A little before my time, but I loved Gene Wilder growing up, favorite comedic actor of all time. Sad to see him go, but he left us with a great body of work! His work with Mel Brooks, and Richard Pryor is all time, gonna have to watch Young Frankenstein when I get home tonight.
copying the job post I referenced above, because eventually that link will be broken:
The Long Beach Company is resurrecting the role of Master Builder in the residential construction industry.
If you've found your day-to-day drafting duties to be less inspiring than you had envisioned, it may be a spiritual disconnect that is to blame. We provide all design and construction services in-house through a tightly coordinated sequence, painstakingly modeled, designed and choreographed in Revit @ LOD 400. With impeccable execution and obsessive attention to detail, we honor the traditional craftsman code on each and every project. This approach is unconventional and may leave you a bit discombobulated at first, but once you regain your balance, you will experience a liberation enjoyed by very few within the industry.
If you are a construction-minded designer who is craving hands-on experience in the field, you will feel right at home here.
We can't teach passion or character, so you bring those, and we will aggressively train you to fill each and every technical hole in your repertoire. If you can bear the intensity level, you will develop an encyclopedic design+build foundation that will prove a competitive advantage for the rest of your career.
Contractor: This life-safety plan shows a 6' wide door so we're saving a lot of money by not including those sidelites you originally wanted.
Me: The sidelights aren't called out on the life-safety plan. They show in the floor plan, the elevations, and the door schedule, where you can see that each door assembly has two 24" sidelights.
Contractor: There's elevation drawings?
Me: Bourbon, please....
Aug 30, 16 2:42 pm ·
·
LOL... yes. The contractor is an idiot. (when it comes to reading construction documents)
"LOL... yes. The contractor is an idiot. (when it comes to reading construction documents)" RickB-BSMNT, how can you even relate? you've never had to work with a GC before. you haven't even drafted a set of permit drawings.
I love a pre-bid meeting when the contractor asks questions that were answered in the Invitation for Bids.
We're not talking about anything complicated. They didn't have to open the specs or look at a drawing. All they had to do was read the document that brought them to the meeting.
"Is a bid bond required?" Does it say so on that piece of paper in your hand?
"Is there a minority business requirement?" Does it say so on that piece of paper in your hand?
and so on.
Had a question a while back to which I responded, "it's pretty clearly spelled out in the general conditions." /blankstaresfromcontractor
I once very casually mentioned to the GC that maybe some of their subs aren't competent if they can't read the drawings, only did that once but it really out a stop to the rfis
Olaf, I just love the "any other questions" mic drop after I point out in a clear billeted list that all their answered were in their faces the whole time.
I just rejected a bunch of shop drawings earlier this week. They were terrible and we wrote exactly what the client wanted in our 1 page drawing set. No equal to on materials but a " must be" was as prominent in our spec as ignorance is in a Balkins reply.
Anyways, turns out the contractor never bother to download the arch or m&e tender docs and went with his gut based on the broad scope of work definition in the clients hand out.
ha, yeah dont bid based on your gut, although many do....have one job the client is pushing for me to award the only contractor who never looked at the drawings and then couldnt tell me what type of pipe was leaking, existing conditions renovation job...i do my best to talk people out of the low bidder but people really have a hard time looking pass the INITIAL numbers...
I worked for a contractor that said bidded projects would be so much better if instead of the low bid we took the second lowest. The more I deal with bidded projects, I tend to agree.
The saving grace is that at least for public projects you can take the lowest RESPONSIVE bid. I have no problem throwing out bids if I find any mistake or error. Different story with private clients though. They can do whatever they want.
You can tell when they don't look at the drawings, they think we don't know or something. The first firm I worked at had requirements that if you didn't meet them, your bid was ceremoniously tossed out. No second chances either unless all were thrown out, for instance, if a whole rebid was done and everyone could participate. The bid spread tended to be tight. When one bidder's numbers are twice anothers... wtf? Gut bids... throw em out?
^ yup, about taking the second lowest or lowest most responsive.
NS my line is usually much more simple "hold on, let me go and look at the drawings...hmmm, yeah, see on page such and such...any other questions?"
lol.. You just need to add a bit to make it Office Space worthy...
"hold on, let go and look at the drawings... hmmm, yeah, see that detail? I'm gonna need ya to do that for me, alright... (long audible slurp of coffee).."
I worked for a contractor that said bidded projects would be so much better if instead of the low bid we took the second lowest. The more I deal with bidded projects, I tend to agree.
For a few, we did something similar; after making sure qualifications are met, toss out the high and low then average the bids. Take the one just under or closest to the average.
that has been the policy at a couple of my past firms as well. seems like now most owners have a contractor lined up already, and they don't look at the drawins
Not trying to sound like the person that mightyaa's firm fired a couple of weeks ago ... the correct* response to RFIs where the answer is already in the documents is to return them without response. In reality though, we can't help ourselves and we end up responding anyway and wasting our time and fee in CA.
*This is assuming that your Div 01 specs are written using MasterSpec and that you haven't modified the following language (emphasis mine):
The following RFIs will be returned without action:
Requests for approval of submittals.
Requests for approval of substitutions.
Requests for coordination information already indicated in the Contract Documents.
Requests for adjustments in the Contract Time or the Contract Sum.
Requests for interpretation of Architect's actions on submittals.
In my firm, I tweaked the process a bit. Essentially I required the GC to have their sub meeting the day before the owner meeting (where the subs could put forth questions they wanted answered). The OAC had as a agenda item had RFI's (and CO's, etc.) to be presented. We'd address them in the meeting with all three of us there and get most of the responses in the meeting minutes.
So.... If they asked stupid questions, they had to do it in front of the Client. I found that method cut down a ton on the paperwork and all the silly questions they were too lazy to seek out the answers for themselves. It also meant there would be discussion where the owner understood the issues and was part of the solution. And the turn-around time on getting answers and CO's was streamlined. We also covered some shop submittals this way too so we all reviewed them since I got sick of just getting handed shops the GC just wet stamped and passed along. Basically, holding the GC accountable in front of the client tends to get them to perform a bit better than average. Good for everyone and helps a lot with those communication lines, understanding, and project buy in.
Longer meeting (full day sometimes), but a lot less was needed through the rest of the week. Another advantage is that by doing it all at once, there's none of that mental jumble jumping from project to project. You are there, you focus on that project, and stuff gets done fast.
I once had a GC superintendent who'd never stop referring to me as "Dave" in meetings, emails, and other correspondence. I finally told him I was going to pick a submittal at random and reject it each time he did it again. He shaped up very quickly after that.
This is a fascinating discussion. You all work with MUCH better GCs than I do. I have trouble just getting the GC to SUBMIT an RFI, rather than, say, text my private cell phone with something cryptic like "balcony steel??", or even WORSE, GIVE MY PERSONAL CELL NUMBER TO THE SUB so that HE can randomly text me with cryptic questions.
ahhhh, high-end residential... Ugh. Also, I have trouble getting the owners to attend OACs, too. And nobody reads the drawings OR the meeting minutes. And it's literally been YEARS since I was handed a shops submittal that the GC had even paged through, let alone reviewed and stamped.
Thinking and typing at the same time here, so it will probably be rambling, non-coherent, and I may answer my own questions
What's stopping us from holding residential contractors to a commercial level standard when it comes to these types of things? I routinely tell people in my office that the issue with getting the contractors to follow the documents is our problem, and it's one that we've largely created for ourselves by letting them get away with it for so long. Our job is to administer the contract during construction. Contractors will try to get away with whatever they can until we tell them NO.
Of course, we can't just make up random stuff on the spot to make the contractor jump through some hoops. We have to be reasonable, but if all the administrative stuff is all laid out in black and white in the documents, they have absolutely no defense when we tell them to follow the documents. Excuses like, "I didn't bid the project that way," or, "no one else (ie. other architects) makes us do this," are just thinly-veiled attempts to not follow the documents. They signed a contract saying they'd build the project according to the documents, we signed a contract saying we'd make sure they'd follow the documents. If the owner knew any better they'd sue both of us for breach of contract. What's the purpose of having all the contracts in place saying we'll do certain things if we just ignore them?
What makes a residential contractor any different than a commercial contractor? It's not like the contracts are that different. Sometimes even the amount of money in construction isn't all that different for large residential and small commercial projects. The only thing I can think of is that we treat them differently for some reason.
Are we afraid that a residential contractor will walk off a job if we hold the line? If they do, there is recourse in the contract for the owner.
Are we afraid that contractors will start bidding projects higher because they know they will have to do the administrative stuff with us? Is that a bad thing if it results in a better project? Maybe the owner ends up seeing a larger number up front, but if change orders are reduced because we catch mistakes in submittals, etc., then they pay less overall. Not only that, our time is better utilized on the stuff that we are actually getting paid to do and we aren't losing money in CA by trying to play nice with the contractor and hold their hand through the process they literally singed on to do.
They may be. All the residential I've been involved with had clients that were primarily commercial clients so the contracts ended up being handled very much the same way because that was what they were used to.
Even if they are different, do they not require the contractor to build the home according to the documents? Do they not require that the architect administer the contract during construction?
The difference is the owner. Full stop. Contracts are the same, and they definitely state the same things. But ultimately, it comes down to "I can keep holding my ground, but the owner doesn't care about XYZ and the contractor knows it, and if I keep making a fuss the GC will simply whine to the owner that I'm delaying the project by putting such onerous requirements on him (you know, the requirements clearly stated in the AIA contract he signed), and the client will get upset that we're holding up the project. This dynamic occurs so frequently that, instead of trying to get the GCs to be up to snuff, our best line of defense is the opposite -- to try to negotiate fully fledged CA contracts so that we at least get paid for the enormous amount of asinine hand-holding we're going to have to do with the GC. When the client isn't willing to step up for the CA, we have to be ready to literally do the minimum (and sometimes, we do).
In residential far more than commercial/institutional (in my experience) you are ALWAYS alive to the fact that you are in a SERVICE role to the client. Your primary responsibility is client service. This has subtle, but distinct, ramifications.
Client service in commercial/institutional projects is more of a rational proceed.
Client service in residential is more of an emotional process. The goal is to make the client happy. This does not necessarily mean "follow the clean and clear contract documents" or "hold the GC accountable for his work."
Btw, there are positives to this dynamic as well. For example, there's often greater flexibility in design, because it's easier to pitch something in a way that makes one client or a couple psyched than it is to, say, convince a board of middle-aged white dudes who are each mindful of their own personal concepts of cost-benefit analysis, and who often have to satisfy financial backers and other stakeholders.
There are a few things I miss about that world but trying to convince a group of 60-year-old white dudes that other things exist in the world besides mahogany paneling and carrera is not one of them.
mantaray, I get that and see your point. The client will always be different and have different value systems when comparing commercial to residential.
To your point that it comes down to the architect can hold their ground or relent ... I see plenty of architects (again, an issue it seems we've created for ourselves) that continue to stand their ground way past the point they owner has stopped caring. They either forget that they are in a service role to the client, or their egos are too big and they think their service to the client is to save the client from themselves ("Often, the opinion of the client must be disregarded, for his own good.").
There is no point in standing ground if the client is willing to let it go (and it's not a code/HSW issue). Our service should be to point out the discrepancy, educate the client of their options, and let them make the decision (whether it is emotionally based, or rationally based should really not matter to us). Is the problem that we are too emotionally involved in our designs?
hey, at least they did not call the columns beams. anyone else notice this strange nomenclature for vertical strucural supports. I correct people all the time.
Most of my experience has been on large projects with fairly sophisticated contractors, and I've often wondered what it's like being in a small practice with mostly residential projects. (My residential freelance projects have tended to be with owners who have extensive construction experience and are doing most of the work themselves, so any CA work on my part was pretty minimal.) I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
David - I went from small offices working with small time GCs to a big office working with national and international GCs. The latter the big complaint is usually procedural. The former you'd be lucky if GCs actually asked you questions instead of just doing stuff in the field.
Thread Central
A little before my time, but I loved Gene Wilder growing up, favorite comedic actor of all time. Sad to see him go, but he left us with a great body of work! His work with Mel Brooks, and Richard Pryor is all time, gonna have to watch Young Frankenstein when I get home tonight.
copying the job post I referenced above, because eventually that link will be broken:
The Long Beach Company is resurrecting the role of Master Builder in the residential construction industry.
If you've found your day-to-day drafting duties to be less inspiring than you had envisioned, it may be a spiritual disconnect that is to blame. We provide all design and construction services in-house through a tightly coordinated sequence, painstakingly modeled, designed and choreographed in Revit @ LOD 400. With impeccable execution and obsessive attention to detail, we honor the traditional craftsman code on each and every project. This approach is unconventional and may leave you a bit discombobulated at first, but once you regain your balance, you will experience a liberation enjoyed by very few within the industry.
http://picosong.com/zgAf
If you are a construction-minded designer who is craving hands-on experience in the field, you will feel right at home here.
We can't teach passion or character, so you bring those, and we will aggressively train you to fill each and every technical hole in your repertoire. If you can bear the intensity level, you will develop an encyclopedic design+build foundation that will prove a competitive advantage for the rest of your career.
q you are cute......rick i am on your plane now, hehe
wtf?
da plane, da plane...
alcohol/strong solvent based pens usually bleed through trace if you let them pool a bit. I've never had a problem with sharpie though.
Donna, who hoards trace? was it an architect?
Local TV personality with an art hobby. The trace is probably from the 80s.
Mr_Wiggin, I'm so sad about Gene Wilder. I mean he was 83, so he lived a long life, but he was one of my first celebrity crushes, when I was 7!
Contractor: This life-safety plan shows a 6' wide door so we're saving a lot of money by not including those sidelites you originally wanted.
Me: The sidelights aren't called out on the life-safety plan. They show in the floor plan, the elevations, and the door schedule, where you can see that each door assembly has two 24" sidelights.
Contractor: There's elevation drawings?
Me: Bourbon, please....
LOL... yes. The contractor is an idiot. (when it comes to reading construction documents)
Well, I just received a Bidding RFI where the answer is clearly spelled out in the specs, so yeah.
Really should have put the Gin clause in there.
"LOL... yes. The contractor is an idiot. (when it comes to reading construction documents)" RickB-BSMNT, how can you even relate? you've never had to work with a GC before. you haven't even drafted a set of permit drawings.
I love a pre-bid meeting when the contractor asks questions that were answered in the Invitation for Bids.
We're not talking about anything complicated. They didn't have to open the specs or look at a drawing. All they had to do was read the document that brought them to the meeting.
"Is a bid bond required?" Does it say so on that piece of paper in your hand?
"Is there a minority business requirement?" Does it say so on that piece of paper in your hand?
and so on.
Had a question a while back to which I responded, "it's pretty clearly spelled out in the general conditions." /blankstaresfromcontractor
Donna, I have half-a-dozen of those requests daily. Just finished one off 2mins ago actually.
Construction Manager: What's the finish for doors A,B,C,D & E. The guys on site need to know very soon, yadaadadada...
Me: We issued CCNX which provides exactly the information you're asking for.
NS my line is usually much more simple "hold on, let me go and look at the drawings...hmmm, yeah, see on page such and such...any other questions?"
we need a " Let Me Look at The Drawings For you" option...you know like that .Let me google that for you website
I once very casually mentioned to the GC that maybe some of their subs aren't competent if they can't read the drawings, only did that once but it really out a stop to the rfis
Not quite sure what's happened this last few weeks on the forum but it looks toxic and I notice crowd mentality.
I just rejected a bunch of shop drawings earlier this week. They were terrible and we wrote exactly what the client wanted in our 1 page drawing set. No equal to on materials but a " must be" was as prominent in our spec as ignorance is in a Balkins reply.
Anyways, turns out the contractor never bother to download the arch or m&e tender docs and went with his gut based on the broad scope of work definition in the clients hand out.
Someone is loosing their shirts on this one.
ha, yeah dont bid based on your gut, although many do....have one job the client is pushing for me to award the only contractor who never looked at the drawings and then couldnt tell me what type of pipe was leaking, existing conditions renovation job...i do my best to talk people out of the low bidder but people really have a hard time looking pass the INITIAL numbers...
The saving grace is that at least for public projects you can take the lowest RESPONSIVE bid. I have no problem throwing out bids if I find any mistake or error. Different story with private clients though. They can do whatever they want.
You can tell when they don't look at the drawings, they think we don't know or something. The first firm I worked at had requirements that if you didn't meet them, your bid was ceremoniously tossed out. No second chances either unless all were thrown out, for instance, if a whole rebid was done and everyone could participate. The bid spread tended to be tight. When one bidder's numbers are twice anothers... wtf? Gut bids... throw em out?
^ yup, about taking the second lowest or lowest most responsive.
NS my line is usually much more simple "hold on, let me go and look at the drawings...hmmm, yeah, see on page such and such...any other questions?"
lol.. You just need to add a bit to make it Office Space worthy...
"hold on, let go and look at the drawings... hmmm, yeah, see that detail? I'm gonna need ya to do that for me, alright... (long audible slurp of coffee).."
I worked for a contractor that said bidded projects would be so much better if instead of the low bid we took the second lowest. The more I deal with bidded projects, I tend to agree.
For a few, we did something similar; after making sure qualifications are met, toss out the high and low then average the bids. Take the one just under or closest to the average.
that has been the policy at a couple of my past firms as well. seems like now most owners have a contractor lined up already, and they don't look at the drawins
Not trying to sound like the person that mightyaa's firm fired a couple of weeks ago ... the correct* response to RFIs where the answer is already in the documents is to return them without response. In reality though, we can't help ourselves and we end up responding anyway and wasting our time and fee in CA.
*This is assuming that your Div 01 specs are written using MasterSpec and that you haven't modified the following language (emphasis mine):
In my firm, I tweaked the process a bit. Essentially I required the GC to have their sub meeting the day before the owner meeting (where the subs could put forth questions they wanted answered). The OAC had as a agenda item had RFI's (and CO's, etc.) to be presented. We'd address them in the meeting with all three of us there and get most of the responses in the meeting minutes.
So.... If they asked stupid questions, they had to do it in front of the Client. I found that method cut down a ton on the paperwork and all the silly questions they were too lazy to seek out the answers for themselves. It also meant there would be discussion where the owner understood the issues and was part of the solution. And the turn-around time on getting answers and CO's was streamlined. We also covered some shop submittals this way too so we all reviewed them since I got sick of just getting handed shops the GC just wet stamped and passed along. Basically, holding the GC accountable in front of the client tends to get them to perform a bit better than average. Good for everyone and helps a lot with those communication lines, understanding, and project buy in.
Longer meeting (full day sometimes), but a lot less was needed through the rest of the week. Another advantage is that by doing it all at once, there's none of that mental jumble jumping from project to project. You are there, you focus on that project, and stuff gets done fast.
mightyaa your Office Space was hilarious. will develop a coffee habit just for the slurping effect
I once had a GC superintendent who'd never stop referring to me as "Dave" in meetings, emails, and other correspondence. I finally told him I was going to pick a submittal at random and reject it each time he did it again. He shaped up very quickly after that.
I passed this little shed-style mini-library on my way to a house party this evening, and it might've made me squee just a bit.
This is a fascinating discussion. You all work with MUCH better GCs than I do. I have trouble just getting the GC to SUBMIT an RFI, rather than, say, text my private cell phone with something cryptic like "balcony steel??", or even WORSE, GIVE MY PERSONAL CELL NUMBER TO THE SUB so that HE can randomly text me with cryptic questions.
ahhhh, high-end residential... Ugh. Also, I have trouble getting the owners to attend OACs, too. And nobody reads the drawings OR the meeting minutes. And it's literally been YEARS since I was handed a shops submittal that the GC had even paged through, let alone reviewed and stamped.
...sometimes I miss commercial work...
...sometimes I miss commercial work...
That's why I'm not in residential... although I say that, I am overlooking the CDs for one of our biggest client's custom home... oye!
Thinking and typing at the same time here, so it will probably be rambling, non-coherent, and I may answer my own questions
What's stopping us from holding residential contractors to a commercial level standard when it comes to these types of things? I routinely tell people in my office that the issue with getting the contractors to follow the documents is our problem, and it's one that we've largely created for ourselves by letting them get away with it for so long. Our job is to administer the contract during construction. Contractors will try to get away with whatever they can until we tell them NO.
Of course, we can't just make up random stuff on the spot to make the contractor jump through some hoops. We have to be reasonable, but if all the administrative stuff is all laid out in black and white in the documents, they have absolutely no defense when we tell them to follow the documents. Excuses like, "I didn't bid the project that way," or, "no one else (ie. other architects) makes us do this," are just thinly-veiled attempts to not follow the documents. They signed a contract saying they'd build the project according to the documents, we signed a contract saying we'd make sure they'd follow the documents. If the owner knew any better they'd sue both of us for breach of contract. What's the purpose of having all the contracts in place saying we'll do certain things if we just ignore them?
What makes a residential contractor any different than a commercial contractor? It's not like the contracts are that different. Sometimes even the amount of money in construction isn't all that different for large residential and small commercial projects. The only thing I can think of is that we treat them differently for some reason.
Are we afraid that a residential contractor will walk off a job if we hold the line? If they do, there is recourse in the contract for the owner.
Are we afraid that contractors will start bidding projects higher because they know they will have to do the administrative stuff with us? Is that a bad thing if it results in a better project? Maybe the owner ends up seeing a larger number up front, but if change orders are reduced because we catch mistakes in submittals, etc., then they pay less overall. Not only that, our time is better utilized on the stuff that we are actually getting paid to do and we aren't losing money in CA by trying to play nice with the contractor and hold their hand through the process they literally singed on to do.
^ that's why my name on here is there is no there there.
It's not because you're Gertrude Stein?
never done residential myself, I always assumed that the contracts are different
They may be. All the residential I've been involved with had clients that were primarily commercial clients so the contracts ended up being handled very much the same way because that was what they were used to.
Even if they are different, do they not require the contractor to build the home according to the documents? Do they not require that the architect administer the contract during construction?
The difference is the owner. Full stop. Contracts are the same, and they definitely state the same things. But ultimately, it comes down to "I can keep holding my ground, but the owner doesn't care about XYZ and the contractor knows it, and if I keep making a fuss the GC will simply whine to the owner that I'm delaying the project by putting such onerous requirements on him (you know, the requirements clearly stated in the AIA contract he signed), and the client will get upset that we're holding up the project. This dynamic occurs so frequently that, instead of trying to get the GCs to be up to snuff, our best line of defense is the opposite -- to try to negotiate fully fledged CA contracts so that we at least get paid for the enormous amount of asinine hand-holding we're going to have to do with the GC. When the client isn't willing to step up for the CA, we have to be ready to literally do the minimum (and sometimes, we do).
In residential far more than commercial/institutional (in my experience) you are ALWAYS alive to the fact that you are in a SERVICE role to the client. Your primary responsibility is client service. This has subtle, but distinct, ramifications.
Client service in commercial/institutional projects is more of a rational proceed.
Client service in residential is more of an emotional process. The goal is to make the client happy. This does not necessarily mean "follow the clean and clear contract documents" or "hold the GC accountable for his work."
Btw, there are positives to this dynamic as well. For example, there's often greater flexibility in design, because it's easier to pitch something in a way that makes one client or a couple psyched than it is to, say, convince a board of middle-aged white dudes who are each mindful of their own personal concepts of cost-benefit analysis, and who often have to satisfy financial backers and other stakeholders.
There are a few things I miss about that world but trying to convince a group of 60-year-old white dudes that other things exist in the world besides mahogany paneling and carrera is not one of them.
mantaray, I get that and see your point. The client will always be different and have different value systems when comparing commercial to residential.
To your point that it comes down to the architect can hold their ground or relent ... I see plenty of architects (again, an issue it seems we've created for ourselves) that continue to stand their ground way past the point they owner has stopped caring. They either forget that they are in a service role to the client, or their egos are too big and they think their service to the client is to save the client from themselves ("Often, the opinion of the client must be disregarded, for his own good.").
There is no point in standing ground if the client is willing to let it go (and it's not a code/HSW issue). Our service should be to point out the discrepancy, educate the client of their options, and let them make the decision (whether it is emotionally based, or rationally based should really not matter to us). Is the problem that we are too emotionally involved in our designs?
hey, at least they did not call the columns beams. anyone else notice this strange nomenclature for vertical strucural supports. I correct people all the time.
I-beam columns. Hear it all the time. Wrong.
Most of my experience has been on large projects with fairly sophisticated contractors, and I've often wondered what it's like being in a small practice with mostly residential projects. (My residential freelance projects have tended to be with owners who have extensive construction experience and are doing most of the work themselves, so any CA work on my part was pretty minimal.) I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
I-beam's are actually, most often - W Beams, I call them W shapes (just to mess with peoples)
American Wide Flange Beams - W Beam
I call the wide flange. It gets you funny looks too.
I hear contractors mess up on the word lintels all the time.
The grass is just different, David. The grass is alllllllllways just different...
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.