*
I was talking with a friend the other day who is relatively new to construction and he asked me if there is some sort of built in tension/disrespect between the architect and the builder. He had been listening to the alder guys on the crew and wondering where all the hostility came from. I’m pretty new to the architect bib. myself and don’t fully understand the situation either. I explained to him that it had been my experience that the most successful projects that I had worked on were the ones where the builder and us had worked together as a project “team.” Maybe I’m in la-la land but isn’t a senerio to have mutual respect for the others strengths? I don’t claim to know everything about construction and I assume builders don’t know everything about design. Why the friction?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about haunted pipes and building-science tomes, and they ask questions about roof venting and roof leaks.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Hugged my Architect? Only if it's THAT GURL
*Some people are just crabby and can't get along with anyone. Architects are not inately evil,incompetent or arrogant. Just some of them. Same affliction affects people in every walk of life including carpenters. Skip
*Michael,There are an awful lot of ways to put together an Owner/Architect/Contractor team. The traditional method has been for the Architect to act as the Owner's agent. That meant that he was sometimes placed in a position to cost the Contractor an enormous amount of money by making certain judgements. Those situations have not always been the Architect's fault, but then the Architect's decisions have also not always been fair. The result, whatever the reasons and however often these situations occur, leave some narrow-minded Owners, Architects, and Contractors with the conviction that folks on the other side of the fence are evil and crooked through and through.Today's world is a little different. There are many different contractual arrangements. As an Architect, I often team with a contractor to present a single contract to the Owner. You can bet we work together pretty well then. Sometimes we both even have a financial interest in the project, which makes us part of the Owner group too.I would give any intern architect a few pieces of advice.-- Read each project contract closely, and understand your literal role and unwritten expectations.-- It is important to do a good job, but more important to represent to all parties HOW good a job you have done. Holes in your document package? Tell everyone up front.-- Review all work thoroughly and often, and address problems proactively. No problem got easier to solve if it was ignored or action was postponed.-- Be aware and honest about the experience and knowledge level of all project team members.-- Do not micromanage the Contractor or Owner. Work out ahead of time how the project will be run, and follow up regularly (we do it monthly) to make sure you are on course.-- Make sure that each task is handled by the party and person most capable and qualified to do it. Make sure that no one is asked to step out of their expertise and ability.-- Align goals and incentives, and pay attention to what really matters about the project. Does the Owner want/need the cheapest possible project? Then work with the Contractor within the design intent boundaries to keep his costs down, and make sure the Owner understands what he will get. Does the Owner want/need the project as soon as possible so they can make money? Then set it up so that some of that extra early occupancy money goes to the Contractor, and take care to pull down procedural barriers that can ruin schedules.-- Lastly, practice good EQ skills. Treat everyone with respect. Listen and give fair consideration to the opinions of others. Make sure that all interactions end with clear goals, deadlines, and responsibilities for all important project aspects.Despite these points and your best efforts, you will every now and then come across someone who won't give you the chance to treat them fairly and earn their respect. As an Architect, I have found this to happen as much with Owners as Contractors. I imagine it happens to them regarding Architects the same. At those times, continue to treat them well, but politely stand your ground, and remember that part of being a paid professional is turning the other cheek and dealing with...challenging situations.Sorry to ramble,Dave
*MichaelMy experience and advice is b "Prove thy worth!"My way into the field was probaly different than others, but as I became enlightened on the benefits of not shoveling cement as a career/summer job. I wandered about the wood products, commercial hardware, electrical distribution industries and spent time designing at window manufacturers. I managed to squeak out a pretty fair living learning "the what's it take" and "what's in it" to give myself a education that I should have worked for free, but still got payed. All this worked for me and gave me a degree "to practice" and I do just that "Practice" every day learning more to point me in the direction of working on the design process and perfecting the vision with the practical application of the best building products the industry has to offer and construction techniques it take to use them. I would think any design you can not build yourself or supervise, puts you in a position of being out of your league and not being a good architect in your eyes and especially others.Spend the time to learn the processes of the mechanical and civil engineers and make them your own. Don't let a design go beyond the edge of your desk that hasn't passed the rules of design and function and practical building guides (Don't try to run pipes through a window or a bedroom wall, your reputation depends on it every day.) Furthermore take a step back and look at what you propose and the specifications it requires and where is the area of difficultly in the construction process and detail required. Follow the details and make sure the fireplace is able to be centered on the wall and the brick ledge is applicable to the type of brick and so on. I design for my clients and well as my crews and b both will let me have it if it is not as anticipated and nothing makes it easier and more credible to explain the plans and have both your client and builder understand that it is a working design and viable, while fulfilling your clients dreams. Don't narrow your design field unless you chose, keep pitching on the librairies and don't turn away a few commercial jobs too. I find more similarities at times than I do differnces and some standard products are miracle solutions in other areas. When your projects come neat to completion make sure you are there verifying the "as builts", and review your process to make any corrections or specifications on subsequent designs. If you can't design the mechanicals and the overall design in a blended seamless process undetecable to the untrained eye you haven't arrived, b some never do.The jest of my input is you have a oppertunity to bring a multitude of skills to your repertoire and meld into one of a fine working architect respected by his clients and by the builders of his/her designs. Don't stop learning and intern is forever, but you get to drop that from your title.
*Hi and good luck on your career as an architect. My main beef with architects is how often their numbers don't add up, and how often their specs and drawings contradict each other. The very best architect i worked with wasn't an architect but a designer. Proving once again its not what your job title is but what you do.I'm sure you'll do well.It is fair to sling mud at contractors in general because we're a very mixed lot.joe d
*Alot of the hostility probably comes from the fact that most contractors are in their own businesses because they are stubborn, independent, and liike to be in charge. It's hard when there's someone else to answer too.And, It often seems that Architects are more artist than engineer or builder. The builder's job is not always considered (or understood).If you think builders and architects have some tension, you should see architects and engineers go at it.
*You'll do fine, as long as you're willing to communicate. Posting here is a good first step. Establish a relationship with builders on your projects, give them a clear channel to discuss problems and solutions, rather than letting steam build up. Venting is important!But don't show up in your suit and your BMW, walk around with your client and nitpick work. There are people on the job working hard, to produce your vision. It's a bit of a slam. Do that on Sunday.MD
*As a human being I don't have the right to judge anyone. But based on a few observations, here are some guidelines. For architects, don't recomend the cheapest bid...if they can't get the bid right...what will they do to your design? Don't disrespect your builder...you have to work with him for at least the rest of the project. Take some time and listen to your builder...he may be logical after all...then...take some time to explain why he is mistaken(teach), this will help you earn his respect. Don't copy your details straight out of books....there is always a smart@ss like me to find that book! Talk to your builders...be polite to your carpenters and even the lackies....the crews respect that. For Us...(Belly Scratchin Carps), joke around with the architect a bit...try to have a joke at the ready when he gets there...it may set him at ease. Ask for the Architect's phone number so that you can call and ask about any discrepancies or questionable details before building it...and use it! Treat your architect with respect...don't say anything behind his back that you wouldn't say to his face. He may be culturally different...but likely you don't understand him any more than he does you. Be kind to him...he may just give you more work...L
*Hi There,Everytime I try to hug my architect some smuck pries my hands off his neck and holds me down till they leave.If there was ever justice in this world, architects would be forced to build their own creations for the budget suggested by them, by random draw.chat later Gabe,I think I see an architect coming!
*
This was too good to pass up. The following is part of an announcement for a call for papers for a regional conference of the American Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
"Recently, architectural education has begun to recognize the potential of a more intensive relationship between the tasks of designing and building. Through these kinds of projects, "design-build" has come to denote more than simply an expansion of professional services and opportunities, describing instead integrative approaches to architecture whereby the act of building becomes an essential [learning tool]."
The irony is mindboggling.
It is indicitive of differences in the aspects of our industry that each faction can percieve the others to be irrelevant, or at least, superficial. It's a huge struggle to try and learn design while keeping constructability in mind. And there are so many priorities on the builder that design (like quality in television) is usually secondary at best.
The point is, and I think it is what we have discussed here, is that we ALL are in the same industry/craft/profession/whathaveyou. The built forms of human life. We are interested in different aspects of it, we are engaged in different roles, and doing different jobs, BUT IT IS ALL THE SAME. To denigrate an aspect or job that one is not personally interested or engaged in is narrow-minded, short-sighted, and just plain mean.
Solutions? Well, start being nice to each other for starters...
Also, builders - hire architecture students - teach them - be patient with their youthfull idealisms - give them personal experiences of goodness to counteract hidebound attitudes they learn elsewhere. Architects and designers - learn about the nuts and bolts, consult with builders, share the WHY's of your design with them. "This is what I need to achieve [for the client], this is how I thought we should get there, any insights?" Builders - how about learning some design skills? There is so much out there, so accessible, would it hurt to learn the difference between colonial and georgian? modern and post-modern and prairie, etc? How to proportion a window to a facade? A roof to the mass of the building? Orientation to site, view, privacy, sun?
One solution I would love to see would be the ability of a builder to take the Exam and become licensed. If they don't have the theory and the history and the design process down, then they don't pass, same as a graduate who doesn't know live load from dead load or basic business practice. I know this is a heretical view in many circles, but hey, if it improves our built landscape - burn me at the stake.
Anyway, if you got to the end of this, thanks for your patience, Lisa
*And I for one would love to require the schlock develepors and builders to live in their ticky-tacky "I don't need no designer" houses. Mile after bloody, grey, dismal mile. Let the clean 'em! Fight with the doors that open into each other - the windows that are impossible to reach to open or clean, the toilets that look out the front doors, the kids rooms that are so small and dark and depressing the kids spend all their time at the mall, the kitchens that look into the hot western sun and the picture windows facing north - into the gas station parking lot. And the "high end" schlock is no better - just more of it that is impossible to clean. More wasted space to fill with un-needed junk but so badly proportioned that the living room is like an airplane hanger (and since the bathroom is directly overhead, you can hear the excruciating results of last night's three alarm chili), the kitchen is like a movie set - complete with plastic food, and the bathrooms are always cold.Volunteering, Gabe?
*;-)
*This seems to be a recurring issue. I think it lies in the fact that most human beings are quick to blame someone else for their own shortcomings, and the Design/Bid/Build process is loaded with opportunity. I prefer the Design/Build route. Then the architect/builder squabble is at least in-house.Architects are to blame for some of this contentious behavior when they fail to inform the Owner of each ones' role and responsibilities. ( I really love it when an Owner says "your Contractor" is behind schedule, etc.)OK...advicOK... advicentern architect. Get a construction job for a while...lewhile... learn, how to judge people, THEN learn about carpentry, plumbing, whatever,. Yes, to avoid some headaches you must judge people.
*
Hi Lisa,
Anytime!
I can tell by the typo's that you set a new typing speed record and put a lot of feelings into your reply.
Architects are the curse of the construction industry because they have lost their grip on reality.
They dream up a building design first, hand over the conceptual drawings to structural engineers and say make it stay standing forever, then on to the electrical and mechanical engineers and say make the toilets flush and the lights work, but make sure that it all the pipes and conduits fit in the same corridor, but don't mess with my design, lastly they hand it over to a builder to sort out and build.
This is why builders now design build most structures. We fire architects who are more intent on leaving a legacy at someone else's expense.
Architects have no place managing projects.
It demeans the professional project managers who are trained in this discipline. Managing projects is a complex procedure that requires years of training and experience to master.
Somewhat like the requirements of a good Architect, wouldn't you say.
I don't draw pictures of buildings, I take your pictures and I make them real, using steel and concrete.
Don't belittle my craft as one that any Architect could perform because he took a 5 day course on building 101.
Now, you'll have to excuse me, I have a 6 million dollar building that was originally designed by an Architect who made a 1 million dollar (hats a 20% error in estimating) in the cost estimates so I have to fix her mistakes and still produce a good product.
Chat later
Gabe
*
So Gabe, in a perfect world, where would you see the scope of services of the professional architect beginning and ending(and don't say what first came to mind). I'm curious about your perception of what the architect does for the project, process and client who hired him or her.
*
Michael,
We do residental trim and cabinets mostly. Remodels and some new. Without the architect, we're dead in the water. They are the ones who design what we build. They spend hours with the customers trying to figure out what they want. Unless you've done this with a customer, you have no idea how difficult this process can be. My hat is off to all the architects on this board. Thank you for your hard work.
Ed. Williams
*Michael - Interesting stuff here, though the one obvious point I missed seeing in the replies is that we're talking "class" difference . Architects wear clean clothes , work in nice offices, have power lunches in yuppie brew-pubs. Builders get dirty, work in noisy messy enviromments, eat sandwiches while sitting on an overturned drywall bucket. Gross stereo-typing of course, but there is some reality to the difference in mindset.If you have time, I suggest reading "House" by Tracy Kidder for an inside look at the tensions between the three groups involved in a typical residential project: owner, architect and builder.Peace and love , Lee
*
Michael,
This is a good analogy of the tension between architects and builders. Do you have children? What do you think of people who do not have children and give you advice on raising your kids because it is so easy and clearly anyone can do it?
Same theory yet this is how it applies to architects. They didn't go to school to learn how to manage a project or to frame, roof, sidewall, drywall, install or build kitchens or install finish work. Nor did they go to school to estimate the current dollar value of a project. Now they are telling you how to do all of the above jobs which the builder has been attending the University of Hard Knocks for the last 20 years. He or she has been studying hard and here a 30 year old architect who wouldn't know a roofing hatchet from a 28 oz. framing hammer is telling you that's not the correct way to install the flashing on the chimney. The builder goes nuts!
I once had a problem with an architect because asphalt roof shingles were installed on a 10,000 square foot house and some of them were wavy. He immediately stopped all work while we had every rep. under the sun out to look the roofing. I told him that in a couple of months the sun will heat up the shingles and lay them right out. No it won't. They are clearly defective he stated @ 85 per hour of field time. In the ensuing 2 months of back and forth with this the home is going uncovered throughout the winter. We ended up intalling said shingles and in April when the sun heated up the roofing shingles all but about 6 shingles evened out.
Ego and billing out field expense is a terrible thing to waste said the architect.
Now I am on the other side. I have been designing homes as a designer for the past few years after 15 years in the field and my design are buildable and if the builder or framer has concerns I calmly instruct them as to what I was thinking or how to accomplish said project.
Jay M.
[email protected]
http://www.capecod.net/cad
*
Hi Michael,
Architects perform a vital service within the construction industry and I work hand in hand with them on all of our projects.
What the average architect is not, is a construction manager or project manager.
They are consultants to the process of building design.
They, as an organized identity, have elevated their status beyond their capabilities and training.
I am not trained to be an architect and as a result I don't design high rises. Why is it so hard for Architects to accept their limitations and stop trying to control projects?
Yes, by their own egotistical desire to be the focal point of every project, Architects have become the curse of the industry.
Chat Later
Gabe
*
I'm a builder on an architecture faculty. I have some thoughts:
I believe that the tension or bad blood between builders and architects is a historical accident. Through the cathedral era buildings were put up by guilds or syndicates that seemed tough and rude. Architects were the geometers of the group, they had a few perks which led to some expressions of resentment that have come down to us, but basically they were on site and worked hour by hour with the construction people. That was still somewhat true through the Italian Renaissance. But it was Colbert, the Finance Minister for Louis XIV, who had the crazy notion that architects ought to be yanked out of the guilds and put into the academy. That way, Colbert had a group that was subservient to the crown and he didn't have to deal so directly with the obstreperous guilds for his and the king's ambitious building program. We have the minutes of the academy meetings, and the architects took to arguing over proportion and the column orders. We don't have minutes of the guild meetings, but I can imagine how they must have felt. Ticked. If the guilds were like unions, you can imagine what names they used for architects. The first generation of architects in the academy still had a lot of know-how, but by the second generation they started building some disasters like Soufflot's Pantheon of 1756. Can bitterness really continue for three centuries without resolution? Ask the Irish.
Another thought: suppose we delivered dental services the way we deliver construction services. (Vitruvius must have been a dentist--he called for firmness, usefulness and good looks, exactly what I want from my teeth.) First you go to a dental designer and he looks at your teeth and comes up with a theme or a concept ("I see....incision!") and draws it up and tells you to take bids from three dental contractors. You are encouraged to go with the low bid even though the guy is the worst business manager of the group, stays up too late and maybe his drill bits aren't so sharp.
Paul Eldrenkamp wrote a wonderful article in JLC a couple years ago on how bidding for work lowers stature in the construction delivery process. I believe that the tension is very real and very important, and has been ignored so far by sociologists. But it seems that any attempt to find an objective corner from which to view this phenomenon is never out of the range of potshots by partisans. I bet many readers of this posting find it favors builders.
Like the writer of a previous posting, I received the notice about how design and building ought to converge, that began with the word "Recently.." Hah!
*
First of all, let me say that none of these remarks are directed at anyone personally, so please no flames.
The seemingly adversarial relationship between architects and builders is essentially a creation of the profession of architecture perpetuated through an arcane system of education. The separation of architecture as a profession from building as a trade is a modern event. When architecture was still part of building, designers were master craftsmen and part of an apprenticeship tradition in the trades. The first true architectural treatis, Alberti's De re aedificatoria, was translated as The Architecture... until recently when the more literal On the Art of Building was used. The rise of the École des Beaux-Arts in France set the stage for the estrangement of building and architecture. In this country architectural education remained an apprenticeship program until fairly recently. In some states a formal degree in architecture is still not required, and apprenticeship continues to be required even after the completion of a degree. This system assures a supply of cheap labor in architectural offices.
Schools of architecture, in spite of programs that tend to be extra long, remain glorified trade schools, that teach an increasingly irrelevant trade in the context of a built environment whose form is largely the determined by developers. The studio system keeps the student removed from any cross disciplinary influences that are inherent in other professions. A doctor-to-be studies premed, a lawyer prelaw as part of a greater university experience, but the architectural student is immediately put in a cloistered environment, where he or she remains removed not only from actual construction, but from the history and theory of architecture itself.
All designs involve processes. For example the design of a house involves framing. If the designer has an understanding of that process, he need not specify where every stud or nail goes. Carpenters design the frame according to rules called for on the plans, specified by codes and evolved from tradition. Problems arise when the designer understands rules but not processes (or not even the rules). Designs often conflict with the rules and processes of building which often causes tradespeople to categorize the architect as an idiot. No satisfactory feedback system exists to alert the architect to problems because the system of communication is usually one way from the architect to the builder. Vittorio Gregotti writes, "a negation of the value of construction as a subject of importance regarding architectural expression (results) in a gradual increase in the abstraction of detailing, and the progressive lack of interest in the handling of materials..."
*
BillR hit it on the head.
Translated (from Latin?) Architecture means "Arch Builder" or "Master Builder".
*
Gabe Martel and Lisa Robinson, next on Point/Counter-Point... and not a "Jane you ignorant Slut" amongst them. Actually two perspectives of the same point... both well taken. Teach those who design to build, and those who build to design.
*
Ok, for those of us who are long out of school, it's never too late to learn. As a first step towards learning each others' tasks and problems, can you recommend books we could read? Is there a good start from zero introduction to architecture? Likewise for building?
-- J.S.
*Mike,Thanks for a thoughtful response. This has been a great thread. I am wondering what your background is because your perception of architecture school and mine are pretty different. You said that we are removed from actual construction, history and theory of arch. I don't know where you went to school but I got as much of that as I could digest. History and theory are staples of all the programs I'm aware of and actual construction-something that any student or practitioner can never get too much of-was forced, offered and encouraged on/to every student. It is true that integration of all aspects of construction is a difficult area to master and maybe architects that you work with aren't doing it well, but speaking for at least the current generation of architectural graduates, it is preached in school and is a major part of the learning curve that a recent graduate in the profession is challenged with daily prior to taking the licensing exam. I suppose that the IT'sand Rhode Island School's of Design may not emphasize this stuff enough, but the other 99% of the lowly State schools understand how important it is.
*
I think this excerpt from Stewart Brand's book, "How Buildings Learn", sums it up nicely:
"Sure enough, if you look at the history of architecture as a profession, it was always around distinctions of 'art' that architects distinguished themselves from mere 'builders'...The problems of 'art' as architectural aspirations come down to these:
- art is proudly non-functional and impractical
- Art reveres the new and despises the conventional
- Architectural art sells at a distance
Architect Peter Calthorpe maintains that many of the follies of his profession would vanish if architects simply decided that what they do is craft instead of art. The distinction is fundamental, according to folklorist Henry Glassie: 'If a pleasure giving function predominates, the artifact is called art; if a practical function predominates, it is called craft.' Craft is something useful made with artfulness, with close attention to detail. So should buildings be."
I think that sums it up nicely.
*
Well put. Thanks for the input.
I guess I need to find that darn line for the obligatory architect's BMW. Until then I'll be showing up at the jobsite in my orange '79 Toyota pickup. Maybe that will be my little part in closing the perceived class gap. Besides, doesn't the sticker price of those F-350's compete nicely with most BMW's?
Mad Dog- I'd be a laborer for you anyday. Just remember, I can only haul 10' material in my 7' "long bed."
*
Now any good carpenter worth his salt, can get at least a 20' board in that any old day.
Michael, I would be interested in what drafting/design software has been put into your program/school?
*
Ok, John, here is my short ;-) list of "books to hook somebody on architecture"! I have found them all enjoyable and interesting, I recomend many of these to laymen (and freinds and relatives) who just want to understand what the hell I am jabbering about, or who want to design their dream home, or want to know what good design is about. I hope others will list their favorites (I'm always looking for more books!)on both design and building. (I haven't put any building books in here because I KNOW what I don't know!)
Design specific;
A PATTERN LANGUAGE, Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, et al, Oxford University Press, 1977
DESIGN OF HUMAN SCALE, Victor Papanek, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983 (this may be out of print but your library should have it)
HOW BUILDINGS LEARN, Stuart Brand, Viking Press 1994
THE NOT-SO-BIG HOUSE, Susan Susanka, Taunton, 1998?
FIELD GUIDE TO AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE, and FIELD GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE, Carole Rifkind
General architecture and planning books. These are all quite readable, no prior experience necessary.
LESSONS FOR STUDENTS IN ARCHITECTURE, Herman Hertzberber, Uilgeverij 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 1991 (this is in English, don't worry!)
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HOUSE IN THE WORLD, Witold Rybczynski, Viking Press 1989
LOOKING AROUND, Witold Rybczynski
THE GREEN IMPERATIVE, Victor Papanek, Thames and Hudson, 1995 or 1996 (I recommend the British edition - more pictures)
A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE, Philip Langdon, Harper Perenial, 1994
TEN BOOKS OF ARCHTIECTURE, Vitruvius, Dover 19?? (this is an English translation of THE original design theory - ancient greek. It is very readable and enlightening. It makes a great deal of sense, even today)
There are a any number of architectural history books, some great some awful. For a general overview, Kostof's history is pretty good, and there are tons out one any particular point in history/region/style/etc. Also, there are great books on the works of particular, famous architects, both past and presently practicing. For cutting edge modern design, Global Architects does a series of houses and also special editions on particular firms. A series of publications I really like is Contemporary World Architects, who actually do much of their pieces on US architects. There are a dozen or so books (at about $20) on people like James Cutler, Lake/Flato, Steven Erlich, Lorcan O'Herlihy, Office dA,a nd others.
All of these should be either in print and available through amazon/barnes&noble/etc or through interlibrary loan (which is FREE!) through your local public library. If you live near a university or college witha school of design - check out their library too!
Now I've got a book jones - gotta go!
*I had to print your list, Lisa. I'm off to the library tomorrow. Anything you put on the same list as a Pattern Language, How Buildings Learn and anything by Rybczynski has just got to be good.Add "From Bauhaus to our House" by Tom Wolfe
*
Lisa --
Thanks for the list. I've printed it out and will start at the library. So much to learn and think about before I carve this crazy project in stone and pull permits.
I'll be converting a four unit two story apartment building into a single family residence. First I need to replace all the rotten windows and the surrounding termite damage in the framing to get the place weather tight. Stop it from getting worse, and then make it better.... At least that's the goal.
-- J.S.
*Well this thread has certainly revealed a lot of good thoughts. I hope when everyone's done they'll go back and re-read Mad Dog's comments about establishing relationships (Architect-Builder, Architect-Owner, Architect-Supply House, Builder-Subcontractor, Architect-Code Official, etc.). That's how good work gets done without everyone at each other's throats. Also Lisa's on how we are all in the same business, different roles. A few reflections ...You can learn about Architecture and Building from books but you can't become an Architect or Builder that way. One of the big frustrations is the limited amount of time that a project budget allows an Architect to spend in the field (establishing relationships, asking questions, listening and most important, learning what the trades are actually doing). This is especially true for intern architects if there is no one to explain to them what they are looking at.Builders learn a lot - quickly - or they don't make it in business. Architects have far more to learn, and rightfully so if they are to design, detail and oversee construction projects in any meaningful way. Basically it comes down to this - if you're quick on the uptake and learn from everything you do and every mistake you make you should be a pretty decent Architect by the time you're 45. That's part of the Builder-Architect relationship, too, Builders know that most younger Architects don't know very much about construction - yet they are giving the directions? One of the best ways to enhance relationships on the jobsite is to have preconstruction meetings at key points w/subs - pre-excavation, pre-concrete, pre-framing, etc. No matter what the specs say, this is an opportune time to clear up any potential issues that might come up - a 'what-do-you-expect' session - intern architects should be included here by their employers as part of their continuing education.Architects are used to changing designs and decisions on paper - they have to understand that there may be serious cost consequences to this after the start of construction. Usually, their money isn't at risk. PS - When did Architecture schools teach us that money (budget) was important? I must have missed that day. Critiques in schools are oriented toward changing designs to make them better. In reality, this has to stop, within reason, with the start of construction unless the Owner wants to pay the difference.Somewhere along the line, aesthetics was given a bad name. I don't think about the word much until I hear someone on the jobsite (never the Owner) say "Oh it's just aesthetics." Don't we spend billions on 'looks' every year? It's not a derogatory word. It's what we do.Someone made a comment about class distinctions. There will always be such distinctions, the point is what do you make of them? Hopefully not much. Just because I went to college I'm not necessarily any better at my craft than you are at yours. BTW I work right through lunch, every single day, and not in a yuppy brewpub.Owners - Don't ever hire an Architect to work on your house that hasn't owned and taken care of his/her own house. For years. ASK them. If you want a really blank stare ask him/her if they design chase space for mechanicals into their house projects.I'm less sure after only 22 years of practice that Architecture is always 'Art' but I do know that Building can be an Art too. We have artful builders here that guarantee their work 'for life'. I haven't seen any Architects offer to guarantee their work.I am sure that this post is too long, but hopefully expresses a bit of what could be better between us all. A sense of humor doesn't hurt either. Jeff
*A famous Italian car designer once said, "it cost the same to build a beautiful car as it does an ugly one, so why not build only beautiful ones?"The answer is, because no one can agree on what beautiful is!The the products that we buy or build are judged by asthetics or performance.It looks great but won't start.It runs all day on a gallon of gas but looks like crap.Perfection in design and execution requires teamwork, but a team must have strong leadership and direction.There is no room for egos. The critical path starts and ends with the owner or client. He or she is paying the bills and will have to live with the results.The second most critical decision maker is the one who is held financially responsible for any errors. That would normally be the builder.Let us not forget that on most ICI projects the Architect is held unaccountable for his or her omissions. They are paid a percentage of the overall cost of the project. As a result, they are paid extra for cost overruns.Builders, as a rule do not enjoy this luxury. Just a final thoughtGabe
*Gabe - A couple of slight disagreements:Architects are financially responsible for their errors - we carry insurance just like builders. BTW as an industry we're doing better than ever as I understand it from my insurer.Being paid extra for cost overruns isn't quite accurate under AIA contracts - there is usually language implying payment for changes not the fault of the Architect, which is proper (if the Owner changes their mind - 85% of changes in this neck of the woods).I agree that there isn't room for inflated eqos, but I assure you that design and 'ego' (if you define it as your self-esteem, self-worth as a designer) are pretty wrapped up together.I think that there is a lot more widespread agreement on what is beautiful and what is not.We all need to be patient with each other and realize too that while we all work with products to put buildings together in the end they aren't really products at all but places that should enrich our lives.Jeff
*
I ask my architecture students on the first day of class to take out their architecture textbooks. They look around dumbfounded for a while, then one of them will usually have the temerity to admit "We don't have an architecture textbook." Then I ask why not, and they mumble something. Then I ask what chapters an architecture textbook would contain and they give excellent answers (materials, proportion,...). Then I ask what would happen if they designed according to this new textbook and they say they would flunk design studio. In short, architecture resists codification of its own knowledge base. Design is too sacramental for that.
There are some "textbooks" anyway, that students often hide under their benches:
Franklin Ching, Building Construction Illustrated
Edward Allen, How Buildings Work and The Studio Companion
Ramsey & Sleeper, Architectural Graphic Standards.
*Howard Kuntsler(sp?) "The Geography of Nowhere"
*
I was talking with a friend the other day who is relatively new to construction and he asked me if there is some sort of built in tension/disrespect between the architect and the builder. He had been listening to the alder guys on the crew and wondering where all the hostility came from. I'm pretty new to the architect bib. myself and don't fully understand the situation either. I explained to him that it had been my experience that the most successful projects that I had worked on were the ones where the builder and us had worked together as a project "team." Maybe I'm in la-la land but isn't a senerio to have mutual respect for the others strengths? I don't claim to know everything about construction and I assume builders don't know everything about design. Why the friction?