I've heard so many Architects say they don't want to incur liability for offering X, Y, Z service. But is the issue really in liability or they just don't know how to do it? Ahem- structural calcs, MEP calcs, etc...
I can do structural calcs, but it takes me a lot longer than a structural engineer. It makes budgetary sense to have them do it. Same goes for the other engineering calcs.
The vast majority of my time is spent looking up what I'm supposed to calculate, not the calculation itself. Math is math. We're all supposed to know how to do it.
It's kind of like door hardware specifications. I can write the specs for a building with 1500 doors. And I'll get it right. But, a hardware specialist will turn it out in about half the time.
Most of my projects are governmental. They require stamps from the professional in each discipline. They will allow minor work to be performed by architects, but otherwise, require the engineer.
What a demeaning way to say it. I am also an “incompetent” 5-star chef; I can cook and eat it, but it isn’t the same is it? Be a better architect and use your time to continue to develop it instead of some other trade you are currently incompetent in… Otherwise; Scoot your tushy in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
A "better architect" means you have to know about those things... I mean I don't even know how you can sell your services to a client if he asks you technical questions... without knowing your shit, how are you supposed to be valuable to your client? But I'm sure you're excellent at picking stone slabs...
Oct 8, 18 5:18 pm ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
There's a difference between knowing about, and being able to coordinate such work, and actually doing it. I mark up engineers drawings all the time because I know about the work. I don't do the work, because it's not time effective. So far today, I've given direction to plumbing and electrical engineers, and marked up civil drawings. Between all that, I've worked on a couple specifications sections, done fire safety work, evaluated AHJ comments, answered construction RFI's, reviewed shop drawings, and played a bit of solitaire. Being good at this job requires being well rounded. If someone isn't trying to do that, then your dialogue might apply. Otherwise, you just sound like you're a little bitter regarding the profession.
Oct 8, 18 5:24 pm ·
·
Rusty!
OK senjonbukakesky. You are full of confidence, you know your shit, oh yeah we can totally provide fall protection service for facade maintenance. One snap someone died. Turns out you didn't have the right kind of liability insurance. The one your company had already had a half million $ deductible, but on this 5 million $ claim you are on your own. You just bankrupt the entire practice. LinkedIn skill recommendation: "Bankruptcy facilitation".
Oct 8, 18 6:31 pm ·
·
jcarch
senjonbukakesky's right. You need to know enough to have an intelligent discussion with your engineers and consultants to shape their work to dovetail with the architecture. I can't spec the equipment and size the ducting for a multi family residential project (well, I probably could, but it would take some heavy lifting). I do understand enough about HVAC design so that when the MEP engineer says "we can't do X," I can say what about Y," and have Y be a workable solution that they need to then run the numbers. I also know enough that, typically, I've left them enough room for their ducts and air handlers to fit above the ceiling. Same goes for plumbing/sprinkler/electric/structural/SOE/etc. I'm sure there are lots of you out there much smarter than me, but I can't imagine being as expert in all those areas as I am in architecture and all it involves.
Oct 8, 18 6:46 pm ·
·
Rusty!
Jesus Christ Rick, you need to shut the fuck up. No one is suggesting that architects pick up engineering services. That is a clear division line. There are a bunch of other tertiary services that Architects are wise not to touch. It depends on scale of operation. At some point you let landscapers and commercial kitchen and elevator consultants do their thing even if you feel you totally did that on this one small residential project.
Oct 8, 18 7:56 pm ·
·
senjohnblutarsky
Rusty, I know enough to be dangerous. That's what we're supposed to do, as a minimum. I question my work daily; how's that for confidence?
We're at risk for a lawsuit at all times. We're the first person that gets sued (assuming prime contract), then they work their way down to the engineers. We have to know enough to coordinate the work, as a minimum.
You're being a bit ridiculous with the whole fall protection post. That's far beyond the services any Architect would, or should, provide. It's getting into the means and methods, and specifically construction safety, realm. It's a place we need not go because we're not constantly on site, providing supervision.
And then you have the example of someone working at SOM for 10+ years, boasting about how he designed tall skyscrapers, and his first client asks him to do a project that involves relocating a beam with longer span and he has to embarresingly tell the client that he needs to hire a structural engineer because he has no clue how to do the calculation...
Oct 8, 18 8:23 pm ·
·
AlinaF
If a client asked you to design a skyscraper would not knowing about it be embarrassing?
For several years I worked in an architecture firm where we did all of our structural calcs in-house. Sometimes we were told by AHJs that we had to get a structural engineer to stamp them, and we would always patiently point out where it said in the state's statutes and code that we were allowed to do that as architects. 95% of the time they would relent. The other 5% of the time we'd get an engineer to review, and they never changed anything, just stamped. Then I moved to another architecture firm - one that was part owned by a structural engineer, who taught statics in the nearest M.Arch program - and that firm did not do structural calcs themselves, ever, because their insurer prohibited it, as long as they identified themselves as an architecture firm and not A&E. I was capable and experienced at structural, and my boss was certainly more than capable of supervising and/or doing it himself - but we did not do it because of liability. It might be the case that some of the things that some firms decline to do "because of liability" are things they don't know how to do - but "because of liability" sometimes really just means because of liability.
Forgot to mention the case of the builder who can tell you the span, cross section, and species of the beam without having to consult a structural engineer...
Oct 8, 18 8:59 pm ·
·
JLC-1
must be great to be born that way,
just knowing
Oct 9, 18 10:10 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
What I'm getting at is that Architects are supposed to know this stuff... we boast about going to expensive colleges blah blah blah- some of these guys don't even have a highschool diploma...
Oct 9, 18 10:28 am ·
·
JLC-1
it's called experience, and accumulates with time if you look at things other than your phone screen.
Why is sizing a beam the macho thing? Why not size a footing or design a bolted connection or evaluate stress in a truss? I interned for an engineer as a teenager and sized some beams. I offered to let him review my work and he said, no. Can't be that big of a deal.
Oct 9, 18 9:10 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Exactly! Why is it such a macho thing?? So many architects say they just don't want to incur the liability - but take any PM or PA at a reputable firm - large or small - pull them aside and say: "ok- don't take responsibility for this, but how would you go about calculating the size of this beam". I guarentee you that 80-90% of the time they'll say, "I have no fucking clue". So yes - they don't want to incur liability because THEY JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
Oct 9, 18 10:11 am ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
Being that you have to do it to get a degree in architecture and get licensed, I'd say perhaps they forgot and deprioritized it. It's actually smart of them to refuse if they don't know how to do it. Seems that suggesting that they are then "incompetent" is a feeble attempt to put yourself (and perhaps Rick) in the competent category. Good work. Don't you just do interiors anyways?
Oct 9, 18 10:39 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
huh? how did you get that impression? lol
Oct 9, 18 10:44 am ·
·
Wilma Buttfit
No? I need help picking out a chair. Stakes aren't as high as beams but there is a lot to consider.
Oct 9, 18 11:18 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
As you said - I'm an architect - I do everything ;)
This sounds like the old “engineers make buildings stand up, architects just make them look pretty” criticism... which I am pretty sure is an exclusive statement from people who have never coordinated a drawing set.
Oct 13, 18 9:50 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
When Fear of Liability Masquerades as Incompetence
I've heard so many Architects say they don't want to incur liability for offering X, Y, Z service. But is the issue really in liability or they just don't know how to do it? Ahem- structural calcs, MEP calcs, etc...
it's a 3 fold issue imho.
1.It's boring, why would you want to do it?
2.There's a whole industry dedicated. Why would I do it if someone has been doing it for years and it's better suited and cheaper?
3.Building departments like many stamps separate and certified. I've had reviewers ask for PE stamps on shed additions.
and the title you have should be the opposite, when incompetence masquerades as fear of liability.
Exactly.
I can do structural calcs, but it takes me a lot longer than a structural engineer. It makes budgetary sense to have them do it. Same goes for the other engineering calcs.
The vast majority of my time is spent looking up what I'm supposed to calculate, not the calculation itself. Math is math. We're all supposed to know how to do it.
It's kind of like door hardware specifications. I can write the specs for a building with 1500 doors. And I'll get it right. But, a hardware specialist will turn it out in about half the time.
Most of my projects are governmental. They require stamps from the professional in each discipline. They will allow minor work to be performed by architects, but otherwise, require the engineer.
What a demeaning way to say it. I am also an “incompetent” 5-star chef; I can cook and eat it, but it isn’t the same is it? Be a better architect and use your time to continue to develop it instead of some other trade you are currently incompetent in… Otherwise; Scoot your tushy in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
A "better architect" means you have to know about those things... I mean I don't even know how you can sell your services to a client if he asks you technical questions... without knowing your shit, how are you supposed to be valuable to your client? But I'm sure you're excellent at picking stone slabs...
There's a difference between knowing about, and being able to coordinate such work, and actually doing it. I mark up engineers drawings all the time because I know about the work. I don't do the work, because it's not time effective. So far today, I've given direction to plumbing and electrical engineers, and marked up civil drawings. Between all that, I've worked on a couple specifications sections, done fire safety work, evaluated AHJ comments, answered construction RFI's, reviewed shop drawings, and played a bit of solitaire. Being good at this job requires being well rounded. If someone isn't trying to do that, then your dialogue might apply. Otherwise, you just sound like you're a little bitter regarding the profession.
OK senjonbukakesky. You are full of confidence, you know your shit, oh yeah we can totally provide fall protection service for facade maintenance. One snap someone died. Turns out you didn't have the right kind of liability insurance. The one your company had already had a half million $ deductible, but on this 5 million $ claim you are on your own. You just bankrupt the entire practice. LinkedIn skill recommendation: "Bankruptcy facilitation".
senjonbukakesky's right. You need to know enough to have an intelligent discussion with your engineers and consultants to shape their work to dovetail with the architecture. I can't spec the equipment and size the ducting for a multi family residential project (well, I probably could, but it would take some heavy lifting). I do understand enough about HVAC design so that when the MEP engineer says "we can't do X," I can say what about Y," and have Y be a workable solution that they need to then run the numbers. I also know enough that, typically, I've left them enough room for their ducts and air handlers to fit above the ceiling. Same goes for plumbing/sprinkler/electric/structural/SOE/etc. I'm sure there are lots of you out there much smarter than me, but I can't imagine being as expert in all those areas as I am in architecture and all it involves.
Jesus Christ Rick, you need to shut the fuck up. No one is suggesting that architects pick up engineering services. That is a clear division line. There are a bunch of other tertiary services that Architects are wise not to touch. It depends on scale of operation. At some point you let landscapers and commercial kitchen and elevator consultants do their thing even if you feel you totally did that on this one small residential project.
Rusty, I know enough to be dangerous. That's what we're supposed to do, as a minimum. I question my work daily; how's that for confidence?
We're at risk for a lawsuit at all times. We're the first person that gets sued (assuming prime contract), then they work their way down to the engineers. We have to know enough to coordinate the work, as a minimum.
You're being a bit ridiculous with the whole fall protection post. That's far beyond the services any Architect would, or should, provide. It's getting into the means and methods, and specifically construction safety, realm. It's a place we need not go because we're not constantly on site, providing supervision.
...or diagramming space.
Rick, you exceed your area of competence every time you post here.
And then you have the example of someone working at SOM for 10+ years, boasting about how he designed tall skyscrapers, and his first client asks him to do a project that involves relocating a beam with longer span and he has to embarresingly tell the client that he needs to hire a structural engineer because he has no clue how to do the calculation...
If a client asked you to design a skyscraper would not knowing about it be embarrassing?
For several years I worked in an architecture firm where we did all of our structural calcs in-house. Sometimes we were told by AHJs that we had to get a structural engineer to stamp them, and we would always patiently point out where it said in the state's statutes and code that we were allowed to do that as architects. 95% of the time they would relent. The other 5% of the time we'd get an engineer to review, and they never changed anything, just stamped. Then I moved to another architecture firm - one that was part owned by a structural engineer, who taught statics in the nearest M.Arch program - and that firm did not do structural calcs themselves, ever, because their insurer prohibited it, as long as they identified themselves as an architecture firm and not A&E. I was capable and experienced at structural, and my boss was certainly more than capable of supervising and/or doing it himself - but we did not do it because of liability. It might be the case that some of the things that some firms decline to do "because of liability" are things they don't know how to do - but "because of liability" sometimes really just means because of liability.
Forgot to mention the case of the builder who can tell you the span, cross section, and species of the beam without having to consult a structural engineer...
must be great to be born that way, just knowing
What I'm getting at is that Architects are supposed to know this stuff... we boast about going to expensive colleges blah blah blah- some of these guys don't even have a highschool diploma...
it's called experience, and accumulates with time if you look at things other than your phone screen.
What is it with you guys and sizing beams?
Why is sizing a beam the macho thing? Why not size a footing or design a bolted connection or evaluate stress in a truss? I interned for an engineer as a teenager and sized some beams. I offered to let him review my work and he said, no. Can't be that big of a deal.
Exactly! Why is it such a macho thing?? So many architects say they just don't want to incur the liability - but take any PM or PA at a reputable firm - large or small - pull them aside and say: "ok- don't take responsibility for this, but how would you go about calculating the size of this beam". I guarentee you that 80-90% of the time they'll say, "I have no fucking clue". So yes - they don't want to incur liability because THEY JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
Being that you have to do it to get a degree in architecture and get licensed, I'd say perhaps they forgot and deprioritized it. It's actually smart of them to refuse if they don't know how to do it. Seems that suggesting that they are then "incompetent" is a feeble attempt to put yourself (and perhaps Rick) in the competent category. Good work. Don't you just do interiors anyways?
huh? how did you get that impression? lol
No? I need help picking out a chair. Stakes aren't as high as beams but there is a lot to consider.
As you said - I'm an architect - I do everything ;)
tintt- what's with you people and picking out stone slabs?
Ah, architecture. The job where you literally have the responsibility of 60 other jobs yet people still ask What exactly do you do? Everything.
And you may find yourself sizing a big beam. And you may find yourself shopping for a large chair... How did I get here?
better a free incompetent than a fearless inmate
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.