I have always liked architecture, but I’ve come to dislike architects. Not the people themselves, but the AEC (architecture/engineering/construction) industry, because of how it handles technology—specifically our technology. By that, I mean audio, video, networking, communication, acoustics, and the work that enables them.
Every industry, profession, and academic area of study has its own history, vocabulary, standards, and practices, and those are hard to change. Unfortunately, the development of, and desire for, technology (beyond power and telephones) has moved faster than the AEC industry can adapt, leading to constant friction and often poor outcomes.
It is established practice for MEP (mechanical/electrical/ plumbing) to be handled by consultant companies allied with the architects. That process is well understood. But the specialized requirements of AV and media systems don’t fall neatly into MEP. The result is a certain kind of chaos that seems to haunt these projects.
Much of my work begins with a request from a client who does broadcast or media production, and I may do both the technical design and installation of their facility. In those cases, I am usually involved early, am regarded as a “subject matter expert” by the AEC participants, and can usually oversee the technical aspects (and how they interact with everything else). I call this role the “technical lead” and it requires knowing a fair bit about architecture, construction, and their trades, in addition to the AV technology involved.
But many projects don’t work that way. Sometimes I’m brought in very late. Sometimes my best efforts are thwarted by the construction and contracting process. Sometimes it takes time to build trust with the right people, and for them to realize that they don’t know what they don’t know! Below are a few examples from actual jobs.
Video Studio for a University
This project unfolded pretty much in my “ideal” way. I was engaged by the people who wanted the studio built, was able to really understand their needs, and connected with the (in-house) architect from the start. The MEP engineering was also handled by the in-house staff of the school, so I could communicate directly with everyone fairly easily. In fact, they were surprisingly deferential to me, probably recognizing that this project was outside their norm (and they didn’t want responsibility for mistakes). At the same time, I want to be deferential to the experts in their areas, but it can be a delicate balance because I need to push back when something is not right.
As is typical, the construction was bid out and a general contractor was hired. On the whole, construction went well, despite a few unexpected changes due to on-site realities. Where I became concerned was with the sub and sub-sub contractors, and the loss of information down the chain.
One example is with sound-rated acoustical door assemblies (or adding seal kits to standard doors to reduce sound transmission). In both cases, I may suggest appropriate products, and the general contractor either buys and installs them or subs to a door vendor. I always warn the GC that installing these correctly is critical for good results, to follow the manufacturers’ instructions and proceed carefully. I almost never get a perfect outcome.
In practice, the workers installing the doors might work for the GC, might be subs, or subsubs, and my warnings rarely make it to the end person. That is one reason I visit sites regularly during construction! In this particular case, the GC’s foreman was pretty clear on the aim and did some of the work himself, so I’d say we got to 80% on the doors, which is quite good.
Actually, this scenario applies to anything involving acoustics, especially isolation. Few architects know the principles or methods, and often the people doing the work are not accustomed to the level of care required for the best result. I sometimes find that simply explaining the end goal can help to get that extra attention.
A bigger worry arose with the studio lighting grid, which is a unique item that is often installed by a specialty company (though that’s not really necessary). I specified what was needed and tried to make clear that it could be built on site since it is nothing but 2” steel pipes. I suggested a couple vendors who sell the special hardware used to attach and suspend the pipes. In this case, the GC let the drywall contractor handle it, and they chose to purchase the entire grid, pipes and all, from one of the vendors located across the country.
This caused several issues. First it delayed installation of the grid because the vendor needed many weeks to put it all together. Second, it meant another link in the chain, with more submittals and shop drawings that had to be approved. Third, the pipes had to be cut into smaller segments for shipping, so the grid needed a lot of couplers (which get in the way of lights). In the end, some pipes were cut on site anyway to fit the conditions, so it would have made more sense to buy 20ft lengths locally. I tried to get this across multiple times, but to no avail.
Most importantly, it was unclear to me if anyone was accounting for the hanging load of the grid and all the lights (over 1000 lbs total). The vendor made specific recommendations for how many concrete anchors to use, but they had no knowledge of the actual conditions. I brought this up with the architect and the GC, neither of whom seemed concerned. I got the sense that they were willing to kick responsibility down to the sub-contractor.
Did this require input from a structural engineer? Maybe not, and perhaps I was being overly anxious. But it seemed crazy that the GC was willing to let a sub who had never installed a lighting grid before, and was buying the assembly from a third party, be responsible for a real safety issue. What would happen if something fell?
Relocating a Studio for a Different University
Here we have an existing video production studio that I had installed in 2013. At the time, it was included in the renovation of an office building to house a new branch of the school. The person who wanted it built had a background in television, so they brought me in, along with a lighting company and set designer with extensive broadcast backgrounds. What we built was a small but showy professional studio (with an unfortunately undersized and noisy control room) that became quite busy over ten years.
Forward to 2023, there’s talk about relocating to a new campus and “moving” the studio. Since I was still working with this client, I began asking if I should be involved in any discussions. The answer was something along the lines of, “Not yet, they’re still figuring out space planning for the new building.” Needless to say, that is precisely when I should have gotten on board! This continued for a while, and at some point, the people who ran the studio (my clients) did talk with the “design team,” but without me.
Eventually they started getting requests from the design team for things like lists of equipment, power and heat loads, etc. At this point I’m getting worried because I’m quite sure that whoever is asking does not have any experience with video studios. So I provided the full set of documentation from the original build, hoping it would “shock” them into realizing this is a complex undertaking. I also kept stressing that the design team should visit the existing studio so I could show them the special aspects!
Finally someone realized they needed help, and I was asked to join officially as the “studio designer.” Then I got a set of architectural drawings that showed a nice large studio, but a control room, green room, and equipment room layout that made little sense. I responded with some revised floor plan suggestions and notes regarding electrical, HVAC, and other requirements for the technical systems.
I was told that it might not be possible to make those changes because the permit set had already gone out. My response was that nothing has been built yet, it’s just a CAD drawing, and do they really want a facility that is less than adequate for the next 10 or 20 years? Fortunately this did not fall entirely on deaf ears because the owner’s rep was sympathetic. But the lead project manager, the design team, and “upper management” at the school still did not seem to understand what rebuilding this studio would entail.
I’m convinced that nobody ever went to see it, or certainly did not perceive the details. If they had, they would have understood why just moving everything between two locations is overly simplistic. They would have seen that the existing (rather expensive) control room desk would not fit in the new room; that there were connector panels and cabling to account for; and that the existing set consisted of several very large LCD displays mounted on steel armatures, with a background “skin” and lots of in-set LED lighting under plexi panels. Not only was it custom to the space, but the big, heavy pieces could not just be unplugged and rolled away. Plus, the displays themselves were still working, but arguably due for replacement.
On top of architectural issues, I was asked about what equipment could be retained to minimize cost. In truth, many major pieces were still appropriate and working fine, but some definitely needed a refresh. For some reason, they were under the gun to provide budget numbers, so I estimated what I could based on updating the existing design.
Forward to Fall 2024, the project manager organized a review meeting at which we were able to discuss my suggestions with the architects, owner rep, and the foremen who are actually at the building site (now in full construction mode). To my surprise, parties were amenable to some important changes—as long as they did not slow down construction, because management wanted the studio functional by Fall 2025.
We also discussed studio ceiling height, which varies across space, and the intention to hang a drywall ceiling over the studio, which is rather unorthodox. That came courtesy of the architects’ acoustical consultant because of potential noise from above. Okay, nothing to be done about that. But the height variance made me change the orientation of the set in the room, which had other ramifications. I sent back more updated drawings.
As I write this, I am waiting to see whether my suggestions will be incorporated, whether there will be a sufficient equipment budget, the status of construction, etc. The good part is that I have a contract in place for consulting, and for the technical de-installation and re-installation of the facility, which is how it should be. I plan to hire the original scenic company to move and rebuild the set.
I must admit, at several junctures, I was ready to either give someone holy hell or just walk away. Neither were great ideas, but the level of chaos was unusually high. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that this studio had no actual “owner” initially. That is, for the last 10 years it had operated under the auspices of building services, but was used by several departments. When the new campus started to become a reality, there was nobody with authority to lead the studio project. It had operators, but no true advocate.
Post-script, 11/25: Construction was still underway when we began the tech install, but it’s done! Everyone is happy, and video shoots are underway. The set was moved successfully and in place of multiple 85″ LCDs there are two 136″ dvLED panels which I custom-mounted on rollers. We reached operability somewhat behind the hopeful schedule, due greatly to problems with deliveries and getting the right lights.
Missed Opportunity
The last example is a bit different because my role was only as a consultant to help the client specifically with a media storage system for their production work. I was not involved in any aspect of their new facility, but the media storage involved several large servers, 10Gb network connections to one room, and Wi-Fi connectivity for another. So I had to make sure the proposed IDF room was large enough and cool enough, and the power and network were done correctly.
The nature of this client and the way their move to a new facility was structured meant that the architects were driving the bus and, as usual, brought in an AV consultant because the client had a range of AV needs. They would have a video shooting studio (which was meant to double as a multi-purpose space with projection and audio playback), classrooms with AV systems, meeting rooms with AV, ancillary spaces with AV, an audio/podcast booth, and an office for several video editing systems. There was a different contractor for network cabling. But there was no “technical lead” to oversee all the pieces
Relatively late in the game, I got the architectural docs and saw that someone had specified lots of cable tray across the space, which was good. It appeared that the IDF room would be okay, but it was not clear how equipment racks and power would work—particularly for the servers I would put in. A discussion with the architects ensued in which I sent some drawings of how I thought the room should be laid out, the power requirements, etc.
Several months later… The facility is finally nearing completion and I went in to start planning my work. Of course, the IDF room was not outfitted as I had requested, there was a drop ceiling where I thought it would be open, power had not been run, etc. I had also mentioned to the client several times that we would need a full-depth (broadcast/AV) rack for the servers, but apparently nobody was supplying that; the IT contractor had brought in a couple two-post racks. Plus, by this time there was an additional company hired to connect and manage the network and computers. As it happened these were people I knew and who are also familiar with media servers, so we could talk the same language.
A quick on-site meeting was called with all the participants to get the IDF room settled. This did result in getting (mostly) what I had requested, and I happened to have a full-depth rack in storage, so I was able to install the servers a few weeks later.
Then I came back to do the network connections, turn everything on, and start configuration. At that point, the client was moving into the new facility and beginning to discover what met their expectations and what didn’t. The studio space was a particular sore point because the projection and audio reinforcement was nothing like what they wanted, and there was an AV rack taking up space where it didn’t need to be. It seems there was a disconnect between the client, architect, and AV consultant about how this space should be outfitted, and fixing it was going to cost money. I also provided some advice about acoustic treatment, particularly for an editing room that was highly reverberant due to being small and entirely hard surfaces, with no ceiling.
So here was a case where a “technical lead” would have been a huge benefit. If only I had been involved from the start! Unfortunately, the client’s naivete led them to trust the process without realizing where the architects were out of their depth, and where using sub-contractors without general tech oversight would cause trouble.
Truth is, even if I had known this client earlier, and had suggested being their tech consultant, that would have meant convincing them of a need that they probably did not perceive, as is often the case.
A Summary of Folly
I’m sure many readers will recognize parts of these stories, and I’m aware of some moves by integrators and manufacturers to build bridges and raise awareness with the architecture community. That’s great, but it can only touch a tiny fraction of the need (and is often in service of selling products). It seems like the methodology I’ve observed in AEC encourages keeping the status quo, which includes:
1a) The use of consultants for anything the architecture firm does not handle in-house or understand, many of whom operate as a kind of “side show” that does not connect with the client (as in the third example above). And there seems to be a perception, among architects and owner reps, that every specialty area needs a different consultant or installer, which may not be the case.
1b) The apparent belief that architect + consultants = good outcome. For AV systems, technical oversight and coordination is usually needed, but the idea of a “technical lead” doesn’t fit in the current process.
2) The passing on of responsibility—and then liability—to consultants and sub-contractors. Sometimes it seems as though the architects and GCs would rather have someone to blame than to have the job done right in the first place.
3) The potential for loss of information as work passes from architect to GC to subcontractor to sub-sub-contractor(s). I’m not confident that what I tell the architect or GC will be followed—even if it’s in the drawings.
4) Using different companies for design and installation of AV systems. I am not a fan of a common model that says essentially: If the designer can make the specs tight enough, whoever gets hired for the next stage will have to get it right (and if they don’t, they’ll be held responsible). Not only does that put the installer in a difficult position, but it leaves nobody responsible for the quality of the end-user experience.
5) An AEC community that is not prepared for the amount of detail and time required to incorporate AV systems. Compared to office space, it takes a lot more work per square foot to design and build a tech-heavy conference room, and even more for a video or audio studio. Nor are they aware of concerns and interactions that are unique to AV (ie, “If you move those conduits we’ll have to move the displays, which means moving the speakers, but now they’re pointing right at the lectern mic…”).
6) Chaos.
A Bit of Help, Maybe
Back in 2017, I even had the idea to start a consulting business for helping architects and their kin better understand and incorporate the new technologies in their projects (what I call MEP+T). After a few meetings, I found that architects knew there was a real problem, but didn’t seem interested or able to find a solution. One reason I heard was that there’s no “line item” to pay someone for technical oversight on projects. The best advice I got was to propose my ideas to owners (or owner reps), not architects. I started down that road but ran out of steam.
Can this be fixed? I’m still wondering how to get AEC to recognize that extensive technology is now integral and expected in the built environment. Rather than an added feature, it’s more like a fourth utility, and should be handled as such.
Maybe we can have a big conference, with workshops and lots of coffee! No, sorry, a lot has to happen before MEP+T has any traction. The industry is huge and deeply invested in their way of working. The best I have right now are some strategies that I’ve been learning the hard way:
1) One of the problems that comes with separating design from installation, using niche consultants, and using sub-contractors, is that people may only be told about what “their part” entails. It’s worth trying to share more information, to clue in everybody about the complexities of the project. People who understand their role tend to be more invested in the work, and everyone appreciates knowing why all the fuss matters.
2) Along the same lines, I often wish I had known about something that might seem out of my area, but is actually pertinent. It doesn’t hurt to ask for more documentation, clarification, or whatever is needed to make sure your part will work.
3) When dealing with a specialized system or facility, show examples to illuminate abstract concepts. Use past project docs, equipment cut sheets, Google images… If possible, take critical participants to see actual examples.
4) Don’t assume that the architect, or really any one entity, is the boss of the project. Try to find out who will make and approve decisions that involve the AV systems, or how that gets done. If there is no technical lead (in my sense), the answer might be hard to pin down.
5) Don’t be ambiguous or give too many options. I have a tendency to say things like, “We could get this type of fixture, or others are acceptable,” but have come to believe that architects and general contractors usually don’t want choices, they want a clear directive. Or, at worst, To Be Determined.
6) Avoid overload. I like to be clear and provide plenty of information, especially when things are truly not simple. But our systems require so much extra attention as it is, the AEC people may not have the bandwidth for a total data dump.
7) When you can, safeguard the user experience. The architects have other things on their minds, and the owner reps don’t have the expertise. The unsung heroes of these projects are the engineers and project managers who push back when decisions along the chain will ultimately fail the end user.
