Bild Architecture recently developed and submitted a design concept as a response to the Bayside Adapts Design Challenge. The purpose of the challenge was to propose creative approaches for addressing sea level rise in the Bayside neighborhood of Portland, Maine. Submission requirements included the establishment of a climate change scenario stating the time frame and projected sea level rise as a benchmark for the design, a clear description of the design concept, and supporting graphics.

Bild’s climate change scenario projected a 6 foot rise by 2100, with a deadline of 2060 for installing the proposed infrastructure. The design concept focused around the addition of a canal that would be utilized to drain the neighborhood from frequent flooding. The plan also proposed for I-295 to be decommissioned as a highway and to be converted to a multi-model avenue at the same elevation. The converted road would be used as a levee against future sea-level rise and would allow the new urban road to be the future commercial waterfront of Portland. As sea-level rises beyond the design scenario, the City would have the option to allow water to rise in Back Cove or to construct flood gates at the location of Tukey’s Bridge, making Back Cove a protected harbor.

Recreational uses and property value were the center of thinking on this plan. The canal, would create a draw for a new pedestrian element in the city and would spur the construction of buildings along the canal, as well as serve as a recreational “green belt” increasing pedestrian connectivity between Deering Oaks Park and the Eastern Promenade.

Teams who submitted design entries included mbla & Canal 5 Studio, Aceto Landscape Architects, Alyssa Phanitdasack, Bild Architecture, and Soren Deniord Design Studio & Kaplan Thomspon Architects.

The submissions to the Design Challenge will be displayed for public viewing on May 3 at the Rines Auditorium in the Portland Public Library, and the winning submission will be awarded at 7:30 PM that evening. More information about the event may be found here.

As an architect new to the Portland area, I was extremely excited to attend the Portland Society for Architecture’s “Drink n Crit” held on September 7^th.  This event featured the “Visioning Growth” charrette teams presenting their concepts for the city’s future as it becomes a city of 75,000. Not only did this give me a quick education on the problems and issues facing my new home, but it was a great opportunity to mingle with other architects, engineers, planners and other people entertained by city planning; a group my fiancée reminds me is a small and unique collection of people.  Going early to Space Gallery, where the event was held, allowed me to check out the teams’ work before the “crit” actually started.  Pinned up on the gallery walls were several maps of Portland overlaid with radiating circles, colored zones and highlighted nodes.

As I walked around the room studying the various maps, I was intrigued by the shape of Portland and its natural barriers.  Being born and raised in Wichita Kansas, a typical mid-western city, with its perfectly placed north and south grid, the map of Portland is still curious to me.  Wichita, with no natural barriers, can expand easily as its population grows, but I was interested to learn how Portland, wedged between neighboring cities and the coastline, with no room to sprawl, would handle growth.

As the teams presented their ideas it was easy to see, this was one of the main concerns they all were focused on. How can a city grow when there’s no place to expand? Naturally the answer is for the city to get denser, but where?  What areas of town are more suited, or have the potential, to handle more density.  One team presented the idea of developing preexisting nodes which can already be found throughout the city, encouraging more density and larger buildings along the cities arterial roads where infrastructure already exist.  This solution would allow the entire city to grow and not just the downtown core. Another team suggested developing an entire section of town near the union station shopping center along St. John Street; infilling existing gaps in its urban fabric with new commercial and retail buildings, anchored by a large scale hospitality building. This development could also help the community engage more with the natural beauty of the Western Promenade.  One of the more extreme ideas was presented by a team suggesting 295 be converted into a boulevard as it cuts across the peninsula, undoing a mid-century mistake of dividing the city.  Wide areas through town, currently unusable because of the elevated highway, would now be open for development, creating a new iconic urban pathway for the city while at the same time stitching back together old neighborhoods torn apart long ago.

Besides determining where future growth in Portland could happen, the teams also mentioned other issues the city has; the separation of the peninsula from the rest of the city, the traffic, keeping the identity of neighborhoods, connecting USM more into the city and designing a city for both tourists and locals.  Hearing all these concerns, helped me understand my new city more and made me feel more like a true citizen of Portland. The evening partially felt like a crash course on the city’s history, learning why certain areas had developed and looked the way they did. However most of the night was devoted to seeing a glimpse of Portland’s possible future.   As cities everywhere continue to see more interest in different generations of people tiring of the suburbs and moving to urban areas, problems for our communities will only continue to develop and change.  The “Drink n Crit” event made me thankful there are talented, energetic, passionate and creative minds in this city that will help guide our community into a promising future.

All the teams had wonderful ideas and I can’t wait to see them developed further.  All of this work leads up to a follow-up to 2015’s Challenge of Change titled: “The New Allure of the City (and Some Unanticipated Consequences.)” This lecture is a partnership between: Portland Society for Architecture, Creative Portland, University of New England, University of Southern Maine, and The Chamber of Commerce.  It will feature a lecture by Alex Krieger FAIA a founding Principal of Chan Krieger NBBJ and take place on October 25^th at Portland High School.

More information on the lecture here: http://www.une.edu/calendar/2016/new-allure-city-and-some-unanticipated-consequences

In the past week, I have been fortunate enough to tour two of the largest Passive House projects in North America. The first tour, organized by passivhausMAINE, was of Bayside Anchor located in our back yard of Portland, Maine. The building was designed by Kaplan Thompson Architects and is currently being constructed by Wright-Ryan Construction. The project is a collaboration between Avesta Housing and the Portland Housing Authority. The 45-unit building will contain affordable multi-family housing, Portland Housing Authority offices, a Head Start program, and a police substation. The goal of the project is to obtain Passive House Institute US (PHIUS+) certification.

The second tour attended, which was organized by GrowSmart Maine, is the newly completed Village Centre project located in Brewer, Maine. This project was delivered through a public-private partnership between Community Housing of Maine (CHOM), the City of Brewer, and their business partners. This 48-unit multi-family housing project was also constructed by Wright-Ryan Construction. CWS Architects acted as the design lead for this project. This project was also built to Passive House Institute US (PHIUS+) Standards.

As someone who has undergone the PHIUS Certified Passive House Consultant training, as well as assisting with the mechanical design for the Bayside Anchor project, it was fascinating to learn more about the different dynamics and challenges of each project. For example, both projects were under extremely tight financial constraints which resulted in a reduction of floor to floor heights during the design process. I can recall firsthand the impact that this reduction had on the space for mechanical services such as ductwork on the Bayside Anchor project. As I walked through the Village Centre building, it was interesting to see that this project team had run into similar challenges and to compare the elegant approaches used to conceal these services.

I came away from these tours with a renewed excitement for Passive House construction, as well as with a lot of pride in our State for embracing the rigorous challenges of PHIUS+ certification. As more of these large scale projects get constructed in Maine, it is exciting to see the Passive House movement growing not only among designers and builders, but developers and municipalities as well.

Makoko Floating School – Lagos, Nigeria. NLE

Sea level rise has been getting some serious press lately, particularly after super storm Sandy hit New York last year. Designers all over the world are weighing in with ideas for adaptation.

I’ve been working with the Portland Society for Architecture and SPACE Gallery to put together an exhibition at SPACE Gallery running November 1 through December 31, 2013. Waterfront Visions: 2050 is a symposium and exhibition exploring sea level rise on Portland’s waterfront.  The symposium, held November 7 at Portland’s Ocean Gateway Terminal, will feature presentations by sea level rise experts in finance, policy, science and planning. A roundtable discussion and charrette will be held the following morning, Friday November 8 at SPACE Gallery. Results of the roundtable/charrette will be integrated into the exhibit at SPACE.

Floatyard – Charlestown, Massachusetts. Perkins + Will

The exhibition will feature examples of adaptation, fortification, and retreat both locally and around the globe. Exhibit materials include work by Jessica Wagner Kimball of Sasaki, Susannah Drake of Dland Studio, and Brian Healy of Perkins + Will.

We are very pleased to be involved in this significant and timely exhibition. We hope you will join the PSA in exploring and developing strategies for sea level rise adaptation.

At Bittersweet Farms in Whitehouse, Ohio staff is encouraged to view a client’s support plan first in a positive light before considering the negative aspects. This approach has provided an environment of reduced frustration and increased empowerment for autistic clientele. This approach also leaves staff with many positive solutions in resolving a situation that has degraded to frustration or irritation.

One Cleveland-based School for Autism was designed with a well thought-out list of criteria in mind. However, this list of criteria refers mostly to design elements that should be avoided by architects. Elimination of sharp corners, control acoustics, provide lighting sources that do not create a distraction, reduce HVAC noise, and limit stimulation, are just a sample of the design criteria considered for this project. Each of these criteria focuses on disability related to Autism. Instead, perhaps these design criteria should be rewritten to consider abilities. In addition to the above listed design elements that should be avoided,  designers for this project also considered designing spaces for “one-on-one student teacher activities” as well as “allowing children to make autonomous choices”; elements that are far more ability-driven in nature.

Another consideration in designing for ability lies in the belief that many autistic learners are visual learners. How can architects use this ability to better design spaces for these learners? Perhaps instead of thinking about the visual environment as “over-stimulating”, designers can consider using visual stimulation as an aid to learning. Visual stimulation could be used to help individuals orient themselves, and find context within their environment.

Knowing what motivates autistic learners can provide a very meaningful guide to designing environments that empower, as opposed to tightly controlled learning environments. We all deserve to function in spaces that appeal to our strengths, and inspire determination to be the best we can be, regardless of “ability.”

Thank you ArchDaily for raising awareness of this issue. Find more articles written by Christopher Henry here.

We enjoy receiving your feedback. Please feel free to contact us by email: sasha@bildarchitecture.com

Many architects believe, and rightly so, that they play a role in creating spaces that may help these individuals better understand their place in the environment. Some are of the opinion that spatial volume should be kept small, with intimately proportioned learning environments, thus better reflecting the often one-on-one student/teacher ratio. Others believe that ample space for each child will reduce anxieties surrounding the perceived invasion of personal space.

The small, intimate proportions of the River Street School, designed in 1989, have proven to be a positive characteristic of the school. Now, 14 years later, the River Street School plans to keep those intimate proportions when designing the school’s renovation. Those who believe smaller spatial volumes to be best argue that autistic children feel overwhelmed in large, more complex environments.

Architect Simon Humphreys, designer of the Thomas Bewick School, argues that rather than confining students to small spatial volume areas, students should be allotted a very large amount of personal space. When designing the Thomas Bewick School, Humphreys requested the program to allow at least 460sq. ft. per student. Allocating more space per student might encourage students to feel less guarded and less threatened than they would in smaller spaces. Many believe that autistic students feel as though their personal space is being invaded by other students in close proximity.

While large volume versus small volume continues to be a topic of debate, so does variety and flexibility of space. Some claim that a variety of flexible spaces could make everyone more comfortable and happy. Classrooms with moveable workstations and wall partitions could provide the staff with the flexibility to prepare for any learning situation. However, many feel that it is important for autistic individuals to encounter more predictable space layouts. Students who may be averse to change would likely feel anxious when entering such an environment, never knowing how the room will look on any given day. Teachers have also reported that widely flexible spaces do not serve any one purpose particularly well, and may even promote a lack of order.

Spatial considerations are of the utmost importance to designers when challenged with space layouts for a particular population. We look forward to more research being performed regarding long term results of the small-space versus large-space, versus flexible-space debate.

Thank you ArchDaily for raising awareness of this issue. Find more articles written by Christopher Henry here.

We enjoy receiving your feedback. Please feel free to contact us by email: sasha@bildarchitecture.com

Since April is Autism Awareness month, Bild Architecture has dedicated this month’s blog to exploring architectural design theory in designing for Autistic learners. Designing learning spaces for children on the Spectrum is often misunderstood and has come under much debate over the years. Many believe the “sensory sensitive” approach, aimed at providing environments that tightly control sensory stimulation, are the best learning environments for children on the Autism Spectrum. While others believe the “neuro-typical” approach, aimed at providing environments more consistent with the “real world”, will be the most beneficial to forward the level of functioning in Autistic children.

Today’s blog will touch on the highly debated subject of lighting. The “sensory sensitive” advocates advise us to incorporate limited daylighting and exterior views in our designs, keep ceiling heights low and spatial volumes small, while also avoiding the use of direct fluorescent lighting. The Architecture firm Fletcher Thompson had this to say, “Because of the extreme sensitivity to sensory stimulation clerestory windows and skylights may be counterproductive because shifting patterns of daylight can complicate the visual environment.” Many believe that glare, sunshine, and windows with exterior views cause unnecessary distractions in Autistic learners. James Vance & Associates Architects’ took a slightly different approach to this theory designing wide window overhangs and high sills to cut down on direct sunlight, while allowing some natural light and views of the sky and treetops.

The “neuro-typical” advocates, in contrast, believe environments should reflect real world situations as much as possible, leaving behind the safe havens that allow further withdrawal. The argument is that individuals with autism struggle with translating skills to unfamiliar environments. High ceiling heights, large spatial volumes, and high levels of daylight with outside views will mimic the colors, sounds, lighting and spatial volumes found in the typical environments we encounter in everyday life. Haverstock Associates of London tried to strike a balance by bringing bright daylight in through north facing skylights and large windows, thus providing daylighting without the harsh shadows and contrasts resulting from direct sunlight. Aitken Turnbull of Scotland designed a space flooded with bright sunlight, and floor-to-ceiling windows with a view of the play area outside.

The “neuro-typical” argument goes on to include the welfare of the staff. Sunlight and exterior views have long been thought to increase productivity and reduce sick days for employees. Some believe the advantages of a healthy and happy staff may outweigh the disadvantages of increased sensory stimulation in Autistic individuals.

Nearly everyone can agree that individuals with Autism require an educational program which is consistent, and focuses on repetition and structure. As architects, we strive to design spaces to help students and staff best accomplish these goals. At Bild, we suspect that in working with students with autism, there are times when both the “sensory sensitive” and “neuro-typical” approaches would be warranted. It seems that environments geared towards learning of new skills might use the sensory sensitive approach, while environments geared towards application of those skills could use the neuro-typical approach. The increasing amount of research and awareness surrounding autism will help to close the gap on the debate between the two approaches, resulting in more cohesive environments for everyone involved.

Thank you ArchDaily, for raising awareness on this topic. Christopher Henry’s article “Designing for Autism: Lighting” can be found here.

We enjoy receiving your feedback. Please feel free to contact us by email: sasha@bildarchitecture.com

What is Bild Architecture?
Bild Architecture LLC is a 2011 formed architecture firm whose partners, Evan Carroll and Sasha Salzberg, have over five years of design experience and over a decade of management experience. Bild’s current specialties include design of residential and small commercial projects, and consulting for permitting and project feasibility. (Want to know more about our experience? See our portfolio.)

Why “bild”?
The name “bild” is a misspelling of “build” chosen for it’s symmetrical composition in lowercase. We like the concept of “build” because it is a word of action that implies progress. It also turns out that “bild” means “picture” in German, and that there is a German tabloid called “Bild.” While this could have dissuaded us from using the word, we decided that few people would ever get us confused with a German tabloid.

How is Bild different from other architecture firms?
At Bild, we are proud of our communication skills. We have developed methods for graphically communicating design that we believe truly empower our clients to have influence and input in the design process. We have facilitation and consensus building experience that can be invaluable in bringing groups of interested parties to a unified conclusion about design, zoning, cost management or other issues. We are skilled at brainstorming and communicating project visions that become the driving forces behind successful completion of design projects. (Want to read more about our firm? See who we are.)

What is Bild passionate about?
One of the deepest values shared at Bild is our connection to our families and to loved ones, and we hope that through our architecture we can help others reinforce their own personal relationships. We hope, as the opportunities arise, to be able to serve baby boomers and empty-nesters as they re-evaluate their lives and consider downsizing their home or aging-in-place.

There is a love and poetry to finding design solutions to these issues because, while they have physical responses in buildings, the solutions also require a careful understanding of who a person expects to grow old with. The lesson learned from existing nursing homes is that living in them can feel like growing old alone, and that it takes more deliberate planning to ensure that people don’t grow old alone. The challenge of creating a physical environment that keeps people from being isolated while also thinking carefully about planning for support from loved ones goes right to the heart of our personal values at Bild Architecture. (Want to share your passion with us? See our sketch project.)

What’s so great about Evan?
Evan has over five years of architectural experience with design, project management, detailing, and construction management. He has broadened his experience skill list through numerous volunteer positions that have allowed him to develop skills as a facilitator, moderator and consensus builder. These positions have also given him first-hand experience in how policy changes can be made and how public process can be navigated to benefit the project owner, the governing body, and the greater community. (Want to read more about Evan? See Evan’s bio.)

Why is Sasha even greater than Evan?
Sasha has over ten years of experience with business, including personnel management, small business management, budget creation, marketing plan creation, and marketing design. Sasha has a knack for recognizing and encouraging the strengths of those around her, and is practiced at creating a brainstorming climate for idea generation and finding creative solutions to problems. Sasha also volunteers on numerous local boards and committees where she hones her skills in planning, outreach, and interpersonal relations.  (Want to read more about Sasha? See Sasha’s bio.)

Bild seems new to the architecture scene. . . should anyone be worried about this?
We feel excited to be part of what is definitely a groundswell of young professionals who are literally networked together by the digital culture we grew up in. Our peers are, like us, connected, involved and full of new ideas and fresh thinking. Bild may be a new architectural firm, but our previous experience, communication skills, and critical thinking skills will bring Bild and our clients successfully through any project we undertake. (See some of our friends.)

I’ve had a few conversations recently about my work, and I’ve noticed that not everyone knows what architects DO! If you’ve ever been curious about what architects do, I hope that this post will help. First, here are a few common misconceptions about architects:

• “Architects build and construct buildings” – Architects only DESIGN buildings and this is typically done using, pencil, paper and computer software. A contractor or builder is hired to physically construct the building out of bricks, mortar, wood, steel, concrete and many other materials.
• “Architects produce a product for their clients” – Architecture is a professional practice that provides a service to a client. Architects create drawings that guide the construction process, but these drawings are provided as part of a professional service that could also include consulting about project planning, management, construction or energy conservation.
• “Architects are not needed if you have a good builder” – First of all, many local regulations expect architects to be involved in construction projects, just as lawyers are expected to be in courtrooms. Also, architects have years of experience and professional training specifically geared towards creating value for a client. Architects can provide value in many ways including: resale value, energy efficiency, cost per square foot, speed of construction and last but not least, aesthetic beauty.

-

So at a minimum, architects provide design services to people (clients) looking to build something. Architects often classify their projects as “residential” and “commercial.”

For a residential client,  design services almost always include the layout of the rooms in the house as well as drawings showing how the house will look from the street. The architect is also often involved in designing the walls and roof of the house to be energy efficient, and is often involved in choosing interior finishes like counters and floors. Once the owner and the architect have agreed on a design, drawings showing the design are finalized and used by a builder to build the house. The architect may work with the builder throughout construction, to make sure the design works well for the builder and the owner.

-

Architects also have commercial clients. This generic term refers to clients that could be for-profit companies, non-profit organizations, institutions or governments. There is an almost limitless list of services that an architect can provide to commercial clients, and design services can be much more extensive than those for a residential project. Typical design services for a commercial client include:

• layout of required rooms and organization of stairs, elevators and hallways,
• design of wall, roof and foundations to protect building interiors from rain, wind, sun and temperature,
• coordination of structural systems, plumbing systems, air handling systems and any other building systems,
• design of building exterior, including the shape of the building and the materials,
• design of building interior, including finishes, colors, cabinetry and bathrooms, and
• management of sub-consulting design team that includes engineers and other designers.

-

In addition to design services, architects can provide many consulting services for both commercial and residential clients, such as:

• helping the client determine the number and size of rooms that they need (programming),
• assisting the client and the contractor with interpretation of the drawings during the construction process (construction administration),
• guiding the client through required permitting and public hearing processes,
• producing drawings and other graphics used to raise money for the project,
• helping the client choose a contractor based on their particular needs (bidding), and
• creating and coordinating documents and manuals that are handed over to the client when the building is completed.

-

In short, architects help their clients by looking at their construction project in its entirety. Architects can be thought of as executive managers who lead the design of a project as a representative of the client. Here AIA Vermont describes this well:

“Architects are trained to solve problems creatively and within your budget. They know how to reduce building costs, decrease energy needs and increase future resale value through good design. They look beyond your immediate requirements to design flexible, efficient buildings that will adapt to your changing needs.” (AIA of Vermont)

-

Further Resources:

AIA: Questions to ask an architect, webpage – This list of questions is a great simple start to help you think about how to relate to an architect.

AIA: You and Your Architect, booklet – This booklet is definitely worth printing. One of my favorite pages is page 8, where you can find a list of services provided by architects.

AIA: How Design Works for You, website – If you feel like exploring a website for awhile then check this one out. There are some case studies about clients and architects.