What Do Developers and Architects Want Each Other to Know?

I would very much like to see such an article, provided there is also research regarding the differences between the two communities at different places across the country. Start please with San Antonio, Texas, one of the areas of the country which has so far best resisted the economic crises of the last few years and which prides itself on mavericks and wildcatters. This last observation especially applies to members of the residential developer community famous for taking what they want and not necessarily bothering to ask permission later.

I agree that Planners should be an integral part of the process. Some developers sometimes forget that the value of their place can be reduced by poor integration with the surroundings. Developers need to have their vision clear in mind and communicate this to the design consultant team. At times the architect and planner may have to assist the developer in finetuning the vision before the project commences. Architects / Planners should appreciate the legal constraints (wrt land) and property management issues that may affect a developers decision on certain design aspects.

I would also put in a plug for city planning. Particularly for more urban projects, context is important, and established land use policy and goals are important. Far too often, developers and their architects design a building which does not relate to its neighbors, particularly in terms of continuity of ground floor uses, location of vehicular entrances, consistency of the streetwall -- in other words, the kind of issues that help determine the quality of pedestrian character, and which have a direct bearing on the success/appeal of the individual building as well as the entire block or area. Involving a private planner on the team (not just an architect or landscape architect, because their orientation is frequently primarily to the building itself and not the larger context) is very useful. Also, it is key to involve the staff of the city planning agency early on -- they are not just there to provide entitlements; their observations/insights may add a great deal of value to the building. Ellen McCarthy, Director of Planning and Land Use, Arent Fox LLP, Washington DC

Yes, communication is huge. As an architect I've seen many times where projects break down because of a lack of trust among parties or because each party has decided to take a defensive position regarding its communication and delivery because of liability issues. As a result an air of contention and distrust many times occurs between the Contractor and the Architect. Delievery methods such as GMP I do not think will solve any of these problems. I do support the industry shedding the older and outdated delivery models of Design-Bid-Build and graduating towards more conventional team building models such as Design-Build and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Both of these models foster teamwork, honest and open communication and a shared risk/reward incentive for working together and delivering a beautiful functional building that is on budget and on time. Furthermore, as architects become increasingly frustrated with some aspects of the profession (ahem...$$), you will seem they actively taking on more equity stakes in development projects, combining Architecture/construction/development under one roof, or possibly leaving the industry all together to become developers.

I've seen and heard lots of talk about team development over the years I've practiced law. But it was always a good starting point and then things fell back to traditional steriotypes and roles. I represent engineers, architects, contractors and developers. I speak at seminars on a variety of topics and always plug the idea of the need for team work. This is becoming ever more neccessary given current financing issues as well as regulatory demands. Owners are starting to take a better and more comprehensive look at what is desired and what can realistically be obtained for the investment and from governmental reviews, with an eye on articulating the project more clearly before moving forward. Then the team members have a better understanding of the project, can ask better questions up front and get much of the program outlined well before design actually begins. This approach should eliminate much of the "Dumb Costs" Mr. Kalcher outlines and allows for realistic schedules and budgeting that should cut down on cost issues. I perceive that as more members of the overall development community become better acquanted with GMP, and as the economy moves forward (and with it the cycle of insurance and other costs firming up), we'll see more cooperation, better communication and better results.

Actually, I am a planner. But I manage an engineer-dominated group that primarily serves the private sector land development market. Great discussion. Communication is the key, as always.

A huge and multifaceted question, yet for the sake of brevity, I'd suggest that a successful partnership between developers and architects / consultants depends on both parties striving to avoid 'Dumb Costs'. These are all the daft expenses and outgoings during the project that add no value to the end-user, e.g. masterplan changes, re-designs and / or re-positionings, tenant illusions, etc., etc., and which are easily mitigated by partnerships that take a little more time think deeper before getting carried away in the first flush of excitement of the project. The word 'vision' is overused and under-understood. Developing a vision should mean articulating, even storyboarding, in very considerable detail ambitions, objectives, customer experience, brand platforms, competitor responses and a dozen more such success criteria before teams are formed and tasks allocated. It is hard work, but the benefits are huge. Fewer ambiguities during the difficult starting phase, potential conflicts of opinions emerge very early (i.e. less cause for costly people changes), more purposeful concept design, not to mention the many commercial upsides of starting a project-team that has a firm understanding of the benefits it must deliver to consumers and stakeholders. Managing a project is as tough as it gets, but armed with a holistic vision that allows the leader to direct and guide with confidence and consistency 'up-, down- and sideways' will help to bring out the best from the partnership. Karl Kalcher, MindFolio Ltd., London/Chicago

I agree with Mr. Landry that a comprehensive team of development professionals needs to be established. Ideally, this should be done early in the project's inception. When the Owner has a vision, due diligence is critical in finding and identifying the right property. Once the required entitlements have been determined and deemed obtainable, there needs to be tight coordination among all the team players to ensure a seamless, sustainable result. Initial concerns need to be identified, addressed and resolved and the remaining program elements will fall into place. The sooner the full project team is assembled and a synergy is formed, the less surprises and revisions will be part of the development and implementation. Theresa Artuso, Director of Land Planning/Landscape Architecture, Hole Montes, Inc., Ft. Myers, FL (Planning, Engineering, Landscape Architecture & Survey)

So I guess Landry is an engineer....kidding. I completely concur with Mr. Landry as to the civil engineering firm in charge of the site work. Absolutely critical role early on.....particularly on large-scale projects. I am a developer-owner, and I rely on the site engineer like a right foot - particularly pre-construction. Drainage, grading, off-site (and on site) utilities, and environmental or regularory entitlement steps are crucial components that the civil envineer's expertoise and counsel can play the ultimate project functionality and financial success.

I would also extend the conversation to include the site engineer, as well - things that site engineers wish architects, developers, and contractors knew. So much of the "horizontal" aspects of development (site grading, landscape architecture, stormwater management, parking, vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, ADA requirements, utilities, etc.) inform and affect the "vertical." And the site engineer's role in project permitting is integral to the ultimate successful project outcome, yet contract conditions and payment terms often do not adequately recognize this role and value.

The architects need to be very clear on what items are essential to the spirit and core design of the building as opposed to the items that could potentially yield cost savings for the developer through value engineering. A simple must do, should do, could do scenario breakdown instead of leaving the developer to come up with this on their own. This will allow the developer to easily overlay this with the sales and marketing team to match up the current market demands, competition, price elasticity, etc. Michael Orbino, The Orbino Group, Bellevue, WA (Development Consulting)

It is essential to have completely open communications amongst developer, contractor and architect on any project - especially now when every nickel that can be saved is a demand of the owner. Whether a large scale master Planned Community or a small single-tenant project, the "team" of developer/architect/general contractor had better be "on the same page" or they will not get repeat business. Weekly progress meetings in open and straightforward manner with clear mutual objective of efficient, timely, and on-budget specific performance is a requirement for anybody who wants to keep existing customers and/or grow new business. Bill Hudson Brownsville, Texas