“It’s an honor to see our work resonate with so many people,” says Jeff Kovel, founder of Skylab. “Being included in the LEGO collection alongside iconic landmarks like Fallingwater, Notre Dame, and the Taj Mahal is—in of itself—incredible recognition. It is not lost on us that LEGO is one of the world’s most recognizable brands. Its ability to inspire creativity and imagination in both young people and adults aligns closely with Skylab’s ethos of exploration and discovery. We’re excited to contribute to that spirit of creative engagement and see our work evolve into new expressions.”

Adapted from book to screen, the first Twilight movie was released in 2008. The series was a major hit with moviegoers, especially Millennials, and is among the top 20 highest-grossing movie franchises of all time, according to CBR. The “Cullen House” set includes the kitchen and living space, the library, and an infirmary depicted in the movie. Seven mini figures including Bella and Edward, played by Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, are included in the set, which retails for $219.99 and can be purchased now on the LEGO website.

—

Founded in 1999, Skylab has emerged as a leading creative force in the Pacific Northwest and North America. At the vanguard of innovative and sustainable design, the practice is known for a range of spectacular residences designed for leading creatives, as well as distinctive music venues, resorts, and other high-profile projects, including the Serena Williams Building at Nike’s World Headquarters, N M Bodecker Foundation, and the Columbia Building. The firm’s work is published widely and recognized through numerous design awards. In 2023, “Skylab: The Nature of Buildings,” a monograph on the firm’s work was published by Thames & Hudson.

The post Hoke House by Skylab Architecture in Twilight Movies Becomes LEGO Set appeared first on Residential Design.

Nationally, according to the quarterly all-transactions House Price Index (HPI) released by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), U.S. house prices rose 5.4% in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to the fourth quarter of 2023. The year-over-year rate has decreased from a high of 20.6% in the second quarter of 2022, but is higher than the previous quarter’s rate of 5.2%.

The quarterly FHFA HPI not only reports house prices at the national level but also provides insights about house price fluctuations at the state and metro area levels. The FHFA HPI used in this article is the all-transactions index, measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same single-family properties.  

Between the fourth quarter of 2023 and the fourth quarter of 2024, 49 states and the District of Columbia had positive house price appreciation. Vermont topped the house price appreciation list with an 8.9% gain, followed by New Jersey and Connecticut both with 8.3% gains. At the other end, Louisiana had the lowest house price appreciation (+2.1%), while Hawaii was the only state to experience a price decline (-4.3%). Among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 31 states reached or exceeded the national growth rate of 5.4%. Compared to the third quarter of 2024, 32 out of the 50 states had an acceleration in house price appreciation in the fourth quarter.

House price growth widely varied across U.S. metro areas year-over-year, ranging from -4.9% to +24.7%. In the fourth quarter of 2024, 18 metro areas, in reddish color on the map above, had negative house price appreciation, while the remaining 366 metro areas experienced positive price appreciation. Punta Gorda, FL had the largest decline in house prices, while Cumberland, MD-WV saw the highest increase over the previous four quarters.

Additionally, house prices have increased dramatically since the COVID-19 pandemic. Nationally, house prices rose 53% between the first quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of 2024. More than half of metro areas saw house prices rise by more than the national price growth rate of 53%.

The table below shows the top and bottom ten markets for house price appreciation between the first quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of 2024. Among all the metro areas, house price appreciation ranged from 11.2% to 87.8%. Ocean City, NJ experienced the highest house price appreciation. Lake Charles, LA had the lowest appreciation for the third quarter in a row.

—Jing Fu, NAHB Eye on Housing

The post House Price Appreciation by State and Metro Area: Fourth Quarter 2024 appeared first on Residential Design.

According to the latest U.S Census Construction Spending data, multifamily construction spending fell by 0.7% for the month, extending the downward trends that began in December 2023. This decline aligns with the weakness in the Multifamily Production Index (MPI) and a lower number of multifamily homes under construction. Improvement spending declined by 1.5% in January but was 14.3% higher compared to the same period last year. Meanwhile, spending on single-family construction rose by 0.6% in January, continuing its growth after a  five-month decline from April to August. This growth also aligns with steady builder confidence seen in the Housing Market Index. However, single-family construction remained 0.9% lower than a year ago.

The NAHB construction spending index is shown in the graph below. The index illustrates how   spending on single-family construction has slowed since early 2024 under the pressure of elevated interest rates and concerns over building material tariffs. Multifamily construction spending growth has also slowed down after the peak in July 2023. Meanwhile, improvement spending has increased its pace since late 2023.

Spending on private nonresidential construction was up 1.8% over a year ago. The annual private nonresidential spending increase was mainly due to higher spending for the class of manufacturing ($12.4 billion), followed by the power category ($5.5 billion).

—Na Zhao, NAHB Eye on Housing

The post January Private Residential Construction Spending Dips appeared first on Residential Design.

There were 47,000 total custom building starts during the fourth quarter of 2024. This marks a 7% increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2023. Over the last four quarters (2024 as a whole), custom housing starts totaled 181,000 homes, just below a 2% increase compared to the prior four quarter total (178,000 in 2023).

Currently, the market share of custom home building, based on a one-year moving average, is approximately 18% of total single-family starts. This is down from a prior cycle peak of 31.5% set during the second quarter of 2009 and the 21% local peak rate at the beginning of 2023, after which spec home building gained market share.

Note that this definition of custom home building does not include homes intended for sale, so the analysis in this post uses a narrow definition of the sector. It represents home construction undertaken on a contract basis for which the builder does not hold tax basis in the structure during construction.

—Robert Dietz, NAHB Eye on Housing

The post Gains for Custom Home Building appeared first on Residential Design.

Billings were also soft at firms in all regions of the country in January. Firms located in the West saw very modest billings growth in the fourth quarter of 2024, but unfortunately, billings returned to negative territory to start the new year. Business conditions remained softest at firms located in the Northeast, which has been the trend in recent months. And billings softened further at firms located in the South, which saw more encouraging signs last fall, before weakening again. Billings also declined at firms of all specializations in January. Firms with a commercial/industrial specialization continued to be most likely to report softening business conditions, but billings have weakened at firms of all specializations in recent months.

Architecture firms report strong hiring to end 2024.

Conditions remained somewhat soft in the broader economy as well in January. Inflation in January was higher than anticipated, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increasing by 0.5% from December and 3.0% from one year ago, the highest level since last June. Inflation growth in January was primarily due to increases in energy and food prices, as well as core goods (like used vehicles) and services (e.g., shelter away from home). Recently the Federal Reserve has signaled reluctance to lower interest rates further in the short term, and they will remain even less likely to do so if inflation remains at this higher level.

Nonfarm payroll employment added 143,000 new positions in January, modestly below the average monthly increases of 166,000 in 2024. However, architecture services employment ended 2024 on a strong note after shedding jobs in the fall, adding 2,200 new positions in December (the most recent data available). This amounts to a net loss of 1,400 positions for 2024, as employment at architecture firms has declined by a total of 4,100 positions since the post-pandemic peak in June 2023.

Nearly all architecture firms pay for membership dues/licensure fees for their staff.

This month we asked firm leaders about their support of membership dues and licensure fees for their architecture staff. Overall, 85% of responding firm leaders indicated that they pay membership dues/licensure fees for their staff in some capacity, increasing to nearly all large firms with annual billings of $5 million or more (97%). Nearly all firms (98%) reported that they pay for AIA membership dues (82% in full, 16% in part), followed by 93% that pay for professional accreditation/certification fees (65% in full, 28% in part), 91% that pay for licensure fees (75% in full, 16% in part), 85% that pay for NCARB fees (65% in full, 20% in part), and 84% that pay for professional membership dues (other than AIA, NCARB) (55% in full, 29% in part).

Overall, responding firm leaders reported that an average of 69% of the architecture staff at their firm that are eligible for membership are members of AIA. This is highest at firms with an institutional specialization (72% of eligible staff are members) and lowest at firms with a multifamily residential specialization (59% of eligible staff are members). In addition, a majority of firms (72%) also reported that, in general, a fairly stable share of architecture staff at their firm has remained AIA members over the past five to 10 years. Just 14% indicated that a smaller share of architecture staff at their firm are members now than five to 10 years ago, while an additional 14% reported that a higher share of architecture staff at their firm are members now than five to 10 years ago.

Finally, when asked to rate the importance of the principal benefits of having eligible employees as AIA members, nearly half of responding firm leaders (48%) rated the promotion of greater levels of professional development of their staff as a very important benefit, while an additional 40% rated it as a somewhat important benefit. Responding firm leaders also highly rated giving employees an opportunity to connect with others in the profession (33% rated as very important, 50% as somewhat important), giving their firm the perception of being more professional/a more desirable place to work (32% rated as very important, 50% as somewhat important), and giving staff access to practical tools and research (30% rated as very important, 49% as somewhat important). Firms rated helping them to win projects and win more desirable projects, helping retain staff, and helping advocate for favorable policy as less important benefits to having eligible employees at their firm as AIA members.

Visit AIA’s website for detailed information about this, and past billing index reports.

The post ABI January 2025: Architecture Firm Billings Remain Soft to Start the New Year appeared first on Residential Design.

The finished lot was the second largest cost at 13.7% of the sales price, down more than four percentage points from 17.8% in 2022.  The share of finished lot to the total sales price has fallen consecutively in the last three surveys, reaching a series low in 2024.

The average builder profit margin was 11.0% in 2024, up less than a percentage point from 10.1% in 2022.  

At 5.7% in 2024, overhead and general expenses rose when compared to 2022 (5.1%).  The remainder of the average home sale price consisted of sales commission (2.8%), financing costs (1.5%), and marketing costs (0.8%).  Marketing costs were essentially unchanged while sales commission and financing costs decreased compared to their 2022 breakdowns.

Construction costs were broken down into eight major stages of construction. Interior finishes, at 24.1%, accounted for the largest share of construction costs, followed by major system rough-ins (19.2%), framing (16.6%), exterior finishes (13.4%), foundations (10.5%), site work (7.6%), final steps (6.5%), and other costs (2.1%).

Explore the interactive dashboard below to view the costs and percentage of construction costs for the eight stages and their 36 components.

Table 1 shows the same results as the dashboard above in table format.  Please click here to be redirected to the full report (which includes historical results back to 1998).

—Eric Lynch, NAHB Eye on Housing

The post Cost of Constructing a Home in 2024 appeared first on Residential Design.

To honor and extend the legacy of American architect E. Fay Jones, namesake of the School of Architecture and Design, the Legacy Medal is given to esteemed architects who convey Jones’s “spirit of generosity, a dedication to the place and people of his upbringing, deep relationships with his clients and their commissions, and a commitment to the practice and discipline of architecture.”

“I couldn’t hope for a greater honor,” Harmon said. “Fay Jones’s buildings fit their surroundings as comfortably as a bird’s nest in a thicket. He was as gentle and courteous in person as his buildings were in the landscape. I admired him immensely.” 

Harmon, a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, has designed buildings across the southeast for 40 years. Recognized nationally as a leader in modern, sustainable, and regionally appropriate design, his work engages pressing contemporary issues such as placelessness, sustainability, and restoration of cities and nature. 

From small sheds and houses to 70,000-square-foot corporate headquarters and LEED-certified environmental education facilities, his buildings are specific to their sites and use materials to connect them to their landscapes. Harmon’s projects embody the vernacular legacy of the south while maintaining a distinguished modernism. His buildings have been published often and have garnered over 200 design awards. In 2013, he received AIA North Carolina’s highest honor, the Gold Medal for Architectural Design. 

Harmon received an inscribed medal and presented a public lecture at the Fay Jones School on January 27. His lecture emanated from his book Native Places: Drawing as a Way to See.

The post Frank Harmon Awarded Fay Jones School Legacy Medal in Architecture appeared first on Residential Design.

Community-based projects often struggle to find funding, especially the funds needed to hire professional design teams to help solve design challenges. Too often nonprofit organizations feel they cannot afford to pay for design services even though architects would provide immense value and can make the project more successful.

Grant applications will be reviewed by the AIA Small Project Design Knowledge Community Advisory Board, which will serve as the jury. The board will award up to 3 grants of up to $5,000 each. Submissions may be completed or updated until the application deadline of April 18, 2025 at 5pm ET.  Grant recipients will be notified in early May 2025.

Learn more about the 2025 SPD Community Grant Program on the AIA website and view previous recipients of the grant here.

The post 2025 Small Project Design Grant Now Open for Submissions appeared first on Residential Design.

AIA Fellows are recognized for their exceptional work and contributions to architecture and society. Founded in 1952, the AIA College of Fellows seeks to stimulate a sharing of interests among Fellows, promote the purposes of AIA, advance the profession of architecture, mentor young architects, and be of ever-increasing service to society. Less than 3% of AIA members hold the prestigious FAIA designation.

Each year when candidates apply to be Fellows, the jury considers how they have shown distinction in the context of their object, in relation to AIA’s values, and whether their work has had a ripple effect.

The objects of nomination are essentially the award categories candidates apply under, and each object has specific criteria and requirements associated with it. Learn more about the object categories here.

Meet the Newest Inductees

HONORARY FELLOWS

Alison Brooks, Hon. FAIA
London, England
Alison Brooks Architects
Object One

Tatiana Bilbao, Hon. FAIA
Mexico City, Mexico
Tatiana Bilbao ESTUDIO
Object One

Kain Bon Albert Chan, Hon. FAIA
Shanghai, China
Shui On Land
Object Five

Hu Li, Hon. FAIA
Beijing, China
OPEN Architecture
Object One

Brinda Somaya, Hon. FAIA
Mumbai, India
SNK
Object One

Michel Rojkind, Hon. FAIA
Mexico City, Mexico
Rojkind Arquitectos
Object One

Masaharu Rokushika, Hon. FAIA
Tokyo, Japan
AR Associates
Object Three

Junya Ishigami, Hon. FAIA
Tokyo, Japan
Jun’ya Ishigami Associates
Object One

Kerstin Thompson, Hon. FAIA
Melbourne, Australia
Kerstin Thompson Architects
Object One

Lyndon Uykim Neri, Hon. FAIA
Shanghai, China
Neri&Hu Design and Research Office
Object One

FELLOWS

David W. Altenhofen, FAIA
AIA Philadelphia
RWDI
Object Two

Farooq Ameen, FAIA
AIA Los Angeles
City Design Studio, LLC
Object One 

R. Burton Baldridge, FAIA
AIA Austin
Baldridge Architects
Object One

Thomas R. Bayer, FAIA
AIA Houston
HOK
Object Two

Katherine Shaloo Berg, FAIA
AIA Oregon
ZGF Architects
Object One

Graciela Carrillo Cifuentes, FAIA
AIA Long Island
Nassau BOCES
Object Three

Stephen J. Cavanaugh, FAIA
AIA Chicago
DLR Group, Inc.
Object Two

Daniel J. Chenin, FAIA
AIA Las Vegas
Daniel Joseph Chenin Ltd.
Object One

Lisa I. Cholmondeley, FAIA
AIA Washington DC
Gensler
Object Two

Laura A. Clary, FAIA
AIA Detroit
iDesign Solutions, LLC
Object Two

Brendan P. Connolly, FAIA
AIA Seattle
Mithun
Object One

John F. Corkill, FAIA
AIA Potomac Valley
Corkill Cush Reeves Architects
Object Five

James Crispino, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Gensler
Object Two

Karl Daubmann, FAIA
AIA Detroit
Lawrence Technological University, College of Architecture and Design
Object Six

Laura DuCharme Conboy, FAIA
AIA San Diego
DuCharme Architecture
Object Five

William S. Duff, Jr., FAIA
AIA San Francisco
William Duff Architects, Inc.
Object Two

Stuart Emmons, FAIA
AIA Oregon
Emmons Design LLC
Object Two

Eric C. Y. Fang, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Perkins Eastman
Object Two

John E. Folan, FAIA
AIA Arkansas
Fay Jones School of Architecture and Design
Object Six

Jonathan D. Moody, FAIA
AIA Columbus
Moody Nolan
Object Two

Arathi P. Gowda, FAIA
AIA Washington DC
ZGF Architects LLP
Object Two

Elizabeth M. Hallas, FAIA
AIA Colorado
Anderson Hallas Architects, P.C.
Object One

Michael J. Hanrahan, FAIA
AIA Central New Jersey
Clarke Caton Hintz
Object Two

Jay M. Brotman, FAIA
AIA Connecticut
Svigals + Partners, LLP
Object Two

Richard W. Hayes, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Alexander Gorlin Architects
Object Six

Susan N. Heinking, FAIA
AIA Chicago
Pepper Construction Company
Object Two

Ali C. Höcek, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
AC Höcek Architecture LLC
Object Five

Katherine M. Hogan, FAIA
AIA Triangle
katherine hogan architects, PC
Object One

Robert K. Iopa, FAIA
AIA Honolulu
WCIT Architecture, Inc.
Object Five

Camille U. Jobe, FAIA
AIA Austin
Jobe Corral Architects
Object One

Benjamin I. Kasdan, FAIA
AIA Washington DC
KTGY Architecture + Planning
Object Three

Carolyn Kiernat, FAIA
AIA San Francisco
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Object Two

Julie J. Kim, FAIA
AIA Atlanta
Georgia Institute of Technology
Object Six

Stephanie M. Kingsnorth, FAIA
AIA Los Angeles
Perkins Eastman Architects
Object One

Suzanne R. Klein, FAIA
AIA Washington DC
AECOM
Object Two

Jennifer Townsend Knudsen, FAIA
AIA Los Angeles
CO Architects
Object Two

William G. Kontess, FAIA
AIA Alaska
Michael Baker International
Object Four

Andrea D. Lamberti, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
N/A
Object Two

Steven M Langston, FAIA
AIA Orlando
Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc.
Object Two

Keith L. Lashley, FAIA
AIA Orlando
HKS
Object Five

Bryan C. Lee Jr, FAIA
AIA New Orleans
Colloqate Design
Whitney M. Young Jr. Award Recipient

Regal H. Leftwich, FAIA
AIA Washington DC
SmithGroup
Object Two

Eric Logan, FAIA
AIA Wyoming
CLB Architects
Object One

Karen A. Lu, FAIA
AIA Minneapolis
Snow Kreilich Architects
Object Two

Jose Luis Alvarez, FAIA
AIA New Orleans
EskewDumezRipple
Object One

Heath Allen May, FAIA
AIA Los Angeles
HKS
Object Two

Praful M. Kulkarni, FAIA
AIA Los Angeles
CannonDesign
Object Five

Paul R. Menard, FAIA
AIA Central Valley
UC Davis Health
Object Four

Brian H. Messana, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Brian Messana Architect, PLLC
Object One

Alan Metcalfe, FAIA
AIA Philadelphia
Metcalfe Architecture & Design
Object Two

Christopher P. Meyers, FAIA
AIA Columbus
Meyers & Associates Architects
Object Two

Erick D. Mikiten, FAIA
AIA East Bay
Mikiten Architecture
Object Two

Deborah Finkelstein Moelis, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Handel Architects, LLP
Object Two

Kimberly N. Montague, FAIA
AIA Detroit
Albert Kahn Associates
Object Two

Derek A. Moore, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Object Two

Catherine C. Morrison, FAIA
AIA Charlotte
Neighboring Concepts, PLLC
Object Three

Peter V. Noonan, FAIA
AIA Potomac Valley
McInturff Architects
Object One

JinHwa Paradowicz, FAIA
AIA Chicago
Perkins Eastman
Object Two

Jonathan Parks, FAIA
AIA Florida
Solstice Planning and Architecture
Object One

Garfield L. Peart, FAIA
AIA Atlanta
Moody Nolan
Object Five

Anthony E. Pellicciotti, FAIA
AIA Memphis
LRK Inc
Object One

Matthew T. Porreca, FAIA
AIA San Diego
LPA Design Studios
Object One

Steven R. Raike, FAIA
AIA San Antonio
Lake | Flato Architects
Object One

Joshua Ramus, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
REX
Object One

Thomas F. Robinson, FAIA
AIA Oregon
LEVER Architecture
Object One

Jeffrey S. Seabold, FAIA
AIA Mississippi
Seabold Architectural Studio PC / S5 Construction LLC
Object Three

Pierluigi Serraino, FAIA
AIA San Francisco
Pierluigi Serraino Architecture LLP
Object Six

Frank W. Shirley, FAIA
Boston Society of Architects
Frank Shirley Architects
Object Two

David Jack Silverman, FAIA
Boston Society of Architects
STA Design, Inc.
Object Five

Stephen Springs, FAIA
AIA Dallas
Brinkley Sargent Wiginton Architects, Inc
Object Two

Adrianne Steichen, FAIA
AIA San Francisco
Pyatok Architects
Object Two

James C. Stevens, FAIA
AIA South Carolina
Clemson University
Object Six

Gary L. Strang, FAIA
AIA San Francisco
GLS Landscape | Architecture
Object Five

Mark J. Thaler, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Gensler
Object Two

Georgeen A. Theodore, FAIA
AIA Brooklyn
Interboro Partners
Object One

Anne Mary Torney, FAIA
AIA San Francisco
Mithun | Solomon    
Object Two

Suchitra M. Reddy, FAIA
AIA New York Chapter
Reddy Architecture PLLC
Object One

Ekaterina Velikov, FAIA
AIA Huron Valley
University of Michigan
Object Six

Taylor C. Walker, FAIA
AIA Minneapolis
OPN Architects
Object Two

Thomas J. Walsh, FAIA
AIA Colorado
Fentress Architects
Object Two

Brian Wickersham, FAIA
AIA Los Angeles
AUX Architecture
Object One

Jerry Yin, FAIA
AIA Shanghai
Tishman Speyer
Object Five

James W. Zack, FAIA
AIA San Francisco
Zack De Vito, Inc
Object Two

Learn more about the College of Fellows and the new inductees here.

To explore all previously elevated Fellows, visit the new College of Fellows Directory. 

The post AIA Announces 2025 Class of Fellows appeared first on Residential Design.

In addition to those top tier challenges, 55% to 60% of builders also reported facing serious problems in 2024 with gridlock/uncertainty in Washington (60%), building material prices (57%), concern about employment/economic situation (55%), impact/hook-up/inspection and other fees (55%), and negative media reports making buyers cautious (55%). Looking ahead at 2025, significantly fewer builders expect gridlock/uncertainty in Washington (32%) or have concerns about the employment/economic situation (39%).  In contrast, more builders are expecting building material prices to be a problem in 2025 (64%) and about the same expect continuing problems with impact and other fees (58%).

Builders have been asked about their most serious challenges every year since 2011. High interest rates have been a problem for a negligible share of builders (under 10%) during most years, except for 2022 (66%), 2023 (90%), and 2024 (91%).  When first introduced to the survey in 2021, 63% of builders reported challenges with rising inflation in the U.S. economy, but the share grew to at least 80% in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Prior to 2022, relatively few builders reported problems with buyers expecting prices or interest rates to fall, but that share rose to 49% in 2022, 71% in 2023, and 77% in 2024.

The cost/availability of developed lots has been a serious challenge to most builders in nine of the 14 years of the series history. In 2022, 51% of builders faced this problem; by 2024, 63% did—tying a record high set in 2019. Meanwhile, more than half of builders have reported the cost/availability of labor as a serious problem for the past 11 years in a row. While 82% and 85% of builders faced this challenge in 2021 and 2022, respectively, the share has eased to 73% in 2023 and to 61% in 2024.

For additional details, including a complete history for each reported and expected problem listed in the survey, please consult the full survey report.

—Ashok Chaluvadi

The post Builders’ Top Challenges for 2025 appeared first on Residential Design.