This may not be the right place to ask that as this place is full of architects. But what you say is true to a great extent so those offended can suck it up and deal with it.

No links but 20 years of professional insight as an architect and now owner of a design-build firm have showne me this:

Many architects, sadly, tend to be "hands-off" type of people. The ARE would be better off if it made architects build a small structure from start to finish instead of half the bull shit that's on the tests. Many have never built more than a childhood bird house and therefore don't truely understand the order of construction or exactly how a material is installed. It's all theory to them. They also have a big tendency to "talk down to" or belittle the comments of the average construction worker who may have a valid point more often than not about a better way of doing the detail.

Some architects tend to think they have some God given gift that allows them and only them to undertand design. They have built themselves and the industy up (in their mind) to such a level that it's no wonder we get a reputation as prententious, anal architects; that the average person considers us a necessary evil, like lawyers.

This might be a lame recommendation but the most recent issue of This Old House magazine has 8 tips for homeowners to get their architect and contractor to work together. (In it a contractor actually ADMITS that architects should design and contractors should NOT.)

Thanks for your reply, and yeah, I know this is a forum directed at architects, but the lack of a convenient construction worker's forum on the internet made me post my query here since I was pretty convinced that someone aside from myself must have noticed this gap between the proffessions and hopefully have experience of the same, or at the very least, some thoughts or insights.

My paper is however out of an architects point of view, altho I try to keep focus on the (miss)communication itself in order not to think too much in we-and-them terms, with we/them of course being part of the problem to begin with.

I'm not really sure why they can't communicate, but you wouldn't believe how often I hear "Oh, the contractor can figure it out," in my office. Our office wants a roof to look a certain way, but doesn't think through the structural component of the job. If I was a contractor, I'd be beating people to death right and left.

, did you work for Allard as well?

lol

aemkei,
working for a contractor right now, I can tell you that the biggest reason that "architects are generally not held in very high regards by the people who actually build the buildings they design" is the general poor quality of construction documents.

Architects often do not properly coordinate with other disciplines, and often do not even produce a coherent set of drawings by themselves (what do you mean, see detail 27/A8.1? There is no detail 27 on A8.1!!!!!). Architects get quite a bit of time to produce these documents, and within hours contractors spot dozens of impossibilities. Some are architectural and some are not, but often the entire set gets attributed to the architect on some level because the architect is responsible for coordinating all the disciplines involved in the building, so even when a contractor looks at drawings and goes, "no, there can't be a tree on top of that fire hydrant!", he's blaming it 20% on the civil guys, 70% on the landscapers (cause come on, the fire hydrant was probably there first!), and still has 10% blame left over for the architect. It may or may not be valid, but that's the way it is.

Also, there are often big discrepancies between the drawings and the spec book, because architects never want to spend any time on the specs.

I really believe that the poor quality of construction documents is due to the hierarchical structure of an architecture office. The best people don't have to even touch CD's a lot of the time, while all of the newest, least knowledgable people are forced to do details. Anyone who's any good at doing details ends up promoted to a position where they don't have to do them anymore. Consequently, the least qualified people are doing the work that has the biggest impact on this relationship, and contractors continually see the worst side of an architectural practice (the intern side). Once a contractor understands this hierarchy, he feels undervalued because the architect can't be bothered to put someone good on the documents that he needs to build the building, and sarcastically concludes that architects must not care about whether the building can be built or not (how many times have we heard THAT one?)

get a copy of tracy kidder's book "house" some very good info in that about the relationship between owner/contractor/architect. written in the mid 80's.

When I typed the above, I thought, "Well, maybe I'm exaggerating, I don't hear it *that* much." But ten minutes later I heard the principal saying to a client, "Well, some of the angles of these walls will probably need to be firmed up, but they can figure it out in the field." I'm thinking it would be a better idea to figure it out now.

as with most relationship problems, the blame is probably on both parties as opposed to one or the other.

yeah, I'm not saying that good architects shouldn't be rewarded with those nice design jobs that don't involve figuring out flashing, but that the way that works naturally results in the contractor seeing only the least experienced portion of the architect's office, which would result in a not-so-stellar opinion of that office. I see this part of it more as a conflict between the needs/desires of individuals and the desires of the firm rather than between architect and contractor. Anyone halfway good wants to design, but the firm still needs SOME good, experienced people to do CD's in order for this to work.

unvalidate, certainly not trying to invalidate any comments made, but just to recognize the obvious.

A friend of mine, who has a small construction firm, once showed me some really half-assed blue prints for this house he had been hired to build and the architect had actually used a rubber stamp saying "according to construction engineer" that he had marked pretty much every page of plans with. He never bothered to present the plans in any way - he more or less just dropped them off - and as far as anyone knows, there never was a construction engineer involved in the project.

The building was, against all odds, finished altho it took 14 days longer than planned, and the architect was absolutely furious about the neglect for time and money shown by my friend (and his crew).

This is the experience that gave me the idea to write about misscommunication and hopefully/possibly come up with a totally ingenious way to avoid it.

i can site just as many screw ups by the guys in the field most notably foundations with incorrect pours. in one case the contractor used a scale to measure a wall section which had a section cut in it.!!! in all the cases that i can think of the owner was acting as his own g.c. big mistake.

Let's face it. The construction industry is a tough enviroment. Most people in construction have worked their way up thru the ranks. But, most architects have spent little time on a job site . Sometimes working their way up thru the ranks of a design office. Sometimes not at all. Definelty, there can be shoddy workmanship on both sides of the fence. The last office I worked in the principle architect was very good at producing lousy drawings. More than once did he come crying to me that he had been ambushed by the owner and contractor on the job site. I would usually tell him what to fix. But, instead of doing a better job with the documents he just refused to go to the job site. Some architects are inebt. The ARE is not a test for judging a good or bad one. We have have to rely on real world experience for that. I learned alot about what not to do from that bonehead I worked for. Communication with all parties is key. Respect for the people who work on our project can go a long way. There is nothing wrong with listening to someone elses idea on making something work

Not sure if this the angle you are looking for but the New York Times did an article somewhere around this topic in its August 8, 2004 issue. It in the Arts & Leisure section on the first page. "Building a Bad Reputation" is the name. Also for some insight on why there is a rift you might try The Architect by Spiro Kostof. It is talks about how the profession has changed since it 'beginnings' - specifically how the architect has removed himself from the site. Also One, Two, Three jump is a Tschumi essay in the book Educating Architects that may discuss some of the same issue briefly. However, I don't think either book attempts to reach a conclusion regarding your topic, but I could be wrong. Its been a while.

Cool. Found, bought and downloaded the NY Times article and got a hint that the Kostof book is available at my local library. Thanks for the suggestions.

I heard from this guy I interviewed at this construction site near my home this morning that it's often the assigned quality controler who's "to blame". That he instead of ensuring quality just assigns blame to keep from being faulted himself and thereby sits like a road block between architect and contractor. Is this something common or more or less just one man's opinion?
Cause I never really thought of the quality controler like an active participant in the architect-contractor relationship.

From someone in the construction industry and having just come off of a $100 million project- our biggest issue with the architect was lack of communication and a lack of caring about the project. When we had meetings, the architect would send someone to represent them that could not answer questions, could not make a decision regarding the project and did not know the drawings. So from the contractor's view, here we are building this $100 million project with no representation from the architect. We ended up with over 700 RFI's and over 70 change orders. That's where the frustration comes from. Not enough detail on the drawings and the architect expecting us to figure it out.
Now, I'm not a disgruntled construction worker-I am waiting for my acceptance into an MArch program. I want to be an architect, but I have definitely learned from being in construction for the last 7 years on what NOT to do.

Today's happenings and a noted regular occurance:

General contractor doesn't like the architect.

Sub-contractors like the architect.

Any thoughts?

Well, I suppose it could either be that the sub-contractors are already pre-occupied complaing about the general contractor, or it could be simply that they have more specific areas they work on and therefor in more specific instructions in proportion to their amount of work. Or?

Architects need to go away. The "proffesion" is only 100 - 125 years old. "Architecture" is timeless. I think it was about the time bow ties appeard we started hearing about telecontextuality and its homoginizing effects on the fin de sicle person's interactive domaines.

Occasionally, the architect responds to RFI's, etc. directly to the subcontractor. This makes the subcontractor very happy, because they get to ask all the questions they want and are informed more quickly. This makes the general contractor very unhappy, because all of the sudden they don't know what's going on.

Pissing Contests! Swinging Dicks! Some days I'm amazed anything ever gets built!


Okay, I kid.....Seriously-there is no room for misscommunication when it comes to architecture. I've found that overcommunication makes the most sense. There are a kajillion ways to do anything...if I had a dollar for every time it was done differently than what was drawn---contractors want permits yesterday, no if, ands, or buts. We vs. they is horseshit.

Blame the owner you morons! Who pushed the schedule and forced the architect to submit early? Who decided the budget would be set from a set of cocktail napkin sketches and then found a contractor who would "guarantee" the cost of construction? Oh... those lines are WALLS? I DIDN'T KNOW...

Yeah yeah good architects would walk away from that trainwreck, right??

Oh hoho!

strawbeary, i think i'ts good to think about money when looking for explanations. :-)

the gc is like a cost cop, so subs are often at odds with gcs.

I don't get the impression that LAs get into too much strife with gcs, probably because LA is a minor part of projects. OTOH, LAs can get POed about doing redesigns due to surprises that USCErin decribes (tree can't go in the spot shown as empty on the civil/survey or whoever's dwgs. and i think sometimes the LA learns this very late, like when the sub is preparing to install that area. rush rush that redesign. redesign might cause L sub to submit price change, leading to change orders, etc.. delay... at the end of a project equals big no no. All because of a foching tree, stupid LAs. :-) )

i don't think the GC cares as much in the case of landscape, because the GC gets simultaneous fax copies. Also because landscape is mostly a side issue for the gc (until the end of the project, occupancy permits, etc). Um, also simultaneous faxes between the landscape "experts" (L sub and LA) should actually save time.

When i've RFI'd i often faxed and phoned, sometimes got a response immediately, adn of course I kept the later fax/correspondence in project records.

plants not being available is sometimes a problem. True errors are often just mislabeled sizes or species. so, if there is cost difference between CDs vs 'obvious' design intent (heh), LA will often agree to whatever keeps cost approx the same. the error is usually minor. obviously it made it through bid process.

and... the gc and sub have easy opportunities to f the owner (or legitimately defend themselves from owner), so sometimes they act as allies.

just think about the money.

my impressions.

i never had much contact with "construction management" co's but they probably have their own tweaks. I thikn they're financially advantageous to owners only when the owner is more hands-on about the design, and when the project is mostly a clone. (and is not large scale, complex)

I know I'm probably in a wrong discussion - but since the topic was about 'architecture miscommunication'...

I'm doing a masters and its also about architecture miscommunication but specifically in relation to the architect-client relationship in house projects. As individuals, we all develop different perceptions, tastes, appreciations, ways/rules of conduct. In my thesis, I borrow concepts from sociology - Bourdieu's Habitus in particular.

Architects, with their distinct tastes and perception of architecture can be classified into an 'architectural habitus' whilst their clients are perhaps in a habitus alienated from them (likewise contractors). But my underlying proposition is that - it doesnt always have to be negative in that architects and clients have the capacity to form constructive relationships. When two individuals from separate habitus' come together (architect and client) on a house project, their conflicting perceptions collide and has the capacity to impact on each another - an architect has the ability to increase a clients understanding of the meaning and use of the house, (and architecture) and vice versa.

perhaps applicable to the architect-construction worker relationship? Not sure if its all that relevant but aemkel - you mentioned you're writing a paper about this so I figured some references might be helpful - let me knnow if you need further detaiils!

jess, i believe there was an article in a recent issue of dwell on how to work with/understand/etc an architect while working through the design process of your home.

Jessica: Yes, I'd say there are definate similarities, but in the case of architect - construction worker (contractor) relationship it's quite possible that the 'increase one another's understanding'-part would have to take place earlier in, or even before, their proffesional interaction or the conflicting perceptions simply will become conflicts.

Maybe that doesn't make sense... I haven't slept in about 32 hours, so if not - that's the reason. But anyhow, yeah, the stuff you're writing about sounds really interesting, so anything you have to share regarding similarities or differences etc would be much appreciated.

Oh the stories we could all tell. In my limited experience, a lot of it comes down to just bad time/cost management in-house for architecture firms. Not enough time allocated to the CDs etc. Nothing groundbreaking there i'm afraid.

There was much emphasis in my professionla practice papers to have a contractor on board from the beginning of the developed design stage to help advise on constructional, timing, coordination, and technical issues. Nice idea in a perfect world but it doesn't really work in a tendering situation.

Architects seems to forget that their CDs are as much a communication tool as the design. You have to look at every sheet ask ask yourself"If i had never seen this set of drawings before...could I build this?" If the answer is 'no' then it should be back tot he drawing board....literally.

just my 2p

So, I was just sitting here checking some shop drawings from the millwork sub that's doing our cabinetry. This is the biggest project I've ever worked on (before I took this position, I'd only done residential drawings, this is an institutional building). Anyway, I'm looking at the drawings and cross-referencing them w/our CD set, and I'm thinking, "Holy crap! How did they ever figure that out based on what we gave them?" Until I sat down with the shop drawings (I had the same feeling when going through the shop drawings for the doors, less so the metal fabrication drawings), I really didn't realize how much information the sub needed to really make an accurate bid, much less get the cabinetry built properly. Obviously, shop drawings are a lot more detailed than a CD set, but even I can see how much easier we could have made it for the sub. Lesson learned.

I have heard horror stories of contractors having to redraw entire sets of drawings from another architect here in town in order to accurately bid and construct. This architect has a horrible reputation for very bad CDs and huge change orders - like forgeting the foundation type stuff. He's FAIA though!

snjr - I have been told I put TOO much information on my CDs by my boss here. He says that's why we get shops...

Ive come across this site by accident and have enjoyed its content[for the most part].As Im not an architect Ive stayed out of the discussions.Im an attorney who specializes in land use so I deal with contractors and architects regularly..Most builders do not hate you but they enjoy getting one over on you now and then if they can..[As they will with attorneys too] Especially if you have been too lazy to come down to the site or answer their calls when mistakes have been made on the plans or there has been confusion created by them.. Most builders that I know and deal with are forgiving of mistakes made on plans..However they are not so forgiving if they cant get an answer to their calls and get especially mad if they cant get the architect down to the site to look at the problem and get it corrected. Builders just want to get on with the job thats how they make their money.If you want to develop a good reputation with clients and builders develop a good report with the builder...Architecture misscommunication is a good name for the thread. Aemkei, Its very simple, put yourself in the builders shoes, hes got a crew onsite thats costing him a bundle, the forman looks at the plans and says "Hey boss, if we build this out as the plans say we'll be over the side yard set back!"The boss calls the arch. gets no call back for a day or two and when he does all he gets is some grief that the builder must not have followed the plans correctly.. A couple days have passed the builder has gone for a bundle and the Arch. has sat on his high horse..The next time a mistake happens he's going to be telling the owner what a mixed up incompetent arch. the owner hired.And he'll point out and show the mistake on the plans to the owner just so there's no mistake as to who's at fault.Most smart architects avoid this by contacting the builder promptly not assigning fault[unless the buider really screwed up] and making needed changes quickly.. I could go on but think most of you are smart enough to get the message..That said Ill go back to my lurking status.

Thanks heaps, e, I'll run a search on Dwell and have a look at it- sounds interesting.

Aemkel, yea, I get what you mean about the perceptions that the architect and builder have of each other even prior to the start of the project. These 'negative' perceptions they have can potentially lead to conflicts even without reference to the project! (if you get what I mean)

Anyway, references that I have are generally related to differences in perceptions between those trained in the field of architecture (architects/academics, etc) and those who are not (laypeople). So you may/may not find it relevant but might be worthwhile just having a quick read?

Much have been written in regards to 'meanings' and semiology in architecture - key ppl in this area include: Rapoport, Baird, Jencks, Broadbent, Bonta.

There was a one day conference at Uni of Westminster 'Never talk to your client about architecture' - some papers in there might be of interest too - it talks about the distancing of architects from the public, etc.

These are just off the top of my head - contact me if you require any other specific information.

As a comparison to the American model of design and construction you may want to look at the book Japanese Architecture As a Collaborative Process: Opportunities in a Flexible Construction Culture
by Dana Buntrock.

How "powerful" is the architect in America, btw? Cause here in Sweden the contractor can make decisions regarding materials and stuff like that, more or less without consulting the architect. In a sense it's like the architect's work, a bit exaggerated, is done once the blue prints are handed over.

"F*ck bricks - we'll use that concrete we have left over from that hospital site last spring and it will look just dandy..."

There have been more than a few incidences with foreign architects who have felt that they've been screwed by the locals as they lose control over their own building - and I totally understand them (the architects).

aemkei - in usa, the contractor can make suggestions to change a detail or substitute the material and the owner makes the decision, usually thru the architect.
I am a young architect still learning, but I try to detail my drawings now so that it will be harder to take off "doo dads" and the building is sufficient and whole as it is. I sell the building to the owner as this and they are quite involved during design. They understand the building and think of it in my terms long before the contractor gets involved. Your post makes me thankful of this. What is the owner's role in your scenario?
What kind of work does this happen to in Sweden? Why do people hire architects just for design? It sounds interesting as it could work if the owner advocated the design during construction. Then the architect could stay out of construction and focus on design and know that it can be carried through as intended cuz the contractor doesn't want to screw over his client - the owner - who is standing up to the design. In the states, design (such as brick? or concrete?) is the least important, least seen aspect of the architect's services. Construction phase services are perhaps the most important reason architects are hired from owner's standpoint.

Strawbeary I think you're making some pretty sweeping generalizations there. Construction services may be an important reason that owners hire architects in some cases - I saw this particularly in institutional design. Though the client in that type of work - especially if the project is very large - will often hire an outside, independent project manager who is more likely to be someone with a contracting background than an architecture background. But my experience with smaller clients - and residential design in particular - is usually closer to what aemkei is describing. These clients are hiring an architect because they want custom design. Once the drawings are done and construction starts a lot of the clients expect the architect to get out of the picture.
If the architect and owner are using AIA contracts (and even if they aren't, under some state laws) the architect is required to do two "inspections" during construction. But beyond those a lot of our clients don't want us anywhere near the site during construction, because they don't want to pay the architect for this time. (Often this actually results in more time spent by us, since the contractor will call with questions and some issues would be more easily discussed on site.)
We often do have the experience of being invited to the client's party when the project is finished and finding that the client and contractor have modified various elements of the project without consulting us.
In the US, except in a design/build arrangement, the owner/contractor agreement is entirely separate from the owner/architect agreement. Some AIA standard contracts require payments to the contractor to be approved by the architect, changes to the design to be negotiated through the architect, etc. However, the majority of smaller projects do not use these contracts as written - or at least do not stick to them. Once the drawings are handed over many clients see this as the point at which the contractor takes over.

Bloopox, so true..i have seen many projects beyond recognition. i also witnessed, clients (residential) tend to stick with their 'designer' to the end but like you mentioned cut the 'architect' off once the permits are secured. so unfair but true most of the time. for this reason i'd prefer to be 'client's designer' rather than 'project's architect'.

Strawbeary>> well, ofcourse, and thank god, it doesn't happen all too often, but the fact remains that the contractor has the right to.

There are a few really big construction companies here that have taken the really big slices of the cake (partly cause they have and/or control the resources for bigger constructions) leaving the smaller companies to fight over the left-overs.
These big construction companies have a tendency to often leave their mark on whatever it is they're hired to build - often you can tell just by looking at a building or neighborhood that its been built by Construcion Company A or B, or whatever, before you can name the architect.

With many housing projects they also sort of act as the owner, and I don't even want to think about what kind of leverage they have then. And to continue they also own the building rights for land areas decades before it's even decided whether or not it will be possible to build anything there and yadda yadda yadda... list goes on.

So the problem in this case not only lies in the limited powers of the architect, but in the fact that these construction companies have too MUCH power.
The owner ofcourse always has the last say, and hopefully they understand what its all about (just like you say the people you sell your buildings to do), but it seems like a very intricate system at times regarding who's who, and more often than I would like - its the contractor who's everyone but the architect.

And I think this "contractor's monopoly" gives a faulty picture of the differences between our two countries. It taken aside, it's probably not as different as I first might have thought as the contractor is hopefully smart enough not to make any decisions, regarding stuff they dont really understand as well as the architect, that will affect future business in a negative way.

I'll try to find some good examples of this though. If I do, it would probably be a lot more clear what my point is, hehe.