I am on the road between Chicago and Central Illinois on a regular basis, en route to or returning from visits with in-laws. It’s your standard cruise through Midwest corn fields. During the past year or two, my wife and I have noticed several new wind farms that have sprouted very quickly. From our view on the highway, massive turbines spring up in numbers so large they literally go on for as far as we can see.

On our most recent trip, we passed a truck carrying a blade for one of these enormous turbines on its way to the wind farm just a few miles down the highway. Take a look at the pictures below, which we took from our car. The pictures in no way do justice to the enormity of both the blades and the turbine fields.

The incredibly quick emergence of these massive wind farms within a relatively small stretch of land in Illinois makes me think about a few things. First, there’s big money in wind. Secondly, if this activity mirrors wind farm growth in similar sections of land throughout the United States, then I wish I owned a turbine manufacturing business. Thirdly, these highly visible symbols of sustainable energy can create a public perception that the green movement is far more advanced than it truly is.

Is that good or bad? Good, I believe. The more people think they’re missing the green building boat, the more they’ll feel pressure to do the right thing by designing and building an efficient home in a responsible manner.

However, there are far fewer homes being certified as green than not. When I meet with designers and builders – professionals on all levels of the custom home market – I ask each of them, every time, if they’re getting much interest in green. The majority of them tell me “no.” These professionals tell me homeowners still are not willing to put their money where the public perception of green is.

Green design and construction has come far, but there’s a longer way to go.

Share your thoughts by sending me an e-mail. Or, scroll up to the first paragraph of this blog entry, look to the right and click where you see, “Leave a comment” or “Post or view comments.”

Have you ever been faced with choosing between great curb appeal and interior functionality? Which did you choose? Which would you choose? Or, do you believe there’s a way to have both?

One builder I met recently said that if the homeowner is involved in the design process, the home will be designed from the inside out. By this the builder meant the focus will be on room layout, traffic flow and functionality of space, because that’s what matters most to clients. The builder then said if an architect is in control of the design process, the home will be designed from the outside in. The implication here was that architects will focus on a home’s exterior rather than giving clients an interior space that functions well.

While I’m sure this builder had some bad experiences with architects that drove him to this conclusion, painting with a broad brush is never the right way to go. So, let’s not go there. Instead, let me take a shot at explaining the design process using a TV commercial I remember from years ago.

The commercial used a long, skinny balloon to explain the process of buying a car. One man stood in front of this balloon, which represented the total cost of the car including fees, taxes, rust-proofing, and so on. He explained that if the dealer decreases the fees, which he illustrated by squeezing one section of the balloon with one hand, the rest of the balloon — representing other costs — became larger. Then he squeezed the section of the balloon labeled “taxes,” while we watched the rest of the balloon get bigger. The point of all this was that a dealer could play with fees, taxes and other costs all day, but ultimately the total cost is the same.

I think this balloon analogy can be applied here, but in a good way. If the exterior is disproportionately fantastic compared to the interior, the solution is to sacrifice a little curb appeal for the benefit of the interior space. If the kitchen is the gem and the master suite is less than satisfactory, take away from the kitchen to add to the master suite.

Perhaps recalling the TV commercial was an unnecessarily long way to go to make my point. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve over-explained something. But my point remains valid.

Or does it? What do you think?

Share your thoughts by sending me an e-mail. Or, scroll up to the first paragraph of this blog entry, look to the right and click where you see, “Leave a comment” or “Post or view comments.”

It’s a simple question, really: Where were you before this job? But the answer doesn’t always roll off the tongue as easily as the question. When I asked this of one designer I know, the mood changed quickly. “We don’t talk about my past,” he said.

His answer was followed by stunned silence, which he eventually filled by saying, “Let’s just say my vision was not shared where I was, so I left and launched my own business.” From this point forward, the conversation returned to the happy place where it began. So much for hearing that interesting story. It doesn’t matter, really, because he’s doing just fine if you think his current multi-million dollar custom home project on Lake Michigan’s shores is “doing fine.”

Many of you own your own architecture or construction business, like this designer. But why? Is it for reasons similar to this his? Or, was it simply time to go out on your own? Did you have entrepreneurial dreams as a child? Were you forced into buying your business from a parent?

For another business owner I met recently, it was a matter of opportunity at a young age. At the ripe age of 23, this builder was offered the chance to purchase the home building business which hired him out of college. He and another young colleague bought it and kept the former owner on staff. After time, he bought out his partner and changed the name of the company to reflect his name. For him, it was always part of the plan to be his own boss. It’s what he went to school for, and what he always wanted to do.

What’s your reason?

Share your thoughts by sending me an e-mail. Or, scroll up to the first paragraph of this blog entry, look to the right and click where you see, “Leave a comment” or “Post or view comments.”

Whose job is it to protect a design once plans reach the job site? Is it the architect’s or designer’s job, or is it the job of the builder? I believe the answer depends on whom you’re asking. Ask most builders and they’ll tell you they’re the guardians of design; Ask many architects and they’ll tell you it’s their job.

I believe guardianship lies with the point of client contact. By this I mean responsibility for ensuring the intention of a home’s design is accurately reflected in the physical structure your clients will live in, lies with the person who interacts most often with those clients. I’m not saying it’s always that person’s job, rather, it’s that person’s choice. At an architect-led design/build firm, this client liaison most likely will be an architect or designer. At a builder’s company — or a design/build firm led by a builder — it’s up to the builder to either guard the design or share responsibility with the architect on matters of design execution.

This topic can touch a nerve with some people, and is one I hear with increasing frequency. The care and of design is being discussed in professional circles, among friends and colleagues, and even in the pages of Residential Design & Build magazine.

Members of professional architecture and design organizations are energized these days by a renewed sense of pride in residential design, including the Custom Residential Architects Network, which is hosting a symposium and home tour in Texas October 2-4. If you’re interested in spending a few days interacting with hundreds of residential architects, you should sign up to attend this event.

But I digress … now back to the topic at hand. We can also turn to the dictionary for guidance on this matter. The dictionary on my desk defines “architect” as follows; “A person who plans buildings and oversees their construction.” The “oversees their construction” part makes it pretty clear to me; architects are the guardians.

This same dictionary doesn’t define “builder” specifically, but states that “builder” is the noun form of “build,” which is defined like this; “To engage in building.” Furthermore, “building” is defined as; “The art or business of constructing buildings.” Nowhere do these two definitions mention design.

But are we going to allow a dictionary to determine who should protect residential design? A dictionary is only a collection of words, and you are the professionals in the field every day, and are best positioned to answer the question: Who are the guardians of design?

What’s your answer?

Share your thoughts by sending me an e-mail. Or, scroll up to the first paragraph of this blog entry, look to the right and click where you see, “Leave a comment” or “Post or view comments.”