Personally I feel that most of my time is spent designing (or reading the dope–same thing really). I guess it depends upon your definition of design. There is the big idea, the concept design. From this there is a several month process caleld Schematic Design in which you explore various design options and MEP and structural systems. Then there is Design Development in which one of those schematic design options is explored in a deeper study with models and tighter drawings and pricing exercises by the General Contractor. Usually at this stage there is program information given to us the the Owner which influences the design path.
Finally you go into Contract documents. During that time I am detaling the project out. Now you tell me when I am doing a detail that explains how to locate the window relative to the brick face and the location vertically so it ends up right where it should be–is that design? I submit it is because without careful consideration of these items your building wouldn’t work.
As Mies van der Rohe stated several times "god is in the details’
Thanks for the information. My dad is a civil engineer for the Corps of Engineers and he comes home bitching about stupid architects and how they draw things that can’t be built, so I made an assumption. There was only one thing he told me I couldn’t be when I grew up and that was an architect, it would result in a disowning.
Because architects are in charge, of so much what is the process for gaining that power? As an engineer, you can design from day one but you need some one with their P.E. to sign your work. Is there a similar process or do they just have to pass the test you mentioned and school?
Well, structural engineering is a type of civil engineering, you’re defining it a bit narrowly (although that’s generally what most people mean when they talk about civil work). (BTW, I’m actually an architectural engineer and took my classes in the civil engineering department)
Yeah, there’s a bit of friction between architects and engineers and **Hakuna Matata[/b[ kind alluded to it earlier. The architect wants everything to fit together aesthetically. Sometimes that means a non-standard sizes and shapes. The engineer wants to design it efficiently; non-standard things can increase the price exponentially. Plus, us engineer types tend to good at math but not all that aesthetically motivated and don’t understand why it won’t work if it’s just a little off the proportions of a perfect rectangle, dang it.
Is LEEDs very important to you as an artist/citizen of the world or more important for business in 2008? Are owners generally “greener” these days or pissed off at the additional short term costs?
Intern Architects can design from day one as well, but need to be under the supervision of a licensed Architect. After three years they can take the Architectural exam. But like any profession you have to work your way up the ladder to be in charge. I know many a young Architect who wants to be put in charge of a hi rise building two years out of school and are somewhat offended that I would make the do toilet room plans. But such is life and I am sure all professions have similar attitude issues. But in theory if a young Architect passes the exam, he is free to open his own practice and if he can find someone willing to let him design a hirise–more power to him. Just not while he works for me
You are correct in that I did define it as it is typically used in my field. But yes technically they are within the same discipline. But my experience is that structural engineers and civil engineers view the other with, well not disdain, but just a sense of happiness that they aren’t doing ‘that’ type of engineering. And a couple of the structural engineers I work with have Architectural degrees as well. The two have a lot of overlap.
I also agree about the friction, but in general I have found it to be in good fun. Luckily as the Architect I do have the upper hand since the consultants work for me! It is all a balance and I have lost many a battle like this due to costs. Aesthetics dont’ always win. Money usually does. And if it can be built more efficiently without compromising the design, I typically am okay with it.
LEED is a huge deal these days–finally! Not for the right reasons, but still it is good that it is becoming a viable issue. It is successful now because it is marketable by the client–simple as that. Everyone is being green these days and if you aren’t you are losing market share to a developer who is marketing his building as green. So all developers are green nowadays.
Overall this is a good thing. I think the goals of LEED are laudable and frankly just make good common sense. But common sense and the building industry (and I include Architects in that statement) aren’t always on the same page. Eventually LEED will be just something that you do as a matter of course and the paperwork involved and the ratings, etc will go by the wayside in my opinion.
I currently am working on the largest LEED project of its type in the country (can’t say what are you will figure out where I work!). I personally am not LEED accredited yet, but I am working on studying for the test now. But the vast majority of my younger staff is LEED accredited and I felt as the head of the team it was important to show that I am in support of their goals. Plus I also like to stay up on the latest and greatest.
In my experience we usually have Value Engineering meetings with the General Contractor and the Client and outline ‘big ideas’ to reduce costs, but the actual tracking of the cost of the work is done by the GC. I might have to supply a few drawings, etc but really the onus is on the GC to get the cost inline. Especially with Design Build since in theory the GC is part of the design team from pretty early on.
Rarely in my experience do projects end up in litigation for overages. Errors and Omissions are a tough one to prove. A set of drawings for a unique building is very different then a plan for making thousands of widgets. The standard of care is the measure used. That standard of care is a comparison done against what other similar Architects would have provided in service. I do think many Owners get hung up here and expect 100% perfect documents–I am here to tell you that does not exist. That is the reason all construction has a contingency, to account for these omissions. And even then, the most an Owner would be able to try and claim would be the amount over and above what he would have paid if that item was on the drawings to begin with and had been properly bid on.
Now deficiencies are a bit easier to prove, but still must meet a standard of care and proven to be a design error and not a construction error. In fact I just received an email the local AIA chapter identifying that 90% of lawsuits against Architects are eventually dropped. It can happen, but my experience has been it is a limited basis–my own experience was just one incident and I was eventually dropped from the suit after a test was done and illustrated it was a construction issue.
damn! I just looked at the specs and it says I have 10 days to review the submittals! That is 10 working days dammit, no 10 calender days–get off my back Man if I had a dollar for everytime I heard the sky was falling due to a submittal or Request for Information being late I could be retired now.
I consider him the greatest architect who ever lived! Will there ever be another like him? Can you see yourself designing a house like “Falling water”?
That’s been my experience, as well. I do structural and some architectural cad drafting and have worked for both Architects and Structural Engineers. I’ve always been amused by the sniping back and forth between the disciplines and am of the opinion that a lot of it’s due to that “overlap” you mentioned. Each profession knows just enough about the other’s business to get themselves into trouble if they’re not careful.
One cause of friction that is definitely not in good fun is money complaints. It’s a universal problem (at least in this area) that Architects are painfully slow to pay their contractors and consultants. I could list 6 in this region alone that have a poor reputation in this regard. And I’ve known a few Engineers and one contractor who flat out refuse to work for any Architect after having been burned one too many times.
Any insight as to why this seems to be so widespread?
I like Frank Lloyd Wright–but I always find it ironic that people idolize him and yet he epitomizes the spoiled, do it my way type of Architect that is being described in the current GD thread.
Do I see myself designing a house like that? Sure given the right client and the right site. But I also am not sure the client climate is there today that was there when FLW did Falling Waters. But I think that locally here in Seattle that someone like Miller/Hull or Jim Cutler do nice work, whether eventually they will be a FLW, who knows. I am sure around the country there are lots of good firms that do similar type work.
Well I know I won’t pay you until I get paid So I think the issue lies mainly with the Client! In some ways that isn’t too far off the mark. If you bill me for your work and by the time it makes it through our accounting process and then moves to the clients accounting process, it could easily be 60-90 days if not longer. Then I need to be paid first and then I pay you. So you can see this might take awhile.
still needs clarification. Structural Engineering is a sub-set of Civil Engineering. You can be a Civil Engineer without being a Structural, but you can’t have it the other way. I think what you are referring to is the way that Civils gravitate to what they do best - whether it be roadway design, hydrology, bridge design, what-have-you. And we are happy when we don’t have to do something we don’t excel at.
I had that problem with one architect here, who finally paid his bill about 12 months after it was due. In his case, he had kind of gone out on a limb with the client, and worked up a big complicated design plan, which the client then refused to pay for. BTW, any big firm here takes at least 90 days to pay. It ain’t just the architect firms.
I agree with what you say actually. I was probably being too brief in my initial response. In my practice though I have yet to see the Civil do any Structural engineering, though I do know they could. In my last job there was a small job that was a structure for a rentention tank, but my civil refused to do the work,and I ended up having the structural do the design of the tank. So in my practical experience they really function as two distinct disciplines, but I do agree that Structural is a sub set of Civil.
12 months! Wow–I have never kept a consultant that long out on a limb. But I do think 90 days is pretty common in the building industry.
