618: Why Architects Are the Perfect Developers with Charlie Kaplan of Gluck+

8:20PM Feb 14, 2025

Speakers:

Enoch Sears

Rion Willard

Keywords:

Architecture

Sustainability

Real Estate Development

Integrated Design

Affordable Housing

Construction Management

Development Risk

Cost Management

Client Relationships

Project Efficiency

Architectural Innovation

Urban Planning

Construction Process

Development Strategy

Architectural Practice.

We're really as architects. We're sort of quarterbacks. Hello and welcome to another episode of The Business of Architecture podcast. I'm your host, Ryan Willard, and I'm absolutely thrilled to introduce you to a guest whose career is a master class in blending architectural innovation, real estate development and sustainability. Joining us is Charlie Kaplan, principal of the renowned New York City based firm Gluck. Plus, with over 25 years of experience, Charlie has been at the forefront of designing and building sustainable, educational, residential and mixed use developments across the US. He's a true advocate for the idea that great design isn't just esthetically compelling. It makes architectural, urban and economic sense, even in the most competitive real estate markets, Charlie's work as both architect and developer is nothing short of visionary. Early in his career, he partnered with Peter Gluck to lead speculative residential developments in Aspen, including the award winning little IAX affordable housing project, a shining example of sustainable turnkey development that earned national recognition from both the AIA and the DBIA in New York City. Charlie brought his expertise to bear as CO developer of 150 Rivington, a luxury condominium redefining the Lower East Side. His portfolio boasts an array of notable projects such as the Lady Liberty Academy Charter School, celebrated for its innovative use of pre fabrication, and the award winning house in their mountains, recognized by the AIA for excellence in housing design. Charlie's thought leadership extends beyond the drawing board. He's been featured in Metropolis magazine, the Financial Times Architectural Record and architectural design sharing insights on architect led design build and the unique role of architects as developers. With degrees from Williams College and the University of Colorado, along with international studies at the architectural Association in London, Charlie brings a global perspective to his practice. It's an honor to welcome him to the podcast today to explore his journey, his approach to integrated design and development and his vision for the future of architecture. In this episode, we will be looking at the architect, developer, business model and the pathways to success. We'll look at how Charlie and Gluck financed architectural projects and the risks and the rewards, and we also look at the possibility for architects as developers. So for those of you who are keen to explore and delve into deeper the architect developer business model, this episode is not one to miss, so sit back, relax and enjoy. Charlie Kaplan, this episode is sponsored by Smart practice, business of architecture's flagship program to help you structure your firm for freedom, fulfillment and financial profit. If you want access for our free training on how to do this, please visit smartpractice method.com or if you want to speak directly to one of our advisors about how he might be able to help you. Please follow the link in the information we are looking for architect developer stories for the Business of Architecture podcast. So are you an architect developer with valuable insights to share? We're always on the lookout for passionate voices in the industry to join us on the Business of Architecture podcast, if you're ready to share your journey lessons, strategies with our global audience, we'd love to hear from you. Reach out to us to explore being a guest on our show and help inspire other architect developers on their path. We'd be interested in hearing your story, whether you're at the very beginning of your development story, or whether you have $100 million portfolio of projects already in the bag, completed. We'd like to hear from you if you're working with the developers, or that you've developed a number of small houses, or you're working at a larger scale. Charlie, Welcome to the Business of Architecture. How are you? I'm doing great. Thanks for having me My pleasure. Very good to see you. I feel like we're neighbors. We know we nearly are. You're just up the road there on 1/27

is it 1/27 just a just a few blocks north, I think, yeah, a

few blocks north. So, very nice. I'll have to come and visit the studio at some point. But very excited to have you on the show. And I think what you're one of the principles at Gluck, and the business model that you have, I think, is absolutely fascinating, where you guys have, kind of have kind of become vertically integrated, cross disciplinary, architect, construction developer. And you know, we're seeing that this is such a powerful move for practices, for architects, to be able to kind of have more agency fulfill on the design aspirations that they've set out to, to be able to actually be an author. Of the built environment, rather than being reactive and just waiting for a developer who sometimes have just they've got their worldview that they're looking at, which is fine, but you know, to try and push somebody out of that to fulfill on an architectural agenda, the two don't always line up, or this, it's a lot of energy that can be expelled and doing it, and a lot of architects kind of get frustrated with that process. And, you know, a lot of architectural intention doesn't get realized. So very excited just to talk to you a little bit perhaps, perhaps we could just jump in and you could explain a little bit about what Gluck is as a practice, as a business model, and perhaps we could talk a little bit about some of the projects that you've done. I know you've done projects around here in East Harlem, and there's quite a varied scope on the portfolio as well, which also makes it very interesting.

Great. No Thanks Ryan for that introduction and sort of synopsis of of what we do. I think we are, think we're different, not just because we were general contractors, in addition being architects and also developers, but also in that we're not only always one of those things, or only one of those things. We're not an architect who's sort of gotten into development and become development and become a developer. We sort of tread in this world where it's always in tension the different roles that we have. And I think part of that is because we really come at this from the point of view of really want to make great buildings and great buildings in the built environment, and really affect the built environment and affect communities. And so we have, we sort of take on different roles depending on what's needed for a project. So it's a different it's different than just saying, You know what, I've had enough of architecture, this, this, this business is, is really difficult, and I can't do it. I'm just going to become a developer, or I'm just going to become a contractor. Instead, we've sort of chosen to really stay in the world of trying to really make a great built environment, and we've developed these different tools to help us, you know, really make it happen. Basically, whatever needs to happen, that's, that's what we do. And so, so yes, we often we build our projects, but sometimes we don't. Often we are the developer, but we're not always only the developer. We still like to have our clients. We still like to be able to respond to clients as an architect, and you know, if it's a not for profit, and they're building a school, we really like to have a client be able to build the school that really kind of becomes their mission, or reflects and becomes their mission. And so we relish that, but we really have realized over time that, as architects, with our training, we are, we are really capable of doing lots of things. So we even, and you didn't mention this, but, you know, often we will, you know, we have a structural engineer, we have a mechanical engineer, but often in house, we will do the structural drawings. We will do the mechanical drawings because it's the same idea that we're really as architects. We're sort of quarterbacks, and we're doing what needs to be done in the field of architecture to kind of make it all happen. And we're the ones that are kind of directing that whole kind of process we really kind of believe in that, believe it, believe that the architect is kind of uniquely trained and able to do those things.

How did this kind of business model emerge? Was it like, like, was it a specific project that kind of was demanding these kind of new, these sorts of other elements to them, or was it something that he'd always envisioned happening in the practice?

You know, I think it's, I think in a way, it's, it's just, it's part of the culture here. And I think that culture goes back to Peter Gluck as the founder of the firm he went to Yale architecture school in the early 60s. And there was very much this attitude in that period, especially at Yale, that it was it predated the the build program at Yale, which is, you know, they're sort of well known for, but in a way, it's the roots of the build program, which was during that period, there was just this mentality of not just designing buildings, but, but making them. And so in the summers, Peter was, you know, he would, he would go off to the Hamptons, to Long Island, and he was building houses with this, with his hands. And sort of, there were sort of almost like mini development projects. They were, they were finding, you know, that time, land wasn't expensive, and you could buy two by fours the lumber yard. And they were basically designing on a napkin at night and building, you know, houses during the day. You know, sort of, it's sort of that attitude, I think that really still kind of lives here and our office. It's, it's this attitude of just, of designing, taking design very seriously, but then, but then just doing whatever it takes to make it happen. And so. That's sort of actually the background culture. There were some, there were some specific projects that happened that sort of, there's probably a timeline that you could probably follow that would sort of, you could sort of see some of that development happening both as Gluck becoming an architect who builds, and then, sort of simultaneously, Gluck, who is an architect that can also develop.

How does it work? I mean, often, when I've spoken to firms in the past who have got either construction armed to them or a development arm, I think you're quite in a unique in the sense you've got both. But normally that, like each is a separate company. And, you know, even there's a holding company that owns all of them. And then there's different kind of contracts that they have to have between the developer paying money to the to the architect firm, and then they hire the contracting firm. And then there's questions over whether they take in external clients at all, how, how is Gluck structured? Kind of, from a business perspective, to firstly in terms of just keeping liability to each of those domains, and then also making sure that it is an integrated kind of project process. I thought that was very nice. What you were describing there was that it was, it's more like a project, and we're pulling in things for the projects, as opposed to it being production line, if you like, right, right?

Exactly. It's not, it's less a business. It is a business model, but the roots of it are not business model. It's really an ethos. But back to your question, which I think is a good one. I think it's really the company organization set this sort of two fold. I mean, in a way, there's this sort of legal and business side to it, in which, I think, like most other design, build, develop firms, we have different entities and different insurance for each of those tasks, for each of those sort of professions. As an architect, we have architects insurance and we haven't, you know, we have, we sign architectural contracts with our clients, and that's and that segregates the professional liability, etc. On the contracting side, same thing, we have a contracting entity that's a separate entity. It has its own insurance, which is required by law in most states and jurisdictions. And then when, as a developer, whenever we have a development project, we usually set up a separate development entity for that project. Often there's a joint venture with, you know, another partner, etc, but that's really, that's really on the business legal side from from in terms of how we do it. It's, in a way, the opposite we we really believe that the only way to really do this is, is to have the same people who are designing the building be the people who are building the building and and they are the people who are involved in developing the project that's really important. And without that and our, in our view, it's not so different than being in the traditional siloed world that normally exists, because even if you have a contracting firm in a way, in house, if the people are separate, they're not, they're not, you know, they're not really doing it. Because the important part is that when you're when you're when you kind of have all three hats, the same person has all three hats, you're taking all the considerations in mind as you're making decisions. So if you know, if you're the one who's designed the building, and you know what, you know the design, you know what's really important about the design idea and the party, when you go to the construction side and you're and you're pricing the job, you know what can change and what can't change. You know what kinds of changes you can make and still keep the design intact. And if you're a separate entity, and you're the person who didn't draw the drawings, you don't really, you can't really get into the nuts and bolts and really do that. And likewise, as the developer, you know developer, the developer needs to make a lot of important decisions, strategic decisions. Obviously, that often have a lot to do with money and with marketing and those kinds of things. But still, it's really important that to us, again, because of this ethos that the design and the sort of overall intent of the project stay intact. So those things need to be kind of, it's sort of holding different things in your mind at the same time, you know, it's almost like a Buddhist, you know. You know, kind of mentality, in a way.

So do you do projects where you are, say, just the architect or just a contractor or just the developer, or is it always kind of, you always kind of aiming for an integrated approach? Or do you sometimes have a if you're working with a client as the architect, then how do you how do you make sure that you're kind of upholding, say, your architectural independence, your professional independence, if you like, with making sure that the best contractor is selected for the job. And it might not always be yourself. Sure? Does. So you have those kind of conflicts or, or, we would

never build a project where we're not the architect, right? We would never develop a project where we're not the architect. So, in a way, sort of my, my first answer couple minutes ago was that it's architecture first. So it's, we're always, we're always, at least the architect. And then, and then some on some projects we will, you know, be the builder. Some projects will also be the developer. So, but it but not in reverse. We would never build someone else's project or develop someone else's project. So I think that's really important. And in terms of conflicts, yeah, you know, typically, we start with a client as the architect, almost always, and clients, you know, depends on how well they know us or don't know us, and how well they know the design build process. And the design build develop process, the design build develop process, maybe, is a different question, but at least design build, we often, you know, they will sign a contract with us as the architect first, and they have no commitment. They don't have to use us as the contractor, and that's really important, yeah, hiring us as an architect who can design a good building for them, who will listen to them as a client, those kinds of things. And then as the process develops, you know, hopefully trust is built and they see the value in us, you know, continuing on as the contractor. But oftentimes it often, and oftentimes they'll see that value, but still aren't sure that necessarily, because if they sign us on relatively early as a contractor, they they may not feel like they're getting competitive pricing or whatever it is. So sometimes we'll enter into a competitive process with other contractors. Often, often that's not the case. So often clients, at a certain point are like, I just I want you to build it. I know that you understand really what what we're trying to do, and I don't want to I'm weird. I'm weary. I know too many stories. Often, the clients know too many stories, or had issues themselves, where they enter into a traditional relationship with a separate contract or separate architect, which often is very adversarial. So often the clients know that and are trying to avoid that. But if not, we were, you know, we're always happy to, you know, either engage in a competitive process or or say, You know what, maybe it's not appropriate. And you know, we'll be your architect, and we'll be your architect. It's not a traditional a typical architect. We were coming to you with a lot of construction knowledge and costing knowledge, so we can be your advocate and help you as the architect in your endeavor with another contractor. And we do that often. I would say that probably half of our projects were not the builder. We're just the architect, but we, but we bring to those clients something that they can't get from a traditional architect. Because we really know, we really know the subcontractor world, what things should cost, and we know about construction on site in terms of how things should be built. So, so with the the

contracting business, I can imagine there being an enormous amount of efficiency that's created when you're both architect and contractor, just in terms of communication, drawing information being passed through, like not needing to perhaps, produce as much drawn information as you would do when you're working with another contractor, just the ability To resolve things. What kind of efficiencies do you see when you are the contractor, and when is it not a good fit for you to be the contractor? Sure,

sure. Well, when we are the contractor, yeah, the efficiencies are incredible. I wouldn't say that we draw less. I think at the end of the day, if you look at what we produce in terms of documentation, I think it's probably far more, right? It's probably it's more about when those documents and how much detail is produced when it's more the sequencing of it. You know, traditional practice, you've got to get everything on the page before it goes out to bid, because otherwise the owner is opened up to change orders. The problem with that is the architect doesn't really know how the project's going to be built. It's going to be built by some unknown entity, a general contractor. That general contractor is, in turn, going to sub it out to various subcontractors. They don't even know how it's going to be built. How are the details actually going to go together? That's all going to happen in a shop drawing process. And so the architect, in a way, is creating a set of drawings that's trying to kind of cover everything, but it's not, it's not specific in terms of how things are actually going to be built. It doesn't get into means and methods. It doesn't get into the real nuts and bolts. They sort of put that onto the general contractor. So in a way, you end up with the way this the system is set up. It's set up to limit an architect's liability as much as possible, but not to create a set of drawings that's really particularly useful. And so it's a weird it's a weird setup. The way our industry kind of has evolved. Our process, we put together drawings when we're the contractor that are really capture the scope, so that, so that when we get pricing, the pricing is kind of protect. By the drawings that show scope, right? We don't get into exactly, exactly the nuts and bolts, how it's going to be built, until we really sit down with contractors after the job or during the process of buying the job, and sit down with the contractors we really, really figure out with with the actual trades people, how it's going to be built, and then we document it that way. So, so the drawings are really geared towards how it's going to be built. It's almost like creating, in a way, as built drawings, as you're as you're producing them. It's very different process, yeah, and

I can say just being so much more integrated and kind of and and fluid and efficient, is it? Is it the case? And you you're producing the kind of similar sort of volume of drawings, but they're actually more meaningful, useful drawings, correct? Then, then what you do as a traditional practice, and

then at the end of the day, you know, we end up producing more drawings, because then after the the job is bought and the contracts are signed with the with the subcontractors, when we're the GC and when, and when we're on site supervising the process, you know, we will take it further. I mean, often we will produce, you know, layout drawings for that particularly, say it's the plumber is putting in their plumbing fixtures. The most important thing when a plumber goes to, sorry, not plumbing fixtures, but when they're going to rough in, say, the job they're going to rough in their piping, the most important thing. And they'll have a set of shop drawings, you know, they'll get produced that we will review, but, but still, at the end of the day, the shop drawings still also don't really quite cover exactly how they're going to do their work on site. So we will often in the trailer at this point, we, you know, we have architects now who have drawn the base drawings as the design architect. But now they're in the trailer, they're on site, and they will, you know, before the plumber arrives, they will, they will do a very detailed kind of layout survey in a way of where things need to go. And they're able to do that again, because they're the architect. They know the design intent, they've they're also the architect who the also the GC, who has had all these conversations with the contractors, and so they you know that that conversation continues, and they can produce this, sort of some documents that really outline and lay out where things need to go and when, in the contracting world, almost all mistakes happen in layout. It happens when the subcontractor arrives on the job site, and they sort of set out what's going to go where that's where all the problems and mistakes happen. And it's actually where architects, they don't know it. Lot of architects don't realize, but they're, but they're, they're experts at layout, because they're experts. Every time you set up a drawing, you're kind of laying out lines on a page, and there's a logic to how you do that. And so architects don't always realize, but when they arrive on site, they start to understand, I actually really know how, how relational geometry works. That's That's how, that's how I've been trained. So we found that our architects, so I'm sort of delving into, in a way, the profession and how people their knowledge base, but, but architects actually have this kind of inherent ability to to do layout and which is incredibly helpful on the job site.

How does it look in terms of in terms of the office, like with the with the construction company, the architecture office and the development company, are they three different locations. They three different parts of the office. Are you all actually working together? What does it and how do you kind of communicate with each other? Is it the same people?

So again, it's, I think that's really important. It is the same people. And that's, that's the whole that's sort of the the crux of it, in a way, the people you know, when we get a project, whatever kind of whatever our involvement is, we we have an open office. There's no walls, no everybody sits together. But when we have, when we get a new project, we create a team. We move every we move people in the office so that that team sits together. They sit opposite each other, so they can hear, talk to each other, you know, hear each other's phone conversations. So it's all very open and transparent. And that team starts as the architects, and then if we're going to build, that team transitions into being a Build Team, same people. And if we're developing, you know, developing isn't something that happens later. It also happens from the beginning. If we're a developed team, then it's the same people as well, when we're the developer, usually, you know, usually it's myself, or one of the other principles that really leading the kind of development side. Because I would say that, you know, there's less, there's less experience, necessarily, in our younger staff with development, per se, but it's still, let's just say I'm, you know, it's a development project, and I'm, you know, it's myself along with team members. I'm still sitting there with the team working on architecture, design problems when it's moving into construction. I'm sitting there with the team working on construction issues as they arise and and as. Developer I am, you know, helping the team, you know, working with the team, to to answer the kinds of questions that come up from the development side, so that that's quite

amazing, that it's the same people. And so what kind of learning curve do people need to go through then to kind of wear the hat of architect, and then start wearing a hat of on the GC side, and it's,

it's, it's an incredible learning curve, because, you know, generally, it can't be learned outside of our office so much, I mean, because most, I mean it can, but it means you because, first and foremost, we're hiring architects, so we're not hiring GCS and then trying to train them how to make a drawing that that's more difficult, right? So we're starting with, we're starting with architect and training them in construction management and contracting. And again, it can really only happen here. And so it happens from the ground up. And it's, you know, we teach people by starting with what they know, which is, you know, making drawings and designing and those kinds of things. And what starts to happen is, it happens pretty early on, because we really believe that as you're designing a project, you don't want to design in a vacuum. You always want to design with cost in mind, whether you're that, whether we're doing GC work or development work, cost is really important, and too often in the architectural world, cost is like sidelined, and people don't worry about it or think about it too much until they get to bid stage, which it's often too late. And so what we do is very early on, once we have a massing an overall building massing set, we skip ahead and, and this is, this is when we're doing, you know, we're going to be the builder and, or the developer. We skip ahead and take that basic massing and create a set of documents that looks like that, look like the drawings, and we will send it out to actual trades. And we do that so that we get pricing very early on, so that we can then tweak the design or do what you know needs to happen to the design, so that we make sure that we're always staying within budget. So many projects die because they don't really ever meet budget. They have huge design aspirations, but they're not realistic. And often, you know, often the design aspirations are achievable. It's not that we, it's not that we. We budget early on, and they say, oh, you know, our design aspirations are too ISO, we're going to lower aspirations. It's more it's much more nuanced that than that. If you, if you're incorporating costing early on with your sort of design ideas, you can achieve your design aspirations. It's just you achieve them in different ways than you might have initially set out. Or you may realize that there's certain driving components or factors that you have to take into account in the design process. So So back to this original question about about how people learn here, they start to get involved with that process of making drawings early on that are geared towards getting pricing feedback, and then we get that pricing feedback, and that gets incorporated into the design process. So people are starting to be trained, kind of early on in that, in that thinking, and then when the project kind of progresses into construction, and we move literally, what will happen is some of the design team will move to the job site, and they are permanent fixtures on the job site right now, the people who are, you know, leading the charge on the job site, those are people who have been in the office and have experience and been through the ringer a couple of times. So they're, you know, they're able to lead, but, but we will always have people on the job site who are less experienced, who are not just shadowing, but they're helping, you know, the more senior people on the job site, and they're learning by doing. They're there, they're in that they're often in the trailer, if it's if it's a job in, in and around New York City, which is where our headquarters are. We will move the entire design team to the trailer, so we will set up the computers, the servers, everything, so that the CA work of a traditional architect can be done in the trailer, and so that they're there. And even though they may be doing ca work if we're the builder, they're also doing much more than ca work. They're getting involved in this construction management process, if it's if it's a job that's more far flung, because we do do projects all over the US, and we build some of those projects that are in outside in New York City. We still have a couple people that from the from the design team, who will move to the job site. They are the more experienced people. Sometimes they'll be joined by someone a little less experienced, but they have to be willing to move, because they're gonna, they're gonna be there for, usually a year or two and and then we will have a support team that stays back, usually in the city, because not everyone necessarily can move the way that, you know, if we have a local, local job. So that, so that, so it's a very organic kind of education process, I would say, um,

so that you don't do kind of like a, like a formal classroom sessions with with people to supplement what they're learning in the field, or. Yes, or that kind of just happens more organically.

I mean, there is, there is some of that we do, you know, we do our own internal lunch and learns. And we do, we do sit down at various times with people on the on the teams, and go through, you know, there's very specific skills. You know, for instance, when we're the con contracting entity, we do monthly requisitions. You know where you're, where you're, you know, it's the spreadsheet that architects typically review, but they're not the ones usually producing their requisition forms for a job. You know where you're requisitioning money from the client to pay the subcontractors. So, you know, we'll do a session where we go through the team and really explain how those spreadsheets work, for instance. But I would say that, though those that kind of knowledge and that kind of education is easier, it's, it's more, you know, the kind of on the job training that happens more organically, that's maybe also more important. You know, how do you manage a subcontractor? How do you on site? How do you talk their language? How do you know? How do you know where to really put the hammer down, on, on, on a subcontractor, versus to kind of, you know, take a softer, a softer stance, those, those kinds of more subtle things about being a contractor. Happened, happened, I would say, you know, much more organically. How

do you find that this makes hiring easier or more challenging? Because, if you're, if you're looking for like an architect who's got, you want someone to come in more senior level, and at your practice, they've got a there's, there's a whole lot of other skill sets that would be great for them to be able to have, or do you have to get somebody and then it's going to take a couple of years for them to learn all The different aspects of being a GC as well, or, or how does hiring work, and what sorts of people make a good fit?

I think hiring is, is, is difficult. It's, yeah, it's, it's, we're often looking for people. There's a lot of architects out there who want to be involved, involved in the process. Want to be want to get their hands dirty and want to be involved. They don't know what build necessarily means. They don't know what develop means, but they know somehow they want to be involved in it. And so and then there's other architects you can just, you know very quickly that they just, they don't want to bother with all of that. They want to design stuff and let someone else deal with deal with it. And so oftentimes, when we're interviewing and looking for people, it's it's first just looking for the attitude and what people want. Because if you want it, you know it's and you're motivated, it's very different than if you're not. We recognize that no matter what, people aren't going to come here necessarily knowing what they need to know. So it's less, I would say, less about that, and more about kind of, the kind of attitude and motivations that said, there are people, there are architects, who just somehow have been exposed more to, to just, just to kind of more build the type aspects of the world, you know, people whose parents were general contractors or sort of grew up on a, you know, doing carpentry work or fixing up their own, fixing up their own apartments or rooms or college dorms. There's, there's people who just tend to have done things in their life that that show that they sort of like to get their hands dirty. Yeah, and so often we also look for that. And then there is the rare case where we'll come across an architect who has worked for a developer or has worked for a general contractor and actually gotten real on the ground experience. There are those people out there, but they're just they're fewer and farther between. So often we are looking for people who have some amount of experience one way or another, but then it's about this kind of attitude of wanting to take it on and not drawing the line between what is sort of high architecture, you know, with a capital A and what's, you know, nitty gritty, nuts and bolts stuff. We're looking people who kind of don't, in a way, don't make that distinction, you know, we like to say that, you know, calling, you know, calling the, you know, the port of John company. Make sure the port of John is going to be there on Monday morning when you need it. It's just as important as, you know, coming up with a, you know, a great new massing concept. You know, in a way, it takes somebody who sees both of those things as important,

yeah, understanding where all the lambda is going to go on the site

Exactly.

That's really, really, that's quite amazing. Actually, the development side, then of the of the company, and you were saying that it typically falls to yourself and perhaps somebody else in the organization. The development now is kind of, you know, perhaps in a way, more front end to the architect, in the sense of collect, getting the five. Anance together, finding this, finding a site, finding the different, different players. How does the development side work? Is there something that this is, this is newer, or has this kind of got a long history to it? And what kind of projects work for you guys, and how to how did that part the business emerge? Yeah,

it also has a long history to it, as I think I think I mentioned earlier in the conversation, you know, Peter Gluck did build some houses early in his career, when he was still in architecture school. I think one house was for his parents, but I think there were some other of those houses that were done more speculatively. He also did a speculative condominium at a scary in Vermont, um, early on in his career and and in fact, it was for its time. It was really kind of groundbreaking. It wasn't just a speculative development. It was also he was, they were pre fabricating components. They were they had walls built as panels and craned onto the job site. So it was erected very quickly. So it was a very, very early kind of flat pack modular project. And there's sort of amazing drawings that Peter did for that, where they sort of, and again, this kind of attitude of doing everything. We didn't just design it. Peter didn't just design it, but he was also creating these sort of flat pack drawings that was drawing each wall component and labeling it with an A one and an A two. And all that document documentation was done by hand at the time, and it's kind of amazing to see. But anyway, so there's that sort of early history. And then when I came on and started to work with Peter, I had been living, I have sort of a different life, in a way, outside of architecture. I didn't, I didn't, I'm not one of the people who knew early on I wanted to be in our wanted to be an architect. I was, came out from some different angles, but I had been living out west in Colorado and New Mexico, and had interned with Peter, so I knew him and and I had been living in Aspen, Colorado. I have family out there, and I have had, again, kind of a ski racing and skiing coaching kind of career, and I'd been out there and, and Peter and I had been talking and, and he was was very slow at the time, and we started talking about Aspen and housing needs that were in Aspen, and how crazy it was because you had this incredibly Fancy community that's at the end out of, you know, Colorado, but it's at the end of a long valley, and it's like a dead end. And so the workforce really can't afford to live in Aspen. They work all along this valley, this 40 mile valley that leads up to Aspen. And so their community, they commute every day. There's traffic problems they had, they had Aspen, in a way, has all the problems of a big city, but it's a very small town, right? So, and they had been making efforts the town. And actually, if you look back back at it, historically, they made incredible efforts to solve their affordable housing problem. But at the time this is now, this is the 90s, mid 90s, they hadn't really fully solve their problem yet, and they were looking for solutions. And Peter and I started talking about how great it would be to to figure out a way to do affordable housing there, and and, but we didn't really know the landscape well enough, and so we thought, You know what? There's, there seems to be opportunity here to do some spec homes, some fancier spec homes. There's, there's, there's really no modernist housing in Aspen. There's early modernist housing from the 40s and 50s and 60s, that was even 70s, that was really beautiful, beautiful stuff. I don't black people, don't know, but that, you know, the whole kind of Chicago school that came to Aspen with the Aspen Institute, and that Herbert buyer was doing buildings. Marshall Brewer Saarinen did buildings. Early on, all that history was lost. And in the 80s and 90s, people were just building rocks and logs, traditional mountain style stuff. And Peter and I, you know, looked at that or just thought, you know what there is, there is a real opening here to do single family homes that are modern, that have open space and big views, and that we would have no competition if we did it, because there's no one else doing it. And so we found a bro, a real estate broker, who kind of believed in our vision, this vision of because if you talk to the typical real estate broker in Aspen, they would have, at the time, they would tell us, you gotta build, you know, it's gotta have, you know, big boulders, and it's gotta have timber, you know, trusses and all this kind of stuff. And so we found one broker who had a different point of view, and and we decided to, we decided to basically build a spec home. And the whole idea was to kind of learn about Aspen, learn about the real estate market, learn about what properties were available, and eventually, and also make some money so that we could translate it into an affordable housing project eventually. So we, we started, we did. We found a piece of land. I was living out there at the time. I found a piece of land in the west end of aspen, which is sort of the, it's sort of the the historic sort of grid of aspen that was built during the mining days. So it has a really nice kind of fabric. We found a suburban lot, a 6000 square foot suburban lot there. And, and purchased a lot and and designed and built and developed this spectrum. And it was, it was very interesting experience. I was, I actually came to New York, worked on the drawings with another one or two people in the office. And then when it was time to build, I moved back to Aspen, and I was, I was the person on site, and was the general contractor. And then I was also, there really is the wow, is the developer. I was working with the broker and really developing, you know, kind of the marketing aspect, etc, for the project as well. And in fact, we did all the marketing materials in house, we have some amazing old marketing materials that we produced with, you know, again, sort of it was sort of on the cusp of the computer age, but we sort of collaged all of this kind of marketing material together. But anyway, so, so I was, I was, I was really there for a period of a couple of years when was doing that. This was 9797 and and we, you know, it's an interesting thing that happened. We were halfway through the project, and we sort of were soft marketing it, and someone came to us and wanted to buy it. And this was before it was completed. And it was an interesting decision to make as a developer. Do we sell now? It was essentially, it would, it meant taking on a client halfway through, because we knew they were going to want to make changes, etc, and and they were sort of getting in midstream. So they, you know, that the offer on the table was one in which we would make money, but it wasn't there was probably the ability to hold out and make more money if we complete the project. And it was a very interesting decision. We decided, ultimately to sell the project midstream, and we felt like it would allow us to make some money and then to move on to the next one. Yeah. And, you know, and in hindsight, I think if we had waited, we would have made more money, but we probably couldn't have moved on to the next one as quickly. So I think, in a way, it was a good decision, but it was a, it was a, it was a typical developer decision where there wasn't necessarily a right answer. It was a, it was a strategic question and a strategic answer, in a way, a tactical answer, I guess. And of course, we did. We then became an architect with a client, and it was a bit of a pain in the ass. I mean, they were, they were fine as clients, but they made lots of changes, and they were all, they were all fine, but in a way, we went from being a developer to not being a developer.

So interesting. Yeah, you kind of, you live in the kind of, you know, client free ideal, for a moment, and then, and then you kind of go back. It's sort of interesting

too, because, you know, when you're the developer in that situation, we had to, in a way, invent a client. And in a way, it was why a broker was really important before the client came on board. You don't want to be in situation where you're just, as the architect, just saying, you know, let's do it this way. Let's do it that you want to really be thinking about, what does the end user want? And again, we were kind of bucking the market trends, which was, we were trying to do a modern house, not a traditional house. And so it was really important that we invented, we, in this case, didn't really invent a client. We really used the broker as the client, who really knew kind of the market. But we did some really interesting things there. It was a very, it's a very just rectangular lot with, you know, houses all around it. And we came up with this sort of very modernist, in a way, concept of it. We made a cube, a really simple cube, two story, three story cube, really, because it had a seller. And what we did is we blew out the corners of the cube so, so the center is where the circulation is in the middle of the cube, and then the four corners are where all living spaces are. And we put the living spaces on the second floor, right? So when all of a sudden you're on the second floor in a suburban grid, and you have the corners blown out, all of a sudden, you go from a house which in the in the traditional house in that neighborhood, is just looking at your neighbors now you go, but also you're just looking at these huge views in Aspen out the corners. And so it was a really interesting kind of combination of an architectural idea, very architectural idea, with really a development idea, which was, how do you capture something that the rest of the market isn't doing? And again, we clients saw it midstream. It was like, oh my god, this is amazing. We want this. And the house it got sold, the people we sold it to, they ended. Selling it, like, a couple years later. But I believe, I think, that this, the person who bought it from them still owns that house, and it's now been, you know, I think it's 20, yeah, it's almost, you know, getting near 30 years. 2530 years. So, yeah, so, yeah, sorry, go ahead with

with that project. Was it all your, your own money. Were you heavily leveraged? Were you, were you borrowing? Was it kind of money? The was it using profits from from the architecture practice? How was it financed? It was a

little bit of both. So we did, you know, Peter and I had a partnership, and basically Peter put in all of his design fees and and I should say our, I was also working for Peter, too. So, you know, so and by and we can maybe, that's maybe something we can come back to later, because I think architects don't always recognize that when you're doing development. You know, there's early on the costs are the land and soft costs. And really the soft costs are the architects fees. And so actually, architects don't always recognize that they're they have this asset early on that potentially can be contributed as equity to a project. But anyway, so, you know, we, maybe we can talk about that touch on that later, but, but, um, but, so Peter, you know, basically, as an architecture firm donated his time. And then, you know, luckily i My father helped. He didn't, he didn't put in money, but he helped us get a line of credit with the right and so, so that's really how we started, and which was, which was really valuable, and,

and it, yeah, and so, still, quite a bit of risk. Still a lot of risk. Here you're putting. You've got your own money there on the on the line. How was the risk? How did you mitigate the risk? And how did your was your architectural aspirations quelled by the reality of finance, or was it only enhanced?

You know, I think in a way, I talked about that idea of the of the simple cube. In a way it was, you know, we said to ourselves, you know, our real risk is in the construction cost. And so we thought, you know, let's, as architects, we want to have a great idea, but let's, let's not do something. Let's not do architectural gymnastics here. Let's, let's come up with a really simple in a way. And again, I use the word modernist because, in a way, is a really modernist idea, a really simple form that, you know, the foundation, the first floor, the second floor. It all stacked. It was very straightforward, structurally. So we were really, I think, trying to limit our construction cost risk. You look at a development project, you know, you've got, generally, 80% of your costs are hard costs of construction, right? 20% are soft costs. So most of your risk is from a cost perspective, is on the hard costs side. So the other thing that we were mitigating, way we were mitigating our risk, is we were the builder, and so we were going back to this earlier conversation, is we were testing very early on what the project was going to cost, we were sending our drawings to pricing, and we were saying, After lots of bidders and really learning so it's not

even kind of matter what you were just saying about the the the architectural design surface services are your kind of your equity, or your an asset that you're holding on to as The Architect. Not only that, but it's a really efficient design process as well, because you've got kind of almost instantaneous costing that's happening with a concept where most architects don't even have that, and they'll they may not have a formalized costing process in place. They might not be working with a contractor. And how many times does an architect go through a project, you know, quite to a quite high level of detail. Then go for a bid, get back the and it's a double, and it's double, and now you've got, now you've got to go back and mess around, and particularly if you're at a later stage where you've already got, you know, drawings coordinated from other consultants that can be that process in itself can derail a project to the point of it not being feasible at all, exactly.

So when we went to build, we really knew what it was going to cost. We really did. I mean, at that point, it was really execution risk, not costing risk. It was really, and I would say, you know, even a traditional developer, even their costing process, often they're not going directly to trades. They're usually relying on a GC, and that GC isn't necessary, you know, doesn't work for them. Yeah, often, because it's early in the process, you know that GC may be doing pre con services, pre construction services, and they're not really at risk yet. And so they often, the developer also doesn't really have as much control. As we had, because we were the ones making the drawings, talking to the subcontractors, really understanding where the money was. I think our other risk was, was, you know, would we be able to sell the project? So there's this, you know, the sales, the sales risk, and that's why, again, back to this decision about we had this early offer. Do you take the offer, or do you not take the offer? You look at it in hindsight as our first venture like this. It made a lot of sense. You know, you took that risk off the table very early on in the process. So what was the next one? So we so while this project was happening and and when we sold it, kind of midstream, I started looking, and sort of be I was there, so I was very familiar with what was happening real estate wise. And it's not like New York City, where knowing what's happening real estate in New York is a is it is a different animal. It's different world. But in Aspen, I knew every single piece of property there, and I was, and I was looking, remember, I was looking for an affordable housing site and project at the same time. And I had in so 97 when we started. I think we were building in 98 and I think, you know, the project was complete in like 99 during that time I did, I had found a piece of land that was potentially suitable for affordable housing, but it was a complicated piece of land. It it was sort of at the base of a mountain, so it had a very steep slope on part of it. It was the site of a former mine. So it had some mine, you know, kind of mine leftovers that were there. And so while I was trying to figure that out, we found another property one block away in the same, sort of, literally from overheads lining up with other. The first house we did that was a residential site that was on the market. It was a good price, and we immediately translate. We decided to buy that into a second spec home. While we were working out the affordable housing, which we did, and very similar concepts, suburban sites, kind of rectangular lot we did a similar kind of project, very different, looking architecturally, but similar kind of concept, modern second floor living spaces with with views out the corners. Again, if you look at it, it'll look different, but, um, but similar concept. It was that one. We did not sell midstream. We decided. We decided to go to the end and sell it once the project was finished. We did. We did quite well on that project. Sold it pretty much upon completion. And and actually, we didn't sell it right away. I think, I think that project we I think it took us maybe six months or so and but, but when we finished that second project, we had, in fact, or while we were constructing that second project, we we, we purchased the the site, this sort of more complex affordable housing site, and started really gearing up for that,

right? So, so each kind of project was, was scaling up, and then in your portfolio, now of properties, has it always been a model of build, sell, or have you been building to rent and then hold on and actually kind of develop a portfolio which is a an asset, or has it been more project to project, one at a Time, and then you kind of incrementally scaling up.

Yeah, most of our development, you know, not all of it, most of our development projects have been built to sell. Those first three projects were built to sell. The affordable housing easily could have been a build to rent, but the Aspen affordable housing, they have a program there. And the basic program for a developer is to sell. And actually, as a developer, that was an interesting project, because there was no, there was no sales risk, right? Because the prices were set. And literally, the moment that that project was completed and went on the market, we had 14 units. And there was, there was a list of, I think the waiting list was 200 people or something like that. So, so, in a way, that project had the only risk was cost risk. But there was no, there was no revenue risk. We knew what the revenue was. It was fixed. But anyway, back to your question, subsequent to, though to the Aspen projects we have done in the intervening years, we did a couple of projects where we partnered. We were not the lead developer. We we had an equity stake. And we had an equity stake via our architecture fees, which what I was sort of referring to earlier. And those, those couple of those projects, we have part ownership as a result. To that equity stake, and those are rental properties. Oh, that's great, because

then, then you don't have to take, if you're doing it as a partnership, then, and I'm assuming that you don't have to take on the kind of management of the properties, and

exactly that kind of which is not in our wheelhouse. I mean, yeah, property management is, you know, step too far. Step too far. You would need a separate staff who are not architects, yeah, you know, really to deal with that. And so it take us out of our wheelhouse, yeah. And then we have done, you know, we recently, fairly recently, finished a condominium project in New York City that was a ramping up in terms of the overall job value, 45 unit condominium development, retail space on on the ground floor. And that was, you know, ramping up also in that it was, you know, over $100 million project we, you know, took on partners and equity, you know, you know, finance, pretty major financing with the bank, those kinds of things. So that was a real kind of step up. We're now looking, you know, so, so we'd so, you know, we do kind of have done these kind of one at a time, and we're not always doing a development project. I'd say we're always looking for a development opportunity. But we're sort of, we're, we're we're pickers and choosers. We're not just like and I think it's the other nice thing about being an architect, first is we don't have to do a development project to, yeah, to stay in business, but, but so we can be choosy and picky about what we want to do. I think we're now looking for a new project. We want it to be closer to home than the Aspen projects. We love to get involved in affordable housing again, and or not necessarily affordable, but possibly kind of mid market. We're really interested in the missing middle in the United States. You know, there's this whole so many of our towns have been developed with single family only residential and we have a housing shortage, and it makes so much and a lot of the zoning, you know, was changed in the six, you know, 50s and 60s, so that you can't build multi family, even, even 234, story residential, the way our towns were originally built, with storefronts and and, and residential above. And so we're really interested in that problem and and we built some missing middle projects, but not as developers, and we're interested in getting involved in that. So we're sort of looking for the right opportunity. And it may be not in the city proper, it may be in a either a borough or and, you know, Westchester somewhere kind of nearby.

It's quite nice, the way that you're just describing that, that there's a kind of a thoughtfulness that you can deploy, you know, kind of retaining your architectural sensibilities when with the development model where you're not kind of beholden to, like, just keep on churning out the projects, and you don't need to be doing them all the time, and you can make sure that you pick the right ones, And then it's still supplemented by the by the architecture. And there's quite, you know, that's, that's quite, that's quite amazing story, really, from going from a small development now to, you know, being involved as equity partners in $100 million condominium project. And there's a lot of architectural, a lot of architectural freedom and and interest in terms of the the people in the team, how involved do the rest of the team get in with the with the development side, or understand the mechanisms and also your experience as developers. How has this influenced your architectural services when you're now working with other clients. So just, just in terms of understanding what their their their pain points are and their struggles are,

in terms of, you know, on the development projects, you know, typically, I would say our staff is not involved, you know, necessarily. And you know, the tasks of a developer, right? There's sort of site selection, finding a site, there's, there's developing a pro forma, you know, there's, and then, and then translating it that into this sort of the financing picture, and the financing side. And then there's the kind of the marketing, then there's the sort of the marketing side. Maybe those are sort of the four, you know, major development tasks, I would say that, you know, when we're doing development project, the team is there. They're, you know, usually it's me, or whether Peter or Tom, one of the other principles that's working on, and the team is there, and they're in there, maybe part of the conversations, but they're generally not working on, we don't usually have someone that's really working on, say, site selection, going out and looking for property. You know, that would really be probably one of us. But if we identify a site that we think might be viable, then one of the team members is creating test fits and helping, you know, understand whether or not the site is a good site and where the opportunities are. So there's, it's kind. Of a the teams involved, but not necessarily you know fully in the development side of it. So in terms of the second part of your question, which you know, which is, How has being a developer influenced our architecture practice? I think it, I think it's completely affected us. I mean, I think we just it changes kind of the way we think, you know, for instance, right now, we've, we've, we're helping a charter school in Queens that we've actually been helping them for over 10 years, and I think it's been 12 years. We, we originally helped them. It's called Central Queens Academy. We originally helped them. They had a temporary space that they wanted to move into when they launched as a charter school. And so we, we helped them get into that temporary space as an architect, we sort of got it, you know, permitted, and we built a model. We as a contractor, we built a model classroom for them so that they could show its prospective parents. We sort of helped them early on with sort of, in a way, startup, and then what's happened over the years is we've really helped them, almost as a developer, because they've been, you know, there's a charter school that's starting up in New York City who has a massive real estate problem. They have have a charter, which allows them to teach kids, but they don't have space, you know, and we help them early on. So they had temporary space. And the temporary space was literally, they had 200 kids in a 10,000 square foot space, 11,000 square foot space, which is insanity. And so they, they really had a, again, a real estate problem, and we started to help them try to find sites in Queens. And it turns out that, you know, Queens is the most I would have thought Manhattan, but Queens is the most crowded school district in New York City and so. So, given that, you know, we were trying to help them find sites, and we're competing against the School Construction Authority, who's also looking for sites, and so, so again, so you know, our experience as developer, which is, you know, looking for sites, identity, seeing where there can be opportunities on sites, and then doing test fits, understanding cost, all of those things we we've brought to the table with central Queens Academy, and are still doing that. So now fast forward, you know, 1112, years later, they now are operating two different sites. They have 150,000 square feet that we've that we've designed for them. We were not the builder, because the sites that ultimately were found were sites that were done by a developer who had their own Build Team, and they're essentially podiums of residential towers. And in a way, maybe they were helped by COVID, because, you know, those podiums were not, they weren't able to rent them. And all of a sudden, the developer was open to taking on a not for profit community facility, right, in a way that maybe they wouldn't have been pre COVID. But anyway, so we, you know, fast forward. They now have 150,000 square feet of, you know, beautiful school space. And we're now looking for a third permanent site for them as well. They've expanded their they have, they have 900 they have 1300 kids in those first two sites, and they're looking to add another 400 kids. And so, you know, again, I don't know how we could really, we couldn't have helped them the same way if we didn't have this kind of development experience that we do.

Amazing. Yeah, we've hit the hour mark. I think it's probably a good place for us to to conclude the conversation. Now, could probably talk to you for another couple of hours. Charlie,

absolutely sorry, I get going and I can't. No, it kind of gets up and

absolutely, absolutely fascinating and really wonderful, kind of, you know, the way that the architecture is leading all of these different parts, and how the development experience can really unlock a whole load of new value, the way that you're kind of very innovatively helping the school project there, and just the story of of of the different parts of the organization, I think is really innovative, and I know that this, this kind of business model, was an aspiration for a lot of architects. And I thank you very much for for sharing the the story of of Gluck here, because it's really amazing.

No, it's been a real pleasure, and thanks for asking the right questions. Yeah, it's been

Yeah, it's been really fun, and that's a wrap.

Hey, Enoch Sears here, and I have a request, since you are a listener here of the Business of Architecture podcast, Ryan and I, we love putting this podcast together. We love sharing information as much as we can glean from all the other. Industries that we're a part of to bring it back, to empower you as an architect and a designer. One thing that helps us in our mission is the growth of this podcast, simply because it helps other architects stand for more of their value spreads the business information that we're sharing to empower architects together, so architects, designers, engineers, can really step into their greatness, whatever that looks like for each individual. And so here, my simple ask is for you to join us and be part of our community by doing the following, heading over to iTunes and leaving a review of the podcast. And as an expression of our sincere thanks, we would like to give you a free CEU course that can get you one professional development unit, but more importantly, will give you a very solid and firm foundation on your journey to becoming a profitable and thriving architect. So here's the process for that, after you leave us a review, send an email to support at Business of architecture.com let us know the username that you use to leave the review, and we will send you that free training. On the training you'll discover what 99% of architecture firm owners wished they would have known 20 years ago. Hello,

listeners, we hope you're enjoying our show. We love bringing you these insightful conversations, but we couldn't do it about the support of our amazing sponsors. If you're a business owner or know someone who would be an excellent fit for our audience, we'd love to hear from you. Partnering with us means your brand will reach over 40,000 engaged listeners each month. Interested in becoming a sponsor, please send us an email at support@businessfarchitecture.com the views expressed on this show by my guests do not represent those of the host and I make no representation. Promise, guarantee, pledge, warranty, contract, bond or commitment, except to help you be unstoppable. You.