LE PONT NEUF
The three story brownstone building had stood on Market Street since the 1860s, and had been used variously as a furniture store, a welfare office, a church and, allegedly, a house of “negotiated accommodation.”?As the vitality and vibrancy of the city’s entertainment district pushed down that main street toward this building, once vacant store fronts and discount shops were being converted to high-end boutiques and restaurants, with upstairs floors becoming in-town condos for a demographic not ready yet for or past needing a backyard.?Thomas was contacted by the new owner of the building through a referral from the owner of a Greek restaurant two doors down that his firm had designed its new interiors the previous year.
The new owner was also looking to pursue a European ambiance, this time French, hence “Pont Neuf” named after the famed and oldest standing bridge over Paris’ River Seine.?Although this referral confided to Thomas that he was the only architect being interviewed for the project, Thomas still approached this prospect as if there was competition.?He wanted to make a great impression, for this building owner to know that Thomas had the knowledge and experience to realize the project.?The pursuit began with a walk through of the building with the new owner.?Over the past ten years the facility had been used as storage by the furniture retailer who once he had moved his showroom across the street from a suburban mall.?Movers were now actively carting off boxes as Thomas and the new owner together examined every crevice of the facility.?This began in the fieldstone walled basement (future rathskeller), to the roof deck, which would offer a cool perch on a hot summer night, albeit without a view of the Eiffel Tower in the near distance.
Retreating to the aforementioned Greek restaurant after the building tour, Thomas attentively allowed his potential client to complete sharing his plans for the building.?Then Thomas shared his own vision for how the building layout might work to realize the owner’s plans, and identified the challenges this endeavor presented.?Emergency egress, handicapped access and zoning nonconformance topped the list.?Thomas did not feel any of these hurdles were showstoppers.?They needed to simply be handled by someone who knew how to “get things done” in the City through established channels for dealing with variances and equivalencies.?For example, there were exceptions in the building code that would waive accessibility requirements to extend the elevator to the roof deck if its area was limited and its posted occupancy set below a certain level.?Thomas cautioned that there would also need to be an evaluation of the floor capacity to handle dancing in the proposed third floor disco.?The owner followed Thomas’ presentation of the challenges and proposed solutions with great curiosity and respect, making frequent inquiries for clarification and taking notes.?In parting, Thomas committed to a full proposal within the next two weeks to carry this project from site investigation and conceptual design through municipal approvals and construction in time to open by Memorial Day the next year.
His firm’s office was just a short walk from the restaurant.?Upon arrival, Thomas gave his business partner a big thumbs up and set to work to assemble the proposal and the team he needed to pull off this ambitious project.?Recent heightened concerns in the City about structural integrity of older buildings prompted Thomas to include a structural engineer who had a five person firm with a recognized expertise in certifying adaptive reuse projects and was often awarded work for the City.?Other engineers were similarly contacted that would be the best choice for a project for which Thomas believed was more critical to complete on time with quick municipal approvals, than to have lowest fee.
Later that week Thomas began to compose the proposal.?First, he focused on the scopes of work and services.?As this was the renovation of an older building, Thomas wanted to carefully delineate what design issues he expected to address, and which could not be reasonably anticipated, as well as what professional services were being provided and which would be additional work.?Next, he developed a comprehensive task schedule, to the point of identifying exact dates for a project kickoff meeting, various required municipal hearings, signoff of progress drawings, and what long lead items would need to be ordered ahead of receiving contractor proposals.?Once he incorporated the scopes and exclusions of the engineers, Thomas was delighted at the roadmap he had created for his client to appreciate all that Thomas’ team was uniquely bringing to the project.
The proposal was submitted a few days ahead of schedule.?Thomas suggested that he stop by and walk the building owner through its complexities, but his offer was declined.?The proposal included creating as-built architectural and structural drawings and completing a structural analysis as the Phase 1 Investigation.?The Owner emailed Thomas the immediate go ahead on that phase, but directed him to hold a few weeks on the balance of the contract.?This was not a problem, Thomas assured the owner by email response, as these as-built drawings would be needed before any other work could begin.?The deliverables were transmitted to the building owner within two weeks.?A check for that portion of the work was received a week later.
The days and then weeks passed, and the proposed project kickoff meeting failed to occur as scheduled, with still no word from the building owner. ?Thomas was now in full denial of his abilities to read what was important to this client, sure that his fee amount had scared away this prospect.?When one of his voicemails was finally returned, Thomas was advised that this building owner had elected to proceed without an architect.?“You provided me with all I needed to know about the how to get it done.?So, what do I need you for now?”
领英推荐
In the following months, Thomas occasionally noted this project appeared in the announcements of upcoming municipal review meetings, as the building owner tracked to Thomas’ roadmap.?Surprisingly, Thomas never encountered the building owner despite the closeness of their properties.?Nor in his dealings with the City on other projects did he inquire how that building design could be reviewed for permits without an architect-of-record.?Approvals were issued, contractors were engaged, and Thomas would regularly pass the site and note the construction progress.
One day as he was walking past the building, Thomas spontaneously diverted onto the site, trying to appear as if he had business there, perhaps as an inspector.?No one challenged him for not wearing a hardhat or safety vest.?Thomas strode over to the unoccupied makeshift site office, to the table containing the building plans.?The drawings indicating the building’s new layout contained almost all of Thomas’s suggestions from several months ago.?He smirked at some of the amateur design mistakes, such as partitions that did not align and cabinet doors that could not be opened 90 degrees.?He then glanced down at the title block.?The logo of the structural engineer that had been part of his proposed design team was easily recognizable, along with his seal.?Apparently, the City was allowing this engineer to stamp the architectural drawings.
Thomas had seen enough.?He retraced his steps out of the building and away from the site, still trying to appear passive as if having completed his assigned task on the site.?Back at his office, he angrily updated his business partner on the results of his reconnaissance mission.?She agreed that their firm would no longer include this structural engineer in their design proposals.?When Thomas had more time that evening to consider the circumstances of the Pont Neuf project, he reached the following conclusions:
Within a year there was a “building/business for sale” sign on Pont Neuf.?After positive food writer reviews and some months of needing a reservation a few weeks in advance, Thomas heard that many had tried the restaurant once, liked it a lot, but were not ready to pay for that special culinary experience more than once a year.?He also heard that the building owner had yet to pay the structural engineer’s final invoice, citing unexpected construction and fit out costs and less than expected patronage affecting cash flow.?Thomas never had occasion to speak with the structural engineer again.
The new owner of the building, bought for well under the amount invested by the seller, changed the name of the restaurant, switched to a small plates format, and reopened the restaurant without making any cosmetic changes.?Thomas and his business partner stopped by for drinks shortly after the grand re-opening, to more closely inspect the imperfect realization of Thomas’ vision.?They both concluded that they were grateful to have been used and discarded by that building owner.?The inevitable aggravation, fee overruns and unpaid last invoice would have been much worse than a few months of fury over having not received the commission.