What do you hate the most in the world of architecture?
e. g. (handholding others, extremely slow drafters, the office Christmas party, heavy FFE models, stationary stealing, juvenile client reps, student HW posts on Archinect?
You name it! Here is your chance to whine about it and vent.
the laziness we have allowed general contractors - nobody reads plans anymore, nobody does their own take-offs, it's always, "ask the architect, he has it digitally and can tell you right away."
Measure on site. I wrote that in 4 separate submittalls today. I even cross out the sections where they try to put the blame on me. No easier way for a drawing to be rejected than to demande I do their job.
tduds, I think Mr. Jawknee took offense to the french word "demande" that slipped into my comment. I can't see what else would get such a well-rounded and respectable character like him so upset as to downvote me... I get it tho and I'll keep a better eye on my french keyboard setting on the phone.
Isn't that kind of what we do though? Unless your team is fast roping into meetings and communicating with hand signals.
Sep 14, 21 9:56 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Actually if you establish processes correctly, and have a plan in place, you won't need to respond tactically. And I'm talking about the things we can control, because so much of what we do is not in our control.
Talking over people is one of my pet peeves, professionally or otherwise. Partly because I stutter and it only makes it worse when people try to complete my thought for me, but it's also just plain rude. My MIL does it a lot. Sometimes I just keep on talking, with her or others, and it clearly confuses them.
I see this as a huge problem with a lot of people in the profession. It really taints the experience sometimes, and I really don't like having anything to do with people and projects that have an abundance of this.
On that last item.... I often joke that people who have elaborate conspiracy theories about the government have clearly never worked for them. (it's also not a joke, I am dead serious about this)
That first item is actually really good! Totally agree. I think there is a tendency to try to elevate yourself by putting things beneath you if you can't do them. I especially see this in mid experience professionals recently. I think the reasoning is that they want to be seen as all around valuable more than other experience levels, so admitting weak spots ... not really an option for some people. I don't even know if it's meant as an outward expression, the most obvious examples I've seen are people who I honestly think are trying to validate themselves to themselves.... Or are trying to BS their way up the ladder and I think are just lying to themselves.
I actually believe in the power of government to better people's lives. Maybe my statement was to generalized. What I meant was like how the vessel was funded in part by using a loophole in the tax code.
Sep 14, 21 4:38 pm ·
·
,,,,
Wasn't that money supposed to go for housing?
Sep 14, 21 4:41 pm ·
·
,,,,
Specific examples: 1. Computer illiterate firm owners who have no idea how long and what is involved in producing technical documents with software. 2. People who can't admit they might be wrong. 1.&3. Professional jealousy over licensure. Someone getting their license does not keep anyone else from getting their license.
Bean counter PMs who do not do a minute of drawing or design, but promise the Earth, the Moon, Mars and a few other planets to every client they have, so they can hit invoice date.
I'd also add PMs who don't understand that managing the project also involves managing the client and not just saying yes to their every whim and unreasonable requests. I often wonder how many projects budgets get blown up just because a PM doesn't want to enforce the contract or charge for extra services just because they don't want to upset the client, which then pushes the unbearable workload onto the backs of the design staff
The continued propogation of "Form follows function" that seems like it has followed our profession into every tiny representation in society (HGTV, TV shows, students, your average DIYer, contractors; the list goes on). Not to rant, but form for the sake of creating beautiful space isn't bad just because it doesn't stuff closets, drawers, and shelving into every possible square foot...
Clients. Even the ones I think will be great end up wearing me out. I'm so tired of them that I'm not taking on new work and when I'm caught up sometime next year I'm changing my business model.
If you don't mind sharing, how are you planning to change up your business model in a way that doesn't result in clients wearing you out? Being more selective about work? More prescriptive in design?
I'm really not sure. I have many ideas; coming up with business ideas is never my problem. Yes, possibly, to your suggestions. And/or going back to a design/build model, or to building science/sustainability consulting. Or maybe I'll start a micro-brewery or some other unrelated business, though that would not be a smart move at this point. I have several months to figure it out.
Custom residential clients probably are the worst. You are doing their "dream house" while most of the time budget is a major concern. It is very personal to them, so they keep bothering you with changes. Reject your design when it is not perfectly in sync with their dream. The only improving business model I can think of to reduce irritating client initiated changes and indecisiveness is pre-designed prototype custom houses with minor modification. Benefit being less design work, re-used details. Downside being clients feel it is not as custom and special. But people are willing to buy those ugly spec build 2x4, not gonna be that bad.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Jay, correct on all counts. Every custom home is a prototype with thousands of decisions to be made, but my clientele--usually upper middle class, doctors/lawyers etc.--"need" to be included on every decision, which means educating them on everything that goes into my recommendation, then having them focus on one aspect and forcing changes which have cascading effects, then complaining about time and budget... After going through it with a few hundred projects I'm just ready for a change. I actually had a meeting this morning with some architect friends who already do predesigned plans; that's high on the list of possibilities.
Wood - I've only done a few custom high end homes. What I find odd is that these clients demand perfection for their homes. Yet for their office buildings they are like 'meh, good enough'. They miss the fact that they are spending 80% of their waking hours in their office buildings . . .
Chad, that's definitely part of it. At the D/B firm where I used to work I realized that a big part of my job was to provide entertainment for rich people. (Rich being a relative term.) Not only does the final product have to be perfect, every element of the design has to be perfect, the process needs to go perfectly and anything I forget to explain or involve them in turns into a major disappointment that they completely forget in a few weeks. I thought that focusing on "green" design and targeting clients with more modest budgets would help, but the same issues are here, and my clients usually have less money to afford what they want.
Sep 16, 21 7:45 pm ·
·
nabrU
I like clients, good ones keep us all honest. Exceptional ones keep it real.
Disorganization. Project leaders who can't think more than one day in advance and who operate on the basis of putting out fires as they appear.
Nothing irritates me off more than waking up to an urgent email that's followed by a slack message that's followed by a text message for an item that must be done NOW NOW NOW when I've already had items on my agenda for the day.
Are you the architect working with me now? I can barely manage my own day and know I'm a bad manager when it comes to this kind of thing.
Sep 14, 21 1:15 pm ·
·
newguy
Probably not although it wouldn't surprise me if a project leader followed me to this board just to start asking me inane questions like where to find project files
I used to see these around 4:30 p.m. which is why 10 years ago I started leaving at 4:25 pm. Never asked permission, just started doing it. One of the best decisions I ever made
Well, it's simple really, I went to the principal and said I can't sign off on his hours, he did not do the 24 hours, and complained about the red lines I gave him. He actually had the audacity to say to me, I did not make those mistakes, and I said, I don't care what you didn't do, it's what you're being asked to do that we're discussing now.
Redlines aren't about 'mistakes' They aren't a bad thing that detracts from you as professional (normally). Is this view that redlines are bad held by just this one staff member had or is an overall firm view?
he never said that shit and that is a common misconception that has been applied to him as PR spin after the fact in order to conceal how anti-worker and anti-union Ford really was
The point is that he never raised salaries out of the goodness of his heart or out of a genuine desire to raise the standard of living for his profession. That was battle that was fought through conflict, not generosity
I'm quite aware of all of that. While it does show his character it dose not confirm or refute claims regarding what Ford said about paying his workers, or what he paid them.
Again, could newguy please provide documentation to support his claims regarding what Ford said and what he paid his workers? I do not doubt what newguy is saying. It's simply good practice to back up what you say with facts when applicable.
Sep 14, 21 2:01 pm ·
·
newguy
The onus of proof is on the person making a claim. It would be easier for you to demonstrate that Ford DID say what he said about paying his workers than for me to prove that he did NOT say that. To my knowledge, there is no proof that he said that, and that has been peddled as a byproduct of Ford losing a labor fight that Ford tried very hard to defeat.
Thanks for the link. I was well aware of why Ford actually increased pay. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. Hence you. It just seems that in today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim.
Instead they post things like the cartoon you posted that is not proof that backs up their statement.
chad, did you read the forbes article? i'm with new guy on this one; they've done more to show that the ford statement is contrived than anyone has done to prove it really happened. where's your the proof he said it?
either way sort of a weird fight to pick, the original claim is by randomised and you didn't demand they show proof.
Henry Ford was a hard-nosed businessman; he didn't introduce the $5 workday because he was a nice guy, says Bob Kreipke, corporate historian for the Ford Motor Co."It was mainly to stabilize the workforce. And it sure did," Kreipke says. "And raised the bar all over the world."
It's widely believed that Henry Ford also upped wages to expand his market — paying employees enough to buy the cars they made. While that wasn't Ford's main motivation, it was a welcome byproduct, and a game changer, says University of California, Berkeley, labor economist Harley Shaiken.
tduds, i actually things like this do matter- language has a powerful role in shaping the myths that support certain views and policies on things like the economy..
I suppose it doesn't matter to me who said something, only whether it stands on its own as worth repeating or not. People I deeply respect have said things I deeply reject, and vice versa. What matters is the idea that someone should be paid enough to enjoy the product of their labor. I couldn't care less whose idea it is.
Whatever y’all, I’m venting about not being able to build a house on an architect salary and it turns into a discussion what Ford may or may not have said...totally missing the point.
Another thing I hate about architecture: focussing on stupid details and totally missing the big picture ;-)
The Ford history is twisted to suit various ideologies. One real aspect is that the labor was brutally hard and that people more than earned their wages. If they couldn't hack it there were always people to step in at what was double the prevailing wage.
square - I did read the article newguy posted. I've known that the quote and reasoning behind Ford paying his workers more wasn't accurate. I stated as such. The point of my asking newguy for a source is that in today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim. That really needs to stop.
Sep 15, 21 10:48 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
"n today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim"
You cannot prove a negative. You are engaging in a very odd burden of proof fallacy. I am not making a claim, I am refuting one. The original claim in question is that Ford deliberately stated that he raised wages to help his workers achieve greater purchasing power. That is the claim that demands proof. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof into proving a negative, which is literally impossible. Just as one cannot assume that absence of proof that unicorns do not exist is proof of their existence, one cannot also claim that the absence of an alleged quote is proof of the alleged quotes existence. If there is no firm proof that Ford was ever directly quoted saying what is claimed, then it must be assumed that he never actually said it. Regardless, this is a very odd hill for you to die on.
Actually no. Both sides are required to provide proof in such a situation. If you say that something quantifiable isn't true and I say it is the onus of proof is on both of us to supply supporting data.
""In today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim"
Chad, got a source for that statement?
8-)"
Look at most of Rick's, x-jla's, and jawkeen's posts. :)
Sep 15, 21 11:41 am ·
·
square.
i think what new guy is saying can be viewed more of as an interpretation or opinion, aka a "qualifier," where as what rando originally claimed is a "quantifiable" quote by ford, which we have yet to see any data on (using your terms here).
Sorry Chad, I'm not buying what you're selling. You singled out newguy for making a claim even though you "[knew] that the quote and reasoning behind Ford paying his workers more wasn't accurate." Why did you single them out? So they would cite a source? You never asked for proof of the original claim posted by randomised that Ford "said that every worker in his factory should at least be able to afford their own Ford automobile," yet by your own admission, that's the claim you should have had the issue with because you knew it wasn't accurate.
If you want to make the world a better place by making people back up what they say with sources, be consistent with how you apply it ... or at the very least use it on the misinformation, not the stuff you claim you already know.
You can believe me or not. I singled out Newguy for proof because of the tone of his response "he never said that shit". Newguy could of been much more civil and simply responded with the facts of the matter. In addition Newguy was aware of the point that Rando was making but he apparently just wanted to be a jerk.
newguy being aware of rando's point was worked out in the next three replies between newguy and tduds ... before you stepped in asking for a citation. If the goal was so that newguy would be more civil in their response, all you had to do was say so originally. Instead you asked for a source for something you claim you knew already.
Seems to me at this point you're just trying to move the goalposts. It was about citing sources, now it's about being a jerk?
EA - I'm not moving goalposts. The meaning of Rando's post didn't seem to be worked out when I asked Newguy for a source. I took issue with Newguy's reaction that by asking for a source I was somehow insulting him and disagreeing with him.
"Isingled out Newguy for proof because of the tone of his response 'he never said that shit'. Newguy could of been much more civil and simply responded with the facts of the matter. In addition Newguy was aware of the point that Rando was making but he apparently just wanted to be a jerk." -- Chad Miller (emphasis mine)
"I'm not moving goalposts. The meaning of Rando's post didn't seem to be worked out when I asked Newguy for a source. I took issue with Newguy's reaction thatby asking for a sourceI was somehow insulting him and disagreeing with him." -- Also Chad Miller (emphasis mine)
You're talking out of both ends now. You said that you singled newguy out because of the tone of their response to randomised, but now you say it's about how newguy responded to you asking for a source. You also state that newguy was aware of the point that randomised was making, but now you're saying that the point wasn't worked out. Nope, no goalposts being moved around here.
The reality is that newguy's reponse to your request for a source was actually quite civil and perfectly in line with what you were asking for. I mean they basically said, you're asking the wrong person for proof, but here are some of the facts of the matter ... which you continued to take issue with for some reason even though newguy never alluded to feeling insulted by you or that you disagreed with them. If anything, you are the one that pointed out where you disagree with newguy and it's about who was making the claim.
You both stated that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (which is actually in opposition to your statement quoted at the top that you singled out newguy for proof because of the tone, not because the burden of proof should be on them ... but whatever), but newguy was pointing to randomised's claim of what Ford said and saying the burden would be on randomised to prove it, and you were pointing to newguy to prove a negative refutation of the claim (i.e. that Ford didn't say it) -- which you say you already knew -- rather than pointing to the person that was making the claim (that Ford said it).
I mean this is (sort of) fun and I could do it all day, but I think you should really just stop digging.
I'm sorry for not explaining myself well. I asked Newguy for a source because of his attitude. I continued with Newguy because of his attitude that asking for a source was somehow an insult that meant I didn't agree with him.
As for who has the onus of proof applied to them - I've been quite clear on that. Newguy said that Rando's quote was wrong and implied that it was easily proven wrong. I asked for the proof.
We can continue to argue about this but be careful. You're starting to post like Rick.
"As for who has the onus of proof applied to them - I've been quite clear on that. Newguy said that Rando's quote was wrong and implied that it was easily proven wrong. I asked for the proof."
And that's where you're wrong, but you keep doubling down. newguy was refuting rando's claim (that Ford said what he said) and actually produced some facts of the matter to refute it when you asked for them. Your disagreement is in who should be proving what Ford said. Randomised made the claim, newguy was refuting it. newguy is saying if anyone should be required to show proof, it's randomised who made the claim about what Ford said. You are saying newguy should be providing proof that Ford never said it (a negative that is basically impossible to prove). The burden of proof should be on randomised (the person who made the claim), not newguy (the person saying that the claim is unproven). Additionally, the ability to prove the positive (that Ford said something) is easier than the ability to prove the negative (that Ford never said something) and so the onus should be on proving the positive, not the negative.
Sigh. Newguy didn't just say that Ford's 'quote' wasn't proven. He implied that there was proof that Ford didn't say it and didn't raise wages out of the goodness of heart I asked for proof. Newguy made a claim and I asked for proof.
The claim newguy made was that the attribution of the quote/statement to Ford was a result of PR spin which was applied after the fact and actually provided a link to a pretty good article to illustrate that. Is it definitive proof? No ... but it's the best anyone has shown on either side up to this point. Your response to that was to claim you were aware of it, and to make the statement again that people should provide proof to back up their claims. The implication of your post was that you completely misinterpreted the claim that newguy was actually making and therefore didn't accept the information they provided to back it up.
At the same time you were completely missing an opportunity to advance your cause of backing up claims with proof by asking randomised to provide proof Ford said what randomised claimed he said.
Again. I asked for proof from Newguy because he implied that it was easy to find. Newguy provided said proof I thanked him for it and let him know that not only was I aware of the truth about the quote but that I agreed with him. Newguy then argued that he shouldn't of had to provide proof because I was asking him to prove a negative. I wasn't. I was asking him provide the proof that he implied was easy to find.
You can keep trying to channel your inner Rick but I have some architecture stuff to do. Have fun.
Better to stick with architecture because you're much better at that than making arguments on the internet. I mean it's all written above in black and white. At this point you're only convincing yourself. I have no further work to do here.
Not clicking on that link. If I do I'll get that song stuck in my head. It took me forever to get that other song out of my head. Oh, fuck. Now it's back . . . .
do you want to build a snooowmaaan?
Sep 17, 21 9:38 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
I want to build a snowperson. wait, I probably can, winter is almost here
It's supposed to start snowing in the high country here next week. Right now it's in the 90's (F) in the valley and I'll be able to travel 45 minutes and be in snow.
We should be getting some snow up in the mountains this weekend (I think).
I was trying to see if I could find a clip from Frozen that had some sort of dialogue re: trolls that would be funny/on point but didn't want to get into a rabbit hole searching for one.
Design school is where you go to learn the things that can't be learned in the office. The opposite is also true. It's an apprenticeship career, it's on all of us to be good mentors.
I only get to claim 10hr of continuing education per 2y cycle for mentoring. Gimme more credit and I’ll mentor more! J/K, i only have one active mentor at the moment. I don’t have time for more.
Well every fresh grad that I've worked with has been able to draft, speak, bathe, eat, and dress themselves. I know it's only acidotically and a small sample size however I can infer from incomplete data that my theory is realistically correct.
The firms doing great work are usually the ones that give fresh grads a chance without the attitude of them not knowing anything. We all had to start somewhere...
Contractor PM's; ones that only schedule and make paper, but have no idea how buildings go together.
Owner's Rep's; the ones who justify their existence with 'zero change orders' and conduct pit fights between the design team and construction team.
Clients; Ferrari dreams, Honda sized pockets who love to tell you what things should cost, how long it should take (instant), and utilize their internet education against you (because they know more than you obviously).
My personal favorite is the freshly graduated trust fund architecture student that gets the gig to renovate a renowned architect's house for their parents.
right- at least half of the time a simple "i hear you, but we'll need more time" rather than "we'll get that to you asap" won't offend the client and will make the life of your team members much better.. it's a win win.
it's also a great way for pms to motivate their team by showing that they're willing to stick up for them.
unfortunately the "sense of urgency" mindset often wins out.
I would say it's more the "wants" of the clients than legitimate needs - I had a coworker who was always whining about us doing "ridiculous" things for clients, I'd say we are here to design those ridiculous things the best way possible, but I've never had to work extra to attend any client.
A PM at a friend's office made them all work over Labor Day weekend, so that the client could submit tender documents for an overseas project. A simple "its a holiday here (and its called LABOR DAY, damnit) " to the client may have sufficed in buying a few extra days...
I hate when we let contractors just change everything during CA. Working on a design-build project where the contractor said we should specify a particular product ... it wasn't our first pick, but ultimately fine, so we did. Now that construction has started they want to substitute another product for it instead. They had already submitted and gotten it approved previously, and now they are saying it is unavailable. Was it available when you submitted it, or do you just like wasting everyone's time? How about instead we go with what I would have specified in the first place?
Are you me? We let them pick the foundation wall product when we were still in design (gc working at-risk but unofficially had it) because neither I nor the structural engineer really cared and they were super passionate about it. Then they completely change it in CA. What the fuck.
No, but good(?) to see I have some company in my misery. This project is a CF all around. The owner have their own preferred products (completely fine) and even gave us specifications we have to use (more unusual, but we can work with it) and if we want to use something different we have to go through a whole process to get it reviewed and approved (I don't like it, but I get it. Oh, and *it* *is* *a* *PRO* *CESS*). Meanwhile the contractor basically told us not to select products until they get their subs on board who will then tell us what products they have in their bids (bids based on what? I don't know, because we never issued anything) so we can specify those products. When we push back on the crap products they tell us to use, we're not team players or something and they can't use anything else and keep the project on budget.
When we specify what they want us to, they end up changing it later when someone else comes along and says they want to use something different. All of those changes are now during CA and have to go through a review process to be approved. Did I mention the owner has a fun review PROCESS? At one point we were making revisions to specifications that hadn't technically been issued because we were still waiting on original approval from the owner, but needed to have the submittals approved so they could order material in order to get it on time so the schedule wasn't thrown off. Keep in mind the submittal doesn't match what the owner is reviewing, and that's why we have to make revisions to something that hasn't been issued. They we'll have to send in those revisions after the owner approves the original all while crossing our fingers the owner didn't have any issues with the stuff they were reviewing (psst, the owner had some issues with the original ... and then the revision ... but all that got worked out after it was installed).
Then there are the times where we use what the owner has in their requirements and the contractor wants us to approve something different. We point out that it was an owner requirement and they need to take it up with them. They will, but we have to approve it in the RFI first for some stupid reason (did I mention the owner has their fuggin' processes?). So we do, "no exceptions taken," or whatever. The owner looks at it and says, "No. Comply with our requirements." Thanks for wasting everyone's time contractor.
didn't know this was becoming common, I've got that on a project with Balfour... god does balfour like to change products, then they cry uncle 6 weeks later when the price still isn't agreed on and they still haven't ordered the product and argue everyone but them are holding up the job.... um, you could have just ordered the product with the 12 week lead time instead of trying to change it
I hate using a piece of software that is so pathetically and unashamedly ignorant of the industry it was specifically designed for. Instead of making Revit more useful Autodesk keeps chasing their fucking subscription cash while licking the nuts of upper management with ideas that sound good in advertisements. Why, for the love of GOD, is a line at a slight angle fine but when you align a wall to it, it's SLIGHTLY OFF AXIS AND MAY CAUSE INNACURACIES?
Why, for the love of GOD, is there a different naming convention for duplicating objects depending on what it is? Element Copy 1? Copy of Element? Duplicate of Element? Element(1)? STANDARDS, PEOPLE!
I have a suspicion that Revit is staffed by jaded Architects who took a programming bootcamp and jumped ship for the paycheck.
agree, 100%. there are a lot of revit stans on this site, and while i agree it does some nice things, it is very clear that it is not designed by or for architects. this is my biggest fear with this technology in general- we're totally at the mercy of what autodesk decides to give us, and it's a mediocre product at best.
Problem is that any decent programmer wouldn’t want to be associated with working for the autodesk devil and any decent architect wouldn’t want to go the programming route to help fix a program that was faulty from the start. At least Archicad was built and designed by, with and for architects...lots of design-oriented architecture offices (at least here in NL) have switched or never were into Revit to begin with...
Any Architect who I hear say " you are smarter than this dumb program / work it out " and then walk away would be an Architect that I pull aside and have a chat with. Either be part of the solution or shut the fuck up. Passive aggressive comments belittling the actual and real issues your staff are having is a sign that you're a cunt.
@SP Fair call , the context was missing in my previous comment, but at that moment the colleague could have chosen a better word . I dont condone this kind of behavior, but there are very few people who will always whine and moan about everything and anything.
That junior staff did not last long in the end.
Sep 17, 21 7:48 pm ·
·
reallynotmyname
Adobe totally sucks also. The only good thing I can say is their pricing is gentle compared to Autodesk.
You don't have to use Autodesk products or Revit. Hand drafting has been used successfully for 500 years, or thereabouts. Then all you can complain about is pencil lead weights/thicknesses and eraser dust
Sep 16, 21 4:25 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
I'll assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek. Otherwise I might have to explain to you how it works when you don't own the company.
Small time clients that constantly change their minds.
Most of our large clients have no issue paying for changes. The small time ones don't have the money but "are sure it's a building you want to be proud of as well" as they slowly VE everything nice out of the building.
With an infinite amount of butts texting on infinite amounts of phones, for an infinite amount of time, eventually you’ll butt text the complete works of Shakespeare! Keep it up, you’re almost there!
Sep 17, 21 1:06 pm ·
·
proto
is butt text like a tramp stamp?
& with a compatible adjacent branding, is it ADA accessible?
Looking for a job in covid times, wanting to at least be in the office to effectively meet the whole point of being hired, seeing a good one with someone you've worked with well in the past knowing that you'll both do good work for the practice but couldn't apply because they use Job score and the HR director looks like a lunatic on corporate photos.
We do only second/vacation homes in a ski resort and I hadn't thought about this before; Clients/Owners that buy houses they don't really like and try to "convert" to their taste - it's a transvestite, especially when it's one of your own houses designed for somebody else.
ACC is the worst piece of ... sorry. but yeah, try printing something (I get it, we're not supposed to print anymore) try editing a word document... try having multiple people edit a word document. We may be pivoting to using ACC for revit and sheet management only and using one drive for the rest of the process and directory location/file storage. Oh and bluebeam gets thrown in there, because the editing options on a .pdf are sorely lacking, but again, try opening a .pdf in bluebeam directly from ACC. It's like if I want to do anything other than work in revit, I have to re-download it to my C drive (because you know, we can't have a in-house server anymore, must be in the cloud)... work on it, confirm no one else is working on it, and then reupload.
Sep 29, 21 9:15 am ·
·
joseffischer
Oh, and yes, I like procore, but I've noticed that some contractors really eff it up (looking at you Mr "I reopened RFI 32 because I didn't like your answer but I also started RFI 33 because I had another question surrounding the same issue, but I also added that question to 32 and I want you to put the answer in both places before I close it... oh and I started RFI 33 on Friday, but didn't finish/publish it until Tuesday evening, but my software says it's now due tuesday, along with 32 that's now 3 weeks late because I didn't change anything except reopening it"
OAC meeting Wed Morning at 8 - "so I see we have a bunch of overdue RFIs and we want to focus on that this meeting and talk about why our schedule is blown due to that"... really, was I born yesterday? I've got all the email notifications printed, which I had to spend an hour on last night, just because I knew you were going to try this again like you did 2 weeks ago, so we can all waste 30 minutes of our time showing that the 9 RFIs you opened last night are basically frivolous dribble, but yes... I'll get them answered when I get back into the office.
At least the owner is equally informed and unimpressed.
Lately I've been playing everyone's favorite fun guesing game: is the contractor being deliberately cagey or do they just not care enough to read the entire email?
I hate it when I read the title of this thread every day and get excited that someone wants to talk about ventilation requirements and techniques, then realize it's just a b!tching thread. ;-)
People who take issue with architects referring to a project possessively, as if everyone else doesn’t know exactly what they mean, and as if the typical contract arrangement doesn’t maintain that the architect holds the copyright.
ie: Key phrases for picking out architects who hate architects.
Oct 22, 21 4:20 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.
Venting Central: The architecture hate chart
What do you hate the most in the world of architecture?
e. g. (handholding others, extremely slow drafters, the office Christmas party, heavy FFE models, stationary stealing, juvenile client reps, student HW posts on Archinect?
You name it! Here is your chance to whine about it and vent.
I hate:
People who use their position to bully others.
Liars.
People who talk out their ass.
Everything else I can tolerate, even fast track speculative retail projects.
Most of the comments on this thread are pretty good, that first item though... damn straight.
The second comment is good too--I can't handle liars. I can deal with bad news of any sort, but quickly spot liars and want nothing to do with them.
Myself.
Don't think that way
light beer and cider. Everything else is tolerable.
Hate is a strong word.
"fake it til you make it" is currently frustrating me with a particular GC who is over his head
the laziness we have allowed general contractors - nobody reads plans anymore, nobody does their own take-offs, it's always, "ask the architect, he has it digitally and can tell you right away."
My response: Look at the drawings we provided you. Then I hang up.
Measure on site. I wrote that in 4 separate submittalls today. I even cross out the sections where they try to put the blame on me. No easier way for a drawing to be rejected than to demande I do their job.
lol @ the thumbs down on the above comment.
tduds, I think Mr. Jawknee took offense to the french word "demande" that slipped into my comment. I can't see what else would get such a well-rounded and respectable character like him so upset as to downvote me... I get it tho and I'll keep a better eye on my french keyboard setting on the phone.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned clients.
Balkins
Micro-managing by people who are too invested in shit that is not worthy of their billable rate. You. Are. Killing. My. Budget. Asshat.
seconded!
People on my team that think tactically, and think it's strategic. GTFOH.
Isn't that kind of what we do though? Unless your team is fast roping into meetings and communicating with hand signals.
Actually if you establish processes correctly, and have a plan in place, you won't need to respond tactically. And I'm talking about the things we can control, because so much of what we do is not in our control.
Those who talk over other people, especially when they are talking out of their ass.
People who's only professional skill is being likeable. Actually, no I like them.... damn it.
Talking over people is one of my pet peeves, professionally or otherwise. Partly because I stutter and it only makes it worse when people try to complete my thought for me, but it's also just plain rude. My MIL does it a lot. Sometimes I just keep on talking, with her or others, and it clearly confuses them.
I see this as a huge problem with a lot of people in the profession. It really taints the experience sometimes, and I really don't like having anything to do with people and projects that have an abundance of this.
1. People who devalue what they can't do or don't understand.
2. Certitude
3. Zero sum thinking
Most of all misuse of public funds
On that last item.... I often joke that people who have elaborate conspiracy theories about the government have clearly never worked for them. (it's also not a joke, I am dead serious about this)
That first item is actually really good! Totally agree. I think there is a tendency to try to elevate yourself by putting things beneath you if you can't do them. I especially see this in mid experience professionals recently. I think the reasoning is that they want to be seen as all around valuable more than other experience levels, so admitting weak spots ... not really an option for some people. I don't even know if it's meant as an outward expression, the most obvious examples I've seen are people who I honestly think are trying to validate themselves to themselves.... Or are trying to BS their way up the ladder and I think are just lying to themselves.
I actually believe in the power of government to better people's lives. Maybe my statement was to generalized. What I meant was like how the vessel was funded in part by using a loophole in the tax code.
Wasn't that money supposed to go for housing?
Specific examples: 1. Computer illiterate firm owners who have no idea how long and what is involved in producing technical documents with software. 2. People who can't admit they might be wrong. 1.&3. Professional jealousy over licensure. Someone getting their license does not keep anyone else from getting their license.
Bean counter PMs who do not do a minute of drawing or design, but promise the Earth, the Moon, Mars and a few other planets to every client they have, so they can hit invoice date.
I'd also add PMs who don't understand that managing the project also involves managing the client and not just saying yes to their every whim and unreasonable requests. I often wonder how many projects budgets get blown up just because a PM doesn't want to enforce the contract or charge for extra services just because they don't want to upset the client, which then pushes the unbearable workload onto the backs of the design staff
Smugness and humorlessness
The continued propogation of "Form follows function" that seems like it has followed our profession into every tiny representation in society (HGTV, TV shows, students, your average DIYer, contractors; the list goes on). Not to rant, but form for the sake of creating beautiful space isn't bad just because it doesn't stuff closets, drawers, and shelving into every possible square foot...
Clients. Even the ones I think will be great end up wearing me out. I'm so tired of them that I'm not taking on new work and when I'm caught up sometime next year I'm changing my business model.
If you don't mind sharing, how are you planning to change up your business model in a way that doesn't result in clients wearing you out? Being more selective about work? More prescriptive in design?
I'm really not sure. I have many ideas; coming up with business ideas is never my problem. Yes, possibly, to your suggestions. And/or going back to a design/build model, or to building science/sustainability consulting. Or maybe I'll start a micro-brewery or some other unrelated business, though that would not be a smart move at this point. I have several months to figure it out.
Custom residential clients probably are the worst. You are doing their "dream house" while most of the time budget is a major concern. It is very personal to them, so they keep bothering you with changes. Reject your design when it is not perfectly in sync with their dream. The only improving business model I can think of to reduce irritating client initiated changes and indecisiveness is pre-designed prototype custom houses with minor modification. Benefit being less design work, re-used details. Downside being clients feel it is not as custom and special. But people are willing to buy those ugly spec build 2x4, not gonna be that bad. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Jay, correct on all counts. Every custom home is a prototype with thousands of decisions to be made, but my clientele--usually upper middle class, doctors/lawyers etc.--"need" to be included on every decision, which means educating them on everything that goes into my recommendation, then having them focus on one aspect and forcing changes which have cascading effects, then complaining about time and budget... After going through it with a few hundred projects I'm just ready for a change. I actually had a meeting this morning with some architect friends who already do predesigned plans; that's high on the list of possibilities.
Wood - I've only done a few custom high end homes. What I find odd is that these clients demand perfection for their homes. Yet for their office buildings they are like 'meh, good enough'. They miss the fact that they are spending 80% of their waking hours in their office buildings . . .
Chad, that's definitely part of it. At the D/B firm where I used to work I realized that a big part of my job was to provide entertainment for rich people. (Rich being a relative term.) Not only does the final product have to be perfect, every element of the design has to be perfect, the process needs to go perfectly and anything I forget to explain or involve them in turns into a major disappointment that they completely forget in a few weeks. I thought that focusing on "green" design and targeting clients with more modest budgets would help, but the same issues are here, and my clients usually have less money to afford what they want.
I like clients, good ones keep us all honest. Exceptional ones keep it real.
Disorganization. Project leaders who can't think more than one day in advance and who operate on the basis of putting out fires as they appear.
Nothing irritates me off more than waking up to an urgent email that's followed by a slack message that's followed by a text message for an item that must be done NOW NOW NOW when I've already had items on my agenda for the day.
Same, but with General Contractors.
Are you the architect working with me now? I can barely manage my own day and know I'm a bad manager when it comes to this kind of thing.
Probably not although it wouldn't surprise me if a project leader followed me to this board just to start asking me inane questions like where to find project files
I used to see these around 4:30 p.m. which is why 10 years ago I started leaving at 4:25 pm. Never asked permission, just started doing it. One of the best decisions I ever made
I guess I'll throw a real one in the mix and it's totally not something I've had to spend my morning fixing... totally not. /s
When someone claims they've completed X task (and took many hours to do so) but then you look it over and see that's it's roughly 10% completed.
I've had people removed from my project, and their hours subtracted from the budget for this shit.
What, how? teach me this skill, O'wise one.
Well, it's simple really, I went to the principal and said I can't sign off on his hours, he did not do the 24 hours, and complained about the red lines I gave him. He actually had the audacity to say to me, I did not make those mistakes, and I said, I don't care what you didn't do, it's what you're being asked to do that we're discussing now.
Redlines aren't about 'mistakes' They aren't a bad thing that detracts from you as professional (normally). Is this view that redlines are bad held by just this one staff member had or is an overall firm view?
Just this guy. Super smug, entitled little shit. Somewhat fresh out of school, one of those, you can't teach me anything types.
What I hate most is that my education and training result in an architect’s salary that does not even allow for building my own house...
In that sense Henry Ford was onto something when he said that every worker in his factory should at least be able to afford their own Ford automobile.
he never said that shit and that is a common misconception that has been applied to him as PR spin after the fact in order to conceal how anti-worker and anti-union Ford really was
Regardless of who said it, the point is important and true.
The point is that he never raised salaries out of the goodness of his heart or out of a genuine desire to raise the standard of living for his profession. That was battle that was fought through conflict, not generosity
and fight we should.
newguy - do you have any documentation to support your claim regarding what Ford said and what he paid his workers?
here's a couple of articles that shed light on his character
https://www.peoplesworld.org/a...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ameri...
I'm quite aware of all of that. While it does show his character it dose not confirm or refute claims regarding what Ford said about paying his workers, or what he paid them.
Again, could newguy please provide documentation to support his claims regarding what Ford said and what he paid his workers? I do not doubt what newguy is saying. It's simply good practice to back up what you say with facts when applicable.
The onus of proof is on the person making a claim. It would be easier for you to demonstrate that Ford DID say what he said about paying his workers than for me to prove that he did NOT say that. To my knowledge, there is no proof that he said that, and that has been peddled as a byproduct of Ford losing a labor fight that Ford tried very hard to defeat.
But here's a quick search from Forbes about the famed increase in wages at Ford: https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
The increases in wages at Ford was a result of work stoppages and labor shortages, not Ford's largess.
And here's a nice little cartoon animated by Ford that illustrates quite well their opinion of unionization (IWW):
Thanks for the link. I was well aware of why Ford actually increased pay. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. Hence you. It just seems that in today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim.
Instead they post things like the cartoon you posted that is not proof that backs up their statement.
No. Don't do that. The horses Ford replaced are long dead and don't need to be flogged anymore.
chad, did you read the forbes article? i'm with new guy on this one; they've done more to show that the ford statement is contrived than anyone has done to prove it really happened. where's your the proof he said it?
either way sort of a weird fight to pick, the original claim is by randomised and you didn't demand they show proof.
Can I suggest again for the record that it doesn't matter?
Henry Ford was a hard-nosed businessman; he didn't introduce the $5 workday because he was a nice guy, says Bob Kreipke, corporate historian for the Ford Motor Co."It was mainly to stabilize the workforce. And it sure did," Kreipke says. "And raised the bar all over the world."
It's widely believed that Henry Ford also upped wages to expand his market — paying employees enough to buy the cars they made. While that wasn't Ford's main motivation, it was a welcome byproduct, and a game changer, says University of California, Berkeley, labor economist Harley Shaiken.
https://www.npr.org/2014/01/27...
tduds, i actually things like this do matter- language has a powerful role in shaping the myths that support certain views and policies on things like the economy..
I suppose it doesn't matter to me who said something, only whether it stands on its own as worth repeating or not. People I deeply respect have said things I deeply reject, and vice versa. What matters is the idea that someone should be paid enough to enjoy the product of their labor. I couldn't care less whose idea it is.
But I'll stop before this gets even more nitpicky.
Besides, I think it was Hitler that did that, not Ford.
Whatever y’all, I’m venting about not being able to build a house on an architect salary and it turns into a discussion what Ford may or may not have said...totally missing the point.
Another thing I hate about architecture: focussing on stupid details and totally missing the big picture ;-)
The Ford history is twisted to suit various ideologies. One real aspect is that the labor was brutally hard and that people more than earned their wages. If they couldn't hack it there were always people to step in at what was double the prevailing wage.
square - I did read the article newguy posted. I've known that the quote and reasoning behind Ford paying his workers more wasn't accurate. I stated as such. The point of my asking newguy for a source is that in today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim. That really needs to stop.
"n today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim"
Chad, got a source for that statement?
8-)
You cannot prove a negative. You are engaging in a very odd burden of proof fallacy. I am not making a claim, I am refuting one. The original claim in question is that Ford deliberately stated that he raised wages to help his workers achieve greater purchasing power. That is the claim that demands proof. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof into proving a negative, which is literally impossible. Just as one cannot assume that absence of proof that unicorns do not exist is proof of their existence, one cannot also claim that the absence of an alleged quote is proof of the alleged quotes existence. If there is no firm proof that Ford was ever directly quoted saying what is claimed, then it must be assumed that he never actually said it. Regardless, this is a very odd hill for you to die on.
Actually no. Both sides are required to provide proof in such a situation. If you say that something quantifiable isn't true and I say it is the onus of proof is on both of us to supply supporting data.
NS wrote:
""In today's world people say a lot of things without being able to provide proof that supports their claim"
Chad, got a source for that statement? 8-)"
Look at most of Rick's, x-jla's, and jawkeen's posts. :)
i think what new guy is saying can be viewed more of as an interpretation or opinion, aka a "qualifier," where as what rando originally claimed is a "quantifiable" quote by ford, which we have yet to see any data on (using your terms here).
either way yes, this has gotten weird.
Sorry Chad, I'm not buying what you're selling. You singled out newguy for making a claim even though you "[knew] that the quote and reasoning behind Ford paying his workers more wasn't accurate." Why did you single them out? So they would cite a source? You never asked for proof of the original claim posted by randomised that Ford "said that every worker in his factory should at least be able to afford their own Ford automobile," yet by your own admission, that's the claim you should have had the issue with because you knew it wasn't accurate.
If you want to make the world a better place by making people back up what they say with sources, be consistent with how you apply it ... or at the very least use it on the misinformation, not the stuff you claim you already know.
You can believe me or not. I singled out Newguy for proof because of the tone of his response "he never said that shit". Newguy could of been much more civil and simply responded with the facts of the matter. In addition Newguy was aware of the point that Rando was making but he apparently just wanted to be a jerk.
newguy being aware of rando's point was worked out in the next three replies between newguy and tduds ... before you stepped in asking for a citation. If the goal was so that newguy would be more civil in their response, all you had to do was say so originally. Instead you asked for a source for something you claim you knew already.
Seems to me at this point you're just trying to move the goalposts. It was about citing sources, now it's about being a jerk?
Wait, so If I had qualified my colloquialism and potty-mouth with, "Fun fact: He never said that shit" we may could have avoided all this shit?
My bad, y'all. My bad.
EA - I'm not moving goalposts. The meaning of Rando's post didn't seem to be worked out when I asked Newguy for a source. I took issue with Newguy's reaction that by asking for a source I was somehow insulting him and disagreeing with him.
"I singled out Newguy for proof because of the tone of his response 'he never said that shit'. Newguy could of been much more civil and simply responded with the facts of the matter. In addition Newguy was aware of the point that Rando was making but he apparently just wanted to be a jerk." -- Chad Miller (emphasis mine)
"I'm not moving goalposts. The meaning of Rando's post didn't seem to be worked out when I asked Newguy for a source. I took issue with Newguy's reaction that by asking for a source I was somehow insulting him and disagreeing with him." -- Also Chad Miller (emphasis mine)
You're talking out of both ends now. You said that you singled newguy out because of the tone of their response to randomised, but now you say it's about how newguy responded to you asking for a source. You also state that newguy was aware of the point that randomised was making, but now you're saying that the point wasn't worked out. Nope, no goalposts being moved around here.
The reality is that newguy's reponse to your request for a source was actually quite civil and perfectly in line with what you were asking for. I mean they basically said, you're asking the wrong person for proof, but here are some of the facts of the matter ... which you continued to take issue with for some reason even though newguy never alluded to feeling insulted by you or that you disagreed with them. If anything, you are the one that pointed out where you disagree with newguy and it's about who was making the claim.
You both stated that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (which is actually in opposition to your statement quoted at the top that you singled out newguy for proof because of the tone, not because the burden of proof should be on them ... but whatever), but newguy was pointing to randomised's claim of what Ford said and saying the burden would be on randomised to prove it, and you were pointing to newguy to prove a negative refutation of the claim (i.e. that Ford didn't say it) -- which you say you already knew -- rather than pointing to the person that was making the claim (that Ford said it).
I mean this is (sort of) fun and I could do it all day, but I think you should really just stop digging.
I'm sorry for not explaining myself well. I asked Newguy for a source because of his attitude. I continued with Newguy because of his attitude that asking for a source was somehow an insult that meant I didn't agree with him.
As for who has the onus of proof applied to them - I've been quite clear on that. Newguy said that Rando's quote was wrong and implied that it was easily proven wrong. I asked for the proof.
We can continue to argue about this but be careful. You're starting to post like Rick.
"As for who has the onus of proof applied to them - I've been quite clear on that. Newguy said that Rando's quote was wrong and implied that it was easily proven wrong. I asked for the proof."
And that's where you're wrong, but you keep doubling down. newguy was refuting rando's claim (that Ford said what he said) and actually produced some facts of the matter to refute it when you asked for them. Your disagreement is in who should be proving what Ford said. Randomised made the claim, newguy was refuting it. newguy is saying if anyone should be required to show proof, it's randomised who made the claim about what Ford said. You are saying newguy should be providing proof that Ford never said it (a negative that is basically impossible to prove). The burden of proof should be on randomised (the person who made the claim), not newguy (the person saying that the claim is unproven). Additionally, the ability to prove the positive (that Ford said something) is easier than the ability to prove the negative (that Ford never said something) and so the onus should be on proving the positive, not the negative.
Sigh. Newguy didn't just say that Ford's 'quote' wasn't proven. He implied that there was proof that Ford didn't say it and didn't raise wages out of the goodness of heart I asked for proof. Newguy made a claim and I asked for proof.
The claim newguy made was that the attribution of the quote/statement to Ford was a result of PR spin which was applied after the fact and actually provided a link to a pretty good article to illustrate that. Is it definitive proof? No ... but it's the best anyone has shown on either side up to this point. Your response to that was to claim you were aware of it, and to make the statement again that people should provide proof to back up their claims. The implication of your post was that you completely misinterpreted the claim that newguy was actually making and therefore didn't accept the information they provided to back it up.
At the same time you were completely missing an opportunity to advance your cause of backing up claims with proof by asking randomised to provide proof Ford said what randomised claimed he said.
Like I said, I can do this all day.
Again. I asked for proof from Newguy because he implied that it was easy to find. Newguy provided said proof I thanked him for it and let him know that not only was I aware of the truth about the quote but that I agreed with him. Newguy then argued that he shouldn't of had to provide proof because I was asking him to prove a negative. I wasn't. I was asking him provide the proof that he implied was easy to find.
You can keep trying to channel your inner Rick but I have some architecture stuff to do. Have fun.
Better to stick with architecture because you're much better at that than making arguments on the internet. I mean it's all written above in black and white. At this point you're only convincing yourself. I have no further work to do here.
Keep trying EA. One day you'll figure things out and channel your inner Rick.
Just blame it on the new guy and fuggedaboutit...
"shouldn't of had"
shouldn't HAVE had.
*runs away*
lol SP ... see also: "Newguy could of [sic] been much more civil ..."
I almost pointed it out earlier, but thought it was too nitpicky.
rando, which new guy? newguy (who has been around here longer than I have) or someone else who has less tenure on the site?
Whichever, up to you...[insert song from Frozen]
fixed that for you...
Not clicking on that link. If I do I'll get that song stuck in my head. It took me forever to get that other song out of my head. Oh, fuck. Now it's back . . . .
do you want to build a snooowmaaan?
I want to build a snowperson. wait, I probably can, winter is almost here
It's supposed to start snowing in the high country here next week. Right now it's in the 90's (F) in the valley and I'll be able to travel 45 minutes and be in snow.
I love that I can 'visit' winter. :)
We should be getting some snow up in the mountains this weekend (I think).
I was trying to see if I could find a clip from Frozen that had some sort of dialogue re: trolls that would be funny/on point but didn't want to get into a rabbit hole searching for one.
Here's one.... when you realize you are the person doing any of the things above.
People coming right out of school who need to be taught everything. I mean everything.
Design school is where you go to learn the things that can't be learned in the office. The opposite is also true. It's an apprenticeship career, it's on all of us to be good mentors.
I only get to claim 10hr of continuing education per 2y cycle for mentoring. Gimme more credit and I’ll mentor more! J/K, i only have one active mentor at the moment. I don’t have time for more.
I've never encountered a fresh grad that needed to be taught EVERYTHING. Never. Never ever. I think OTF is just projecting insecurities. :)
Source? please prove you've never had a fresh grad that needed to be taught EVERYTHING.
Well every fresh grad that I've worked with has been able to draft, speak, bathe, eat, and dress themselves. I know it's only acidotically and a small sample size however I can infer from incomplete data that my theory is realistically correct.
The firms doing great work are usually the ones that give fresh grads a chance without the attitude of them not knowing anything. We all had to start somewhere...
This should read "Expensive, stupid architecture schools that do not teach their students Jack-Shit"
Which schools are those SOD?
Contractor PM's; ones that only schedule and make paper, but have no idea how buildings go together.
Owner's Rep's; the ones who justify their existence with 'zero change orders' and conduct pit fights between the design team and construction team.
Clients; Ferrari dreams, Honda sized pockets who love to tell you what things should cost, how long it should take (instant), and utilize their internet education against you (because they know more than you obviously).
Clients: the ones that haggle on design fee, but pay $15k and more for a sofa.
Owner's Reps: Breathing.
My personal favorite is the freshly graduated trust fund architecture student that gets the gig to renovate a renowned architect's house for their parents.
Yeah fuck that guy ;)
So like 90% of the successful residential architects? Yeah that would have been nice.
bootlickers who are always more deferential to the needs of clients over those of their team members.
That's a good one. I hate it when PM's say 'well we're a service based industry' to try and justify having team member work extra hours. Nope.
right- at least half of the time a simple "i hear you, but we'll need more time" rather than "we'll get that to you asap" won't offend the client and will make the life of your team members much better.. it's a win win.
it's also a great way for pms to motivate their team by showing that they're willing to stick up for them.
unfortunately the "sense of urgency" mindset often wins out.
I would say it's more the "wants" of the clients than legitimate needs - I had a coworker who was always whining about us doing "ridiculous" things for clients, I'd say we are here to design those ridiculous things the best way possible, but I've never had to work extra to attend any client.
A PM at a friend's office made them all work over Labor Day weekend, so that the client could submit tender documents for an overseas project. A simple "its a holiday here (and its called LABOR DAY, damnit) " to the client may have sufficed in buying a few extra days...
damn, pathetic. taking bootlicker to a new level.
op, now you have enough material to build that chart
Hatrix in Excel, please. Downloadable would be great.
Hatrix?
I hate when we let contractors just change everything during CA. Working on a design-build project where the contractor said we should specify a particular product ... it wasn't our first pick, but ultimately fine, so we did. Now that construction has started they want to substitute another product for it instead. They had already submitted and gotten it approved previously, and now they are saying it is unavailable. Was it available when you submitted it, or do you just like wasting everyone's time? How about instead we go with what I would have specified in the first place?
Are you me? We let them pick the foundation wall product when we were still in design (gc working at-risk but unofficially had it) because neither I nor the structural engineer really cared and they were super passionate about it. Then they completely change it in CA. What the fuck.
No, but good(?) to see I have some company in my misery. This project is a CF all around. The owner have their own preferred products (completely fine) and even gave us specifications we have to use (more unusual, but we can work with it) and if we want to use something different we have to go through a whole process to get it reviewed and approved (I don't like it, but I get it. Oh, and *it* *is* *a* *PRO* *CESS*). Meanwhile the contractor basically told us not to select products until they get their subs on board who will then tell us what products they have in their bids (bids based on what? I don't know, because we never issued anything) so we can specify those products. When we push back on the crap products they tell us to use, we're not team players or something and they can't use anything else and keep the project on budget.
When we specify what they want us to, they end up changing it later when someone else comes along and says they want to use something different. All of those changes are now during CA and have to go through a review process to be approved. Did I mention the owner has a fun review PROCESS? At one point we were making revisions to specifications that hadn't technically been issued because we were still waiting on original approval from the owner, but needed to have the submittals approved so they could order material in order to get it on time so the schedule wasn't thrown off. Keep in mind the submittal doesn't match what the owner is reviewing, and that's why we have to make revisions to something that hasn't been issued. They we'll have to send in those revisions after the owner approves the original all while crossing our fingers the owner didn't have any issues with the stuff they were reviewing (psst, the owner had some issues with the original ... and then the revision ... but all that got worked out after it was installed).
Then there are the times where we use what the owner has in their requirements and the contractor wants us to approve something different. We point out that it was an owner requirement and they need to take it up with them. They will, but we have to approve it in the RFI first for some stupid reason (did I mention the owner has their fuggin' processes?). So we do, "no exceptions taken," or whatever. The owner looks at it and says, "No. Comply with our requirements." Thanks for wasting everyone's time contractor.
didn't know this was becoming common, I've got that on a project with Balfour... god does balfour like to change products, then they cry uncle 6 weeks later when the price still isn't agreed on and they still haven't ordered the product and argue everyone but them are holding up the job.... um, you could have just ordered the product with the 12 week lead time instead of trying to change it
for any submittal I've been asked to review that isn't yet an approved change I've been just marking it for record
I hate using a piece of software that is so pathetically and unashamedly ignorant of the industry it was specifically designed for. Instead of making Revit more useful Autodesk keeps chasing their fucking subscription cash while licking the nuts of upper management with ideas that sound good in advertisements. Why, for the love of GOD, is a line at a slight angle fine but when you align a wall to it, it's SLIGHTLY OFF AXIS AND MAY CAUSE INNACURACIES?
Why, for the love of GOD, is there a different naming convention for duplicating objects depending on what it is? Element Copy 1? Copy of Element? Duplicate of Element? Element(1)? STANDARDS, PEOPLE!
I have a suspicion that Revit is staffed by jaded Architects who took a programming bootcamp and jumped ship for the paycheck.
agree, 100%. there are a lot of revit stans on this site, and while i agree it does some nice things, it is very clear that it is not designed by or for architects. this is my biggest fear with this technology in general- we're totally at the mercy of what autodesk decides to give us, and it's a mediocre product at best.
Irony is misspelling inaccuracies.
Programmers are not designers. Most software is a demonstration of absolute shit design. As time goes on it gets worse and worse.
Favorite quote from one of my colleagues when he heard the junior staff moaning about Revit ..
" you are smarter than this dumb program / work it out "
and walk away...
Problem is that any decent programmer wouldn’t want to be associated with working for the autodesk devil and any decent architect wouldn’t want to go the programming route to help fix a program that was faulty from the start. At least Archicad was built and designed by, with and for architects...lots of design-oriented architecture offices (at least here in NL) have switched or never were into Revit to begin with...
Any Architect who I hear say " you are smarter than this dumb program / work it out " and then walk away would be an Architect that I pull aside and have a chat with. Either be part of the solution or shut the fuck up. Passive aggressive comments belittling the actual and real issues your staff are having is a sign that you're a cunt.
They couldn't be a c*#t. They lack warmth and depth.
@SP Fair call , the context was missing in my previous comment, but at that moment the colleague could have chosen a better word . I dont condone this kind of behavior, but there are very few people who will always whine and moan about everything and anything.
That junior staff did not last long in the end.
Adobe totally sucks also. The only good thing I can say is their pricing is gentle compared to Autodesk.
You don't have to use Autodesk products or Revit. Hand drafting has been used successfully for 500 years, or thereabouts. Then all you can complain about is pencil lead weights/thicknesses and eraser dust
I'll assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek. Otherwise I might have to explain to you how it works when you don't own the company.
You would also complain about lettering
The noise, the smudges, torn paper, sloppy underlays, stippling, cost of paper, quality/choice of drafting tools, Staedler/Alvin monopolies...
Small time clients that constantly change their minds.
Most of our large clients have no issue paying for changes. The small time ones don't have the money but "are sure it's a building you want to be proud of as well" as they slowly VE everything nice out of the building.
I am y a we ans je
Stay off the blue meth youngster.
Argh butt text
Thank you for this.
With an infinite amount of butts texting on infinite amounts of phones, for an infinite amount of time, eventually you’ll butt text the complete works of Shakespeare! Keep it up, you’re almost there!
is butt text like a tramp stamp?
& with a compatible adjacent branding, is it ADA accessible?
#butts
Did Adam Neumann write this?
Looking for a job in covid times, wanting to at least be in the office to effectively meet the whole point of being hired, seeing a good one with someone you've worked with well in the past knowing that you'll both do good work for the practice but couldn't apply because they use Job score and the HR director looks like a lunatic on corporate photos.
I hate the asshat out there somewhere who started applying the term "architect" to people that work in the software business.
Contractors who don't need designers but then need to be told how to put it together afterall. Boo!!!!
bullies and gatekeepers.
Widespread lack of support and mentoring.
people who complain about “handholding.”
Autodesk and their shitty software.
We do only second/vacation homes in a ski resort and I hadn't thought about this before; Clients/Owners that buy houses they don't really like and try to "convert" to their taste - it's a transvestite, especially when it's one of your own houses designed for somebody else.
Still waiting for the chart...I hate people who overpromise and underdeliver ;-)
People are getting impatient here, you don’t want to find a severed set of copic markers in your bed.
Adding one - I hate e-Builder. Procore is so much better.
Yeah, but wait until everyone gets forced onto BIM 360, Construction Cloud.
ACC is the worst piece of ... sorry. but yeah, try printing something (I get it, we're not supposed to print anymore) try editing a word document... try having multiple people edit a word document. We may be pivoting to using ACC for revit and sheet management only and using one drive for the rest of the process and directory location/file storage. Oh and bluebeam gets thrown in there, because the editing options on a .pdf are sorely lacking, but again, try opening a .pdf in bluebeam directly from ACC. It's like if I want to do anything other than work in revit, I have to re-download it to my C drive (because you know, we can't have a in-house server anymore, must be in the cloud)... work on it, confirm no one else is working on it, and then reupload.
Oh, and yes, I like procore, but I've noticed that some contractors really eff it up (looking at you Mr "I reopened RFI 32 because I didn't like your answer but I also started RFI 33 because I had another question surrounding the same issue, but I also added that question to 32 and I want you to put the answer in both places before I close it... oh and I started RFI 33 on Friday, but didn't finish/publish it until Tuesday evening, but my software says it's now due tuesday, along with 32 that's now 3 weeks late because I didn't change anything except reopening it"
OAC meeting Wed Morning at 8 - "so I see we have a bunch of overdue RFIs and we want to focus on that this meeting and talk about why our schedule is blown due to that"... really, was I born yesterday? I've got all the email notifications printed, which I had to spend an hour on last night, just because I knew you were going to try this again like you did 2 weeks ago, so we can all waste 30 minutes of our time showing that the 9 RFIs you opened last night are basically frivolous dribble, but yes... I'll get them answered when I get back into the office.
At least the owner is equally informed and unimpressed.
Any tool is only as good as the tool using it.
Not the first time I've been called a tool! That's true though.
Lately I've been playing everyone's favorite fun guesing game: is the contractor being deliberately cagey or do they just not care enough to read the entire email?
I hate it when competing firms become petty and talk shit about each other.
I hate it when I read the title of this thread every day and get excited that someone wants to talk about ventilation requirements and techniques, then realize it's just a b!tching thread. ;-)
i'm still waiting for this "chart"
Yeah. WTF tyth. I really hate people to don't keep their word . . .
I think they misspelled heat.
Bitching chart. It's a bitching chart. Without a chart.
Add to the list: people who call lists "charts." Or who call charts graphs, or who call graphs surveys, or...
https://poll.fm/10930760
It's a listicle, you guys.
I want to see what is included in the "others" category. Maybe we can have a pie chart with the results.
flaky people drive me nuts. If you say you are going to do something, do it.
I just answered on of those "Hello Structural engineer, should we dowel the slab to the foundation wall?" with only 4/S3.1 - 5/S3.1.
People who take issue with architects referring to a project possessively, as if everyone else doesn’t know exactly what they mean, and as if the typical contract arrangement doesn’t maintain that the architect holds the copyright.
ie: Key phrases for picking out architects who hate architects.
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.