“VQ” stands for vox quartus, which means ‘fourth voice’ in Latin. It represents Lawrence H. Bowen IV’s role as the fourth (IV) in his family line and reflects the architectural statement he makes through VQ Design PLLC.
Essential Form: Insights on Function, Aesthetic, and Building Integrity was published by Pine Tree Press in association with VQ Press, the editorial imprint of VQ Design PLLC, under the direct authorship and design oversight of Lawrence Bowen, CPBD | PEA Specialist. This collaborative publishing model reflects the book’s focus on Performance Engineering Architecture and its relevance to both the design community and broader professional readership.
VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO
From a Colleague in Architectural Theory and Practice
In Essential Form: Insights on Function, Aesthetic, and Building Integrity, Lawrence Bowen offers one of the most articulate and meaningful contemporary explorations of the Golden Ratio as it relates to architectural design. Drawing from both classical foundations and his own pioneering framework of Performance Engineering Architecture (PEA), Bowen reframes the Golden Ratio not as a stylistic device or historical relic, but as a universal constant that binds beauty, function, and human experience.
Throughout the book and on the VQ Design PLLC website, Bowen presents a compelling argument: the Golden Ratio resonates so powerfully with us because it is within us. As he reflects, perhaps the reason this proportion touches humans so deeply is because our very DNA reflects this divine ratio—a truth encoded in our biological structure and echoed in our response to harmonious architectural form.
This insight forms the core of his remarkable thesis: buildings that express Golden Ratio proportions do more than appeal visually—they speak to something inherent in the human psyche. These forms offer a sense of calm and balance because they mirror the geometries of life itself, from the branching of trees to the spirals of galaxies, from the shape of seashells to the double helix of human DNA.
Bowen illustrates how this mathematical harmony, when applied to architectural massing, spatial rhythm, and elevation design, fosters psychological well-being and a deeper sense of order. Referencing works like the Parthenon, Le Corbusier’s Modulor, and the Farnsworth House, he shows how timeless architecture emerges when form honors the proportional logic of the natural world.
What makes Bowen’s treatment exceptional is not just its technical accuracy, but its humanistic clarity. He reminds design professionals that our role is not merely to shape space, but to shape experience—and that in the Golden Ratio, we have a tool both ancient and alive, rational and sacred.
In an age of digital excess and mechanized efficiency, Bowen’s work is a clarion call: to return to proportion, to timeless geometry, and to the quiet resonance of buildings that align with the very code of our being.
LATEST TECHNICAL ARTICLE
(Published by VQ Press, the editorial imprint of VQ Design PLLC. © 2026. All rights reserved.):
Why Administrative Trust in Professional Peer Review Is Now Critical
An Engineering Practice and Governance Case Study from a Small Scientific Facility
Lawrence H. Bowen, CPBD (NCBDC #03137)
Performance Engineering Architecture Specialist | Building Systems Science Applied in Design
Principal — VQ Design PLLC
Abstract
As of January 2026, the continued stalling of the Gila Community College (GCC) astronomical observatory project in Gila County, Arizona, is no longer attributable to technical uncertainty or engineering insufficiency. The project advanced to final engineering approval and satisfied applicable structural and electrical code requirements. Its failure to proceed is instead the result of a governance breakdown: specifically, the absence of independent registered design-professional peer review, followed by the gradual displacement of professional engineering judgment by administrative and legal risk-screening mechanisms.
The consequences—cost escalation, schedule paralysis, and erosion of donor confidence—were predictable and avoidable. This case study examines how unreviewed conservative engineering assumptions, compounded across structural and electrical systems, displaced established professional accountability mechanisms intended to control cost, proportionality, and performance in small scientific facilities.
For purposes of this analysis, peer review refers to independent evaluation by registered design professionals with recognized, demonstrable expertise in performance-based design, structural proportionality, and building systems science, rather than review based solely on licensure or disciplinary title.
The GCC observatory project reached final engineering approval in early 2025. Structurally and electrically, the design complied with adopted codes and standards. That fact is not disputed.
However, engineering practice requires more than compliance. Engineering judgment must evaluate proportionality, performance benefit, constructability, and cost alignment—particularly for small, lightly loaded scientific facilities.
The approved engineering documentation incorporated:
These conditions were not code-driven. They resulted from conservative assumptions embedded across multiple disciplines without independent validation. In well-governed engineering projects, independent peer review serves as the corrective mechanism at precisely this stage.
The most consequential decision in the project’s trajectory was advancing final engineering documentation without independent peer review by a registered design professional unaffiliated with the originating A/E team and possessing relevant expertise in structural proportionality, systems performance, and building systems science.
Peer review exists to:
Licensure establishes authority to practice; it does not, by itself, establish competence across all structural systems, building typologies, or performance domains. Without independent, technically specialized peer review, conservative assumptions compounded unchecked.
When construction bids exceeded the project’s approximate $350,000 target by more than $100,000, the outcome was treated administratively as a market failure. From an engineering perspective, it was a predictable documentation and governance failure.
Comparative structural analysis confirmed that:
The resulting cost escalation was not speculative. It was mathematically inevitable given the published structural design. These conditions reflect a broader pattern observed in small scientific and institutional projects when proportional review is absent.
Electrical systems design followed a similar trajectory:
Again, these decisions exceeded code requirements and were not subjected to independent peer review. Such outcomes are common when systems design is not evaluated through a performance-based engineering lens tied to actual operational demand.
Once bids revealed the cost overrun, the corrective engineering path should have been clear: return the project to registered design professionals for targeted peer review and proportional rationalization.
Instead, authority drifted toward:
This represents a category error in engineering governance.
Administrators are not expected to redesign structures.
Attorneys are not qualified to evaluate engineering proportionality.
Yet in practice, legal risk avoidance began exerting de facto influence over technical decisions otherwise within the purview of registered professionals trained to evaluate structural and systems performance.
Attorneys are trained to minimize exposure.
Engineers are trained to balance performance, cost, and risk.
When legal risk avoidance replaces engineering judgment:
Ironically, institutional risk increases as equipment depreciates unused, donor confidence erodes, and professional accountability diffuses. Engineering risk cannot be meaningfully reduced by substituting legal screening for technical judgment grounded in systems performance and structural proportionality.
Legal counsel should review contracts—not dictate engineering thresholds.
As documented in local reporting, Lawrence Bowen, Principal of VQ Design PLLC, participated in early project development but declined the construction documentation contract due to professional liability insurance requirements misaligned with the project’s scale, structural risk profile, and systems complexity.
Those requirements functionally excluded qualified professionals rather than mitigating institutional exposure.
The project remains recoverable if authority is restored to engineering judgment exercised by appropriately specialized practitioners:
The GCC observatory project did not stall because it was complex. It stalled because authority drifted away from those qualified to exercise it.
Trust in professional peer review is not discretionary—it is an essential governance mechanism for responsible engineering practice. Peer review is effective only when authority is vested in registered design professionals with recognized, demonstrable technical specialization relevant to the project.