways, but, like, architecture in the built environment and how it affects cities and towns and people who occupy those things is gotten really freaking boring and mundane and mediocre. And I don't know, I'm looking for words that are all mean the same thing, but it's like, where's the inspiration in the built environment? I mean, my wife and I are driving down one of the highways here locally and looking around, and it's just like, you just want to poke your eyes out. It's so bad. It's so bad.

[B]

You know, where is the, you know, the understanding of detail and order and proper massing and.

[A]

And, like, who actually cares? Like, the people in charge do not. The Ones who are overseeing the urban development that's happening and the way that our cityscapes are being designed and built there, there's zero attention being given to kind of the cohesiveness and what it actually does to people. And is it visual pollution? And like I just, you drive down the streets and it's like, what is going on here? There isn't, there is nothing redeeming about this.

[B]

So remember when we were in Boston last year and you know, there's this, all this new development, you know, that's essentially taken over all of what was South Boston.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And if you were to pick somebody up and just drop them immediately into that development area and said, hey, where are you? You'd be hard pressed to, to have somebody say, oh yeah, this feels like Boston. You pick them up and you put them in the old, in downtown Boston. They were, oh, this is Boston. But you put them in this new developed area where everything looks the same and everything looks generically like everything else anywhere else. And you're like, well, where are you? Like, I don't know. I, I, yeah.

[A]

And that's because it's kind of developer driven and.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. You know, it's that, you know, like

[A]

us a bar that's set as far as like what architecture is for and what it right. Could achieve.

[B]

Yeah, it, it is, it is the butts and seats version of development. It's just like, just get it done, like, make sure everybody's there, like make, you know, we just want to, you know, get in and out and just turn this over. And it's just like, what's the best way? This simple formula of, you know, this just rectangle that. Oh, to make it different, we will break the mass.

[A]

Yeah. It's a, it's an interesting time that we find ourselves in. And, and the, the thing is, is like, I, I, I've noticed. Well, I mean, it's not hard to notice this, but architects don't know what to do about it and they're not willing to take on the risk and the liability of becoming the developer to remove that kind of mediocrity quotient from, from the equation.

[B]

We always talk about this like, what is one of the hardest things? What is the hardest, one of the hardest things an architect to say, no, no, I don't want to do that. I think we should do this. I think we should, you know, it's just like we don't want to say, well, you know, I can easily replace you, Evan, with, you know, somebody else.

[A]

So what you're saying, though, is. Is like. It's like we're totally fine being in the service industry and serving somebody else, because then you're just doing what you're asked to do. I mean, of course, you. You might be pushing some boundaries in there, sure. But. But you're not driving the project. You are a smaller. A much smaller piece of the project.

[B]

You're. You're not driving it. You're not quite in the passenger seat. You know, you're in the old pickup truck where, you know, you're riding in the middle.

[A]

You're in the bed. You're in the bed of the truck with no seatbelt. You are not strapped in.

[B]

So when you. When you're hitting, like, speed bumps, you see us, you know, like, jumping up and down your.

[A]

Like, I have personal experience with that when I was a kid. Yeah. Riding to the back of a truck almost. Yeah. Almost went out.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

When the driver decided to go off a jump with several of us in the back.

[B]

Yeah. Good old days. The good old days.

[A]

The good old days. Duke's a hazard, basically. Is it?

[B]

Oh, how did we get here?

[A]

Well, yeah. And how do we get out of here? I don't.

[B]

How do. Yeah. How do we get out of here?

[A]

We dug the hole. We dug the hole. I mean, there's. There are people talking about this and. And kind of cheerleading this idea of becoming, you know, there is more potential if you're willing to do what it takes, if you're willing to become an architect as developer or a developer and hire architects. Right. Who. Because you understand the value of design, like, you could take on a different role and then empower others to do that and. And be the arbiter of what gets built and how it gets built and why it gets built.

[B]

I think we talked about this ages ago, but I remember a time when I was doing a. A school. It was a high school, and the design director of that school district, basically, we were doing a design review of, you know, in the early, you know, concept, probably possibly even early schematic design phase. And they looked at it, and they're just like, well, this is nice enough. But, you know, I just think that it's, you know, too nice for, you know, you know, what we're trying to achieve here. And then basically wanted us to dumb it down, wanted us to make it cheaper. I don't think we actually ever did, other than, you know, maybe change, you know, materiality. I think, you know, overall, the design sort of, you know, kind of stayed the same. Just tried to figure Out a. Let's say, a more affordable way to achieve it. And I think in. In some cases, especially, I know that you and I've, you know, experienced this is in especially like a public. Public project like, you know, elementary schools and things like that, where, you know, you really are trying to get the biggest bang for your buck is sort of like, I. I think the. Being cheap becomes one of your biggest design tools is trying to figure out the best way to do the most with the least.

[A]

Sure, sure. You know, that can actually be a really sweet spot to operate in.

[B]

Yeah. Because, you know, you're just like, all right, I, you know, like, I want them to have this. I would really love for, like, you know, the school to look like this, feel like this, you know, experience this, you know, this feel like this would enrich the learning experience all the different things that you want to try to achieve. But you know, that, like, in some of your big ideas, you know, oh, well, that would be really expensive to try to do it this way. How can I do this cheaper?

[A]

Yeah. And there's other ways to think about that too. I mean, it could be a sustainability angle. Right. It could have to do with daylighting and orientation and thermal comfort and things like that, where it's like the building itself is made out of cheap materials, but it operates in a very different way from what people are used to.

[B]

To use the word affordable instead of cheap.

[A]

Wordsmith it. Yeah, wordsmith.

[B]

Yeah. Let's word Smith it. Because it sounds. I mean, it's just like, oh, just make it cheaper. If it feels cheap, it is cheap. We're trying to make. We're trying to make it feel, you know, nice but affordable.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, that. That. I think about Rudolph Schindler, who there. You did great example, amazing architecture out of buildings made out of standard materials. Right off the shelf stuff. He. He did some really weird stuff. A lot of his stuff was just made out of stucco. Right. Stucco and wood and, you know, all wood frame stuff for the most part. But. But then every once in a while, he would try something kind of experimental. There was this one house in LA that they used felt paper as siding, like roofing felt paper as siding.

[B]

I think. I know you have.

[A]

It's like things like that, which was, you know, that didn't. Didn't have the longevity that other building materials would. But it fit the bill at the time. Or like I said, it was kind of experimental, but. But it was like. That was a little daring, right. It was a little bold. It's like well, what if it's going to keep the water out and it's going to achieve this and it's going to hit the budget and. Okay, let's give this a try. Because it's interesting because I drive around where I live, which is a very rural area, and there are buildings that are very old, that are still standing, that are made extremely cheaply, and they're just out there in the environment kind of affordably fading.

[B]

Affordably, Affordably.

[A]

You know, there's different standards in different places. I guess is is my point here where it's like the standards are lower here for like what it actually takes to, to build something out of. And it lasts long enough, I think, for people. And that's kind of an interesting mentality

[B]

if you think about it. Like, you know, the Usonians were literally designed to work around like the standard modules that you could get at any, you know, building supply store and that, you know, the reason why they were low and they're, you know, people speculate. Oh, it's because, you know, Frank was low. He was just trying to be efficient with the materials. If, if the standard two by four that you could get on, you know, off the shelf is like, you know, 8 to 9ft, well, we're going to design it around 8 and 9ft and we'll build it off of that so that, you know, you can build it this way. It's just the choice of the, the way you do it and the creativity behind all of that is, you know, is what's really kind of up to the architect. I mean, you know, I've seen some amazing buildings done by, you know, like Sam Mockbee, you know, Mockby Coker, when they were, you know, and they were using, you know, CMU and all that other stuff and, you know. Well, no, that's, you know, I mean, you know, the Rural Studios. Yeah, exactly. The Rural Studio is a great example of that. But I mean, you know, basically using like regional materials. It's just like, hey, we build out of CMU around here. Okay. How can I build, how can I, you know, do capital A architecture with, you know, just standard, you know, standard off the shelf stuff?

[A]

I mean, how do I make an experience?

[B]

You know, you look at almost any one of these, you know, like, like regionalists that, you know, these regionalist architects that, you know, really got a handle on, like, what they're doing in their neck of the woods. And you look at some of their work. I mean, you know, Glenn Murkick, who is a master at that, you know, and you were getting high capital, like the capitalist of a's.

[A]

The capitalist of a's.

[B]

The capitalist of a's in his work. And you, you know, I'm going to say that, you know, it wasn't probably too terribly cheap, but it was cheaper, you know, and, and so, you know, those are the things that like, you can do if you understand the material. I guess it comes kind of comes back to like, you know, understanding the material, understanding how you detail it, understanding how to make something, you know, that's off the shelf, you know, do what you want to do in a different way than kind of like the standard. Just like, okay, well, you know, yeah, that's just an infill. Like, okay, well, that's an infill. But, you know, maybe we do it this way.

[A]

I think you make a really, really good point here. And, and that is that.

[B]

Holy crap. Let's mark that one down.

[A]

Yeah, mark it, remark it while you, while you can. Understanding construction is a huge, huge, huge part of, of this idea of being able to do something perhaps unconventional, perhaps a little daring perhaps, right? It's like understanding construction, understanding materials, understanding physics experience, putting things together and how they go together, how they can be put together, how they can be held together. That is a big deal. And that, I think when you look at the opposite, when you look at, okay, well, I'm going to design a gymnasium at a cmu. Like, what do you do? You pull out the rectangle tool in Revit, right? And you draw a giant rectangle and you say, okay, here's the footprint of the gym. Because like, it's, you're not even thinking beyond. You're already thinking of it as this standard box, right? You're thinking of it, you're not thinking of it at a component level. And you're. I, I don't know if I'm really getting to the, the crux of this issue the right way, but, but I think you know what I mean. It's like when you think about a Glenn Merka building, you can actually see how the house goes together. You can see the fasteners and you can see the raw materials and the relationship between them. And that's a, that's a, it's still a skill of like that, that's a never ending path of learning how things go together. But it's also something that you can tell. Like, I'm sure Glenn spent a lot of time actually trying to build those kinds of things and not just drawing them and not talking to contractors and avoiding those kinds of conversations. It was. It was the oppos.

[B]

It.

[A]

It was like becoming immersed in figuring those kinds of puzzles out.

[B]

Right, right. And then, you know, and I mean, I think about, like, you know, some of the things that I've been able to do, you know, maybe on a smaller scale or maybe in just, you know, like certain places within buildings and stuff. Like, let's try this. And then people look at it and just like, man, this is really cool. I kind of like the way that you did this. And. And you just think it is just like, well, you know, they're like, how did you think of this? It's just like, I just understood how the steel goes together. And, you know, it doesn't have to, like, you know, the columns don't have to just be a single wide flange or, you know, one single. This. It could. It could be, you know, oh, the structure needs to be, you know, a eight by eight, you know, you know, hss. Like, okay, well, you know, what if it's too smaller four by fours, and what if they're smaller plate in between or with a plate in between? You know, and I. And. And I've done that to break it down.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, and then it's just like, okay, well, what if, you know, this, you know, those. The structure and the cross bracing do this and they're connected with the plate rather than, you know, a gusset or a welded connection or this or that, you know, and it's just like, you know, understanding the things, you can push it just a little bit more. And it's not anything that isn't standard or unconventional or undoable. It's just a different way of thinking about doing the same thing that everybody does every single other day.

[A]

Yeah. That. That appreciation of that by the builder is rare sometimes. Right. But I think again, we keep going back to the conversation with Dave, but he was like, he. He understood that. Right? He was like, oh, I. That's interesting. Right?

[B]

Like, yeah.

[A]

And I think. I think. I guess maybe that's what all this comes back to from an experience. You could be an architect or not. When you're experiencing something and you see something, it's like, oh, that's interesting. And. And that is different. Like, it literally doesn't have to be much, but it can be interesting. It can.

[B]

Right.

[A]

That. That is missing in so many. So many buildings. I mean. Okay, so let's go back to the Rural Studio example. Right. So that's the whole point of Rural Studio is to give students that experience.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

To work directly with Clients who are in unfortunate situations, but it doesn't matter. Like that's where they're doing it because they're doing an amazing charity kind of a service there. But they also then get the build experience to learn.

[B]

But they also get to experience design, like real architectural design in that, you know, real architecture design, but can be achieved affordably. See, not cheaply affordably, but. And it really can be. I mean, there's so many beautiful examples of all of this, you know.

[A]

Oh, I totally agree. I'm one of my mentors who always said he's like, I don't care what your budget is, we're going to make architecture. Right?

[B]

Like, yeah, yeah.

[A]

That the budget is not the constraint of whether it can be architecture or not. It is actually your imagination and what you're.

[B]

And exactly.

[A]

It's also sometimes it's like the, the set expectations by a client or even by an, by an architect or by a contractor, a builder in that situation. But then it's your job to kind of work through that and.

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

You need to educate them. But you know what I mean?

[B]

Like, it's like, yeah, well, you're going to get these, you know, it's just like, well, you know, I can build it this way. If we do it, if we use these details, I can build it this way and it'll be this much cheaper. I'm like, you know, and then you say, well, you know, you can't still do it, you know, this affordably by doing it this way. Just doing it slightly different than you normally do it, but it's not changing really anything that is out of the norm for you, it. Other than, you know, like, you're so used to doing it, you know, one way and one way only. We're saying that you can do it the other way, you know, the second way and still be able to, you know, make your budget and, and not press yourself too far out of your comfort zone of constructing it, you know,

[A]

I mean, yeah, but getting that experience as a, as a rural studio student, right. And learning how pieces go together and how. Because you actually do have to build it. You don't just get to draw how it gets built and then maybe have the chance to see it happen or not. You're actually the one doing all of that.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

With the team and working with other people. Team sport. Right. Architecture, not solo endeavor. And so, and so you actually get all of those kinds of experiences combined. And, and to me, that I think, prepares you to be a better capitalist of all A's. Architect. Right. Like, like what you were talking about with Sam.

[B]

Right.

[A]

It's like you, you actually have the ability then to be more informed with the design decisions that you're making and what's even possible.

[B]

Exactly. Yes. Yeah, I think we need to absolutely make sure we, you know, put a link to the Rural Studio in the show notes for this one.

[A]

Yeah. It reminds me of watching the movie, right? Citizen Architect.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which the documentary do that, you know, it's funny is that I, I think at the. So far, you know, I've now going into my, you know, second year, if I guess, you know, well, third year of teach, third semester, fourth semester of teaching. Whatever. Whatever.

[A]

Yeah, you get another old age point.

[B]

Exactly. But, but we're still leaving because I are. That's true, is I will go back and I will watch Citizen Architecture because

[A]

the thing that I love called out Citizen Architecture.

[B]

Citizen Architect. Thank you. My God, I should, I should be slapped in the head for that. Especially since, you know, it's all of my friends from school that are in that, you know, that documentary.

[A]

There's actually a website for a firm called citizenarchitects.com creating hip spaces on solid foundations. Shout out. Shout out to Citizen Architects.

[B]

Hip spaces. What is a hip space? You know what? I know what hip spaces are. I think we're going to take that from them.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know what? Enjoy hip spaces. We should all be trying to create hip spaces. We should.

[A]

I mean, that's a great tagline. Yeah, I'm looking it up. Citizen Architect movie, Sam Mockbee and the Spirit of the Rural Studio. All right, we'll put a link to that in the show notes.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

So you, you, you go back and you watch this every once or what?

[B]

I, I go back and watch it? You know, it is probably, you know, one of those movies that I will watch over and over again. One, you know, kind of reconnect to just say, ooh, you know, look, there's, you know, this guy or that guy. I remember these people. Oh, I remember that project. Or, you know, just the nature of like the energy that's being created with that. Where, you know, and I love, you know, some of the interviews that they've got with, with Peanut and if you guys go anywhere, you'll understand, talk about, he'll, you know, he, he, he basically calls it, you know, he calls out Architects, you know, from the get go, and he basically says, you want to hear? You guys aren't here for us. You're here to like, you know, go and do all these Fancy houses and stuff. And they come to find out that, you know, we are there to actually build for people who, you know, normally wouldn't be the ones hiring architects, you know, and that's, that's what we should be doing is like, you know, any and everything, any and every endeavor of architecture that we, you know, partake in should be, you know, trying to achieve, bringing architecture to everybody, not just those who can pay for it.

[A]

Well, there's that part of it, but it's like the, and then there's like the project level, which is elevating. You need to elevate. Find ways to elevate the experience. Find ways to elevate the environment. Find ways to elevate.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The enterprise in which you are contracting with. Right. The organization. Elevate the experience of the people who spend their time there. Right. Who are going to be inhabiting that space in one way or another. And, and sometimes that's at odds with the business of, you know, this industry. And, and because it's like, no, how can we do this faster? How can we do it cheaper? How come it does. Doesn't work like this? How come it takes so long? How come, you know all these things? And, and, and I think, you know, kind of getting back to those values of why'd you get into this thing in the first place? What, like, what is it about this that drew you in? And to me that I always go back to that idea of like finding ways creatively to elevate no matter what the budget is, no matter what the brief is. There's, there's a, there's a term for you from the European side of things. What's the brief? Right. Yeah. You know, it's like there's things about it that you can find that aren't listed in the brief. They're not in the scope, they're not in the program. Right. There's other aspirations and you get that by learning what those people are wanting to achieve. It's like, it's like when Dave says to the architect, what are you trying to do here? Like what, what's, what's the idea?

[B]

What's the goal with this piece? Exactly.

[A]

As the architect, you have to do that with the clients and you have to do that with the organizations. Right. And tell me something that, that I can't just read on your website and that this program doesn't tell me about you.

[B]

You know, I mean, nobody got into this profession to just do, you know, the code compliant building. You know, it's why, you know, like Any builder could do a code compliant building. You know, it's the architect who wants to take the code compliance and elevate it. As you said. Yeah, yeah. You know, as we, you know, should be saying on every project that we do is like, how. What is the value that would bring?

[A]

I like the pregnant pause here. I feel like, I feel like we're, we're at the, at the end of this inspirational talk that we. We're like that poster on the wall that's just like architecture, you know, punching architecture, kicking ass and inspiring the next generation. That's what we're. That's what ARC speaks to.

[B]

Oh, we're, we're. We're. We're not the. Hang in there, kitty wood. Hang it.

[A]

Hang in there, little white kitten.

[B]

Yeah, hang in there. We'll get through this. The end is near.

[A]

Man, I could, I could see some pretty awesome AI prompting right now.

[B]

It'd be great.

[A]

Come up with some inspirational architecture.

[B]

Let's see if we can get anybody to do that for us.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's the homework for the audience. Get on that, would you? We're just the idea people. You're going to have to follow through.

[B]

Yeah.