Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPROVING TEE QUALITY OF }FEDERAL BUIIDING DESIGN In view of the inherent complexity of building design, subjective way that judgments about design quality are made ' ~_ e ~ the essentially and the varia- clons among agencies design procurement and management practices, the Committee on Improving the Design Quality of Federal Buildings found it unclear whether the quality of design for federal agencies differs sig- nificantly from that delivered to the private sector. Nevertheless, re- sponsible management of public resources and the importance of the federal presence in the nation's built environment mandate that the government continually strive to attain the highest possible quality of design in its buildings. The committee found that many of the suggestions of the Woods Hole workshop merit the attention of staff of the agencies and the Congress. These recommendations are of two types: First, there are suggestions that may be considered by individual agencies that do not have input on other agencies. Second, there are those that may require congressional action, including a proposal to establish a centralized institutional focus for design quality advocacy in the federal sector. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCY ACTION Many of the actions proposed in the Woods Hole workshop to enhance quality of design in federal buildings can be taken by individual agencies operating within the scope of their current programs. Some of the actions involve Congress' oversight and appropriations procedures. The committee proposes that each agency and the Congress consider and appropriately adapt the following recommendations. Pre-design Planning and Programming The current methods and policies that tie funding appropriations to specific federal buildings impose excessive constraints on agencies at 23
earlier stages of the design process, when budget estimates are generally uncertain and functional requirements are subject to change. Agencies should be allowed greater internal budget management flexibility to accommo- date variations in single projects, subject to maintaining stability in their overall building program. Spending authorization should be for a multi-year period, perhaps as much as five years. Architect/Engineer Selection Panels responsible for evaluation, interview, and selection of designers for federal projects could in many cases benefit by the participation of professionals who are not employees of the federal government. These professionals should have established records achieving design quality. The A/E evaluations and interviews should be conducted in such a manner as to eliminate initially all firms that do not demonstrate the base level of design competence expected for the facility designed. Agency selection procedures should depend less on standardized rating schemes and should be flexible to respond to the specific character of each project. Design competitions warrant more frequent consideration as a way of selecting designers for a range of federal projects. Competence of A/E firms is not demonstrated necessarily by prior ex- perience designing the same type of facility, although that is one valid criterion. Rather, design experience should demonstrate successful reso- lution of conflicts of scope and complexity similar to those involved in the project to be designed. Participation in Design and Construction Agencies should have explicit design guidelines and criteria that address issues of quality expected in design. Effective reviews of ongoing ~ , , , ~ agency personnel, including representatives of the user organization. Especially not agency employees. The validity of the design program and the design objectives should be thoroughly examined in these reviews. The initial design concepts and considerations affecting design quality should be examined relative to the explicitly stated design objectives. design activity should be made by experienced and knowledgeable . , _ significant projects may warrant the use of reviewers who are Design Evaluation The federal government could improve the efficiency of its design and construction programs by developing and implementing appropriate methods of post-occupancy design evaluation. The knowledge gained in these post- occupancy evaluations, conducted by teams that include the original pro- ~rammers and designers, agency staff, and independent consultants should 24
be incorporated into the A/E selection and design processes for future projects. Expanded national design awards programs for federal buildings are needed to promote and reward quality design. The existing National Endow- ment for the Arts' Presidential Design Awards and the Department of Defense's Awards for Design Excellence programs are commendable, but the need for greater emphasis on quality warrants additional awards programs. Building Approval and General Management Overly restrictive design criteria and guidelines limit designers' flexibility and may inhibit achievement of design quality in federal build- ings. Federal agencies should review carefully their building design criteria and guidelines documents to determine whether they impose excessive constraint on options available for designers attempting to resolve un- avoidable conflict among design objectives. The role of building management and maintenance practices in determining quality may warrant further attention. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND CENTRALIZED ADVOCACY FOR DESIGN The committee noted that congressional action may be required to enable greater agency budget flexibility. Even where current legislation may permit such flexibility, attitudes that lead to detailed congressional review of line item budget estimates and design decisions may often inhibit an agency's ability to maintain a commitment to quality. The concern to control or reduce costs may lead to reduction in budgets without regard to the associated restrictions in program or design options that are typically required. The committee concluded in particular that creation of a centralized institutional focus for design quality in federal buildings warrants further investigation. Such a focus would aid the efforts of individual agencies to improve quality, and would help to enlighten the public and their repre- sentatives regarding the meaning and importance of design quality. The committee noted that there are historic precedents for greater centralization of quality advocacy as well as current models for an institu- tional focus of the type envisioned by participants at the Woods Hole Workshop. Historic Perspective Government building activities during the early decades of the nation expanded rapidly with the nation's expanding borders and growing population. Most of these activities were conducted by the Treasury Department, although 25
the Army Corps of Engineers was building fortifications and other military facilities, and the Congress maintained avid interest in many large pro- jects. Placing a new emphasis on construction and in an effort to foster management efficiency, an Office of Construction was created within the Treasury, headed by an Army engineer officer, Captain Alexander H. Bowman. Capt. Bowman was assisted by the first designated "Supervising Architect," Ammi B. Young, whose title became legislatively established a decade later, in 1864. Professionals employed within the Office of Construction directly performed much of the government's building design. By 1892, the burgeoning scale of the government's design activities and private designers' desire to participate led the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to seek successfully the passage of legislation to permit (but not to require) the Treasury to acquire outside architectural services through competition. The Tarns ey Act, from 1893 until its repeal in 1912, fostered design of some 35 buildings by some of the nation's best-known private architects. Suspicions of higher design costs and bias in favor of AIA members led to the Act's repeal. While the Treasury continued to control and execute the major share of federal building designs, the activities of other agencies were growing. By 1914, at least seven government agencies were constructing buildings for themselves.18 World War I and the rapid growth in western states gave powerful impetus to this trend of decentralization of design influence. A group of government architects in Washington founded the Association of Federal Architects in 1927, to encourage an exchange of ideas among the various construction agencies, enhance design and technical standards, and boost morale of civil servant architects. The organization's first president, Louis A. Simon, became in 1933 the government's last Supervising Architect. The Public Building Acts of 1926 and 1930 again authorized the Treasury Department to acquire private design services, and Depression spurred demands by private architects for a share of the government's design work. Administrative turmoil and retrenchment under the New Deal led in 1939 to creation of the Public Buildings Administration (PBA) within the Federal Works Agency. The title of Supervising Architect disappeared and the PBA absorbed much of what the 1850s Office of Construction had become. For the first time, some design supervision was delegated to regional offices. The government's centralized concern and capability in building design declined. In 1949 the General Services Administration (GSA) was formed and incor- porated the PBA. The GSA has since its establishment relied almost exclusively on private providers of design services. Agencies with 18As documented in a Report of the Public Buildings Commission, 1914, cited in the Federal Presence, op cit. p. 241. 26
specialized building needs continue to maintain their own distinct building operations.l9 Centralized attention to issues of design was motivated by President Kennedy's strong interests in art and architecture. His Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space produced a 1962 report, 'guiding Principles for Federal Architecture," that espoused quality in government architecture but asserted--perhaps ironically for those who equate quality with par- ticular stylistic characteristics of design--that development of a single official style must be avoided. A decade later, the National Endowment for the Arts' (NEA)20 Federal Architecture project started its five-year effort to improve the quality of design throughout the federal government. The NEA's ongoing Federal Design Improvement Program continues the effort to foster quality in federal design. The Presidential Design Awards were established by President Reagan in 1983, under NEA's administration as part of that program, to honor and encourage outstanding design achieve- ments in federal projects and programs. Reflecting on this history of federal activities in building design, the committee doubts that any new federal institution can assume centralized design policy authority or that any existing institution can expand its scope of interest to encompass all of the agencies responsible for producing federal buildings. At the same time, the committee endorses the Woods Hole workshop's sentiment that there is a need for more visible advocacy for design quality in federal building programs. The committee therefore considered agencies that might serve as models or the basis for an insti- tution with active responsibility to shape policy to enhance quality of design in federal buildings. Current Alternative Models The Surgeon General of the United States, for example, serves as the principal advisor to the President on public health matters and advises the Assistant Secretary for Health on all policy matters pertaining to the Public Health Service. This officer also serves as the focal point for dialogue with professional societies from which the Surgeon General can receive, solicit and channel concerns regarding health policy. A 19These agencies have increased in number from the four active when the GSA was established (Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, State Department, and National Park Service) to more than thirty today. See Appendix A. 20 The NEA was established as part of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, to foster professional excellence in the arts in America, to nurture and sustain the arts, and to help create a climate in which they may flourish and be experienced and enjoyed by the widest possible public. 27
design official serving in a similar positional would deal with broad issues of federal policy that relate to design of the built environment and would coordinate the policies, regulations, and procedures of the federal agencies undertaking building design and construction. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation represents a different model. This agency, established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, has two principal duties: to advise the President and the Congress on matters concerning the national prog2ram to preserve *he nation's history, and to oversee the specific process 2 established to protect historic properties from needless harm by Federal activities. Nineteen members drawn from federal, state, and local government and the public at large comprise the Council, which is supported by a professional staff and funded by Congress. A design-oriented agency might have a similar mission to review and comment on major federal building design activities and to advise the President and Congress on policy and legislation that may influence quality of design. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by the National Environmental Quality Act of 19692 as a part of the Executive Office of the President, to formulate and recommend national policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment. The three presidentially-appointed members of the Council and a small professional staff review trends in the nation's environmental quality, appraise the environmental consequences of the federal government's various programs and policies, and prepare an annual report on their findings and recom- mendations for national policy. The CEQ also serves as the central co- ordinating agency for processing of environmental impact statements required to assess and document the likely consequences of major federal actions having significant impact on the environment. A design-oriented unit of the CEQ or a separate agency might play a similar role, focusing particu- larly on design and the built environment. The workshop's proposed "Council on Design Quality of Federal Buildings" appears to the committee to be analogous in constitution and responsibili- ties to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The committee did 2lSuch an official might perhaps come within the General Services Administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has no construction responsibilities, but does deal with matters having important design components, might be an alternative home for such an official. 22 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on historic properties and provides for comment by the Advisory Council on all such actions. The process of review and comment extends to activities to attempt to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts that may occur. 23 83 Stat. 852; 42 USC 4321 et seq. 28
not explore fully the costs, administrative difficulties, and potential benefits of creating such an agency concerned with federal building design quality, but concluded that the idea merits attention. The committee commends the idea to the Congress. Competence of A/E firms is not demonstrated necessarily by prior ex- perience designing the same type of facility, although that is one valid criterion. Rather, design experience should demonstrate successful resolu- tion of conflicts of scope and complexity similar to those involved in the project to be designed. Participation in Design Effective agency reviews of ongoing design activity should include, for significant projects, the use of external evaluators. The validity of the design program and the design objectives should be thoroughly examined by agency professionals, including representatives of the build- ing's intended ultimate users. The initial design concepts and con- siderations affecting design quality should be evaluated relative to the explicitly stated design objectives. Post-Design Evaluation The federal government could improve the efficiency of its design and construction programs by developing and implementing appropriate methods of post-design evaluation. The knowledge gained from pre-construction, post-construction, and post-occupancy evaluations could be incorporated into future projects, making it easier to achieve design quality. The evaluations should be accomplished by teams that include the original programmers and designers, agency staff, and independent consultants. National design awards programs for federal buildings should be expanded and held with regular frequency. Evaluation and selection of facilities for award should be based on criteria fundamental to the definition of design quality. The evaluation criteria should be widely publicized and the programs could be administered by the government or by organizations representing design professionals, such as the American Institute of Archi- tects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the American Society of Landscape Architects. The committee notes that the existing Presidential Design Awards and the Department of Defense's Awards for Design Excellence are outstanding examples to be emulated by other agencies. General Management of Design Inappropriate design criteria and poorly constructed guidelines have negative impact on the design quality of federal buildings. Federal agencies should review carefully their building design criteria documents 29
to determine whether they impose excessive constraint on options available for designers attempting to resolve unavoidable conflict among design objectives. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF DESIGN The committee found in discussions of the practices that influence design of federal buildings a widespread attitude of trying to achieve minimum acceptable standards of performance at the lowest possible cost. The committee did not feel this attitude is entirely unwarranted. However, there are great difficulties inherent in defining all aspects of a build- ing's desired performance in terms of clear minimum acceptable standards. Further, complex patterns of construction, operating, and maintenance costs must be paid over the course of a building's service life, and will influence both a building's performance and the building owner's satis- faction with that performance. The committee recommends that greater attention be given to the tradeoffs between performance and costs. Design quality is achieved when the balance between performance and costs reflects effectively the needs of the building's owner and users and the best that current building technology and creative designers can deliver. 30
REFERENCES A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, publishers. The Builder's Dictionary, or, Gentleman and Architect's Companion, London, 1734. Reprint by Association for Preservation Technology, Washington, DC, 1981. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. Construction Review. May-October 1988. Lois A. Craig, et al. The Federal Presence - Architecture, Politics, and National Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1984. Frederick C. Mish. Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 1985 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam . 31
