I read a decent article from AECbytes last night by the 'digital design manager' at SOM NY. (can't find the URL right now) In it, (and many other places too) there is talk about the absorption of design services by construction companies and construction documents being taken over by construction managers.
Maybe not tomorrow, but I think any of us who have worked at firms that are less than 'well organized' could see how some of this could happen to some degree in a few types of projects.
Although the article talks about how BIM tech will be the next greatest thing to change the arch profession, I'm far more interested in the business models that SHoP (and others?) are working with.
For some of the more experienced people out there, does this kind of talk happen whenever there is a new software program available? Could it really be possible that the only control that 'some architects' will have is the law that states that drawings have to be stamped? Could it be possible that the AIA could lose their lobbying power to an increase in 'good' contractors and construction managers and change the licensing requirement(s)? Could things change drastically if a 'real estate bubble' bursts and reconditions the entire building industry? I think I remember Thom Mayne saying something about the role of the architect not really having a place in the construction industry at his Pritzker address.
interesting. now a Building Information Model, i'm guessing thats a 3D model that contains all necessary information on a building including structure, foundation, materials, etc? What programs are used to create/edit these? Is a BIM used to speed up the design process and then output to a typical set of CDs? Or could a BIM itself be used as the 'CD', or the model to build from instead of a set of drawings? Coul contractors use a laptop in the field with a BIM instead of a CD set?
Seems like much ado about nothing to me. Seletsky seems to be making the mistake of assuming that since the typical 2d drawings that are representational (diagrammatic) that those who created them are thinking diagrammatically. Not so. The best architects know exactly how the building is to be built and how the pieces are related. The current method of documentation is just an evolved and agreed-upon shorthand method of transmitting that knowledge to others.
I saw Charles Moore in a lecture at Berkeley once. He answered a question from the audience about the perceived dimished role of the Architect in collaborative design processes with "He who has the pencil has the power."
I think the BIM idea is more focused on making a better/faster way to bring information together and output it as a built structure, as opposed to 'power' or 'roles' in the building process.
I guess there were a couple of things I was trying to get at. True the best architects know how to put together buildings and can document in such a way that it is clearly communicated to even the worst of contractors. Although I don't want to admit it, I've worked with some architects that do not fall into the category of 'best' or the jobs are so rushed that there isn't much time to get a concept of all the construction details. In this situation the contractor is left to figure it out (and pissed off too...rightly so I might add). It is these professional situations where the architect could, perhaps at some point, be left out of the process if the contractor and/or construction manager knows what their doing.
I'm trying to read past all the 'time saving issues' that Autodesk is pitching with their software and think more about how the architect could gain a little more control of the process (the great architects don't really need to worry about this because they've got their clients lined up)
I don't know many firms (nor do I know the details of them), but I've heard that SHoP is taking heavy responsibility (legal, insurance, etc.) by being far more involved in the shop drawing process (perhaps prodcuing some of them themselves???) and in turn, also the construction/assembly process - and getting much higher fees for it!
The BIM system seems like a start to a change in the process.
I'm young and inexperienced enough to know any different, but it is sometimes scary to think that someday large portions of the building process could be taken away from 'the architect' and absorbed by the good contractors and construction managers. 'The architect' will of course always be around to some degree, but maybe only the 'good ones.'
I do want to agree with Charles Moore, but his comment does not always apply to all of the processes of the 'business of making buildings.' (design/build...other processes?)
I work for a design build company and simply stated, we are a construction company above all else. We do briliant designs according to our clients and the market. Our residential structures are top market with out being McMansionized and our commercial clients let us beat the hell out of the architects, who quite frankly, have their heads in their asses.
The upside to this is that for me as an architect, I understand the real world of costs, materials and their availability, the shark fest that is the modern day economy and the shear leagal quagmire we could sink into at any given moment.
The downside is that we will never design anything too "extreme" as some clients would say. We're fairly limited as to whatever Home and Garden has published - although we do it well and always on budget and on time.
This model came about in the 80's when the founders of this company decided that the key problem they had was having the architect be in control of the project and the money, and more often than not they failed. As clients have become increasingly demanding about time constraints, the architects have fallen further behind. Its sounds cruel but a natural born architect is most likely not the personality to be the "whip cracker" of the construction industry.
But fear not - I've noticed clients starting to revert back to the older "pure design" architect model more and more in the last year. Could be too many lawyers have become contractors and are screwing this proffesion up too.
in my experience as a cm, relatively short as it may be, many of the architects i've worked with really had no idea how a building that they designed was actually built. they just seemed to limit their involvement to the plans, which for me and the trades doing the actual building, were horribly drawn. the architects who did know what they were doing, i've found, have had at least some experience in construction, whether it was working for one or having some sort of building experience. i think this change, if it even becomes widespread, will only help to weed out the 'bad' architects, bad only in the sense of understanding the project instead of only looking at it from a design perspective.
Construction Management and others involved in ...
Just some early morning thinking...
I read a decent article from AECbytes last night by the 'digital design manager' at SOM NY. (can't find the URL right now) In it, (and many other places too) there is talk about the absorption of design services by construction companies and construction documents being taken over by construction managers.
Maybe not tomorrow, but I think any of us who have worked at firms that are less than 'well organized' could see how some of this could happen to some degree in a few types of projects.
Although the article talks about how BIM tech will be the next greatest thing to change the arch profession, I'm far more interested in the business models that SHoP (and others?) are working with.
For some of the more experienced people out there, does this kind of talk happen whenever there is a new software program available? Could it really be possible that the only control that 'some architects' will have is the law that states that drawings have to be stamped? Could it be possible that the AIA could lose their lobbying power to an increase in 'good' contractors and construction managers and change the licensing requirement(s)? Could things change drastically if a 'real estate bubble' bursts and reconditions the entire building industry? I think I remember Thom Mayne saying something about the role of the architect not really having a place in the construction industry at his Pritzker address.
here's the article
link
interesting. now a Building Information Model, i'm guessing thats a 3D model that contains all necessary information on a building including structure, foundation, materials, etc? What programs are used to create/edit these? Is a BIM used to speed up the design process and then output to a typical set of CDs? Or could a BIM itself be used as the 'CD', or the model to build from instead of a set of drawings? Coul contractors use a laptop in the field with a BIM instead of a CD set?
Seems like much ado about nothing to me. Seletsky seems to be making the mistake of assuming that since the typical 2d drawings that are representational (diagrammatic) that those who created them are thinking diagrammatically. Not so. The best architects know exactly how the building is to be built and how the pieces are related. The current method of documentation is just an evolved and agreed-upon shorthand method of transmitting that knowledge to others.
I saw Charles Moore in a lecture at Berkeley once. He answered a question from the audience about the perceived dimished role of the Architect in collaborative design processes with "He who has the pencil has the power."
I think the BIM idea is more focused on making a better/faster way to bring information together and output it as a built structure, as opposed to 'power' or 'roles' in the building process.
I guess there were a couple of things I was trying to get at. True the best architects know how to put together buildings and can document in such a way that it is clearly communicated to even the worst of contractors. Although I don't want to admit it, I've worked with some architects that do not fall into the category of 'best' or the jobs are so rushed that there isn't much time to get a concept of all the construction details. In this situation the contractor is left to figure it out (and pissed off too...rightly so I might add). It is these professional situations where the architect could, perhaps at some point, be left out of the process if the contractor and/or construction manager knows what their doing.
I'm trying to read past all the 'time saving issues' that Autodesk is pitching with their software and think more about how the architect could gain a little more control of the process (the great architects don't really need to worry about this because they've got their clients lined up)
I don't know many firms (nor do I know the details of them), but I've heard that SHoP is taking heavy responsibility (legal, insurance, etc.) by being far more involved in the shop drawing process (perhaps prodcuing some of them themselves???) and in turn, also the construction/assembly process - and getting much higher fees for it!
The BIM system seems like a start to a change in the process.
I'm young and inexperienced enough to know any different, but it is sometimes scary to think that someday large portions of the building process could be taken away from 'the architect' and absorbed by the good contractors and construction managers. 'The architect' will of course always be around to some degree, but maybe only the 'good ones.'
I do want to agree with Charles Moore, but his comment does not always apply to all of the processes of the 'business of making buildings.' (design/build...other processes?)
I work for a design build company and simply stated, we are a construction company above all else. We do briliant designs according to our clients and the market. Our residential structures are top market with out being McMansionized and our commercial clients let us beat the hell out of the architects, who quite frankly, have their heads in their asses.
The upside to this is that for me as an architect, I understand the real world of costs, materials and their availability, the shark fest that is the modern day economy and the shear leagal quagmire we could sink into at any given moment.
The downside is that we will never design anything too "extreme" as some clients would say. We're fairly limited as to whatever Home and Garden has published - although we do it well and always on budget and on time.
This model came about in the 80's when the founders of this company decided that the key problem they had was having the architect be in control of the project and the money, and more often than not they failed. As clients have become increasingly demanding about time constraints, the architects have fallen further behind. Its sounds cruel but a natural born architect is most likely not the personality to be the "whip cracker" of the construction industry.
But fear not - I've noticed clients starting to revert back to the older "pure design" architect model more and more in the last year. Could be too many lawyers have become contractors and are screwing this proffesion up too.
im sorry. but architects are out.
in my experience as a cm, relatively short as it may be, many of the architects i've worked with really had no idea how a building that they designed was actually built. they just seemed to limit their involvement to the plans, which for me and the trades doing the actual building, were horribly drawn. the architects who did know what they were doing, i've found, have had at least some experience in construction, whether it was working for one or having some sort of building experience. i think this change, if it even becomes widespread, will only help to weed out the 'bad' architects, bad only in the sense of understanding the project instead of only looking at it from a design perspective.
the bubble bursted alright...
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.