On October 14–16, AIA Western Massachusetts hosted the AIA New England Conference and Design Awards with the theme “Livable Communities in the American Landscape.” More than 150 people from the New England chapters, including AIAVT Vice President Diantha Korzun and AIAVT Executive Director Carol Miklos, participated in conference events.  More...

Over 100 members from AIA Vermont and AIA New Hampshire converged on the Dartmouth College campus in Hanover, New Hampshire in late October for our chapters’ annual joint meeting and a chance to view the institution's newly-unveiled Class of 1978 Life Sciences Building. The 174,000 sq. ft., copper-trimmed edifice replaces three previous structures on the site and will now anchor the campus' north entrance.

“This is a really exciting moment for the college, a culmination of many years of work,” John Scherding, director of campus design, told the group assembled in the building's 200-seat auditorium, prior to their being taken on a tour. “We feel we've gotten very good at designing sustainable high-performance buildings,” Sherding added, referring to Whitemore Hall at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, begun in 1996 and completed in 2000.  
    
According to Scherding, Whitemore Hall set the stage for the next chapter of building design at Dartmouth:  it was the first building where integrated design was embraced. He said that project focused primarily on a tight shell, including triple glazed windows and rigid foam insulation.  The next generation of construction, including the McLaughlin Clusters in 2004, the Life Sciences Building, and the still-under-construction Visual Arts Center at the south end of campus, take the process a step further.
    
“We've begun to embrace intelligent building systems. The new Life Sciences building is the first where we fully utilized Lutron Intelligent Lighting Systems, for example.  Also, in addition to paying an intense amount of attention to the envelope, we also tried to aggressively capture rejected energy,” Scherding said. The result is a structure with 90% heat recovery and reuse.
    
Ken Packard, the college's director of engineering and utilities, explained the significance of the advances employed in the massive Life Science building in terms of the college’s overall fuel use and expenditures.
    
“This building was going to add a lot of load to our heating plant,” Packard said. “We would have had to add another boiler.  So we really pushed the design. Not only did we avoid boiler number five, but we’re now able to use the savings to upgrade our energy plant. We'll use five million gallons of number six fuel oil in 2011. Next year, we will be able to cut that to four and a half million.  This building…is one of the big pieces of that puzzle.”

Design Evolution

Next on the podium was Natalie Gentile, project architect, from the Pittsburgh firm of Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, who described the evolution of the building's design. “We were challenged to create a sense of arrival on the north end of campus, which said, 'You are now at Dartmouth,’ explained Gentile. “We also wanted to create a new outdoor space. An L-shaped building made sense. It fit on the site. So there are multiple fronts, multiple entrances that create a new courtyard for the medical sciences.”

In terms of sustainability and energy efficiency, Gentile said the project team stacked 'like' things, such as classrooms. This resulted in efficiency, both for energy use and maintenance, she explained.
    
A key objective of the design was to establish connections to both the outdoors and among building users Gentile said.  Thus, the laboratories feature multiple, large windows and the stairways let in significant daylight to encourage use of the stairs, so that people can meet and interact. The project team also designed a variety of different gathering spaces, including an outdoor terrace.
    
Joe Broemel, the college's project manager for the building, said the building is the epitome of integrated audio visual and information technology. He said a proliferation of flat screens in classrooms, hallways, and lounges facilitate “lecture capturing,” video streaming, and conferencing.  
    
Dave Madigan of van Zelm Engineers, another partner on the project, highlighted the importance of energy efficiency for lab buildings, which he said typically use five times the energy of an office building.  He noted that the college saved approximately $3.5 million off the building’s original price tag of $93 million reducing the size of the energy systems.
    
“It's among the top performing lab buildings ever built,” said Madigan.  He went on to state that the energy consumption of 99,000 btu/sq. ft./yr is “roughly one-fifth of the energy use of a similar building constructed on the campus 20 years ago,” citing several reasons:

The next project on the tour was located on the Olmsted-designed Smith College campus. James Middlebrook, professor of art and architecture at Smith, met the group to guide us to the new engineering building, Ford Hall, by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. The conversation revolved around sustainability and place-making; campus building regulations stipulate that new structures that are to border neighborhoods blend in well.  The large glazed atrium lounge that looked out over residences accomplished this goal.  

Participants hopped back on the bus to be taken to a project coincidentally designed by last year’s AIAVT Design Awards juror Bruce Coldham, FAIA: Rocky Hill Co-Housing. Coldham not only showed participants around but appeared to introduce many to the true nature of the co-housing concept, in general. He described his firm’s process for working with co-housing residents to design the various building combinations, color schemes, and common areas that will make up their communities.  

“This tour provided a great opportunity to learn how another region in New England is developing local housing to serve a wide demographic, through thoughtful design, unit density and proximity to a town center,” said AIAVT member Susan Coddaire, AIA. “Each project we visited was innovative, in that the design was driven more by the long-term needs of the community than by speculation about the consumer. As architects, our job is to create vibrant, sustainable places such as these.”

Next year, AIAVT intends to incorporate equally insightful tours into its AIANE Conference and Design Awards to be held October 17-19 at the Hilton Hotel, Burlington. The theme is “Design for Place,” the keynote speaker is Patricia Patkau of Patkau Architects, Vancouver, British Columbia (see www.patkau.ca/), and the jury will be comprised of AIA Vancouver members.

Practical Experience in Architecture: The Proposed Demise of Vermont’s “Option Two”

By Joseph Cincotta, AIA

On April 1, 2009 the Vermont Board of Architects made a surprising and unilateral decision to recommend the elimination of "Option Two"—an avenue whereby Vermonters may elect to complete “at least nine years of diversified practical experience” working under the supervision of an experienced, licensed architect in order to be eligible to take the national licensing examination.

Option Two has long been an alternative available to Vermonters who could not afford, or elected not to pursue degrees from accredited schools of architecture as the path to taking licensing examinations. No previous meeting agendas of the board even hinted at such a major change.

Later in 2009, the board’s recommendation to legislators was included in an omnibus bill where, according to at least one, it was so well hidden among “housekeeping” procedures that it nearly passed. But for the valiant, last-minute efforts by two widely-respected Vermont architects, Option Two would no longer exist. Fortunately, the architects’ efforts led the Vermont Division of Licensure to conclude the item had not been adequately vetted and removed it from the bill.

Although greater numbers of AIAVT members later vocalized their opposition to the recommendation, the Vermont Board of Architects made a baffling “after the fact” attempt to gain consensus among architects, mailing out a survey in 2010 to assess their opinions about Option Two. Now the board is again considering the issue.

Thus it was an act of passion that drove me to the Board of Architects’ recent meeting in Montpelier on September 26 to comment on the proposed demise of Option Two. Exhausted at the end of a day fraught with typical project concerns, the last thing I needed was to travel from and back to Wilmington to attend. When I arrived, I was glad to find 18 other individuals who also felt compelled to be heard.

The meeting began with a one-hour-no-questions-permitted presentation recounting the findings of the 2010 survey.  I don’t think I was alone in being puzzled by the fact that this first real opportunity for public comment was being forestalled by a presentation that could have been made available in advance.

However, there was a bright side. I learned the survey results indicated a distinct majority of the state’s registered architects are in favor of retaining the nine-year apprenticeship option, despite what I had perceived to be a bias in the questions when I had completed it. The vast majority of meeting attendees were also in favor of retaining Option Two. Those who were initially undecided appeared eventually swayed by the impassioned stories that were shared that evening.

One established architect after another stood up and spoke on behalf of the potentially disenfranchised—future Vermonters who would lose the opportunity to become licensed architects if Option Two went away. These architects shared heartfelt stories about the need for in the profession. One, a self-described late bloomer, discovered his passion for architecture in his late 30s, as did none other Philip Johnson. Because of Option Two, this architect, who did not have the benefit of a Johnson-like family fortune, was able to work to support his family and pursue his dream.

According to the Vermont Board of Licensure, last year over 50% of Vermont’s newly licensed architects came up through nine-year apprenticeship. Why would we want to deny so many this path?

The main reason the Vermont Board of Architects gave to "sunset' Option Two was so that Vermont would conform to other states’ regulations and also be more in line with NCARB. In fact, our past and present governors put practical experience as a key plank in their jobs bills. The Vermont Department of Labor is strongly in favor of youth accessing professional education through internships. The idea to eradicate Option Two actually goes against state policy regarding work force development.

The board also made thinly veiled suggestions that apprenticeship-trained architects pose health, safety and welfare concerns. Yet, no statistics were provided to indicate that such architects pose a greater risk or are less qualified or less dedicated than those who have taken other paths to licensure.  How did the board conclude that the profession would be better served by eradicating Option Two? Why weren’t Vermont architects consulted before the board took action in 2009? Interestingly, no one on the current Vermont Board of Architecture was licensed through Option Two.

Training Architects: Historical Perspective

The training and education of architects through lengthy apprenticeships is an historic tradition—much more of one, in fact, than is training in the academic setting. The first school of architecture in the U.S. was established at MIT in 1865. France’s Ecole de Beaux Arts’ formalized program wasn’t organized all that much earlier. It’s not that architecture schools inherently do a poor job:  the root issue is that schools need not be the only route to the profession and that those who choose the apprenticeship route may more readily bring valuable, “hands-on” experience to a project team.

In fact, I’d say most of what the world admires in architecture—from the ancients through the Renaissance and up to the 1900s—was designed by architects who learned their craft through apprenticeship. Frank Lloyd Wright and Tadao Ando are just two modern-day architects who didn’t attend specific architecture schools. Certainly, there is sufficient reason for board committee members to give pause regarding their suggestion.

Equal Access: A Vermont Value

In these tough economic times, the idea doing away with Option Two astonishes. Although a proposed “phase-in” time may not hurt current nine-year interns, eliminating Option Two would close the door for future architects.

Truly, the proposed rule change would curtail personal freedom, something Vermonters value over anything else. Our state has a proud tradition of enriching the professions of architecture (and law) by facilitating formalized apprenticeship systems that can substitute for accredited degree programs. With the nine-year minimum requirement for architects, the path is hardly easy. However, for some Vermonters, it’s the only affordable way.

Benefits of Diversity

Ultimately, retaining Option Two is not about reducing the standards of the profession. As one who followed the architecture school path to eligibility to take the licensing examinations and has since worked with others who took the apprenticeship route, I believe that the opportunity for a diverse and broad spectrum of architects strengthens our profession.

The society which enfranchises the greatest number of its members wins. It will be blessed with greater productivity from a greater number of its members. Pure and simple, there are plenty of other cultures with a variety of natural resources, most are older and far more entrenched, but the single most powerful indicator of our success in the U.S. is the number of stories of ascent where barriers were removed.

In the oft’ heard words of Vermonters everywhere: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

NOTES
i)    The bias against apprenticeship in the 2010 Vermont Board of Architects’ survey was so transparent that it attracted ridicule from not only colleagues but also respected pollsters. See survey and letter of 2010 at www.vtprofessionals.org/opr1/architects/

ii)    Former Vermont Board of Architects Chair Barbara Conrey, was among the first to share her concerns about eliminating Option Two. Her eloquent letter is available at: https://docs.google.com/open?id=1aGenZuaorDMTkfKV1RF4dBigX1PQP5IFdGoNBUrYAPL6Lx_oUAZkmG4ZbP4S

iii)    To see the first mention of the board’s decision re: their recommendation about Option Two  visit http://vtprofessionals.org/opr1/architects/minutes_agenda/Architect%20Minutes%202009%200401.

iv)    For complete details on requirements for architect licensure, visit http://vtprofessionals.org/opr1/architects/rules/ARC_Rules.pdf 

v)    Joseph Cincotta’s path to licensure: Brooklyn Tech HS, Architecture Major 1974 Cooper Union, Saturday HS Program 1973-74 SUNY Binghamton, Architecture History and Theory IPB Major NYC Institute For Architecture and Urban Studies, Advanced Design Workshop 1980 Harvard GSD, Masters in Architecture 1988

On September 14, architects, engineers, building materials manufacturers, contractors, and others from throughout Northern New England gathered at the Country Club of Vermont in Waterbury for the fourth year in a row to participate in raising funds for the Hanne N. Williams Scholar Recognition Fund.  Bright sunny skies and near-summer temperatures made the day especially enjoyable for the 22 enthusiastic golf teams gathered to support the education of architecture students while vying for team and individual awards, raffle prizes, and auction items.

Throughout the day, many equally enthusiastic volunteers performed a variety of tasks—including staffing the registration table, preparing gift bags, snapping photographs, securing sponsor posters at each hole, and standing by to witness potential hole-in-ones—to make the event run seamlessly. While no player hit a hole-in-one this year, fine playing ability was on display nevertheless. Golfers from New England Air Systems, Inc. of Williston captured the “low gross” score team prize: a round for four at Vermont National Country Club. The “low net” score team winners were from Berkley Insurance Group, headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey.

One of the many highlights of the day was the live auction, with Joe Greene, AIA, serving as the bid caller. Greene’s lively exchanges with bidders helped add significantly to the funds raised as he auctioned off numerous prizes, including rounds of golf donated by courses throughout Vermont, ski resort lift tickets, and health club memberships.

The funds from the tournament, combined with monies from the AIA-National Component Matching Grant Program, allow AIAVT to recognize promising students at Norwich University and Vermont Technical College. In fact, this year’s Norwich scholarship winners, Karla Brent and Blake Drouillard, were on hand to demonstrate their appreciation. (Read more about the Scholar Awards in this issue, article below.)

With our economic climate continuing to present challenges that may dictate dramatic changes in the way we live and shape our built environment, it is important that individuals and businesses in architecture, construction, and related fields join forces to secure a strong future for the next generation of architects. AIAVT is deeply grateful to all the sponsors, auction item contributors, players, and volunteers that helped us grow the Hanne N. Williams Scholar Recognition Fund this year. Special thanks to the Golf Committee members that worked tirelessly on this event: Lisa Rovner, member of and liaison to the AIAVT Board of Directors; Mike LaRivierre, Schindler Elevator; Guy Teschmacher, formerly of Black River Design; Marsha Wilmot, Black River Design Architects; Lisa Hervey, Housewright Construction Inc.; and Brian Haas, VIS Construction Consultants. It is Haas we have to thank for the photographs of the event, including the prints received by each team. Due to everyone’s hard work and generosity, AIAVT will fulfill its goal to continue to assist scholars.

Associate Members

Andrew Chardain, of Burlington, is a member of the architectural design team at TruexCullins Architecture & Interior Design where he has assisted in the Education, Workplace, Interiors and Resort Studios.  While the Vermont native from Newfane draws on his local roots as the foundations of his architectural and cultural interests, domestic travel around the U.S. via motorcycle and international travels to Italy, Japan and Portugal inspire him to never stop learning from the world.  Chardain is a graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he received a bachelor’s degree in architecture.

Banwell Architects of Quechee, Vermont and Lebanon, New Hampshire is an award-winning architectural firm founded in the mid 1960s by Roy Banwell.  The firm is pleased to introduce their new leadership team.

Ingrid Moulton Nichols, AIA, LEED AP is now managing partner of the business.  Before joining Banwell in 2000, Nichols previously worked at BMA Architects, Amherst, N.H. and Arrowstreet Inc., Somerville, Mass.  Originally from Lebanon, N.H., she now resides in South Woodstock with her husband Chris.