In celebration of Ehrlich Architects winning the 2015 AIA Architecture Firm Award, we had Steven Ehrlich and Takashi Yanai in-studio to reflect back on the firm's history and their work with "multicultural modernism". We also discuss the feelings around Boston's US Olympic bid nomination, and former president Bill Clinton's appointment as keynote speaker to AIA's 2015 National Convention. We also dump a fair amount of schadenfreude on Karim Rashid.
This episode also features the voice of reason, aka our legal correspondent Brian Newman, talking with Paul about the importance of contracts.
And, partly inspired by this thread, we'd like to open the call for your architecture horror stories. Send them to us, along with your architectural legal questions, comments or questions about the podcast, via twitter #archinectsessions, email or call us at (213) 784-7421.
Listen to episode twelve of Archinect Sessions, "Talking Multicultural Modernism with Ehrlich Architects":
Ehrlich house, as discussed in the podcast.
Shownotes:
Just lost a-hole clients forum thread
Where to get AIA contracts
Fred Sharman's Nonhuman Autonomous Space Agency
Nicholas Korody's White Space: The Architecture of the Art Fair
Cronenberg's Maps to the Stars
8 Comments
Also we forgot to add to the show notes: Architects, Designers, and Planners for Social Responsibility ADPSR .
At the link you will find a letter from the AIA to ADPSR explining why they (we) declined to make the change to the Code of Ethicsc, as requested:
The ADPSR proposal would have amended the Code of Ethics to include the following language:
(Proposed) Rule 1.402: Members shall not design spaces intended for execution or for torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including prolonged solitary confinement.
I'm so disappointed that we couldn't agree with this change. It seems fairly straightforward.
Also, a correction: SOM won the AIA Twenty-Five Year Award for the Exchange House. I said Gold Medal on the podcast, but it's Moshe Safdie who won the AIA Gold Medal this year.
Also discussed in the podcast is the Bigger than a Bread Box, Smaller than a Building competition. You can get all the information about that via this link btabb.archinect.com
What happened to the segment where I talked about my architect bench press record?
to Donna's point on AOR and Karim Rashid, I'd like to know if an architect can really get out of a problem they were "forced" into by client.
My understanding is you essentially have to drop the job or report it as a professional, but I have never been a fan of the architect as cop. isn't it professional conduct to say NO?
can we ask the lawyer?
thanks.
Olaf, most likely not, and I didn't mean to imply that an architect could be absolved of responsibility for doing something *illegal* because their client said to do it - that's no defense. What I meant was that if you do something you know will bring trouble for the owner later then by having it in writing you can more likely escape financial ramifications for later expenses required to fix the problem.
Example: hot water loops in copper piping can cause blonde hair to turn greenish over time. If an architect warns against using copper but the client insists, then meeting minutes, that the owner has to approve, showing that you warned them and were told they heard your warning but chose to proceed with copper anyway can protect you later.
I think we could still ask the question in 1 of 3 forms...........................1) the building code and zoning is unclear and you note this to client but proceed with what they want, possibly by self-certifying it,and get objections or even requests to rescind later.......................2) the building code and zoning changes mid-filing (I have had this happen a few times, it's like my projects inspire code revisions,ha) and what was clearly legal or clearly undefined 6 months ago is not anymore.................3) lastly, having seen this note on notorious professionals who have a reputation for getting the questionable through who have equally lousy clients who don't want to pay after approvals - can an architect actually cover their ass by stating more less " Architect has not been retained by owner for construction administration or construction phase services and therefore is not responsible for any deviation from approved dwgs". Let's say the building dept. did review and approve (and BTW the building dept. In NYC at least is not liable for anything ever,so I have been told).................one more question - does an owner have the right to sue the building dept. For damages and can they win?
Sorry, Olaf, I realized later I wasn't clear: my "most likely not" was directed at the question of whether an architect is in the clear if they are forced into something by the client. To that, the answer is very likely not.
To the question of whether we can ask Brian (aka gravity) for input on this, yes, absolutely! It might be interesting to weave it in with this court ruling in California, where SOM was found liable for changes the owner/contractor made. I know we covered this here on Archinect but I can't find it right now.
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.