Often, a “big name architect” is selected to design a building of grand scale. The legacy of the success of these buildings is often carried by the name of the architect who designed it, blinding out ability to truly judge without bias. This case study looks at what happens when a local firm is chosen instead, and in what ways it more successfully addresses this set of criteria. This is a case study to uncover and understand how good architects see their designs realized.
This is a case study of how a development team responded to changes in the intended plan of a design, including finances, material cost, labor cost, market trends and team changes throughout the design and construction process and a critique of their ability to adapt.
This particular case study is an investigation of complex issues that both young designers as well as experienced professionals will face at some point throughout their career. The intention is to identify that premise and allow the designer to gain an understanding of the strategies used to navigate the issue throughout the lifetime of a project.
Designing buildings can be an extremely daunting and difficult task. Almost all buildings are unique in scale, aesthetics, and structure among many other tasks. When designing a building, change is one of the main concerns we all face as architects. A building must respond to changes on a variety of levels. Some of the major components architects must deal with when designing a building are: Connecting with the immediate urban context, reflecting upon new and old site conditions, dealing with infrastructure, and changing traffic patterns.
From the out-set, the architects role of designer and team manager looked to be a frustrating exercise at 33 Arch St, at best. But particular practices emerged that make the project smoother, often for everyone involved. From this project, we can learn from how the architects leveraged their unique role, and what can be learned from strategies of other team-members.
In 2003, hundreds of buildings were constructed in Boston. Of these, a handful stand out as remarkable. Only one, however, achieved a LEED platinum rating. While the sustainability of the Genzyme Corporate Headquarters has been emphasized in numerous published reports, this often distracts from other notable aspects of the building. this case study examines the adjustments made to the conventional development process that resulted in the Genzyme Center and the ways new buildings might derive their own definitions of success from that result.