Archinect
anchor

Architect as Master Builder

152
Flatfish

There are design-build situations in which the architect is the GC.  There are also design-build situations in which the architect is the primary contact and manages the GC.  There are design-build situations in which the reverse is true.  There are many, many design-build situations that are bid, particularly in the case of public buildings in states or municipalities where design-build is the preferred method and bidding is required.

I didn't say go back to school.  I said do some reading.  Your current understanding is overly simplistic and partly wrong (i.e. typical of a wiki page) - nobody's jumping all over you, we're trying to help guide you in the right direction.  Your experience seems limited - I just wanted you to understand that it may not be enough to make any generalizations based on it.  Directing you to some sources of better, more in-depth information than you currently understand is not something to get all defensive about.  Your school should have taught you these things - it's in the required NAAB core curriculum.  If they didn't that's not your fault - but now that you're aware of the deficiency it's yours to supplement.

Dec 7, 15 5:33 pm  · 
 · 

My thoughts on the idea of the architect as master builder...

Historically, the concept is fine ... it might be too simplistic but we probably view all of history with a little bit too simplistic of a lens. Today, it might only be achievable in residential construction, or small TI projects. Even then I'm skeptical that anyone is really able to do it (and that it is even something to aim for). 

The issue is complexity. Historically, the architect or master builder had to master design, and a handful of materials. Design will probably always be subjective so mastering it just requires the mastery of bull shitting. Materially, you had to master brick, stone, concrete, steel, glass, wood, and some other metals (copper, bronze, brass, etc). You really could master these things as they didn't really change, or at least working with them hadn't, for hundreds if not thousands of years. (Even then, I doubt those we are probably thinking of as master builders really knew everything about the materials they were working with. They probably did what we do today ... it worked last time and hasn't fallen down yet, so let's do it the same way this time and cross our fingers we don't screw something up. Or they relied on specialists)

Today, this has all changed ... except for the bull shitting. That's why architects only want to talk about design. It's relatively easy to bull shit someone. It's a lot harder to master all the building materials we have to work with.

Even the simple materials that the architect could once master aren't the same. You have all sorts of different admixtures and ways to change the mix designs for concrete. Plus you can add in the complexity of all the curing compounds and things like that and all the ways you can finish it with sealers, densifiers, polishing, etc. You have so many different ways you can handle steel that even figuring out non-structural metal framing still throws off many an architect with the coatings and different material thicknesses and yield strengths of steel. Glass used to just be clear. Now you've got tinted glass, low-iron glass, low-e coatings, laminated glass with various interlayers, tempered glass, double and triple glazed insulating units with warm edge spacers and argon fill. Even wood has gotten much more complex with the different varieties and species that are available on the market. Wood used to be local, now we have a whole category we call exotic.

On top of the old historical materials you have new materials coming out all the time. You think Brunelleschi had to worry about what type of fluid applied weather barrier he wanted to use for his next project and whether that was better than a peel and stick or sheet membrane? Back then it was all mass walls and wood. Both could deal with a lot of moisture without failure. Now we make everything thinner and more susceptible to rot and decay by chopping it up in little pieces and gluing it back together (OSB). We've created tight construction techniques that don't allow a building to leak/breathe and we've made issues with moisture and mold. So we also get into insulations and vapor retarders and air barriers, etc.

On top of all that, we'd like our world to be around and livable for our children and grandchildren. So now we add additional requirements for sustainability. Gotta watch that EUI and those VOCs and make everything from rapidly-renewable recyclable materials or at least get them FSC certified. The materials that 20, 30, 40 years ago used to be technological innovations are now getting red listed because we think they aren't good for us ... problem is, we don't know anything more about their replacements than we do about the materials we are trying to replace.

This all probably sounds pretty pessimistic. I find it exhilarating. But I also know I won't be mastering it anytime soon. So forgive me if I don't plan on getting into contracting anytime soon to become a master builder. I'd rather try to master one side of that coin before I start monkeying around on the other side.

Dec 7, 15 6:00 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: