[Gregory Walker]

john – i agree that there are limited markets and the model isn’t quite as landscape friendly. however, even in your answer i see more of a focus on design process and not really ‘product’. things like outdoor furniture, lighting – whatever along those lines. could be residential in focus, could be commercial. could be a type of product that you see a need for but just doesn’t exist yet. (and our own products, incidentally, are not furniture based – one came out of a project we did where we created… a specialized kind of thing that we had to customize but which was a huge hit with the owner and everyone else who’s seen it in practice (well, i can’t say what it is publicly. ip issues with that one).

in all of our cases, though, what we’re really trying to do is extend what we do already – capitalize on the natural intellectual property by products that we generate.

[Gregory Walker]

at the risk of wading in again – i’m with john on this one. venting is great, but at some point you have to try and move towards something more productive.

a lot of the sentiments on this thread about the general powerlessness of the l.a. profession are going to be shared by the architects as well. rather than see them as ‘competition’, i’d suggest trying to reach out and form even deeper relationships and partnerships with them. the recent past has a seen a consistent fragmentation through increasingly ‘specialized’ consultants eating away at both. i’d argue we have more to gain by teaming up (as professions) to present a holistic range of services to a client and project, rather than be picked off in isolation.

both of our professions are taking such a huge hit because our legacy has been that of a traditional service firm. meaning, we offer a service only – if people need and/or are willing to pay for it, we’re golden. if not, then we starve. personally, i’m done with that model, even though we’ve done ok in it. fundamentally, however, it provides very little cushioning against the inevitable downswings. what we’re pursuing for the long term is a 3 legged model: one part traditional service fees (work for hire), one part related ‘product’ design (designing, say, furniture or model home plans – basically an actual ‘product’ that gets done over and over) which would bring in recurring licensing fees; one part speculative work, in which we are an equity partner in a project.

the goal, financially, is to have the service fees and licensing fees pay for the operations of the office, including our ‘normal’ salaries as owners. the revenue of the equity work is our ‘bonus’ as partners – it would allow us some freedom in terms of what we can take on and the potential return on it long term.

now, it isn’t easy to get there – we’re only about 2 years into the plan (we were heading there before the crash). getting anyone to develop product right now is incredibly hard – we’re going to be running up against more ‘established’ industrial designers (talk about turf encroachment). not to mention the product companies are getting killed to – less money to develop just any old product. we are partners in 2 developments, but both are on hold until anything approaching a ‘normal’ market returns. despite the hurdles, i do think it’s a much more sane approach long term – when we get the last two areas developed, we’ll have some greater support behind us if there’s a dip in service revenue. also, we’ll have an ability to use the development experience to broaden our client base in that arena – it’s amazing how differently they respond to you when you can talk the lingua franca.

my ultimate point is this: if you’re waiting around for a job to open up, that’s unlikely to happen. figure out how to create a new market instead. figure out how you can create value in the process.

[Gregory Walker]

cevrena – this question of who the ‘prime’ is comes up a lot with one of the l.a. firms we work with on a regular basis. and it really depends, in my opinion, on what the prime drivers on the project are (in the client’s mind). case in point: on a project that we’ve done at georgia tech, the l.a. firm was the prime on phase one of the project, which involved designing the overall site layout, tie ins to the existing campus infrastructure, and coordination with the overall campus masterplan (mostly the landscape portion), which included thinking about an adjacent playing field/park area. we were a contractor to them, in charge of designing/re-thinking a prefabricated ropes style challenge course that would go on the site.

for phase 2 of the same project, we switched over to the prime, with the l.a. firm as a sub to us, primarily because that phase (about to wrap up) consisted of creating a new outdoor pavilion structure to complement the course. the general location for this was set in phase 1, although we contributed the schematic design for the building then.

could either of us have led both phases? sure. in the end, the client made the decision, based on the scope. however, (and again, i simply don’t know any other way to work, so i’m listening to what you all are saying and just shaking my head at what’s there) we both trust each other enough that we listen to each other’s suggestions and ultimately figure out what’s ‘best’ and that’s what tends to win. sometimes it’s our idea, sometimes theirs, but really, we don’t keep score like that, nor care. likewise, i do everything to protect their fees (along with everyone’s) and they do likewise.

ultimate point being: if you don’t like the way your architects work, find another architect…

[Gregory Walker]

well, i can’t quite defend some of my colleagues in terms of their approach – it is what it is and we don’t spend too much time looking at those projects for inspiration (either aesthetically or as a working model).

gets a little stickier when talking about projects that may have a more deliberate ‘non-design’ landscape. in some cases, that could be by design, some cases it’s by setup. one example here – the chipperfield library in des moines has a landscape that, for me, is completely at odds with the building. however, the owner (state) hired an l.a. separately from the design team and they apparently wanted to do what they wanted to do. convinced the owner but fought with the architects all the way through. it shows, whether you think the architect is ‘right’ ‘wrong’ or whatever. it seems like both groups would have a vested interest in preventing that kind of situation from happening regardless.

[Gregory Walker]

as an architect, this has been an interesting (and slightly amusing) discussion. from my perspective – and we love working with strong landscape architects – there are a few things i can offer from my end that we see fairly often:

1- someone has to, imho, maintain the overall ‘vision’ for a project and how all the corresponding parts work together to support that vision. note that i didn’t say ‘create’ the overall vision, nor who it is who maintains it. personally, for most projects that involve buildings on a limited site, the architect is going to drive that process. (it’s the opposite for larger park type projects, where the overall landscape is the dominant experience and the buildings need to support that experience. and i’m happy with either scenario) this doesn’t mean that the architect should be designing the landscape, nor will they be designing the mechanical systems (for that matter). what they have to do, though, is make sure that everyone is buying into/developing their designs towards the same goal. now, if you don’t have a strong architect (and they can’t help provide direction in that regard), nor one that can properly lead the process, i can understand the frustration of working in that scenario. also, i’m going to voice my opinions about all aspects of the design and am not afraid to push people if i feel like the overall design isn’t ‘there’ on the first couple of passes. the best projects we’ve led involve teams which have people who have strong opinions, but who absolutely end up agreeing on the direction we’re all heading in. at that point, we can focus our attention on our respective domains while working to make sure everything flows seamlessly together.

2- understand, upfront, what your architect is ‘about’ (and vice versa). we tend to be a more ‘ideas’ driven, concept heavy firm. we have a polemic about our aesthetic and business approach. in putting together a project team, we look to play with team members for each discipline who share similar values. point being: there are l.a.’s that i really like as people, but i’m wise enough now to know that our design philosophies just don’t play well together and we simply don’t team up on projects anymore. Likewise, some of my favorite people to work with (because of what they bring) aren’t the people i’d have a beer with at the end of the day. In the end, though, the work (for us) comes first. it won’t be the same for every firm, but if you’re working for firms that only want ‘window dressing’ and that’s not what drives you, then do everything you can to try and work with the people who do.

3 (and lastly) – professional respect has to be earned. i’m looking for ‘enhancers’ on all of my project team, from the head principal/designers/etc. through to the interns working more ‘behind the scenes’. we deeply value the contribution each has to make, but that value greatly increases when we know everyone is bringing their ‘a’ game, when there’s as much give as take, and when everyone’s ego’s get checked before taking the field. that said, just having an opinion doesn’t make you (or me) right, nor does it guarantee that the project will be able to support it in the end. being able to adapt, modify, and deftly move with the ebbs and flows of projects is a trait that has taken me nearly 20 years to understand, much less think about mastering. it’s one of the reasons great work tend to come from older designers – you have to master the process as much as the work itself. those l.a.’s (and other members) who can are going to be the ones i look for every time we put a team together.

[Gregory Walker]

It was primarily because they couldn’t bring the fees in, per their partnership obligations. Still, I’m not sure that the days of the rainmaker are over – if you can’t bring work in… how do you pay for a practice? Firms that treat their employees as ‘cad monkeys’ are hopefully going to be killed, but that won’t diminish the fact that even the smallest of practices needs some kind of hierarchy. Otherwise, not much gets done – too many chiefs, not enough warriors. Sure, there are some lousy practices, but there are some great firms (young and old) that, hopefully, will stick around long enough and work their way in enough to get to play at the big table.

I am with you on the timing – work in the u.s., especially housing and commercial, is going to take a long time to recover. probably much more than a year + given the past month of data.

[Gregory Walker]

Nate – it’s very simple in concept. My partner and I both left a rather large firm, which has weathered the storm well (overall – they’ve had some layoffs though). They subcontracted two of our employees for a fixed duration of time – pretty much it followed a particular phase/timeline they had. We did have a one page letter of agreement summarizing the terms. We converted each employees dpe (direct personnel expense – wages, taxes, insurance, etc. that is directly associated with the employee) to an hourly number, rounded up to the nearest dollar, and they agreed to keep them on for the time specified. If we needed to bring them back early, we could with two weeks notice. Great for both firms – we have them ‘producing’ income, they get temporary help without the hassle of a temp agency (or the inflated prices) or worry about legal issues from ‘contracting’ freelance workers. the rates were pretty much what they would be paying a fte already, so it’s easier to project cashflow. They also avoid taking a hit if they hire someone full time and then have to lay them off in 3 months. Because we know each other’s firms well enough, there’s a high level of trust that we’re not going to misrepresent their skills or vice versa. We also have an informal agreement that no overt poaching is allowed.

I’m not sure how often it gets done, but it definitely does. Lot of it depends on the chemistry of the firms involved and how well the principals all like each other. They certainly were not the only ones we reached out to, nor were they the only ones interested at the time.

Logistically, we called the principals we knew directly – you do want to be discreet about it. I don’t think it would work for an employee to call another firm to set it up.

[Gregory Walker]

Hi all – relatively new to this particular forum (and an architect to boot), but hopefully I can offer a little different set of observations on the topic…

First, I’m one of two partners in a small, 6 person firm in Atlanta- we’ve been in business since 2005. Like most people, we had a sharp drop in work (3 major, for us, projects canceled in one four week stretch) in 2008, just after Lehman collapsed. Irony is that we have almost never done traditional development work – our niche has been public and private institutional work. Libraries, museums, nature centers, etc. Yet, even those projects are subject to many of the same forces that have plagued everyone. In our case, lead donors on two of the projects pulled back their commitments, effectively killing the projects, while one museum that was 30 days from closing on a surplus piece of property that would finance our project had that deal fall apart. They subsequently had to layoff 7 of their 8 full time staff within 3 months.

Financial structures for any firm are such that, unless you happen to be doing incredibly high margin work, the highest single expense any firm carries is the direct labor costs. Almost no bank, financial adviser, etc. is going to recommend using your line of credit to carry payroll indefinitely if the work simply isn’t there. So, the single biggest question we all face, as a head/director is this: how long is it going to take for me to find new work to replace what’s been lost? If the answer to that is ‘very quickly’ and you like the staff you have, then almost certainly you’ll hold on to them through the short term, even with the corresponding financial hit. If the answer is ‘never’, well, the answer there is pretty clear. If the answer is ‘not sure’ (like it has been for most people), it’s a much harder decision. If you spend too much to keep staff around and have no income to replace it, then it’s just a function of how deep are your pockets. And that’s largely going to be a function of how much can the owners endure. I can say right now that almost every bank is going to be very wary about extending credit to a/e/c firms in this climate, nevermind that every firm principal is probably having to personally guarantee any loan, lease, etc. if they’re less than 50 people.

Pointing all this out to say a few things: yes, this economy sucks. I’ve seen very close friends close up shop altogether (in total, there are at least 4 firms I know of here that have closed, with a few more merging), I’ve seen too many colleagues stressed out beyond belief. I’ve seen 25-30 year career principals at large firms tossed to the curb because they could no longer bring in work. My guess is that the actual unemployment rate is close to 50%, if you count recent grads who can’t get into the profession (they won’t show up in those statistics). Here in Atlanta, there are only 2 firms that had 100+ employees who didn’t lose at least 40% of their staffs at one point. I’ve seen one 450 person firm go to their current size of 15 in less than 18 months. The root cause is very simple: there just isn’t going to be enough traditional work to keep the same number of people employed as there was 24 months ago. Period. Do any of us like it? Of course not. But that’s the way it’s going to be for another year + at least. My guess is that it will take a very long time to get back to the levels of work that were occurring in 2005-2006. It certainly won’t happen quickly.

But guess what? There are some success stories in the midst of everything that’s going on. More importantly, maybe this economy helps some of you who have been laid off to make the next logical leap and commit to doing your own business and build it up the way you’d really like to practice (as someone pointed out, most of the people replying seem to be the unfortunate right now). We’re working with an LA firm that was started a year ago by two senior level guys laid off by one of the biggest LA firms in the world. After the initial shock, they’re starting to find their niche, voice, and they’ve just won some work for one of the largest universities in the region. We’re seeing lots of crevices of opportunity, if people are willing to think fundamentally about how to structure a business and have the ability to execute well.

In our case, we bucked every piece of advice and were determined to keep everyone on board, at full pay, even though we weren’t sure where we’d end up. For a few months it meant that my partner and I didn’t take a salary (which sounds very noble, but I guarantee we won’t do that again). We also had to ‘lend’ two employees to a larger firm in town for several months – basically they hired them from us for just their direct costs (salary, insurance, etc.) They were still on our payroll, etc. and we eventually brought them back over. It also meant we froze raises, had no bonuses, and we had to stop our 401k match. We did hit about 60% of our very small line of credit to make all that work. In the end, though, keeping everyone on board started to payoff beginning in early 2009 and we closed last year having had our best year fiscally (and had a 60% increase in revenue over 2008). And we did it without sacrificing our office culture, fees, or integrity. Yes, we’re finally starting to lose work due to fee pressures – it’s just something we’re learning to negotiate through. So far, we haven’t had to lay anyone off, although we were going to have to back when everything hit the fan. After we got on person over to the other firm temporarily, we basically told them that they had 3 months of paid time to do whatever they had to to find an alternative. They did and now they’re the lead environmental coordinator for the federal reserve bank here in Atlanta. Sometimes karma does work…

[Author]

Posts