In this episode, Julia Hansen interviews Scott Vlasak, the architect of record for two modular projects. They discuss the benefits and challenges of using standardized unit designs in modular construction.
Scott shares his experience with the design process, coordination with modular manufacturers, and cost and time savings of standardized designs. He also addresses concerns about the impact of standardized designs on architectural creativity and the future of the architecture profession.
You can watch the full episode here, or if you prefer to read, the full transcript is below, edited for easier reading.
Episode #5: Scott Vlasak of Bruce Ronan Hamilton Architects shares his experience working with GreenStaxx’s standardized unit designs and offsite construction methods.
Julia
Hi, and welcome to the GreenStaxx podcast, Thinking Inside the Box. I'm Julia Hansen, your host and the Director of Business Development and Partnerships at GreenStaxx.
This mini-series on standardization and replication for modular multifamily projects showcases the lessons we've learned in deploying standardized unit designs across several modular projects and why we believe this system can lower costs and reduce barriers to creating more well-designed, sustainable multifamily buildings.
Today, I'm here with Scott Vlasak of Bruce Ronan Hamilton Architects. Welcome, Scott.
Scott
Thank you.
Julia
Scott is the architect of record for the two projects we're showcasing in this mini-series, the single triple-decker in Cambridge and the double triple-decker in Lowell, Massachusetts. Scott probably has the most detailed view of how standardized unit designs can save time and money on modular projects' architecture and engineering aspects. So before we get into those juicy details about our single and double triple-decker, though,
I would love to hear from you, Scott. How did you get into modular design? Was it originally with GreenStaxx, or did you come to this partnership with experience in modular design?
Scott
This was my first time working on a modular project before getting involved with GreenStaxx. I initially met Art and Gwen maybe about ten years ago. I had worked on projects that used panelized wall systems, pre-engineered wood trusses, and things like that, but never a fully modular project where the whole unit was produced in a factory. So I thought it would be similar to some of those systems, but I learned it was a different animal.
Julia
What were the things that surprised you the most when you started working with volumetric modular?
Scott
Sure, there were a couple of things. One was how much time you will spend upfront in the design process as an architect, ensuring every little detail is accounted for. When working with a modular manufacturer, a modular box for a residential unit has everything inside.
You have to get down to all of the details. It's not just about the architecture; it's about coordination across all the disciplines, similar to what you would do on a typical project, but it's all front-loaded into the design process.
Julia
Does that front-loading help save time? I'm not even thinking about standardized right now, but I have all those details that need to be confirmed upfront. Let's say you're doing a one-off modular building. Is it helpful to have all those details worked out earlier in the process than usual?
Scott
I think so. It makes for fewer surprises during construction, as you might have on a typical stick-built project. If you're doing a stick-built project, many adjustments could need to be made because those items are not fully coordinated ahead of time. So mechanical or electrical changes, for example, may affect the architecture of a stick-built project. So you work as a team to solve those issues more or less in real-time.
Whereas in modular, the modular manufacturer is doing a detailed analysis as they prepare their shop drawings. And they're making you aware of those conflicts before the boxes enter the assembly line. So, it is a very helpful project, and the more standardized units you use with a particular layout, of course, we would expect to save time the next time you use that specific design.
Julia
Right. Well, that leads me to the next question. So you were the architect of record for both the single triple-decker in Cambridge and this double triple-decker in Lowell. So, from an architecture and design perspective, how much of the original design of the first triple-decker showed up in the second triple-decker?
Scott
Sure. Layout-wise, they were almost identical. There were very few changes. One of the biggest ones I can think of was the benefit of a full basement for the first triple-decker project. There had been a previously existing building on the site, which also had a basement, so it was pretty easy to make a full basement under that project.
We could put all the mechanical systems down there; anything we needed for electrical panels, such as the main panel for the building, the sprinkler system, and the main controls, could be down there. So, when we did the Lowell project, as you mentioned, it was a double triple-decker and did not have a basement. So, we just did a crawl space, which we can still use to run much of the piping. However, one of the most significant differences is that we had to find a space to put the main electrical panels and sprinkler controls at the ground level. So, we had to tweak the entrance vestibules to incorporate small closets for those types of things.
Julia
Okay. And if you had to estimate the sort of like on a percentage basis of how much of those between those two projects, how much was the same versus how much was different? What would be your gut reaction to similarities versus differences?
Scott
Sure, sure. Just to put a dart on the dartboard, I would say maybe 75 % was similar. On a building level, yeah. And those had to do with, again, mainly the change to a crawl space. It was a double triple-decker configuration, and they shared a common wall.
Scott
That meant that, of course, the two stairwells were what we put together, so we could no longer have exterior windows facing into the stairs. There are things you have to give up, but it had minimal effect on the rest of the building in terms of exterior windows that face the actual living spaces. So that was the nice part about it. And we had some other differences that had to do with
Julia
Okay.
Scott
Lowell versus Cambridge in terms of exterior architecture. The city of Lowell did. We showed them what we did in Cambridge initially, and there were a few architectural changes that they wanted to make to fit it better into the context of the Lowell neighborhood it was going to be going into. But other than that, maybe 75% is significant to me.
Julia
Okay. Most of that was related to the building structure versus the actual unit structure in the boxes. Is that right? Or were these changes also incorporated by the modular manufacturer in the boxes?
Scott
Do you mean structural, like its structural engineering, or just the layout?
Julia
What did you need to communicate to the modular manufacturer that differed between the first and second designs?
Scott
Sure, yeah, no, it was very much the same between the two.
Julia
Yeah. And when thinking about the crawl space construction in the second project versus the basement in the first project, that was a completely separate set of designs, right? The structural foundation of the building would have been unique to each project.
Scott
Yes, yeah, the foundation was unique. That's correct. You know, there are many similarities in how the structural loads from the modular boxes are handled. So, in that way, I would say there was a lot of similarity, but a crawl space foundation versus a full basement foundation, where we were retaining more earth with the full basement, did change the foundation design somewhat.
Julia
Right. OK. One of the selling points of using modular construction and introducing standardized design is the cost savings, which could be direct project costs or the costs you get from speeding up the project timeline. Can you tell us a little bit about your perspective on what kind of time and money your office was able to economize on using the first design for the second project with some modifications?
Scott
Sure. Yeah, so we were definitely able to save a lot of time. Number one, we're going back to the layout. So because the layout had very few changes, we made whatever small changes there were on one side, then, of course, we could more or less mirror that to create the full floor plan of the triple-decker layout. I would say we were able to, on the mechanical and electrical side of things,
Scott
Similarly, we could economize that in the same way, I just described for the architectural plans. In fact, if you look at the mechanical and electrical plans, they typically detail one side completely on the Lowell plans. They'll detail one side, and then the other side is just noted to be a mirror image of the other side.
Scott
The modular manufacturer can easily understand that and create it that way when doing their detailed shop drawings.
Julia
I see. So you are working with a design for another single triple deck or three floors, three units. And then you could just kind of press copy-paste, let's say mirror it, and have the same detail show up for the second part of the building for the other half. Yeah. Yeah. That's cool.
Scott
Yes, that's true.
Julia
Is that something that you see frequently in regular architecture?
Scott
Yes, I would say it would be similar if you were doing the project as a stick-built project. You could work that way. So, yeah, in that way, I guess it's not significantly different, but as we're talking about a standardized design, the more we use that. The more we work with even the same modular manufacturer, the more we can discuss many efficiencies during that design process.
Julia
Yeah. So, let's think back to the process of getting all of the details for a project ready and submitting them to the modular manufacturer so that they can review it upfront before any construction even gets started. Typically in architecture and in construction management, there are a lot of submittals and requests for information, RFIs, that go back and forth between those constructing the building and those who have designed the building. Can you tell us about the process you used for both projects, knowing that there was one modular manufacturer for the Cambridge project and then we used a different one for the second project?
Do you have any reflections on simplifying that process, especially when the project is repeated with the same manufacturer? This wasn't the case with these two buildings, but it is what we expect to happen going forward.
Scott
Yes, yes, absolutely. During that process of coordination with the modular manufacturer, there are sometimes a lot of questions in the form of RFIs, and there are also submittals to be reviewed. Those submittals can concern everything from the architecture and materials used by the modular manufacturer to the mechanical and electrical systems.
Scott
As the architect, we're responsible for coordinating all of those. As the submittals come in, I'll talk generally and then discuss the differences between the two projects. So, as a general process, we would decide who needs to look at that from the design team as a submittal comes in. Sometimes, there are submittals that multiple design team members need to look at. Other submittals are for one discipline or another.
For example, the countertops, as one example, we would not expect that the electrical engineer has to look at the countertops. For others, like a light fixture, we would certainly have the electrical engineer look at that, but then we would, as the architect, also want to look at that. For anything related to a fire rating, is it going into a fire-rated assembly or just the fixture's aesthetics to ensure that it's what we were asking for.
So that's the general process. So yes, a lot of that happens because the modular manufacturer is working from our drawings, yet what they're trying to do is make sure that it is buildable in their factory. Based on their experience in doing this, they're the experts, and they can easily spot some of the conflicts or questions they might have to clarify how the box should go together. So yeah, it was a pretty easy process on the Cambridge project, where it was the single triple-decker. The one unique thing about that project was that it was a passive house project.
Scott
So many of the submittals were specific and had to be specific based on meeting passive house requirements. So maybe that was the main difference between the two projects. As we moved into the Lowell project, you know, even though it wasn't a passive house project, it still had to meet the Massachusetts energy code, which is very stringent. And
You know, it's still a very high bar to reach for. So we certainly had to pay attention to those types of things. But, you know, again, you're getting that economy of scale because it was a double, triple-decker, but every submittal we're reviewing is for both sides. So, you know, I guess as you were to compare it to another project that wasn't a standard design.
Scott
Maybe you had a double triple-decker, but the layouts of every unit were slightly different. That could lead to some differences in the submittals and take a little bit more time.
Julia
Right. If you had to advise a developer who was thinking about using one of Greenstacks's standardized unit designs, either in the multifamily system or using the triple-decker unit designs, and they wanted to sort of be as efficient as possible, what would be your biggest piece of advice for them from an architecture and engineering standpoint?
Scott
Sure, so I would encourage them to review the design upfront. We could facilitate this with them, have a detailed discussion about the layout, and encourage them to put some thought into maybe even touring a previous project and make sure that if they want to make any changes, they consider those right at the very beginning of the process.
I think one of the biggest things that can influence that efficiency is modular. The more you can have your design upfront, stick to it, and not make changes as you're going through that process with the modular manufacturer, the more you can draw that line in the sand and say, okay, we're finished with the design or schematic design phase and we're moving into that coordination phase.
Julia
Got it. And speaking of the coordination, you mentioned that between these two buildings, which did have considerable differences in terms of the energy code and in terms of having the marriage wall versus standalone, what should developers keep in mind as things that architects need to revisit - for every building, even if you're using standardized unit designs or building designs?
Scott
Sure, yeah, there's a few of them. So the biggest one, to think about is how the building is built, starts with the foundation, right? Because that goes in the ground first. So, every site will be slightly different in terms of what's under the earth. And foundation design has to respond to that. So the structural engineers will always request a geotechnical report to get the soil bearing capacity. It's always a good idea to understand if there are any unsuitable soils. If there are any, maybe there's a ledge under the surface, but close enough to the surface that it might impact a crawl space or a basement. There might be groundwater considerations. So, every site is going to be different in that way. That's certainly one aspect.
The other aspect would have to do with the local zoning. As I mentioned, from Cambridge to Lowell, there were a few exterior elevation changes based on the architectural look and feel of the building and its fitting into the neighborhood. That's certainly something developers should consider when they initially approach the municipality and the planning staff for feedback.
The energy code is another one to add. That can be influenced by whatever state you're doing the project in. If it's in New England, it will be similar between the different states, but there are some important nuances to be aware of.
Julia
Okay.
Scott
It is also important to know upfront whether the developer wants to pursue something more stringent than the energy code, such as a passive house.
Julia
Just a follow-up question on the elevation issue in Lowell. Were the changes to make the building facade fit more into this historic neighborhood in Lowell? Were those just aesthetic, like colors or the pattern of the clapboard on the outside, or were they more like structural changes that needed to happen?
Scott
Yeah, it was more aesthetic and less structural. There were certainly conversations about its historical aspect. It was interesting that both sites, Cambridge and Lowell, had previous buildings on them. The one in Lowell happened to have a fire, and the look of the original building was a consideration. The more we got into the architectural details, the more we showed what we wanted to do, which was more contemporary in terms of the look of the building. The proposed elevation was more modern. The city warmed up to that as we showed them more three-dimensional views of it and how it would actually look and feel. And yes, the colors were also part of it.
Scott
But that had more to do with the decision to give it a historic character or to honor some of the new fabric and urban architecture that was working its way into the neighborhood.
Julia
So, Scott, our last question is a broad and open-ended one for you. As an architect, what do you think about this push to use more standardized unit designs and offsite construction methods for all of the efficiency and sustainability benefits that implies?
It’s not really how architects have been practicing their profession for many years. Sometimes, we encounter pushback or concern from the architecture field that standardized design takes away architects' delight, variability, or professional discretion in this field. What is your viewpoint on that type of argument?
Scott
Sure, I've certainly learned a lot about modular through doing those two projects that we're talking about today.
There's also another GreenStaxx project that we didn't talk much about today but that I'll use to illustrate my answer to your question - 28 Austin Street in Newton. And so, in terms of the delight of architecture and maybe the stigma that modular architecture has and the belief that standardization actually governs the result of the architecture, I've found that not to be true. There are a lot of things that you can do with standardized designs that still can give the building a unique look. And, so you're, you're always able to give that building whatever appearance you'd like it to have.
There will always be aspects of modular construction that require you to know the constraints you have to work within. Some of them are structural. You see, we didn't get into the details today about the effect of stacking the boxes. You end up with a very thick floor-ceiling assembly between floors.
And that has pluses and minuses as well, right? There are many acoustic and fire-reading benefits. However, careful consideration of ceiling heights is required. But the 28 Austin Street project—the reason I brought that up in answer to your question is that if you look at that building, you would never know that it uses modular boxes.
Scott
We achieved the look that the building has retail use on the ground floor, and the wood frame starts above that for the modular construction. However, we could push and pull the boxes uniquely to create plane changes. We were also making a lot of different material changes to the exterior. So, it creates an excellent streetscape presentation with urban facades that you would never know were modular versus a stick-built project.
I think modular still has that ability; there's no need or reason why a modular building has to look a certain way. But as you said, that perception may be out there, and I think we have to continue to address it and make it clear to developers and architects who may be unfamiliar.
Julia
And what about the next discussion point that often comes up of modular construction and standardized designs eating away at the viability of the architects' profession? Do you feel like that's a risk to the future of work for architects?
Scott
No, I don't because, in my opinion, you're putting together a puzzle. You'll always need architects, other design professionals, and engineers to do that.
So, the standardized units are a great tool that architects and the design team can use, but ultimately, they still have to be put together into a fully functional building. If you're dealing with, you know, a triple-decker building, that's one design problem. And if you're dealing with a multifamily building using modular, standardized units, that can be much more complex. Because you're now, you've got interior hallways to deal with, and you've got stairways and elevators and maybe some mixed use on the ground floor that you're all know, coordinating that into one building design.
So even though you're reusing the standardized units, that's the time-saving part; there's still a lot for the architecture and design team to tackle.
Julia
Well, Scott, thank you so much for your time. This has been a fascinating conversation for me. I always enjoy learning more about the viewpoints of some of the professionals we work with on our projects. So, thanks so much for sharing your unique perspective here on the podcast.
Scott
My pleasure; thank you for having me.
Julia
Thank you for listening to Thinking Inside the Box, a podcast from GreenStaxx. Please remember to subscribe if you like this episode and leave any comments or questions. The future is modular.