THE ARCHITECT AS DEVELOPER:UNION STATION IN NEW LONDON

exterior wail convened from office 10 corridor

ity for the role of developer at all? I believethe answer is simple. If the architect canindeed be responsive to the needs of thedeveloper, the architect can bring his exper-tise into the valid actions of developerdecisions. He will then have achieved themost meaningful input possible within thescope of the total project. Let's follow thisprocess through the New London project.The initial feasibility study developed aprogram for use of the station and tested itwithin the available space. In the case ofNew London, the program was simple. Thepurpose was to maintain AMTRAK serviceto the station and at the same time, developadditional areas for rental income thatwould justify the full restoration of the totalbuilding. As in many similar situations, therequirement was to maximize the potentialrentable area against the initial basic con-struction cost so that a reasonable dollar persquare foot figure in both construction andincome could be achieved. AMTRAK'sneeds generated use for approximately one-third of the station, somewhat less than theexisting first floor. A way was sought tomaximize the use of the first floor spaceand bring additional life and character tothe space. A restaurant appeared to offerthe most potential but would require morespace than remained. Here the expertise ofthe architect was required to develop a planthat divided the major first floor spacebetween AMTRAK and a restaurant. Thefirst floor was opened to the lower level toallow additional waiting space for AM-TRAK and a mezzanine space was added inthe restaurant half to provide the necessaryarea for reasonable restaurant use. In thiscase, not only was marginal space (thebasement) developed as prime tenant areabut additional space (the mezzanine) wascreated. The second floor had always beenoffice space; it seemed reasonable to con-tinue the use and a proposal for possiblefuture use of the attic for office expansionwas developed. Thus the architect hadprovided the initial ingredient for devel-oper success, he had maximized the poten-tial use of the building.

But the challenge of New London was toprepare and present a feasibility study notonly in spatial and architectural terms butalso in a manner that would speak directlyto the developer. This required not only aprojection of known costs for the project asproposed, but also the presentation of thepotential income that could be generatedfor that cost and the necessary expenses tooperate the project within the limitations offinancial feasibility. To that end, we initiallyconsulted with both economic and market-ing consultants as well as contractors sothat the total data presented was as realisticas possible. Our work, which had begun inthe fall of 1973, was presented to the NewLondon Redevelopment Agency in Januaryof 1974 and we waited for the developers torush in and vie for the opportunity todevelop this project further. Very simply,that did not happen. Just as with any... after.

determined by the acceptance of our reportby some as yet unknown developer whowould act to carry out the proposal. At thispoint, we were in fact developers and didn'tknow it, or should have been, because wewere required to supply the client input ofan imaginary developer and test our ownsolutions against this input.To describe the architect as developer is notto conjure up a new and separate identitybut rather to describe a team on which thearchitect simply functions in more than onerole: as architect and also as developer. Ingeneral, this means shifting back and forthfrom the role of the architect with primeresponsibility to the role of the developerwith prime responsibility. At each step, thecrucial element is the input of the other rolewhich, although secondary, is essential.Indeed, to assure success, there must be aclear understanding that each role is inde-pendent and that the role of primary re-sponsibility must be open to but not com-promised by secondary input.

Why then, one may ask, would thearchitect choose to take on the responsibil-

Before . . .

Our work in New London, Connecticutbegan in the fall of 1973, as any otherproject might, with a call asking what couldbe done to help preserve a grand old rail-road station in danger of being destroyedthrough current renewal plans. The station,as it turned out, was H H Richardson's lastwork, completed in 1887 after his death.There was a great deal of sentiment in thetown for tearing the building down-per-haps due as much to the fact that it hadbeen built originally by the railroads on thissite against the wishes of the townspeopleas to the fact that it was in poor repair,badly maintained and greatly underurilized.At this point, the challenge appeared to behow to demonstrate to the town, and theRedevelopment Agency specifically, thatthis building might work again as a viablepart of the community.

Simply stated, this was only a feasibilitystudy. It was unique in that it was not donefor a client who intended to act on it, butrather for presentation to a general publicwho would most certainly expect that theproof of the project's viability would be

2

architect/client relationship, there mustnecessarily be tremendous trust betweenarchitect and developer. Looking back now,it appears obvious that at that point in timeand given the local sentiment toward thebuilding, it was not possible for that trust todevelop.

During this time, the developer role wasclearly the responsible one. The value of thearchitect to this part of the developmentphase was not in the decision role but in thesupport role. Here, he was able to conveythe ideas of space and program relation thatestablished credibility with both tenant andfinancing institutions. Together the closingwas achieved.

George M Notter, Jr is a principal of AndersonNolter Associates, Inc of Boston. This firm hasin recent years turned recycling into a NewEngland art form. He is currently President ofthe Boston Society of Architects.

AMTRAK interior with lower level access ... after. 3

the increased rental required, and con-firmed the time factors to assure a costeffective decision that encompassed all ofthe major aspects of this complicated deci-sion. These two instances illustrate anacceptance of responsibility by both thearchitect and the developer for their ownareas of expertise and an understandingof the interaction between these two areas.This is the basis for the shared responsive-ness so crucial to final success.On July 29, 1976, AMTRAK formallyopened its new space. Construction wascompleted in October 1976, and final ten-anting should be achieved by the first ofthe year. The New London Day, the localnewspaper, took a full page in a supplementpublished for the opening to say "We werewrong! But we changed our mind" andreferred to their editorial of May, 1971,advocating the demolition of the stationand their editorial of June, 1975, supportingour plans for renovation-a key support inour struggle for designation. They concludeby saying, "The Day congratulates Ander-10n Notter and the Union Railroad StationTrust for their foresight in saving thisvenerable building which becomes moreattractive with each passing day. It joins allof those who use Union Station in sayingthanks for giving us a railroad station wecan be proud of."

ConstructionConstruction began in October of 1975.This is the point that is most important interms of the combined roles. The architectmust now proceed to get the job done withhis plans and the contractor in the bestpossible way. The developer, on the otherhand, must see that the total project movesforward not only economically but also in atimely manner, and he must ensure that thefinal product is rentable in support of thecosts required to achieve the finished space.The interchange between the two roles iscrucial. To the degree the architect canapply his imagination to solutions withindeveloper constraints, the project as con-ceived is supported. On the other hand, tothe degree the developer can be responsiveto changing opportunities that allow up-grading of the finished project, rentabilityshould be maximized and the project'ssuccess enhanced.

For example, the major hole connectingthe lower level to the main level of AM-TRAK space required maximum visibilitywith a minimum expenditure. After muchthought of glass and wood railings, a finalsolution was achieved by the architect usingsimple wall construction which repeatedthe motif of the existing wainscotting,which strengthened the integration of thetwo spaces without additional cost. Inanother case, when a potential tenant sud-denly appeared in early April of 1976 withthe requirement to move in on the first ofMay, decisions were required by the devel-oper within one week's time which en-larged the scope of the project, evaluated

Developer DesignationThat period, from April 3, 1974, when ourproposal was first submitted, to October 3,1975, when final agreements were signed,was hell. Even by developer standards, thistime period seems excessive. Every aspectof the development process was challenged:economics, tenants, preservation, financing.But the process itself was classic; it wastruly a period of persuasion. Before . . .

Forming The Development TeamSo it was that early in 1974 we determinedthat if this particular solution was to be de-veloped, we would have to form a team andpresent a specific proposal to the Redevel-opment Agency to develop Union Station.We spoke with local investors and ourcontractor; together we decided to pursuethis course, and we took another look at thetotal project. The initial step was to verifyagain the marketing assumptions. We hadoriginally evaluated the economic viabilityof the project with our real estate andmarketing consultant through the aid of aNational Trust Consultant Services Grant.Our consultant had applied what he consi-dered the three essential elements of pro-ject feasibility: (1) Location, (2) Locationand (3) ... Location. He cast our lot whenhe summarized our position: "If I were topick one spot in New London with the mostpotential," he said, "it would be here."

We next considered our cost projectionswith our contractor and made an evaluationof our projected income and expenses todetermine the amount of money that shouldbe available to pay interest on a mortgage:the debt service. We then considered theincome sources that might be available tothe project in terms of grants, renewalfunding, loans, etc; assumed a mortgage ofapproximately 70% of project costs; and, bycomparing these income sources to projectcosts, determined a minimum and maxi-mum equity position that would be re-quired. With agreement on these assump-tions by the development team, a formalpresentation with a request for developerdesignation was made to the Redevelop-ment Agency on April 3, 1974. The archi-tect's input obviously generates the con-struction cost. It is the relationship berwenthe construction dollar and the other devel-opment expenses that defines the architect/developer relationship. Too often, thearchitect does not control this number; andmore often than not, the developer looks tothe construction cost as the area to cut whenother development costs grow.