I’m an architect and I hate the construction observation stage of the job. I never know how much I should check up after contractors. I’ve usually had very good luck and good relations with them, but I’m on a job now where the contractors seem to think the drawings are suggestions not orders!
Anyway on a typical residential job (say an addition) – how often does an architect typically visit a site? What do they do there? Do they check all the dimensions? If you notice a discrepency in the dimensions on the drawings at what point do you point it out to the architect? An inch, two, nine? What’s the margin of error over an entire wall? (Say about 35 feet long.) And finally are dimensions customarily to finish materials or studs? (Note that the walls are called out as 3.5″ or 5.5″ thick on these drawings.)
Replies
The sad answer is that it depends upon the architect (and/or his office).
You are in the area I like best, other than getting all of those details worked out in the CDs & specs. (And, I don't mind writing specs, either.)
You will be hard pressed to find any framers who believe that dimensions are drawn to finished surfaces. If that is required, then that needs to be called out on the dimensions.
How plumb is plumb, how square is square, how true is true? As the architect of record (or his agent), you represent the owner's desires for accuracy. As the agent who is also responsible for contractor's compliance to those wishes, you have to find that realistic medium between what is (and, especially, isn't) specified. You also get to cope with the realities of natural materials like wood and stone and the like, which care not for the precision of CAD plans . . .
Weekly might be best, and one of the things to do when you visit is to conduct a pre-scheduled meeting with the GC and the subs who are working that week or about to start shortly. Point out the things in plans and specs that you feel require attention, either because they are critical to the design intent, or because they are different from what may be standard practice.
Plan dimensions are to face of framing, not finish. Show finish materials, and their dimensions if required, on details.
Thanks for all the replies.
I'm glad that there seems to be universal agreement that dimensions are usually to framing members. I couldn't believe this particular contractor had never heard of that convention. But in the future I'll add the info to my construction notes - just in case. I like the idea of scheduling a GC meeting to point out things that are important to the owner. Part of the problem on this job was that when the original dimensions turned out to be off the contractor's "corrections" were exactly the opposite of what the owner would have done.
By the way - I still do drawings the old fashioned way.
Drawings should definitely be to framing dimensions. If an architect takes a different approach, the scene is set for misinterpretation, meetings, and conflicts, not to mention modifications and wasting of resources such as time, materials, and reciprocating saw blades.
An architect should visit the site regularly unless a relationship is established with a builder which ensures good communication. If I am framing for you, my goal is to make it unnecessary to visit the site to check up on my work. This, in my experience, is not the industry norm.
I have not yet seen a set of drawings that are completely right down to the last detail. Until a very good framer becomes an architect, it is unlikely that this will happen.
"I have not yet seen a set of drawings that are completely right down to the last detail. Until a very good framer becomes an architect, it is unlikely that this will happen."
I have yet to see a set of drawings that are down to the last detail - and it has nothing to do with framing. It's just too easy to overlook things when there is so much information on a drawing and a change on one drawing often means changing every other drawing as well. I do my best, but even on my very own kitchen renovation there were things that turned out a little differently than planned. At any rate - I'm not sure what is up with this builder. I see he's put up a different house wrap. Tyvek was specified "no substitutions without written permission of the architect." Sigh... I really wish this client had picked the contractor I recommended....
Who is writing the checks on this job?
The power of the purse is the key to the magic kingdom. If this is highly important to you, you have three options, as I see it;
You should ( or should have already) a phrase in the contracts citing you as the grand po-bah and detailing that no monies will be paid over to the contractor until you have approved the draw.
You can quit - or get "fired". I think someone above has mentuioned how common it is for HOs to hire an archy for initial concept drawings and design ideas, and then dump them and then force por allow the contractor to do all the follow thru work, releasing you from blame
You can stick around and try to shepherd the job in the right gerneral direction, and use an arms-length style. Write weekly reports delineating what should be done next week and what was done wrong this week that needs correction. Explain why certain things need to be done. Then you have done the documentation to show who screwed who blue and if the HOs want to continue letting the jackleg keep screwing up and still keep paying him, well, it is their money. You know the old saw about a fool and his money....
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Tyvek is overrated. They have you taping all the seams and then you blow a million holes in it stapling it up and nailing off the siding. You didn't say what the builder subsituted. Tarpaper tends to seal each hole because of the nature of the material. It is a fraction of the cost too. I would have used tarpaper instead of tyvek without asking "permission".
I listen when the engineer says to follow his directions unless the change is approved. The building department stands behind the engineer. Often what the architect specs are debatable. I often consult with the architect over the phone for clarification of certain details but they rarely visit the jobsite. When they do it is mainly to have a look and not to "Check up" on us. I usually follow the plans closely and there are hardly ever problems with architects, inspectors and engineers.
Dimensions should be for framing and not finish material. Inside dimensions should be shown where there are cabinets or tubs. Common things an architect overlooks are stair headroom and width . Often a spec will show 3' for a stair width, so if the builder framed it that way then the finish width would be illegal.
Other things often overlooked are roof lines and where the roof drains. I worked on a ten million dollar duplex where the valleys drained on every entry. Another million dollar house had all the snow from a vast metal roof dumping in front of the garage and entry. Doh!
Most architects I have worked with have been easy to get along with but I like to work without one most of the time because I do my own drawing and then hire an engineer to make it so. For homebuilding, an architect is not a requirement unless it is over three stories.
Mike Callahan, Lake Tahoe, Ca.
Yes, Tyvek may be overrated, but I don't think you should substitute without asking permission. Make your case to the architect or the owner. I've heard the same argument about Tyvek vs. building paper from architects as well - I'd love to see a real study about which performs better over the long haul.
Sorry... I don't do "permission" from architects.Mike Callahan, Lake Tahoe, Ca.
So what do you do when there's a product or assembly specified that conflicts with what you want to build?
This is the one that I've seen cited here...haven't seen a better one.
http://www.umass.edu/bmatwt/publications/articles/leaky_housewraps.html
"
This is the one that I've seen cited here...haven't seen a better one.
http://www.umass.edu/bmatwt/publications/articles/leaky_housewraps.html
"
Thanks that was interesting.
Tea,
I know that the standard is to draw your walls according to the nominal size of the board. I assume that this is because it made dimensioning a heck of a lot easier in the good ol' hand drawn days. Some will say that it is to account for 1/2" sheetrock. (what about interior walls?). However, I have found instances where the measurements would "run" off about an inch or so because of this practice. I know that usually an inch would not be a major deal. And I also know that if the dimensions on a plan read to the nearest inch that it makes life a little simpler.
I am of the opinion that the plans should be drawn the the width of the board (i.e. 3-1/2"). Also all of the door openings drawn should account for the R.O. not the nominal size. This makes it easier to frame doors at the end of hallways because the boards fit. Ex. for a 2'8" door I will try to make the hallway 3'7-1/2" between the walls so that you have room for a trimmer stud and a cripple stud on each side placed between the tee's with 2'10-1/2" left for the R.O.. If I get in a pinch I will take the width down to 3'4-1/2" and nail the ends of the headers into the tee's with a trimmer (jack stud) underneath. I also only dimension the width of the hallway and not to the hallway (say from an exterior wall) so that the hallway will be the boss.
That was just an examle for a hallway, I try to make anything that will be constrained the boss for dimensioning. I also put a note in bold that all dimensions are to the framing and that they do not represent any wall coverings. However, I do not disregard the wall coverings. I show them on the room schedules and account for them when I am laying out my walls. But usually the framers don't need to worry about them, so why give them something else to worry about.
P.S. It would be nice if a framer would thank me for looking out for them. just once.
" It would be nice if a framer would thank me for looking out for them. just once."
I was with you up until this last statement.
You want special thanks for doing your job right? ? ?
Does that say something about why builders and archy s often don't get along?
Not to pick on you personally, but I think that example kind of touhes on the possible source of conflicts in the first post above. usually, when carpenters "throw away" the plans like that, it is when the plans are unbuildable as drawn. I know there are plenty of schlock "builders" who may not even be able to read plans much less care about what they say, but I have seen at least as many unbuildable plans as therre are piss poor builders that I have known.
That being said, when I find what I consider an error - we all make them - The first thing I do is point it out and ask the designer what should be done about it. I am often prepared with one or two alternative solutions, and we work it out. Ocasionally, there is no error but I have missed something in the plans or a detail page reconciling the situation. If I fail to contact the archy or designer and go off on my own to "correct" it, I can be compounding things. I don't like poking holes in the hull of a sinking boat.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Two comments.
First, you're assuming that Kyle is an architect... and he didn't say he was. So it might be a little premature to use what he says as an example of why builders and architects don't get along.
Second, I think that although at the most basic level architects and builders are trying to accomplish the same thing, they have different priorities... which is why there's usually friction in the relationship. But I think that friction is a necessary thing. Would it be easier if the builder didn't have a pain in the butt architect to deal with? Sure. Would it be easier if the architect didn't have a builder questioning what was drawn? Sure. But I would argue that the results are better in both cases because they do.
Just an idea.
I used to know a guy who managed projects by putting his people in conflict, to create the heat of friction and competition, under the thinking that the cream will be brought to the top. That can have validity if the cream is there, but when you start with a mix of mediocre people in the mix, the milk just curdles.
BTW, I've had enough communication with Kyle to know he is in the architectural field. But none of what I SAID WAS INTENDED AS A PERSONAL SLIGHT, only brought the statement out for the ewxample, as I said in context.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I just love all of your analogies, they're great, and visual. Had to laugh about the milk, I could almost smell the stuff spoiling.
I never met a tool I didn't like!
I've always found it strange that few architects have much actual construction experience. I guess some do, but it doesn't seem to be part of the standard educational experience. You would think that an architecture degree would require as a minimum X summers of work framing or whatever before being allowed to actually DESIGN framed structures.
And how about those "service advisors" at the car dealership? Have any of them actually worked as mechanics? Their hands seem awfully clean.
I like your idea for sending us architects out into the field before we can enter the practice... it would be as funny to watch as if they required a semester of architecture school to get a contractors license!
<G, D, and R>!!!
Touche'
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
OK, maybe there is a bit of a parallel here, but mostly I don't see it. Reading Breaktime I gather that the main source of conflict between carpenters and architects is that carpenters sometimes believe that since architects haven't actually nailed things together, they lack the moral authority do tell them how to do it, no matter how much fancy schooling they (the) architects have had. This could be eased if carpenters believed that architects had ever done the things they are asking tradesmen to do. On the other hand, I don't see complaints from architects about cloddish carpenters failing to appreciate the aesthetic vision of the architect. Hence the lack of parallelism.
Maybe there is a different forum where architects complain about tradespeople?
I agree with you... it's not a great parallel... I was mostly kidding. On the other hand, lots of builders and contractors are providing "design" services these days...
I think you're right about the moral authority thing, but maybe it's even more basic. I think that at a fundamental level, people don't like being told what to do and how they have do it, and that's sometimes how contractors view architects.
And I haven't found a secret forum where we get to make fun tradespeople yet.
On the other hand, lots of builders and contractors are providing "design" services these days . . .
Which brings up an intersting point. The "designers" doing that work really need to be getting specifica liability for their projects. Otherwise, the liability can be the life of the building (which could be a stretch, "You are being served as your grandfather failed to use present-day technology on a project 70 years ago . . . ") Also, for unlisenced persons, the standard of competence is higher, too (but that makes it a subjective, case by case, definition).
Not that there are not designers out there with significantly more competence than some of the bozos with lisences--there are. There are some glorified dam-builders out there, too. A good example of both extremes is Frank Lloyd Wright. He was educated strictly OTJ--and was as difficult with clients as with builders.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
capn.... the way i get around the liability is that we design only for our own construction... our contract says that no one else can build from our prints..
they can use it for "concept only " if we do not get the construction contract..
so... my thinking is that my liability is no more than it would be as the builder.. since we are the builder...
anything the building inspector might question can be stamped by a structural engineer.... the plumber and electrician are licensed..
so , really.. with a little due diligence.. i don't see any additional liability...
now.. if someone else is building from the prints.. yes.. beaucoup liability.. and Errors and Omissions Insurance would probably be called for Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Been thinking these past few years, that architects should work on a crew that is building a plan that they drew.
Might open their eyes.
the way i get around the liability is that we design only for our own construction
I was speaking of the design liability. It is a tricky area. Right now, most of htecase law is (against) big builders using a design or house drafting service. So, the builder knocks out 25-35 of a floor plan for entire subdivisions over some period of years. But the plan omits some required feature, or it cannot be adapted for another use (barrier free access is one), or any other problem that can be laid at the feet of the designer--that's when the lawyers get involved.
Now, my shyster tell me the best defense is to insure that I and my estate, heirs, agents or assigns have nothing of value to attach (boy, oh, boy, do I have that one nailed--started with nothing, and have a little bit less than that now). The other method is to find an underwriter and create a specific liability for a specific project. What you are doing, in doing that, is covering your self in the same way as a lisenced person does with E&O (errors & omissions) and malpractice policies. Unless the parties get the liability limits done on paper in advance, and error or omission of design is "correctable" by going after the estate of the designer in question 9if they have one).
One of the cases I keep hearing about for this is in older construction high density housing, wher ethe building were "designed" to handle high volume plumbing fixtures, so they could use a lower (i.e. 1/8" per foot) DWV systems. Now that the buildings are being retrofitted (or are now required to have) low flow fixtures, the plumbing sytems are not working so well. Not only that, but the thickness of the floor precludes a steeper slope (and the cost of the floor per sf preclude more vertical penetrations)--so someone must pay.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I don't see it as a moral thing.
it is more of a reality thing.
Too many times we see drawings where an archy designs something to make a statement or that is an artistic vision, but is impossible or nearly impossible to build.
The impossible costs about four times as much to build.
Nearly impossible costs only twice as much.
Then the archy is telling the owner that this builder is taking their pants down...
But I really think the biggest source of conflicts is when the archy takes on a "I am GOD on this job" attitude.
They better only do that when they achieve perfection, IMO
I can provide links to archy forums where they complain about clients far more than they complain about the carpenters.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
There is one heck of a lot more trades people than architects/designers. The vast majority of building and remodeling is done without an architect, right? That could go quite a ways in explaining why you hear more complaining about architects from tradespeople than the other way around.
Think of it this way: Many people appreciate art. The appreciation of art doesn't require any training. Sculpture, portrait painting, landscape photography, etc. all require lots of practice and training to accomplish anything that will generally be considered to be of lasting value. A carpenter can appreciate both the limits and the benefits of a design. Will s/he miss some aspects that are important to a more trained eye? Probably.
Take a good look at an AIA contract. It clearly specifies that the architect rules the project, right? We all know that the carpenter/mason/etc. working on the project has little say as to how things are laid out. Thus, when the architect makes a mistake it affects everyone working on the job. When the carpenter makes a mistake it's usually between him and the foreman or GC. Due to the authoritative postition taken by the architect, s/he should expect to be held to a higher standard of knowledge and responsibility than the line carpenter!Something is what it does.
Frankly, I've always thought this would be a great idea. Instead I read Fine Homebuilding. :-)
The statement was made more as a joke. However, there are a bunch of bad designers out there and it seems like they have more financial success than I do, so I guess I have a grudge more against the other designers then I do the framers.
Sometimes I find myself wandering why I strive for perfection when it seems that the hackers (framing or designers) have more success. Sure I can sleep at night because I know that I gave 100%, but when you still lose sleep over the finances it doesn't seem worth it sometimes.
I don't expect a pat on the back, but it wouldn't hurt. (another bad joke)
Well, leet me give you a pat on the back then. I know you pay more than average attention to detail and trying to get it all to come together right. That much show sthrough to me, so I'm sure it does top those who work more closely with you.
I think that maybe ther hackers who seem to do well are pretty good at BSing the clients, and have their names on the right cocktail party lists.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I always dimension to structure, be it frame or block. If something is necessary to be to a finish dimension I call it out as such.
We usually do monthly site visits, but it all depends on how much you trust the contractor. Good ones are great, they look out for you and ask questions when needed. They get to trust your drawings and you learn to trust their field judgment.
If you have not reached that level of trust then drop by as needed. If they don't want to follow the plans then point out they have to. If hammers start dropping around you wear a hard hat.
You're going to make mistakes. So's the contractor. It's in both your best interests to catch them.
I wanted to add that it drives me crazy when I receive a CAD from someone else and all the walls are 4" and all the block is 8". Please, my CAD program runs at 1/64" accuracy. Don't tell me you can't draw a 3 1/2" wall or 15 5/8" instead. Heck, I'm starting to worry about 2x4 studs being less than 3 1/2" now!
Edited 3/5/2004 4:49:46 PM ET by htra
my CAD program runs at 1/64" accuracy
Huh? The vector accuracy for AutoCAD is in the region of ±0.00000000. My copy of 2000 has the Units set to either 0.0000 or 1/16" (.0625) depending on which template I start with. And that only really is driving the display of distances when queried. Dimensions are set to 1/8" (if only to take pity on the framers).
My plotter, now, that's different. I can only get about 0.005 wide lines out of the inkjest at its narrowest.
Now, more seriously, I draft wall thicknesses to nominal finished. The dimensions are still to framing, because that's what the framers build to. Is it more work for me? Yes, a bit (Visual Lisp helps a good bit). But better to be heaving electrons about than walls. Now, it is nothing but my own personal opinion, but, I like detailing wall finishes as a wall thickness. That way, that hall way with a door in the end, gets the width it needs since there is Craftsman wainscotting with a deep shelf for a caprail. I never appreciated working from plans that forgot about wide door casings, or doubled wallboard or the like. ("Hey, Boss, know where we'cn git a 2'-3 3/8" wide door? Quick?") So, I try to not create them myself. I also try to never ever spot a door closer than 1 wall thickness to an intersecting wall (so a 3-0 door wants a 45" space [46" stud to stud] if the walls are 4 1/" thick 2x4 and 1/2" drywall two sides).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I use ArchiCAD. 1/64" is it's most accurate setting. (In English units - I bet Metric units are higher) Do I leave 64ths. laying around to drive people crazy? Tempting sometimes, but no. I just leave it there mostly as a check for me. If I see 64ths. or 32nds, even 16ths. in dimension strings I know it's time to check up on myself.
About the smallest dimension I'll show in framing is an 1/8". I know I'll be lucky if it's within a 1/4". I draw at 1/64ths, and dimension at 1/64ths. Most CAD files I get from other people I have to dial down the dimension setting to 1/8" or 1/4" just to get the plan out the door. Otherwise I'll be there all day adjusting things.
I rarely show finishes in plans, although I'm always careful to keep them in mind. Finishes are always shown in details.
I like your phrase "heaving electrons". Makes me feel like I do heavy work!
like your phrase "heaving electrons". Makes me feel like I do heavy work
Well, when the customer comes in says we have to shave 1100 sf off of the footprint and only on this side, because we're up against the setbacks everywhere else--oh, but we don't want the change the floor plan, though . . . Those are the times where it can really seem like heaving. And heavy work ("Hey, it's only a coupl'a walls, that won't be hard, huh?" No, just the elevations, the sections, the roof plan, the . . .)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
but I'm on a job now where the contractors seem to think the drawings are suggestions not orders!
Sure hope you didn't state that opinion in those exact same words on the site.
This isn't McD's ... I don't take "orders".
The fewer mistakes and more times the dimensions actually add up to the same number each time ... the farther away from "suggestions" they become.
But .. they are just suggestions.
I'd bet that an archy that spends some time after finding all the flaws to listen to the reasons ... and also ask for any flaws on the drawings the crew has come across ...
would recieve a decent reception.
But not all crews are the same .... some people don't like anyone checking anything.
Me ... I've been known to leave a level in an obvious place so the owner can see just how plumb and/or level "that" is.
In the end .. it's a two way street ... and anyone that suggested the term "order" ... better have all their ducks lined up perfectly .. as I'd be looking to shoot a coupla each time they showed up.
Jeff
Buck Construction Pittsburgh,PA
Artistry in Carpentry
"I've been known to leave a level in an obvious place so the owner can see just how plumb and/or level "that" is."
Great tidea!
Better they use my level than the dime store one they have kicking around in the closet
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I started doing that when working for one GC that always had to "double check" ... even if ya got it right a thousand times before ... he just couldn't leave the job site without checking something ...
so for cab installs .... I'd usually put my stabila's back into the case ... and the safest place for them to sit overnite was on top of the new run of cabs ...
I caught him trying to sneak a coupla checks ... so I just started leavinbg the levels across the cabs ... minus the bag.
He caught on pretty quick ... would even tell the customers that "obviously Jeff's got nothing to hide" .....
When I'm framing in steel I'll stick the mag levels to something obvious ...
just so I know where to find them in the morning.
I'll also leave a framing square or my 12" speed square in the corner of a cab ...
JeffBuck Construction Pittsburgh,PA
Artistry in Carpentry
when I get handed a set of drawings for the first tim e, I know instantly how the next half a year ( + or - a month or two) is going to be.
If the drawings are good , the job will go good. That's gennerally how things go.
As far as visits go, a lot of times (and I wish I had a nickel for every time this happened, cause I'd be rich, retired, and my back wouldn't hurt so much), the Architect got "fired", and won't be availible to answer questions. When I mean fired I mean the clients fired him or her because they wanted to save money by not having site visits. That usually means right off the bat the boss lost money. Now someone from our office has to make architectural decisions, explain in laymans terms to the HO etc..etc.. Sometimes, just out of curiosity, the architect shows up and, well, " These people are crazy!! They want the light there?????? Now they have to get a stepladder out every time they have to change the bulb!" Some times the architects own emotions and wants take precedence over the clients desires. I've seen a client change something, which moves that, which alters this, which ultimatly changes the exterior just a little , and the architect makes a fuss over it because now he cant take that picture of that perfect exterior he desiged. (which is suppose to award him more work).
As far as dimensions go, you're suppose to tell us. You are communicating through the drawings . Tell us if the dimensions are to finished wall or rough wall. If it's an addition, something "aligns " with something, "match existing" ," 35' 4" + or - "if you are not sure, but that's what you think it would add up too.(and better not question what you end up with) I've seen "follow property line" (things get tight in the city). When the trades show up on the job, wall may get firred for drain pipes, bulkheads are added,chases get added, cielings get dropped, etc ...by this time, the hell with what's written on the plans.
Are you demanding shop drawings from, stair, cabinet, and window manufactureres? If you are fussy about your projects , and want every thing to fall into place as close as possible, you should. If not, than what's an inch? A mile?? Hey, if it ends up looking like a duck, don't worry, it'll quack like a duck.
There's a thousand other things some one else will bring up.
Seems to me that the amount of time any architect would need to spend on site would depend upon the architect, the builder, and the relationship that they have (or have not) cultivated.
Building from drawings is always an interpretive process, and any good builder will attempt to provide a reasonable interpretation. If the builder is reputable, and the drawings are clear, consistent (mentally and dimensionally), and provide a level of detail appropriate to the task at hand, your site visits should be an enjoyable experience.
We have all had the experience of discovering some logical inconsistency in the drawings that prevents the building from existing in 3D as it is drawn. It's frustrating and expensive.
We've all had the experience of having simultaneous but logically contradictory design imperatives that are arithmatically implied by the drawings, with no indication of what might be the preferable resolution. If you let something like this leave your office, there is no reason to think the builder will resolve it as you would prefer.
The best answer I have found is for me as the builder to carefully review the drawings with the architect prior to construction, find any potential problems, and work them out in the office before we break ground. This requires a few hours of my time and a greater degree of diligence from the design team, but it's worthwhile.
I wish this happened before the drawings left the office, but it doesn't, and it's understandable. We all have our areas of expertise, which is why we all have jobs.
As I review the drawings, I'm going to insist that dimension strings close, that overlays stack properly, and that the architect has actually thought through the process of building the house well enough that everything logically implied by the drawings can exist. I might even want a site visit with a transit. (I have had to call the architect and ask him exactly how far underground did he really want the windows. I learned this spirit of cooperation the hard way). What everyone gets in return is a good job with fewer headaches.
Sure, there will be things that come up that nobody could foresee, but these things should be minor, and in an atmosphere of teamwork and good intent, this shouldn't be too hard to work out.
If you are finding quality control issues on the job, that is a different story. You have every reasonable expectation of a good job. If that isn't happening, you might try incorporating the NAHB Residential Construction Performance Guidelines into the design documents. Any builder who can't hit these standards is a mess.
Above all, get a rapport going with the builder before there is a problem. Make sure he understands and appreciates your interest, you may well find that it is mutual.
I like your idea of builders taking architectural classes as much as I like the idea of architects taking a year or two in the field. I took a few college courses in building construction and engineering drawing, it certainly helped me to understand architects better.
Good question -- I'm glad you asked and I hope it promotes a lot of constructive discussion.
DRC
So well explained!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Thanks, Piffin.
Like most of us, I suspect, I learned it the hard way.
DRC
tea, thanks for posting, I will also thank you for getting to the job site!! I sure wish more architecs would. We are all on the same team, ask the question to the builder/subs, " What all could I have done to make this a better set of plans??" Do tell, what is good and what is bad, no heartburn. The last time I talked to an Architech, he billed the HO, $73.00, ie consultation. HO told me to Stop talking to the Archie. I can get upset at how much money can be spent, thrown away in residential construction, caused by sloppy/ unconcerned / ego's of "some" (not all) architech's. Keep on posting tea,, Jim J
Hi Tea,
I'm a ten year intern architect (still hoping to drop the first word someday). Unlike yourself, I absolutely love getting my feet dirty and spending time jobsites. Fortunately, I work for an Architect who prefers the fat marker stuff and is happy to allow me to work out the nuts & bolts, under his supervision of course. The "Construction Administration" phase & I get along great, since I'd almost rather swing a hammer than endure an afternoon of 'talkitecture'. In HS & College, I worked every summer (and spring break too unfortunately) on the wall bending nails, digging holes and cutting boards. This experience was enormously helpful. Not everyone gets or wants that experience though, so there are ways to help yourself...
This is what has worked for me:
To the point of being annoying, I try to meet everyone on the job site - and know them on a first name basis. Engage them each & every visit, even if just to say hello - so they don't think you're just the prick who comes by to give them problems. Every one of them can be your teacher if you are willing to ask, listen or just watch. For example, I learned more about flashing during my first summer job from a guy I thought was "some dumbass carpenter" than I ever learned in design school - and I've never forgotten this. You cannot judge a book by its cover, and most of the guys with hands as thick as a baseball glove really care about what they do and love to share with you if only you are willing to learn.
To come in with a "behold the architect has arrived" attitude, is to paint a bullseye on yourself. You'll get nothing but disdain. To have a rapport with the superintendent, foreman, mechanics, laborers, whoever - you must respect them & they must respect you. Remember you can still do your job without being a thorn.
Lastly, and most importantly (IMHO) don't be passive aggressive. By this I mean don't go back to the office & fax the bad news - bring it up verbally right now on the jobsite and come to a conclusion, then write it up (or wait a week and see if it gets resolved without writing it up - if it could make the contractor look bad). If you wait two days to write something up, that ultimately has to be torn out - you've just wasted the time of several people who are trying to make some money. Remember, teamwork only works when it's not adversarial.
Horse trading is common - you scratch my back & I'll scratch yours. Live by it.
As for products and construction that is contrary to your specs - you need to go back and read your contract with the owner, and hopefully the contract you drew up for the owner & the contractor to execute. The AIA contracts, although most contractors roll their eyes at the thought, are very clear in definining responsibility. IF your contract is structured such that YOU must certify applications for payment, you will be able to ask for corrections because you'll hold the purse. Without this control, you're simply a spectator. I recently worked on a job with no contract, and it was worse than a nightmare because there was no mechanism for getting things corrected.
Lastly, if it's nearby I like to visit the jobsite weekly or whenever something requires a clarification (the whole "face time" thing again). I write site visit reports 2x per month typically, including topics discussed, items requiring correction, opinion of conformance with schedule, and photos showing progress as well as highlighting things I've written about.
Good luck,
Scott
PS: now, I don't want to hijack Tea's topic - but I'm curious if anyone would like to contribute to another topic where I ask for ideas from contractors about what kind of notes, details, etc you have found to be least/most useful in a set of plans & specs. I'm sure it'll open the door to some real humorous stuff, but I also think it might be quite enlightening. I'm always trying to refine my understanding of what is important and what is a waste of time to draw... If anyone likes this idea, please post back here first. Thanks in advance
Oui, Oui, Don't wait
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I would love to see another topic on that subject. I find it hard to get feedback on our drawings and what was helpful or not.
Please do start another thread, I'll post to it.
Good idea.
DRC
"Lastly, and most importantly (IMHO) don't be passive aggressive. By this I mean don't go back to the office & fax the bad news - bring it up verbally right now on the jobsite and come to a conclusion, then write it up (or wait a week and see if it gets resolved without writing it up - if it could make the contractor look bad). If you wait two days to write something up, that ultimately has to be torn out - you've just wasted the time of several people who are trying to make some money. Remember, teamwork only works when it's not adversarial. "
Good point - I like watching construction. I like learning from what I see. I like the idea of talking to everyone (though around here most of the underlngs speak Spanish which I don't) I definitely need to speak up more on the job site and less when I get back to the office. On this job in particular, I'm tempted to get adversarial, and I agree with you that it's ultimately counterproductive.
found to be least/most useful in a set of plans & specs,, My first two suggestions, on site visit with builder, for you to show him the nail in the tree, or scratch on the rock that is the finished floor height. If there are any special hardware connections, ie glu lam to glu lam (butt joint), make it shown on print in Big letters, and you just might possible mention these to whoever the builder is, instead of the usual, lots of print/info on the page of detail. Thanks for posting the question,, Jim J,, ps by chance do you ever verify the city sewer invert at the street??