this feeling that we need to differenciate "A"rchitecture and "a"rchitecture is also part of the fundamental problem...imho, the set of values we should respond to are the same, and "a""A" is just an excuse for saying - "fuck the budget" this is "A"rchitecture - or - why design it, it's just "a"rchitecture.

oh, and design architecture by a single value alone (economy, theory, urbanism, environment) will never lead to the "highest form of design" /// it's everything, at the same time...that's why it's so much fun!

Addressing the design build thing: there are many different kinds of design-build relationships, and I have been involved in some pretty crappy ones.
What I'm thinking about is a new kind of contractor and, I guess, a new kind of architect, an Archontractor. Why not?

It seems the the divide between architect and contractor is sort of bred into the profession, starting in school. Separate majors, separate buildings, separate classes. There is a certain amount of "team" chatter, but it isn't really reinforced with any sort of interaction between these inseparable fields.

Perhaps that tension is good for the building profession.
But for the most part it is a pretty rough process that seems like it could be better if there was more of a REAL team approach to building.

It's an interesting idea that it could be rooted in culture. My friend from China was describing her previous relationships with Chinese contractors as much more "common goal" oriented. Perhaps it is the difference between Capitolist and Communist ideals.

(Just to Clarify, I am not saying that this would be easier if we were Communists. Really I'm trying to figure out how we could be MORE profitable)

BMI is an interesting direction. Communcating a building is a weak point in our profession, so it seems if you could use 3 dimensional models it could help a great deal with coordination and intent.

Also, I think economy is a very important and very broad study in architecture.
And it can be one of our most elegant constraints.

there's nothing more fun or fundamental than act and eifs.

aia about surface articulation in that we have very limited control of execution....based on division of responsibility between contractor and architect. that line is very strict...drawings are only for design intent (read: visual relationships only)
and in some ways the argument is very dutch and koolhaas. although i would argue that they weren't able to fully enact it into practice. in terms of bringing it into practice i think BIM does have a lot of potential, but again it will all become about the flow of information past the line between design and construction....and the ability to feed more up to date information from the construction side back across into the design side. this recursive logic build up could potentially remove some of the fear related to the "unconventional" which really seems to be the main divide that we are trying to move beyond in terms of bringing design ideas into the real world. in other words, how do we create confidence in the ability to construct the unknown...only thorugh a better understanding of where potentials risks lie and how to minimize them before you get to the final moment of construction.