retail churn

The overbuilding of retail space in the United States has caused more suffering than the rise of Amazon and other online shopping sites. This suffering, however, is not spread evenly. Good space in the right place will always command tenants. Bad space in the wrong place isn't immediately doomed, but it will resist improvements because of the difficulty of reassigning the space to other uses. The trend in retail has been towards scale--with the ultimate expression being the box store and the fulfillment center. The small shop will always have a place, even as a loss leader for a brand, but most buildings on Main Street don't have the scale or logistical capacity for the type of sales model that dominates current shopping habits.

a world hidden

The impact of the damage caused by Harvey defies analysis. This blog made an insensitive series of remarks yesterday expressing optimism about recovery and rebuilding efforts. A formal retraction is being considered by the editorial committee, but in the meantime it's worth considering the relative vulnerability of significant urban areas. New York City had localized flooding as a result of Sandy, but the topography of the region protects critical areas from everything short of a Biblical event. New Orleans is always in the cross-hairs. Los Angeles and Chicago are probably at near zero risk. Miami and Boston deserve close scrutiny--the former is already coming to terms with sea-level rise, but Boston has no comprehensive pre-planning efforts. 

there's not much rain here

Towers of ilium predicts that Houston will recover much more quickly and with less drama than New Orleans did following Katrina. It's rare that floods reach biblical proportions, and although the media has some dramatic images, the extent of severe water intrusion is not citywide. The region has a robust construction economy, decent administration, and a certain degree of experience. Efforts to prevent the next flood--or to lessen its impact--will not be implemented of course.

architecture and productivity

Photo Levittown by Jon Smith

An effective method of increasing productivity in construction is by reducing the role of the designer. A design is required, but if interaction between client and architect is minimized--or eliminated--then the construction delivery process becomes the primary objective of a project. Does the end product suffer? Aesthetically, the consequences are often banal instead of disastrous. Functionality can be impacted, but not necessarily to a greater degree than when intensive design efforts are wasted on trying to predict future needs. 

building architecture and productivity

The technical research department at towers of ilium has been asked to comment on a recent article in The Economist magazine about the failure of the building construction industry to match the productivity gains of other manufacturing industries. The research department (which has no research budget) will recycle the following arguments:

-Buildings are large--large things make precision difficult to achieve and transport costs high

-Buildings are frequently unique to program and site. Even subtle differences in topography require re-design

-Building systems are more complex than in the past. A concrete wall with some single-glazed steel windows doesn't meet code and doesn't satisfy client/user expectations

-Architects are still involved. This point will be developed in later posts. Please do not adjust your set until Tuesday. In fact, do not stop staring at your computers for the next 24 hours--you will be amazed at how much you can accomplish!

reality is a harder place

Architecture that comes to life in a sketch frequently dies in the details. Sometimes, a compromise can be reached, but if heroic efforts are required to massage a design idea into something that complies with code and construction methods, then the potential for error increases substantially.

A sketch is not a holy writ--it is tool that informs the goal of getting something built. The ability to produce and abandon sketches is the mark of a healthy design process.

why castles?

A castle is the ultimate expression of secure domestic architecture. Although modern survivalists tend to favor lodges in the empty places of the American West, the European tradition retains the most evocative and prominent examples of the type. To live in a castle is to achieve fantasy. Those who built them were clearly engaged in a visual arms race. Practical features are subordinate to an obvious need for more turrets and towers. Disneyland has cemented the imagery so thoroughly that we cannot conceive of a princess living anywhere else.