Homemaking: Urban living meets affordability

Top: the Micro-Unit Prototype
Above: The What's IN team: from back moving left to right: 
Ben Stracco, Mika Gilmore, Lisa Walden, Marcus Hamblin, 
Fred Kramer, B.K. Boley, Tamara Roy, Blake Goodwin, 
Zach Pursley, Ruthie Kuhlman, Meredith Powell, 
Melissa Miranda, Aeron Hodges, Derrick Nickerson, 
Michelle Kim, Quinton Kerns, Dan Connolly, Chris Neukamm.

We take for granted the amenities around us.  We are (mostly) warm, safe and dry, yet often feel discontented with our space, not because it fails to provide for us, but because it fails to enrich us.  Whether it's that cookie cutter subdivision home with its oddball "feature" spaces, the dreary big city walk-up apartment that barely meets any kind of building code or something in between, so few of us have the opportunity to live in a space that really supports how we want to live in it.  But what if the reason our living spaces fail us is because we don't have the right expectations for them?  What if you could throw out everything you thought you knew about how to live in a home and started over?  The subject of my master's thesis at the University of Arizona was the impact of telecommuting on our understanding of the home.  Part of the research I did involved looking at the evolution of our understanding of a home.  Most of us are stuck in a model that comes straight out of the Victorian era, where urban equaled bad and the domestic sphere needed to be clearly separated from the sphere of work.  But we don't live in the Victorian era anymore, so why should our spaces?

What's IN is trying to answer that question.  This exciting urban housing research project includes the Boston design groups ADD Inc and One-In-3 as well as MapLab and local mosaic artists Artaic and has undertaken a study of the demographics and sociographics of urban housing today and proposes ideas on how to best meet the live/work needs of young professionals.  It's a national trend that young college graduates are looking for the urban lifestyle in ever increasing numbers.  So are aging baby boomers.  To the extent that a city can provide the housing they seek, that city can prevent a "brain drain" of young, innovative and educated professionals.  So what stops them?  Affordability and amenity are the two big issues.  This group is attracted to the vibrant, culturally rich and diverse environment found in urban neighborhoods, but not the price tag that necessarily comes with it.  What's IN's solution: the Micro-Unit.

Defined as a single family dwelling unit ranging from 250-300 square feet, the Micro-Unit has stripped living down to its essential elements; bathroom, kitchenette, storage and living/sleeping areas.  Borrowing a page from European and Asian models (and ancient Roman city life for that matter), What's IN offers the larger spaces we have been conditioned to believe we need within our dwellings outside of them in the form of communal social spaces.  This not only allows the units themselves to be more affordable, but fosters the kind of neighborliness that studies show keep our communities safe and vibrant.  Says Quinton Kerns, one of the group's founders, "With minimal/durable use materials we can minimize cost of construction and with the re-imagined unit sizes we can provide more density within a floor than what is currently offered with most market rate units. The Micro-Unit seeks to tackle the ongoing problem of affordability in urban housing coupled with the opportunity to foster a social revival in our local communities."

This is real research- the group conducted polls, looked at product options, studied prefabrication techniques, investigated design precedents from all over the world, and looked at real estate issues.  They also partnered with business and civic leaders to talk about the issues involved in making their concept take off.  What did they learn?  Affordability trumps all.  In perhaps a crushing blow to most designers, futuristic, gadgety, multi-tasking furniture was soundly rejected by the focus group.  Based this information, they determined an ideal unit size (300 sf) and features to include in a prototype microunit, with smart features important to urbanites, including bike storage and casework that could be user-built a la IKEA to save money.  A mockup of the unit was then constructed by the What's IN team.  To get the widest possible range of feedback, the mockup went on tour at prominent Boston venues ABX 2012 at the Boston Convention and Exposition Center, the Atlantic Wharf lobby adjacent to the BSA Space, and The Modern Theater at Suffolk University. The group created a survey to allow mockup viewers to weigh in on how well they think such a living arrangement would or wouldn't work for them, in addition to providing key demographic information to help inform the development of future microunit initiatives.  "The unit has been donated to Suffolk University so that students and faculty can utilize this model to engage the business and academic communities in and around Boston as this movement for approachable living becomes a reality," says Kerns. "What's IN is currently venturing into a deeper research initiative focusing on the social/community impacts for this new housing typology by means of further crowd sourcing, community surveying, community outreach, and a continued discussion with policy makers at City Hall. We are looking at displaying our findings at this year’s ABX 2013 with the ultimate goal of having some solid development in the works by the year’s end." 

The group's Tamara Roy presented What's IN's work to date in late March 2013 at a housing Forum at Suffolk University. Her presentation powerfully illustrates just how much a shortage of affordable housing impacts the city, and the innovative approach to solving this problem that the group developed.  "We believe in the power of tiny things and the Micro-Unit speaks to that idea," says Kerns. "Through our research we found that city dwellers are not only willing to share living, eating, and social areas within their living environments, but they really want these amenities to be more social! And through this call for more social living we are faced with a great opportunity for innovation. Diversity + Density + Interaction = Knowledge Spillover...by the nature of what they are, micro-units foster innovation!"

Key What's IN Players:
Tamara Roy: Senior Associate Principal at ADD Inc and “Mother of the Micro-Unit” in Boston.
Aeron Hodges: Designer at ADD Inc, Co-Founder of the WHATS IN initiative and target demographic of the emerging families.
Quinton Kerns: Designer at ADD Inc, Co-Founder of the WHATS IN initiative and target demographic of the single young professional.
Fred Kramer: President of ADD Inc, Supportive Powerhouse and target demographic of the empty nester.
Chris Neukamm: Designer at ADD Inc, Committee member of WHATS IN
Michelle Kim: Designer at ADD Inc, Committee member of WHATS IN
Dan Connolly: Project Manager at STA, Committee member of WHATS IN and member of ONEin3
Blake Goodwin: Director of Operations for Artaic, Committee member of WHATS IN and member of ONEin3

Can prototypes help you think outside the box?

It seems like a good idea at the time- if you are going to build something more than once, you should develop a prototype.  In theory, your standard can then be tweaked with lessons learned from each subsequent project, allowing the ultimate in efficiencies for design, construction (hello purchasing power), maintenance, even optimizing the efficiency for staff, patients, customers, vendors, you name it.  However, the idea of a prototype is very different from realities on the ground: this project, in this location, with this demographic and these codes.  I used to do a lot of commercial retail projects (where prototypes reign supreme) and I think I only ever once built anything straight out of the box.  That was in a really small town where the community was happy for any development at all and the city planner was also the plan reviewer and the building inspector.  I also got a building permit in less than 24 hours, so that should tell you something about THEIR standards.  If you think that developing a prototype is a shortcut, a way to circumvent the design process, it’s time to take another look at your motives:

The standard with no standards

Architects and their clients alike are guilty of developing prototypes based on the lowest common denominator in an attempt to build more,cheaper, and faster.  Elementary schools with no windows that got replicated over and over in two rapidly growing school districts who shared a facilities manager is a distasteful (yet sadly real) example that comes to mind.  Sure, the buildings were practically indestructible and went up in record time, but the staff and students were placed in an environment that was one step below prison requirements.  I’ve also worked with prototypes that were so low-budget that the building essentially served as a billboard and nothing more.  How much time and money (including architect and landscape architect fees) do you think got wasted every time the cheap, somewhat gaudy prototype exterior had to be upgraded to pass muster with a local planning department?  Avoid unintended consequences that cost you time and money by having design goals for your prototype that extend beyond the desire to save time and money.

One size does not fit all

Other organizations try to create prototypes for finishes and standard room types.  The goal is to circumvent a lengthy design process, including extensive user input.  This use of prototypes is especially prevalent in the healthcare sector, but you can also find it in the residential market in the form of subdivisions offering a choice of models.  Theoretically, the prototype has been carefully researched and will provide the most efficient and “best” layout for each type of space.  In practice, users customize their space as soon as they begin using it because it doesn’t really work for how they need to use it.  Standards for colors and finishes may also need to be modified if they project the wrong image to a community because there is a culture clash related to how the organization is perceived.  You are not necessarily even saving time and money when the prototype for a room or department has to be applied to an existing building or unique use and therefore requires modification.

So is there ever any circumstance where prototypes are good?  While a bit of a slippery slope, a prototypical design can be used as a tool to enhance the user experience, and learn more about operational goals and the specific design elements that can help achieve them:

Prototype as Pilot

It’s really exciting to think about a project as a test lab for all an organization wants to achieve with a particular space.  That can’t happen if the prototype isn’t constantly in question.  Not only should extensive mock-ups (including finishes) be constructed, but input from staff in all departments, at all levels, patients, customers, other community members should be sought.  Once a prototype design gets the green light, a thorough post-occupancy evaluation of the space should be conducted to learn about what worked and what didn’t BEFORE this prototype is used again.  Lessons learned need to be examined as part of the design process for the next project where the prototype will be used.  Don’t forget to collect data related to demographics of your building occupants; you may start to notice some patterns that cause your prototype to evolve into options over time.  You need to have a very clear set of goals for the project and each element of the prototype should be carefully researched to contribute to those goals.  When an element fails or underperforms, it needs to be analyzed in the context of those goals to determine whether the cause is a design or an expectation.

Prototype as module

There are many different scales of prototypes: master plan, building, department, room.  It often makes sense to have a prototype just for room types and finishes.  Sometimes, it is more important to map ideal processes and flows that you want to standardize and develop modules that can be applied with a greater degree of flexibility to an individual project. Prefabricated construction can often do more than prototyping to help you build cheaper, better and faster, without compromising a solid design approach that applies evidence based design and enhances the environment.  This module can be easily fit into a multitude of existing conditions, and has the flexibility to adapt over time.  Modularized prototypes give you a kit of parts that allow an open and honest dialogue with user groups about what needs to happen in the space to ensure that the standards of care are supported, not circumvented by design.

We’ve all certainly seen plenty of badly applied prototypes.  However, even in your own experience, there are design elements and combinations that work and that get used over and over in projects (although we don’t label them as prototypes).   These can represent just as much of a closed circuit as the officially sanctioned prototype and lead to equally banal and unresponsive design.  Saving time and money can be accomplished in a lot more interesting and effective ways than cookie cutter architecture.  The important issue is to constantly upgrade your knowledge based on a thorough assessment of how a design performs and to apply what you learned to consistently raise your design standards.

The Skinny on Lean

Forget all that stuff about firmness commodity and delight.  Today’s design drivers are Lean, Green and Clean.  If you embrace evidence-based design, you probably already find your efforts fall into these categories.  Most institutions have fairly robust initiatives related to sustainability and infection control.  It’s the third leg of the stool where things get a little fuzzy.  While every vendor can tell you how their product contributes to your sustainability and infection control efforts, can they tell you how it provides greater value by promoting efficiency and service?  Lean is a concept that most embrace in principle but have no real idea how to put into practice-ask ten people to define Lean for you, and you get ten different answers.  Yet this is such a powerful tool for improving patient satisfaction, outcomes, employee retention, reducing errors and eliminating waste that any design effort that doesn’t take Lean into account is falling short of its potential.

Lean started at Toyota as a manufacturing process.  Apply it to the design of buildings unfiltered and a lot gets lost in translation, for example focusing on efficiency to the detriment of the human experience. The Lean Construction Institute, a non profit organization, is a great resource for helping architects and their clients work together to get a building design that supports its optimal use and generates value. I like to draw analogies to the Leaning Tower of Pisa as a mnemonic device in understanding why we need Lean:  inadequate foundations set in unstable soils and a flawed design led to a failed effort that corrective actions over it’s 177 year construction history (talk about inefficiency and waste) never did manage to put right. Lean processes help us take a step back and consider what we are really doing instead of getting swept up into the chaos of a frantic deadline:

A process about a process
A hospital can hire a Lean consultant and optimize processes without moving a wall.  As architects, our goal is to understand how design can support and even facilitate those processes. If the organization has not already done so, consider hiring a Lean consultant to observe existing conditions and help make improvements.  This allows your design efforts to be focused around the best operating conditions, not a bunch of old habits.  If a consultant isn't something the project can afford, do take the time to work with staff and understand and map the variety of activities they engage in daily to provide patient care.  You can do observations and start to notice the redundancies and waste that is built into the current system. 

Think differently about a solution 
Lean is also about empowerment.  By involving project stakeholders and coaching them through a collaborative process, you encourage them to think about how they could do their jobs better.  You also encourage everyone from the C-Suite on down to filter everything they do through the lens of whether it improves the experience of the patient.  This will inform the design in amazing ways and help you to set project goals that keep the design on track, even during value engineering.

The value proposition
Lean is, above all, a  multidimensional tool for improving value.  Value is a slippery metric.  It is not, as I’ve stressed multiple times in this blog, another word for cost.  Value may include cost, as when the lifecycle of a piece of equipment is measured against first cost and cost savings.  Value can also include intangibles, like improved satisfaction, that may generate revenue.  Still other measurements take into account indirect costs such as reduction in FTE’s or patient length of stay or lawsuits/non-reimbursement due to errors.  

Frank Zilm, Jody Crane and Kevin Roche have produced what I view as the most concise and understandable breakdown of Lean for Healthcare in their article for the Journal of Ambulatory Care Management “New Directions in Emergency Service Operations and Planning”   In their article they cite five key components:

Creating Patient Value
A value stream is a patient’s path through a set of services during a visit.  A facility will need to define value streams for all of the typical services they offer by department as well as by acuity level.  Departments then work collaboratively with leaders to identify ways to provide more value (such as shorter wait times, more amenities for family members, ease of access to the facility) or eliminate things that take value away (such as long waits for the transport team, inability to sleep well due to noise and interruptions) for each value stream they identify within their department.
Eliminating Waste
The next step is to categorize each element in a value stream as either value-added or non-value added.  The article suggests that non-value added items are one of eight forms of waste traditionally defined by Lean:

1.  Transportation – care delivery is delayed by the transport of patients, supplies or equipment
2.   Movement- staff should have supplies close at hand to their work areas, which should be proximal to the tasks/staff/patients they need to interface with. Think: right amount, right place, right time.
3.  Inventory- overstocked inventories represent capital that will potentially be wasted
4.  Waiting- this is wasted time for all involved.  In healthcare, this means less silos and territories and better utilization of resources such as exam rooms or OR’s.
5.  Overprocessing- doing more than the patient needs because of overlapping protocols
6.  Overproduction- generation of reports or materials that are not used
7.  Defects- errors or incomplete work that must be subsequently re-done.  Often there is waste generated by a lack of communication or even problems with wayfinding.
8.  Lack of human creativity- the ability to problem solve and improve processes

Promoting Flow
Study of service responsiveness within a system.  This uses tools such as queing theory to map flows from arrival through service delivery and exit, with a focus on responsiveness and system capacity.  Other ways to study flow include “spaghetti diagrams”  which track the movement of individuals through a system to identify where flow is impeded or non-linear (too much retracing of steps involved in a process).
Continuous Improvement
This is a quest for perfection that is embedded at every level of an organization.  By clearly identifying what will add value to the patient experience, staff at every level is empowered with the tools to suggest ways to improve performance. 
Developing People
Unlike traditional top-down leadership hierarchies, lean encourages a bottom-up organization that recognizes that those doing a job have the most insight into the processes involved.  By empowering staff at all levels, a more collaborative work environment is formed with a focus on delivering value over beauracracy. Resources for improvement are provided while obstacles are removed.

By working collaboratively and filtering it through the value process, it is easy to determine which strategies will make people better and which won’t.  These strategies can be reinforced through architectural elements. Focus on the value adds and drop the waste, and you’ll end up with a project a lot more successful than that famous belltower in Pisa.

Technology and the Built Environment

It surrounds us and yet we don’t even think about it.  Until something goes wrong, that is.  I’m talking about the ubiquitous presence of technology in our hyper-connected wired world.  This is way more complicated than remembering to program space for the ever-expanding IT room, or having the electrical engineer on your project sprinkle data outlets throughout the plans.  Serious technology, the kind that sophisticated buildings require to operate every day, involves everything from the energy management systems (EMS) so critical to sustainable efforts to security systems and even inventory/supply management.  It requires the stuff we don’t see, buried into walls or hardware devices and the stuff we do, like touch screen room controls.  If you, like most architects, are leaving these critical issues up to equipment vendors to install prior to building occupancy,  it’s time to start realizing the role that technology can play as a design driver.  I invited my colleague ans sustainable technology expert Raymond Kent, Principal of Sustainable Technology Design Group, to weigh in on how to better integrate technology design into building design.  Raymond is an award winning technology design expert, and rock-star of the information technology world, who also has architecture experience.  He has published numerous articles, written books, and guest lectured on sustainability and technology design and co-chairs the Technical Advisory Committee for the STEP Foundation.

What exactly is sustainable technology? 
Designing technology in a way that reduces the plug load side of energy consumption.  The Department of Energy recently published its first report showing that anywhere between 10% and 50% of building energy usage comes from power loads.  The wasted energy from standard approaches to technology design can often offset any energy usage being reduced through LEED measures.  Right now, the LEED system does not deal with this issue, but it’s an important enough factor to achieving net-zero and regenerative buildings that InfoComm, BICSI, and CompTIA, three major forces in the technology and AV world, have formed an organization called the STEP Foundation.  The STEP guidelines will include items such as IT, security, life safety, basically all low-voltage industries.  As co-chair of the STEP technical advisory group, I’m working with industries to take the STEP process from generic to specific so that there will be recommendations for security AV, etc. that we are planning on taking through the ANSI/ISO standard process.  This will create a total facility management system for owners that allows them to significantly increase their building performance while also reducing their carbon footprint above and beyond LEED.

How does your expertise inform or even drive the design process?
A lot of architecture firms struggle with the fact that they are not just designing brick and mortar.  When AV systems and controls are applied later, they often look tacked on and clash with the building aesthetics.  You’ll see plates on the walls, cables, speakers.  It’s important to think about the needed connectivities and networks early on in the design process.  Things like computers, lighting design. sound systems and AV can be as much as 30% of the construction cost and failing to consider this during the planning stages of a project can either mean the Owner has to compromise their technology, or that the design team will have to value engineer elsewhere to cover these costs.  What architects lump into soft costs, clients are more and more expecting to be part of base services.  Because architects are not trained to consider these things as part of building infrastructure, having a technology consultant on board as part of the design team is critical to the success of almost any kind of project.

So, how does an architect know when it's appropriate to have a technology consultant on the job?
Not every job will require a dedicated technology consultant.  However, their input can make a big difference to the success of your design.  I suggest that designers form relationships with technology consultants so that they can bounce ideas off of them and get advice on the level of involvement appropriate to the project type and Owner expectations.  Many times, the Owner is not voicing these ideas early enough and asking the right questions can save a lot of redesign later.  Even buying a couple of hours of time to review a set of schematic drawings can make a huge difference on the quality of the project.  A change in lighting alone can totally change the feel of a space.  An electrical engineer is not a lighting designer and is not trained to provide this level of expertise.  Architects need to realize that a Technology consultant can also help them program and layout a facility.  They can assess the situation and point you in the right direction.

Will we ever be truly wireless?
No. Security is a big obstacle.  Bandwidth is also an issue.  There is not a viable means for transmitting a wireless signal, so many factors can degrade it.  Content will always exceed capabilities.  Although power is not the issue because there are wireless power sources available, there will always need to be wires or fibers to provide some type of physical transport.

That being said, there are some great technologies that have emerged such as Audio Video Bridging (AVB) a new open protocol that is being adopted by prosumers.  AVB allows switching of an audiovisual and control stream to multiple devices so something you are watching on your phone can be transferred to your home TV when you arrive via your network for example. It works by sharing and accessing data quickly and efficiently in the cloud or other connected server system.  AVB will allow someone to arrive at a destination and download a presentation from the cloud right to the room’s projector and use their tablet device or phone as the remote.

What effect will handheld devices have on infrastructure?
Huge, huge, huge.  I see a day soon when my tablet computer or phone will become a room control device.  What you can do is so powerful.  The ability to operate remotely is unparalleled and will just continue to grow, but the power needs to be managed sustainably.  Right now, these devices use lithium batteries.  Lithium is a very scarce resource that is not always ethically mined.  It has to be extracted from other materials and it takes thousands of tons of earth to produce ounces of lithium.

Will the nature of how we use and perceive space change because of technology?
The boundaries of space are going to continue to blur.  How we work and commute will make us more efficient and collaborative.  However, everybody needs to have a home base and spot to center themselves.  The need for solitude and focus won’t go away and if we lose that, we are missing the point of innovation.

What is your biggest piece of advice for owners and architects about technology?
Owners really need to think about what they are doing in a space and do their homework about the kinds of things that will happen.  They need to involve the end users  to find the synergies and efficiencies in what people are already doing and bring this to the design team so that the logistics and costs of these ideas can be considered along with the rest of the project.  Most people are familiar  with AV from their local retail store.  Commercial grade equipment costs a lot more but will perform and last for you in a way that the retail stuff can’t.  Architects need to trust the technology consultant and not second guess them - your technology will perform only to the quality of the information you provide.  When project needs are clearly understood upfront and everyone is transparent about costs and budget, your technology consultant will give you a project that will perform at a great price.

Because Someone Had To: The Flawed Thinking of being a Trouper

In the last three weeks of our novena, we are focusing on transformation. Last week we looked at our career path and how to make the necessary adjustments to achieve maximum potential.  In week eight, we do the same for our work process.

At my old firm, there used to be a mantra uttered by the staff whenever confronted with an impossible situation.  “Get ‘er done,” frazzled architects and interns would say, as if a results-oriented approach would make the crushing deadline, impossible budget, or demanding client seem less overwhelming.  The objective was to hunker down and focus on the most streamlined path possible to meeting the objective, then put your nose to the grindstone and crank it out.  There was a certain pride, even, in the ability to be uberproductive in the face of such odds.

How many times have you found yourself faced with a problem for which you were ill-trained, understaffed and poorly equipped and just muddled through and made up a way? Woe to anyone who dare criticize the final product, means, or method, so proud are you to have accomplished the task.  If you feel like an innovator in situations such as these, you’d be right, but only in a can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees kind of way.

You feel proud of yourself for accomplishing something in a jerry-rigged half-assed way- because someone had to.

Perhaps it is our experience of studio instruction, where professors try to avoid placing too many parameters on the task at hand in order to encourage individual exploration.  We are just a little too comfortable as architects with working with an ill-defined problem and making the best of it.  A lot too willing to make sacrifices in order to get the job done (hello, all-nighter mentality). The trouble is we are diverting our creative energy to dealing with procedures instead of devoting it to design.  We make managing the schedule and the budget the design problem, not the design issues.  We’re rewarded for this flawed thinking when the metrics of success for a project are: 1. On Time and 2. On Budget and the people assessing our performance have taken those two measures completely out of the context of design.  It’s time to realize that being a trouper means only that you were willing to be put in a box and not complain about it.  What kind of team player does that really make you?  How to break free:

Don’t accept the premise.  Dealing with impossible design parameters is exciting, challenging and opens the door to innovation. Dealing with impossible demands from clients, co-workers and bosses is draining, stressful, and leads you to keep recycling the same solutions over and over again because you know they will work.  Do not confuse the two. 
1.  Schedule, budget, and aesthetics are interdependent variables of the design problem. They are not design problems in and of themselves. 
2. Use the pre-design phase to determine design parameters that will meet schedule and budget goals.  3.  Stay focused on the design problem, knowing that these are addressed. 
4. Start saying no to the things that aren’t about solving the design problem.  These things are not only distractions, but they affect all of your variables, therefore compromising the design itself.
5. One you define the problem to be solved, don’t dilute your efforts by allowing others to introduce new problems.

Always take time as a team to revisit the view of your project from 35,000 feet.  This helps everyone understand the goals and big design ideas and stop obsessing about the details that are actually off the reservation.  It's easy to get distracted by concerns crises that seem critical to one or more team members, but responding to panic with panic sends the project off on a tangent.  Instead, ask how a given change in direction or new area of exploration will help meet the overall goals.  If it doesn’t, then it’s a waste of time and money.  How’s that for meeting those on-time/on-budget metrics?

Cheaper, Better, Faster: The Case for Entreprenurial Marketing

The increasing pressure to design and construct buildings cheaper, better and faster can seem like the surest path to a landscape of mediocre, throwaway buildings.  Architects prefer to look at projects as a factor of the dependent variables quality time and budget, explaining to a client, that meeting a low budget might compromise quality and perhaps argue for building a better, but smaller design.  Those relationships are weakened by market forces such as fewer resources or shorter client timetables to effectively launch a project and build, maintain or increase their market share. Clients demand that they want it all and want it now.  And there's a business theory for that.  Called Entrepreneurial Marketing,  Len Lodish, a Professor at the Wharton School of Business argues that smaller businesses need fast results with minimal investment.  Even the largest institutions in our industry operate much like small businesses, which is why I find this idea so compelling.  

To help get inside our client's head, let's focus on making the business case for ideas:

It's hard to focus on the long term when you have an immediate need that will likely exhaust your capital budget.  That's why so many large institutions look like they have tumors of one story buildings growing out of them and are a wayfinding nightmare. Schedule and budget concerns may be non-negotiable, but your client didn't hire you to smile and nod your head.  They hired you to think about the problem in ways that they can't.  As long as you have truly listened and respected their concerns, presenting a less literal solution than the one they asked for will gain their respect and produce a better project. 

There is also an implicit assumption on the part of the client by playing its safe, they know what they will be getting, and that the project will proceed more quickly and cost less.  Looking for proven solutions, they may be a little hesitant to explore innovative design practices, cutting edge research or sustainable tactics.  Or, they may  require integrated project design or minimum LEED certification without really understanding what is involved.  

Innovation does not have to come at a premium, and sometimes, the payback on implementing a cutting edge technology , unconventional method or research makes its own compelling argument. Architects are not necessarily known for their financial wizardry, but by presenting a strategy in terms of its return on investment, the conventional understanding of cost, schedule, and budget are transformed.  design time frames can become more elastic, with more time spent in pre-design and schematic design in order to brainstorm and then vet options as a team.  When we view a building project over its lifetime, the way that the problem is framed and eventually solved becomes more dynamic as well, leading to what the client wanted to achieve most- value.