EPISODE: 004 - STAGE 2 - CONCEPT DESIGN

BYTNAR - TALKS

EPISODE 004 - STAGE 2 - CONCEPT DESIGN

This episode is for people who want to know more about the process of project design and delivery.

If you ask yourself questions:

• What architectural concept should I follow?

• What Engineering solutions correlate with the cost plan?

• How to deliver the project from the contractor's perspective?

• How do you approach planning?

• How do we reach building regulations compliance?

• Who should be involved in further definition – the responsibility matrix?

• What should the outline specification be?

• Are we on the ball or do we need to update the brief according to the achievable defined at the end of this stage?

• Why bother with a few solutions?

This episode should give you a broad idea of how the project idea in Architecture Engineering or Construction project develops and why it is worth exercising different options at this stage.

LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR PROJECT

---

This is Bytnar Talks: The Engineer Takes on Construction – Episode 4

Hi, I'm Piotr Bytnar. Each day, I help my clients plan and design building projects through Bytnar Limited – a consulting Chartered Structural Engineers practice.

My biggest passion, and the cornerstone on which I've built my business, is finding clever solutions for construction projects. I am a Chartered Structural Engineer and a budding software developer, so you can rest assured that I will strive to talk about the best practices and the use of new technologies in the industry.

And if you're embarking on a construction project, or are involved in planning, designing, and building the world around us, you'll find this podcast useful.

Today, I'll talk about Stage Two: Concept Design.

🎵 [Music]

Hey, hi, hello everyone! Welcome to the new episode of Bytnar Talks. A month has passed, and I can now claim to be one of the most successful podcasts out there – well, at least according to some statistics saying most of the podcasts – around 90% of them – do not ever go past the third episode mark.

So here you have it – this one is the fourth one. I plan to do at least another 17 to achieve and be in the magical 1% of podcasts out there. Apparently, not many of us ever go over the 20-piece mark.

So brace yourself and bear with me for at least 21 episodes.

Jokes aside, I'm glad you're back here with me in the following week, and I hope you'll find something new and thought-provoking within this episode – as hopefully you did in the last one.

In the last episode, you could have heard of two different approaches to the preparation of the project brief, and how ill-defined decisions and misinformed approaches to the process of project definition and delivery can break the project.

In my everyday practice in Bytnar Consulting Chartered Engineers, I strive to create the process and information for my clients so they can appreciate how complicated this world can be, and show them the value of offices like mine – which combine the expertise and capabilities of a now so fragmented industry.

I envy such guys like Brunel or Eiffel, who honed the art and skills of the era – engineers who lived the projects, being capable of delivering all aspects of them, rather than relying on tens of different consultants, which seems to be the case nowadays.

Maybe it comes with the time and politics of responsibility, or simply a departure from principles in favor of codes and standards.

I love principles – don't get me wrong – and that is where I start all my projects.

Let us worry about the red tape, codes, and standards at the later stage.

This stage is the stage of principles. Principles of spatial design, massing, structural components and their mechanics, material selection and their interaction with each other and the ground, sustainability, and carbon – embodied or operational – of any given solution, and the interplay of all of them.

🎵 [Music]

Today, I'll talk about the stage that all AEC bears like the most. I think we like it even more than we like honey.

Why do we like it so much?

It’s primarily due to the fact that it is the most creative stage of them all.

This is the stage where experience, expertise, breadth of knowledge, and intelligence come together to define concept designs – and I would like to emphasize the "s" in "designs."

It is not the stage where you simply deliver one design and take it forward. It is the stage to find several ways to do a thing, and to compare them and go ahead with the most suitable one.

It is the part of the project design process where you like to have the best brains at – and allow brain-storming between the team members.

If you can get an architect, an engineer, and a contractor in the same place for this stage, you can assure the chosen solution will be the best one forward.

So, what you'll find in this podcast:

I'll talk about what this stage is all about.

Then, I will move over to things to consider – which I divide into two parts:

One is creating the different concepts and comparing them.

Then, taking the one chosen for further development.

I identified eight points.

Three of them will be the first part of it, and the next five will be the delivery – the definition for the next stage.

These are:

1. Architectural Concepts

2. Engineering Solutions – correlated with the cost plan

3. The way to deliver – call it contract review

Then we move to:

4. How to approach planning

5. How to reach Building Regulations compliance

6. Who should be involved – fed definition, responsibility matrix

7. Outline specification

8. Update the brief according to the achievable goals defined at the end of this stage.

So let's not delay it any further. Without further ado, let's get into it, shall we?

🎵 [Music]

So, what is this stage?

Well, in simple terms, this stage concentrates on the definition of the architectural concept in line with the brief defined in the previous stage. Often, this brief needs to be derogated as the conceptual stage progresses, to address feasibility studies and issues identified during the creation of concepts—and perhaps upgrade it with opportunities that we’ve found out during this stage.

I think here you can appreciate how important it is to have several different ways of doing the same thing, and how teams should collaborate in defining those different schemes. It’s sort of like going online and comparing all different products. However, here, you need to rely on the experience and breadth of knowledge of professionals to give you several different solutions for one problem.

And then you can go on and compare it by all the different standards—like how sustainable it is, you know, what sort of operational carbon is involved once you build the building, which may actually be better to concentrate on than thinking about the carbon that’s embodied within the construction of the building.

What are the costs of different solutions and how do they impact the end product? How do they impact the brief and the funding?

There are many things to consider here, really—including layouts and, you know, how it’s going to look, whether it's going to be aesthetically pleasing or not, and so on.

So, the things to consider here while preparing the brief—the things to consider for the whole stage—as I mentioned before, I consider it to be a two-part process.

One is trying to find the best solution—developing different alternative solutions for one given brief—and then taking it forward to making a plan for further development in stages down the line.

We generally start with the architectural concept, which concentrates on the idea development: what is the design intent and parti behind it—parti being the chosen solution. So basically, what the justification is for what the architect or designer came up with. What was the inspiration for such a building or the neighborhood?

How the building or the neighborhood or inner factories are organized spatially—whether that's aesthetically pleasing or not. What's the aesthetic expression of the whole building?

In determining these types of factors, it's vital to be good at sketching and visualizing. Some people are not that great with hand sketching, so computer-aided design jumps in very nicely. And with the modern techniques and modern AI tools, we can easily go into all different  options. We can make hundreds of different visually pleasing solutions for any given project, given the boundaries of space. And, well, basically—space.

They’re not that sophisticated models as of yet—so most of them are just space-bounded—but it gives you a direction. It gives you that possibility to check many solutions and see which one is the way forward.

And the trouble with being capable of producing so many different solutions with modern tools, with AI, is that you can get inundated and paralyzed with the number of alternatives.

So perhaps sometimes it’s better, at this stage at least, to keep it simple—keep the entire thing more in terms of massing than cladding, and all of the, you know, fancy features of the build.

It’s more important at this stage to think how the building is located on the globe—how it can play with light, how it will influence wind or be influenced by wind, and what sort of materials to use for its creation.

Depending on where in the world it is, and depending on what type of systems we'd like to use, they may be altogether different—and it's important to appreciate and think about this process as an iterative one.

So it's not a straight line. Getting to the solution is more like regurgitating information—trying to find the right mass and space for the given brief, and then putting that mass into the perspective of the local area, the sun, the wind, and other aspects of the build.

And then, check whether it’s feasible to actually do this—for the given solution, at the given site—how it relates to the budget, and whether that would be possible to actually build within the constraints of it.

Then check the given solution with the client—whether it’s somewhere around what he or she expected it to be. There are more people involved in the whole creation of the building. It may be such a large scheme, with such a great impact, that you have to go out there and ask the neighborhood—how it’s going to impact them and what they think about it.

They may give you a perspective that you never thought about before, as you don’t appreciate the area as much as the people who live there do.

And it’s time to assess risks too. So it’s important to define the design intent, which is the concept through which you can communicate the overarching idea behind the project. It answers the question of why the building is designed in a particular way and what message or experience it aims to convey.

What’s the inspiration for the project?

You see, concepts often draw inspiration from various sources—such as cultural, natural, or historical references—or maybe sometimes even abstract ideas. Hadid’s designs, all those wavy, curvy, desert-blown-by-the-air solutions—the chosen inspiration helps to create a unique and meaningful narrative for the design.

You know, how it’s spatially organized, as I mentioned—the concept influences the spatial organization of the building. It dictates how different areas and functions are arranged and interconnected with each other. It guides decisions about circulation, the hierarchy of spaces, and the overall layout.

Aesthetics is very important. After all, we like to engage with, be around, and be surrounded by beautiful spaces—beautiful buildings. They’re like music—they talk to us and resonate with us. And the aesthetic expression of the architecture is really, really important here.

How you're going to express yourself will influence the material choices, colors, and textures you’ll be able to use to achieve that expression.

It’s very important also to—well, I say important to all of those things, because they kind of are. All of them are important and on the same level. You have to think about them together.

The functionality of the building—after all, we’re not making monuments. We’re making functional buildings, and they have to discharge all of the needs that are created by the business case.

You see, while the concept is often associated with artistic and aesthetic considerations, it also needs to address the functional aspects of the building. The concept should support and enhance the intended use and purpose of the building—and maybe even find opportunities to make it better than initially thought.

You know, we need to think about how users will experience the building. The building will shape the occupants’ interaction with it and how they perceive it. We need to foster that sense of identity and connection to the built environment.

Buildings should also be accessible to all sorts of people, and adaptable. In the modern world, we change how we operate our buildings. You can see our cities changing—offices turning into flats, flats turning into hotels, hotels turning into shops. It’s all fluid. And if we don’t think about how the building can be used in a fluid way, we’re not using its full potential.

You see, the concept of the building should be flexible enough to adapt to various constraints, regulations, and practical considerations, while still maintaining its core essence.

That concept here, now, will serve as a guiding principle throughout the design and construction process.

So that would be the architectural part of it—the architectural approach to concept creation. You see, it’s molding. It’s molding the mass into something resembling the final product—or at least a tangible way forward.

All of those architectural concepts—they should be sort of simple at this stage, but give a sense of direction and address all of the different points I just mentioned. But they should also be run through the engineering—through the structural engineer, who can assess it on a plethora of different aspects.

You see, paper will take everything—we like to say that in the industry. You can put anything on a piece of paper—or on CAD, computer-aided design that is—and it would look lovely.

Add it to an AI engine, and you have millions of different solutions... that are meaningless. And that’s where the engineer comes in—to give that skin some bones and meat.

If you get what I'm saying. The engineer here is to take one of those, to take those solutions, to take the concept—or several of them—and start looking at them from the physical perspective, the buildability perspective.

He’ll need to think about the choice of materials and early estimate the cost—cost of such a structure—basing it on the preliminary designs, things like rules of thumb and how buildings usually come together, and what is the usual size of those elements in different materials.

We, as engineers—we appreciate that. We've designed many buildings of different sizes and different uses, and we can quite well say what sort of solution will play the best role in any given concept.

Once we look at the layouts that have been identified or laid down before us by architects, we look at the site constraints. We look at the constraints of layouts and identify potential cost drivers.

We usually collaborate with cost estimators at that time too, and financial experts, analyzing historical data and benchmarks for similar projects—so we know that we’re actually going in the right direction, taking monetary considerations on board.

We need to think about the life cycle costs of the whole endeavor—how much it will cost in construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal—and try to optimize our solution so it addresses all of those parts.

You see, it's easy to just push forward and create anything and just start putting the bricks together—to make those walls, to make the building. But if you don't think how this building will—how this solution will—influence the life cycle and the cost of that building, of the life of this building, then there are plenty of opportunities for sustainable and economical solutions lost.

This stage is also a stage for value engineering, where we can implement value engineering principles to enhance the functionality, quality, and overall value of the project—while, guess what—minimizing the costs.

You see, a column can be a column in all different materials. But it can actually be better if it's different—maybe if it's not a column, maybe if it's a truss, or maybe if it’s something else. Maybe if it's concrete. Or maybe timber will do just fine.

We need to look at the alternatives to achieve one given concept—but without compromising performance or safety.

You know, now is the time where we come in and just start thinking about what sort of materials we use—and give it a preliminary specification. We need to evaluate them on the basis of their cost, availability, and performance in that given building.

We consider alternatives. We compare different properties. And it’s all driven very often by the cost and efficiency of that building.

You see, efficient design practice is all about optimizing the design to minimize waste. It’s about reducing complexity and improving construction efficiency.

The more difficult it is to construct on site, it may transpire during construction that the actual buildability of it is so poor, that the building will cost 50% more—or even more—than anticipated at the forefront.

We try to utilize standardized solutions—off-the-shelf products—so there’s not much bespoke going on. If it needs to be bespoke, it needs to be. But if it doesn't, it’s better to use things that are nearly factory-produced so that the cost of the given solution is minimal, and there is enough bulk behind that solution to actually make the project viable, safe, and cost-effective.

In the modern world, in first-world countries, labor is—well, it’s very often one of the biggest costs, if not the biggest cost, of any given project. And that’s the cost we like to reduce.

The less labor on site—it’s one: safer to deliver the project if there are fewer people on site, or fewer people involved in creating the building. And two: if the product can be standardized, we can control it better and deliver a better standard product, a better standard building.

It’s important to consider energy efficiency and sustainability of any given solution—integrating the energy-efficient and sustainable solutions into that concept.

However, it may command—or incur—higher upfront costs, but result in long-term operational savings.

And if you don’t put that down on paper and have the possibility to compare, you won’t really know. And you may be driven by the false economy of trying to make as slim a solution as possible—which may not work that well in the long run.

This is the time to think about renewable energy sources, and the use of alternative or other mixtures to the construction materials—thinking about energy-efficient technologies to reduce operational expenses, and how this can be incorporated within the building.

Think about the risk of creating the building—how it could impact the project costs. Those feasibility studies—whether the ground is correct, whether there are floods, whether I need to protect the building from other aspects of nature—and how we could approach it in future once we develop the project further.

Because it’s one thing to think about the risks and identify them, and another thing entirely to have a plan for dealing with different scenarios once we get them.

You see, it may be the case that we’ll need to use raft foundations—or maybe we use piled foundations or other solutions. It really depends on the ground conditions, which at this stage we may not fully understand. Maybe, you know, the soil investigation reports weren’t that great—and that’s one of the reasons this stage is important. You can actually identify these gaps and then address them, rather than delay the whole process just to get better definition of those aspects.

You can plan for different contingencies—for different outcomes, different solutions—once the proper information comes into play.

We need to think about technology and innovations, and how we can apply them. Maybe, maybe the good way forward would be to use modern methods of construction—to modernize the whole build. And if we don’t keep ourselves updated with these, or design them in the office, how can we know what solution is the best?

We may be well-suited to providing standard and traditional concrete or steel frame solutions—but it may be better to actually do it in light gauge steel construction, or maybe timber. Who knows? It really depends on the project.

I love to design in all sorts of different materials, and it's a pleasure to be able to do it—but that comes with a lot of effort in keeping up to date with all of the material solutions, and how you can actually use all the different materials.

And it’s not a game for everyone—especially for small offices. It’s quite difficult for a small office to be exposed to all of it, unless the office heavily invests in training and research.

This is the time where the engineer meets the architect. And if they both cannot communicate well with each other, there can be standstills. There can be difficulties—and opportunities missed.

It’s very important at this stage to carry on communication with all stakeholders involved—to align the project goal with the budget constraints and the possible engineered solutions.

And one of the things that architects and engineers are not really that well adapted to—but sometimes, well, in most projects—it is the case, is: delivering a project is like a relationship.

You need to make concessions on your visions and the way you see things—how you’re going to deliver them—and be prepared to adapt and modify designs based on cost feedback, changing project requirements, changing layout difficulties, trying to value-engineer aspects of it.

Some of the layouts may need to change—and such. And it’s sometimes a very, very difficult dance between the engineer and architect. But nevertheless, the end solution is very often a great one.

And at this stage—if it’s possible—to get a contractor on board, and depending on the procurement route you want to take, the contractor may just work as an advisor, as a consultant at this stage, without being signed up for the actual build.

It’s great to have a contractor on board to help assess all of those different matters that the architect and engineer worked on.

Obviously, both architect and engineer should have an appreciation of how the building should be built. After all, we’re not building it for the beauty’s sake of it—just showing off our beautiful renders on paper and bragging about how brilliant we are.

At the end of the day, we need to build this building—and we need to build it safely.

So a contractor can help identify how this can be achieved—maybe in a better way than the actual architect or engineer can—giving the team perspective, and maybe driving the project in a slightly different direction.

You see, contractors can assess the feasibility of construction based on the initial concepts. They can go onsite and appreciate the constraints—and provide insights into potential challenges related to the construction methods, site conditions and logistics, and the operation of the actual project. They can budget-estimate the chosen solution and put it in a plan—how it should be delivered in the most economical way.

And if we, at this stage, don't think about what is the best way of constructing the given solution, we may be thinking about solutions that will be more expensive than they initially should be.

You see, if we need to do the basement, we may pile it all around and then excavate the basement—and be nice and safe, so that all of the ground around, you know, stays where it should be as we dig. But doing piles—can't deny it—piles are very expensive. And they don’t really need to be used if we can reduce the ground on sides—on all of the sides. You know, if we can slope the ground, or grade it a little bit, so the ground becomes stable enough for the project to continue.

And if you get inundated in your solution and don't think about the way how to construct it, you may well end up spending a lot of money on not-needed solutions.

The contractor, as I say, can input on the construction costs, the labor costs, and how the building can be delivered—how the given concept can be delivered within the budget constraints.

It’s also great, for that matter, to include the contractor in the whole evaluation of the concept and creation of the solution—as the ways and techniques that are available, the knowledge that is available on the local contractor's market—they very often dictate how the contractor will approach it.

And we may be—we may be used to, as designers—the delivery of the project in a certain way. But the idiosyncrasy of the area, for example, or those given contractors, may challenge it. And they may not be quite well-versed in our solution, and it may be better to actually adjust our solution to the skills that are available in the given market.

Contractors can suggest those solutions, and we can take them into consideration—and, you know, make them work for the given project.

They can obviously identify risks—risks with the delivery of the project—and how to mitigate those risks.

We can do, as a team of three, constructability workshops—where we can organize contractors and designers and other stakeholders to collaborate and refine the concept design.

You see, if the project is big, there are many people that will be impacted by it for a long, long time. And it’s good to actually involve all of those people—not only the financial stakeholders and people that actually risk their business models, their money within the project—but also the surrounding people, bringing social value to the area, rather than just getting on with the project and being inconsiderate to the needs of everyone around.

It’s important.

That's why it’s important to do those workshops—’cause you can address constructibility issues early in the design stage, and, you know, brainstorm the solution.

However, with all of those endeavors, communication and collaboration are very important.

You don’t want to have team members—especially at this stage—that are hooked, hanged on any given solution without letting go. This stage is for brainstorming. It's to find the best solution for the given scope, for the given brief—and perhaps find the best way forward and value-engineer the heck out of this project.

Early involvement in the design and design meetings of contractors gives you that perspective and gives you that chance to actually deliver projects and design solutions that are better placed in the given circumstances.

And once we have that—once all of the consultants, architect, engineer, contractor, cost consultant—once everyone’s happy with several different solutions, all been working incrementally, regurgitating solutions toward one final way forward...

Once we’ve got that in place—now we can start thinking about preparing and derogating that initial brief, that is now enhanced by the existence of the actual design, and the actual tangible and visual asset.

It’s time to give some meaning to that visual part. It’s time to think about how to approach the planning, which is my point four on the list of things that I'd like to discuss.

It needs to, you know, analyze the site—conduct a thorough analysis considering such factors as location, topography, access, and environmental constraints. Understand the context and surroundings to place that building—how it should be placed—so we can argue during planning that this is the best way forward. You see, that early engagement with all of the stakeholders—not only the ones actually driving the brief, driving the agenda of the building, but also the people surrounding the building—how we can bring value to these people.

After all, this building is placed within their environment. And if it can enhance it, it will be better perceived by everyone around it, and it will be used better.

We’ll find the—you know—better... we get to find out the expectations from people. You know, what sort of requirements exist in the local area? What are the idiosyncrasies? And any other special considerations that the people may have.

Sometimes it's great—as part of the given, of the driving force, the money-driving force—we can create some additions to the project that we never perceived before as essential or needed.

See, green spaces are very often a great asset. But maybe aligning the green spaces with the 15-minute city concept—and we have a great circulation area for people to enjoy and maybe have a little break as they travel from place A to place B.

See what sort of planning policies are in place for the given area. Obviously, we have a national framework, but there are those local aspects that need to be addressed too.

Not all of the areas are the same, and—you know—not excluding green belts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas, and such.

There are so many different facets to the aspects of planning and how to approach it in the best fashion. It’s very often the time when the idea of the project is being communicated with the planning office—as an outline for discussion—so we can achieve the most, and the best, for the given project.

It is the time now when we think about how to reach Building Regulation compliance—who do we need on board, and what aspects are there?

There’s quite a few.

Not only structural soundness is important—although that’s the first one on the list. We need to think about fireproofing of the building—how people will evacuate during the event of fire, or not. How to stop the spread of fire, internally and externally. And, you know, how to address all of the different aspects, taking into consideration the layout and the materials used.

Obviously, we need to have those buildings energy efficient. And is it great to rely on a HEVAC approach—using, you know, electrical equipment to drive the air, drive the environment, control the environment within the building?

It may be better to actually rely on physics—on natural ventilation, on the thermal mass of the building—or perhaps combining both, which can be the best of both worlds.

You see, from my experience, the best buildings are the buildings that are thermally stable. The buildings that don’t need much of an influence to remain where they are—in terms of temperature and air quality within.

So these are the buildings with good thermal mass, which are well insulated—where you can store all that heat that you generate, rather than just heat the air. Because once it’s gone, it’s gone.

We heat elements that maintain it. And the same goes the other way around—we cool elements, and they stay cool for longer. So in hot days, we don’t need to rely on the air conditioning that much.

You know, how we approach the sustainability of the whole thing. How accessible and inclusive the spaces and building will be. These are all very important aspects that will have to be thought about right now—and then further developed down the road.

Once we know that, we need to think about who will be involved in the bloody project—right?

We know what we want to build. We know that we are reasonably within the budget. So it’s now time to create the team and assign responsibilities to the particular teams, with particular expectations and standards, and so on.

See, we have our design team, which is usually led by architects—they lead the overall design and aesthetic aspects of the building.

We have our structural engineers, who focus on structural integrity and robustness of the design.

We have our MEP engineers—mechanical, electrical, and plumbing—who address those technical systems in the building.

Obviously, we can have landscape architects too, who will contribute to outdoor spaces and green design.

We can have our civil engineers, who can concentrate on drainage and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), where we can attenuate some of the waters in little ponds and the like. They can work together with landscape architects or others.

We may need to address the nutrient neutrality aspects of planning, and think about how to create reed beds, so they can filter the additional nutrients from the site.

That'll be our design team, and there may be many, many members in there—but generally, there are three: you have your architects, engineers, and MEPs. These are the three that prevail in private sector work.

You'll have your project manager, who oversees and coordinates all different members, manages timelines, budgets, and project deliverables—when there is one on site.

You have client representatives that will provide inputs on the project and their goals and objectives, review and approve designs, and decide on the way forward.

You may think about many different specialist consultants that may need to be involved at a later stage, as well as specialist contractors who will design and deliver parts of the project.

I think the one most widely used—and sort of the way that British construction projects are delivered right now—are the steelwork contractors, fabricators who take the general design of the steel frame, deliver the connection designs and fabrication drawings, fabricate the frame, and then deliver and erect it on site.

But there will be different ones as well: the ones concerned with balconies, and thermally decoupling them from the building; the acousticians, the vibration specialists—you know, some buildings need to be vibrationally isolated from the surroundings, like concert halls; lighting designers or any of the plethora of others.

And now is the time to identify who should do what and when. Put them into a responsibility matrix, and go out there and find the best ones for the project.

It is the time now—and it is Point 7—to outline the specifications of the project: what sort of materials and finishes will be used.

Later on, we provide a broad overview of materials and finishes to be used. This is the time to specify key characteristics and quality standards for them.

We need to think about the performance requirements—outline the performance criteria for various building components. Specify standards for structural, thermal, and acoustic performance.

Think about compliance with regulations, and ensure that the specification aligns with building regulations and industry standards. Include any specific requirements stipulated by regulatory authorities.

We need to think about sustainability features—how we can make the building energy efficient, and what sort of systems to use.

This is the part where we hone in—where we concentrate—when we put that bit together for further development down the line.

And once we’ve done all of it, we need to check how it actually addresses the brief, and whether that brief needs to change. And very often, that brief does change, as we go on finding the best solution forward.

We usually, as we go on with the design—as we develop it—we consult the client, to show them, you know, which way we’re going with the project. You know, what we see is important for it.

We update that brief based on the client’s preferences and approvals. And then we go back to the board, and then we tweak it a little bit more and try to make the most of it.

And then we go back to the client—and do it again.

We assess the feasibility of the project in more detail—in terms of construction, cost, and compliance—and then we adjust.

As I say, it’s an iterative process.

We look into the client inputs. We design the solution—or several solutions. We compare them. We talk to the client about them. We take all different aspects into consideration.

We update the brief according to the findings—and how we develop the building.

We look at the risks associated with the updated brief, and develop strategies to mitigate those risks, to ensure the project’s success.

And we document, document, document.

We need to update all of the project brief—ensuring clarity and transparency—and it doesn't happen by word of mouth. We need to have it in black and white, so it can be contractorised, then inspected, and executed later on.

You see, concept design is the design about that careful consideration of all of the different aspects—planning, compliance with building regulations, and collaboration among the diverse stakeholders, so we can set the foundation for a successful project. And when we regularly update the project brief, we ensure that we've got that alignment with achievable goals, and we evolve the project rather than just push it forward.

🎵 [Music]

So there you have it. It’s been a little bit long, I think, but let’s summarize it all.

I noted eight points that are worth mentioning—how that stage comes together:

Number One: Architectural Concepts

This is the concept design phase—where the architects craft the initial vision of the project. At this stage, it begins with a foresight analysis, an understanding of its context, topography, and environmental factors.

It’s time to engage stakeholders to ensure the design aligns with client expectations and local regulations. The preliminary design concepts should explore various architectural possibilities—all while considering functionality, aesthetics, and sustainability of any given solution.

A well-defined architectural concept will now set the stage for the project’s overall success.

And that success comes—and is achieved—together.

Point Two: Engineering Solutions

Once we’ve got the architectural concept, we can define the engineering solution for it. And the engineering solution is pivotal for turning the architectural vision into a tangible structure.

Early cost estimates of that solution help set realistic budget constraints, while life-cycle cost analysis considers the entire project lifespan.

Value engineering practices enhance functionality and quality without compromising costs—if anything, they bring better value and help drive the cost down.

Efficient design practices, such as modular design and standardized components, are important and should be used as much as possible. They help streamline construction processes.

Collaboration between engineering design and cost planning teams ensures a cohesive approach, fostering economically viable and efficient solutions.

Point Three: Contractor Involvement

It is great to add to that team of two—the architect and engineer—a contractor.

The contractor plays a crucial role in contributing to the concept design phase. The engineer and architect may have their own opinions and experiences in delivering projects—but if we don’t have the opinion of the local contractor, we don’t know the local skills involved. And we cannot expect all the skills of the whole world to be available everywhere.

Contractors will conduct constructibility analysis, provide insight into potential challenges and constraints of the project and site, and give us an early cost estimation. That can help us align the concept design with budgetary constraints.

The contractor can then help value engineer and suggest optimizations to the design to make construction more efficient.

That collaboration between designers and contractors ensures site-specific considerations are addressed.

And I think it’s very important—because we can idealize and come up with the best solution, but if it’s difficult to build—or difficult to build by local contractors—and we don’t have that early involvement with them, then we can lose on opportunities.

But if we involve them at this stage, the project can greatly benefit from the practical experience of local people, leading to realistic and efficient design.

Point Four: Planning Strategy

When we’ve already designed and defined the core team, we know what should be built, and we know how to build it best—now we can think about delivering the second part of this stage, which is preparing all of the documentation and strategy for further development and delivery.

So in Point Four, we think about how to approach planning.

Approaching planning involves a site analysis, stakeholder engagement, and clear design objectives. Preliminary designs and concepts should explore architectural possibilities, adhere to local planning policies, and ensure regulatory compliance.

And this point, in a way, interplays with the previous three—because you get into the right solution, but then you need to see whether that solution actually plays well with the local area, with the local planning expectations, local intricacies, and local stakeholders.

So sometimes, once you get to your good solution, you put it through the sieve of the planning expectations, and then you may need to tweak it again to deliver the project that will be actually acceptable from the planning perspective.

Point Five: Building Regulation Compliance

We need to think about how to reach building regulation compliance.

We’ve already thought about the aesthetic aspects, organizational aspects, engineering aspects, and buildability of the project—but there’s so much more in any given project that needs to be thought about than just that.

Now is the time to define how we're going to do it.

To do that, we need to fully assess our given solution against the regulations. It may be the time to start collaborating with regulatory authorities, and to consider:

• Sustainability

• Fire safety

• Accessibility

...for any given solution.

Point Six: Responsibility Matrix

It’s time to put the team structure down on paper—who’s responsible for what, to what extent, to what standard, and to what level of information definition.

We need to create that responsibility matrix.

This involves defining all of these roles—all of the teams: project managers, client representatives, specialist consultants. We need to know what we need, from whom we need it—or at least what we need to go out and find the people who will deliver it for us.

This matrix ensures effective collaboration and clear communication among team members.

Point Seven: Outline Specification

We need to give the project an outline specification.

An outline specification provides an overview of materials, finishes, and performance requirements of the project. It outlines compliance with regulations and highlights sustainability features, guiding the detailed design phase.

Point Eight: Updating the Project Brief

And with all of that information, and all the back-and-forth between us and the client, it’s important to highlight Point Eight, which is: updating the project brief.

As we came out from Stage One—Preparation and Brief—we had a business case defined and shown to us.

Now, we’ve developed it further. We actually gave it a tangible feel. We gave it definition. And now it’s time to derogate that brief and align it with all the findings, opportunities, and engineering solutions.

Updating the project brief involves engaging with the client and all stakeholders, and ensuring that it aligns with the current understanding, progress, and preferences.

So there you have it—a comprehensive overview of Stage Two: Concept Design—at least in the UK, and at least how I’ve experienced it.

I hope this episode has provided valuable insight into the intricate process of blending creativity, compliance, and collaboration in the early stages of architectural design.

Thank you for tuning in.

The world of project definition is super interesting—and can be complex—but, like in music, when you're good with your principles and have played a lot of times, it allows you to be creative and create magic with what palette of solutions is known to you, and within the constraints of budget and site.

Before we wrap up, though, let me emphasize the paramount importance of carefully considering and balancing all these aspects in our design process.

In many small offices—particularly on small projects—it’s unfortunately not always the case that all these factors receive the thorough consideration they deserve.

At Bytnar Limited, we recognize the significance of this holistic approach, even in the context of smaller projects. Our commitment is to ensure that every project—regardless of its size—gets the attention and consideration it needs.

We understand that each element—from the architectural concept, to engineering solutions, contractor contributions, planning, compliance, and beyond—plays a crucial role in the success of the final outcome.

In my office, we strive to create a culture where, even on smaller projects, these considerations move into the fabric of our design process.

We understand that each project is unique, and we adjust our approach accordingly—considering both size and complexity.

Our goal is to deliver not just a structure, but a thoughtfully crafted solution that meets the client’s needs, aligns with regulations, and stands as a testament to the collaborative effort of architects, engineers, contractors, and all involved stakeholders.

In conclusion: the synergy of these elements is what transforms a mere concept into a tangible, well-executed reality.

Thank you for joining me on this journey, and I look forward to sharing more insights with you in future episodes.

As always—reach out to me on LinkedIn.Thank you for listening.Please voice your opinions—I want to hear from you.

Toodloo!

---

Piotr Bytnar BEng (Hons) MSc CEng MIStructE

Chartered Structural Engineer who deals with the Architecture of buildings. His Master's Studies led him to an in-depth understanding of risk and contract arrangements in construction as well as specialist knowledge in soil mechanics.

He and his team help homeowners and property developers to design and deliver construction projects reducing waste in time and the cost. He believes that the construction project is an iterative process that can be well managed and it is best managed if all the aspects of the project definition and management are dealt with in-house or coordinated by one organisation. His team works to all stages of RIBA and ISTRUCTE stages of work and enables contractors to deliver projects on-site providing risk evaluations, methodologies for execution of works and temporary works designs.

---