Written by Lance Currie, Partner
As a litigator, I think of disputes in part as an exercise in competitive storytelling—you have to articulate the “why” so that a decisionmaker not only concludes you are correct, but feels it is a just outcome. The ABA Forum on Construction Law celebrated its 50th anniversary at its 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago last month, and one of the presentations I most enjoyed was “Learning by Doing: A Survey of the Most Significant Construction Projects of the Last 50 Years and What They Taught Us,” presented by Phillip G. Bernstein (Yale School of Architecture), Charles F. Boland (Greyhawk), and Chris Noble (Noble, Wickersham & Heart, LLP). The speakers walked the audience through the most consequential projects of the past half century and the forces that drove them—technology, evolving standards of care, modular construction, sustainability, new delivery models, globalization, and the rise of mega-projects. The stories of these buildings and the speakers’ observations provide key insights for construction lawyers and their clients.
Technology and Digitization
The first major change is the technology used to design. As recently as the 1970s, drawings were hand-drafted, calculations relied on slide rules, and documents traveled by mail. The presenters trace the digital revolution through three projects: Frank Gehry’s Barcelona Fish (1992), where aerospace software was first adapted to architectural geometry; the Walt Disney Concert Hall (2003), which proved that computer modeling could translate radical forms into fabrication drawings; and One World Trade Center (2004), where full Building Information Modeling (“BIM”) models validated the technology for the largest and most complex projects. For construction lawyers, BIM models, clash detection logs, and digital coordination records could be essential evidence in delay and defect disputes—and the failure to use these tools may increasingly bear on the standard of care.
The Standard of Care: Learning from Near-Disasters
One of the more gripping sections of the presentation involved two 1970s skyscrapers that nearly failed. Boston’s John Hancock Tower suffered mass glass panel failures, dangerous sway, and a structural vulnerability requiring the secret installation of 1,500 tons of steel bracing. New York’s Citicorp Center faced a worse scenario: an engineering student’s inquiry revealed that unconsidered wind loads and unauthorized field changes to steel connections left the occupied tower at risk of collapse, prompting emergency nighttime repairs hidden from public view for years. Neither building was out of compliance with the codes applicable at the time, and both led to reformed building codes and more rigorous wind analysis requirements. They remind us that the standard of care is measured against prevailing practice at the time—and that prevailing practice is sometimes found wanting only after a crisis.
Modular Construction
Modular construction has evolved from a niche technique into a mainstream strategy for complex buildings and industrial facilities. Brooklyn’s B2 Tower used roughly 930 prefabricated modules but encountered significant delays, serving as both proof of concept and cautionary tale. Contracts for modular projects must address how risk shifts from field labor to fabrication, transportation, and integration.
Sustainability and Mass Timber
The speakers traced sustainability from the energy codes of the late 1970s through today’s certification systems like LEED, giving particular attention to mass timber. Minneapolis’s T3 building (2016)—a seven-story office using glulam and nail-laminated timber—demonstrated the commercial viability of engineered wood, and recent IBC amendments now permit mass timber buildings up to 18 stories.
Delivery Models, Globalization, and Mega-Projects
The final portion of the presentation covered the rise of Design-Build and the emergence of Integrated Project Delivery, plus the globalization of supply chains. In 1996, the federal government lifted the prohibition on Design-Build projects, which led to the Pentagon renovation project being the largest federal Design-Build project in Washington, D.C., and possibly the country. Per the Design-Build Institute of America, nearly half of all construction spending will be on Design-Build projects by 2028. Integrated Project Delivery binds owners, designers, and contractors into a single multi-party contract that shares risks and ties compensation to the success of the overall project. IPD requires a culture shift, however, away from the competitive low-bid processes familiar to many. One of the first IPD projects, the Fairfield Medical Office Building in California, allegedly involved mutual open books, a combined contingency, and joint responsibility for construction errors and design omissions. The speakers described the project as a success and a model for larger projects for the same owner. The presenters also discussed globalization as demonstrated by Apple Park, where custom glass was shipped from Germany through the Panama Canal and carbon-fiber roof panels were fabricated in Dubai. The presentation closed with mega-projects like the Big Dig and Hudson Yards. Each of these trends carries distinct legal implications: IPD’s shared-risk agreements demand a level of contractual transparency that differs greatly from current industry norms. Globalized supply chains introduce jurisdictional, tariff, and logistics risks that should be addressed during contracting. Mega-projects are by definition highly complex, though private mega-projects tend to achieve tighter cost and schedule outcomes than public ones.
Looking Ahead
I left this session a better construction lawyer. Bernstein, Boland, and Noble reminded me that every project has a story—and understanding that story is what separates the lawyer who can explain what happened from the one who can explain why it matters. The trends they identified—digitization, modularization, sustainability, evolving delivery models—are accelerating, and the legal frameworks governing construction must keep pace. But the constant across all fifty years of projects they surveyed is that the best outcomes belong to the people who understand not just the contract, but the building—how it was conceived, how it was built, and what it was meant to accomplish. Sessions like this one are a reminder that construction law is practiced at the intersection of law and real-world outcomes.
