Orientation to Architecture

J. Bradley Satterfield, AUA, AIACampus Architect

Georgia Institute of Technology

Orientation to Architecture

Traditional Practice of Architecture in the

Architectural Design Firm

•Schematic Design (SD)

•Design Development (DD)

•Construction Documents (CD)

•Specifications

•Construction Administration

Orientation to Architecture

Architecture – Experience and Specialization•Pre-Design Services / Feasibility Studies

•Programming * as “Problem Seeking” by AIA Press

•Master Planning / Future Planning

•Sustainable Design and Construction (LEEDS)

•Landscape Architecture (improves value of building)

•Adaptive Reconstruction / Renovation (50% of market)

•Interior Design (continues during a recession in building)

•Program Management *

Orientation to Architecture Programming is “Problem Seeking”• A process leading to a statement of an architectural

problem and the requirements to be met in offering a solution…analysis…not design…

Architectural Design is Problem Solving• Synthesis of Form, Function, Time and Economy

• Problem Seeking by William Pena Copyright by CRSS, Inc. AIA Press

Orientation to Architecture

Program Management

•A Project is a well organized program of events with direction and oversight of a professional Program Manager (PM) who is responsible to the Owner.

•A Program Manager serves the Owner by managing Owners risk in project delivery

•Owners assets at risk include money, time, space and quality

•Program Delivery Methods vary but may be classified

Orientation to Architecture

Program Management Services to Owner

•Owner Representation to Architect and Builder

•Feasibility of Program as compared to Budget

•Definition of work breakdown and critical events

•Overall Project Scheduling (OPS)

•Project Budget and Cost Analysis

•Preparing Request for Proposals (RFP)

•Project reporting and documentation

•Anticipation of problems and resolution strategies

Orientation to Architecture

Project Delivery Methods

•Traditional Design - Bid - Build Owner / PM, Architect and ContractorModerate risk, control, takes more time, errors/omissions moderate effort,

•Construction Manager as Advisor (not at risk)Owner, Architect, CM/A and SubcontractorsEarly Start, moderate risk, more effort

•Construction Manager at RiskEarly start to construction as design proceedsOwner Architect and CM/R ContractorGuaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

Orientation to Architecture

Project Delivery Methods

Design - Build Contracting (D-B)

Owner contracts with D-B Team

Architect is a part of D-B Team

Early start to construction as design proceeds

Work to Design Baseline and GMP

Construction to completion

Orientation to Architecture

Project Delivery

Design - Build Contracting (D-B) with “bridging”Owner selects PM and then ArchitectDesign proceeds to SD and DDPM solicits RFP based upon DD plans and prequalification of D-B teamsOwner contracts with D-B Team at a GMPArchitect of D-B team completes the CD phaseEarly start to construction as CD’s are completedConstruction proceeds to completion

Orientation to Architecture Successful Projects will have …

• Program and / or scope of work defined (stuff)

• Work site or area of work (land / space)

• Budget defined and some or all required funding ($)

• Project team to perform the project (glue)

• Schedule of events and milestones (string)

Orientation to Architecture

Credits for “bridging “ method of delivery•George T. Heery, FAIA RIBA

•Brookwood Group Inc. www.brookwoodgroup.com

Other Resources on web site•American Institute of Architects www.aia.org

•Design Build Institute www.dbi.org

•Construction Management Institute www.cmi.org

•Green Building Council www.gbc.org

Orientation to Architecture

Questions and Answers

Architecture

Georgia Institute of Technology

Technology Square Project

Orientation to Architecture Project Team

• Georgia Institute of Technology (Client / End User)

• Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. (Owner)

• Jones Lang LaSalle (PM)

• Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback and Associates, Inc.

Master Architect / Architectural Design

associated Engineering Firms

• Holder / Hardin (CM)

Historical Perspective

• Atlanta and Georgia Tech together for over 100 years

• Urban growth and Interstate I-75/85 • Decline and renewal of vibrant Midtown area• Greater neighborhood vision and Georgia Tech • Isolated campus – psychological separation

from community• Increasing technology-based economy brings

more companies into Atlanta and Midtown

Georgia Tech’s Vision

Mission StatementGeorgia Tech will define the technological research university of the 21st century and educate the leaders of a technologically driven world.

Vision Success Factors

• Academic initiative in the areas of:– Engineering– Science– Management– Interdisciplinary Programs– Economic Development– Life-long Learning

Facility Initiatives

Administrative Initiatives• Campus Programs and Facility Study• Campus Master Plan• Capital Planning • Land Strategies• Technology Square Project

Facility Study/Capital Plan

• Science and engineering radically changed, generating accelerated need for advanced facilities.

• Physical need to emphasize interdisciplinary work between science and engineering.

• Accommodate innovation and growth.• Continue leadership in Technology and learning by

developing an office complex that also brings thought leadership on management.

• Further ignite leading edge research and education.

Master Plan• Urban Campus becomes landlocked• Need Master Plan to facilitate academic growth• Need to transform old, decaying and costly

facilities• Development as a catalyst for community change• Campus revitalization was needed• Georgia Tech’s Vision needs land

Capital Funding• Minimal State Funding

• Creative Financing– Capital Campaign Donations to GTF– Capital Equity for Collateral by GTF– Revenue Based Bonds by GTF– Taxable and Tax Exempt Bonds– Payback Program by BOR/GT/GTF

Land Strategy• Challenges

– Tight urban site

– Land locked / “urban island”

– The center of gravity for the institute changed

– Not pedestrian friendly

• Solutions– Extend beyond traditional boundaries

– Cross I-75/85 to Midtown

– Get creative about buying the land

Creating Technology Square

• Connector to community• Life-long Learning

– Global Learning Center– Hotel / Conference Center

• Create a retail center for campus community• Facilitate technology corridor, economic

development– College of Management– Yamacraw Design Center– ATDC (Incubator)

StatisticsTechnology Square• 1.1 million square feet

– Management Building 189,000 GSF

– Bookstore 47,000

– Economic Dev’t Building 48,000

– Global Learning Center 114,000

– Hotel & Conference Center 207,000

– Parking (1550 Spaces) 498,000

– Shops 18,000

• Construction Cost $120,000,000• Project Cost $178,000,000

• Construction Period 11/2001 – 7/2003

Centergy• 618,000+ square feet

– Technology Square Research Building218,000

GSF

– ATDC 150,000

– Spec Office Space 250,000

– Parking (1200 Spaces) 425,000

• Construction Period 10/2001 – 8/2003