What About Public Private Partnerships? #ilmaBlog #HigherEducation #P3 #PPP #University #Architect

Example of Stakeholder Team (Source: Servitas)

Background on Public Private Partnerships (P3’s):

Many institutions of higher education are facing mounting pressure on their mission to deliver high-quality, affordable education to students and perform world-class research. Reductions in public funding support and concerns about overall affordability present substantial near-term and longer-term budget challenges for many institutions.

Public institutions are predominantly affected, having been constrained by suspensions or reductions in state funding. State appropriations across the US grew by just 0.5% annually between 2005 and 2015. State funding has still not recovered to 2008 levels, the last year in which state funding decisions would not have been affected by the Great Recession.

(Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) — state appropriations revenue divided by total fall enrollment, 2005–15)

Public-private partnership models are continuing to proliferate as cash-strapped colleges and universities seek to replace or update aging and outdated infrastructure amid tight finances.

(Source: Proliferating Partnerships)

What is the P3 Delivery Model?

A public-private partnership, or P3, is long-term agreement between a public entity and a private industry team that is tasked with designing, building, financing, operating and maintaining a public facility. The past decade has seen a steady increase in the use of P3 structures, both inside and outside higher education. In 2016, something of a watershed year for P3, multiple high-profile projects came online in response to a variety of public needs, including a $1-billion-plus water infrastructure project servicing San Antonio, and a $300-million-plus renovation of the Denver International Airport’s Great Hall.

(Source: A Few Lessons About Public-Private Partnerships)

“Public” is a non-profit institutional or governmental entity that engages a “private” for-profit entity to pay for a particular project.

The “private” partner provides funding (and often expertise) to deliver (and often operate) the project used by the “public” entity to meet its purposes.

In return for its capital, the “private” entity gets a revenue flow from the asset it has paid for.

(Source: Should your University enter into a Public/Private Partnership – the Pro’s and Con’s)

The emergence of the P3 option is happening where it matters most: projects that would be otherwise unattainable under the traditional public-improvement delivery models. For instance, 10 years ago, only a handful of higher education P3 projects were up and running; today, we are approaching three dozen such projects.

The biggest challenge is, of course, the financing component, but P3 teams bring much more to the table than money — they give public entities access to expertise and innovation that can add significant value to projects at each phase of development.

(Source: A Few Lessons About Public-Private Partnerships)

Motivations for P3 transactions vary widely, but include:

  • Supplementing traditional debt instruments. These include private capital, using off balance sheet or alternative mechanisms.
  • Transfer of risk. Historically, universities have born all or most of the risk of facilities-related projects themselves. A P3 is a way to either transfer or at least share the risk.
  • Speed and efficiency. A P3 allows for a faster development process, and time to completion is generally shorter and on schedule. The sole focus of the private entity is to complete the project on budget and on time. University infrastructure tends to have competing priorities across all-campus facility needs.
  • Outsourcing provision of non-core assets. Outsourcing allows institutions to focus investment of internal resources and capabilities on those functions that are closer to the academic needs of its students.
  • Experience. Private partners often have much more experience and skills in a particular development area (e.g., facility architecture and infrastructure, student housing needs) and are able to better accommodate the needs of students, faculty, administrators, etc.
  • Planning and budgeting. Private partners offer experience and know-how in long-term maintenance planning and whole life cycle budgeting.

(Source: Public-private partnerships in higher education What is right for your institution?)

The four types of P3s:

  • Operating contract/management agreement. Short- to medium-term contract with private firm for operating services
  • Ground lease/facility lease. Long-term lease with private developer who commits to construct, operate and maintain the project
  • Availability payment concession. Long-term concession with private developer to construct, operate, maintain and finance the project in exchange for annual payments subject to abatement for nonperformance
  • Demand-risk concession. Long-term concession with private developer to construct, operate, maintain and finance the project in exchange for rights to collect revenues related to the project

Pro’s and Con’s of P3’s:

Since their emergence in student housing several years ago, P3s have become important strategies for higher education institutions because of the many benefits they offer, including:

  • Lower developer costs
  • Developer expertise
  • Operational expertise
  • Access to capital
  • Preservation of debt capacity
  • More favorable balance sheets and credit statements
  • Risk mitigation
  • Faster procurement and project delivery (It can typically take a university about 5 years to get a project built. With a P3, that process can be reduced to just 2 years. Additionally, P3s can save approximately 25% in costs compared to typical projects.)

Beyond the above, the indirect advantages of P3s in student housing are numerous, such as they:

  • Provide better housing for students
  • Expand campus capacity
  • Create high-quality facilities
  • Expand the tax base for both a city and county
  • Provide an economic boost to surrounding areas, which likely lead to private growth and other improvements

It is important to note that, while there are many benefits of P3s for higher education institutions, these agreements also have disadvantages that need to be considered, including:

  • High cost of capital
  • Reduced control for the university
  • Complexity of deals
  • Multi-party roles and responsibilities
  • Limitation on future university development

(Source: Student Housing A Hot Sector For Public-Private Partnerships)

A LOOK AHEAD

Where Are We Heading?

  • More political involvement and pressure to consider P3
  • Pre-development Risks – Many projects failing to close
  • Issues with Construction Pricing & Labor Shortages
  • An increasing number of developers are getting in the on-campus business; however, developers are being more strategic on which projects/procurements to respond to
  • Exploration of other sources of funds like tax credits, USDA, and opportunity zones
  • Shared governance continues to grow
  • Larger, more complex P3 projects including long term concessions, availability payment models, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
  • Bundling of Procurements (food, housing (including faculty), academic buildings, hotel, energy, facility maintenance, etc.)

Further Reading:

We would love to hear from you about what you think about this post. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends. And feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook


THE SPIRIT OF CAMPUS DESIGN: A reflection on the words of Werner Sensbach #Campus #Planning #Design #University #Architect

Montclair State University
Photo Credit: Mike Peters

In 1991, Werner Sensbach, who served for over 25 years as Director of Facilities Planning and Administration at the University of Virginia, wrote a paper titled “Restoring the Values of Campus Architecture”. The paragraphs that follow were excerpted from that article. They seem particularly appropriate to Montclair State University as it looks at its present campus facilities and forward to the planning of future facilities on a piece of land of spectacular beauty.

Nearly two thousand years ago, the Roman architect Vitruvius wrote that architecture should provide firmness, commodity, and delight. It is the definition of “delight” that still troubles us today. This is especially so on college campuses. Many who try to give voice to what it is that brings delight in a building or an arrangement of buildings may mention the design, the placement on the site, the choice of building materials, the ornamentation, or the landscaping. But mostly it’s just a feeling, or a sense that things are arranged just right, or a sensation of pleasure that comes over us. So academics, like nearly everyone else, often are unsure when planning for new campus construction about what is likely to be delightful. Even though the United States has 3,400 colleges, while most other advanced nations only have a few dozen, we simply have not developed in the United States a sensibility, a vocabulary, a body of principles, an aesthetic for campus architecture.

That each campus should be an “academic village” was one of Thomas Jefferson’s finest architectural insights. Higher learning is an intensely personal enterprise, with young scholars working closely with other scholars, and students sharing and arguing about ideas, religious beliefs, unusual facts, and feelings. A human scale is imperative, a scale that enhances collegiality, friendships, collaborations on research.

I believe the style of the campus buildings is important, but style is not as important as the village-like atmosphere of all the buildings and their contained spaces. University leaders must insist that architects they hire design on a warm, human scale. Scale, not style, is the essential element in good campus design. Of course, if an inviting, charming campus enclosure can be combined with excellent, stylish buildings so much the better.

The third imperative for campus planners, the special aesthetic of campus architecture, or the element of delight, is the hardest to define. It is the residue that is left after you have walked through a college campus, a sense that you have been in a special place and some of its enchantment has rubbed off on you. It is what visitors feel as they enjoy the treasures along the Washington Mall, or others feel after leaving Carnegie Hall, Longwood Gardens in southeastern Pennsylvania, Chartres Cathedral, the Piazza San Marco in Venice, or the Grand Canyon.

On a college campus the delight is generated by private garden spaces in which to converse, by chapel bells at noon or on each hour, by gleaming white columns and grand stairways, by hushed library interiors, by shiny gymnasiums and emerald playing fields, by poster-filled dormitory suites, by a harmony of windows and roofs, and by flowering trees and diagonal paths across a huge lawn. The poet Schiller once said that a really good poem is like a soft click of a well-made box when it is being closed. A great campus infuses with that kind of satisfaction.

In my view, American’s colleges and universities—and especially their physical planners—need three things to become better architectural patrons. One is a renewed sense of the special purpose of campus architecture. A second is an unswerving devotion to human scale. The third is a sense of the uncommon and particular aesthetic—the delight—that a college or university campus demands.

A surprisingly large sector of the American public has conceded a special purpose to higher education. College campuses have provided a special place for those engaged in the earnest pursuit of basic or useful knowledge, for young people devoted to self-improvement, and for making the country smarter, wiser, more artful, and more able to deal with competitor nations.

Therefore, college and university campuses have a distinct and separate purpose, as distinct as the town hall and as separate as a dairy farm. For most students the four to seven years spent in academic pursuits on a university campus are not only an important period of maturing from adolescence to adulthood but also years of heightened sensory and creative ability, years when the powers of reasoning, feeling, ethical delineations, and aesthetic appreciation reach a degree of sharpness as never before. During college years, young minds absorb impressions that often last for a lifetime: unforgettable lectures, noisy athletic contests, quiet hours in a laboratory or library, jovial dormitory banter, black-robed commencements, encounters with persons of radically different views, the rustle of leaves, transfigured nights. The American college campus serves superbly as an example of Aristotle’s idea of a good urban community as a place “where people live a common life for a noble end.”

Montclair State University
Photo Credit: Mike Peters

No architect should be permitted to build for academe unless he or she fully appreciates that his or her building is an educational tool of sorts. New buildings should add to the academic ambiance and enrich the intellectual exchanges and solitary inquiries. They should never be a mere personal statement by the architect or a clever display of technical ingenuity or artistic fashion.

Campus facilities planners need to be sure that the architects they choose are able to incorporate surprise, touches of whimsy, elegance, rapture, and wonder into their constructions. This special campus aesthetic is definitely not a frill. It is what graduates remember decades after they have left the college, and what often prompts them to contribute money to perpetuate the delight. It is what captures high school juniors and their parents in their summer pilgrimages to numerous college campuses to select those two or three institutions to which they will apply.

I think the best way to preserve the particular values of the American college campus is through a three-pronged effort:

The first is to recognize that the village-like university campus is a unique American architectural creation. No other nation has adopted the “academic village” as an architectural and landscaping form, though the ancient Oxbridge colleges came close. Academic leaders should become more knowledgeable about the distinctiveness of their campus communities and more proud of and assertive about maintaining the values of this inventive form.

Second, universities should have a broadly representative and expert blue-ribbon committee to watch over all new construction, not leave it to the vice president for administration, a facilities planner, or a trustee committee. The campus environment should be guarded and enhanced as carefully as the quality of the faculty.

Third, each college and university should draw up a set of design guidelines to help it become a patron who can list what is essential in its campus architecture. These guidelines will differ from campus to campus, but nearly all institutions should include concern for the three fundamentals: academic purpose, human scale, and a special campus aesthetic. Architects can de- sign more effectively and sympathetically if they understand the expectations of the college.

Although these words were written in 1991, they remain true today as Montclair State University continues to grow its enrollment, academic programs, research programs…and the facilities that serve them.

Source: “Restoring the Values of Campus Architecture” by Werner Sensbach (who served for over 25 years as Director of Facilities Planning and Administration at the University of Virginia)

For a list of my projects: Click Here

We would love to hear from you about what you think about this post. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends. And feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook


12 Rules For Architects Using Aspire Project Management Techniques #ilmaBlog #PM #Management #Business #Architecture

  1. Customer Satisfaction: Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable design solutions.Embrace Changes: Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.
  2. Embrace the Process: Deliver working design solutions frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
  3. Embrace Teamwork: The design team must work together daily throughout the project.
  4. Support Enthusiasm: Design projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need and trust them to get the job done.
  5. Face-to-Face is First: The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a design team is face-to-face conversation.
  6. How Do We Measure Progress: Effective, efficient and elegant design solutions are the primary measure of progress.
  7. Less Is More: Simplicity — the art of maximizing leaving stuff out — is essential. Agile processes promote sustainable development.
  8. Allow for Flexibility: The best design solutions emerge from self-organizing design teams.
  9. Execute, Monitor, Adjust: At regular intervals, the design team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.
  10. God Is In The Details: Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

We would love to hear from you about what you think about this post. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends.

Feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook


12 Fun Facts About the US Capital

Ever wonder….

  1. Is there any symbolic significance to the numbers of columns and steps in various locations in the Capitol?
  2. How many women are represented in the National Statuary Hall Collection?
  3. How many statues are there in the National Statuary Hall Collection?
  4. Where and what is the Capitol Rotunda?
  5. Why does the Statue of Freedom face east, away from the Mall?
  6. What is the name of the statue on top of the dome?
  7. How much did it cost to build the Capitol?
  8. What are the dimensions of the Capitol Building?
  9. What material is the U.S. Capitol made of?
  10. When did the Congress first meet in the Capitol Building?
  11. When was the U.S. Capitol built? And Who designed the U.S. Capitol?
  12. What is the function of the U.S. Capitol?

Check out the answers by visiting: Architect of the Capital

We would love to hear from you about what you think about this post. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends. And feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook


NEW @FC3ARCHITECT RESIDENCE ON THE BOARDS – From Plain Saltbox to Mediterranean-Style Residence

The latest designs for this new expanded home consist of a modern spin on a Mediterranean-style county home with spanish tile roof.  We achieve this by expanding the existing two-story home to the left of the existing garage and the the entrance of the existing home.  Updated second floor layouts allow for outdoor living space over the new garage addition. The new front addition boosts a new curved staircase connecting the main level living space with the bedroom spaces above.  A new foyer and dining room is created reusing existing rooms in the house.  The interior will elaborate on the theme by integrating curved archways and stone details.  The front facade was designed with order in mind – arches and columns provide rhythm and elegance for this new home.  The client opted for cast iron railings both inside and outside.

CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-00CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-03CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-04CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-12CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-08CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-09CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-10CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-07CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE- PROPOSED-06CONCEPTUAL-RESIDENCE-PROPOSED-05

We would love to hear from you about what you think about this project. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends.

Feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook


What is the Role of the Architect in the Future of AR Design?

Never before in the modern history of technology has the architect, the designer, been a more important part of technology’s future. Architects have been curating and ideating on the development of ‘place’ for centuries. Gensler covers how they are leveraging AR in the coverage of AI, the Internet of Things, and Cloud computing, and how to design places using game engine technology.

Speaker: Alan Robles of Gensler

Over 24 years exploring the relationship between users and their surroundings, Alan’s been creating experience environments for clients and projects of every scale around the world. In his role at Gensler he explores the opportunities found at the fringes of the design practice, searching for the edges of the play space of each design opportunity.

(Source: bit.ly/visionsummit17)

We would love to hear from you on what you think about this post. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends. And feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook


ILMA Architect of the Week: Adolf Loos

Do You Like Modern Architecture?

You can thank Adolf Franz Karl Viktor Maria Loos (December 10, 1870 – August 23, 1933).

Adolf  Loos was an Austrian and Czech architect and influential European theorist of modern architecture. His essay Ornament and Crime advocated smooth and clear surfaces in contrast to the lavish decorations of the fin de siècle and also to the more modern aesthetic principles of the Vienna Secession, exemplified in his design of LooshausVienna. Loos became a pioneer of modern architecture and contributed a body of theory and criticism of Modernism in architecture and design and developed the “Raumplan” (literally spatial plan) method of arranging interior spaces, exemplified in Villa Müller in Prague.

Adolf Loos Architect 02 Moller House

Villa Müller Elevation

09e765257218b1c9b78c24ba0191821c

Villa Müller Floor Plan of Mezzanine

Adolf Loos Architect 01

The Looshaus is a building in Vienna designed by Adolf Loos, regarded as one of the central buildings of Viennese Modernism. It marks the departure from historicism, but also from the floral decor of Secession, an an art movement formed in 1897 by a group of Austrian artists who had resigned from the Association of Austrian Artists, housed in the Vienna Künstlerhaus.

At age 23, Loos traveled to the United States and stayed there for three years from 1893–96. While in the United States, he mainly lived with relatives in the Philadelphia area, supported himself with odd jobs and also visited other cities such as the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, St. Louis and New York. Loos returned to Vienna in 1896 and made it his permanent residence. He was a prominent figure in the city and a friend of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Arnold Schönberg, Peter Altenberg and Karl Kraus.

Inspired by his years in the New World he devoted himself to architecture. After briefly associating himself with the Vienna Secession in 1896, he rejected the style and advocated a new, plain, unadorned architecture. A utilitarian approach to use the entire floor plan completed his concept. Loos’s early commissions consisted of interior designs for shops and cafés in Vienna.

Modern architecture is a group of styles of architecture which emerged in the first half of the 20th century and became dominant after World War II. It was based upon new technologies of construction, particularly the use of glasssteel and reinforced concrete; and upon a rejection of the traditional neoclassical architecture and Beaux-Arts styles that were popular in the 19th century.  They also rejected embellishments.

Modern architecture continued to be the dominant architectural style for institutional and corporate buildings into 1980s, when it was largely deposed by postmodernism.

Notable architects important to the history and development of the modernist movement include Frank Lloyd Wright, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Konstantin Melnikov, Erich Mendelsohn, Richard Neutra, Louis Sullivan, Gerrit Rietveld, Bruno Taut, Gunnar Asplund, Arne Jacobsen, Oscar Niemeyer and Alvar Aalto.

Adolf Loos’ lamentation Ornament and Crime made a lasting impression on le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe and left behind a body of attractive commercial and domestic work blending simplicity and great material warmth.

As noted by The Australian in the article Looking at Adolf Loos, modern architecture as it evolved through the middle decades of the 20th century, might have been better – more individualistic, humanistic and warmer in tone – if it had been more deeply attuned to the quirky legacy of Adolf Loos than the rigidities of Bauhaus-inspired internationalism. If Adolf Loos is our contemporary, it is not before time.

We would love to hear from you on what you think about this post. We sincerely appreciate all your comments – and – if you like this post please share it with friends. And feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss ideas for your next project!

Sincerely,

FRANK CUNHA III
I Love My Architect – Facebook