In design and build projects, what are you currently doing when changes come up due to build-ability issues or new discoveries on-site? What's the worst part of this process? How much time should I factor in for potential changes? Will the contractor make any changes without consulting us (the designers)?
Non Sequitur
Nov 13, 18 8:07 am
worst part of design-build? Besides it being design-build, the worst part is making all your design compromises look deliberate and intentional.
This might be the single most honest thing I've ever written in these forums.
Miles Jaffe
Nov 13, 18 10:05 am
The worst part of design/build? None.
Every aspect is superior to convention arrangements. This is architecture in real time with zero bullshit. Highly efficient and the only way I work.
Prerequisite: knowing WTF you are doing. There is nobody to blame for your mistakes but you.
SneakyPete
Nov 13, 18 11:58 am
I'm confused. If you, the designers, delivered a design to the contractor, and they're making changes without you being involved, you're not utilizing any of the benefits of design build. Basically you're doing a standard project with documents that weren't thorough enough, probably due to a cheapskate client and a management team on your end who failed to cover your ass.
thisisnotmyname
Nov 13, 18 12:52 pm
In theory, the design-build process should let you do fewer drawings and specifications (versus a bid project), thus you have time saved in the CD phase to then utilize designing solutions to things that arise during construction.
Design-build is great when you and the contractor work well together. The designer knows how to make things look, and the builder knows what things cost and how to build them. If the contractor chooses to minimize your involvement, the Design-build is much less rewarding for you as an architect.
In design and build projects, what are you currently doing when changes come up due to build-ability issues or new discoveries on-site? What's the worst part of this process? How much time should I factor in for potential changes? Will the contractor make any changes without consulting us (the designers)?
worst part of design-build? Besides it being design-build, the worst part is making all your design compromises look deliberate and intentional.
This might be the single most honest thing I've ever written in these forums.
The worst part of design/build? None.
Every aspect is superior to convention arrangements. This is architecture in real time with zero bullshit. Highly efficient and the only way I work.
Prerequisite: knowing WTF you are doing. There is nobody to blame for your mistakes but you.
I'm confused. If you, the designers, delivered a design to the contractor, and they're making changes without you being involved, you're not utilizing any of the benefits of design build. Basically you're doing a standard project with documents that weren't thorough enough, probably due to a cheapskate client and a management team on your end who failed to cover your ass.
In theory, the design-build process should let you do fewer drawings and specifications (versus a bid project), thus you have time saved in the CD phase to then utilize designing solutions to things that arise during construction.
Design-build is great when you and the contractor work well together. The designer knows how to make things look, and the builder knows what things cost and how to build them. If the contractor chooses to minimize your involvement, the Design-build is much less rewarding for you as an architect.