Forging Your Own Path

As Principal, Director of Building Science at Payette, Andrea Love pushes the boundaries of sustainability in practice and in policy. With a Master of Science in Architecture Studies in Building Technology from MIT and Bachelor of Architecture from Carnegie Mellon, Andrea brings rigor and focus to the performance of projects. She serves on the Board of Directors for the USGBC Massachusetts Chapter as well as the national USGBC Chapter Steering Committee and Education Steering Committee, and is a member of the COTE Advisory Group to the Board. Over a delightful lunch zoom, Andrea shared her unique path and purpose in design.

Andrea Love

How did you get to where you are, Principal Director of Building Science at Payette?

I always had an interest in art and science, which is why I chose to go into architecture, but I was never good at staying in one lane. Even in architecture school, I ended up having a dual major in photography and was always taking classes elsewhere. When I was at Carnegie Melon for my Bachelor of Architecture, I studied abroad in a program focused on sustainable development and spent two months each in India, South Africa, and Brazil. I became particularly interested in sustainability and focused my thesis on that. 

When I graduated, I went to Chicago. It was right after September 11 so there weren’t really many jobs. I ended up working at a small firm that wasn’t my passion. Then, I worked for a firm that was interdisciplinary with landscape, civil, and urban planning. After a year, I joined the City of Chicago in the department that does the design and construction of  city buildings. In the early 2000s, the city was really pushing sustainability and wanted to form a new sustainability group. I worked there for 3 years and when it came down to getting my license, they said the city policy didn’t support licensure. So, I went back to a more traditional firm for 4 years, where I got my license.  

By this point, I had bounced around in different aspects of sustainability and seen it from many angles. But one thing I kept getting frustrated by was that I felt like my architectural degree didn’t provide me with enough technical knowledge to be able to argue with the engineers. The firm I was at was an A&E firm, but I found myself coming to head with a lot of the engineers that worked in the firm. I would say, “I think we should do this,” and they would respond, “No, we are just going to put heat recovery on it, and it will be fine.” From my experience, I intuitively knew that it would be good to push the building performance, but I felt like I didn’t have the tools to articulate why. So, I decided to go to graduate school. I applied to MIT on a whim and got into their Building Technology program. 

While I was there, I saw a job posting at Payette that they were looking to start a Building Science group. It seemed interesting because most sustainability jobs were focused on tracking LEED scorecards, which was never my passion. I was always interested in how sustainability and building performance could push design to get to better performance. The Building Science position was described as half research and half design and fit well with my interests. Through a series of random events, I ended up meeting some of the Principals at Payette, who convinced me to apply even though I still had 9 months of school. I ended up joining Payette to start the Building Science group and went full time when I finished MIT. I have been there 10 years this month! I have been fortunate that I got to join a firm that was interested in sustainability but there was no existing structure, so I could build and mold it into what I was interested in. I have continued to push internal research and to build our capacity to design better buildings.

What challenges have you encountered along the way and how did you overcome them?

One of my biggest challenges was figuring out where I fit in the world, particularly in the field of architecture. Early in my career, I worked in a bunch of different organizations, trying to figure out where I was happy and what I liked. Each time, I learned something that helped point me in a new direction. It was a little like dating – no one is perfect, but you just have to find the one that’s the right match for you, that is imperfect in the right way. Working for the city, I was interested in the work but was constantly butting heads with the layer of bureaucracy, so I couldn’t stay in the public sector. At the architecture firm after that, I enjoyed some of the work but it was more focused on LEED. I wanted to push design through sustainability. Part of the challenge that everyone faces is figuring out what you are interested in and what you are good at and how you can make those align in a way that helps the firm. That took a lot of trial and error for me to try and figure out where I fit in.

If you could change any policy in design, what would it be?

There are many policies I would want to change! The nice thing is that now, sometimes people actually listen to me. On sustainability policies, I have been working a lot lately on figuring out how we, as a firm, can incorporate embodied carbon better in our design process. We spent a lot of time in the last few years on operational carbon but not as much on the embodied carbon side, so how do we make it a holistic carbon picture when we make design decisions. On the firm organization side, I try to push for policies that continue to improve the organization. Right now, we just decided to make Juneteenth a paid holiday for Payette. I was also able to help update our parental leave policy (after I had my children, unfortunately), but I think we got to a good point of where we can be right now. We offer 8 weeks paid leave for women and 4 weeks for men. I was strongly advocating for having the same amount of leave for men and women and ideally being 12 weeks, but we are just not there. It was still a really big step from where we were. There are a lot of things I would like to continue to push, but we are making steps.

Have you experienced any advantages or disadvantages to being a woman in the field?

For the most part, I have been very fortunate that I haven’t experienced any major roadblocks. As a woman earlier in my career, many times you show up on the job site during CA and they want to see your boss because they don’t expect you to be the person. Because I deal with a lot of the engineering side of things, it’s not infrequent to be the only woman in a room of 25 men. But I would say there haven't been any major roadblocks in terms of my career. I have been fortunate that I could create my own group; I kind of lived or died on my own. I will succeed because of my successes and I will fail because of my successes. There is no one I am competing against and no rubric that I am being measured against because no one has forged that path. It has both its advantages and disadvantages. 

There are a few little things every now and then. There are those perceptions of people thinking you don’t want to do something because you have young children, like traveling for a job. I always try to be very vocal for what I can do.  I am fortunate that my husband doesn’t need to travel for work, is a fantastic person, and we really do 50/50 in terms of childcare. So, if I have to hop on a plane he has always been very supportive even if we had a young child at home. I think people want to be conscientious but need to offer the choice to those impacted and not make them for them. 

Have you observed any positive or negative sides to emerging professionals today? 

Most of the emerging professionals (EPs) are more conscientious socially in terms of what equity should be. I have noticed that younger men take their parental leave whereas older men didn’t when it was their time. From an equity standpoint, the younger professionals seem to be much more aware of that. From a sustainability standpoint, younger EPs are also more conscientious about that in general. With the changing technology, EPs have a lot of skills that leadership doesn’t have. That offers them a lot of opportunity, specifically around emerging knowledge gaps. Take embodied carbon, there was an interesting study done by the University of Washington that showed the average knowledge of a design professional of embodied carbon in less than one year. So, you as an emerging professional can become an expert and know more than most people in the field in very little time because most people don’t know much about it. There are many such knowledge gaps that open opportunities to EPs if they are interested. 

What tips would you give to emerging professionals going forward?

I have noticed that often, people let firms tell them what they should do or what they are good at. I think emerging professionals should be more conscientious and vocal about what they are interested in. “I might have been doing this and good at it, but I want to try something new. I really like what I’m doing and I want to do more of it. You might think I’m really good at project management, but I am really interested in this over here.” People often get pushed into roles and then they are there for a while and feel stuck. Reflecting and thinking about what you are interested in, having a conversation, and advocating for that is important. Most firms are pretty good at trying to keep that in mind for next opportunity. 

What tips would you offer to other leaders? 

Leaders should be better about asking and not relying on people to advocate for themselves. Actually asking, “What are you doing? What do you like, not like? Where do you see your skills?” and having an open dialogue. It is hard and it takes time. But it is important to help guide and direct people’s careers a little more and help draw out of them what they are interested in as well. It benefits the firm if you are doing things you like to do – you are going to be motivated and do a better job and stay. Those are all things the firm wants.