I know this forum likes its terms defined well and often so I'll do my best:
Hegemony is the leadership or willful power of one group or being over another group or being without the latter's explicit consent.
In any project, at least in the US of A, the GC [general contractor] enjoys, and readily employs, the most hegemony over other entities involved in the project. Over the design architect [DA], over the architect of record [LCA], over the project manager [PM], over the building modeler [BM], and even over the client/owner/end user/constituency [O].
Why? Because the architect [be she DA or LCA] never sees the figures from the subcontractors. He or she never knows whether the numbers he or she is getting for glass and glazing is 'base' or 'loaded'. Likewise PM's [in the US at least] do not see the value in paying for design services for a cost estimator or quantity surveyor.
Therefore the only entity who ever knows the true cost of the design is the GC. No one is in the position to verify if the figures are accurate or padded. There is no balance of power.
What would it mean to collaspe this dissonance? Is SHoP the way forward? Can the architect absorb the role of preconstruction services readily and immediately? Does that entail a breach of liability? Does that entail an acceptance of responsibilty and also further design quality?
Proponents of design-build got very excited at the prospect of architects also being the GC's. Little did they know that it would work the other way around. Go back to your cubicle architect! Time for real men to figure out the construction part.
In the traditional design-bid-build setup, architects (at least in theory) have a huge advantage: they are the first ones on the job, and GC doesn't get introduced until a much later stage of the process (there are exceptions to this: when the client is also the developer, etc...)
How to take advantage of this:
-Always strive for a well documented project. Your drawings and specs need to be in a zen like harmony. If GC can pick apart your project for inconsistencies, you will lose credibility with the ownership. It's GC's job to make you look bad. It's your job to shut him up with quality work. Overworked, understaffed office will have difficulties meeting this one.
-Know your client. Their priorities will differ based on the project at hand. Between price / quality / time your client will typically chose 2 of these. For some reason GC understands this much better than architect does. If your client is looking for the cheapest solution possible, your service strategy needs to shift, i.e. put your starchitect aspirations on hold for this one. Offices that are quite good at this tend to work with the same type of client over the years.
-Take keen interest in financial aspects of the project. The GC estimates are not hidden from you. Go over the bid packages with the owner, and then with your own staff. If you do this for a number of projects, you will know as much as GC does. Estimating is not rocket science. It heavily relies on specialty software these days. Construction documentation does not quantify building components. It's estimator's job to do that. Perhaps architects need to shift their focus and offer material quantities as part of their core services.
-You are an information manager, start acting like one. You are the gate-keeper of the information required to execute the project at hand. GC will gladly take much of that responsibility away from you. With information comes power. I've seen many offices struggle to maintain order within complex projects, and then subsequently lose control over some aspects of work. Be prepared to fight for power.
-Take on as much liability as you can. GC has more money and resources than you do, so you will not be able to replace him (nor will you wish to). But do chip away at some of GC's roles. Offer additional services that come with guarantees of improved performance. Waterproofing for instance. It actually takes a concentrated effort between the architect and GC to fuck that one up. Step in and take charge.
-Make love to your client. GC is a penny whore, and you are the finest of escorts. You are worth the extra 2 pennies. Make a project specific list of tricks you can flip better.
Architects also have a handicap when it comes to all of this. We are not educated on any of these issues, we enter a profession that has already conceded defeat. Construction management is counter-intuitive to an 'artistic' mind. Overall, anything beyond making pretty graphics is overwhelming and not much fun.
In future I see architectural offices pulling in both directions. The ones that do seek more say in their own work will always be bogged down by the ones which don't.
I forgot to address the subcontractor issue. There is nothing wrong with GC contracting out certain elements of construction. He is also free to try to make a profit out of that. It's architect's role (at least it should be) to verify the validity of the cost of any given trade. To be qualified to do that, architect has to perform something extremely unnatural to his brain: take interest.
RS- BEAUTIFUL post. thank you, really. for taking the time and making the effort.
I do agree with most of it. But I also have a reservation [or several, depending on how you define certain things].
''Go back to your cubicle architect! Time for real men to figure out the construction part.'' Can you define this more clearly? Or does this perhaps apply to everything that comes after?
'Strive for a well-documented project-' I think this goes without saying.
What's not drawn does not get considered, let alone costed. Being passive is being stupid in this situation.
'Know your client' - the client's mind can be changed by logical and pertinent thought. Also, the client can be seduced and can radically change a project.
'Take keen interest in the financial aspects of the project' - The GC's numbers are actually hidden from the most of us. This was the crux of the post. Most 'good' GC's are adept at hiding costs. Most GC's will not ever serve the design architect nor the LCA with numbers direct from the subs. It's simply not in their interest to do. Actually, the finance is the most interesting part of the product. We can do this, and gleefully more ethically.
'Take on as much liability' - I agree, can we design with procurement schedules? I would love to design with the idea that we are considering potential change orders.
'Make love to your client.' - I do, both figuratively and literally.
Money is the bottom line. How can architecture firms situate themselves in order to recieve respect yet move beyond money.
jp, I appreciate your continued effort to bring a higher level of intellectual intercourse (ha!) to archinect. So what if you make an army of enemies along the way? I dig it.
That said, the biggest improvement architectural profession can do for itself is to install a culture of information sharing between its members. Everything I learned about this profession came from other architects, sometimes willfully and sometimes by brute force (I hid the bodies well. Their brains were yummy). Learning from your own mistakes is as valid as learning from mistakes of others. At this point our profession has written a book of mistakes the size of THE Bible.
Our collective knowledge is far greater than anything builders know. The sooner we get out of business of keeping secrets, the better all of us will be.
Easier said than done...
My long-ass post is a gross oversimplification of concepts we need to work on. Your feedback expands each topic, and I fully agree with everything you've raised. To clarify:
"''Go back to your cubicle architect! Time for real men to figure out the construction part.'' Can you define this more clearly? Or does this perhaps apply to everything that comes after?"
I was making a joke about a GC controlled design-build operation. In such setup, the role of a person who 'designs' is usually limited to bare minimal legal requirements. Stamp in motherfucker!
"'Strive for a well-documented project-' I think this goes without saying."
This is a much bigger issue than you'd think. At least in my experience of doing peer review.
"Know your client' - the client's mind can be changed by logical and pertinent thought."
Mind the difference between a great date and statutory rape. Know when to stop pushing. For your own good.
"The GC's numbers are actually hidden from the most of us"
You don't need a full disclosure to break down the numbers and make an informed decision. GC's are very competitive with each other. Do your best, as opposed to doing nothing. There is no need for micromanagement, but some effort will get you far.
"Money is the bottom line."
Yes it is. That's why it's frustrating to work on design without fully understanding the financial scope. Architects are amazing at self-diluting themselves into unnecessary moral stances. I should add to the list from my previous post:
-Do your own value engineering. The sooner in the process of design, the better. Do you want other people to tell you that you came to a BBQ party grossly overdressed? Have some perspective man!
Other than that, I hope others contribute to this thread. I think of myself as well informed, but recognize I have a shit-ton to learn still.
I think perhaps I tend to come across as someone who is merely interested in ivory tower academia for academia's sake. But I do recoginze that there are quite a few dudes and dudettes [is that not pc?] who are smarter than I am or have much much more experience. The thing is, I would like to use this forum as an exchange of ideas in which to learn, not just to steamroll plebians. That's why the topic of the typical portfolio isn't worth too much, but the topic of THE portfolio is worth heaps. It's not about 'my ideas are better than yours' it's about: let's all help each other have brilliant ideas and advance not only ourselves but the profession in general. I want to learn from everyone, steelstuds, ds, ug, everyone else, included.
That said:
To expand on your second [completely valid and interesting] post:
''collective knowledge is far greater than anything builders know'' - Can you expound on this? Do you mean that the collective knowledge of a group of architects is far greater than a specific GC? Or do you mean something else? It's a bit obtuse, no? However i agree about the bit about getting out of keeping secrets. We're working each other out of a job by attempting to design cheaper and cheaper.
As to design/build: I would love to be involved with a firm that was doing this successfully. Architects do not like to take risks. GC's and developers are adept at managing risk. And so they garner higher fees [or finagle their way]. I think a firm that can manage design and construction successfully would not only be of very high quality, but highly sought after, highly solvent financially, and highly emulated. Does anyone know how ShoP is doing?
'Well documented': I think this is up to those in charge. It's not up to the little ones to manage a firm. It's up to the big guys to ensure it runs smoothly.
'Know your client' - I think at certain times the client doesn't know what she/he/they/it wants, but also sometimes they have a better idea than the architect about how to produce the best project. That's not a 'bad' thing. An architect is a generalist among specialists, perhaps the client can be yet another specialist. Perhaps collaboration yields a better outcome for both.
GC's number is hidden: Expound, how is it not? Unless I see the exact and precise bids from the SC's, I never know if he or she is padding or not?
Money is the bottom line, of course, but that doesnt mean VE should be ANYTHING less than a last resort. Clients and GC's in the States are way too used to ve and not used enough to the value of quality design services or high performing materials, and, furthermore, how they play out in the lifespan of the building and beyond.
Anyways, thanks for your responses, truly something to both ponder and respond to!
Hardy har har. Is it so looked down upon to be a bit positive for a change that it insights gay jokes? I mean, I love poking [get it?] fun as much as the next man, but really? There's so much apathy and so much negativity in this profession [and this banal forum] that its looked down upon to congrats someone on a keen and pertinent thought? I could Bronx Cheer everyone that says anything on this forum, but how would anyone learn anything? Except maybe a Masters in Sarcasm. Would you care for a lesson, base?
You wish your father ploughed a hedge fund. Perhaps then you'd make something of yourself and not be relegated to posting unfunny images on an obscure forum.
as far as naysaying goes, OP and son are saying architects are ignorant fcuks but it doesn't have to be that way because blah blah blah, and et cetera. its a bit snake-oily, ennit?
i don't think architects are that ignorant nor that powerless. maybe it seems that way sometimes but seriously most of the folks i know in the business are professionals with all kinds of knowledge about construction contracts and pricing. i don't see the need for the passive aggressive mini-lectures. really, anyone here seriously think norman foster ain't up to the job of design-build and/or dealing with pricing and construction techniques.
could say a bit more but the pix got it all covered ;-)
Yeah jump, architects are magnificent professionals who foresaw the upcoming recession, came together, and used the powers of AIA to make a seamless transition into doing business in leaner times. We gather on fridays to make fun of other professions for having a high unemployment rate (migrant strawberry pickers in winter?).
Once you get off your shit horse, you will discover a vastly irrelevant profession fighting for its life; the only critical thinking skills accumulated over the years being reduced to defending owns overinflated ego.
This thread going down in flames perfectly exemplifies the small dick overcompensation attitudes that are (sadly) dominant in the profession.
I am a small AECL and Developer whore by day and an academic theoretical maestro by night
Both rusty and jp seem to work on larger scale stuff
I say this because ever since I have entered the profession, no matter engineer or architecture or landscaping firm, we have always dealt with subs directly, balked at numbers by some GCs and told them to go visit our guy. Whenever I meet a GC who knows the paper game I gety nervous for the client...this is when the stupidity begins and the client pays 5k for a 50 dollar job.
At the small level the professional can take everything over and if you know you technical stuff, mainly means and methods you can quickly gain the trust of the client and put fear into the GC (glorified project manager like most architects).
If you concentrate solely on building the design you gain control. But the second you enter the paperwork game and do things like say "not in my scope" the power shifts...and guess what the power has shifted to the Guy who BUILDS, because that's what the client is paying for.
I know architects who have rented vans to get tiles on the weekend to the site so Monday they can be installed before the client moves in...when you do that stuff for a client they call you friend.
Not sure how you would do that on large scale institutional projects though?
If you concentrate solely on building the design you gain control. But the second you enter the paperwork game and do things like say "not in my scope" the power shifts...and guess what the power has shifted to the Guy who BUILDS, because that's what the client is paying for.''
''If you concentrate on building the design you gain control.'' I love that phrase and I think it's totally valid and apt and pertinent. I love everything about it. I love the focus part, I love the construction/fabrication part. I love the control/ responsibilty/power part.
I have no clue what the hell you're talking about in the rest of your post. At all. Why should scale have anything to do with anything? The title of the post is 'Hegemony'. You can have power over your neighbor or over a nation of neighbors. Robert Moses is only different from Carlo Scarpa in that he built larger and way more ubiquitous than Scarpa. Give CS the chance to do interstate highways and bridges over a cemetary, and guess what response you might get.
Everyone is subject to human nature, architects aren't an exception. You would do the exact same thing in RM's position.
Likewise, the 'paperwork' meaning the annotation, the fees, the schedules, the procurement, the delivery, the specifications, the contracts: ARE ACTUALLY THE APPARATUS WITH WHICH BUILDINGS GET BUILT. If you can't or don't want to understand all of those, I promise you, you're a bad architect.
like i said i've never worked on large scale projects (say $5 mil construction or more) but the impression I get from people who do, lots and lots of paperwork, which is understandable in the realm of liablity and history for later possible issues, etc...
APPARATUS - that's all it is...but most people hide behind it or study the APPARATUS as if it were architecture. this is no different than looking at the meaning of iconic architecture in a semantic fashion, going crazy in Maya and calling it architecture, etc...
on small scale projects you can at least say "FUCK THE APPARATUS let's get this built right."
SCALE is very important, I sense a disconnect with human social behavior here. Small scale projects tend to become personal on all levels very fast with everyone involved...the large one's i've worked on or stood behind the boss are all very disconnected and people worry about what and how they say to the point that nothing is done right...like you want to grab the guys and go "hey i watch football, you watch football, we like beer, we are here to build something, i'm not going to throw you under the bus, LETS TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEM." instead of..."Let me get back to the office and check a few things and then in a sly way write a cover my ass letter as I throw you under the bus and CC the client." you know you know what i'm talking about.
this whole checks and balance thing has turned into a gossip and back stabbing theatre.
let me rephrase the CC the client part...as you CC the client's representative which is a company of people, etc...
an mind you i feel the disconnect on projects only around $5mil...can't imagine how people interact on $500 million projects when talking about the contruction. does everyone clam up and reference a consultant to advise on the situation?
apparatus: 'that's all it is? ' sorry,ninja, but the 'apparatus is ALL there is, dude. you can have a brilliant architect and a subpar building modeling or a sub par project manager, and, again, i dead serious promise you, they're a bad architect. the architect has much less ubiquitous power than you assume. it's a collaboration after all, the idea of the 'genius' sketch was and is and always will be a fabrication used to garner clients. flw and corb and even brunellschi used it to great effect to garner new clients. but that's not reality, it's a fabrication. if the architect can't control the cost, the architect can't control the project.
scale? no, you cant even say eff the apparatus on small scale. sure, the apparatus is much easier to manage on a renovation interior bar/cafe than it is on an international airport. but the principles remain the same. on no project is it cool or okay to offer a subpar design or offer a subpar method to build it.
scale? [again] I'm using scale in multiple ways. are you?
the scale of a given project and/or the scale of a firm and or the scale of engagement even, and lastly the scale of human occupancy. [i say 'last' because we should all understand this by now. AGS has been out for so so so long. anyone can look up ADA standards on the internet in less than a second. the IBC should have created a certain amount of beneficial ubiquity.] The world is expanding, we need to do MORE small projects and we need to do MORE large projects. How is one scale more important than another when referencing hegemony as a general idea and not in a specific context? The scale of large projects are large and impersonal because THEY HAVE TO BE in order to get finished and built. Likewise the scale of small projects has to be tiny in order to get built. Would a client who wanted a simple hermitage in backwoods Germany or Vermont wait around for 20 years for the architect to make up her mind? Does it make sense to put 20 people on a single room house? Scale is of paramount importance, but scale is contextual, and the context determines the scale.
I think one problem with relationship analysis in architecture is not necessarily looking at the relationship of similar between professors but rather looking directly at "interpersonal relationships."
Despite never having had done this before, I threw up this little graph depending on my perceived ideal of how this works or should work in theory. My illustration isn't necessarily showing any truth but to demonstrate hypothetical interactions.
The idea is to analyze the exact points when roles cross. Why do they cross? Can they be uncrossed? Could more people be included in those interactions?
I think this would be a better starting point for finding solutions to transitioning to a design/build model or a way to target inefficiencies in the process.
I think both jp/rs have some good points, but I dont think there is real world experience there.
Coming from someone [me] who is an architect working in construction in a pre-construction team where teams and projects get put together, clients signed-up, contracts signed, subconsultants novated, scopes sorted etc, etc. Even with our size and scale, the client still rules.
Its not a simple matter of the GC controlling and obscuring the cost - in most cases we agree a P&G and margin up front with the client and all subcontractor/consultant costs are open book i.e. completely transparent.
This is usually dictated by the client, but we also offer it as a service to secure work. All costs are also verified by the clients QS anyway. The client can usually choose to walk at any time.
The reason? Most GC's dont actually build the building. They take on the risk of the built project for the client on behalf of the subcontractors, add in some management services and take anywhere between a 4-6% profit margin for this.
Margins in large scale construction are minimal.
How cost is communicated to the consultants varies - if items are on budget, no problem. If they are over, this should be communicated back to whoever designed it. The real enemy of the architect is not the GC or PM, it is the QS who dictates everything, and in my experience have a pathological hatred of architects.
Architects role in the case? Demonstrating previous experience in similar buildings, derisking the planning process [by demonstrating previous success in winning planning approval and relationships with authorities] and most importantly, ability to derisk the construction process through minimal design changes.
diabase:"I think both jp/rs have some good points, but I dont think there is real world experience there."
That's very presumptuous of you. I was drawing conclusions based on real world observations. I didn't get into describing specific situations due to space limitations. I also don't want to point fingers at anyone...
Good portion of my work experience was as an architectural specifications writer. I've compiled over 100 project manuals for dozens of firms the likes of Graves, Polshek, Vinoly, Calatrava, and a number of not-so-good architects. My job was not only to fully understand the materiality of each project, but also to iron out the front-end contractual documents.
Better firms took keen interest in matters of sequencing, quality control, submittals, contruct. progress documentation, waste management, demolition, alternates, allowances, intaller qualifications, etc... They had a better product to show at the end of the day.
The crappiest of the companies rarely bothered to read ANY documentation I prepared for them. I could have squeezed in a recipe for a lasagna in there. The quality of their work was inconsistent at best.
One party that did read every single word I wrote/compiled was of course the GC.
Whatever I've written in this thread is a reflection of observing dozens of companies often having drastically different approaches to matters of our profession.
I think I'm done with this dumb thread. No more posturing from me. Yay!
Is your 4-6% profit margin an accurate portrayal of the original fee used to bid the project or is it an accurate portrayal of the entire profit over the life of a given project by any means necessary? In my experience GC's will often 'buy' a job by under bidding and then utilize any legal [or illegal, or just plain BS] means necessary to garner as large a margin as possible. One would beat out the competition by consciously underbidding and then more than make up for it in change orders. It's possible for certain entities to put down a 4-6% markup on paper and then wildly exceed that.
The entire point of this thread somehow devolved into something very impertinent to the original intent. But if you think 'trying one's damnedest to understand, provoke, and examine the true nature of the process' is posturing, well then I intend to keep on posturing.
That said, the friction between GC's and the design team is something that is laughably stupid and should be obsolete. But perhaps that's another post.
UG, I don't understand your diagram. How does 'Actual construction' start at the same time as 'schematic design'?
My experience is from working within a 'top-tier' contractor with current projects totalling more than NZD$1B.
Yes, this is 4-6% profit margin agreed up front with the client. And yes, there is inevitably some 'pressure' on subcontractors to reduce prices to try and either protect that margin or increase it,
It also depends at what stage you take over the project. For early designs, you take a wider margin, or a mix of a standard margin and a design development contingency allowance. For projects that are more advanced, more is known and you cant have such large numbers for DD.
The other item, preliminary & general [P&G - I dont know what you guys in the US call it] is purely costs associated with set up and management of the site - hoardings, site staff, cranes, scaffolding etc.
In NZ, although not unheard of, there has been cases of 'buying' projects in the past. But in such a small and well-connected market, and with sophisticated clients, this is a rarity, Certainly there has been no work of this sort from my perspective, but certainly any advantage we can make use of in a relationship or political sense is always used.
rs, I think you are taking my comments too personally.
i think what might be a slightly more interesting topic is to talk about the vast divide between architects and general contractors. was there ever a confluence [aka the fabled master builder a la brunelleschi] ? or was that merely a fabrication? are the contemporary 'architect' and the contemporary 'gc' actually at odds, and if so, why?
also:
''what stage you take over the project'' what do you mean by that?
i'm not based in the US, but from what i've heard and experienced, it's common for even Tischman or McCarthy or Turner or Linbeck to buy up a project and then change order to no end, if they can. I have assumed this was common practice. Are you saying that if an architect, even a local architect of Record submits a subpar 100% set, that set will not be taken advantage of? That seems ludicriously out of line.
I might imagine that the gc and architect should have each other's best interest in mind. They should both work to make the other look better. If a GC finds a nice [well documented, facil at their work, logical, etc.] architect to work with then they might want to continue on other jobs. And vice versa. And doesn't it stand to reason that if a good GC is paired with a bad architect, they produce a bad building? And vice versa, if a good architect is paired with a bad GC, the building turns out not as well as it might have? And, at least in terms of garnering future work, shouldn't both have each other's best interests in mind? And NOT be at each other's throats?
is this a liability issue? because i think i figured out how to get around that.
A GC will try and take advantage of whatever they can to protect their margins. But I am suggesting that this process is not as underhanded as some people might like to think.
As I mentioned, there is an increasing move from clients to adopt an open book approach on fees and subcontactor prices [after each trade is tendered to 3 parties], negitiate a margin and agree things such as a design development allowance etc.
By the staging question, I am referring to the design stage a project is at, and assuming that the GC takes responsibility for design risk and the consultants to complete the project. The less design there is, the larger the risk and the larger the design development allowance.
Liability in a DB situation is ultimately the GC's, with consultants having to have PI insurance and subcontractors having a mix of PI and Public Indemnity. Because if there is ever a problem, the GC will be coming for whoever is responsible and in a position to pay.
In terms of the good vs. bad situation, this is ultimately dictated by the client. The GC is interested primarily in an architect that reduces risk firstly and secondly makes constructing easy.
I think the way forward is for architects to become the client, and absorb the design risk, and risk only the potential buyer or market. The client will and always has the final say, whether they choose to enact that is another question.
Or rather, it amounts to the same thing in terms of control, but you always want to have a number of GC's to play off each other to get the best price and result.
"UG, I don't understand your diagram. How does 'Actual construction' start at the same time as 'schematic design'"
Because if we look at the construction process in entirety [over a significant timeline], actually building a building is a small-but-sizeable fraction of the construction timeframe.
Which is specifically why I did not add engineering into this mix.
If we really look at all that goes into bringing a project into fruition, there's a lot of steps on the planning, engineering and construction side of things that aren't really a part of architecture.
A specific site has to be essentially predeveloped before a building can be put on it-- this can range anywhere from new roads to utilities to brush clearance to grading to ditch digging to drainage to demolition.
Some sites have to have a battery of tests done in order to verify the health & safety [contamination, wildlife and infectious diseases] to soil tests for stability to test wells for water draws.
This is what essentially makes a real estate development company different from a design-build firm. In architectural design-build, they may not reach the complexity that you might see in a company that has to manufacture their own infrastructure for their own real estate.
And when it comes to site development in previous undeveloped sites, there's miles upon miles of red tape.
Jp I don't think you read a thing I wrote, but no matter...
So you really think evaluating and understanding and re-figuring how to logically manipulate and control the apparatus of building will somehow return the architect to mythical greatness...I can tell you one thing is certain you are not going to make a good GC. How about I take you out back and have my boys straighten your fee out, my cousin who does concrete needs some work I think you can take care of that for me.
Rustystuds so you are the guy...aren't only like 5 spec writers in north America? Yes contractors, most of them, having been building wrong for 30 years...and do I wish on small projects GC's and subs cared enough to even read the basic general notes...
So you are a master of apparatus correct? Do you think by writing more and better, better buildings will be built? Or do I need to take everyone out back and have my boys teach them how to read.
Scale and social behavior dear jp - people build buildings. People hook up other people with work. People read rustystuds specs or don't. People, look them up.
ninjaman: ".aren't only like 5 spec writers in north America?"
Nah, there's at least two dozen of us. Some of us are well hidden from public view due to very poor hygiene/appearances.
"Yes contractors, most of them, having been building wrong for 30 years."
Not sure if serious... Quality of construction has varied from amazing to awful. It depends on priorities. At least everything is structurally sound (compared to India or Haiti), so there's that.
"Do you think by writing more and better, better buildings will be built? Or do I need to take everyone out back and have my boys teach them how to read."
What you do with your boys in the back is between you and your priest. Snap!
To address your first post in this thread, your observations are all valid. The difference between smaller projects and big'uns is the overall structure needed to execute a project. It's possible for a single person to have a firm grasp of the entire project scope in a smaller project. A large project (the WTC clusterfuck for instance) is beyond the scope of any mere mortal. Collective discipline and meticulous planning are needed for such.
On small projects, architect renting a van to deliver tiles on weekends are signs of versatility and being able to adapt.
On a large project, architect renting a van to deliver tiles on weekends is a sign of total chaos and collapse of basic procedural requirements.
Right... It depends on the project, the client, and context...
Re: contractors having all the power, sort of disagree... Usually projects are open to bid and it is competitive so they can't really pull numbers our of their asses,... Furthermore, the point of contract documents, including the spec is to define the contract... Your drawings and spec are *binding... If the contractor agreed to the contract, they have to meet the documents, so as the architect we have authority on certain quality and aesthetic requirements... The contractor actually takes on alot of risk... But IMHO a good set of documents that communicates your design clearly actually makes it easier for the contractor to price correctly without having to stuff the price to covet their asses...
There's also: relationships. Who says architects and contractors are at odds with one another? Plenty of good work come about on a dime because designer and contractor have a solid relationship, work well together and have a mutual respect for what we do... Alot of contractors I think will take a pride in what they do too, so you can work well with them, give and take and earn each others respect... It doesn't have to be an at odds relationship, actually I don't think it usually is...
bRink, exactly. There is absolutely no reason why architects and GCs should be at odds with one another whatsoever. I think that a good partnership that produces a good product will yield both word of mouth and good conventional press, which ultimately leads to more projects. And isn't that the end goal? [for both architects and GC's if we're entirely honest? garnering the next project is the goal.] Even if architects and general contractors remain as different entities in the next fifty years [and I personally believe they should not], it would behoove both to realize just how much they are in a ridiculously symbiotic relationship.
Case in point: D***** PACr: MCC did a decent job on the W***, LB did a poor job on the other one. Guess who got invited back. If architects and GC's can get along and agree to garner better projects and look past the current situation as an 'end all be all' then they will have a more fruitful more prosperous long term relationship.
ODurtayN: And I do mean Durtay as in 'as dirty as possible',
''How about I take you out back and have my boys straighten your fee out''?
Was that some sort of half sexual threat, half situation you fantasize about? Because it made absolutely no sense outside of the confines of rural appalachia. You little genius you. Hope you enjoy having blue skin.
Hegemony
I know this forum likes its terms defined well and often so I'll do my best:
Hegemony is the leadership or willful power of one group or being over another group or being without the latter's explicit consent.
In any project, at least in the US of A, the GC [general contractor] enjoys, and readily employs, the most hegemony over other entities involved in the project. Over the design architect [DA], over the architect of record [LCA], over the project manager [PM], over the building modeler [BM], and even over the client/owner/end user/constituency [O].
Why? Because the architect [be she DA or LCA] never sees the figures from the subcontractors. He or she never knows whether the numbers he or she is getting for glass and glazing is 'base' or 'loaded'. Likewise PM's [in the US at least] do not see the value in paying for design services for a cost estimator or quantity surveyor.
Therefore the only entity who ever knows the true cost of the design is the GC. No one is in the position to verify if the figures are accurate or padded. There is no balance of power.
What would it mean to collaspe this dissonance? Is SHoP the way forward? Can the architect absorb the role of preconstruction services readily and immediately? Does that entail a breach of liability? Does that entail an acceptance of responsibilty and also further design quality?
Thoughts, insights, objections?
Proponents of design-build got very excited at the prospect of architects also being the GC's. Little did they know that it would work the other way around. Go back to your cubicle architect! Time for real men to figure out the construction part.
In the traditional design-bid-build setup, architects (at least in theory) have a huge advantage: they are the first ones on the job, and GC doesn't get introduced until a much later stage of the process (there are exceptions to this: when the client is also the developer, etc...)
How to take advantage of this:
-Always strive for a well documented project. Your drawings and specs need to be in a zen like harmony. If GC can pick apart your project for inconsistencies, you will lose credibility with the ownership. It's GC's job to make you look bad. It's your job to shut him up with quality work. Overworked, understaffed office will have difficulties meeting this one.
-Know your client. Their priorities will differ based on the project at hand. Between price / quality / time your client will typically chose 2 of these. For some reason GC understands this much better than architect does. If your client is looking for the cheapest solution possible, your service strategy needs to shift, i.e. put your starchitect aspirations on hold for this one. Offices that are quite good at this tend to work with the same type of client over the years.
-Take keen interest in financial aspects of the project. The GC estimates are not hidden from you. Go over the bid packages with the owner, and then with your own staff. If you do this for a number of projects, you will know as much as GC does. Estimating is not rocket science. It heavily relies on specialty software these days. Construction documentation does not quantify building components. It's estimator's job to do that. Perhaps architects need to shift their focus and offer material quantities as part of their core services.
-You are an information manager, start acting like one. You are the gate-keeper of the information required to execute the project at hand. GC will gladly take much of that responsibility away from you. With information comes power. I've seen many offices struggle to maintain order within complex projects, and then subsequently lose control over some aspects of work. Be prepared to fight for power.
-Take on as much liability as you can. GC has more money and resources than you do, so you will not be able to replace him (nor will you wish to). But do chip away at some of GC's roles. Offer additional services that come with guarantees of improved performance. Waterproofing for instance. It actually takes a concentrated effort between the architect and GC to fuck that one up. Step in and take charge.
-Make love to your client. GC is a penny whore, and you are the finest of escorts. You are worth the extra 2 pennies. Make a project specific list of tricks you can flip better.
Architects also have a handicap when it comes to all of this. We are not educated on any of these issues, we enter a profession that has already conceded defeat. Construction management is counter-intuitive to an 'artistic' mind. Overall, anything beyond making pretty graphics is overwhelming and not much fun.
In future I see architectural offices pulling in both directions. The ones that do seek more say in their own work will always be bogged down by the ones which don't.
I forgot to address the subcontractor issue. There is nothing wrong with GC contracting out certain elements of construction. He is also free to try to make a profit out of that. It's architect's role (at least it should be) to verify the validity of the cost of any given trade. To be qualified to do that, architect has to perform something extremely unnatural to his brain: take interest.
RS- BEAUTIFUL post. thank you, really. for taking the time and making the effort.
I do agree with most of it. But I also have a reservation [or several, depending on how you define certain things].
''Go back to your cubicle architect! Time for real men to figure out the construction part.'' Can you define this more clearly? Or does this perhaps apply to everything that comes after?
'Strive for a well-documented project-' I think this goes without saying.
What's not drawn does not get considered, let alone costed. Being passive is being stupid in this situation.
'Know your client' - the client's mind can be changed by logical and pertinent thought. Also, the client can be seduced and can radically change a project.
'Take keen interest in the financial aspects of the project' - The GC's numbers are actually hidden from the most of us. This was the crux of the post. Most 'good' GC's are adept at hiding costs. Most GC's will not ever serve the design architect nor the LCA with numbers direct from the subs. It's simply not in their interest to do. Actually, the finance is the most interesting part of the product. We can do this, and gleefully more ethically.
'Take on as much liability' - I agree, can we design with procurement schedules? I would love to design with the idea that we are considering potential change orders.
'Make love to your client.' - I do, both figuratively and literally.
Money is the bottom line. How can architecture firms situate themselves in order to recieve respect yet move beyond money.
jp, I appreciate your continued effort to bring a higher level of intellectual intercourse (ha!) to archinect. So what if you make an army of enemies along the way? I dig it.
That said, the biggest improvement architectural profession can do for itself is to install a culture of information sharing between its members. Everything I learned about this profession came from other architects, sometimes willfully and sometimes by brute force (I hid the bodies well. Their brains were yummy). Learning from your own mistakes is as valid as learning from mistakes of others. At this point our profession has written a book of mistakes the size of THE Bible.
Our collective knowledge is far greater than anything builders know. The sooner we get out of business of keeping secrets, the better all of us will be.
Easier said than done...
My long-ass post is a gross oversimplification of concepts we need to work on. Your feedback expands each topic, and I fully agree with everything you've raised. To clarify:
"''Go back to your cubicle architect! Time for real men to figure out the construction part.'' Can you define this more clearly? Or does this perhaps apply to everything that comes after?"
I was making a joke about a GC controlled design-build operation. In such setup, the role of a person who 'designs' is usually limited to bare minimal legal requirements. Stamp in motherfucker!
"'Strive for a well-documented project-' I think this goes without saying."
This is a much bigger issue than you'd think. At least in my experience of doing peer review.
"Know your client' - the client's mind can be changed by logical and pertinent thought."
Mind the difference between a great date and statutory rape. Know when to stop pushing. For your own good.
"The GC's numbers are actually hidden from the most of us"
You don't need a full disclosure to break down the numbers and make an informed decision. GC's are very competitive with each other. Do your best, as opposed to doing nothing. There is no need for micromanagement, but some effort will get you far.
"Money is the bottom line."
Yes it is. That's why it's frustrating to work on design without fully understanding the financial scope. Architects are amazing at self-diluting themselves into unnecessary moral stances. I should add to the list from my previous post:
-Do your own value engineering. The sooner in the process of design, the better. Do you want other people to tell you that you came to a BBQ party grossly overdressed? Have some perspective man!
Other than that, I hope others contribute to this thread. I think of myself as well informed, but recognize I have a shit-ton to learn still.
rs,
I think perhaps I tend to come across as someone who is merely interested in ivory tower academia for academia's sake. But I do recoginze that there are quite a few dudes and dudettes [is that not pc?] who are smarter than I am or have much much more experience. The thing is, I would like to use this forum as an exchange of ideas in which to learn, not just to steamroll plebians. That's why the topic of the typical portfolio isn't worth too much, but the topic of THE portfolio is worth heaps. It's not about 'my ideas are better than yours' it's about: let's all help each other have brilliant ideas and advance not only ourselves but the profession in general. I want to learn from everyone, steelstuds, ds, ug, everyone else, included.
That said:
To expand on your second [completely valid and interesting] post:
''collective knowledge is far greater than anything builders know'' - Can you expound on this? Do you mean that the collective knowledge of a group of architects is far greater than a specific GC? Or do you mean something else? It's a bit obtuse, no? However i agree about the bit about getting out of keeping secrets. We're working each other out of a job by attempting to design cheaper and cheaper.
As to design/build: I would love to be involved with a firm that was doing this successfully. Architects do not like to take risks. GC's and developers are adept at managing risk. And so they garner higher fees [or finagle their way]. I think a firm that can manage design and construction successfully would not only be of very high quality, but highly sought after, highly solvent financially, and highly emulated. Does anyone know how ShoP is doing?
'Well documented': I think this is up to those in charge. It's not up to the little ones to manage a firm. It's up to the big guys to ensure it runs smoothly.
'Know your client' - I think at certain times the client doesn't know what she/he/they/it wants, but also sometimes they have a better idea than the architect about how to produce the best project. That's not a 'bad' thing. An architect is a generalist among specialists, perhaps the client can be yet another specialist. Perhaps collaboration yields a better outcome for both.
GC's number is hidden: Expound, how is it not? Unless I see the exact and precise bids from the SC's, I never know if he or she is padding or not?
Money is the bottom line, of course, but that doesnt mean VE should be ANYTHING less than a last resort. Clients and GC's in the States are way too used to ve and not used enough to the value of quality design services or high performing materials, and, furthermore, how they play out in the lifespan of the building and beyond.
Anyways, thanks for your responses, truly something to both ponder and respond to!
I was a Hegemon in my fraternity
Pledge Educator AKA: MASTER!
I was going to comment on this post, but I dont want to interrupt the pandering.
One piece of advice - unless you are the client, your power is minimal.
get a room was going to be my response.
oh crap. I thought this was a private room chat. Turns out the pervs are looking in. jp quick! Get off my lap and put your wizard hat back on.
Hardy har har. Is it so looked down upon to be a bit positive for a change that it insights gay jokes? I mean, I love poking [get it?] fun as much as the next man, but really? There's so much apathy and so much negativity in this profession [and this banal forum] that its looked down upon to congrats someone on a keen and pertinent thought? I could Bronx Cheer everyone that says anything on this forum, but how would anyone learn anything? Except maybe a Masters in Sarcasm. Would you care for a lesson, base?
RS, I await your response, eff the naysayers.
You wish your father ploughed a hedge fund. Perhaps then you'd make something of yourself and not be relegated to posting unfunny images on an obscure forum.
jplourde
respect your elders
are you two the same person?
as far as naysaying goes, OP and son are saying architects are ignorant fcuks but it doesn't have to be that way because blah blah blah, and et cetera. its a bit snake-oily, ennit?
i don't think architects are that ignorant nor that powerless. maybe it seems that way sometimes but seriously most of the folks i know in the business are professionals with all kinds of knowledge about construction contracts and pricing. i don't see the need for the passive aggressive mini-lectures. really, anyone here seriously think norman foster ain't up to the job of design-build and/or dealing with pricing and construction techniques.
could say a bit more but the pix got it all covered ;-)
I'm the son! Yupee me!
Yeah jump, architects are magnificent professionals who foresaw the upcoming recession, came together, and used the powers of AIA to make a seamless transition into doing business in leaner times. We gather on fridays to make fun of other professions for having a high unemployment rate (migrant strawberry pickers in winter?).
Once you get off your shit horse, you will discover a vastly irrelevant profession fighting for its life; the only critical thinking skills accumulated over the years being reduced to defending owns overinflated ego.
This thread going down in flames perfectly exemplifies the small dick overcompensation attitudes that are (sadly) dominant in the profession.
p.s.
God forbid you learn or contribute anything remotely relevant to a potentially informative discussion.
Dick.
I am a small AECL and Developer whore by day and an academic theoretical maestro by night
Both rusty and jp seem to work on larger scale stuff
I say this because ever since I have entered the profession, no matter engineer or architecture or landscaping firm, we have always dealt with subs directly, balked at numbers by some GCs and told them to go visit our guy. Whenever I meet a GC who knows the paper game I gety nervous for the client...this is when the stupidity begins and the client pays 5k for a 50 dollar job.
At the small level the professional can take everything over and if you know you technical stuff, mainly means and methods you can quickly gain the trust of the client and put fear into the GC (glorified project manager like most architects).
If you concentrate solely on building the design you gain control. But the second you enter the paperwork game and do things like say "not in my scope" the power shifts...and guess what the power has shifted to the Guy who BUILDS, because that's what the client is paying for.
I know architects who have rented vans to get tiles on the weekend to the site so Monday they can be installed before the client moves in...when you do that stuff for a client they call you friend.
Not sure how you would do that on large scale institutional projects though?
If you concentrate solely on building the design you gain control. But the second you enter the paperwork game and do things like say "not in my scope" the power shifts...and guess what the power has shifted to the Guy who BUILDS, because that's what the client is paying for.''
''If you concentrate on building the design you gain control.'' I love that phrase and I think it's totally valid and apt and pertinent. I love everything about it. I love the focus part, I love the construction/fabrication part. I love the control/ responsibilty/power part.
I have no clue what the hell you're talking about in the rest of your post. At all. Why should scale have anything to do with anything? The title of the post is 'Hegemony'. You can have power over your neighbor or over a nation of neighbors. Robert Moses is only different from Carlo Scarpa in that he built larger and way more ubiquitous than Scarpa. Give CS the chance to do interstate highways and bridges over a cemetary, and guess what response you might get.
Everyone is subject to human nature, architects aren't an exception. You would do the exact same thing in RM's position.
Likewise, the 'paperwork' meaning the annotation, the fees, the schedules, the procurement, the delivery, the specifications, the contracts: ARE ACTUALLY THE APPARATUS WITH WHICH BUILDINGS GET BUILT. If you can't or don't want to understand all of those, I promise you, you're a bad architect.
ok so we agree on the main point i think.
like i said i've never worked on large scale projects (say $5 mil construction or more) but the impression I get from people who do, lots and lots of paperwork, which is understandable in the realm of liablity and history for later possible issues, etc...
APPARATUS - that's all it is...but most people hide behind it or study the APPARATUS as if it were architecture. this is no different than looking at the meaning of iconic architecture in a semantic fashion, going crazy in Maya and calling it architecture, etc...
on small scale projects you can at least say "FUCK THE APPARATUS let's get this built right."
SCALE is very important, I sense a disconnect with human social behavior here. Small scale projects tend to become personal on all levels very fast with everyone involved...the large one's i've worked on or stood behind the boss are all very disconnected and people worry about what and how they say to the point that nothing is done right...like you want to grab the guys and go "hey i watch football, you watch football, we like beer, we are here to build something, i'm not going to throw you under the bus, LETS TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEM." instead of..."Let me get back to the office and check a few things and then in a sly way write a cover my ass letter as I throw you under the bus and CC the client." you know you know what i'm talking about.
this whole checks and balance thing has turned into a gossip and back stabbing theatre.
let me rephrase the CC the client part...as you CC the client's representative which is a company of people, etc...
an mind you i feel the disconnect on projects only around $5mil...can't imagine how people interact on $500 million projects when talking about the contruction. does everyone clam up and reference a consultant to advise on the situation?
apparatus: 'that's all it is? ' sorry,ninja, but the 'apparatus is ALL there is, dude. you can have a brilliant architect and a subpar building modeling or a sub par project manager, and, again, i dead serious promise you, they're a bad architect. the architect has much less ubiquitous power than you assume. it's a collaboration after all, the idea of the 'genius' sketch was and is and always will be a fabrication used to garner clients. flw and corb and even brunellschi used it to great effect to garner new clients. but that's not reality, it's a fabrication. if the architect can't control the cost, the architect can't control the project.
scale? no, you cant even say eff the apparatus on small scale. sure, the apparatus is much easier to manage on a renovation interior bar/cafe than it is on an international airport. but the principles remain the same. on no project is it cool or okay to offer a subpar design or offer a subpar method to build it.
scale? [again] I'm using scale in multiple ways. are you?
the scale of a given project and/or the scale of a firm and or the scale of engagement even, and lastly the scale of human occupancy. [i say 'last' because we should all understand this by now. AGS has been out for so so so long. anyone can look up ADA standards on the internet in less than a second. the IBC should have created a certain amount of beneficial ubiquity.] The world is expanding, we need to do MORE small projects and we need to do MORE large projects. How is one scale more important than another when referencing hegemony as a general idea and not in a specific context? The scale of large projects are large and impersonal because THEY HAVE TO BE in order to get finished and built. Likewise the scale of small projects has to be tiny in order to get built. Would a client who wanted a simple hermitage in backwoods Germany or Vermont wait around for 20 years for the architect to make up her mind? Does it make sense to put 20 people on a single room house? Scale is of paramount importance, but scale is contextual, and the context determines the scale.
I think one problem with relationship analysis in architecture is not necessarily looking at the relationship of similar between professors but rather looking directly at "interpersonal relationships."
Despite never having had done this before, I threw up this little graph depending on my perceived ideal of how this works or should work in theory. My illustration isn't necessarily showing any truth but to demonstrate hypothetical interactions.
The idea is to analyze the exact points when roles cross. Why do they cross? Can they be uncrossed? Could more people be included in those interactions?
I think this would be a better starting point for finding solutions to transitioning to a design/build model or a way to target inefficiencies in the process.
relationship of similarity between professionals*
I think both jp/rs have some good points, but I dont think there is real world experience there.
Coming from someone [me] who is an architect working in construction in a pre-construction team where teams and projects get put together, clients signed-up, contracts signed, subconsultants novated, scopes sorted etc, etc. Even with our size and scale, the client still rules.
Its not a simple matter of the GC controlling and obscuring the cost - in most cases we agree a P&G and margin up front with the client and all subcontractor/consultant costs are open book i.e. completely transparent.
This is usually dictated by the client, but we also offer it as a service to secure work. All costs are also verified by the clients QS anyway. The client can usually choose to walk at any time.
The reason? Most GC's dont actually build the building. They take on the risk of the built project for the client on behalf of the subcontractors, add in some management services and take anywhere between a 4-6% profit margin for this.
Margins in large scale construction are minimal.
How cost is communicated to the consultants varies - if items are on budget, no problem. If they are over, this should be communicated back to whoever designed it. The real enemy of the architect is not the GC or PM, it is the QS who dictates everything, and in my experience have a pathological hatred of architects.
Architects role in the case? Demonstrating previous experience in similar buildings, derisking the planning process [by demonstrating previous success in winning planning approval and relationships with authorities] and most importantly, ability to derisk the construction process through minimal design changes.
Anyway, back to your posturing.
diabase:"I think both jp/rs have some good points, but I dont think there is real world experience there."
That's very presumptuous of you. I was drawing conclusions based on real world observations. I didn't get into describing specific situations due to space limitations. I also don't want to point fingers at anyone...
Good portion of my work experience was as an architectural specifications writer. I've compiled over 100 project manuals for dozens of firms the likes of Graves, Polshek, Vinoly, Calatrava, and a number of not-so-good architects. My job was not only to fully understand the materiality of each project, but also to iron out the front-end contractual documents.
Better firms took keen interest in matters of sequencing, quality control, submittals, contruct. progress documentation, waste management, demolition, alternates, allowances, intaller qualifications, etc... They had a better product to show at the end of the day.
The crappiest of the companies rarely bothered to read ANY documentation I prepared for them. I could have squeezed in a recipe for a lasagna in there. The quality of their work was inconsistent at best.
One party that did read every single word I wrote/compiled was of course the GC.
Whatever I've written in this thread is a reflection of observing dozens of companies often having drastically different approaches to matters of our profession.
I think I'm done with this dumb thread. No more posturing from me. Yay!
Is your 4-6% profit margin an accurate portrayal of the original fee used to bid the project or is it an accurate portrayal of the entire profit over the life of a given project by any means necessary? In my experience GC's will often 'buy' a job by under bidding and then utilize any legal [or illegal, or just plain BS] means necessary to garner as large a margin as possible. One would beat out the competition by consciously underbidding and then more than make up for it in change orders. It's possible for certain entities to put down a 4-6% markup on paper and then wildly exceed that.
The entire point of this thread somehow devolved into something very impertinent to the original intent. But if you think 'trying one's damnedest to understand, provoke, and examine the true nature of the process' is posturing, well then I intend to keep on posturing.
That said, the friction between GC's and the design team is something that is laughably stupid and should be obsolete. But perhaps that's another post.
UG, I don't understand your diagram. How does 'Actual construction' start at the same time as 'schematic design'?
That them thar is a rubbish crop job down by the intelligent scripting language on this site.
Try No.2:
jp,
My experience is from working within a 'top-tier' contractor with current projects totalling more than NZD$1B.
Yes, this is 4-6% profit margin agreed up front with the client. And yes, there is inevitably some 'pressure' on subcontractors to reduce prices to try and either protect that margin or increase it,
It also depends at what stage you take over the project. For early designs, you take a wider margin, or a mix of a standard margin and a design development contingency allowance. For projects that are more advanced, more is known and you cant have such large numbers for DD.
The other item, preliminary & general [P&G - I dont know what you guys in the US call it] is purely costs associated with set up and management of the site - hoardings, site staff, cranes, scaffolding etc.
In NZ, although not unheard of, there has been cases of 'buying' projects in the past. But in such a small and well-connected market, and with sophisticated clients, this is a rarity, Certainly there has been no work of this sort from my perspective, but certainly any advantage we can make use of in a relationship or political sense is always used.
rs, I think you are taking my comments too personally.
i think what might be a slightly more interesting topic is to talk about the vast divide between architects and general contractors. was there ever a confluence [aka the fabled master builder a la brunelleschi] ? or was that merely a fabrication? are the contemporary 'architect' and the contemporary 'gc' actually at odds, and if so, why?
also:
''what stage you take over the project'' what do you mean by that?
i'm not based in the US, but from what i've heard and experienced, it's common for even Tischman or McCarthy or Turner or Linbeck to buy up a project and then change order to no end, if they can. I have assumed this was common practice. Are you saying that if an architect, even a local architect of Record submits a subpar 100% set, that set will not be taken advantage of? That seems ludicriously out of line.
I might imagine that the gc and architect should have each other's best interest in mind. They should both work to make the other look better. If a GC finds a nice [well documented, facil at their work, logical, etc.] architect to work with then they might want to continue on other jobs. And vice versa. And doesn't it stand to reason that if a good GC is paired with a bad architect, they produce a bad building? And vice versa, if a good architect is paired with a bad GC, the building turns out not as well as it might have? And, at least in terms of garnering future work, shouldn't both have each other's best interests in mind? And NOT be at each other's throats?
is this a liability issue? because i think i figured out how to get around that.
Yeah,
A GC will try and take advantage of whatever they can to protect their margins. But I am suggesting that this process is not as underhanded as some people might like to think.
As I mentioned, there is an increasing move from clients to adopt an open book approach on fees and subcontactor prices [after each trade is tendered to 3 parties], negitiate a margin and agree things such as a design development allowance etc.
By the staging question, I am referring to the design stage a project is at, and assuming that the GC takes responsibility for design risk and the consultants to complete the project. The less design there is, the larger the risk and the larger the design development allowance.
Liability in a DB situation is ultimately the GC's, with consultants having to have PI insurance and subcontractors having a mix of PI and Public Indemnity. Because if there is ever a problem, the GC will be coming for whoever is responsible and in a position to pay.
In terms of the good vs. bad situation, this is ultimately dictated by the client. The GC is interested primarily in an architect that reduces risk firstly and secondly makes constructing easy.
I think the way forward is for architects to become the client, and absorb the design risk, and risk only the potential buyer or market. The client will and always has the final say, whether they choose to enact that is another question.
Funny, As I thought the way forward was for architects to absorb the general contractor.
Same thing...
Or rather, it amounts to the same thing in terms of control, but you always want to have a number of GC's to play off each other to get the best price and result.
They do it to everyone else....
"UG, I don't understand your diagram. How does 'Actual construction' start at the same time as 'schematic design'"
Because if we look at the construction process in entirety [over a significant timeline], actually building a building is a small-but-sizeable fraction of the construction timeframe.
Which is specifically why I did not add engineering into this mix.
If we really look at all that goes into bringing a project into fruition, there's a lot of steps on the planning, engineering and construction side of things that aren't really a part of architecture.
A specific site has to be essentially predeveloped before a building can be put on it-- this can range anywhere from new roads to utilities to brush clearance to grading to ditch digging to drainage to demolition.
Some sites have to have a battery of tests done in order to verify the health & safety [contamination, wildlife and infectious diseases] to soil tests for stability to test wells for water draws.
This is what essentially makes a real estate development company different from a design-build firm. In architectural design-build, they may not reach the complexity that you might see in a company that has to manufacture their own infrastructure for their own real estate.
And when it comes to site development in previous undeveloped sites, there's miles upon miles of red tape.
Jp I don't think you read a thing I wrote, but no matter...
So you really think evaluating and understanding and re-figuring how to logically manipulate and control the apparatus of building will somehow return the architect to mythical greatness...I can tell you one thing is certain you are not going to make a good GC. How about I take you out back and have my boys straighten your fee out, my cousin who does concrete needs some work I think you can take care of that for me.
Rustystuds so you are the guy...aren't only like 5 spec writers in north America? Yes contractors, most of them, having been building wrong for 30 years...and do I wish on small projects GC's and subs cared enough to even read the basic general notes...
So you are a master of apparatus correct? Do you think by writing more and better, better buildings will be built? Or do I need to take everyone out back and have my boys teach them how to read.
Scale and social behavior dear jp - people build buildings. People hook up other people with work. People read rustystuds specs or don't. People, look them up.
ninjaman: ".aren't only like 5 spec writers in north America?"
Nah, there's at least two dozen of us. Some of us are well hidden from public view due to very poor hygiene/appearances.
"Yes contractors, most of them, having been building wrong for 30 years."
Not sure if serious... Quality of construction has varied from amazing to awful. It depends on priorities. At least everything is structurally sound (compared to India or Haiti), so there's that.
"Do you think by writing more and better, better buildings will be built? Or do I need to take everyone out back and have my boys teach them how to read."
What you do with your boys in the back is between you and your priest. Snap!
To address your first post in this thread, your observations are all valid. The difference between smaller projects and big'uns is the overall structure needed to execute a project. It's possible for a single person to have a firm grasp of the entire project scope in a smaller project. A large project (the WTC clusterfuck for instance) is beyond the scope of any mere mortal. Collective discipline and meticulous planning are needed for such.
On small projects, architect renting a van to deliver tiles on weekends are signs of versatility and being able to adapt.
On a large project, architect renting a van to deliver tiles on weekends is a sign of total chaos and collapse of basic procedural requirements.
And when I say chaos, I mean this thread :)
Right... It depends on the project, the client, and context...
Re: contractors having all the power, sort of disagree... Usually projects are open to bid and it is competitive so they can't really pull numbers our of their asses,... Furthermore, the point of contract documents, including the spec is to define the contract... Your drawings and spec are *binding... If the contractor agreed to the contract, they have to meet the documents, so as the architect we have authority on certain quality and aesthetic requirements... The contractor actually takes on alot of risk... But IMHO a good set of documents that communicates your design clearly actually makes it easier for the contractor to price correctly without having to stuff the price to covet their asses...
There's also: relationships. Who says architects and contractors are at odds with one another? Plenty of good work come about on a dime because designer and contractor have a solid relationship, work well together and have a mutual respect for what we do... Alot of contractors I think will take a pride in what they do too, so you can work well with them, give and take and earn each others respect... It doesn't have to be an at odds relationship, actually I don't think it usually is...
bRink, exactly. There is absolutely no reason why architects and GCs should be at odds with one another whatsoever. I think that a good partnership that produces a good product will yield both word of mouth and good conventional press, which ultimately leads to more projects. And isn't that the end goal? [for both architects and GC's if we're entirely honest? garnering the next project is the goal.] Even if architects and general contractors remain as different entities in the next fifty years [and I personally believe they should not], it would behoove both to realize just how much they are in a ridiculously symbiotic relationship.
Case in point: D***** PACr: MCC did a decent job on the W***, LB did a poor job on the other one. Guess who got invited back. If architects and GC's can get along and agree to garner better projects and look past the current situation as an 'end all be all' then they will have a more fruitful more prosperous long term relationship.
ODurtayN: And I do mean Durtay as in 'as dirty as possible',
''How about I take you out back and have my boys straighten your fee out''?
Was that some sort of half sexual threat, half situation you fantasize about? Because it made absolutely no sense outside of the confines of rural appalachia. You little genius you. Hope you enjoy having blue skin.
i was thinking more like new jersey mobsters...but whatever floats your boat.
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.